User talk:Nodekeeper

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] WP:NFCC

I thought that one would be ok with everybody, but I appreciate your explanation and will take it to the talk page. Cheers! -- But|seriously|folks  20:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Someday, that is, after the hubbub dies down. It will get lost in the shuffle otherwise. -- But|seriously|folks  20:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

See User:Omegatron/Non-free content, if you haven't. Needs to be updated, but it has my opinion from a few months ago. — Omegatron 17:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mother Teresa

I've done the work I want to for the time being. Although I'll be keeping an eye on the page for a while. What I've written hasn't addressed your interest around how MT exploited her image, took money from dubious sources etc. Please go ahead and write that. I actually have some real work to do and should be getting on with that rather than researching this interesting aspect of her.--Peter cohen 14:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. You're probably well out of MT. There are new arrivals on the page who are going through a similar emotional experience to the one I had. I had a brief look at the Images discussion, it looks potentially even more stormy than MT. Good luck--Peter cohen 23:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] please refactor your coment

Re: your reply here at the Intelligent Design talk page. Please take out the word lying (change to whatever. . . 'misinforming' or something). For these images to be included as most think they should be, the comments need to be above reproach. Some will consider it a personal attack in violation of WP:NPA. And there's no telling where this issue might end up, it is highly divisive across multiple articles. Just a suggestion and thanks, R. Baley 23:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

'Misleading' or 'Misinforming' is still lying. I have a hard time coddling the deletionists any more. Partly because I abhor censorship (which this is), partly because their tactics are disruptive and abusive to the article, and partly because after a month their nonsense persists. I'm all for free images, but at the expense of everything else, no. If they were serious they work to define NFCC in clear, easy to understand terms and apply it uniformly accross wikipedia, and not just Intelligent Design. But after watching NFCC I fail to see any progress torwards this. -01:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ramsmenon block

Hi Nodekeeper,

Thanks for your note on my talk page. I am concerned about several things in this incident, including Adam's blanking of talk page discussion. It would be one thing if he moved it elsewhere, but it's a bad idea to just blank multiple other users' comments unless those comments are blatant personal attacks or the like. As Adam notes, the block has expired, and the user is free to edit again. It's my hope he can become a productive user. However, edits like this worry me as pretty POV.

The other thing that concerns me is the AN/I suggestion that you should be reprimanded for starting the thread, and the talk page comment on my page that your actions should be a matter of concern. I haven't seen anything in your contributions that should be a matter for concern. Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 04:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I think also the fact that this statement was not rebuked by others is telling. Wikipedia places too high a value on things that do not matter (aka quantity versus quality of edits) versus those things that really do matter like holding editors to higher standard. Rather than attacking the messenger, they need to pay attention to the message. But I feel this endemic of widescale detoriation of the enclyclopedia, which may be caused by fundamental structural flaws. -Nodekeeper 19:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for help- too bad I was bullied. I still maintain my edits weren't POV , other than to the those with totally biased frame of mind- ramsmenon Ramsmenon 19:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramsmenon (talk • contribs) 11:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC) 19:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Your welcome. Even though the proper outcome was not achieved, it was a learning lesson for me. I feel bad that as a new user user you were exposed to the ugly underbelly of Wikipedia. Unfortunately you learned how bias is put into articles, when a group of editors can chase away others who want to present a complete picture. Also you can see, the time investment (i.g. providing proper citations and research) can be prohibitive for many, with few rewards. Both of these things ultimately work to make Wikipedia an unreliabel information source. Controversial articles have little value because of this. -Nodekeeper 19:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shifting Bottleneck Heuristic

Nodekeeper, I was wondering if you could take some time to look over my article, Shifting Bottleneck Heuristic. It is my first article posted on Wikipedia and I want to make sure it is a good one. Any feedback you can provide on the article would be greatly appreciated. Thanks and I look forward to hearing from you.

Andrew Schultz 22:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for being unable to contribute improvements for that article. In the wake of increasingly defective policy decisions, I have difficulty spending any time on Wikipedia when I have other obligations I need to tend to. I am unable to say when I can get to that article. -Nodekeeper 19:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)