User talk:Lciaccio

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Lciaccio, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

Contents

[edit] Good Work

On Waterboarding. Over time I have determined that there are some really difficult problems with that article that affect the lead, but right now, the big one is the dispute. In the longer term, I think a fundamental question :"What exactly IS waterboarding?" needs to be evaluated. But, I wanted to say I think you did a good job of crafting a compromise. Im not exactly sure I completely agree with it but it seems like you did a good job overall. I have suggested something close but different. --Blue Tie (talk) 18:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possible canvassing

Welcome to Wikipedia. I am aware that you may be unfamiliar with our social norms and that you appear to be participating in a classroom assignment, as others appear to be. Please read WP:MEAT, WP:CANVASS, and also Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Shamulou. In the event that there has been any coordination, it would be best to explain this for the sake of transparency. I have started the investigation because this is the legitimate process for expressing concerns about possible sock puppetry. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 21:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Waterboarding on ANI

FYI. Lawrence Cohen 22:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't let the paranoid and the officious get you down, the net effect of your project on Wikipedia content is positive. Then again, being a law student you're probably quite apt at dealing with the flaws of our little bureaucracy. Cheers, ˉˉanetode╦╩ 23:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Don't throw in the towel, Wikipedia needs more capable editors! Sometimes it's best to think of Wikipedia as an aggregate of free content useful only in founding other projects (although I am at a loss for imagining a potential requisition for WP:AN/I). Try to ignore editors who fashion themselves as the Old Guard, your quality contributions to articles speak for themselves. :) ˉˉanetode╦╩ 23:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

No, definitely stay. Your contributions are very much appreciated. Biting new contributors is a definite problem on wikipedia, especially since our policies and rules (both written and unwritten) grow ever more complex. Please let your group mates know what we'd very much like for them to stay. If anyone was hurt by sometimes abrupt comments, I'd like to extend an apology. Editing wikipedia can be quite fun. :-)

Had the Waterboarding debate not already been infested by problematic editing I don't think anyone would have minded the project. You might want to suggest to your professor that for next years assignment, groups should openly declare themselves like Group 2 did this year. Have fun, and good luck with the assignment. henrik•talk 00:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I thought I'd add my support as well. Sorry ANI turned into a mess, but, on the plus side, you certainly got an abundance of experience with the Wikipedia dispute resolution process. I personally don't think you or your group did anything wrong, but just ran into some issues with the culture here. Unfortunately, some editors, rather than address arguments, cry "foul" as soon as possible. I'd also like to extend my apology on behalf of some of the less polite editors over at the noticeboard (feel free to pass that on, or not, to any fellow members of your group). Most of your group are newbies here, and the assumption of bad intent some on the board displayed was really rude. Sorry about that, and good luck with whatever aspects of the assignment are left to be completed. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 08:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Please stick around. You help is greatly appreciated. Unfortunately, you accidentally walked into one of the most contentious articles on wikipedia. While I'm sure your motives were pure, many people involved in that page have become paranoid that there are cabals trying to push their own viewpoint to the detriment of the article. Having a separate discussion on another site to coordinate edits on the waterboarding page hit everyone's buttons. But most articles are not anywhere near as contentious and there is tons of work that needs to be done. Any help from smart, capable, and interested editors is very welcome. Cheers. Remember (talk) 14:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] hello from a friend

"I'm still unclear on how this "disrupted" the discussion. It seems to me as if the only actual disruption was the accusation of meatpuppetry itself."

You hit the nail on the head there :) -- Ned Scott 01:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Perez v. Sharp

OK, I removed the expert tag, added a couple of categories, and did some basic cleanup. At the time I added the tag, the article was little more than a one-sentence stub; I see that it has been expanded considerably since then.

I admit that I am not terribly familiar with this particular case. I found a copy of the full-text opinion on the internet, but I have not read all of it yet (it is quite long). If you are familiar with this case, perhaps you could add a few more details about the judges opinions, when you have time. Thanks. --Eastlaw (talk) 03:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom

The Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Waterboarding ArbCom case, if accepted, could be educational if you choose to participate. The top of that page has instructions, and there are arbitration clerks who assist participants, especially those who have less experience. Wikipedia's arbitration process is the most evolved online dispute resolution mechanism I know of. Jehochman Talk 20:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Point of info for you Lciaccio, arbcom is the supreme court of wikipedia, i think you might find this process interesting as what Jehochman says is true about it being the most evolved online dispute resolution mechanism. My advice would be to just read what is posted and not post yourself unless you feel that an important point has been missed. This is due to the fact that arbcom can hand out blocks and bans to ANYONE involved in the process, incivility (which is something you don't do) and other wikicrimes are severally punished. (Hypnosadist) 20:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Childfree

Hi there,

I had a look, and your intro seems to address the main issues quite well. A few comments and suggestions:

  • You might want to include a sentence to mention that "normal" society tends to view CF people with suspicion or resentment.
  • I have changed the statement that CF has risen sharply in recent years, as it will date, and gave an explanation why it's only been seen much since the 60s.
  • I removed the comment about the internet discussion. Everything has an internet chat presence these days, from pet fanciers to potters, and I think it's OK to leave that to the discussion in the article.
  • Check the definition of "singular" ;-)

Keep up the good work.

--Slashme (talk) 16:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Geri Palast

Thank you for getting this started! Bearian (talk) 00:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)