User talk:SlimVirgin/Archive 2
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I'm a new user, having joined on Nov. 2, 2004. My interests are current affairs, the Middle East, terrorism, Ancient Greece, philosophy, the history of science, human rights and animal liberation.
| My archived talk | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
Archive 1 |
Archive_18 |
Archive_35 |
|
Contents |
Paragraph length
The principle of one idea per pagragraph seems almost universal. But I've seen little about paragraph length relating to numbers in other ways (such as x number of sentences).
This might be useful, from "The Careful Writer", by Theodore M. Bernstein: "A paragraph may be of one sentence or it may be of ten. An elementary-school teacher told her class that a paragraph could not contain only one sentence. ... That teacher deserves a sentence -- and a long one."
Wikipedia is the only place I've seen short paragraphs discouraged. Are you interested in changing that? Maurreen 16:52, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- If you start it, I'll help you try to change Wikipedia guidance on short paragraphs. Thanks for your work on "No original research." I'll have to get back to it. But I'm getting behind in various things (becoming a Wikipediholic and other poor excuses) and Wikipedia is also very slow for me today. Maurreen 18:04, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Paragraphing
Hi, Slim, and hi, Maurreen, too, I think optimal paragraph length depends on the nature of the subject (whether it's narrative or not), and also on the amount of condensation (higher condensation appropriately leading to shorter paragraphs). For an extreme example of a request for longer paragraphs for a totally non-narrative subject, please see Taxman's statement on WP:FAC for Laal language that one-sentence paragraphs are intrinscially "bad writing style", no matter the nature of the subject, with my comment about the appropriate (and customary) layout for grammatical description. I could have put that a lot more strongly. That said, I think it is appropriate in many cases to encourage longer paragraphs. For my students, I try to get them to internalize the concept of rhythmic paragraphing (=a good mix of short and long, different for different types of writing). Wikipedia is the return of the molasses today. :-(--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 18:26, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Bernard Williams FAC
Sorry about the confusion. Although I obviously did change the template, I cannot actually remember for what reason. Evil Monkey → Talk 20:43, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
i will have a look into it. Xtra 03:54, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Page protections
If I'm the one who unprotects those pages, I'll inform you. Since the three revert rule can also be invoked against edit wars, I'm not inclined to keep them protected too long. --Michael Snow 05:53, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I certainly agree with the premise that NPOV and other similar tags should not become permanent features of any article. As you note, the policy statements with respect to these tags are not very specific, primarily because those advancing their use are mostly focused on adding them to articles, not removing them. It does tend sometimes to amount to a "Well, if I can't have my way with the content of the article then I'm going to slap this tag on it to protest the fact that I'm not getting my way, and the tag will stay for as long as I feel like it."
- Personally, I find the tags useless and uninformative as far as reading and evaluating article content, so I never use them. The only real information they provide is to alert me as an editor that some kind of intractable dispute exists, which tends to decrease my enthusiasm for wading in to try my hand at improving the content. --Michael Snow 17:06, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
They've now been unprotected. --Michael Snow 19:56, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"No original research"
Hey, Slim. Thanks for your work; it's much improved. I disagree on a few points and hope to follow up. Maurreen 06:18, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Gmail
I can't remember my gmail ID. Haven't used it for a while. Can you send me an email via gmail to oneguy_ks at yahoo.co.uk ? OneGuy 22:06, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Okay, I will try it. I am sure I am right though. There would be massive abuse if these free services allow people sending anonymous emails (that's why they don't). I know I have posted to USENET using google groups and the IP was there. I will test gmail and post on the talk page. OneGuy 22:30, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Krusty the Klown
I doubt I could add anything useful to the Krusty/LaRouche discussion other than my usual rant which everyone has already seen. I am happy to provide info on the LaRouche cult if that would help get Krusty kicked out of Wikipedia. Other than that I am confining myself to reverting all his edits on Australian topics. Adam 23:08, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Adminship
Slim, thank you very much for your kind words at my admin vote. Also, I see you changed the pictures of your dogs. They're cute. One of these days, I ought to put up a picture of my cat. Maurreen 07:07, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Fairport Convention
Hi, Slim. A few weeks ago you reverted some vandalism on the Fairport Convention article. I have worked on the article intermittently since then and put it up for peer review. I wonder if you would be kind enough to give it a look over? If so, please post any comments on my talk page.
Nice dog pics, BTW! :) Andy F 02:58, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks
Just saw the message on my user page. Mate, I appreciate the encouragement :) your comments mean a lot to me! - Ta bu shi da yu 20:19, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hiya
Hi, Slim, congratulations on your featured article, I look forward to seeing dear Bernard on the Main page one day! (Very sorry about calling him "Bernard Harris", I don't know what got into me—sleepiness, probably.) Sorry I haven't replied about the paragraphing. My feeling is that Wikipedia policy on that ought to be very broad, and not phrased in a way that it can be used to police other writers at all. Give people a chance to develop a feeling for what kind of paragraphs suits the logic of their own writing style; the subject; and the venue (=Wikipedia is not a newspaper, so short paragraphs ought not to be the orthodoxy any more than long ones).
The only advice I can give you for your next article, I suppose, is to just experiment more with the paragraphs: test joining up those short paragraphs that come naturally to you (I think you said) into various constellations and see how you like the rhythm of them that way. That's what I do, I don't really understand paragraph divisions, or, well, anything else either, in my own text until I just visually peer at it on the page.
So, what are you writing about, is it more philosophy? We certainly don't have anything like enough of that, especially not as Featured articles. Oh, man, it's worse than I thought, check it out: look under the heading "Philosophy" on WP:FA. See it? Now look at the big fat list under the heading "Royalty, nobility and chivalry", further down on the page. (My favorite FAC antipathy, and you can't ever object to 'em, because "Too boring" isn't an "actionable objection". Bah.) :-(--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 22:13, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
CheeseDreams and Historicity of Jesus
Firstly, thanks for kind comments on my user page. They were toally appreciated... I'm in a much better state now so I'll be reverting back. It's good to know that people are very kind on this site though :-)
Anyway, back to the point (I've posted this to WP:AN): Can I please get advise on how to deal with the extensive changes that CheeseDreams is making on this article? She's running roughshod over everyone on an extremely controversial article. It's already been stuffed up due to this user's edits and had to be protected by RickK (in it's highly POV and badly structured form: at one point there were essentially TWO articles on the one page). Now CheeseDreams is making a massive change without using the talk page, and it adding sections that don't even have any content in it! I've reverted back and have requested that she bring her changes to the talk page. I would appreciate advise on how to procede with this, I don't particularly want to engage in an edit war with her. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:47, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Rat Park
I took a quick look, and I like it. Will try to get back for more. Very interesting. Maurreen 18:01, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- sorry I don't want to get into an edit wat with MDF, but you are right to fight this one, dodgy grammar and his PoV are not a sufficient reasons to place a featured article candidate on clean up. Sorry I can't support the article for featured article status, but its a long way from bad or poor or in need of a clean. Giano 20:59, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Jimbo's talk page
What happened? Was that a server glitch, an edit conflict, deliberate, or what? —No-One Jones 22:23, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I don't think people expressing their sympathy for Jimbo is libelous. It's simply them being kind. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 23:05, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for your explanation
Hi Slim,
I appreciate your desire to contain references to the aforementioned case, but given the widespread publicity over on Slashdot about the attacking web site, as well as the continued existence of the article in question on Wikipedia itself, I think your deletion action is self-defeating, largely at Jimbo's own expense.
The only way to stop the perpetrator of the attacking web site is through the legal system. Assuming the attacker will just go away is rather optimistic. The longer the attacking web site is left to fester, the more caches it will be archived in, and more references to it will appear on more and more pages on the web.
As for setting up a legal fund myself, that would be rather inappropriate. In case my original post left any confusion about the matter, let me be perfectly clear: I don't want to set up a legal fund - I think Jimbo should do it. Any donations should go directly to him.
The question of whether or not a proposal, for Jimbo to establish a legal fund, should appear on his talk page seems to me to be a case of ignoring the actual attack that is taking place elsewhere.
As for a private e-mail request - unless our fellow editors have somewhere to post positive comments to show Jimbo that they would support and donate to such a legal fund, I doubt that Jimbo will take a personal e-mail from one fairly new editor very seriously as an offer of tangible financial support.
I won't continue to argue over your deletion, because it's not my talk page.
Although I think you are directing your deletions in the wrong direction, I'll close by simply asking you to take a look at the elephant sitting in the center of the room, and ask yourself whether your deletion did anything to move it out of the room?
Cheers,
— DV 04:29, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks mate :-)
I appreciate the comment... sheesh... admining can be a tough job! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:34, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Sure they did. I was promised a bed of roses, they just didn't de-thorn them. Yow! :-) - Ta bu shi da yu 14:02, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Blackface
Hey, Slim. :-) Thanks for your kind words about the article and for your support. I can assure you I have not personalized/internalized the criticisms of the article. I'm not at all thin-skinned, and certainly not when it comes to comments like "it needs references" -- which, frankly, IMO, is the only criticism of the piece that has merit. I simply take the business about how it or the subheads are POV as well-intended, but voiced by those who did so because of their unfamiliarity with the subject matter, or who are either unimaginative or just skittish about it. I really am pressed for time these days. (I'm up now crunching a deadline.) I'll probably get back to blackface when I have some time after the holidays. I've already spent way too much time on Wikipedia lately. (How cute are your pooches! :-D) Peace 2 u. deeceevoice 10:28, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Rat heaven
Hi, Slim, it's an intriguing problem you've got there, with apparently no published criticism of the Rat Park study, and the FAC cavillers surely have to agree that you're doing what you can to find some. Still, in the meantime, I suppose you could go all out to summarize the other view—the canonical view—in a NPOV way. It would be something, even if it's not like summarizing actual criticism of Alexander's methodology and conclusions. There's a certain tone in the summary that you have, even if I can't point to anything specific. Hmm, yes, I can: the word "reductionist". It may be proper to use here, according to its definition, but it also happens to be often used loosely as an insult, and therefore it would be good to immediately define it, in a neutral way, as opposed to trusting the reader to click on the link. Even better to not use it at all, in my view, because it'll contribute to the "tone" no matter what.
Good point about Drug addiction, btw. (How about using their Nestler and Malenka ref. for an opposite POV? Being able to point to it being used for the POV (which is total, I agree) of Drug addiction might be helpful.) Anyway, I hope it works out. Oh, btw, you don't want to call Geogre, a dear friend of mine, "George". It's Ge-ogre, as in "Ze ogre" or "Gee! Ogre!" :-)--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 12:01, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- If there's no published critism, why not just say so in the article? - Ta bu shi da yu 14:03, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
