- Someday, that is, after the hubbub dies down. It will get lost in the shuffle otherwise. -- But|seriously|folks 20:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I've done the work I want to for the time being. Although I'll be keeping an eye on the page for a while. What I've written hasn't addressed your interest around how MT exploited her image, took money from dubious sources etc. Please go ahead and write that. I actually have some real work to do and should be getting on with that rather than researching this interesting aspect of her.--Peter cohen 14:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. You're probably well out of MT. There are new arrivals on the page who are going through a similar emotional experience to the one I had. I had a brief look at the Images discussion, it looks potentially even more stormy than MT. Good luck--Peter cohen 23:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
please refactor your coment
Re: your reply here at the Intelligent Design talk page. Please take out the word lying (change to whatever. . . 'misinforming' or something). For these images to be included as most think they should be, the comments need to be above reproach. Some will consider it a personal attack in violation of WP:NPA. And there's no telling where this issue might end up, it is highly divisive across multiple articles. Just a suggestion and thanks, R. Baley 23:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- 'Misleading' or 'Misinforming' is still lying. I have a hard time coddling the deletionists any more. Partly because I abhor censorship (which this is), partly because their tactics are disruptive and abusive to the article, and partly because after a month their nonsense persists. I'm all for free images, but at the expense of everything else, no. If they were serious they work to define NFCC in clear, easy to understand terms and apply it uniformly accross wikipedia, and not just Intelligent Design. But after watching NFCC I fail to see any progress torwards this. -01:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your note on my talk page. I am concerned about several things in this incident, including Adam's blanking of talk page discussion. It would be one thing if he moved it elsewhere, but it's a bad idea to just blank multiple other users' comments unless those comments are blatant personal attacks or the like. As Adam notes, the block has expired, and the user is free to edit again. It's my hope he can become a productive user. However, edits like this worry me as pretty POV.
The other thing that concerns me is the AN/I suggestion that you should be reprimanded for starting the thread, and the talk page comment on my page that your actions should be a matter of concern. I haven't seen anything in your contributions that should be a matter for concern. Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 04:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comment. I think also the fact that this statement was not rebuked by others is telling. Wikipedia places too high a value on things that do not matter (aka quantity versus quality of edits) versus those things that really do matter like holding editors to higher standard. Rather than attacking the messenger, they need to pay attention to the message. But I feel this endemic of widescale detoriation of the enclyclopedia, which may be caused by fundamental structural flaws. -Nodekeeper 19:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for help- too bad I was bullied. I still maintain my edits weren't POV , other than to the those with totally biased frame of mind- ramsmenon Ramsmenon 19:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramsmenon (talk • contribs) 11:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC) 19:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- Your welcome. Even though the proper outcome was not achieved, it was a learning lesson for me. I feel bad that as a new user user you were exposed to the ugly underbelly of Wikipedia. Unfortunately you learned how bias is put into articles, when a group of editors can chase away others who want to present a complete picture. Also you can see, the time investment (i.g. providing proper citations and research) can be prohibitive for many, with few rewards. Both of these things ultimately work to make Wikipedia an unreliabel information source. Controversial articles have little value because of this. -Nodekeeper 19:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Shifting Bottleneck Heuristic
Nodekeeper, I was wondering if you could take some time to look over my article, Shifting Bottleneck Heuristic. It is my first article posted on Wikipedia and I want to make sure it is a good one. Any feedback you can provide on the article would be greatly appreciated. Thanks and I look forward to hearing from you.
Andrew Schultz 22:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- I apologize for being unable to contribute improvements for that article. In the wake of increasingly defective policy decisions, I have difficulty spending any time on Wikipedia when I have other obligations I need to tend to. I am unable to say when I can get to that article. -Nodekeeper 19:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Wow, seeker of truth you are not. The previous whole paragraph is indefensible. I have since done better than "Because I said so," but I know that it's impossible to change the mind of a determined revisionist. Oh, and when you can't control yourself and flip it back, please explain yourself on the talk page for that article. Nodekeeper (talk) 12:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure what the goal of the criticism tag is, but it seems if you only have a "con" section but not a "pro" section it can be seen as undue weight. I think that listing the advantages and disadvantages of programming languages may be worthwhile, but I have a hard time seeing how that can be done without resorting to extensive weasel phrases and subjective opinions. Also, "criticism" is a slightly loaded term (which is why I'd prefer slightly more neutral terms like the ones I mentioned above (advantages, ..). You also mentioned that you feel that the section needs to be expanded; what specifically did you have in mind? Nczempin (talk) 09:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- There has been this constant drone of criticism of C++ (and C for that matter) since both of these languages have been invented. Every once in awhile I will happen on this complaint or editorial in some trade journal about these languages. As a more recent noticeable example of this is Linus Torvalds' famous rant about C++. Now whether or not he is right or not is up for question, but regardless he is just one of many. It's not hard to see how this can lengthen the article considerably.
- This really isn't new. Here's stuff from the nineties
- Really, this could subject of an entire new article itself. I currently do not have the time resource to present a balanced, historical, researched analysis. But I do know that the section that is there should probably be expanded. It should be remembered that the point is not a "language war" per se on Wikipedia, but having the goal of informing the reader completely and letting him make the judgement himself. "Weasel words" have nothing to do with this, as I am merely stating historical observations. I very much agree that the word "criticism" is a loaded term (and perhaps should be changed). But my main goal was to call it to the attention to those editors who could pursue improving the article in this area. Nodekeeper (talk) 14:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
White Collar Season 6 renewal: care to chime in?
I've gotten into a similar dispute with Drmargi about including information on the Season 6 renewal. Care to chime in on the White Collar talk page? Maybe we can convince her to include it? --Cxwong (talk) 08:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- It seems pretty ridiculous really. Actually the whole first paragraph should be rewritten. I've been hoping the USA network would make a decision already, then return to editing the article. But apparently the parent network NBCUniversal these days is cancelling shows outright. Regardless, you're right, the other editor needs to be more willing to be collaborate. Nodekeeper (talk) 08:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Do not restore the Deadline article. It is out of date, and reports what were, but its own admission, unofficial rumors as of yesterday. As such, it does not pass WP:RS, and supposed local consensus cannot over-ride that. Zap2it carries the current, official USA press release and is reliable. Moreover, the season was not shortened; nothing in either article says that. Rather, USA only ordered six episodes this season, and the lede is accurate as the posting editor phrased it. Please do not edit war over such trivialities. --Drmargi (talk) 03:25, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- (also posted at my talkpage) I agree with Drmargi's continuing removal of said Deadline source. I also have been one to remove it, as it clearly states "There is no official word yet, but I hear the network and series producer Fox TV Studios are finalizing the deal." The difference between that and the current/most recent TVBTN source? "The network also announced that it has renewed fan-favorite White Collar for a sixth season." The network officially announced it. — Wyliepedia 05:27, 22 March 2014 (UTC)