User talk:Founders4: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:26, 25 May 2009

This is to provide a start for the Founders4 talk page.

RE:People's Park, Berkeley

Well, did I make any controversial comments? I was just asking users to sign their names after each message! However, I notice that you are new and did not receive a formal welcome message. So here it is:

Welcome!

Hello, Founders4, 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:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 07:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you are right! Remember, you have only just started editing so learn the basics first. Take your time to read the policies of Wikipedia and be bold in your editing. I have been editing for more than 3 months now and I am still learning. Talk about yourself or your interest in your user page. If you need any advise, I am always glad to help. However, try not to vandalize pages or articles as this may get you banned from edting (usually for a period of 24hours first). Nevertheless, always remember to sign your name after every message you create as this is basic Wikipedia courtesy. Good luck! --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 09:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for experimenting with the page Stelle, Illinois on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Prodego ^talk 22:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding images to articles

Sure, no problem. To add an image to an article first an image with the appropriate licensing information has to be uploaded onto either Wikipedia, or the Commons. For simplicity's sake, I'll use an already uploaded image, Example.jpg, as an example. Adding an image is pretty simple, just make a link to the image. You would make a link this: [[Go here link!]], so to make a picture use: [[Image:Example.jpg]], or whatever image you want to use. You can also add frames, captions, re-size images, ect, which is explained here, if you have any questions, let me know! Prodego ^talk 22:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did this help, if you want to test, you can use my sandbox, or make your own Prodego ^talk 22:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is one more thing you need to do, to make sure the image isn't deleted. You need to add a licence info tag to the image page, the full list of tags is here. This is to make sure there is no copyright infringement on the site. Images without tags are usually deleted after 7 days. Prodego ^talk 22:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think {{Promotional}} is the right template, as the website doesn't say the image isn't copyrighted, we have to assume it is. Prodego ^talk 22:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right where "{{untagged|month=April|day=27|year=2006}}" is now. Prodego ^talk 23:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as where the tag is, that is good. But beyond that, whether the tag is correct, is your responsibility, you uploaded it. I can suggest which tag I think is correct, but it is your job to make sure it is correct. But yes, if that is the tag you think is right, then it was properly done. Congrats on uploading (and using) your first image! Prodego ^talk 23:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Arial1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Arial1.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Waco Siege-related terminology

Hey, first of all, yep, your message on my talk page worked just fine. The first time you'd put it in without a title, so it looked at first like you were adding to the previous topic; when you edited the second time and inserted "==Just left a message on your talk page==", it separated out your message. (Incidentally, when leaving messages on talk pages, you can just click that littlel "+" symbol at the top of the page, and leave a message almost as thoug you're writing an email, with the subject line provided for you.)

I changed the instances of "church" back to "compound" because, while "compound" may have some negative connotations, IMO it's more immediately accurate than "church", as churches tend not to be residential in nature, whereas this facility was. There are other, more neutral words I've seen used -- ranch, facility -- but then again, the word I've heard most often used in the media and in conversation is "compound". What are your thoughts?

Oh, btw, when you get a chance, you should think about putting something on your userpage. That way, when you sign things on talk pages, your name shows up blue instead of red, and you can tell the rest of the community a bit more about yourself. Let me know if you'd want a hand setting that up. Cheers, JDoorj a m Talk 14:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlist

There isn't a way that I'm aware of to get changes on your watchlist emailed to you, unfortunately. I imagine it's a server load issue: there are so many pages on so many watchlists (for instance, I have nearly 300 pages on my watch list) that it would sap a whole lot of horsepower out of the 'pedia to email people when their pages changed. They might also be concerned that emailing out changes would encourage people to feel like they own certain pages, which is generally discouraged. I know for my sake at that it's probably healthier I don't immediately know about changes being made to some of the pages I hold most dear: it helps cut down on my Wikistress to remember that I may feel like a protective parent over some articles, but that doesn't mean I have legal custody. ("It's 3PM. Do you know where your Wikipedia article is?") Sorry I couldn't be of more help, JDoorj a m Talk 03:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flower children

Hey, Founders4. I just redirected the article to an existing article on the same subject under a different name. Feel free to make any additions you feel are needed to Flower child. -- Vary | Talk 18:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Vary. Did make some additions and added some comments to your Talk page.Founders4 08:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Becuase it is commonly used in the singular today, and per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Prefer_singular_nouns, the article should probably remain at Flower child. Second and subsequent words in article titles are almost always lower case, unless the article title is a proper noun.

I've moved some stuff from later parts of the article into the intro, and removed the song lyrics, which are copyrighted and can't be included in the article. The few lines included in Summer of Love probably qualify as fair use, but I don't think it's quite as appropriate here, and using such a large segment of the song wouldn't fall under fair use anyway. -- Vary | Talk 13:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vary. I understand the changes you made, and the article does seem tighter with your revisions. And I appreciate the "fair use" issue.

However I do believe the article loses too much without at least some of the songs lyrics and mention of the explosive nature of its worldwide popularity. Although it was written to promote the Monterey Pop Festival, it achieved an identity of its own that transcended its original intent--most people, including myself, appreciated the song (and its message) on its own merits and knew nothing of its origins. That's why so many thousands came to San Francisco that summer. Not much time this A.M., though I will try to write something that achieves some middle ground later this evening. Please let me know your thoughts. Founders4 17:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I would like to de-emphasize the link between "Flower Children" and "hippies," as the two were not quite synonomous and conjure up somewhat different images. The former carries more of the lighter "peace/love" spirit of the period between 1964 and 1968, whereas the latter is associated more with the negative drug use, general dissolution and political violence that began to spoil things by the late 1960's.Founders4 17:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reference markup

There's two different markups being mixed there: the <ref></ref> footnote markup and the {{cite web}} formatting template. Essentially, the first contains any text that should appear in a footnote, and can contain notes as well as references. All it does is hide it inside a numbered link and then make the text appear wherever the associated <references/> is inserted. Documentation for it can be found in Wikipedia:Citing sources#Footnotes and Wikipedia:Footnotes. The second is just a way of consistently formatting references throughout Wikipedia by using a template to arrange the pieces of information that make up a reference. It's not necessary, but it makes for nice reference sections. Documentation on how to use the cite web template can be found at Template:Cite web with example uses at Template talk:Cite web. And, of course, feel free to ask for practical clarifications on those if that doesn't fully answer your question!

I do like refining and tidying things up. Not so good at original copy, but the tidying—yeah, I can handle that. :-) — Saxifrage ✎ 17:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citation at Hippie

Hi GT,

You added a "citation needed" tag to a section on "Travel" which I wrote for the "Hippie" article. Not sure what an appropriate citation might be. What I wrote was based on my own experience, as well as the experience of thousands of others. What did you have in mind? Please inform. Thanks. Founders4 15:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I added that tag, unsure whether the content was based on personal experience, or what. Have you read our policy No original research? The idea is that we don't really accept information based on people's own experience because such information isn't verifiable, per our policy Verifiability. In particular: "People generally co-operated to meet each other's needs in ways that were seldom seen before 1965 or after 1971." How do we know that's true? Is there any kind of reliable source making that claim? -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess so

"Hi Macarion, Although I didn't write "discrimination against religion," I did complete an earlier edit of this paragraph. I think the original author is referring to the discrimination many religious people feel at the hands of more secular people, and I think it is true that an increasing number of American teens are opposed to this sort of "discrimination against religion." Please let me know what you think. Thanks. Founders4 09:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)"

just secular =/= liberal, but whatever

Counterculture

Sorry I came over a bit hot headed in my first post reply to you; it was accidental and my sometimes flippant use of strong language...meaning little; bark worse than bite n all that. But I just felt the need to say sorry for my own inner peace, and also cuz you sound like a really nice guy. Hope that is OK with you? I will try and add something to the article in due course, as you kindly suggested. thanks Peter morrell 09:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have extended and clarified the definition of counterculture which you might like to think about and amend as necessary. perhaps it needs further thinking about. cheers Peter morrell 07:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, that's great no worries; looks good I vote to leave your edits as good. Will meanwhile start work on the British stuff and let you see it before I insert that additional section. cheers Peter morrell 11:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

have just smoothed and trimmed the text of the intro along the lines you suggested. hope you approve! thanks Peter morrell 08:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to receive your useful feedback, but I think the way forward now is for you to make the next edit. hope this is OK. I am not especially precious about previous stuff I added. we get there in the end, I hope. Go ahead and be bold! if you wish. It's completely fine by me. I am trying to compile a booklist on this topic too. thanks Peter morrell 09:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks that's all OK I will try and write a short philosophy thing as you suggest and incorporate the quotes I had previously used. Good idea BTW. Yeah fertile collaboration better than conflict forsure! more later I guess. cheers

Peter morrell 11:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I will bounce a few ideas off you later for the new sections. Knowing your Christian name might be helpful? thanks Peter morrell 12:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, I will call you that for now, I think your edit was a bit savage but no worries, cuz I agree we need to leave the complex stuff out of the intro. I will try and find time this week and compile a booklist and a new section on the ethos behind counterculture so those quotes and perhaps a few more can be included. I reckon one of the major themes has to be a sense of disenchantment us counterculture types feel with science and technology, for example, and this theme is strong among hippies and folks like Theordore Roszak amongst others. what say you? thanks Peter morrell 19:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Walter for your contact details I will mail you later. I have to lengthen it and include publication dates and details to that bibliography next...it was taking so long and is now a 2 stage process. Then it needs the UK stuff adding on the 60s decade. So there is much to do on that next. Then I will start the stuff we spoke about before. best! Peter morrell 06:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I botched up the bibliography a wee bit if you would like to check it and clean it up for me I would be massively grateful; it was a mission just to get all the info, but maybe later I will try adding some UK based listings to even things up. I will try your email in a minute. best! Peter morrell 08:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hippie / Wolof

I think this was meant for you. Surazeus (talk · contribs) might have accidentally left it on my page by clicking the link in the welcome message I left him. Btw, great work on the article. Keep it up. Cheers, and happy editing!-- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}15:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural movement

You added "though not a cohesive cultural movement with well-defined leaders and manifestos", back into Hippie after I removed it. In fact, there were well-defined leaders and manifestos, so I'm not understanding this statement. However, this was not a cultural movement, but a countercultural movement that spread around the world. This statement is supported by various sources, including Britannica. —Viriditas | Talk 21:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't write the original sentence, but I do believe it conveys an important reality about what the hippie counterculture movement was all about. When you objected to the starkness of the original sentence, I added the qualifier "well-defined" to differentiate between movements that have strong centers and this one, which did not.

The problem with writing about what happened during the hippie era is that the "leaders"--Ken Kesey, Neal Cassady, Allen Ginsburg, Timothy Leary, Owsley Stanley, Steve Gaskin, Stewart Brand and hundreds of others whom I personally knew--did not consider themselves to be leaders at all. It was much more playful than that. They said things, but they did not expect what they said to be taken too seriously. They wrote various things, but these certainly were not "manifestos." Many of the most influential "leaders" were song writers and musicians--hippiedom evolved, much as a musical piece evolves during a jam session.

I've read your current introduction. I really think the previous one, which had stood for a long time, was better. You are correct that it was a "counterculture movement," and that is a good change to make. But some of the rest is inaccurate:

-It didn't just surface on United States college campuses--the base was much broader than that. The Wikipedia "Counterculture" article does a good job explaining this.

-When you say it spread to other Western democracies, citing Canada and Britain in particular, this is much too limiting a statement.

-Hippies did indeed embrace the term "hippie." It was widely used among those who were actual participants, and its use was not limited to outsiders who intended it pejoratively. But, again, no one who was actually involved took it that seriously.

I also think the previous organization was better--a brief introduction to the word "hippie" and who popularized it, rather than spotlighting the first, rather obscure references to the word.

In particular I object to new paragraph that begins "Hippies were said to have rejected the mores of conventional society." The rest of the paragraph does not follow from the lead sentence.

And you have eliminated entirely: "Most hippies believed that the government was corrupt, corporate industry was souless and greedy, traditional morals were askew, and war was inhumane. Hippies often referred to the structures and institutions they opposed as The Establishment or The Man." I think this conveyed quite a lot.

Your edits make me sad for this article. Perhaps we can work something out that would be mutually acceptable, but your wholesale approach seems needlessly aggressive to me. Founders4 09:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want you to work with me and jpgordon on Talk:Hippie and discuss this there. I will address your points on that page. —Viriditas | Talk 09:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Four words that are guaranteed to generate resistance are "I want you to." 69.19.14.36 20:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)Aubrey Aubervillers[reply]

Nice edit. Hippie

I merely separated the hippie look from the lifestyle... you made it look good. Cheers! User:Pedant 18:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Cheers to you too! Founders4 19:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Especially

I was less than enthusiastic about your addition of "especially" to the clause about war being inhumane. Probably true, but perhaps it detracts from the encyclopedic tone?

I think some wording to the effect is important, because, and I'm sure you remember this, it was primarily an antiwar movement, where you found hippies, you found peace signs... I think that it is not unencyclopedic to emphasize that. Maybe a different wording...

"Many of the original hippies based shared a firmly held belief that peace and love were far more desirable than war and hatred. They believed that corrupt government and corporate industrial greed had combined to form a souless and inhumane military-industrial complex, and that traditional morals had gone askew."

or wording to that effect... if you like that para. feel free to edit it and put it in. I prefer it, because it clarifies we are talking about the original hippie beliefs, and that it was not so much traditional morals the opposed, because peace and love are traditional, it was that they felt that morals had become, in that time, repressive and off-kilter. Comments? User:Pedant 03:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Hippies did not create a cohesive political or social movement with well-defined leaders and manifestos. Rather the hippie ethos evolved as a social manifestation of 1960s zeitgeist in an interactive play between leaders and followers. Many people who embraced the hippie lifestyle believed that the government was corrupt, that corporate industry was souless and greedy, that traditional morals were askew, and that war was inhumane. Elements of Romanticism and Transcendentalist philosophy can be seen in their writings and artistic expressions. Hippies often referred to the structures and institutions they opposed as The Establishment or The Man.

Hippies did not create a cohesive political or social movement with well-defined leaders and manifestos. Rather the hippie ethos evolved as a social manifestation of 1960s zeitgeist in an interactive play between leaders and followers. Many of the original hippies shared a firmly held belief that peace and love were far more desirable than war and hatred. They believed that corrupt government and corporate industrial greed had combined to form a souless and inhumane military-industrial complex, and that traditional morals had gone askew. Hippies often referred to the structures and institutions they opposed as The Establishment or The Man.

Hi Pedant. I've copied the old and new versions of the paragraph in question so it will be easier to compare them. In the new paragraph you have focused on government corruption and corporate industrial greed, bringing in statements regarding the military industrial complex, all of which is a reflection of your opinion that the hippie movement was primarily an antiwar movement. Also, you write that hippies believed "that peace and love were far more desirable than war and hatred," which is almost preaching.

There are a few problems I see with this revision. The first problem is that this is the lead-in to a longer article, and it must be concise. It is describing, in very general terms, the hippie outlook, which was actually quite broad. True, Vietnam was a catalyst, but many hippies objected to traditional morals with respect to sexual matters, business and a variety of other matters; the focus of the paragraph cannot be only war. The second problem is the preachy thing--EVERYONE believes that "peace and love (are) more desirable than war and hatred." Even those who favored our involvement in Vietnam believed that our involvement would lead to a more just peace and save many lives that might otherwise be lost in the event of a communist takeover (which DID happen, by the way--about 4 million murdered by the North Vietnamese communist government after 1975). Most hippies disagreed with this viewpoint, but it was far more complex than a "good hippie vs. bad military/industrial complex" thing. Also, you have eliminated the sentence that speaks of Romanticism and Trancendentalist philosophy and moved it to the next paragraph; this doesn't work very well, because the paragraph we are discussing is a general introduction to hippie philosophical perspectives, while the next paragraph introduces how those perspectives manifested in hippie life.

Here's what I would suggest: You want to write about the anti-war aspect as an important expression of hippie beliefs. This would be an expansion of the "war is inhumane" clause in the paragraph we are discussing. Perhaps you would like to create a paragraph or two discussing only this and create a section similar to the "Sexual attitudes" and "Travel" sections. I think that such a discussion probably belongs in, let's say, a "Anti-war activities" section. I do think, though, that when you use words like "especially," "firmly held," or "souless," you invite objections. If you write something that conveys the reality back then, rather than your own passions (then and now) I believe it will be better received. I'd be happy to aid you in this effort, if you wish.

Meanwhile, I do feel the original paragraph was more appropriate. Founders4 04:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More comments on my talk page. Particularly, highlighted your Cohen text, please look it over with attention to the bold text. I'll probably delete the text when we are finished with it, as it's copyright and will soon be deleted by some zealous editor: it should be you or I who delete it, since we both obviously know about it. I'm not rejecting your viewpoint, I just want to have any viewpoint backed by reliable references.

I still think 'my' one sentence is very good at representing the truth as verified by available references. Except for the addition of the phrase 'military-industrial complex', it is essentially a refactored version of the sentence to which you do not object. User:Pedant 18:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Core beliefs are 'firmly held', 'soulless' is an apt description of a corporstion, in a legal sense, and references are available to support that. Corporations are persons in law. They do not have a soul. They cannot be incarcerated. They can only be fined... that is the nature of corporations. I've answered your comments here, please read them patiently, I read every word you write to me, please reciprocate. I'm not arguing against you I am arguing with you. I take your opinions seriously and try to understand your assertions. User:Pedant 22:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

next step...

As one of my high school teachers would say, "we are in violent agreement", your respose shows you do understand my position, and I would say your analysis is essentially correct. I like the 2 paras that you suggested, and have taken a nip and tuck here and there to them. My response is long, sorry but I ' 'didn't have time to write a short one'. I think you might like my version as much as I do this time. All I would see is for us to cite sources for what to the two of us seems like common knowledge, and I would think that section is close enough to perfect that it stands a chance of not being changed again. I like your rewrite, just fixed a couple things to make it slightly shorter and ... well, I said it all on my talk page -- go check it out. Thanks so much for your diligence on this, I know it gets to be a strain to work for hours on one short section, but I see it as the important part of the article, and it seems you do too. User:Pedant 06:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

great! on to the next sections ;)

This looks to me to be exactly right, though I haven't the time to check the references. Presuming the references are appropriate I would say that that is one of the best edits I've seen in the 3 or so years I've been here. I don't think I would change a single word. I would think that an edit like that could expect to not be meddled with much at all, and I encourage you to try it out on the folks on Talk:Hippie and bask in the praise I think is due. This is a good example of how collaboration between 2 editors who were formerly in dispute can work. You spent a lot of time on this and it shows. 2 thumbs up!!! It reads well too, very easy to understand, and the progression of concepts is easy to follow. Nice Job!! User:Pedant 22:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Pedant, for your very kind comments. If you like it, what I would really prefer is just to post it on "Hippie" rather than "Hippie: Talk." Frankly I don't think I have the energy to engage in what might become the immediate involvement of more "cooks"! There will, of course, be those who choose to edit our work: that's fine, of course. I have double checked all references. What do you think?Founders4 22:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, go for it, if you've checked the refs, I don't think cooking it any more will help, now that you mention it. I don't see anyone objecting to any of it. It's very good, go ahead and serve it up!!! Nice working with you... if you see something you'd like a second eye for in the future, I hope you'll think of me. User:Pedant 22:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, Pedant. Nice working with you too!Founders4 23:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hippie

Could you explain why you removed that text from that article? Lee S. Svoboda tɑk 20:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I didn't remove it. I simply relocated it to the end of the paragraph because I thought this represented a more logical progression of ideas. Founders4 20:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just looked at it again and realized it should appear earlier in the lead, so moved it again. Founders4 21:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, just trying to make sure nobody deleted something that I thought was correct. Lee S. Svoboda tɑk 02:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mombas edits

Thats fine by me. (Mombas 23:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)).[reply]

I hope I am not making too much work for you. ;-) 203.45.145.238 04:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is user 203.45.145.238 also Mombas? Or a different person? Founders4 06:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delay in responding to this. Yes your assumption is quite correct and indicates Mombas off the boil and forgetting to log on.

Adelphi, Texas page

Hi. Adelphi, Texas looks more like an article about Adelphi Organization. Any reason not to move it? RainbowCrane | Talk 04:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I looked over the article and I honestly believe it should remain Adelphi, Texas. The Adelphi Organization does feature prominently in the article, however I suspect Adelphi (as a community) will outlive the Adelphi Organization now that founder Richard Kieninger has passed away. Also, there is a strong connection between Adelphi and Stelle, Illinois, which is Adephi's sister city. It will be more awkward to link to Stelle from an article on the Adelphi Organization. Thanks. Founders4 06:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I redirected Adelphi Organization to Adelphi, Texas pending an article. User:Pedant 01:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Pedant. Founders4 08:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two things...

One, I'd like to point out a new user, who has started off real nicely, no newbie test edits, valuable contributions from the first edit. Trying hard to get the hang of it right off, too. Seems to be somewhat of a kindred spirit as well. Maybe you might keep an eye out for some of his edits, and help him out a bit, or whatever you like to do with new good editors... he's User:Wizardprank

Two, the Wolof thing... I am trying to keep an open mind, but have seen no support for his theories, and actually quite a bit of contradictory info re his assertions. (continued on my talk page cause I wrote a huge chunk) User:Pedant 07:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Wolof--comments on your talk page. Thanks for heads up regarding Wizardprank.Founders4 08:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wolof some more

I haven't had much time to check out any other references by Dr. Forgothisname, but since he is probably accessible, I think it would be interesting to have a chat with him anyway. If I do talk to him, I'll hint that maybe he'd like to contribute to wikipedia, at least. Seems a lucky coincidence that he probably teaches at the nearest college. I've been meaning to drop by and see if the Wednesday juggle on the library lawn is still a tradition, anyway.

You don't feel that the warning text above the Wolof material is too much, do you? It seems a good temporary solution to me. I didn't write it, but I might have instigated it on the talk page by making a comment about not being happy with the Wolof stuff. It showed up pretty recently. User:Pedant 08:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a bit much, since it implies knowledge of actual objections among linguists to the validity of the etymology of the words that are listed. To me the lead sentence seems tentative enough with its "perhaps" and its "possible." Yes, it would be good if the professor could contribute. Some do, though most can't stand the "brutal edit" aspect! There is a good chance you could chat with him, as most state universities require professors to maintain open office hours. Good luck! Founders4 16:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Anti-War Demonstration San Francisco, CA 1970 by Robert Altman.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Anti-War Demonstration San Francisco, CA 1970 by Robert Altman.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Images

did you get OrphanBot sorted out? I like the pics, and the placement... usually when I have to attribute a picture, I do the attribution _{in subscript} to make it less 'like an advertisement'. I hope you thanked him profusely, cause those are great pics.

I haven't reached the 'Wolof guy' yet, but I'm not at all uncomfortable with leaving the text there with the disclaimer at the top. There's plenty of linguists whose work contradicts his assertions, which are new enough and obscure enough, that I don't think we need to actually cite anyone who disagrees directly, as it's his assertion that is in disagreement with the mainstream as far as several of the statements on the referenced page. Any idea whose edit that was that created that section? User:Pedant 00:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I forgot to use the

The copyright holder of this file allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the copyright holder is properly attributed. Redistribution, derivative work, commercial use, and all other uses are permitted.

note, so that's all taken care of now, at least to the best of my knowledge. Yes, profuse thanks to Robert Altman--the best pics I have ever seen of the '60's. He wants to make his entire collection, covering a broad range of topics, available for Wikipedia articles. So I may be helping him upload his collection during the next few weeks--a tremendous resource! If you want to change the attribution to subscript, that would be fine.

I'm OK with the Wolof disclaimer, though I might prefer it to be toned down just a bit. My guess is that the original contributor was one of the professor's students, or at least an admirer. When it arrived it was quite poorly written, so I doubt it was the professor himself. Founders4 00:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People's park

Were you in on any of the People's park genesis? We don't have a link to People's Park from Hippie do we? Just daydreaming right now... with my favorite daydreaming tool. I'm taking a break for the night. User:Pedant 00:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By now I've written (or rewritten) most of the "People's Park" article. I was there from the beginning because Jon Read, my former employer, was the landscape architect responsible for the park's initial design. He also provided the tools to build it and donated many of the materials.

That first weekend was terrific! I drove my truck (the one pictured in the "Hippie: Travel" section) up to the site and parked it in the middle of the park as it developed around me. My good friend David Garthwaite convinced his sister, Terry, that they should play music, so "The Joy of Cooking" jammed all day. I cooked food for the crowd in my truck and worked laying sod. Returned home at the end of the weekend, tired and happy.

When they fenced off the park, my truck was still parked in "The Boneyard"--a place at 5th and Delaware in Berkeley where a number of people were building boats, vans and so on. My neighbor, Alan Blanchard, had said goodbye to his wife, Sheila, and gone up to Telegraph Ave. to work at the Berkeley Reperatory Theater doing carpentry. He heard some noise on the street, went up to the roof to see what was happening and was immediately hit by a volley of buckshot fired by an Alameda County Sheriff's deputy. He never saw another thing, as he was permanently blinded. James Rector, who was standing next to him, had seen the deputy point his shotgun at them; he turned and was running away when the blast hit him in the lower abdomen. He died four days later.

I was in Sproul Plaza for Rector's memorial service just after he died. The National Guard troops surrounded the plaza and pointed their bayonets inward, while helicoptors dropped CS gas directly on the thousands of people who had assembled. Walking home after this gathering, we were assaulted by National Guard troops. That night I defied the curfew and drove my truck all around Berkeley--no one was permitted on the streets after dark, and it was obviously a "hippie truck"--yet they never stopped me, even at the roadblocks, which I ignored.

Yes, a whole other 60's saga. Still makes me sad about Alan--his wife left him, and whenever I saw him after that he commented that he realized he would always remember me as he saw me on the last day he was sighted.Founders4 01:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I needed to see that from a first person perspective. User:Pedant

Is

yours? Please tell me yes. --Dougbast (talk) 01:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Ramana Sitting.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ramana Sitting.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Viriditas and hippie

My two cents: if the roof blew off my house, I'd fix the roof, and not worry too much about where the wind came from. Viriditas is a good editor and his intent is not evil, trust his judgement and experience, and his belief that he is improving the article. Fix anything he breaks, and solicit his comments, his intent is likely the same as ours. We all just want to make the article good. So does he. We don't need to beat him up... Founders, remember the huge changes I made to the article, which you opposed... we worked out a much better article from that conflict, didn't we? I'm inclined to let him tear through the article unrestrained for a week or so and see what he comes up with. (copied from Mombas' page) User:Pedant 19:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not happy with moving the Ike material, it really supports the lead, which I still think needs to emphasize that the original movement was anti establishment and needs the Ike speech to show where it came from, that it didn't just pop in to thousands of people's minds "I think I will be a hippie and protest everything" and that it wasn't a mere case of disaffection on the part of 'youth' (how old is a youth?) that it encompassed a wide range of people, most of whom were of an age where they would certainly have heard Ikes farewell speech. But I edit what's there, and if sweeping changes need to be made I do it, unless someone objects,,,, then I prefer to reason and work on small pieces at once. I don't have time to make writing an encyclopedia a career, so I usually work on things that are less controversial and better understood than Hippies. I think we can safely give Viriditas a long leash for a while, and see if any improvement results, it can always be fixed afterwards, if we all gang up on him, first, we become antagonists which won't be productive, second, we might discourage him from adding that one gem that we wouldn't have come up with ourselves. Collaboration isn't the easiest way to do something, but it has its benefits. Look at Viriditas' edit contributions on other articles, he's not out to damage articles, I would prefer to welcome him. The article could use some more help, and I'd prefer to have good help like his, even if it messes up the style we worked so hard on. Remember, the article is already better than when either of us started on it, we could walk away forever and it would stay better than it was. I'd like to see if Viriditas has something to offer the article that we missed. But no, I'm not that happy so far. And yeah, Ike wasn't a 3 term president, but still, was one of the most beloved, and certainly most of the US listened to his farewell. (if I make a flat-out stupid mistake like that in future, feel free to edit it smarter for me). User:Pedant 20:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC) Well we could always talk to Viriditas and ask him what he thinks we should do. Lets see what we have when we come back to it, who knows? We might like it better. More references will always be good. Lets wait and see. We can always discuss what we don't approve of and what we want to change on the talk page, and since Viriditas likes short discussions, lets have a short discussion. We write too much sometimes because we are too lazy to write more concisely. Could be good practice.[reply]

I'm wirebrushing rust off of my old VW this week. Any ideas on how to register a car that hasn't been registered in 25 years without having to pay 25 years worth of vehicle registration fees? I bought the car and have been rebuilding it in my spare time ever since... shows how little of that I have. User:Pedant 09:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

look User:Pedant

Please vote here and move anything else down one section or something. I'd like a clearcut vote on reversion, for the record. Thanks. User:Pedant 17:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have replaced 'Pedant' with 'Viriditas' in the second to last edit on my page. I'm just going to let Viriditas have all the rope he needs to hang himself, and just let him go wild on his own. He's behaving as a troll and I will from now on treat him as if he is a troll. I look forward to working with you in the future as well, but for this week or so I'm staying outof any controversies except those I'm working on as a member of the AMA, meaning I'm only going to be arguing other people's arguments, ironically I find that satisfying, to a far greater degree than having arguments of my own. I'll be back in a week or so and I hope the hippie article has something left besides "Hippies were a group of potsmokers in love beads that lived in the 60's, some of them for the rest of their lives. They weren't political and they have left no lasting impact. Everybody lived happily ever after, the end" User:Pedant 03:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up, Pedant. You are right and I've corrected it. I better stop, since obviously I'm making some stupid mistakes. I understand completely your decisiion to take a week off. Trying to satisfy Viriditas' demands for sourcing has consumed about nine hours of my time today, and then he accused me of falsifying cites--perhaps you are correct that he is a certain type of troll; hadn't considered that. Of course he's going to read this, but so what?!Founders4 03:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: MKULTRA, LSD, Kesey

Thank you for your concern, but if you want to discuss articles, please use the talk page of that article. You may use my talk page to notify me of things of interest, however. I'm quite familiar with the subject, and there most cetainly needs to be a section in the article about it, but the paragraph in question has little to do with the topic. Stay focused on hippies, and you will find the article writes itself. To start with, if you want to write more about this subject, try to expand the Timothy Leary paragraph first. —Viriditas | Talk 04:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hippie

There's a newly established guideline that might be of use in your dilemma: Wikipedia:Disruptive editing allows community blocks and topic bans, etc. How about posting to WP:3O and giving the RFC a few more days to collect reactions? If other uninvolved editors form a consensus you could report the problem at WP:AN/I. Best wishes, Durova 18:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Durova--for your concern, your suggestions and your best wishes. Do I assume correctly that you reference my most recent comments under "Don't Feed the Troll" on the "Hippie" discussion page?

In any case, I need to withdraw for now. This has been a disappointing and disturbing anomaly in an otherwise pleasant Wiki experience. My best wishes to you as well! Founders4 18:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wolof clarification

Your edit clarified it nicely. Thanks. Peace. Itsmejudith 21:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your message

I've replied on my talk page. I'm sorry, I haven't been able to give you any firm pointers for sources, but there's a few articles you can look at and some keywords which might aid a search. --kingboyk 17:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know

I'm waiting until Viriditas is done removing stuff before I add anything, and I don't know if he's anywhere near done. I'm just going to wait and see. User:Pedant 05:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

copped out

Doesn't 'copped out' mean one has accepted a plea bargain, though? User:Pedant 03:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and I think 'copped out' is derived from 'copping a plea'. I'm really busy this week with work. Go see Monster House, it's the best animated feature film I've ever seen. OK for kids of all ages, good story and great animation work User:Pedant 00:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

see: this about the etymology. User:Pedant 11:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yuppie

Walter, have you seen this? Talk:Yuppie it sounds like you might have a view on the last item listed. thanks Peter morrell 10:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Anti-War Demonstration San Francisco, CA 1970 by Robert Altman.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Anti-War Demonstration San Francisco, CA 1970 by Robert Altman.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 03:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:Stelle entrance.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Stelle entrance.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Arial1.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Arial1.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MER-C 09:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is nonsense. What the hell are you talking about, and what do you want?Founders4 08:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Friend, you are responding to a bot-generated message in regards to fair use image enforcement of a photo you uploaded. —Viriditas | Talk

Sources

Heavily relying on one source is a serious issue, and when that source is a film, it is even more of a problem. Films are generally primary source material, and unless claimants are attributed and quoted directly, they are difficult to use. If you are interested, you can try to turn on the CC system, and transcribe specific quotes from named, notable persons. Either way, multiple sources are favored, in particular secondary sources. If you have any further questions about how this works, there are a number of venues on Wikipedia where you can find answers to your questions, such as the talk pages for WP:RS, WP:V, and other places. Basically, the quote needs to be verified outside of a user-generated website, and it cannot be applied outisde of its original context as was done in the Hippie article. —Viriditas | Talk 21:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would sure be nice if you could refrain from talking down to us po' folk.Founders4 21:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you interpreted my comments that way. Can you give me some suggestions on how to improve my responses? Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 21:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Implicit in many of your statements is the assumption that your take on things is "THE WAY IT IS," and you seem to disallow any room for the opinions or interpretations of others. If you could please find some alternative to the "THIS IS THE WAY IT IS" tone, spoken from on high, that would help a lot. Of course we (I and other editors) have mentioned this before, and in response you do seem to moderate things for a bit. Founders4 21:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. I will take your advice into consideration, but I'm still unclear as to how I could have improved my comment above. Could you do me a favor and rewrite it here, below, so that I can see what you mean? Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 21:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, seems kind of artificial, even a bit presumptious, but I can try.

First, my original comment so I can reference same:

In much of the "Hippie" article, you seem to tolerate appropriate summarization. Then, as with your recent objections to the Hunter/Laughlin issue, you label it synthesis, which I don't think it is.

Admittedly the source for the Laughlin quote is not sterling, so I understand your objection there (I'm not THAT attached to it). But the Works film contains extensive interviews with Laughlin and, of course, lots of photographs, as well as interviews with Ellen Harman, Luria Castell and others. In writing the Red Dog material, nearly every line could have been supported by information in the film, yet it didn't seem appropriate to keep repeating the source ad infinitum. So, when possible, I brought in other articles as supportive sources. Don't see the problem with that. Founders4 21:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

How about:

It seems to me that where you breach the line between summary and snythesis is in using the Laughlin quote outside of its original context. (This would need elaboration for me to truly understand what you are getting at, since the context seems pretty consistent to me. Perhaps you could contrast it to the Manson entry--which I wrote and which you have previously endorsed as good summary.)

I try not to rely on a single source, especially when that source is a film. When it is clear that primary source material is involved, sometimes it works better to rely on closed captions and transcribe specific quotes from named, notable persons. You are right that multiple sources are favored, especially secondary sources--the more reliable, the better. WP:RS is good on the reliability issue and WP:V clarifies the need for verifiability. The Laughlin quote was from a user-generated website, which makes it less reliable than if it were found in a solid secondary source.

Anyway, for what it's worth, something like that. Founders4 22:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like it. Now, how about doing that to the entire hippie article? —Viriditas | Talk 00:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I understand what you are proposing. Do you mean rewrite the entire hippie article, or do you mean reconfigure the entire article to improve sourcing? Or both? Actually I'd love to do more, but it's a busy time, both with respect to work and because of family dynamics (increased elder care for my mother, three grown children getting married this year, heavy client demands). Unfortunately, making Wikipedia my full-time job would make the rest of it impossible! Founders4 01:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pick a section and fine-tune it. —Viriditas | Talk 01:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Waco Sources

The reason that I did not go out and find sources for the statements is because I am not the one that put them in the article. It is the responsibility of the editor adding the work to properly cite statements which could be considered contreversial or called into question. The material I removed had been tagged for over 4 months as uncited and it was time the material was removed until someone can cite it. Many people believe everything they read on here, cited or not, so if something is uncited it needs to be removed. -134.131.125.50 (talk) 19:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate accounts

Hi. Please take a minute to read WP:SOCK#LEGIT and Wikipedia:Username_policy#Using_multiple_accounts. Most users who use alternate accounts will label the primary account with {{User Alt Acct Master}} and the secondary account with {{User Alternate Acct }}. Viriditas (talk) 08:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how this happened, as I didn't intend to use the "Founders4" moniker again. Must have been when I was locked out a while back and inadvertently logged back in using the Founders4 name and password. My mistake, and thanks for bringing it to my attention. Founders4 (talk) 08:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Tsgmap.gif

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Tsgmap.gif. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Chris G Bot (talk) 00:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 261: / Line 261: @@
 ::Thanks. I needed to see that from a first person perspective. [[User:Pedant|User:Pedant]]
+:: Is [[File:Gypsy_Van_Front.jpg|the Gypsy van]] yours? Please tell me yes. --[[User:Dougbast|Dougbast]] ([[User talk:Dougbast|talk]]) 01:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 ==Image tagging for Image:Ramana Sitting.jpg==
 Thanks for uploading '''[[:Image:Ramana Sitting.jpg]]'''. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images.  If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days.  If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.