User talk:Alexandria177

Welcome![edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, Alexandria177! I am SarekOfVulcan and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. Thank you for your contributions. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD[edit]

You were WP:BOLD, someone else WP:REVERTed you, now you should be discussing the edit. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, should have sent the cookies first. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My reversion[edit]

I reverted your edits for three main reasons: (1) they seemed very expository in nature; (2) they deal with very controversial material, that you didn't even bother to discuss; and (3) they were not particularly well-written. I don't mean that last as an insult, just as a bare statement of fact. If you had presented your ideas at the talkpage, and worked through what you were proposing (as should have been done with such controversial material), these problems could have been addressed. Until you do so, the material will stay out. Lithistman (talk) 21:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And as I learned - with no help from you - it turned out that I was supposed to be bold, and that there was no call for me to seek consensus first, as what I added was not controversial, but simply a clarification of the existing topic. And as it also turned out, the changes were appropriate, and after giving in to your quibbles, now stands. Alexandria177 (talk) 01:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What now "stands" isn't what you initially added, just for the record. And your attitude throughout has left MUCH to be desired, as you behaved very poorly when your initial boldness was reverted, as per WP:BRD. I've cleaned up the section a bit, but it still needs a LOT of work. Lithistman (talk) 21:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Psychological Criticism[edit]

Branden might be an ex, but he's also a major figure in Objectivism, and thus his opinion is very relevant to the article. His bias is not our concern; Wikipedia's rules do not say we have to cite "unbiased" sources, but that we just use verifiable ones. Likewise, saying it does not belong because he's an ex is an ad hominem fallacy; it does not logically effect his ability to criticize the book. I know Rand's followers will whine about it (they make up false claims about why things that reflect badly on Rand have to be removed without consideration for the actual rules - see their unwillingness to add William Edward Hickman as one of her inspirations in her article despite the fact that we've got proof in her own gushing praise of him in her writing), but it still has its place in the article.

And yes, you could easily find criticism of psychopathy elsewhere. As for the particular brand of it exposed in AS, I don't know of any, but I have yet to look them up. I'd recommend checking the book The Ayn Rand Cult, which might have something. -- LGagnon 03:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of books[edit]

Hi, we had a discussion a while ago about what can only be regarded (with just a few exceptions) as a list of kiddie-porn novels. I cannot understand your line that parents would want such a hub to exist so they can "check up" on which novels their children should not be reading. The target readership of these novels was clearly older men, not children, so parents are unlikely to find these titles in their children's possession. I put it to you that if they did find their children in possession of such books (one couldn't call it "literature", really), a cursory look would immediately reveal that the subject was unsuitable. What parent does not keep an eye on what their children are reading, and take a quick look at the text? Who would want to look up the list of titles on that WP page. In any case, just a few of those titles are by reputable authors (and are well served in other categories), so the utility for parents is further compromised. I have watchlisted your talk page, so I can respond here if you have further questions about my intention to delete the page. Tony (talk) 14:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I waited a long time for further discussion from you. Now simultaneous to you being back to discuss, the page is gone. Guess there's not much to discuss any more. Congrats, I guess, though I still believe my points were valid. And unaddressed. Alexandria177 (talk) 04:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Four Lords[edit]

Hello and thanks for the heads up. You certainly did flesh the series out and add the last book, which I had been meaning but never got around to adding. I come from an older school of thought where a brief summary might entice the reader but not tell the whole story or give up the ending, but alas it seems the wiki has shifted more towards your more complete synopsis. I am not critisizing you merely comparing the old and the new and feel you did a fine job. Garycompugeek (talk) 14:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]