A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z |
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10...
100...
200
And here are several pages on things to avoid:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) - if you click on the button it will automatically insert 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. Also, please consider joining the the adopt-a-user project, where advanced editors can guide you in your first experiences here. Feel free to delete this template if you don't want it. Again, welcome!
|
ChildofMidnight ( talk) 17:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! -- SineBot ( talk) 09:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
If you could start using capitalization it would make your posts a great deal easier/more enjoyable to read. I must admit I feel a degree of psychic pain when I see whole paragraphs without a capital letter anywhere in sight. Please disregard if you are E. E. Cummings. TallNapoleon ( talk) 09:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I said that your description of the situation on the AR TP was false. Here is the description:
"the problem is, pro-rand people wont accept as legitimate, balanced, neutral, etc any references that say she is not philosopher, anti-rand people wont accept as legitimate, balanced, neutral, etc any references that says she is. anti-rand references generally are from the academia, reflecting rands lack of standing with the phd/philosophy community, pro-rand references tend to be more populist, reflecting the view that if people think she is a philosopher then she is a philosopher. both sides have multitudes of references, but neither side accepts the others references. this talk page is one long "is not! is too!"Brushcherry (talk) 19:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry"
What we have is not a bunch of pro-Rand editors trying to add that Rand was the best philosopher ever, never made mistakes, didn't have personal problems, suffered no criticism, or anything like that. No one who is "pro-Rand" has attempted to remove the crticism section, references to such things as her affair with branden, or the like. (There have been a few hit and run wacko editors, look at the archived section of the talk page called avalanche where I took action to stop a person who had been trying to remove all negative comments about Rand.) Neither do we even have something so simple as one side with a list of 340 references on lexis nexus that call Rand a philosopher, while the opposition supposedly has a list of 360 that say she isn't. They don't have a list of references that say Rand is not a philosopher. (That is what was the essence of what was false.) They have a list of articles that mention rand, but which don't mention the word philosopher. They describe this list of 360 articles as if it is a list of articles that say rand is not a philosopher. The articles refered to simply don't have the word philosopher in them. They might be about Rand's literary output or many other subjects. And they definitely CAN'T be articles that actually say Rand IS NOT a philosopher, because in order to say that, you have to use the word philosopher, and this is a list of articles where the word philosopher doesn't even show up.
The problem we have is that this had been a good, balanced, sourced, comprehensive and stable article up to DEC 31 when david snowden started making a bunch of wholesale deletions for which there was no consensus. He was reversed by myself and others as he satrted deleting referenced lists of people Rand had influenced, started deleting the cited reference to Rand as a philosopher, put in negative pov language to portray her as limited in influence to American fringe groups, and all out did whatev er he could to get Rand portrayed in a bad light. The problem is, snowded is ignorant of Rand's influence, ignorant of American culture, and personally highly biased against rand. He admits it on his website. He has campaigned this way on many articles. He has his view and he refuses to accept any other. So, on DEC 31 he canvassed another Brit with whom he has colaborated before, and had the article frozen because of "edit warring." the war consisted of his deletions of sourced material and additions of negative comments. The article, was frozen, and we were supposed to come to an actual consensus on changes before anything was done once the article was unfrozen JAN 6. Immediately after it was unfrozen, snowded and peter damien started in again with one sided deletions of refernced material and additions of whatever criticism they could think of, they removed all context for criticisms (For example, Buckley and Rand had a famous feud. Buckley, a Catholic, called her "godless", said she advocated sending the poor to concentration camps in Atlas Shrugged, and she called him "too smart to believe in god." The article had included his comment that she was dead (in her obituary) and that her philosphy was dead too. And there had been a footnote saying that he was catholic, and that she had criticised him for his catholicism. They removed the footnote. Note that snowded and peter damien are catholic themselves.) It is this same bunch who describe Rand a limited in imnfluence to the US right wing political fringe, but delete a list of people influenced by her that include not only canadians but also europeans, a big movie director in turkey Sinan Cetin and so forth.
So, what we have is a bunch of Objectivists with day jobs, none of whom as far as I know is assciated with or even really likes the Ayn Rand Institute, who are trying to keep this article comprehensive and free from partisan distortions, and a bunch of political and religious opponents of Rand who feel that if the article doesn't bad mouth Rand it isn't objective, because they know for a fact the she was not only evil, but also incompetent.
Forgive me going on like this! I answer here since the debate has moved on since you asked me what I referred to.
Ted. Kjaer ( talk) 23:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I want to be your mentor. I don't know much, but I'll try to point you in the right direction. Anyway, I enjoyed reading your take on the Ayn Rand muddle. Have fun. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 17:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Cookies! | ||
Yes, welcome and ask anything you want, if I can I will help Warrington ( talk) 22:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC) |
Thank you all. I will look into the info you suggested. i have pause, however, regarding exactly how pro-bacon this group is. i certainly enjoy bacon, however, if this is some sort of applewood smoked bacon cabal that apparently controls the casual dining industry in the usa, and somehow has an interest in the ayn rand philosopher debate, please let me know now. further, how picky are you about capitalization? it's a weakness of mine..but seriously ...i'm a long time wikipedia visitor, the ayn rand page was just the first time i investigated the talk page. so that has kept me busy the last few weeks. before i branch out, i'd like to see how this arbcom thing goes. i'd like to see how that plays out before i start challenging other stuff.
Brushcherry (
talk)
08:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry
did you ever pick any of that sirius up at 7 cents? Stevewunder ( talk) 00:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Page protection is done by an administrator. It's all at WP:PP-- kelapstick ( talk) 13:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Please read this, you may also want to talk to your mentor who manages to avoid this sort of behaviour. Its not impressive and really not helpful to your cause -- Snowded ( talk) 07:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Brushcherry ( talk) 08:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry
I suggest working on other articles and checking in on Ayn Rand now and then. Good luck and god bless. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 16:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
This seems to be a real difficult subject, Ayn Rand. Which edits do you think of that they have been deleted? I can’t find them. But usually no one should delete anyone else’s edits, unless they are really non-relevant for the subject. Like I love Ayn Rand. Or if they are uncivil something , like you are an idiot, fascist jerk and need urgent mental care (an example).It is all in the talk page policy, it is there, linked on every talk page. Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Warrington ( talk) 16:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
No not sleepy, I have to much to dooooo. Maybe this part made people stressed:"ayn rand was a female that wrote dribbish that ... There are a lot of unhappy people over there.
But this one is legitimate.:
lets just delete everything. that's constructive. thanks idag and tallnapopleon Brushcherry ( talk) 08:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry
I added some stuff on the talk page. Hope it will help. Warrington ( talk) 17:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. i guess i felt the "discussion" page was a more open forum. i realize that you should be polite, but more vigorous debate would be allowed. its not like i'm editing the ayn rand article itself. i think you are right though, i just recently got into "editing", and have been fixated on the ayn rand article. Brushcherry ( talk) 00:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC) brushcherry
The Cherry Impact Award | ||
I hereby award you this Cherry Impact Award for your incredibly delightful sweetness |
Warrington ( talk) 00:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
It´s just a fun thing, that I found a template about cherries. Usually everything which looks like this, is a good thing. Don’t be sad, you just happened to chose the worst article in the whole place, to edit. What are your other interests? Fishing, banking, gardening, or?
This article needs a cleanup,:
Espionage and
Lucy spy ring and the
Battle of Heavenfield some might need attention...
well, will you take a look at them, what do you say?
Warrington ( talk) 13:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Sure, but please remember that the Ayn Rand page is a an extremely difficult subject, as somebody pointed out, it was at the
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee, which is the supreme court or the court of last resort on Wikipedia, and what happened on the Ayn Rand page was bad for you. Don’t let yourself scared of, there are plenty of good and interesting pages to edit, much less vicious than the Ayn Rand discussion.
Warrington ( talk) 14:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Here is something for you to read:
You are welcome to edit Ayn Rand!
Warrington ( talk) 21:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
BLOCKQUOTE:
The above-linked Arbitration case has been closed and the final decision published.
In the event that any user mentioned by name in this decision engages in further disruptive editing on Ayn Rand or any related article or page (one year from the date of this decision or one year from the expiration of any topic ban applied to the user in this decision, whichever is later), the user may be banned from that page or from the entire topic of Ayn Rand for an appropriate length of time by any uninvolved administrator or have any other remedy reasonably tailored to the circumstances imposed, such as a revert limitation. Similarly, an uninvolved administrator may impose a topic ban, revert limitation, or other appropriate sanction against any other editor who edits Ayn Rand or related articles or pages disruptively, provided that a warning has first been given with a link to this decision.
Both experienced and new editors on articles related to Ayn Rand are cautioned that this topic has previously been the subject of disruptive editing by both admirers and critics of Rand's writings and philosophy. Editors are reminded that when working on highly contentious topics like this one, it is all the more important that all editors adhere to fundamental Wikipedia policies. They are encouraged to make use of the dispute resolution process, including mediation assistance from Mediation Cabal or the Mediation Committee, in connection with any ongoing disputes or when serious disputes arise that cannot be resolved through the ordinary editing process.
For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 03:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
thank you for for your input. as a new editor, being involved with an arbcom case has been an an enlightening experience Brushcherry ( talk) 10:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)brushcherry
User:TallNapoleon has opened a new discussion on misconduct on the Ayn Rand talkpage. Here is a link. [4] Please respond if you can, as the editing group I am addressing is doing nothing positive for the article but rather is being disruptive, obstructionistic and destructive. LoveMonkey ( talk) 14:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z |
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10...
100...
200
And here are several pages on things to avoid:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) - if you click on the button it will automatically insert 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. Also, please consider joining the the adopt-a-user project, where advanced editors can guide you in your first experiences here. Feel free to delete this template if you don't want it. Again, welcome!
|
ChildofMidnight ( talk) 17:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! -- SineBot ( talk) 09:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
If you could start using capitalization it would make your posts a great deal easier/more enjoyable to read. I must admit I feel a degree of psychic pain when I see whole paragraphs without a capital letter anywhere in sight. Please disregard if you are E. E. Cummings. TallNapoleon ( talk) 09:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I said that your description of the situation on the AR TP was false. Here is the description:
"the problem is, pro-rand people wont accept as legitimate, balanced, neutral, etc any references that say she is not philosopher, anti-rand people wont accept as legitimate, balanced, neutral, etc any references that says she is. anti-rand references generally are from the academia, reflecting rands lack of standing with the phd/philosophy community, pro-rand references tend to be more populist, reflecting the view that if people think she is a philosopher then she is a philosopher. both sides have multitudes of references, but neither side accepts the others references. this talk page is one long "is not! is too!"Brushcherry (talk) 19:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry"
What we have is not a bunch of pro-Rand editors trying to add that Rand was the best philosopher ever, never made mistakes, didn't have personal problems, suffered no criticism, or anything like that. No one who is "pro-Rand" has attempted to remove the crticism section, references to such things as her affair with branden, or the like. (There have been a few hit and run wacko editors, look at the archived section of the talk page called avalanche where I took action to stop a person who had been trying to remove all negative comments about Rand.) Neither do we even have something so simple as one side with a list of 340 references on lexis nexus that call Rand a philosopher, while the opposition supposedly has a list of 360 that say she isn't. They don't have a list of references that say Rand is not a philosopher. (That is what was the essence of what was false.) They have a list of articles that mention rand, but which don't mention the word philosopher. They describe this list of 360 articles as if it is a list of articles that say rand is not a philosopher. The articles refered to simply don't have the word philosopher in them. They might be about Rand's literary output or many other subjects. And they definitely CAN'T be articles that actually say Rand IS NOT a philosopher, because in order to say that, you have to use the word philosopher, and this is a list of articles where the word philosopher doesn't even show up.
The problem we have is that this had been a good, balanced, sourced, comprehensive and stable article up to DEC 31 when david snowden started making a bunch of wholesale deletions for which there was no consensus. He was reversed by myself and others as he satrted deleting referenced lists of people Rand had influenced, started deleting the cited reference to Rand as a philosopher, put in negative pov language to portray her as limited in influence to American fringe groups, and all out did whatev er he could to get Rand portrayed in a bad light. The problem is, snowded is ignorant of Rand's influence, ignorant of American culture, and personally highly biased against rand. He admits it on his website. He has campaigned this way on many articles. He has his view and he refuses to accept any other. So, on DEC 31 he canvassed another Brit with whom he has colaborated before, and had the article frozen because of "edit warring." the war consisted of his deletions of sourced material and additions of negative comments. The article, was frozen, and we were supposed to come to an actual consensus on changes before anything was done once the article was unfrozen JAN 6. Immediately after it was unfrozen, snowded and peter damien started in again with one sided deletions of refernced material and additions of whatever criticism they could think of, they removed all context for criticisms (For example, Buckley and Rand had a famous feud. Buckley, a Catholic, called her "godless", said she advocated sending the poor to concentration camps in Atlas Shrugged, and she called him "too smart to believe in god." The article had included his comment that she was dead (in her obituary) and that her philosphy was dead too. And there had been a footnote saying that he was catholic, and that she had criticised him for his catholicism. They removed the footnote. Note that snowded and peter damien are catholic themselves.) It is this same bunch who describe Rand a limited in imnfluence to the US right wing political fringe, but delete a list of people influenced by her that include not only canadians but also europeans, a big movie director in turkey Sinan Cetin and so forth.
So, what we have is a bunch of Objectivists with day jobs, none of whom as far as I know is assciated with or even really likes the Ayn Rand Institute, who are trying to keep this article comprehensive and free from partisan distortions, and a bunch of political and religious opponents of Rand who feel that if the article doesn't bad mouth Rand it isn't objective, because they know for a fact the she was not only evil, but also incompetent.
Forgive me going on like this! I answer here since the debate has moved on since you asked me what I referred to.
Ted. Kjaer ( talk) 23:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I want to be your mentor. I don't know much, but I'll try to point you in the right direction. Anyway, I enjoyed reading your take on the Ayn Rand muddle. Have fun. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 17:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Cookies! | ||
Yes, welcome and ask anything you want, if I can I will help Warrington ( talk) 22:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC) |
Thank you all. I will look into the info you suggested. i have pause, however, regarding exactly how pro-bacon this group is. i certainly enjoy bacon, however, if this is some sort of applewood smoked bacon cabal that apparently controls the casual dining industry in the usa, and somehow has an interest in the ayn rand philosopher debate, please let me know now. further, how picky are you about capitalization? it's a weakness of mine..but seriously ...i'm a long time wikipedia visitor, the ayn rand page was just the first time i investigated the talk page. so that has kept me busy the last few weeks. before i branch out, i'd like to see how this arbcom thing goes. i'd like to see how that plays out before i start challenging other stuff.
Brushcherry (
talk)
08:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry
did you ever pick any of that sirius up at 7 cents? Stevewunder ( talk) 00:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Page protection is done by an administrator. It's all at WP:PP-- kelapstick ( talk) 13:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Please read this, you may also want to talk to your mentor who manages to avoid this sort of behaviour. Its not impressive and really not helpful to your cause -- Snowded ( talk) 07:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Brushcherry ( talk) 08:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry
I suggest working on other articles and checking in on Ayn Rand now and then. Good luck and god bless. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 16:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
This seems to be a real difficult subject, Ayn Rand. Which edits do you think of that they have been deleted? I can’t find them. But usually no one should delete anyone else’s edits, unless they are really non-relevant for the subject. Like I love Ayn Rand. Or if they are uncivil something , like you are an idiot, fascist jerk and need urgent mental care (an example).It is all in the talk page policy, it is there, linked on every talk page. Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Warrington ( talk) 16:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
No not sleepy, I have to much to dooooo. Maybe this part made people stressed:"ayn rand was a female that wrote dribbish that ... There are a lot of unhappy people over there.
But this one is legitimate.:
lets just delete everything. that's constructive. thanks idag and tallnapopleon Brushcherry ( talk) 08:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)brushcherry
I added some stuff on the talk page. Hope it will help. Warrington ( talk) 17:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. i guess i felt the "discussion" page was a more open forum. i realize that you should be polite, but more vigorous debate would be allowed. its not like i'm editing the ayn rand article itself. i think you are right though, i just recently got into "editing", and have been fixated on the ayn rand article. Brushcherry ( talk) 00:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC) brushcherry
The Cherry Impact Award | ||
I hereby award you this Cherry Impact Award for your incredibly delightful sweetness |
Warrington ( talk) 00:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
It´s just a fun thing, that I found a template about cherries. Usually everything which looks like this, is a good thing. Don’t be sad, you just happened to chose the worst article in the whole place, to edit. What are your other interests? Fishing, banking, gardening, or?
This article needs a cleanup,:
Espionage and
Lucy spy ring and the
Battle of Heavenfield some might need attention...
well, will you take a look at them, what do you say?
Warrington ( talk) 13:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Sure, but please remember that the Ayn Rand page is a an extremely difficult subject, as somebody pointed out, it was at the
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee, which is the supreme court or the court of last resort on Wikipedia, and what happened on the Ayn Rand page was bad for you. Don’t let yourself scared of, there are plenty of good and interesting pages to edit, much less vicious than the Ayn Rand discussion.
Warrington ( talk) 14:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Here is something for you to read:
You are welcome to edit Ayn Rand!
Warrington ( talk) 21:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
BLOCKQUOTE:
The above-linked Arbitration case has been closed and the final decision published.
In the event that any user mentioned by name in this decision engages in further disruptive editing on Ayn Rand or any related article or page (one year from the date of this decision or one year from the expiration of any topic ban applied to the user in this decision, whichever is later), the user may be banned from that page or from the entire topic of Ayn Rand for an appropriate length of time by any uninvolved administrator or have any other remedy reasonably tailored to the circumstances imposed, such as a revert limitation. Similarly, an uninvolved administrator may impose a topic ban, revert limitation, or other appropriate sanction against any other editor who edits Ayn Rand or related articles or pages disruptively, provided that a warning has first been given with a link to this decision.
Both experienced and new editors on articles related to Ayn Rand are cautioned that this topic has previously been the subject of disruptive editing by both admirers and critics of Rand's writings and philosophy. Editors are reminded that when working on highly contentious topics like this one, it is all the more important that all editors adhere to fundamental Wikipedia policies. They are encouraged to make use of the dispute resolution process, including mediation assistance from Mediation Cabal or the Mediation Committee, in connection with any ongoing disputes or when serious disputes arise that cannot be resolved through the ordinary editing process.
For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 03:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
thank you for for your input. as a new editor, being involved with an arbcom case has been an an enlightening experience Brushcherry ( talk) 10:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)brushcherry
User:TallNapoleon has opened a new discussion on misconduct on the Ayn Rand talkpage. Here is a link. [4] Please respond if you can, as the editing group I am addressing is doing nothing positive for the article but rather is being disruptive, obstructionistic and destructive. LoveMonkey ( talk) 14:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)