User talk:Linkspro
Welcome![edit]
Hi Linkspro, and a warm welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you have enjoyed editing as much as I did so far and decide to stay. Unfamiliar with the features and workings of Wikipedia? Don't fret! Be Bold! Here's some good links for your reference and that'll get you started in no time!
- Editing tutorial, learn to have fun with Wikipedia.
- Picture tutorial, instructions on uploading images.
- How to write a great article, to make it an featured article status.
- Manual of Style, how articles should be written.
Most Wikipedians would prefer to just work on articles of their own interest. But if you have some free time to spare, here are some open tasks that you may want to help out :
Oh yes, don't forget to sign when you write on talk pages, simply type four tildes, like this: ~~~~. This will automatically add your name and the time after your comments. And finally, if you have any questions or doubts, don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Once again, welcome! =)
- Mailer Diablo 16:36, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
- Hi Kevin,
- Saw them while I was at Recent Changes page. Thanks for your suggestions on programming, I did try pick up some languages myself (though a bit rusty now). :D I'm still in junior college at this time - it's quite a few years away more for me before entering Uni, since I have to undergo conscription for two years as well.
- If you are interested in Singapore-related topics, do feel free to take a look at the SGpedians' Notice Board.
- - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 16:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Orientalism[edit]
Please explain your cleanup tag on Orientalism. And no, it is not a prerequisite for writing on this topic that one should have read the book, since the topic is not about the Said book, but about the concept and the tradition. However, if you have any objections to the way the book is characterised in the subsection devoted to it, please indicate them. Otherwise the cleanup tag is rather difficult to make sense of and I will remove it. Paul B 09:30, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
- I did not write the section on the book, but I have certainly read the book. I added the section on criticisms of the book. The book-summary section seems to me to give a broadly accurate account of Said's arguments. Saying something is "woefully inadequate" without indicating how, is itself woefully inadequate. You still remain mysteriously quiet about just what it is that is wrong with the summary. The tenor of your comments suggest that you believe Said's book to be authoritative in some way, but seem unable or unwilling to suggest just how it has been misrepresented. I suggest you read some of the reviews written at the time, or more recent commentaries on Said's model of "orientalism" [1]. Paul B 09:23, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- Well I haven't practiced my swinging, so I'll have to pass on the contest. But I still think you miss the central point. The article is not about the book. The book is a particular intervention in the tradition, one that is clearly important enough to single out, but not to be treated as "gospel" in any sense. Perhaps more on Said's arguments would be desirable. Perhaps more on Lewis's criticisms would be more pertinent. Perhaps we could have more on the art, or more on the details of western scholarly commentary on eastern cultures, or more on eastern views on the west. Perhaps and perhaps. I can only assume that the real reason for singling out the book called "Orientalism" is an assumption that this particular book is central to what the article should be about, partly because the names are the same. And that's essentially my problem with the cleanup notice. Paul B 21:40, 1 Aug 2005 (UTC)
Please - I do not think you have earned the right to tell me what is "not a very good attitude to have on Wikipedia". I have as much right "unilaterally" to remove the tag as you did to add it. I was behaving no more unilaterally than you were. There was no sign whatever of a wider "community" who agreed with you. I removed the tag for the following reasons:
1. A cleanup tag is inappropriate. It is mainly used for articles that are badly written or otherwise chaotic. I don't think even you thought that this was the case.
2. A cleanup tag refers the reader to the talk page for the reasons why a cleanup tag has been added. You added nothing to talk page to explain the tag. Is this "a very good attitude to have on Wikipedia"?
3. Unnecessary cleanup tags make Wikipedia look bad. They give the impression that the articles are poor and unprofessional. They should only be there when an article really does need to be cleaned up - in order to show that Wikipedians are aware of inadequacies.
4. When I asked you why you had added it I got no clear explanation. You could tell me nothing that was actually wrong with the article, and resorted to the, in my view bizarre, argument that you believed that if someone read Said's book "more closely" then they would come up with a different reading of it than the authors of the article. Now, either you have read it closely and can say what is wrong with the account or you have not. You cannot reasonably claim that some other mystery person will, if they read it, come up with an argument that agrees with your inexpressible intuitions.
I think a request for section-expansion would have been far more appropriate than a cleanup tag. However, what I am going to do is put in a Peer Review request, that is a request for Wikpedians to suggest improvements. Paul B 15:22 24 Aug 2005 (UTC)
- Linkspro, your language is wholly inappropriate. It is clear that you are resorting to the last refuge of insult. I have explained my thinking on the subject as clearly as I can and I have taken appropriate action by requesting Peer review. Here's a link to the relevant page [2]. I note that the only content-related addition so far has been to emphasise criticism of Said's text. Perhaps other editors will respond differently. Paul B 23:55 24 Aug 2005 (UTC)
- Since your language is becoming increasingly childish, I see no advantage in further discussion with you. Your arguments were not remotely "exact", they were nowhere to be seen. You were uncompromising only in the sense that you you folded your arms and refured to budge. If you think that stubbornness is the same as integrity that I suspect you are mistaken. If I am "delusional" then I suppose User:TheoClarke and User:Pmanderson must be too. In your first reply to my query you wrote "I think most everyone who has read the book would agree with this judgement." I've provided you will links to reviews to indicate otherwise. The above users evidently think otherwise. You have provided no argument at all that is not vague and unspecific. Paul B 10:13 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)
Explanation[edit]
Would you like to explain this edit? That article you linked to is wholly inappropriate! Leonardo 18:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
- Alright, I guess the site just changed ownership. I overreacted. Leonardo 20:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
The Hendon Mob[edit]
Just to let you know, I have now created pages for Ram Vaswani, Joe Beevers, Barny Boatman and Ross Boatman and linked them all from The Hendon Mob's article. Hope it helps. Essexmutant 13:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
File:Vasquez pic.jpg missing description details[edit]
If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.
If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)