User talk:Dave3457

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Hello, Dave3457! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Button sig.png or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! —Vanderdeckenξφ 15:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines

The community

Writing articles


Feb 21, 2011 Being interested in anthropology I have at times followed the development of this article. A year or so ago it seemed to be taking different POV into account. Now it has given way to an ideological approach, reducing "femininity" to simple physical "femaleness". This is blatantly one-sided, not worthy of an encyclopedia. Femininity, for most people, still suggests distinctive traits of character, ways of behaving, reaction towards others, etc. etc. that go deeper than what is merely physical. This idea is not an outdated cultural or religious prejudice that deserves little notice (here it gets none). It is an idea that has been present over the ages, permeating art and culture. In modern times it was defended by Sigmund Freud, Margaret Mead, Virginia Woolfe, etc. not in the name of the Bible, etc. but in that of an objective understanding of the richness of having two distinctive human modes of expressing humanity: the masculine and the feminine. To ignore that viewpoint is the make a totally one-sided and prejudiced presentation. I would suggest a presentation that gives both A) the more 'traditional' view of femininity; and B) the more recent views that react from this concept and tend to reduce the term to a simple difference in body parts. I can write some of the first; and even outline aspects of the second (where I think I could do a better job than what is represented in the current article), and leave the completion of that to others. [Since this is a feeler, so as to see what people think, let me single out just two concrete points in the present article which reveal a narrowness of approach, verging on the ridiculous. 1) large breast size and cleavage are presented as a main parameter of femininity. But this is to talk about femaleness, not femininity. Audrey Hepburn is a classical example of a woman considered very feminine - even though her breasts were small and she had little cleavage. 2) Female body shape and Corset... Here the emphasis on femaleness is again clear. To highlight 'corset', etc. in an article on femininity, is indeed to corset the scope of an encyclopedia article.]Unimpeder (talk) 06:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Feb 27, 2011 From the discussion page about ‘Femininity’, you seem to be one of those who have taken most part in developing this article. A week ago I posted the above on my talk-page, in the hope it might begin a discussion. I would be glad to have your reaction to my proposal, as I think the present article is one-sided and simply not worthy of Wikipedia. However, I see no point in working at a more comprehensive presentation of the theme - if someone is going to revert it each time. So I would like to talk first. A year ago, the article opened in a fairly balanced way: “Distinct from femaleness, which is a biological and physiological classification concerned with the reproductive system, femininity principally refers to secondary sex characteristics and other behaviors and features generally regarded as being more prevalent and better suited to women, whether inborn or socialized. In traditional Western culture, such features include gentleness, patience, sensitivity and kindness.[citation needed]. Nursing certainly calls for such traits, which may well explain the fact that women are generally considered to make better nurses.” The last sentence about nursing was added by me at that time. I see now that this was removed by Uschick in April 2010, after someone had observed “In my experience this [that women are generally considered to make better nurses] is not necessarily true, and nothing this specific should be stated without any supporting sources.” If you want commonsense support of my statement, go out and ask the first ten men and women you meet. I think that the whole paragraph should be restored in the rewriting of the article; one supporting reference might be the following: ‘According to the U.S. Dept. Of Labor. “Women comprised 92.1 percent of RNs in 2003" (’ The 92.1% says something to the point. [Might someone take this figure as indicating discrimination against women? Perhaps; but he would need good arguments and plenty of [non-biased] ‘supporting sources’] Looking forward to hearing what you think.Unimpeder (talk) 14:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Plane waves[edit]

I did not delete the section about approximations to plane waves which you 're-instated' - I moved it to a separate section entitled 'Approximations to plane waves' where I felt it was more appropriate, since the initial discussion relates to 'true' plane waves.

At the moment, it appears twice in the article - you should decide which one should stay and which one should go

--Epzcaw (talk) 19:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Oddbodz has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Hello Dave3457, Pigsonthewing has given you A German Barbie! You see, these things promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else A German Barbie! Enjoy! You can relate to her in any way you like. Most people just rip her head off. Don't worry, it reattaches quite easily!
Thanks for your contribution to the Femininity article. It wouldn't be the same without you! USchick (talk) 03:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Commutator on Speedsolving wiki[edit]

Thanks for your contribution on speedsolving wiki. I like the animated gif. I've added more explanations on complex commutator, as well as a classification of them. If you have some time, maybe you can check if I made no mistake, Regards, --Circular17 (talk) 19:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Oops, refer to
- Dave3457 (talk) 04:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't know if you noticed, but I updated the page on commutators, and added similar analysis to the page on conjugates. --Circular17 (talk) 17:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
I'll check out the conjugate page as well then. - Dave3457 (talk) 21:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your contribution. Your images are really beautiful and add value to it. I quite agree with the explanations you've added. --Circular17 (talk) 11:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
That's really good to hear. Some guys are really touchy about having their stuffed messed with. I really see myself as putting meat on the bones, even if I have to reword it entirely. -- Dave3457 (talk) 20:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Dave3457. You have new messages at Talk:Femininity.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-SusanLesch (talk) 15:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Femininity Archive of common concerns[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Femininity Archive of common concerns has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:19, 8 August 2015 (UTC)