User talk:MarkAnthonyBoyle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] License tagging for Image:MountainAshFloor.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:MountainAshFloor.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mortise & tenon image

Your wedged M&T image is much better than my "regular" one. Maybe you might want to redo the regular M&T image too. And maybe add some more (fox-wedged, haunched, etc.) :-) Luigizanasi 22:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words :) I intend to do a little series of them, but, you know, it's a matter of getting the time!!

[edit] E. obliqua

If you're interested I have rewritten Eucalyptus obliqua, as requested on the talk page. If your copy of Bootle is the 2005 edition rather than the 1983, please fix it or let me know. I tried to incorporate the material you added from Bootle, but I don't have a copy of it myself, so please do check that I haven't misrepresented it. I am particularly intrigued by the large difference in claimed density between Bootle and Boland. Hesperian 05:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for help on Sigmund Freud criticism

It does seem to engender a lot of controversy. I guess we should not be surprised. I appreciate your help in fighting off the attempts at hagiography. NuclearWinner 22:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Excellent simplification

The lead to the Lacan article reads much better for your clarification. Thanks much. The whole article is definitely far too "wordy"... not in total length, but in its penchant for convoluted and indirect language (perhaps similar to the writing of its subject).

I hope you understand that my concern about "criticism" sections is nothing specific to Lacan, though he is indeed one thinker I've read fairly extensively. Rather, I've spent a lot of time fighting very similarly inappropriate catty sections in many academic biographies. To some degree, the newer WP:BLP provides a wedge for such improvement for living thinkers—obviously, in the case of Lacan, he is no longer alive, so the libel issues that motivate WP:BLP are not per se relevant. Nonetheless, living or dead, so-called criticism sections are almost always unencyclopedic, sometimes motivated by a very misguided concept of "balance" in articles.

The encyclopedic concern has nothing whatsoever to do with whether I personally like or dislike a thinker. While I have edited more articles on thinkers I sympathize with than those I generally disagree with, I have aimed at this specific improvement even in some articles on thinkers whom I think are genuinely contemptible, either intellectually and personally. The point is that our articles have an obligation of showing readers why a given thinker is widely considered important, not in "revealing the truth" about why they are wrong. Emphasizing criticism almost always shifts from encyclopedic focus to an essay on how a given editor feels about a thinker's work (whether sources are quoted makes little difference to this). It's not inappropriate to state that there are critics, but detailing the force of argument of those critics almost always belongs elsewhere—such as in the articles of the various critics themselves, or perhaps in articles about a "school", "movement" or "tendency" of thought. LotLE×talk 06:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Encyclopedia examples

While I confess I have a bit of trouble not being a little ticked off by the bad-faith trolling in your recent edit history, I have confidence that you are able to understand and advance the purpose of creating better and more encyclopedic articles on WP. I think that you have in perfectly good faith fallen into an incorrect notion of "balance" in wanting to add unencyclopedic "criticisms" in some articles of thinkers whom I presume you generally disagree with.

I suggested examining Brittanica as a comparison. Unfortunately, the online version seems to show only a trivial fragment as a comparison (unless you pay a subscription). I used to have an electronic version of EB on my local hard drive, but removed that recently. I know I had read the Lacan entry there a couple years back, but my memory is not precise (it certainly had none of the "criticism" tone that the WP article does/did). Searching, I find this as a fairly nice comparison though: http://www.iep.utm.edu/l/lacweb.htm. Actually, I see that someone had "borrowed" more than they should have between the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy and WP—some phrases in the lead were obviously shared (your cleanup largely removes that overlap, happily).

In any case, the IEP is a good example of fairly appropriate tone. I think WP is actually overall better on this topic, but in tone IEP is consistent and encyclopedic. In particular, it omits any hint of ad hominem "criticism", and addresses the thought of the thinker in question. Actually, look at any other figure they cover for a similar tone; or perhaps look at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy or other sources for good examples (not just Lacan, any thinker).

Or for that matter, as I have already implored you numerous times, look at the WP article on any thinker outside of this area of your animosity. Not necessarily someone you would praise, even just someone you feel neutrally about. In few cases will you find such digressing "criticism" sections; but even where you do, lacking a prior animus, you will notice that such sections make the articles worse not better (use your own judgment, just read them). LotLE×talk 07:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fashionable Nonsense

You will forgive my skepticism, but seeing as a large portion of your edits of late have been to Lacan-related material, and you've been pretty unfailingly critical of him, I have to say, I have a bit of trouble believing that you'll get around to adding a Deleuze or Baudrillard section. I'd feel a lot better if all, or at least 2-3 of the sections were written and put in, instead of what I suspect would turn out to be a solitary section. I note also William Connoly's comment on the talk page, which goes in the direction of my initial idea - remove the Lacan section and add an example in a la Irigaray. Phil Sandifer 19:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm working through the book in order. This will take some time if I am to be accurate.MarkAnthonyBoyle 19:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

That's fine - when you have a few more sections, put them in en masse. The article as it stands is not misleading, and it would be preferable to add more content in a chunk than to temporarily skew the article, I think. Phil Sandifer 19:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I think that is already considerably better, though I'm still concerned that right now the article focuses virtually entirely on Sokal and Bricmont's engagement with psychoanalysts. This is not so huge a problem that I think the sections need to be immediately removed pending the addition of others, but I do hope you'll add more sections in the next few days. Phil Sandifer 00:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] September 2007

Thank you for making a report at 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.

[edit] Freud

I replied to your questions on my talk page. RS1900 03:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hehe

OK alright, I'll keep quite :) though I would still suggest changing the warning a little. Amit@Talk —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 15:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rorschach

Thanks for your note. I have not been bothered by anything you have written. Quite the opposite. I am very appreciative of your efforts toward achieving consensus. Many thanks. Ward3001 17:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More Fashionable Nonsense

You said: "I'd like some feedback on how [the Fashionable Nonsense article is] going now." As you've noticed, I just cleaned up the talk page a bit, but I haven't reread the article. By the way, a quick tip: when linking to an outside URL (e.g., http://google.com/) you only need single square brackets [], not double [[]]. Compare: [1] vs. [[2]]. - dcljr (talk) 18:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Masters on Magic Thinking

I'm afraid that I don't know much (if anything) about the topic. In fact, I'm not even sure what it is, unless you're referring to superstitious thinking sometimes seen in personality disorders and psychosis. Even that I don't know a lot beyond the fact that it can be a diagnostic symptom. Maybe you could explain it a bit further. Ward3001 23:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The extent of my knowledge is no more than what's in the Wikipedia article. I wish I could be of more help, but I'm afraid on this topic you're already way ahead of me. Interesting topic, though. Ward3001 01:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your EAR

Hello,

Over a week ago, you posted a request for editor assistance regarding the article on Fashionable Nonsense. Sorry about the delay, but it appears that your request for assistance got lost in the shuffle.

In any event, I have posted a reply to your request, and would appreciate it if you could provide a status update regarding this issue. Cheers, --Aarktica 01:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eucalyptus regnans

OK, Mark... I made the changes because i believed that the state of the information was very strongly bbiased in favour of logging. It made out that only a devasting fire causes germination. It carried the implication that clear felling was beneficial to the forest. How can that bbe the case? And as for the statement that the forests of Victoria are not Old Growth, but mixed Growth.... well, yes one would hope so! One would indeed hope that by nnatural process new trees grew among the old. But this was stated as if to prove the point that anyone who might calll it an "old Growth" forest was very much in error, or else deceiving. Seven fires in 600 years? Does this prove that clearfelling is appropriate? I merely used the information to make a point different to the very slanted point that was being made!

Mark, the photo that graces the info box is of the heaviest, bulkiest known eucalyptus regnans. That tree is dead. It is dead because the e,ployers of Gunnns pty ltd, cut down every other tall tree in the vicinity and bulldozed the rubbish around its base. The pile of rubbbish, bbefore burning, mmay be 10 or 15 feet high. It really mmakes quite a fire. I photggrapphhed that tree. I photographed the piles of discarded timber bulldozed against living trees that could not be legally loggged because they are above the 80 metre mark. There are very few issues within Australia that make me mpre angry than the logging of Tasmania. Don't write me messages pleading the case of the loggers! There is cleared land enough to grow eucalyptus matchstickus and pinus radiata for centuries, and STILL they log the nnative forest for bloody woodchip. Those big trees that are 300 years old don't turn into furniture. They are designated waste product in order to chip them. The trunks have all the limbs and butts removed for piling and burning. It iis only the long straight part that is carried from the forest for use, on a prime mover and bogey wheels. The rest, tons and tons and tons of timber, is burnt day after day. And it is all managed by just one company. And the actual numbers of people who do the work is small. A handful of machinery operators, a dozer driver and a truckie at each operation. This is one of the most exploitive things that is happening in Australia today.

These are my feelings. So compared with what I have written to you, my attempts to edit the page to break down the strong case being presented for clear felling, is very minor. And if you have not yet taken yourself on a tour of the clearfelling sites of Tasmania, then I suggest you do. The extent of the destruction is extraordianry, and much of it is hidden from main roads and general populace, even to the extent of planting fast-growing "wind-breaks" (screens) so that everything behind them can be cleared without being seen from the road. No, mmate, I'm not the least sympatetic to your case, but in rewording some of the article, I have nnot strongly pushed mmy own position, simply redressed a bias.

Let me put it to you this. Is there really any way that those people who deplore the destruction of old-growth forests can "possibly" be more in the wrong than the proprietors of a multimillion dollar exploitive industry who say that its a good thing to do? And yes, I love timber as well. My kitchen is built of timber recycled from an old warehouse. It was designed by a family of Italian craftsmen and it is exquisite workmanship.

Amandajm 08:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

You know, all the things you addressed on my talk page are not my edits. I am not trying to defends Gunns. If you want to know, I made a point of not buying from them when I was a furniture maker. What I am advising here is that you don't fall into the trap of getting emotional over a very complex issue. The article will become unstable, and that serves no-one's interest.

I'm glad you didn't buy from Gunns. As far as I'm concern, my edits to the substance of the article simple redressed an imbalance which was slanted towards the corporate interest. Please go back and look at what I was redressing. Amandajm 11:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I just went back to the article and reread my changes. Frankly I don't know why you are worried about them. The anti conservation bias has been redressed, but in a balanced way, making exactly the same statements about the forest having been burned 7 times in 600 years. Good God! I come from the Blue Mountains!
I redressed the question of whether total devastation was necessary for germination and regrowth. To say, or imply that this is the case is ridiculous. So I fixed it. That's all. It is now a much more intelligent, unbiased and well balanced statement than it was previously. Amandajm 11:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

PS Thanks for your advice re keyboard.. It still doesn't seem quite right. I'll try again. Amandajm 11:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Look, I don't know what I've done to upset you. You seem to be taking this personally. I started by saying "So far the article is doing well". I just noticed when I was editing this page once that you put a very strong statement on the talk page. I noticed that you were editing the page (it's on my watchlist). I noticed your tagline "Doing some work on this page. Its biased in the direction of big business." I just don't want the article to seesaw about wildly. I'm not saying anything other than it is a complex issue. I don't want to read this article and feel like I am a bad guy for having used a beautiful timber in my work. It's not all about Gunn's and woodchips, that's all. Just a little pre-emptive discussion.MarkAnthonyBoyle 11:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mark! How much wood do you use? I'd say that a fine craftsman would be doing well to get through one eucalyptus regnan in a lifetime! I don't think you are causing the problem. Amandajm 12:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Mark. I will look at the links a later, but I did not suggest it was an attack. I stand by the principle that, except in rare cases, mention of another editor in discussions of edits is a self-defeating strategy. Please forgive me if I have caused offence, I will review all the statements, including my own, and respond later. BTW; its Cygnis, not the bird exactly, but a curious bit of faux-latin... Cheers, Cygnis insignis 12:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I am a bit confused; were the links you supplied related to the discussion, or were they simply examples of ad hominem? I don't want to leave this unresolved, let me know if you want me to respond further. If we are cool now, great. Regards, Cygnis insignis 08:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
You are very polite, it was over zealous of me. You got in the way of my current grievance, something that obviously bothers you too. Well met and all that. I usually thank people by writing a stub for them, better than barnstars in my book. Pick a topic. Cygnis insignis 14:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but I can't tink of anything that is not already underway!MarkAnthonyBoyle 22:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Then you leave me with a debt unpaid :) Cheers to you - Cygnis insignis 13:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)