User talk:Jfarber

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

home / talk / contributions / sandbox / welcome


Contents

[edit] NMH flashbacks

Greetings Farber,

This is Bisbee (NMH), coming to you from the 1st floor SL room in the Freshmen dorm. I saw the post card in the mail room that you sent the folks here, though I admit I do not remember what was on it (this was a while ago).

Glad that I found you somewhere on the 'net, but I must run now. Busy, busy,

Ravidgemole 00:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Impressive

"I'm going to posit that hacking, like many other anti-establishment behaviors, is something that many folks grow out of as they grow to accept their role in society as positive and proactive, and as the daily ritual of maintenance, family, and work take up much of the time they might once have had to devote to hacking in the first place. " is quite impressive.

I mean this one sentence analyzes the behaviour of the whole society at large.


--Parker007 20:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the kudos (and the welcome), Parker007! IRL, I'm a profesional synthesist of sorts, both in subject (technology and multi-literacy specialist) and profession (teaching); it's nice to find somewhere where such skills might be appreciated/useful/beneficial to the community at large... Jfarber 20:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish Website

Hi, there, Jfarber. What you read on my talk page (now jetisoned) was in response to a comment I posted on the Jewish Hierarchies question, which has since been removed. This is not a legitimate inquiry, but the promotion of a pernicious manifesto by a user who also goes by the name Barringa or Nocterne or Rabbi Benton. You will see a discussion on this very point on the RD talk page. Clio the Muse 17:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry! I was tempted to warn you, but did not feel it was right for me to approach you directly on the matter, or to make suggestions on the kind of questions you choose to answer. But I feel sure this must have been a useful learning experience, if nothing else. You will certainly recognise the awful tendentious style and the tedious polemics in future! Clio the Muse 10:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't let it get you down! We all recognise crack-pots and losers when we come across them. Clio the Muse 04:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-semitism

Hi, Jfarber. Thanks for your message. And I liked your 3 books, btw.

I'm not Jewish so I can't claim to relate to anti-semitism personally. I'm an ex-Catholic, and I'm gay, and have a little experience of discrimination from both those perspectives, but thankfully nothing too bad. Touch wood. All I can really suggest is that you try not to take any perceived anti-Jewish bias personally. You know better than me that anti-semitism was not invented last year; it's been around forever, and will probably continue forever, worse luck. Out in the real world, you can take legal action against discrimination based on race or religion, or against physical attacks arising from someone's dislike of you, whether it's merely because you're Jewish or for whatever reason. But online, it's a different story. If an anti-semitic post on the Ref Desk is clearly directed at you personally, then the poster stands condemned out of their own mouth, and many others will see it and know what's going on. You will have many people there to support and defend you, and help you denounce the poster. If it's a general anti-semitic spray, then you don't need to take it personally. You can still explain why their attitude stinks, but don't get into personal attacks against them. Let it be water off a duck's back - their attack has ultimately hurt them more than it's hurt you; and it needn't hurt you at all, if you don't let it. I hope that helps. Cheers JackofOz 03:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your complaint about me

I don't understand why you've confused me and User:Leasing Agent (who calls himself "Diligent"). I'd be grateful if you'd revisit your post and make it clear that you were mistaken, as I'm a little aggrieved by your post, not to say bewildered. --Dweller 11:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I now see you've used my name mistakenly in more than one place. Kindly correct them all please. --Dweller 11:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

WOOps -- my apologies. I will fix these -- and announce the fixes. And...um...send brownies. Or something. Jfarber 14:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you will be pleased to learn that Diligent/Leasing Agent has now been blocked. Clio the Muse 23:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Matrixism Article

I would like to take you up on your offer in creating an article on Matrixism. I can write a neutral article and provide reputable sources but the problem right now is that the Matrixism stub has been deleted and salted (interestingly the Matrixism talk page has also been deleted and salted). To my understanding only an administrator can unprotect these pages. If you know how to facilitate this I would be more than happy to write an article. Let me know. Thanks.

Also I put Matrixism up for deletion review only to see people edit out large parts (including votes) of the review. I am sure that this a serious offense to Wikipedia policy but I do not know the procedure for dealing with it. If you can advize on this subject it would also be appreciated. Thanks again. 206.124.144.3 23:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

As you have hopefully seen by now, I have added a few notations to the article currently at [:user:neil/matrixism], and to the discussion at Afd. I note, however, that though I am happy to adopt you as a guide to creating an article with the best possibility for reinstatement, I have neither access to nor time to read the books you cite as new sources; if YOU want this article, YOU will need to locate the books and add citation where I have noted the need in that article space. If you have questions about my efforts, or about how to use or find those citations, please ask -- I'd be happy to teach you the research skills needed to do such academic work, if it's needed. Jfarber 13:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The administrator Neil has taken our work and re-created the article on Matrixism. However it was immediately re-nominated for deletion with no reason given for the nom. You might want to give your input to the new process. 206.188.56.24 19:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ..and when the smoke cleared, Pyotr said "Why You Gotta Be Like That?"

You (and your somewhat puzzling decision to remove culturally salient information from an otherwise worthless article on the construction of gravity/vacuum/waterfall bongs from empty SoBe bottles) alerted me to the fact that Wikipedia is severely lacking when it comes to dealing with drug culture. I don't think really that anybody is offended (in the racist or misogynist sense) by light drug use, and if they are, mere factual information can never exceed the degree of bias and offensiveness that the articles of some politicians and political activists exhibit (what up with that?). Your point (hah!) that "screen" doesn't redirect to the minor component used in a bowl is sort of complicated by the fact that, as far as I can tell, there isn't any material on screens. That points to two problems: people seem to regard articles on drug use on Wikipedia as some sort of transgression, and the material has suffered as a result. Although I admit that there is a lack of reliable published information on SoBe bongs, the fact that drug material overall is underdeveloped is no justification for hamstringing the effort to bring more material to the page. You seem to take the opposite position, namely that, since "screen" and "apple" (ridiculously general terms when compared with some random soft drink) don't redirect to the relevant material on drug use, that we should not try and integrate more knowledge and broader into the ped. Obviously, I can't "breathe against the wind", as Saeouk would put it, but maybe with time you and I could come to some coherent schema for rebuilding the material on cannabis paraphernalia. I would like to have this as something to fall back on as an activity, and since you represent a different position on the material, we could probably come up with a reasonable consensus perspective on the nature of this sort of stuff. Diocles 02:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The issue at hand is Wikipedia's standards for notability, wikipedia's standards for which information goes where, and what Wikipedia IS. Unless there is citable information out there which discusses the use of SoBe bottles for bongs, then Wikipedia's standards don't allow this information in ANY article, even the one on Gravity Bongs. Then, EVEN IF there is such information about that, the question becomes where does that information GO -- and Wikipedia's standards say that this information goes in the article about Bongs, and redirects TO the SoBe article, not the other way around.
This isn't an issue of "not wanting to include drug culture" -- it's an issue of wanting to treat information about drug culture with the same high standards we treat any information about anything.
You also seem to have missed entirely the fact that there are plenty of articles about other aspects of drug culture. If you think THOSE articles are weak, then let's look for documented information which meets the notability standard -- specificially, citation in several legitimate sources, from High Times to books to major newspapers -- which present information you think belongs here. In the meantime, you can accuse me and others of not wanting to include drug culture in wikipedia, but since those accusations are unfounded, making the logically false attack on us for not wanting to include drug culture in Wikipedia doesn't bother anyone. Jfarber 10:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Your translation of רוא-יהיו רוא יהי םיהלא רמאיו

Dear Jfarber: Your edits, as in this diff, have shown traces of a sense of humor, which is disruptive of the serious, somber, and relentlessly grim mood that so many other good people in all walks of life have exhibited just before burning out entirely. Be advised that if you continue on this present course, you face the risk of enjoying yourself while at work on this project, and you may even have a similar effect on other editors. Please consider very carefully whether you want to be responsible for such consequences. Thank you. -- — Sebastian 17:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh noes! Thanks for the reminder that, no matter how much it feels like I am merely amusing myself by spending my waking hours wallowing in the wikimuck, my actions herein affect the sensibilities of others. I will be ever vigilant about those whose big, red, puffy clown shoes I tread upon. P.S. Happiness is a warm smiley. Jfarber 17:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kudos (and validation) for your RD efforts

...in particular, for your exemplary practice of good faith and helping out on the Reference Desks. I was truly affected by what you wrote in response to the "My dog is dying..." query, so much so that I wrote about it in my own, largely neglected Web journal (and uncharacteristically made it accessible to public view). Keep up the good work, and in the immortal words of Sandra Boynton, "Don't let the turkeys get you down!"-- Cheers, Deborahjay 21:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Update: My brother's cat did pass away the other day. He's not ready to talk about it yet, but thanks to your coaching, I was able to send what I hope was a meaningful message of comfort in response to his brief notification of the sad outcome. -- Thanks again, Deborahjay 14:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
How nice to be recognized...and republished!...and especially by someone whose thoughtful responses and calm, collected advocacy and nice-making I have respected from afar on both reference desks and the related talk pages. I'm glad my words could be of some use, and especially honored to see them used and praised by someone as articulate, clearheaded, and praiseworthy as yourself. On another note entirely, I used to have the same blogger template you use, until I replaced it with this, though, as you can see, my own blog is (mostly) on hiatus as well. Jfarber 03:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Your response was more welcome than you can know (which is why I'm noting this here :-) I've found that working in Wikipedia serves as a laboratory for refining my writing, which doesn't come all that easily to me. (And sometimes I kind of blow it... :-/ Moreover, my spoken communications are woefully disorganized—so much so that I never considered myself fit to take up classroom teaching, a profession I've always honored and admired. So you see, I'm something of a rehab case! Working behind the scenes for causes I believe in is a mainstay of my difficult existence. Lately I've considered gearing myself toward "citizen journalism," though I feel there's much to accomplish here whether editing pages or on the Reference Desks. (I probably would do well to add a mission statement on my User page.) I'd be pleased if you'd follow my progress. -- Thanks, Deborahjay 14:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Florence Reece

I created this page today, in response to a RL colleague's query about the song, "Which Side Are You On?" With the time available, I put rather a lot of effort into Wikifying the page. I failed, however, to write what would be good as a second paragraph, about the circumstances under which she wrote the song. Care to give it a go? Also: I actually think the song is notable enough to do with a page of its own, but hesitated because I'm rather unfamiliar with the copyright issue of posting the lyrics. Advice welcome. -- Thanks, Deborahjay 14:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm at work, so any rewriting will need to happen at home this evening. Page looks like a great place to start, though. What else do we know about the circumstances of her writing? Did she do anything else notable, other than write this one song? Other songs?
As for the song page issue: at first look, I agree that the song is notable enough to merit its own page...and would note that doing so would make it easier to figure out which info goes on the Reece page, and which goes on the song page. For example, info about the first recorded version of the song MIGHT be mentioned on the Reece page, but subsequent information about the song itself as se[arate from Reece's life would best be moved to that song page, I'd think. As for lyrics, my sense is that pages ABOUT songs don't usually provide them, for copyright purposes, but I'd need to check wikipolicy to see about providing links to the lyrics...and, of course, since this song is on the "copyright cusp" in terms of age, if we don't know for sure, we should check to see if the lyrics are indeed still copyrighted, and in what way. When I get home, I'll try to reference the issue of Sing Out Magazine that their database tells me first published the song (v. 20 #6, p. 14), as their info is usually impeccable. Jfarber 15:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] OR in The Onion

What matters is not whether the remarks are correct, but whether they can be sourced. You and I may agree that the observations were correct, but that doesn't change the fact that they were based on the editor's observations, not on any published source(s). Thus, I removed that section again. --Orange Mike 14:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I think you mean that the causality here is unsourced, yes? That the very premise of "this information was factual, but the Onion included it as BECAUSE it seems like satire" can't be stated? Hmm. That seems to me like a serious stretch of the OR premise. The onion IS satirical; it occasionally includes information of a VERY particular type which is factually correct; it is not original research to note those two facts, and it is notable that a paper which otherwise ONLY prints FICTION would occasionally, in very specific instances, print NON-fiction. How would YOU note that, then? If we left out the conjecture as to WHY they did that, it would sound weird, but would still be notable, and still pass the wikistandard, eh? Better weird than uncited? Seems to me there are clauses for sensibility elsewhere in the WP pages that would cover this conflict between policy and sense easily, but I'll ask on the talk pages when I get around to it to see what consensus there is. Jfarber 15:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Seems to me that noting things like that is the core of what "original research" is. If somebody wrote an article for Harper's or whatever pointing this out, then we could use that as a source for the assertion; but otherwise, it strikes me as an OR violation. I agree, though, the talk page of the article is the venue for this discussion. --Orange Mike 15:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About WP Inclusionism

...upon which you commented in the current discussion of Ref Desk replies: I'd like to add a clarification which I believe will be helpful, but not where yours is situated (i.e. under the ad hominem argument header. Care to move it to the Removal of posts topic? I think that's where it would best further the discourse. I'll check back and chime in. --Thanks, Deborahjay 21:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll move it in a minute -- have to put a 4 year old to bed first. But....were we not speaking of Inclusionism, the Wiki philosophy? The terms are related but not the same... Jfarber 23:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, gosh, yes! Hadn't realized I'd screwed up and used the wrong link (or even that it was within Wikimedia - though I'd been puzzled why it showed I didn't have a User account...!). Shall go correct that. And no rush on shifting that comment (for my sake, anyway); I've seen upon subsequent reading that I really don't have anything original to add there. -- Thanks, Deborahjay 23:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank goodness for that, then -- because in trying to do two things at once in that same question, and hitting edit conflict after edit conflict, I seem to have completely LOST my cut and paste of my own words that you wanted to address. Grrr. Back soon... Jfarber 23:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. Seems I came up with something to say, though with hopes that others besides yourself will read (and heed!) it. :-) Deborahjay 00:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
It's an important clarification, I think; glad it's there. But I worry that, ironically, some of the "best" refdesk folks are also those who need to heed it, and they won't. There seems to be a real challenge in getting the ref desk to work -- some very effective regulars believe that the same standards for wikipedia entry editing should apply, which I cannot agree with, as a librarian is not an encyclopedia entry; others seem to feel that the reference desk is more talk page than reference desk, which both underscores the need for more clarity in what the refdesk IS but also underscores the very fact that the usual strategies for consensus-building won't work in a space where our roles are to add to, not edit, what comes in. Is there hope for the reference desk, or is it doomed to mediocrity with the occasional flash of spot-on answer? Tune in next time, when Jfarber finally finishes writing "I will not play with trolls" on the chalkboard a thousand times... Jfarber 00:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Lissen, Jf, I hereby exhort you to adopt, as I have, the time-honored "¡No pasarán!" stance and approach. (Updated along the lines of Holly Near's It could have been me...) Trolls are neither for playing with nor feeding, of course; they're to be neutralized in plain view of onlookers, and preferably by a neat technique that involves minimal contact on our part. Do it and move on to better activities, here and in RL. Just don't give up! -- Best, Deborahjay 00:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Socratic Barnstar

The Socratic Barn Star
I, A.Z., award Jfarber the Socratic Barnstar for telling me I was wrong thus giving me the chance of fixing a terrible mistake I made on the Humanities Reference Desk. I'm not going to look for the exact quote, but I am sure Socrates once said that there's nothing to thank someone for more than when someone makes you aware of the fact that you have commited an unjustice to another person, making you able to redeem yourself and stop making that unjustice. Thank you and keep up the good work on the Reference Desks! A.Z. 01:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Um...just, wow. AZ, it takes real guts to come forward and spend time handing over the star despite conflicts this week. I'm going to take this as the peace offering I hope it is, and thank you, in turn, for reminding me that we're all in this together. And that there is truly a common goodness in all who volunteer. And that there are real people under all those words. Truly, I do appreciate it. Thanks. Jfarber 01:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow! I really wasn't expecting this from you. I admit I thought you were going to find some way to make me look bad for giving you a barnstar amidst the conflicts we're having. I thought you might say it's an ironic barnstar or something (which by no means it is!). I am just speechless now!
I was feeling so bad that I was even considering leaving Wikipedia because of those conflicts. I was probably not going to do that, but I did consider the possibility, since I felt bad for everything I read on the talk page of the Reference Desk with people apparently defending an appeal to majority that just offends me so much (and already offended me before I learned about the term). I started to think about the Holocaust and I thought about saying on the talk page that Hitler was elected by a majority of votes and then I thought you'd instead of talking to me respond with the link to the article on reductio ad Hitlerum since you have already responded to me with links like "Think of the children!".
When I wrote my response to you on the milk thread, I thought you might be glad to find out that your post worked and made me retract from my comments. But you didn't say anything at all the entire day, and then I felt you didn't care about my apology at all. And that was really frustrating: I don't know whether you read my post, but I wrote almost the entire first part of it actually thinking of you, not the other editors that would read it.
The first time we met it was on a post on the Reference Desk about a boy who got suspended from school. I don't know whether you were mad at me because of my responses that diverged form yours, but I was not mad at you at all. We just diverged, and it is so hard to accept that another of our own, another human like ourselves, can actually think differently than us and still be utterly made of the same fabric we are, with emotions and empathy and compassion and all that makes us humans.
I tried so hard since that day to show you that, despite our disagreements, there is, as you say, common goodness in all of us and we're all in this together! I really meant it when I said I had nothing against you, only against your argument. And I don't have anything against you! I indeed like you, for some reason I can't explain. And I also like Friday and Loomis and Clio the Muse and JackofOz and Anchoress, despite the fact that some of you guys are always fighting, which I am so sorry for.
So you can imagine how happy I am now that I see you've accepted my barnstar and said all those things you said. There is a boy in Brazil miles away from you right now in front of his PC typing these things with renewed faith in people and true relief from the perspective of never reaching to the human being behind the nick Jfarber! There is behind the nick A.Z. someone here who cares about adolescents and cares about children and cares about other people and even seems to care about the Reference Desk and is willing to cooperate with you to try finding out the best way to do a good job in this world we're in. Please, talk to him! Talk to this boy when you have doubts about his intentions and tell him when he does something wrong! Please be mad at him if necessary, but do not give up on him!!! A.Z. 03:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just so you know

Not only is silently emending an article without a correction *not* common journalistic practice, it's also not the practice of the Times, which publishes a correction when they print "Gimbels" as "Gimbel's". I've e-mailed the public editor and asked him why there was no correction. --Charlene 03:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Looking forward to seeing an answer, now that several folks seem to have written follow-up prompts. Nice, too, to see such polite and political reps stepping forward to do so. The stakes for follow-up accuracy are high, even when the article in question isn't at the top of the Times' "most emailed article" listing for two days pre-correction. I'm a fan of the Times, and I'm sure there was nothing more than innocence behind the lack of published correction to accompany the article change, but the way they made the change...it just doesn't seem like the kind of solid, high ethical standards I envision when I think of what a journalism model I could actually trust would be like. Jfarber 03:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
UPDATE: As of sometime early this morning, the Times article now includes a formal notice of correction...but no clear acknowledgment of the delay between the article changes and the correction text. This certainly completes the process of addressing our original concerns about the article, but I'm not sure it truly provides resolution this late in the game. As I wrote elsewhere in Wikipedia before the Times' correction appeared:

On a side note: this seems to be turning into a story about journalist ethics, which is interesting to me. Our original concerns about the story, IMHO, seemed to point to the panel recommendations, not to the reporter, as being responsible for reporting outdated information. It is only since the article was emended silently, with no accompanying correction or acknowledgement, that the Times' journalism has been called into question. One might say that this wasn't about the Times, until the Times made it about themselves. Unfortunately for them, as the BoingBoing acceptance may suggest, in a world where blogger-journalists pass discovery around like lightning, the Times may be a juicer target than a study about the nutritional applications of beverages, no matter how popular the original article may have been.

Jfarber 14:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] films in the public domain -- or not

You seem to have some knowledge about copyright issues; I wonder whether you have thoughts on the discussion at Talk:Charade#Copyright. The article Charade says the film is in the public domain due to an irregularity, but I believe Universal takes a different view. --Mathew5000 20:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Field guide to hassidic headgear (not! :-)

You handled the above (April 7, 4.10) beautifully! Helpful, informative, and written in a truly agreeable tone. I blush to admit how I envy the latter, and declare that I'd do well to emulate it. -- Cheers, Deborahjay 22:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words -- though I should mention I'm only in it for the procrastination today, what with a final yearbook deadline, a stack of middle school essay exams to grade, and term grading due on Tuesday morning. No time for 'pedia entries, but it's nice to have a nice finite brain-stretcher in the form of a good question or three. As for the tone, I find it mildly amusing to treat questions as seriously as possible -- in part because I get a smug satisfaction out of everything from using well-constructed thought to teaching people to think more clearly to good reference desk work in the face of chaos. It seems to be an effective, if subjective, antidote to Trollishness. Jfarber 00:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to these insights into your take on the process, I'm forming a better understanding of the difference between your (engaging) responses and mine (too often dry and possibly offputting). In my attempt to be objective as possible in fielding trollish queries on what I deem worthy topics—generally for the sake of any lurking readers who might benefit from the info aspect—I lose the focus on delivery aimed at the intended readership. Perhaps an extreme case, but I view your latest offering on the Humanities Ref Desk, April 8, 4.9.1 as a generous example of the "how to fish" school of homework-help. I'm primarily a researcher eager to share knowledge, but I'm only starting to realize what a lot I've got to learn about teaching. So I'm humbly proud to be the newest (while possibly most senior, chronologically ;-) of your pupils. Expect repeat visits! -- Deborahjay 23:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lesson plan

Thanks for your comments, Sdudah 21:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "This tall"

That was one of the funniest things I've read on the Reference Desk in a long time, at least since they banned LightCurrent. But be careful! A lot of Wikipedians "don't respond well to humo[u]r", probably because they are, themselves, dreadfully unfunny and so are insanely jealous of those who actually can craft a good joke.

Now I'm off to try and figure out whether I measure up (in so many ways)...

Atlant 12:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)