User talk:Aesculapius75: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Sparkly Bubbles |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
:) |
|||
== The Cheshire cat, gone but NEVER forgotten. == |
|||
Dear Asclape, |
|||
Should you disappear, the Wiki community will be far less without you. Even though you made perhaps a couple of mistakes, you have added far far more, even by what might have been mistakes. I hope that the [[Cheshire cat]] comes back again, because I would miss him if he didn't. At least he came back in [[Alice in Wonderland]]. |
|||
Cheers, |
|||
-[[User:Scottperry|Scott P.]] 18:24, August 11, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
==Regarding Leaving, Parodi page, etc.== |
|||
Thanks for the note. I suppose what I resented hearing was this nonsense the others were saying, such as that my page was a malicious hack job, that I got my own father's ethnicity wrong, and that I was trying to ride the coat tails of his "marginal fame." There was a lot of bizarre reading into that situation. |
|||
My father is neither marginally famous (had any of you ever heard of him?), and I was not trying to ride his coat tails. Lastly, my grandfather came from Italy, meaning that my father (and myself) are quite correctly "of Italian descent." It was just a bizarre experience to not only be accused of these strange things, but to have the accusors then have the right to ban me -- and to top it off, accuse me of "vandalism" because I didn't agree with their editing ''on the page that I started''. "Vandalism" seems to be the favorite word around these parts. It sometimes seems that some people tend to forget that Wikipedia is a place where anyone can edit. "Vandalism" seems to mean "editing I don't agree with." |
|||
I don't know. I think I'll just browse and read this site from now on, rather than contribute. It gets too frustrating to contribute something and then be accused of nonsensical motives. [[User:Aesculapius75|Aesculapius75]] 21:59, 11 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
== Regarding the definition of the term "vandalism" and more. == |
|||
Dear Asclape, |
|||
I agree that sometimes the wrong words get used to describe the wrong things. Sometimes the word 'vandalism' gets used to describe edits that were really just 'unencyclopedic'. I just did a Google search on Michael Parodi and found that he is really fairly well known on the Internet, with several pages linking to him. Apparently he is indeed a 'little' famous. The way I think Wiki views the distinction between what makes good 'encyclopedic' material and what does not is this: |
|||
"If Britannica were able to afford a staff of 10,000 editors (instead of the staff they probably have of only a few hundred), then would Britannica include this info in their encyclopedia, and approximately how would the article read?" |
|||
Also regarding who starts a page, such a thing really has no bearing on whatever edits might go into it later. Starting an article is kind of like the smile that went around the world. All you do is smile once, and then after that, it's no longer up to you. |
|||
Take care my friend, |
|||
-[[User:Scottperry|Scott P.]] 00:11, August 12, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
==Response RE: Michael Parodi article== |
|||
Yes, there's a lot of information about my father on the Internet, but in my opinion that hardly qualifies as "famous." People within the relatively narrow world of semiconductors ''might'' know my father's name. But the average joe has never heard of him. Therefore, the comment that I was trying to "ride on his coat tails" was a type of surrealism of which [[Salvador Dali]] would be envious. |
|||
I suppose what messed with my mind was the accusation that the page was malicious against my father (when I'm the one who started it), and that I got his ethnicity wrong. I tend to be rather touchy about things to do with Italy, I suppose. Have you seen my edits to the page [[Italian American]]? |
|||
I'm glad to see that someone else agrees that this world "vandalism" gets thrown around FAR too often on this site. It's as though they've forgotten the very basis of Wikipedia -- ''that anyone can edit''. [[User:Aesculapius75|Aesculapius75]] 00:30, 12 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
== Writing about self and family in Wiki == |
|||
Well, after I put the link to your article back into the Parodi Sr. External Links section the other user, Calton, apparently was so set in his mind that this cannot be done, he reverted it twice. I'm not going to fight him since the question about this is perhaps bordering on the edges of Wiki policy. What I mean by this is that it still appears as a "vanity" link, at least to him, and apparently probably will always appear that way, because: |
|||
# That type of link is fairly uncommon in the first place in a Wiki article, even when it is inserted by a regular Wiki editor. |
|||
# When it is inserted by the person that the link points to, then all sorts of red flags start to go up, questioning whether or not it is a "vanity" link. If articles and links like this were allowed in Wiki, reading Wiki would be as if you opened the Britannica and found a good part of it devoted to the authors of the Britannica themselves. I've read lots of Britannica, and I have never seen an article that was about any of its editors, at least that made that apparent. Actually if I opened Britannica and found such articles, I would never buy it again, as that's not what I read Britannica for. |
|||
Even though anyone can edit Wiki, the trick is, not anyone can edit Wiki and have their edits 'stick'. As you have recently found out. If that were the case, Wiki wouldn't be the best online encyclopedia in the world today, and it wouldn't be likely to one day replace Britannica itself. |
|||
I know that almost whenever I edit at Wiki, I am challenged by others. A continual process. Personally I find such challenges stimulating, and I find that by attempting to find some sort of a middle compromise, the end result is usually better than what I initially intended. |
|||
At any rate, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for any apologies from any of the other editors for inaccurate word usage, describing some of their edits. If peace depended on such things, we would all be in a lot of doo doo. When the other editors saw someone creating an article about his father, red flags started going up. When they saw someone inserting links throughout Wiki leading back to his own personal pages, and the like, the black flag of ban came down! Oh well, I hope that you might eventaully come back to editing some of the other articles, making them better. |
|||
Take care, |
|||
-[[User:Scottperry|Scott P.]] 01:11, August 12, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
==People who need a life== |
|||
Why should it matter who makes the page? If the page is factual, then what is the difference? Rhetorical question, by the way. I don't really care enough about this topic to even dissect it any further. |
|||
I hate to put it this way, but it seems to me that there are some people who edit on this site who need a life. Indeed, some red flags went up for people -- but what exactly was the red flag indicating? That, horror of horrors, someone was linking to a page on Amazon.com? Meanwhile, of course, there is a page about [[amazon.com]] on Wikipedia. |
|||
We go through all this sort of nit-picky nonsense back on Amazon.com. They have policies there, but ultimately everything is to the whim of individual editors of Amazon.com. It's all very subjective. (There was a time when you couldn't use the words "gay" or "Hitler" in your Amazon reviews. At that very point, some reviews were sneaking by with words like "fuck" and "shit" in them. There were cases where people weren't even allowed to mention book titles in the reviews of the books.) So, I'm afraid I don't need to deal with this on two sites. |
|||
Something humorous occurred to me in the last hour: if fame is what I was looking for by making that page about my father, then boy am I troubled and clueless person. The last thing anyone looking for fame should do is sit on their ass and create pages on Wikipedia. [[User:Aesculapius75|Aesculapius75]] 01:56, 12 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
== Fighting City Hall == |
|||
Dear Asclape, |
|||
I would bet that while those Amazon.com policies that were perhaps a bit 'odd' were in place, you observed them, whether you agreed with them or not. Personally, if I were Jimbo Wales who is the final 'dictator' of Wiki policy, and its primary benefactor (he started Wiki purely as a volunteer act, with his own funds, not asking anyone who edits here for payment) I might do things slightly differently here or there, but by in large, obviously the man is a genuis, as evidenced by the tremendous success of Wiki thus far. So, whether we agree with Wiki policies or not, we all try to follow them here, and by and large they seem to work. |
|||
Wiki may not be a print encyclopedia, but if you were to continue the projection of its popularity over the next few years, based on the past rate of continually expanding hits, hits that are expanding exponentially each month, it can easily be seen that within the next few years Wiki will become far more popular than Britannica. So, it may not be real, but in the minds of the general public, it will be more 'real' than Britannica one day. |
|||
They are now considering deleting the whole article about your dad as a result of the bru-haha that is surrounding that page about how Wiki policy defines "vanity" edits, and your continued insistence that Wiki policy is flawed and therefore ought to be ignored in this case. ''You can't fight city hall'' as they say. It's just not worth it. So, not that I agree with their motion to delete the whole page, but neither am I going to argue that it be retained. The only reason I say this is because I thought you might want to know this. |
|||
Sometimes it seems to me that the best route to take is to simply do the best we can within the rules and guidelines that the 'system' asks that we stay within, whether we agree with these rules or not. |
|||
Take care, |
|||
-[[User:Scottperry|Scott P.]] 09:15, August 12, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
==Deleting, Amazon, rules, city hall== |
|||
About writing reviews on Amazon.com, all of us reviewers have perfected the art of breaking rules all the time. You see, the rules at Amazon.com are so inconsistent, so inconsistently enforced, often so silly, and the volume of reviews is so huge, that most of us get away with whatever we want -- short of the totally inappropriate (e.g., phone numbers, etc.). |
|||
About "fighting city hall," I'm actually glad I did because I hope the page gets deleted. It became a big ugly eye sore. Look on the deletion page request and see that I added my name to the list. Please do me a favor and cast a vote for deletion as well. The page became an embarrassing nightmare. |
|||
I'll most likely browse wikipedia now and then for the information, but I'm not going to edit anymore because it's a thankless job and I hate arguing. (On the [[Bradley Nowell]] someone got in a tiff with me as to whether a band "embarks on tour" or "embarks ON a tour." What a waste of time!) [[User:Aesculapius75|Aesculapius75]] 14:45, 12 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
== The edges of Wiki == |
|||
Yes, now I see what may have happened. You had an Amazon.com mindset, and tried to apply that to Wiki. No can do 'brah'. As they say in Hawaii. My theory is that Wiki editors are probably a far more regimented lot than the Amazon.com editors, because of two things: |
|||
# We have a far more highly focused and well defined set of goals and a role model, which, whether we like it or not is a print-encyclopedia, and ideally the best print-encyclopedia, Britannica. |
|||
# Because on a certain level this is really our role model, I think that Jimbo Wales, when he first started this whole thing, was able to write some most excellent guidelines, and in the beginning to effectively enforce these guidelines himself, so that as you have seen, to this day these guidelines are highly respected and attempted to be followed by nearly all of us here. |
|||
Perhaps on some level you were trying to 'push the edge' as they say, just to see what you could and couldn't get away with. Well, maybe now you know. At Wiki you can't push the edge very much and get away with it for very long. |
|||
Take care my friend, |
|||
-[[User:Scottperry|Scott P.]] 17:29, August 12, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
== Digital alteration of Arun Gandhi photo == |
|||
User aesculpus, with your permission, I have altered photo at [[Arun_Gandhi]] page so that we might be able to preserve best qualities of photo, without having to crop it up. May we have your kind permission to use like this? [[User:Fotogenii|Fotogenii]] 20:10, 12 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
== Arun Gandhi picture == |
|||
Sure. Use it if you want. But I must add that the crop is very odd, as it leaves my hand resting on Sunanda's right shoulder. Lest someone mistake the Gandhis for the Addams Family, my had for Thing. (There's no way anyone would think that is Arun's hand, because it is about five shades lighter than his face.) |
|||
I ask you, my dear Wikipedians, which is worse: to allow for the publication of a photo that depicts an editor engages in an activity that directly corresponds to the text of an article (the article mentions that they teach about Nonviolence), or to distort the picture to make both Arun and Sunanda look like freaks? |
|||
The crop is very bizarre. They look like they are candle effigies of themselves, melting into one another. Is this [[Madame Tussaud]]? Are Americans ruminants? [[User:Aesculapius75|Aesculapius75]] 20:28, 12 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
== Thing? Ruminants? == |
|||
User aesculpus, I am not certain what you mean by Thing, but I looked up 'ruminants' and it appear you not really approving of this. Thanks, it will probably have the cropped up version used when all is finished. -[[User:Fotogenii|Fotogenii]] 20:38, 12 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:So sorry, not meaning to make problems. I read about Thing. Very very funny! So sorry to make bad photo. I read about Nin, but could not find 'ruminants'. Is OK. Thanks for telling about Thing. I going to read more about Addams family now. So long. |
|||
:[[User:Fotogenii|Fotogenii]] 21:34, 12 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
== A link to the 'Vanity Guidelines'. == |
|||
Dear Asclape, |
|||
Someone should have sent this link to you a long time ago. I suppose it is all of our faults for not being as familiar with where to find and use this info as we should have been. At any rate, please check out if you get the chance [[WP:VAIN| Wikipedia vanity guidelines]]. I apologize for my earlier ignorance on this topic. Your questions have hopefully helped me to become less ignorant on it. |
|||
Your questions about where to find these guidelines have been good, and I am certain they have helped me, and possibly many others involved in all of this who may now read these guidelines to become more familiar with them. The reason I say this is because I must admit, when I first saw the ''Vanity Guidelines'' page, I thought it needed a little improvement, which I did, especially bearing in mind all of the issues that of your recent well-put questions have brought up. In my not so humble opinion, I think that this recent sequence of events has/ will result in a great deal of good for the Wiki community in the future, as some of the excellent questions which you have raised as a result of these events may never have been so articulately asked before. |
|||
Again, your insightful input, questions, concerns and edits have all been helpful for me, and perhaps for others. I know that I have learned and grown a great deal from all of this, though I hate those ''growing pains'' that always seem to come with this um.... stuff, if you know what I mean.... :) |
|||
-[[User:Scottperry|Scott P.]] 03:01, August 13, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
== Sparkly Bubbles == |
|||
Please don't do that again. Why not work on other stuff and leave the [[Michael Parodi]] page alone for a while? It's very hard to keep one's distance when one has a personal involvement in a page. Also, please don't blank talk pages. It's rude and just ends in wasting the time of whoever unblanks it, which in this case was me. [[User:Philip Arthur|Philip Arthur]] 06:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||