User talk:Mare Nostrum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Mare Nostrum, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! 

Happy editing ! --Bhadani 15:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Try not to get discouraged

Listen, I see that you're new here, so I hope you won't mind a bit of advice (especially from someone who hasn't been here all that long himself). I think Wikipedia is truly wonderful. My biggest criticism, however, is that if you want to get into any kind of substantive editing, you have to have a pretty thick skin. What that means is, some people just don't want to bother with all the hassle of fighting over content and then drift away, and we lose their perspective. I hope that doesn't happen here.

I think you and Radgeek are both making good contributions to the article, and, in fact, the article is improving not in spite of your disagreements but because of them. You act as a check against the article being too Pro-Dworkin, and Radgeek acts as a check against it being too negative on Dworkin, which, to my way of thinking, is putting the article closer to where it should be. Just one editor's opinion. Good luck, whatever you decide. IronDuke 01:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello, you seem like a wonderful guy and terrifically talented.

I agree that Wikipedia is fabulous -- I really am impressed. It does have flaws, though, and we see some here IMHO.

Radgeek is a semi-professional Dworkin campaigner (check his site if you care), an absolute revert maniac, and a serial name-caller. While Wiki disfavors someone like this from leading an effort which he definitely is too close to (he writes on his site of how much he despises people who even question Dworkin), and disfavors his tyrannical revert-ism, and disfavors all his insults (how many times has he called anyone that disagreed with him "sleazy"?), it doesn't preclude *any* of these abuses. As a result, it rewards persistent bullying, obstinacy, and I would even say vandalism (by a *neutral* definiton thereof). So especially in extreme cases like this, the deck is stacked against reason, even though someone like you, so even-handed and wise, is involved (and I don't know why you do it).

I expect to be involved in Wiki, but I don't think it is a good use of my time to edit this particular article for the present. That does not mean I won't remain critical of it so please don't be surprised -- I have put my time in. Maybe the halcyon view will be vindicated and the article will come out more evenly, despite my great doubts. I hope to contribute to other pieces (have done), and I have definitely learned some things by working on this. Best to you,Mare Nostrum 07:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andrea Dworkin

  • Whatever your intentions are, do not expect to solve any issues you have with Wikipedia articles by conducting experiments and being snarky and obtuse. If you have issues with an article and are disagreed with, the answer is to discuss them on the talk page. Behaving as you have will get you a nice, long block, and then the article will never change. JuJube (talk) 10:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)