MiszaBot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 14d) to User talk:Danger/Archive 10. |
NickDupree (talk | contribs) →Hello again / oral history project: nationalistic POV warrior |
||
Line 48: | Line 48: | ||
:Ah nationalists, the least fun of all wiki-warriors. Give me a good religious warrior any day over a nationalist (invariably from a country that I, a former geography buff, have never heard of). I must say that I'm extremely skeptical about the place of oral histories on Wikipedia. Oral histories are awesome, fantastic things, but I'm concerned about whether, as primary sources, using them will skew articles toward patchworks of individual perspectives rather than the overview perspective taken by histories written by those at a distance from the topic. I'll think more about it though. --[[User:Danger|Danger]] ([[User talk:Danger#top|talk]]) 13:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC) |
:Ah nationalists, the least fun of all wiki-warriors. Give me a good religious warrior any day over a nationalist (invariably from a country that I, a former geography buff, have never heard of). I must say that I'm extremely skeptical about the place of oral histories on Wikipedia. Oral histories are awesome, fantastic things, but I'm concerned about whether, as primary sources, using them will skew articles toward patchworks of individual perspectives rather than the overview perspective taken by histories written by those at a distance from the topic. I'll think more about it though. --[[User:Danger|Danger]] ([[User talk:Danger#top|talk]]) 13:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC) |
||
::I agree we should exclude narrow, individual stories, but there are plenty of narratives with broad perspectives too. [[User:NickDupree|NickDupree]] ([[User talk:NickDupree|talk]]) 06:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC) |
::I agree we should exclude narrow, individual stories, but there are plenty of narratives with broad perspectives too. [[User:NickDupree|NickDupree]] ([[User talk:NickDupree|talk]]) 06:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC) |
||
:Regarding nationalistic POV warriors, there was a guy who had been through AN/I for battleground mentality 3x and even through Arbcom (peripherally, loudly defending a fellow fringe theorist). Somehow two other frequent Chinese history editors and me got involved in his '''''"last straw''' moment."''' I didn't mean to get involved, it's easy to get sucked in—like the gravitational pull of a black hole—but I was the tipping point. But it is going to take months to fix the POV damage done and merge or AfD the numerous POV forks he left behind, impossible for one or two editors alone. Man, before Wikipedia I had no idea that the writing of East Asia's history was so fraught with fridge theories and racism. Taiwanese with crazy irredentist claims, Mongol dynasties re-cast as Chinese national heroes, virulent ethnic hate for Manchus who died out 60+ years ago, and radical Korean nationalists pushing their POV, are big challenges people face when trying to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Asia. [[User:NickDupree|NickDupree]] ([[User talk:NickDupree|talk]]) 04:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== ISS guidance == |
== ISS guidance == |
Revision as of 04:19, 5 August 2011
Welcome to my talk page. Here are some tips to help you communicate with me:
- Please continue any conversation on the page where it was started.
- Thus, if I have left a message on your talk page — excluding welcomes and warnings — please do not post a reply here. I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.
- If a message requires my immediate attention, or a few days have gone by and I haven't answered, please post a message here in some form so that the big yellow bar attracts my attention. I am somewhat like a crow.
- Indent your comment when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
- To initiate a new conversation on this page .
- You should sign your comments. You can do this automatically by typing four tildes (~~~~).
January – April 2008 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
:)
Hello Adopter :) hope you are well...
Just wanted to say hello and ask a quick question (also to tell you that I got Augmentative and alternative communication to 'Good Article' status, which I'm proud of and wouldn't have managed without your support) - I wanted to ask a quick dump question about achiving topics on a talkpage - would it be reasonable to archive, say, the topics on Talk:Augmentative and alternative communication that haven't been touched since 2009, or should they stay for the time being? Failedwizard (talk) 08:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- Congratulations! I think it's reasonable to archive two-year old threads, especially since the talk page is getting a bit long. If anyone objects, you can always revert. If you need any help setting up the archive, let me know. --Danger (talk) 09:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- I *think* it went fine actually - thanks for the reply and the offer :) Failedwizard (talk) 13:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- If you're interested, you could use User:Miszabot for automatic archiving. It saves a lot of time. --Danger (talk) 14:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- Missed this, apologies and thank you! I turned up with another question - If Article A is a subtopic of article B (along the lines of 'The early life of B') are there any wikipedia policies that suggest that facts in B that are relevent to A should be copies/moved to A? (This is possibly the worst explenation ever...) Failedwizard (talk) 13:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm... there's no policy but there are some somewhat relevant guidelines and discussions. WP:DETAIL and its parent WP:Summary style talks about the situation that articles A and B are in somewhat generally. I guess what I can say is that some duplication is desirable; both Abraham Lincoln and The early life of Abraham Lincoln will mention where he was born. The latter, though, will go into a lot more detail about his birthplace, but the first might just identify the site. So, if for some reason Abraham Lincoln didn't include his birthplace, that detail should be copied from "Early life of Abraham Lincoln". Does that make sense? Is that helpful? Danger (talk) 16:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- :) thank you! It does make sense, and is helpful :) Failedwizard (talk) 07:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm... there's no policy but there are some somewhat relevant guidelines and discussions. WP:DETAIL and its parent WP:Summary style talks about the situation that articles A and B are in somewhat generally. I guess what I can say is that some duplication is desirable; both Abraham Lincoln and The early life of Abraham Lincoln will mention where he was born. The latter, though, will go into a lot more detail about his birthplace, but the first might just identify the site. So, if for some reason Abraham Lincoln didn't include his birthplace, that detail should be copied from "Early life of Abraham Lincoln". Does that make sense? Is that helpful? Danger (talk) 16:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Missed this, apologies and thank you! I turned up with another question - If Article A is a subtopic of article B (along the lines of 'The early life of B') are there any wikipedia policies that suggest that facts in B that are relevent to A should be copies/moved to A? (This is possibly the worst explenation ever...) Failedwizard (talk) 13:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- If you're interested, you could use User:Miszabot for automatic archiving. It saves a lot of time. --Danger (talk) 14:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- Also... (busy week) I think an article might be worthy of a deletion nomination (it's List_of_people_in_fiction_with_claimed_eidetic_memory) under notabiliy (especially considering the article for Eidetic_memory covers lots of it), would you mind having a quick look and checking that there's a case to be made without looking silly? Just before I put a proper proposal in. Failedwizard (talk) 14:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- This is a classic garbage bin article. Instead of taking a stand against the trivia cluttering up "Eidetic memory", at some point it got swept into this article out of sight, not that it helped. I'm out of time at the moment, but I'll point you to this essay as a starting point for ideas. I personally think that this is a great example of WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Danger (talk) 14:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you! have nominated... In other news, I seam to have been put in an odd catagory and I can't work out what's happening... the adoption badge appears to have changed as well... could you look at my user page and tell me if I've gone mad? Failedwizard (talk) 13:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- So, on Monday someone changed Template:Adopted from a redirect to Template:User Adoptee to that misspelling userbox. I've updated the call of the template on your user page (to {{User Adoptee|Danger}}). Whether you've gone mad or not is something that I'm not qualified to comment on, but being a Wikipedian in the first place isn't evidence in your favor. :) --Danger (talk) 23:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you! :) Failedwizard (talk) 07:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- So, on Monday someone changed Template:Adopted from a redirect to Template:User Adoptee to that misspelling userbox. I've updated the call of the template on your user page (to {{User Adoptee|Danger}}). Whether you've gone mad or not is something that I'm not qualified to comment on, but being a Wikipedian in the first place isn't evidence in your favor. :) --Danger (talk) 23:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you! have nominated... In other news, I seam to have been put in an odd catagory and I can't work out what's happening... the adoption badge appears to have changed as well... could you look at my user page and tell me if I've gone mad? Failedwizard (talk) 13:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- This is a classic garbage bin article. Instead of taking a stand against the trivia cluttering up "Eidetic memory", at some point it got swept into this article out of sight, not that it helped. I'm out of time at the moment, but I'll point you to this essay as a starting point for ideas. I personally think that this is a great example of WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Danger (talk) 14:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello again / oral history project
Nick here. Since we last corresponded I've done a lot, fun, sucky and in-between: from creating articles and one unsuccessful WikiStrategy proposal, to tangling with a nationalistic POV warrior who finally merited indef blocking and the damage he's done. But I thought you might be interested especially by my latest: brainstorming on how we can include voices of marginalized people more (such as people with disabilities) using wiki-citation of oral histories. User_talk:NickDupree#More_Oral_Citations :) NickDupree (talk) 01:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- Ah nationalists, the least fun of all wiki-warriors. Give me a good religious warrior any day over a nationalist (invariably from a country that I, a former geography buff, have never heard of). I must say that I'm extremely skeptical about the place of oral histories on Wikipedia. Oral histories are awesome, fantastic things, but I'm concerned about whether, as primary sources, using them will skew articles toward patchworks of individual perspectives rather than the overview perspective taken by histories written by those at a distance from the topic. I'll think more about it though. --Danger (talk) 13:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- I agree we should exclude narrow, individual stories, but there are plenty of narratives with broad perspectives too. NickDupree (talk) 06:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- Regarding nationalistic POV warriors, there was a guy who had been through AN/I for battleground mentality 3x and even through Arbcom (peripherally, loudly defending a fellow fringe theorist). Somehow two other frequent Chinese history editors and me got involved in his "last straw' moment." I didn't mean to get involved, it's easy to get sucked in—like the gravitational pull of a black hole—but I was the tipping point. But it is going to take months to fix the POV damage done and merge or AfD the numerous POV forks he left behind, impossible for one or two editors alone. Man, before Wikipedia I had no idea that the writing of East Asia's history was so fraught with fridge theories and racism. Taiwanese with crazy irredentist claims, Mongol dynasties re-cast as Chinese national heroes, virulent ethnic hate for Manchus who died out 60+ years ago, and radical Korean nationalists pushing their POV, are big challenges people face when trying to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Asia. NickDupree (talk) 04:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
ISS guidance
Hi Danger, I hope it's been one of your better days. (I hope you feel well).
I was wondering today, same as everyday, how to improve my favorite article. :) On some other page, I had done an edit here which was reverted immediately here on a page that has a military or big business funded tag-team working it. (check the talk-page or edit summary, wow). Lolz, I was thinking as most of earths population do, maybe it's best to leave those sort of people alone. Anyhow, I got to thinking, as I always do, that the ISS pages are not beyond improvement, and considering the warring that goes on there, and that it's all done by ordinary people, a solution to most every problem is possible. After all, it's just a space station.
There are plenty of areas to improve, small facts, large facts, small editor problems, medium and large editor problems. I was thinking one that is not big at all, and is solveable pretty easily, plus you could help me with, as my ideas aren't too flash, is the ENG:VAR's effect upon many other editors. Not something I've ever cared about (although I secretly think hillbilly or maybe cockney slang would be cool variants to use, lol, but impractical for widespread appeal and stability). I was thinking to use google to look into wikipedia's discussion areas to find people who have experience in those matters, and could offer better guidance than I can, to other editors. It may seem calm on the surface, but, as one of my critics put it, it's a 'timebomb' or some such, can't recall, but you just have to scratch the surface and it springs up on anyone, a perfect bear-trap waiting for a new editor to step on, and have their enthusiasm for editing amputated at the ANI hospital clinic, lolz.. Well, rather than looking into google, I'm wondering do you know where I can look for experts ? Naturally, the usual eng:var pages, I've read, many many times.
Apart from that, on matters that I don't need help with, but feel free to comment on, as you're mentoring me(so it's kind of just a news update sort of thing), I've tided up my talkpage setting up mizabot instructions, put up the first of the barnstars I'll make, apologized in a big way to colds7ream on his talkpage, man can I apologize, and started secretly plotting a new project (harmless, just exciting is all) in email. Overall, I'm too cynical at the moment to try putting up a very useful list of improvements to the ISS page for it's FAR. Nobody else cares, they're all 'Beyond FA thar bee see mawnsters' and just wouldn't be capable of bursting the bubble they are in. Penyulap talk 14:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- While the body supporting this entity feels fine, the internet provider that allows it to connect to Wikipedia has declined to actually provide internet. I'm out of time today to give you a thorough review; I'll try to get back to you tomorrow. --Danger (talk) 13:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, a couple of things. First, ENGVAR is very, very simple. The point is to make sure that articles are standardized and that English variants are not paired with articles in a manner that would be weird or distracting to a reader. I really do not understand the hullabaloo here. As an internationally operated body, it doesn't have an obvious tie to a specific variation of English; maybe, maybe, American English would be "best" but the link is so tenuous that changing the article wouldn't be worth it. Oddly enough, it looks like NASA leans toward British/Canadian English anyway (endeavour versus endeavor). But in the end, it doesn't matter, it just has to be consistent. Any continuation of debate on this will risk landing y'all on WP:LAME. Slap {{British English}} on the talk page and let's all go have a pint (of warm beer, naturally).
- Second, I think you're misunderstanding what a FAR is for. It is not a place to suggest relatively minor improvements or updates to a featured article. It's for discussing articles where the problems are somewhat deep, cause the article to not meet the featured article criteria and have been discussed specifically on the talk page. In order to have a FAR taken seriously, you have to be able to point to the specific criterion that you think an article fails and where you have attempted to address that problem on the talk page. At least you got two nice, thorough reviews from Brad and Ten Pound Hammer (or the otters) on it.
- And shorts: Nifty barnstar. Why not title make it the an alternate WikiProject Spaceflight barnstar, instead of an ISS specific one? Good of you to apologize, though not starting out with the stuff you feel the recipient has done wrong would help. But, you know, an improvement. I understand your intentions at ANI, but man, what did you do wrong to punish yourself by hanging out there?
- Thanks for the update. I get the sense that you're going through a medical issue; I wish you luck. Danger (talk) 00:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 01 August 2011
- In the news: Consensus of Wikipedia authors questioned about Shakespeare authorship; 10 biggest edit wars on Wikipedia; brief news
- Research interview: The Huggle Experiment: interview with the research team
- WikiProject report: Little Project, Big Heart — WikiProject Croatia
- Featured content: Featured pictures is back in town
- Arbitration report: Proposed decision submitted for one case
- Technology report: Developers descend on Haifa; wikitech-l discussions; brief news