User talk:Buster7/Archives/2008/September

Diplomacy


A wise man once said: Diplomacy consists of combining honesty and politeness. Both are objectively valuable moral principles. Be honest with me, but don't be mean to me. Don't misrepresent my views for your own political ends. And I'll treat you the same way.


 * Once you call someone a POV-pusher, it pretty much stops collaboration dead. --Akhilleus (talk) 11:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Do your best to set a good example. Model the behavior you'd like to see. If someone does throw a stone, don't pick it up and throw it back. That will go a lot further than blocks, civility parole, or enumerating every conceivable type of incivility. MastCell Talk 04:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no opinion about this really, other than a general request that people try to relax and treat each other with kindness. That might sound useless and trite, but really, I think it's pretty important.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.--Buster7 (talk) 21:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I have a big, red pen...and I'm not afraid to use it
Hello former LOCE member :)

This is an invitation for you to join a brand-new WikiProject that aims to improve the articles tagged for copy edit. This is pretty important to Wikipedia because there are now over 4,000 such articles, some of which need quite a bit of help. This is not a clone of the LOCE because we will not deal with requests for copy edits, but will happily make improvements to articles at our own pace. If you're interested, sign up at the project page!

Cheers,  Samuel  Tan  02:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

"I have a big, red pen...and I'm not afraid to use it".


 * I do need that red pen for Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Austria) since I am almost at the point to have a huge break through with the iamges issue. I do need you to be strict and willing to remove anything that sounds "floral" :)  Can you help me out?


 * Miguel.mateo (talk) 04:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Good-speed! ;-)
Buster, thanks so much for your encouraging note. My instinct is that it is intentional vandalism, but I COULD be wrong. I think I've given _______ every opportunity to grow here, but at the same time I think that pulling in third parties will correct the issue if it is an uneducated misake (which I hope) or premeditated vandalism (which I hope not). Hopefully, regardless or the accuracy of my Ilkali-hopes, my Wikipedia hopes are that enough third parties can either enlighten _______ or at least hold him in check (or, if I am flat wrong, give him free reign to continue). I think that's one of the beauties of Wikipedia process -- pulling in another set of eyes sometimes solves problems whether they are deliberate or not.

I won't be gone. But I'll be in other places in another name so that I can stay away from a few people and so that they can't track me down. If we encounter each other, it will be accident, and that's probably for the best. But I may look you up! Don't be surprised if you see a friendly Avatar appear out of nowhere :-). Tim (talk) 16:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * And I thank you for your spirit, and kindness, as well. Sometimes it's easy to forget how many good eggs there are in Wikiland.Tim (talk) 01:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Civility/Social Informatics
Cues-Filtered-Out theory suggests that some forms of computer-mediated-communcation are less personal than face-to-face activity because of the reduced number of contextual and nonverbal cues available in text-based online social interactions. It asserts that the diminished available cues available in computer-mediated-communication creates a heightened sense of anonymity, which leads to a more impersonal communication exchange than is present in face-to-face interaction.--Buster7 (talk) 02:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The following retrieved from Jimbo's Talk
 * Agreed. And Ryan was right to conclude I wanted to "make an example", and I did. I think we really need to much more strongly insist on a pleasant work environment and ask people quite firmly not to engage in that kind of sniping and confrontational behavior. We also need to be very careful about the general mindset of "Yeah, he's a jerk but he does good work". The problem is when people act like that, they cause a lot of extra headache for a lot of people and drive away good people who don't feel like dealing with it. Those are the unseen consequences that we need to keep in mind.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Membership life cycle for virtual communities
A membership life cycle for online communities was proposed by Amy Jo Kim (2000). It states that members of virtual communities begin their life in a community as visitors, or lurkers. After breaking through a barrier, people become novices and participate in community life. After contributing for a sustained period of time they become regulars. If they break through another barrier they become leaders, and once they have contributed to the community for some time they become elders. This life cycle can be applied to many virtual communities, most obviously to bulletin boards, but also to blogs and wiki-based communities like Wikipedia.

A similar model can be found in the works of Lave and Wenger, who illustrate a cycle of how users become incorporated into virtual communities using the principles of legitimate peripheral participation. They suggest five types of trajectories amongst a learning community:


 * 1) Peripheral (i.e. Lurker) –-- An outside, unstructured participation
 * 2) Inbound (i.e. Novice) –- Newcomer is invested in the community and heading towards full participation
 * 3) Insider (i.e. Regular) –- Full committed community participant
 * 4) Boundary (i.e. Leader) –-- A leader, sustains membership participation and brokers interactions
 * 5) Outbound (i.e. Elder) – Process of leaving the community due to new relationships, new positions, new outlooks

Hail gentleman, scholar and democrat
It is impossible not to be political, and ultimately it is our duty of service to engage in the civilized processes of democracy. There is much about you that I am finding to be a personal example of mature contribution. The irony is that you asked me to mentor you! I really don't know what I have to offer you, but the happy honesty, humility and humanity you show in so many ways is a needed example to me in real life. I look forward to working with you on chivalry, after the US election. And may God have mercy on the United States whoever he moves the hearts of the electors to select as their leader.

You've got to love the subtlety of those who print on their bank notes that it is not these but in God that trust appropriately is placed. Even those uncertain about God can value the sentiment that human relations are deeper than economics. Indeed, that is a treasured sentiment of the party that has the honour of your active support.

I don't need to remind you that best advocacy of your party will argue for policies rather than personalities. It takes a hard or lazy heart to drift from this under the pressures of campaigning. Passion is precious. I am certain you will make the most of the opportunity of the election to rekindle passion for important values. Seize the day! :) Alastair Haines (talk) 04:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC) {|-
 * [[Image:WikiDefender Barnstar.png|80px]]

Thanks!
I really appreciated your support on the Palin talk page. It was a welcome and wonderful surprise. Sniff. I'm a little choked up. :-) GreekParadise (talk) 04:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Palin comments
Your action was fine. I just found your choice of language amusing. In the future, if you are going to leave a comment, something like: "BLP violating comment removed." is perhaps a better way to express it. Dragons flight (talk) 04:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

In replying to an other editor...
 * Your first comment shows our different orientations. Some people continue to regard this as a campaign article and to assess relevance on that basis. Some want it pro-Palin, some want it anti-Palin, and some want it to be a balanced assessment of her fitness to be VP. All three of those views are wrong! It's not a campaign article. It's a bio. I'm not trying to "paint" any kind of "picture" (by which I assume you mean make a campaign point); I'm trying to give the reader significant information about her life, including her career in public office. Notable events should be detailed even if no one can show "relevance" in the sense of "here's why you should vote a particular way in November". Similarly, our job isn't to assess evidence and decide who was right in the lawsuit, which seems to be what you're doing when you dismiss Stambaugh's opinion as "ruminations". You say you want to continue this but you never address actual Wikipedia policy, which states that we report facts about opinions. The issue isn't whether you're persuaded that Stambaugh was right. Your opinion, if you'll pardon my saying so, is absolutely worthless, as is mine, because neither of us is prominent on this subject. Stambaugh, as a Palin appointee and the person directly affected, is prominent on this subject, so we report facts about his opinions. (Beyond that, the lawsuit was a notable event of her mayoralty so a brief summary of its contentions is appropriate.) Finally, as for the NRA conspiracy, I ask you to read what I actually wrote in the article. There is not one mention of an NRA conspiracy. Indeed, there is not one mention of the NRA. Even if a reliable source published a purloined copy of the minutes of the NRA meeting at which the plot was hatched, that information wouldn't belong here. JamesMLane




 * This thread seemed to be about whether aspects of her life viewed as trivial by some Wikipedia editors should be included in her article. I argued that to have balanced and NPOV coverage, we should not exclude those aspects of her life she might prefer not be mentioned. This in no way disagrees with WP:BLP. Only when things are documented and discussed in the mainstream press should they be included, and even then not every factoid must be included. The notability guideline is more germane to the issue of whether someone should have an article at all, than to what the content of the article should be. The guidelines or policies for reliable sourcing, verifiability , no original research and neutral point of view are the important guides for what belongs in a bio article, and in how much detail. The less-than 8 months gestation or early start of her firstborn is of no real importance as such, unless it becomes an issue, such as by denial followed by documentation and increasing press coverage, or if she makes it an issue for some reason. A regard for privacy per WP:BLP does not justify our making any bio article into a puff piece which goes into great detail about every racing trophy the husband won or every positive aspect of the subject and her family, without mentioning any criticisms or details she or the campaign would prefer not to mention, when they have coverage in the mainstream press. Certainly positive details must be included when they are reliably sourced, such as her whistle-blower and reformist political career, her monogamy, her strong personality, her religious faith, the boost she gave to the McCain poll numbers, her having actually worked at demanding jobs,and her combining of motherhood and a career. Edison 17:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * From//Public image and reception of Sarah Palin//---A Washington Post writer noted,'...every day, the McCain campaign brays anew with over-the-top indignation at 'the outrageous attacks' on Palin's family", and speculated, "lacking ideas, programs or values -- John McCain and Sarah Palin are running for the White House on an elaborate fictional narrative of victimhood. Their supposed persecutors are Democrats and the news media, and the aim of this whole charade is to keep Americans from talking about ideas, programs and values."
 * Paid operatives can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/01/technology/01link.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin ?


 * Journalists don't always include a verbatim quotation when reporting a politician's position on an issue. If we accept the publication as a reliable source, then that means that we trust the reporter and the publication to be giving us an accurate statement as to a matter of fact. We can report it as a fact unless there's some evidence to create a good-faith doubt on the point. Here, it's not just an AP story, it's an AP story datelined in Anchorage, so the reporter was on the scene; it was published in the Anchorage Daily News [35], the newspaper most likely to have some editor who'd say, "Wait, Palin changed her position on that in a speech last month"; and it was picked up by Fox News [36], which is totally in the tank for the Republican Party and would have had every incentive to ferret out any inaccuracy in this report. Under these circumstances, there's absolutely no basis for dismissing this information just because the reporter didn't choose to include a verbatim quotation. When I agreed with using the past tense, I had not read this AP story. It's a reliable source, it says "supports", so our article should say "supports". JAMES PARK LANE