User talk:Smilo Don/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Contents

Welcome!

Hello, Smilo Don/Archive 1, 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 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.

If you are interested in cycling-related themes, you may want to check out the Cycling Portal. If you are interested in contributing more to cycling related articles you may want to join WikiProject Cycling.

Again, welcome!  --SeveroTC 08:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

cultural studies

You've been doing very good work on the cultural studies article's content. But: (a) please don't delete useful material if possible (like the paragraph pointing to area studies), and (b) you might want to take a look through WP:MOS about the preferred ways of formatting Wikipedia articles. E.g., "condensing" See Also links like you did is discouraged (better to trim out the irrelevant ones), and there's no need to use HTML blockquotes when we have a whole category of Quotation templates. Obviously, none of this is earth-shatteringly important, but it's nice to get the format right on the first go when possible. -- Rbellin|Talk 21:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for the advice Rbellin! I'm pretty new at this. I think that Area Studies stuff is pretty dubious. I am a scholar in the field (both cult stud and anthropology) and I think that stuff on area studies doesn't really apply. --Dylanfly 22:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll reply on the article's Talk page about area studies. But just in case these niggling concerns seemed discouraging, I wanted to say thanks again for the great additions to that article, and please keep up the great editing! -- Rbellin|Talk 22:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Higher consciousness

Hello Dylanfly, I think it's possible to overlink pages sometimes, and in it's current state the Higher consciousness article reads very much like a personal essay, more than an encyclopedic entry, so I don't really feel inspired to link many articles to it unless there is a direct relevance. Especially when compared to the main consciousness page, which is very well put together. My other worry is that terms such as bhakti and nirvana mean very different things in different traditions, so any comparison article would have to tread a very thin line in terms of NPOV. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 14:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

generations

Of course the theory is more than a little on the stupid side, but that is not considered as anything against it here--the articles cant really be deleted by our standards, which accept pseudo-anything--not unreasonably, as people come here to learn about it. What is needed is that they really learn about it, not just get presented by essays that talk about it as if it were the universally accepted way historians see the world. It would be most useful to improve the articles by finding and quoting reliable academic or other good sources that talk about the theory, to make it clear the way it is considered-- perhaps you know of some references? (I've started in removing the unencyclopedic lists that make the article look impressive. You might want to take a look at what I've been doing there. DGG (talk) 05:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Generations

Sure, I thought the original research arguments were pretty valid. Although I don't think I'm really qualified enough on the topic to be designing the template, I would be happy to undelete and userfy it if the original code would be helpful to you at all in designing the new template. Best, IronGargoyle 21:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


Ksyrie and Indigenous peoples of the Americas

I don't think it's really a matter of Ksyrie's English, it's the poor execution of his edits themselves and revert warring. I've seen many constructive edits in other articles by non-English speakers that merely had to be cleaned up a little bit, but Ksyrie's edits don't go with the flow of the article at all. So you might be a little harsh on his English. Thanks, Twalls 04:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

OK--good points. Though what I've seen by Ksyrie is quite sub-standard. I assume he's fully fluent at reading English, but much less so in writing it.--Dylanfly 13:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Oh ! my bad. I'm sorry. Actually, My revert's getting too fast.But sometime it's slipped away. Thanks again and sorry for wrong reverting on that page.--NAHID 19:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, but judging from others remarks (which you've erased on your own talk page), you've got a bit of a problem. Be careful with those reverts. --Dylanfly 00:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

GP de Fourmies

I think it's great that all 1.HC and 2.HC Europe Tour events all have pages. Wikipedia is definitely becoming the best source for road racing if not cycle racing full stop. Thanks for all your contributions, we have quite a few people editing cycling pages now so everything is getting there! SeveroTC 16:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Generational dynamics

Can't use speedy for notability on books, so I needed to change it to a prod. I think it just might be defended, and there even might be a review or two, so keep track and be prepared for Afd. DGG (talk) 21:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

junk it is, yes, I read enough to tell. But still it has to go by the rules. There is a reason for not including books or other creative works in speedy--it is relatively hard for people not acquainted with the field to tell, and the chance that items will be deleted wrong is simply too great. I've seen some really famous books put up for speedy that the ed. involved didn't recognize. if checked by an admin who also didnt recognize them, they'd be thrown out. Occasional suggestions to include books and movies, etc. in speedy have been all soundly rejected by the community. Yes, use of G11, advertising, would have been conceivable, but it would have been a stretch, for the spam could have been reduced. I did consider it. Better to go with it in away that makes sure it will be gone, and cannot be re-created. DGG (talk) 01:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC) Well, good luck and I hope it sticks. I support what you've been doing, of course.DGG (talk) 23:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Indigenous peoples of the Americas

Nice work cleaning up the intro! Sorry I haven't been able to contribute more than talk. The nitty-gritty of copyediting takes some brains and focus, thanks. Pfly 07:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Consciousness Disambiguation-and-Split Project

I like what you've been doing for this so far, but the next steps seem bigger.

  • Have you done something like this before?
  • Who can provide a model for the steps required to do a good job?
  • How can I help? I'm no WP veteran, but I am enthusiastic.

DCDuring 21:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks...

Dylan, unfounded accusations of personal attacks can in themselves be personal attacks. This comment suggesting factionalism and accusations of personal attacks are not conducive to collaboration (ie, "Your mate Merbabu called me a slew of names"). As such, it is a serious issue, about which you should either complain formally, or cease. I'm particularly puzzled about the "slew of names" I'd called you - can you be specific about which names? If not, I trust we can thus drop it? I doubt it was your intent, but such comments can be read as fight-picking which has no place on wikipedia.

As a general comment, throwing around accusations of bias - even if one believes they are only counter allegations - do nothing for the collaboration that is the lifeblood of wikipedia. This had been the case over the last few weeks on Talk:Indonesia, thus your, shall we say, “tussle” with User:Caniago over the last 24 hours must be taken in the context of those previous discussions. It’s easy to understand how people form (possibly incorrect) notions of your own biases by looking thru you contribs, recent Talk:Indonesia comments, previous versions of your user page (suggesting strong Marxist and anti-US sentiment correctly or otherwise), and signing talk page comments with "Yours, in struggle". I know I don't need to remind you that wikipedia is not to be used as a tool of "struggle" or any other agenda, rather it is to remain neutral and objective.

WP:KETTLE is one of my favourite pages here, and all of us x million editors should keep it in mind - always. --Merbabu 01:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


Indonesia project

Categories - could you please note that there are indeed single article categories within the project - and for the moment - unless we have individuals from outside the project seeking to delete the category - we tend to not bring attention to many for the plain reason that there strucutures of categories that are (A) imposed upon the project from outside - usually by those who have limited knowledge of indonesian history and geography - which always helps :( (b) created to link with other parent categories - or trees of categories to sustain a comprehensive relationship - for proper use by the project. Identifying one with a problem is the same as a caterpillar seeking to worry about a sore leg - best left alone - unless if you wish to be involved with the overall project structure and category issue. Out of curiosity - what is your experience with Indonesia? SatuSuro 03:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:MOS

Please - never put in article titles in caps. (viz Tommy Suharto article) Please notice consistency of style in external links and reference sections always need eternal vigilance - please try having a read of the MOS guidelines - for wikipedia we struggle to keep editors to be consistent with usages in a given article. thanks SatuSuro 04:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Categories have complex inter-relating issues within the wikipedia structure of things - please either read up about them - or take note that they have very specific purposes to keep things from getting out of hand. I do not take lightly to people who either question them or abuse them - if you check my edit history I am constantly tying to get projects and their category pages tagged - very few editors in wikipedia have either the energy or interest to do so. Those who do - understand the issue.
It is one thing to put down wikipedia aspirations for NPOV - but if you are indeed an academic - then I can think of academic supervisors that I have had in my time that would return some of your current attempts at papers/ - ie wikipedia edits on articles with a re-write demand. SatuSuro 10:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
By what you type in your message to me you have a clear foreknowledge of wikipedia ideas and practices - your rapid fluency of WP policies and issues is something that I find it hard to believe you are indeed a newbie - and its one thing to throw a lot of words around - another to identify where and how and why your experience of indonesia comes from. I will assume I have found your good faith if you choose to do so. My good faith can be interpreted as simply continuing the dialogue - there are many smart arses (perhaps wise guys maybe from your linguistic background) on wikipedia who simply remain silent in their highly passive aggressive manner on wikipedia.

I am only too pleased to explain in detail my experience of indonesia - and how it addresses my ways of interpreting information about what an online encylopedia can carry and how it does so within wikipedia guidelines - about the country and its history - but its your turn. If you choose not to - well thats no big deal or neither here or there in the end - cheers SatuSuro 01:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I have thought it through and consider the issues that arise from your comments are no longer within context in a wikipedia talk page - there is much more to the Indonesia project than any one editors intellectual hangups (mine or yours) - and it is definitely more complex than quoting the name of others. Probably best leave it alone as far as wikipedia talk pages in my opinion. cheers SatuSuro 10:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Basically all that above meant that to pursue some of the issues that you have raised I am simply not prepared to continue share opinions on wiki - and would only pursue off - however as much as I find some of your editing problematic - I will not specifically pursue the issue for some edits on wiki. However this does not preclude other edits that I might take issue with - just needed to clarify that - cheers SatuSuro 01:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Writing style...

Dylanfly, when contributing to an encyclopedia, please cease using inappropriately emotive language such as the "mammoth" bailout. You have used equally inappropriate language in the Tommy Suharto article where you stated he served a "mere fraction" of his original sentence. I would have been more appropriate to state the years. Unlike a blog, or a Noam Chomsky book, an encyclopedia deals with facts not emotion and opinion. You say you are an academic - as such I trust NPOV language is a very easy concept for you to grasp. please use more care. thanks --Merbabu 10:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

"mammoth" was a direct quote. Cheers, --Dylanfly 12:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
You did not list it as such, nor is the quote, or author, notable enough to be quoted here in full. We are not not bound to use an author's non-encyclopedia language in our encyclopedia.--Merbabu 16:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Indonesia collaboration = Jakarta...

Hello there Smilo Don/Archive 1, this fortnight's Indonesia project collaboration is > > > Jakarta < < <. Please contribute. The most important thing is to find reliable references for all existing information, and for any new info added.

Also, please help nominate an article for the next collaboration at the collab nomination page. An underdeveloped or stub article is preferred over a long and developed article. Please nominate up to two articles. any questions, please let me know. Kind regards and happy editing. --Merbabu 11:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

silent generation

I think this term is used other than Strauss and Howe , and the article reflected it. As there was n my opinion no consensus to merge on the talk page, I am restoring it in place of the redirect.DGG (talk) 19:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring and 3RR...

Please familiarise yourself with WP:3RR and the idea of consensus on wikipedia is that you don't change a disputed topic until you get consensus on talk. I will also be checking your references extremely closely as your interpretations are sloppy. for example, "land redistribution" does not appear once in Sajor. thanks --Merbabu 21:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)