User talk:Vicki Rosenzweig

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I've archived a bunch of old talk from this page. --VR

More archiving, this of most of the current content. I'm not very active on Wikipedia these days, so please don't expect quick responses.

(And yes, this large, arbitrary archiving means that what's here is mostly one argument. ) Vicki Rosenzweig (talk) 19:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Mis quoting sources

I really have a hard time believing that you prefer a version of an article that mis-quotes the 'sources' cited. I am sure you love Mr. Nicoll's 'dry wit' and his 'byword in fandom', but please keep such Original Research to fan pages outside of Wikipedia, and let the articles within Wikipedia contain reliably sourced, verifiable, and notable marterial. Thanks!207.69.137.27 15:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

No original research doesn't mean we can't use primary sources:
Point of information My tagging of OR and changes thereafter were based on the fact that the content of the 'source' was vastly different than the statements within the article. Taking the information that actually existed in the source and then extracting and embellishing to the extent of the statements that were within the article was the original research.
it means Wikipedia itself should not be a primary source, and we should think about what we're using them for, and why. If the question is what someone wrote, their own published writing is a reliable source. Or would you object to an article on William Shakespeare citing one of his sonnets rather than a literary critic's discussion thereof? Nor does the policy mean that online compilations are inherently unreliable: one question to ask about reliability is how the material was compiled, and another is whether the compilers had motivation for deception.
Also, I am trying hard to believe that your phrasing above was meant in good faith. Vicki Rosenzweig 17:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Were your claims of vandalism when returning to the misquoted citations in good faith???SavingJDNfromthefilk 12:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Transnational Radical Party

Transnational Radical Party, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Transnational Radical Party satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transnational Radical Party and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Transnational Radical Party during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. AvruchTalk 15:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

This posting was made automatically by Twinkle. For whatever reason, you showed as the creator (or first editor) of this article. TW notifies all article creators of an AfD using a generic AfD notification template. AvruchTalk 04:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
That makes sense. And in this case, there's no way of knowing who created it, so I can't point you at them. Vicki Rosenzweig (talk) 03:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Canticle for Leibowitz

Vicki, I see you've shown some interest in the A Canticle for Leibowitz article in the past. I'm interested in bringing it to GA status soon and am soliciting your help. A number of revisions have been made in the past few weeks to position it for a successful nomination process. Would you mind reviewing the article and making suggestions/changes to assist in the process? Any assistance you can provide will be appreciated. Thank you.
Jim Dunning | talk 03:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CH and ll

Greetings, Vicky. You asked this. I gave my feelings on the issue. Regards, Pallida  Mors 22:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE:American Central University

See WP:MINOR Vandalism reverts are considered minor edits —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexfusco5 (talk • contribs) 02:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Early Infanticidal Childrearing

Remember that? A new editor, Cesar Tort, has done a major edit of the article and changed the title to Psychohistorical views on infanticide, but I still think it is highly problematic. I had a detailed exchange with him in which I set out my problems with the revised article and he responded, here - it would take some time to read through, but several years ago you had many valuable comments, and I would be grateful if you could look at the revised article and my comments, and those of others in sections below mine, and add your voice. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 12:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)