User talk:Basilo

Analytic philosophy
Hi Basilo, I've reverted your edit on analytic philosophy where you removed the image. Any chance you could explain why you think that image should be removed? Philosophy articles tend to have a real lack of images and that one, while not necessarily particularly useful in illustrating the concept of analytic philosophy, seems like it is a fairly good addition to the article. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC) I removed it because it seemed to be promoting an agenda, or advertising a specific person. The philosophers depicted are all very famous except for the female, who is much less known and cannot be equated with the others. A picture like that gives a false impression to casual readers. As for images-- each of the famous philosophers has a picture in the wiki article for him that can be added individually, if desired.

Your edits to Larry Shaw (editor)
While your contributions here are appreciated, some of these changes rather puzzle me, as they add no further information (why re-define the Futurians when the reader can just follow the link?) while making the article's language feel rather stilted and over-formal (i.e., "E.C. Comics company" rather than "E.C. Comics"). What was your reasoning? -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  13:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

=
Re: Edits to Larry Shaw Orangemike, I don't know if this is the right venue to answer you, but anyway, you wrote to me: "While your contributions here are appreciated, some of these changes rather puzzle me, as they add no further information (why re-define the Futurians when the reader can just follow the link?) while making the article's language feel rather stilted and over-formal (i.e., "E.C. Comics company" rather than "E.C. Comics"). What was your reasoning?"

My response: No further info: I didn't intend to add info, I was simply changing the language to what I believe is better English. I know I should have said that in the edit box, but I often forget to do that.

I didn't "re-define" Futurians, I defined it. Reader can just follow the link: That's partly the point. Why make the reader interrupt reading by linking to another page, when the term Futurians can simply be explained (in general terms) by a few words? Wiki guidelines include avoidance of jargon; I'm a sf fan myself and knew who the Futurians were but this is certainly not true of everyone; it sounded like an cliquish "insider" comment more appropriate for a fan mag than an encyclopedia article, which is supposed to explain. There's plenty of room for the extra words, and I was willing to do the work. Also, links are usually good, but philosophically I think we should also try to avoid burdening the web with extra back-and-forth traffic if we can (not everyone's computer is very quick, either).

Language feel rather stilted and over-formal: It doesn't seem "stilted" to me, although I realize you may disagree due to what you are accustomed to. As for "over-formal" in my opinion the former wording was too casual and informal. It is after all an encyclopedia not a street-corner conversation, and I think a good example should be set of using language precisely and saying exactly what is meant, with a minimum of cliche's, slang, figurative expressions, etc... This is a general complaint of mine about Wikipedia, where I've read for example that someone was "kicked out of" his apartment (actually he was simply evicted).

It doesn't hurt to be explicit about E.C. Comics being a company. I know there are wikis for other languages, but I suspect many non-primary-English speakers are using the English-language Wikipedia, some of them young people from socialist countries who may not understand clearly that by "Comics" a company was meant. Another philosophical point is that precise, non-figurative language greatly assists computer translations to other languages and to machine language. You may not agree, but I wanted to explain that there was reason involved and the changes were not simply random or idle.

Your edits to Bill Haywood
I've just reviewed your edits to the Bill Haywood article. While you have improved the language in many parts of the article, in doing so you have introduced some factual errors. I will fix them. Richard Myers (talk) 04:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * After many, many corrections of factual errors, involving a full hour of editing, i have concluded that your edits are not worth preseving. I have reverted everything.


 * PLEASE DO NOT EDIT ANY MORE ARTICLES ABOUT WHICH YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE MOST BASIC TERMINOLOGY, LET ALONE THE HISTORICAL FACTS.


 * While a few of your edits did improve language, it isn't an improvement overall, when you introduce so many mistakes. Richard Myers (talk) 05:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

STOP. STOP. STOP.
You are wreaking havoc on articles.

You need to learn basic terminology about labor organizations before you make changes that you do not understand.

Labor leaders are not called directors.

Neither are labor leaders automatically officers.

Breaking a strike has a different meaning from ending a strike.

Supporters of labor organizations are not "endorsers".

Resigning an organization is not the same as leaving; sometimes one's position is terminated and there is no resignation.

Please stop making these errors! Richard Myers (talk) 05:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC) Some of your points I think are debatable-- for example when I changed leader to officer I do believe the person in question was an officer of the organization (though in retrospect "official" might have been a better word). My point is that a word like leader is not really "basic terminology", it's ambiguous and I was trying to make it more specific. But I looked at your union website; it is impressive and if I, without having done adequate research, made incorrect assumptions or misunderstood a technical sense of a word, then I apologize for wasting both our times.


 * Thank you. Union leaders are not always officers, nor are they always officials. Leaders could include stewards, strike captains, group leaders, or simply members who take upon themselves a leadership role. I have been a union member for more than 40 years, as well as a steward, safety rep, officer, executive delegate, and more recently, a labor historian. I think i should know. Richard Myers (talk) 01:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)