User talk:Yopienso

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, Yopienso, 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:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.
Este es el formato normal de bienvenida que está en inglés y es de mucha ayuda cuando uno recién comienza a conocer Wikipedia.
Muchas gracias por escribir tus comentarios en el discussion page antes de editar el artículo. Aunque en principio en Wikipedia se permite editar con libertad, cuando no se está seguro es mejor discutir primero en el discussion(talk) page del artículo. De nuevo bienvenida (o bienvenido, no se jeje)  Rosa 19:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)



Re: Charles R. Burton[edit]

I admit that WMC's edits here and here are problematic, but he seems to think you are following him around to annoy him. Now, it's possible he doesn't have as many good interactions with you that Dave and I do, so maybe he doesn't know how wonderful you are. :) But if you see it from his POV, he probably feels like he is being stalked. Any chance you can clear this up with him? I mean, I'm on your side, his edits are somewhat eccentric, but maybe you could make nice with him? Viriditas (talk) 03:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The friendly overture I made by private email to him several years ago was rebuffed. Later, he sent me an email accusing me of malice here, where there was none. I would gladly "make nice with him" but he prefers to consider me his enemy. I do not consider him my enemy, however, and have no desire to antagonize him or make his experience at WP or anywhere else unpleasant. He improved the opening sentence structure by joining two short sentences and inserting the words "best known for," so I was happy to let that stand. I just wasn't willing to let him remove "explorer" in the face of RSs that used that word. Seemed to me he was discrediting Burton and harming rather than building the encyclopedia. I generally make a point of not engaging with him since that prevents disputes; this one time I did.
In any case, it's nice seeing you again, and I appreciate your continued cordiality. Yopienso (talk) 06:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I understand. BTW, are you still interested in working on Tommaso Campanella? How is your Italian these days? :) Viriditas (talk) 08:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I haven't looked at him for ages. The article I keep trying to leave alone is Thomas Jefferson. I manage to stay away for awhile but seem to have a homing instinct for it. Right now I'm examining Russia from 1917-22, not necessarily, but also, at WP. Reading a couple of Sheila Fitzpatrick books and indignant writers from St. Vladimir's Seminary. Yopienso (talk) 17:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Art historian controversy[edit]

Any interest in writing about the Obama/Rubio et al. art historian controversy? Viriditas (talk) 00:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you think that's encyclopedic? 04:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, considering it's part of the overarching STEM vs. social sciences debate which favors the subversion of the educational system as a fabrication plant for constructing collectivist, conformist worker bees who obey and do what they are told like robots, rather than as free, critically thinking individuals who question authority and do what is right as human beings. Art historians have the unique ability to see what humanity shares in common across cultures in cooperation with each other, rather than the ability to focus on our differences and prepare us for war. That's why they are such a threat to the corporate power structure. The more art historians we have, the more peaceful our culture becomes, and the less demand for war and destruction. I was just talking about this with someone who graduated from Stanford after WWII on the G.I. Bill. Back then, they went to university to become informed citizens who would eventually contribute to the betterment of society by improving their knowledge and understanding of the world. They did not become educated to become better consumers or to learn to sell products that people didn't need or want. The entire system has been turned on its head. Viriditas (talk) 02:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
This is ironic--you're the S in STEM, right? I'm the history in social sciences. (Art history is a field I've dabbled in and appreciate but am no expert in. I'm no expert historian, either, but history is my field.) Yet you seem more adamant against STEM than I. Actually, I'm not against STEM at all, just sorry the social sciences are being excluded from the government's thrust of a more highly-educated populace. I disapprove of the unequal opportunities for students today and the unfairly low remuneration for educators, but we do need the STEM courses. It's interesting to me that Bill Gates and Steve Jobs accomplished so much in STEM without much formal education. Most people, though, aren't geniuses and have to earn credentials in order to secure employment. Obama did make a point of apologizing and explaining that he appreciates art history.
In the social science courses, it seems to me students are not so much opened up and taught to think critically, but indoctrinated into liberalism. The "liberalism" to which I refer is a defined, boxed-in, leftist political opinion, not the freedom and fruit of unfettered, wide-ranging, deeply-probing thought. I think the "informed citizens" of yesteryear were likewise indoctrinated into conservatism. Have you read Allan Bloom's The Closing of the American Mind? He would be a case in point.
I don't really see where this would fit in the encyclopedia; what is the title of the article[s] you have in mind? Yopienso (talk) 04:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm not against STEM at all. I think you misunderstood my point. It's not an either or situation. The arts and the humanities, including music, are all severely threatened in the US now, because certain people think they are no longer important. Perhaps you aren't aware of how dire the situation is now. Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics should be integrated into the arts and humanities curriculum, of that I have no qualms (see mathematics and art, for example). But to demean them as unimportant and unnecessary as Obama and others continue to do? I'm sorry, but I can't go along with it. The arts and humanities represent the highest pinnacles of human culture and the best of what we have to offer. Viriditas (talk) 05:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

DR process[edit]

I realize you are learning, and that's good, but the dispute resolution process requires one to attempt to generate consensus in an RFC or content-oriented noticeboard before escalating things to ANI. That's why I recommended the RFC on the talk page. ANI is generally where you go when all other options have failed. You have at least two options open right now, a content oriented noticeboard and an article RFC. I can help you file one if you like, but you may want to learn how to do it yourself. Keep it simple and brief, such as "Should Charles R. Burton be described as an explorer in the lead section?" Follow the instructions at this link.[1] Viriditas (talk) 20:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. I'll try it myself. Check the Burton page in a few minutes to see if I've got it right. Yopienso (talk) 21:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail![edit]

Hello, Yopienso. Please check your email – you've got mail!
Message added 10:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Peridon (talk) 10:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Hiss history edit[edit]

Check the history. I'll gladly accept your apology should you tender one.

Unclear what "check the history" means. I clicked on "view history" at top of page & found a list of edits, but couldn't grok what was being done/undone. How about a before & after to help me see what happened. DEddy (talk) 20:55, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, we'll do this is a couple of steps.
1. Click on "view history." Scan down the list till you see:
06:44, 23 February 2014‎ DEddy (talk | contribs)‎ . . (64,006 bytes) (-587)‎ . . (Schrecker published before Haunted Wood) (undo | thank)
It will be easy to spot because the (-587) will be in red. That shows you deleted 587 characters. When you add something, the number of characters added is in green.
I see that, but I do not see whatever it was I'm alleged to have deleted. If I did delete something it was not deliberately. Since I cannot see what I deleted, you have my permission to put it back. DEddy (talk) 03:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
2. Click on the radio button to the left of that line, and then on the bar at the top that says, "Compare selected revisions." That opens up what are called "diffs." Now, there's probably a better way to do this, but the only way I know is that once you're on the diff page, you click the hyperlink, "Previous revision." Highlighted in a cream color on the left is what I wrote; on the right is the blank that shows you deleted that portion.
3. If you keep clicking through "Next edit" you can see I had trouble restoring it; undoing also deleted your comment.
OK, another point: whenever you add a comment to a talk page or edit an article page, you should leave what's called an "edit summary" so changes are easier to track. It's a white blank at the bottom of the page you are editing. There are guidelines for edit summaries.
Hope that helps. Cheers! Yopienso (talk) 21:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts to lead me though this process, but it's way too convoluted for me to retain. I cannot see what was there, & what evidently I undid/deleted. You have my permission to revert. If I have to figure out what to revert, it's likely to take a looooooong time. DEddy (talk) 12:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

As I said just above, I already restored what you accidentally reverted. Click right here and you'll see that you deleted the shaded part on the left when you added a comment.
Please do click on the link above to learn how to make edit summaries. Doing so is all part of the process of being a good Wikipedian. Yopienso (talk) 15:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
I certainly appreciate your efforts here to convert the heathen, but you're swimming against the tide. For certain I have the Wiki editor as a YAWE—yet another wonky editor—that I'm not going to learn other than superficially. I'm impressed that you seem to know the nuances. In depth knowledge of this specific editor is just not on my todo list. Too many other equally wonky editors ahead of Wiki. DEddy (talk) 16:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you![edit]

A small cup of coffee.JPG Thnx for the helping hand at the Gore effect Serten (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks; coffee happens to be my favorite beverage/addiction. Yopienso (talk) 20:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)