User talk:Hispanosuiza

Please desist making non Neutral Point of View modifications to pages for congressmen. This is an encyclopedia, not an editorial page. See WP:NPOV PianoDan (talk) 21:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

With respect to your reply; The point is not that the situation in Michigan's 7th and 9th districts has changed. Of course it has. The point is that your revisions do not conform to Wikipedia's NPOV policy, cited above.

Comments such as "Happily, on the night of 4th November 2008, the abysmal record of fiscal manipulation, and other corruptions fomented by the Bush administration, to which the Republican party demurred generally, was corrected in numerous ways." are clearly NOT neutral, but express a preference for one candidate over the other. Words such as "abysmal" are not appropriate for an encyclopedia.

Given the fact that every edit you have made to these two pages has been reverted, I would again politely ask that you stop to familiarize yourself with an apropos writing style before continuing to edit these pages. - PianoDan (talk) 20:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

January 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to USS Enterprise (CVN-65) has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. TheMike •^{Wassup doc?} 14:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Assange

it appears you hold a very loose understanding of what cut&paste is, and what what it means to use the technique promiscuously. I must say, first, that the Edit i placed, under Support, for Assange, was in fact not a copy--it was altered to convey exactly what it says. The point was, and remains, to associate men of principle, courage and distinction--who are commonly acknowledged as being honorable, by a very large and world-wide community--with Assange's Supporters. It is fact that Ellsberg is easily as important, call it a witness to character, whose adherence to truth and principles is known, as for instance the president of Brazil. There are numerous others who i will also append to this records of significant fact in the biography of Assange. I trust we will both learn something as i proceed in this endeavor. Like WikiLeaks, my intention is to present to a very broad public matters of FACT, than many with cunning and ulterior motives try very hard to keep concealed. Why? because their own perceived best interests depend on not letting no beans spill. Get me? Let's begin . . . Hispanosuiza (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

If I was you I would discuss your desired additions on the talkpage first to avoid additional confusion - your comments here seem a bit ...opinionated, please attempt to be NPOV and as suggest, start on the talkpage, regards, feel free to ask me if you have any queries, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 00:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Loach, Assange

I like dialogue. A tip: digital words are cheap, but attention is not. You will succeed here much more if you can limit your comments to a few sentences.

Loach may be relevant, but his extensive background is not. People, moreover, can read about it at the Loach article, which is linked directly from the sentence. Every article should use the minimum number of words to convey all of the critical information about a subject. The internet works because information is ample but targeted. We try to target the information that most of our readers will care about and need to know. The fewer words with which we can accomplish that, the better.

For comparison, ask yourself why we include information about Loach but not about tens of others in his situation, or the detailed backgrounds of every Assange supporter. The question is not, 'why not?' but 'why this here?' Please hang around a little to understand some of the practices and rhythms of this community. They generally work pretty well, and no one will begrudge you a thoughtful, succinct, well-sourced, relevant argument. Ocaasi (talk) 17:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Reply

here's my promised second reply, to your kind note. it is also long. it is my interlineated remarks on the linesof your note which is above.

Loach may be relevant, but his extensive background is not.—

my remarks that everyone’s so hot to eliminate, are not extensive; they take up two lines, and they constructively point to the prospect you mention, actually—that by the specific words, wiki readers might use the convenient hint, to choose that Loach-place to go for further elucidation.

People, moreover, can read about it at the Loach article, which is linked directly from the sentence.

Not wanting to defeat the convenience of links, a commonsensical feature one finds, and keeps; However, as one reads along in text, one finds some words, names and titles very apt, and more compelling than hypertext or URL. I observe this, from my own behavior.

. . . We try to target the information that most of our readers will care about and need to know.

a remark that suggests a fatuous conceit, of the Committee’s omniscience, about cherry picking, for a presumed Ideal Reader’s cares, and Needs to Know. You should never have used that phrase—at a time you are asserting your disinterested objectivity as an editor on the topic of Assange! Will you recuse yourself where you have a bias, now? Well, in truth, you could not do that, if you were actually unaware, or unconscious of, there being a bias in your choices, and your words.

The fewer words with which we can accomplish that, the better.

this may be so, but i’d want to hear your account of why. To my mind, digits are digits, binary is binary, and it’s near inexhaustible. Likewise, tho there is an organizational reason for keeping the virtual size (or hardcopy length of pages, more importantly) of text entries within some bounds—those bounds are much related to the layout of web pages, and a good Readers’ Page format deserves at least equal attention when declaring that “fewer words” is a criterion.

I wager that what you really seek, is not exactly “fewer words” but artful, fluent, cogent literacy, composition and writing that advances thought and understanding, and presents information persuasively.

Incorporating such objective features of written language goes some way in influencing your mentioned Readers, and their cares. This is not principally about, more or fewer, words, right? A high level of articulate written communication is wanted. I agree with you on this.

For comparison, ask yourself why we include information about Loach but not about tens of others in his situation, or the detailed backgrounds of every Assange supporter. The question is not, 'why not?' but 'why this here?'

I know i’m a neophyte, in the editorial use of Wikipedia, and not very humble as would be proper i guess, but you seem to hold a view of Loach as a farfetched entry into the support list. To me this suggests simply an unfamiliarity with either his work, or with the political context that is inherently a feature of the wiki page on Assange.

Why “we” include . . . Loach, is because I composed and put the entry up. I had observed an egregious lack in pertinent entries on the Support subhead. As i have said, i intend to add other relevant personages (har), on the theory that there is no cut-off length in any wiki-page, and that valid, factual well written pertinent text is a contribution to the topic at hand, a biographical concern.

You’ll note, not too despairingly i hope, that my remarks are not unlikely to be brief, or curt—I mean that by “your” standards they are unlikely to be “succinct.

In ‘remarks’ i take the occasion as allowance to go to some depth on points worthy of attention. And i try to follow a rather different standard, for written contributions and edits that would appear on Wikipedia webpages, that are public presentations.

I hope my contributions will always be “well-sourced” and I say again now, they are always relevant, despite what certain cabals of group-think may opine.

Please hang around a little to understand some of the practices and rhythms of this community. They generally work pretty well, and no one will begrudge you a thoughtful, succinct, well-sourced, relevant argument. Ocaasi (talk) 17:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

here i paste my long considered reply to many points raised,or suggested, by your well-meaning note above.

I differ from you in many detailed ways. for instance, attention actually is pretty cheap—which is why the first revisions to my Loach contribution resulted in an error, newly introduced.

My original text included an exceeding minor point, actually—i.e., that Loach had offered to vouch for Assange, to go his bail. Utterly trivial, yet on the discussion page, </ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Julian_Assange#Loach</ref> the lead-off remark, signed Errant, hovers upon this particular text, quibbling further with it—noting that it wasn’t a surety accomplished, but only offered. well, DUH—that’s precisely what i said—the error that the Errant user comments on was introduced by someone EDITING my original contribution! and Errant has made that picayune item the basis of his next Judgment-—he says, “ I don't think it is significant so perhaps remove it?”

Of course this ignores the substantial, and reasoned, few sentences i want to keep—- naming some films of Loach, which because of their kindred thematic concerns with agendas of Assange and of WikiLeaks would explain Loach’s advocacy for Assange, and if the films were looked in to, would shed light on how Assange and WikiLeaks conceive their active projects, which are importantly about First Amendment rights, and about opening and exposing facts and truths, which when hidden result in great damage to many peoples’ lives.

anyway, my observation here is that there is both sloppy reading and biased thinking, and lot of boys-in-the-club shouldering, the mutual admiration society kind of thing, that is “we all agree that . . .” I find it contemptible.

the reason i find it offensive is that such uncritical judgment-calling ends in confabulations, sometimes then confirmed as Orthodoxy, and thus for Wikipedia, allowed as “appropriate non-judgmental views” for the wikipedia thought-police.

The remarks on that discussion page i cite above, remarks which, in my view, pretend to be critiques serving everyone’s interests all proceed from what appears, to me, to be a tacitly shared mindset, a group-think with some unconscious preconceptions at play, unexamined premises, unspoken and ideological parleys; so that, the ‘dialog’ being shared in this ‘we all agree’ coterie, achieves a preordained result—-of throwing out those several lines,

cavalierly ignoring that they express the legitimating reason why the Loach entry would be important as any, and more than some, to appear on the Support List. These quick mentions of pertinent films give the Loach entry, in the Assange Support topic, a value for all the wikipedia readership—-because these words, these titles, actually point or lead somewhere.

Nobody, no readership, is interested--except for factional or ideological biased reasons--in merely having a LIST. There should be some relevance to real issues, in the selected persons whose names comprise the Support list, because, as in REAL life, we are concerned here with real people, who have real motives and effects in the world. This is not a dummy list!

One begins to wonder if the “we all agree . . .” coterie, those de facto arbiters in the Discussion (i hope i am somewhat rebutting here) aren’t in need of a little exposure themselves, ironically enough—- for covert ends, or for their appealing to wiki user processes, orthodoxies actually, that want to chop out a couple of too-pricey lines (lines, that peculiarly have riled up the committee’s “animus”) here in the debate.

There are none among you who suppose we should chop out the Video of murders from a helicopter, surely; a horse already out of the Barn is hard to run back in! So why the resolve to suppress a couple of lines, that simply do LEAD somewhere? We do try to have some effect with our words, and in our actions, do we not? Suppress facts . . . ? too lengthy, those nasty things seems rather arbitrary, but i think i know a kind of ideological anxiety that is behind it. subtle. very subtle.

this grows long, tho i will archive it, as it contains principles and standards i find require reiteration, too much. I will reply after this 'save' to your particular sentences, of your note. with my interlineated remarks. after i send you this. I have rather condensed certain ideas in my remarks addresses to you, and your kind note, with a plan to make my dialog with you exemplary, to use to address generally the "discussion" page i gave the ref for, above.

Hope you can endure this. believe me this isn't intended as a mere rant. best wishes. hispanosuiza 76.226.129.166 (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

reply to reply

Unlike some others, as a college educated dilettante myself and a bit of a philosophical muckraker, I enjoy your diatribes. Others won't read them, though, so you should know what you're getting into.

A few points:

• You weren't logged in, and signed as the i.p. you should try and always login under hispanosuiza for consistency.

• Laxity with punctuation and inconsistent line breaks leave the impression of carelessness.

• Consider the null case: what would it look like if everyone was correct and you were just wrong. Would that look different than groupthink?

• You have made a compelling point, but you fundamentally lack an understanding of our core policy: WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NPOV, and in this case, WP:RS. If you read them, word for word, you will understand better. There is 'groupthink' because experienced editors follow these policies. To use Wikipedia terms, briefly, you have synthesized a connection between Loach and Assange which is not found in reliable sources. You have encouraged inclusion of a piece of information that is not significantly relevant, relevant though it may be (and a dilettante, myself included, can find relevance between any two things). You have not provided sources that back up the significance directly. You have not shown how this background information on Loach helps the Assange article, only why it justifies the Loach inclusion. But that is a misordering of Wiki logic: a piece of information's significance is determined before the information is explained, because significance is determined by sources, not by editors.

• Encyclopedias are terrible, boring, isolated places free of creative connections, stimulating points of view, points that lead somewhere, philosophizing, espousing, and aspirations of any kind. You don't belong here. Go read the New Yorker, some social theory, write a blog, visit a rally or a reading. This place will zap your soul of its tools, unless you conform to its ways. I jest, but basically, it's true. Encyclopedias are conservative, backwards looking, summaries of general knowledge. We value precision over insight and demonstrable, verifiable relevance over creative conceptions of interconnected. The only connections we make are with WP:WIKILINKS. There's nothing for you here except that.

• I've parsed one of your statements in-line [with my comments]. "because of their kindred thematic concerns [you have made this determination not reliable sources; that's a WP:SYNTH violation] with agendas of Assange and of WikiLeaks would explain Loach’s advocacy for Assange [these details are tangential to the core subject which is Assange], and if the films were looked in to, would shed light on how Assange and WikiLeaks conceive their active projects [it might, but we would need independent quotes from Assange identifying those themes or Loach specifically], which are importantly about First Amendment rights [that's relevant, if we can find a source describing Loach as such, we can tag him as a "film director who focuses on free speech issues"], and about opening and exposing facts and truths, which when hidden result in great damage to many peoples’ lives [significance is not determined by real world impact but by prevalence in reliable sources. don't confuse the two. if there is a crappy, self-published article on a blog about how the world will end tomorrow, it is not significant. if there is a trivial, niggling rehash of an old saw in the new york times, it is significant, assuming it is relevant. sources, sources, sources!]

That's all for now. I can match your verbosity, but it leads nowhere here. Cheers. Ocaasi (talk) 22:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

ok, ok;

you amuse me. and depress me (i'd hoped for more from Wiki, as a vehicle that can, by stating truths, also be subversive and undermine much flapdoodling surrounding certain topics, themes; and i'll proceed to hit on Wiki that way . . . only a right cowboy way to do things, no sisyphus luggin' intended.)

but lo,      

this is me, crying . . . . unkle, nuncle.

incidentally 'verbosity'/ that's just vanity, and for all my peccadillos, my interest in contributing to the topic of Assange, or more important WikiLeaks, is dead straight-on serious. you may have an inkling this is so. cheers right back at'cha.