User talk:Gtadoc

''' Gtadoc is currently inactive/retired from editing WP. '''

You are welcome to leave messages here. When adding comments, please create a new section and add the comments to the bottom of this page. I will reply here (rather than on, say, your user page). Conversely, if I've left a message on your talk page, I'm watching it, so please reply there.

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. 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! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place  before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Jonathunder 17:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Regarding this edit
Well put, but additions must be cited to reliable sources. Arrow740 03:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * fixed, thank you for pointing out.Gtadoc 06:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia NOR/V policy
Replied on my talk page. Calliopejen1 02:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Mayo College of Medicine
The link in your user page is dead, it should be Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, not Mayo College of Medicine. Sorry about the edits. --75.72.180.94 16:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem, and thank you for pointing that out; I reverted to the wrong version. Gtadoc 17:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Doctor of medicine
I appreciate your input on this article. The new wording is neutral. ''According to the American Medical Association. . . is a good way to neutralize the statement. Osteopathic Freak  T ? 18:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * thanks :) I don't really get why people don't want something akin to that in there. Gtadoc 04:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Offer to mediate/write intro
Thank you for your kind response to my talkpage. I was going to suggest that you and Zleiten work out an acceptable compromise, since having the two points of view represented will likely satisfy most of the editors, but I now notice the language being used above. I am not the right person to write the intro either, since I know little about Guevara the man but only the cultural phenomena. Perhaps you may wish to ask the editor I was conversing with a few sections above in the talkpage. He acted very sensibly and wrote a good neutral text. Now, excuse me but I am popping off to have a word with someone. LessHeard vanU 20:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi. The comment you responded to on my talkpage was by User:Bladestorm. I have copied it to his talkpage along with a suggestion of mine. LessHeard vanU 21:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! 21:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Che
Thank you for the welcome and the encouragement. Seeing what is written up above I'm a bit surprised how you were attacked. I'm new to wikipedia but not to online discussion groups, and if I may, don't allow yourself to be baited into a long argument like on Che Guevara by someone who is just looking to start a fight :) I did enjoy reading your comments though and I admire sticking to your guns so to speak in trying to defend the article from what looks like a pretty biased user! Fmehdi 14:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks; I should quote this on my userpage "In all the years of school the one thing they never taught me was when to just sit back and keep your mouth shut". Very applicable, even being in the right sometimes its best to keep quiet and let others (eventually) do your work for you! Oh, by the way, perhaps you would enjoy reading the discussion of Atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, another instance where several people are trying to keep some pretty straightforward bias out of an article.  Gtadoc 15:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

re:
in response to your request, the article "Islam and domestic violence" focuses primarily on the legal rulings and jurisprudential opinions regarding how a husband may or may not discipline his wife, when necessity demands. criticism occupies a comparitively small portion of the article, and is not a central theme to the article (unlike Criticism of Islam and the like). that critics happen to attack Islamic perspectives on this issue, like they may very well do on Islam and slavery, Tahrif, Aisha, Tawhid, Riba, and every other Islam-oriented article imaginable, doesn't make the template appropriate for that page... in the same way we don't slap on fiqh onto any article even remotely close to discussing fiqh. regards. ITAQALLAH  01:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, I understand your argument now, and agree. Thank you for explaining your reasoning to me.  Best Gtadoc 01:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Is Fmehdi "new" to wikipedia
This is all becoming very strange and unusual! Given your praise for Fmehdi for being a "new" user willing to jump in on Che Guevara, and given his acceptance of that praise,   please see where he states he is not a new user. Can you sort all this out for me? I am not understanding what is going on, even though I have had considerable experience of a similar sort working for months on Fidel Castro. Sincerely, Mattisse 17:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know, I saw a blank discussion page and assumed he was. I'm happy to have anyone in the discussion that isn't simply arguing out of a feeling of ownership  .  I don't really understand what is going on, either, with reference to Che Guevara as I came in after some large changes were already made (apparently) and am simply trying to work with the current version; I would submit that some users have a problem with the site's creator and are taking it out on anyone who tries to work on the article.  Since you mention, though, I'll take a read through the Fidel Castro page. Gtadoc 20:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I could be wrong in many of my assumptions as I have not been following the Che Guevara issue until very recently. However, when I first joined Wikipedia  (May 2006)  I started working on the Fidel Castro article because it was neglected and in disarray. I was unaware that it would become a battle ground. Others joined me (this is my recollection so it may be skewed) including Zlietzen and we worked on quality sourcing primarily. The article was subsequently trashed by User:Teemu insisting on refactoring the talk page daily and we all finally gave up and left. I do not know the state the article is in now. I do know that Zlietzen was unfailingly helpful, professional and polite, even when users were way out of line.  I tried to explain what I think may be happening to Zlietzen now to  Fmehdi  (Please read if you can.) I know that Wikipedia can be very rough on people who mean well and do good work. Zlietzen has given so much to Wikipedia that it pains me to see this happen. However, horrible things happened to me and no one stepped in until a kind bureaucrat did in the end after six months when I  was ready for the nut house. Zlietzen did not help me then so I owe him nothing. I speak up because I do respect him, he makes fine, ethical contributions, and perhaps I see my own past despair in his behavior and have compassion for him. Again, I could be wrong. This is just my opinion. Sincerely,  Mattisse 22:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * P.S. When you say "the site's creator, who do you mean? Also, please let me know your thoughts as I seek to understand. Sincerely,Mattisse 22:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, I was referring to Jimbo's declaration that he couldn't possibly see how the Che page achieved FA status while leaving out important information. After that the article was changed a bit, and I think some users lost it.  Those attempting to work with the result were attacked as if they were all sockpuppets of Jimbo...I'm sorry to hear about your bad experience.  I suppose in my limited experience with wikipedia that it is the nature of the beast that anything we create will be worked on by others, to change and evolve past what we made (or beyond what we envisioned it to be, for better or worse).  In any event, I think I'll leave the controversial pages a bit to others as it seems that when the tomato throwing begins no one really looks to see who they are aiming at. Gtadoc 02:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The wrong version
It's funny because it's true.

Seriously, thank God for that link ... it results in a lot more posts like yours than the ones parodied.

Hope you and the other editors can resolve the differences you were having. I'd take a break from that page, too, until Bsharvy can come back, just so it doesn't look like you're trying to take advantage of the situation. I'll keep an eye on it. Daniel Case 03:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No worries, as its locked I'm hoping everyone can slow down and look at what the sources actually say and decide (once again, it seems) on a version that everyone is happy with and is supported by the sources. I've got to start looking around for more humerous little links on WP! Gtadoc 03:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment from the CC talk page pased here so you can read them
So this page has been very quiet; It looks to me as if there is a concensus to make this [] the new intro version, with any minor details to be worked out later if need be (but not, for example, adding back in the old pov wording that started this). If this is the agreed upon version (or close enough to it) I'll ask for the page to be unprotected. Gtadoc 03:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure whether this is of any particular interest, but just thought I would point out that the suggested re-write [] contains numerous factual errors. It does not make sense to me that, because the existing intro has one sentence (i.e. re the executions) that requires minor modification, it should be replaced by a complete "re-write" that incorporates numerous inaccuracies, the egregious nature of which should be apparent to anyone who has even a cursory knowledge of Guevara's life. I am not going to detail them here, but if the "re-write" is put into the article, I will tag each such occurrence.
 * -- Polaris999 16:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think, for the time being, everything ought to be sourced even in the intro. This will make statements in the intro more credible. Sourcing is absolutely necessary, in my opinion, and the only way to go to prevent warring. If statements are in the intro, they should be sourced somewhere in the article and you should be able to find citations there. I don't think you should make up a version to make it sound neutral. Also, I don't think you should use quotes without clear citations anywhere, including the intro. Sincerely,  Mattisse 17:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * So, alternatively, we could leave it how it is while only changing the one offending sentence? Gtadoc 22:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict} To me, more care needs to be put into the rewrite than appears to be the case. For example, I just looked at Footnote 5, the last one in the intro. It looks, on casual glance, to be supporting the quote "excessively aggressive quality" as, of course, a quote must be sourced. In actuality it has nothing to do with that quote. To me that  is the sort of writing that needs to be avoided if there is going to be any broad agreement to move forward.  So I would support going back to the original  intro (before all this started) which has been vetted, with the offending sentence modified or removed, than to use one that has a casual disregard for facts.  Sincerely, Mattisse 23:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The option proposed by Mattisse, i.e. "going back to the original intro (before all this started) which has been vetted, with the offending sentence modified or removed" would be my preference also. -- Polaris999 02:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Unless you wanted to work some more on your rewrite, Polaris (not volunteering you for more work!), I also agree then that we could rewrite the single sentence (perhaps as you did?) and leave the rest how it was. Gtadoc 04:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * From my point of view, it is rather a lot to expect anyone who is serious about the article to want to want to work on it now after what has happened. Perhaps Polaris disagrees and is willing to work on the sentence. If not, then I would go with your suggestion of returning the article to its prior state (before all this started) and removing the offending sentence completely. My feeling is also that the page needs to continue to be protected as nothing has been settled. No new sources have been offered (that I know of) so the status of the POV complaint essentially remains the same. If the POV tag is removed it will probably be quickly returned, and I don't know if anyone has the stomach to go through all this again. Perhaps we all need a rest and we should let the article alone for a while until serious editors are willing to get involved .  My experience with articles on Cuba is that once this sort of thing happens,  it is a long time, if ever, before serious editors are willing to put work into an article again. Sincerely, Mattisse 11:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think there was a problem with one editor in particular who went a little nuts, with some people trying to defend him based on how he had acted once in the past...I'm sure I'll have some more interest and time in writing after I return from my trip (about Cuba and Haiti). For the moment I'm mostly writing on science pages in the brief time I have.  I'm also in the process of rewriting a history website for the DOE that I stumbled across and found most sorry.  If no one else pings in I'll make a request for the change (removing the sentence) but not to unprotect the page.  Gtadoc 15:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello, Gtadoc -- I was wondering if you would please clarify what you were referring to when you wrote (above) "I also agree then that we could rewrite the single sentence (perhaps as you did?)" because I have not done any re-write of that sentence or of any other part of the intro since Jimbo made his comments about the CG article on 7 July 2007. When I mentioned a re-write (above), I was referring to that done by User:Yomangani and posted at Talk:Che Guevara/rewrite -- and I definitely do not think we should adopt it because of the factual errors and sourcing problems it contains.


 * What Mattisse has written immediately above perfectly captures my feelings about recent events related to the CG article. Nevertheless, I would be willing to work with either or both of you to try to improve the sentence in question.  I have been searching through my published sources and seeking out others via the web and feel that it should not be impossible to come up with a version that would be acceptable to most wikipedians (although I readily admit that I may be deluding myself here ... )  I thought that we might start by making a list of points that are generally agreed upon re the La Cabaña tribunals and CG's role in them (all accompanied by reputable sources as per WP:V), then proceed from there to ever so carefully craft a sentence ...  If anyone is interested in giving this approach a try (or would like to suggest a better one), please let me know. Thank you -- Polaris999 23:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I too have been confused by Gtdoc's seemingly haphazard references to rewrites and I am not clear what version he intends to restore. His replies to my comments seem to ignore my concerns and go on about other things that I do not understand. If he intends to restore the original intro (the one before all this started), I would be willing (tentatively) to work with you. My hesitation is that I am not at all clear what is happening now. The fact that there was no response at all to a suggestion that would result in a major change was interpreted as consent  suggests to me some clarification is needed. I do not feel like I know what is going on now and would not feel comfortable proceeding until I do. Sincerely,  Mattisse 14:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello Mattisse -- I share your concerns and hope that clarification will be forthcoming. In the meantime, I compared the pre-Jimbo version (the one on which Jimbo placed the NPOV tag on 07-07-07) of the intro with the current one and confirmed that there are only a couple of differences: (1) the first sentence of the pre-Jimbo version contains a reference to CG being a "medical doctor" which someone had recently inserted and which I consider superfluous in this location, hence I prefer the current version of that sentence which omits it; and (2) the sentence re the executions that has been added into the current version.  As to whether or not the latter sentence belongs in the intro, I have no opinion about this one way or the other; however, if it is going to be included, I would like it to be re-written to improve its accuracy and clarity -- nevertheless, I am in no rush to do this, and accept that your idea of a cooling-off period may be the best way to go at this point.
 * Thank you -- Polaris999 16:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Mattisse, if you are confused of something feel free to ask on my talk page. If you don't understand something its better to ask a specific question rather than just say your confused, otherwise its hard to address your concerns specifically (and its much faster than posting here that you are confused...)
 * I feel we need to fix the current page as it is currently locked in the version that has the problem sentence in it. As for the rewrite I noticed it was unsigned in the page I was looking at and Polaris was the user that had commented next, with his sig seemingly attached to both texts.  I looked on a different page and see that it was a different author.  It seems as if some want the protection to stay with the current version because they feel it indicates there is some sort of support for that version or validation of it when I feel that just the opposite is the case.  I agree with polaris on both his points, and I also agree we should be able to find a way to reconstruct the sentence about the executions to make it both sourced and neutral (I hope...).  Mattisse I would also like to point out that while you feel that some people were thrashed after Jimbo's intervention, I know it went both ways as I came here afterwards and tried to help work with what was left and received a slew of personal attacks from the anti jimbo side for simply trying to improve what was left of the article...this seems to be the usual in WP though (in my limited time here) especially when feelings of ownership become involved. Gtadoc 02:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Gtadoc, Polaris999 is expressing exactly the same concerns as I am. Perhaps if you took the time to read through the entries carefully, you would understand both our concerns. In lieu of that, if you address his concerns in a forthright manner, that will answer most of mine. (Mainly, he is agreeing with my concerns, so If you answer his, that should do it.) Excuse me for saying so, but it seems to me you are giving the carefully worded comments I and other have written only cursory attention, certainly not enough to warrant  the time we put into them. I should not have to write you on your talk page to voice concerns that not only me but others have. That is a peculiar request. I will copy and paste my comments and also Polaris999's to you talk page so you can undersand them. Perhaps they are buried in the comments made since you do not seem to check in often.  If your time is limited as you say, and that seems to be the case since you seem not to have time to grasp the main  points expresses on this page, I respectfully sugggest that you only involve yourself peripherally and not try to coordinate a rewrite. Your mind seems to be on trips and such, not on the task as hand. Sincerely,  Mattisse 02:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello Mattisse. I addressed your concerns, if you will read, in my last post; hopefully you are no longer confused.  I  suggest, respectfully as well, that you read carefully before recommending others do the same.  My point, as I said, is that simply voicing confusion is not a very good way to clarify whatever is confusing you, and since I check my talk page each evening its better to ask specific questions there...not at all that unusual from what I've seen on WP to date, though curious you think so.  As I'm traveling now I will have to anyways leave the article to the two of you; I hope given that you seem to have taken sides earlier that you will be able to remain objective in reworking it.  Based upon what I've read here I'm not confident thats possible, however, its easier to pick out a problem than it is to fix it, and I'd be happy to be proven wrong.  Regards.  Gtadoc 05:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for clarification
If you read the above cut & paste comments, you will see that Polaris999 is voicing the same concerns and asking for the same clarification as I am. Please do not make it sound like I am in some kind of special category that must post to you on you talk page to optain general answers pertaining to the article. If you answer his, you will be answering me. Sincerely, Mattisse 02:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No worries, just pointing out that if you ask me a specific question, then bury it in an article's talk page, I'm not likely to notice it and you probably shouldn't accuse me of not answering you. Best, Gtadoc 06:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Request an answer to Polaris999's question about what rewrite of his you are referring to, since he has not made any

 * The option proposed by Mattisse, i.e. "going back to the original intro (before all this started) which has been vetted, with the offending sentence modified or removed" would be my preference also. -- Polaris999 02:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Unless you wanted to work some more on your rewrite, Polaris (not volunteering you for more work!), I also agree then that we could rewrite the single sentence (perhaps as you did?) and leave the rest how it was. Gtadoc 04:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello, Gtadoc -- I was wondering if you would please clarify what you were referring to when you wrote (above) "I also agree then that we could rewrite the single sentence (perhaps as you did?)" because I have not done any re-write of that sentence or of any other part of the intro since Jimbo made his comments about the CG article on 7 July 2007. When I mentioned a re-write (above), I was referring to that done by User:Yomangani and posted at Talk:Che Guevara/rewrite -- and I definitely do not think we should adopt it because of the factual errors and sourcing problems it contains. . . . (rest of post omitted) - Polaris999 23:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I am cross-posting as you said to address you here -- please explain your accusations
Gtadoc,

Polaris999 agreed with, so when you say you agree with Polaris999, you are agreeing with my proposals. I am sorry for missing your clarification about confusing Polaris999's edit with someone else's. I apologize to you for that. I proposed and Polaris999 agreed that:

1. My preference is to go back to the original verson (before all this started and modify or eliminate the offending sentence.

2. That the page needs to continue to be locked as nothing has changed, no new sources have been offered, and no consensus has been agreed to.

3. That both of us are unclear which version you intend to restore and want clarification from you

4. That he accepts my idea of a cooling off period.

In addition Polaris999 suggested that in the meantime we could work on correcting the offending sentence.

When you say: "While I'm sure a group of editors, yourself included perhaps, were responsible for the fighting that occured after Jimbo's comments....", you are accusing me of something that is simply not true and may account for your seeming disregard for my comments and ideas when you accept those of Polaris999 when in essence he is responding to and agreeing with comments I have made above.

My first comment was on July 29. It was not argumentative and did not suggest content or make accusations. I merely suggest we stick to material that is sourced. Further, I have not edited the CC page at all, certainly not in the last year. Please explain to me the basis of your accusations above. Thank you. Sincerely, Mattisse


 * Mattisse: There is not really any accusation. You notice the word, perhaps.  I don't know what role you played.  I do know that you attempted to defend the actions of one of the more flagrant offenders, though, and really thats what I was getting at.  I agreed in my writing to all 4 of your points, and thank you for going back and reading what I said.  My only addition to your points 1-4, is this (which Polaris also agrees with and you mention): the sentence refering to the execution of "war criminals" be changed or removed instead of allowing it to stay in the text indefenately.  Regards, Gtadoc 13:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I will withdraw from the Che Guevara
I deeply apologize that I expressed compassion for someone that I worked with over a year ago whom you apparently do not like. That was a big mistake. To explain, we worked for months on an article that was eradicated and destroyed. (I believe the RFC that was started on the person who continually deleted the article is still open today, over a year later.) I was reacting emotionally to my own experience then and because of that experience I stopped completely editing any articles on Cuba. My comments about the editor were really expressions of my own grief over my own experience last year but I can see how you could misinterpret them.

It was obviously a big mistake to express my feelings to you. I understand that now. However, that has nothing do do with any comments or involvement on the Che Guevara talk page, especially as I only made that comment to you and to one other person, who I now know is a friend of yours. However, since you interpret that show of compassion as disruptive, to quote you: "While I'm sure a group of editors, yourself included perhaps, were responsible for the fighting that occurred after Jimbo's comments....", I am withdrawing from any involvement in  the Che Guevara article completely. Since you are running things, obviously my effectiveness is compromised. I can no longer be of service to the article if those are your beliefs. Thanks for explaining that to me. Sincerely, Mattisse 16:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Mattisse, I'm not quiet sure why you are taking everything so personally, or why you insist that everything said is in bad faith. I simply pointed out that you had sided with a very disruptive editor; I realize you both worked at some time on the article and put effort into it, which is why my response to you was that I wasn't going to get into a fight with him but at the same time I wasn't going to try to justify his actions.  I was actually going to post something today saying I was withdrawing from the article as well since you had decided you were its protector and defender.  In fact this all started as a bit of an experiment, I've been exploring WP a bit after reading about its use in some undergraduate teaching settings.  I've been rather dissappointed of what I've found, and probably won't be continuing my involvement with WP in the future.  You are free to do whatever you like to the CG article, as clearly you view input that conflicts with your own as personal attacks on you, and since to you my contributions are seen as a waste I won't spend any more time on it.  Regards. Gtadoc 20:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't have a "side" regarding the article itself. In really I know little about Che Guevera. I had personal emotions regarding an issue over another article entirely and made the mistake of expressing them. What "side" am I supposed to have? All I have said is that I believe it is important in these situations to follow WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CITE. So if that is a "side", then I have one. That is what I believe, that is what I have expressed. Is it because User:Polaris999 has agreed emphatically with everything I have said that you see me as having a side? Sincerely,  Mattisse 20:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I've already explained it to you; if I wasn't going to get into a time wasting arguement with Zleitzen I certainly am not going to do the same with you. I think you've failed to even realize that I was agreeing with 90% of what you said.  I would hope that you add WP:NPOV to the list of things you believe in, as for Zleitzen that was the only thing we disagreed on.  Gtadoc 20:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course I include WP:NPOV. I have never been accused of bias on Wikipedia&mdash;well, except by you. But who decides what is NPOV? That is where WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CITE come in. Mattisse 20:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I never accused you of that, I accused Zleitzen of that. Its not a subtle difference, and I would point back to the comments you made about careful reading.  Sources can be used to deliberately insert pov language into an article, which is whats currenlty in the sentence regarding executions in the CG article.  Gtadoc 20:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

My 2 cents.
I have been following the disscusion on the Che article since Jimbo first interfered with it, The exasperation that followed was very understandable. That article was an award winning feature article and Jimbo came along and shared his disrespect for it. With that in mind it must be quite a chore for those editors who put so much work into it to keep working on it. Under the circumstances every one you who have been working on it since then has displayed exemplary behavior but it seems like nerves are getting frayed. I sure hope you guys can come to an agreement. From my perspective the only one to blame is Jimbo but blaming him is also an act of futility. Wikipedia pretty much belongs to him. Thanks for your contributions to it thus far but perhaps it is best to not hold anyone to blame for what has happened. Kudos to you and the others for your contributions. I hope you all can keep up the good work. Albion moonlight 12:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Sanger beat you to it
I ran past this while attempting to not get any work done.  to quote the pertinent part from Larry sanger:

The root problem: anti-elitism, or lack of respect for expertise. There is a deeper problem--or I, at least, regard it as a problem--which explains both of the above-elaborated problems. Namely, as a community, Wikipedia lacks the habit or tradition of respect for expertise. As a community, far from being elitist (which would, in this context, mean excluding the unwashed masses), it is anti-elitist (which, in this context, means that expertise is not accorded any special respect, and snubs and disrespect of expertise is tolerated). This is one of my failures: a policy that I attempted to institute in Wikipedia's first year, but for which I did not muster adequate support, was the policy of respecting and deferring politely to experts. (Those who were there will, I hope, remember that I tried very hard.) I need not recount the history of how this nascent policy eventually withered and died. Ultimately, it became very clear that the most active and influential members of the project--beginning with Jimmy Wales, who hired me to start a free encyclopedia project and who now manages Wikipedia and Wikimedia--were decidedly anti-elitist in the above-described sense. Consequently, nearly everyone with much expertise but little patience will avoid editing Wikipedia, because they will--at least if they are editing articles on articles that are subject to any sort of controversy--be forced to defend their edits on article discussion pages against attacks by nonexperts. This is not perhaps so bad in itself. But if the expert should have the gall to complain to the community about the problem, he or she will be shouted down (at worst) or politely asked to "work with" persons who have proven themselves to be unreasonable (at best). This lack of respect for expertise explains the first problem, because if the project participants had greater respect for expertise, they would have long since invited a board of academics and researchers to manage a culled version of Wikipedia (one that, I think, would not directly affect the way the main project is run). But because project participants have such a horror of the traditional deference to expertise, this sort of proposal has never been taken very seriously by most Wikipedians leading the project now. And so much the worse for Wikipedia and its reputation. This lack of respect for expertise and authority also explains the second problem, because again if the project participants had greater respect for expertise, there would necessarily be very little patience for those who deliberately disrupt the project. This is perhaps not obvious, so let me explain. To attact and retain the participation of experts, there would have to be little patience for those who do not understand or agree with Wikipedia's mission, or even for those pretentious mediocrities who are not able to work with others constructively and recognize when there are holes in their knowledge (collectively, probably the most disruptive group of all). A less tolerant attitude toward disruption would make the project more polite, welcoming, and indeed open to the vast majority of intelligent, well-meaning people on the Internet. As it is, there are far fewer genuine experts involved in the project (though there are some, of course) than there could and should be.


 * His comments about antielitism seem to be dead on, I'm not sure how wp gets around some of the criticism. Yesterday to illustrate a point (I asked question and someone answered saying "well wp says") I pointed out some of the more egregious problems with wp for them, rather eye opening to a group of 20 somethings.  Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 03:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm constantly amazed at the stupidity of some people who edit wp...even more so that they are ignorant of it; thank god we can simply dismiss them outright when we run into them in rl! Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 03:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

random thoughts
Hmmm...I think a certain user should stick to what he knows, like woman's lacrosse, and not to things he only thinks he does, like anything requiring an understanding of higher math...lol... Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 02:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Haha, I was right, you have a wikistalker. Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 05:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Meetup in Minneapolis
 Minnesota Meetup Sunday, 2007-10-07, 1:00 p.m. (13:00) Pracna on Main 117 Main SE, Minneapolis, Minnesota Map Please pass this on! RSVP here.  Spam delivered by -Susanlesch 16:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Islam and domestic violence
An article that you have been involved in editing, Islam and domestic violence, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Islam and domestic violence. Thank you. --BJBot (talk) 21:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Cardiology task force
-- Addbot (talk) 00:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC) Maen. K. A. (talk) 23:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Minnesota Meetup
 2009 Proposed date: Saturday, October 10. Details under discussion. Please share this with anyone who may be interested.  Delivered by Jonathunder (talk) 15:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library now offering accounts from Cochrane Collaboration (sign up!)
The Wikipedia Library gets Wikipedia editors free access to reliable sources that are behind paywalls. Because you are signed on as a medical editor, I thought you'd want to know about our most recent donation from Cochrane Collaboration. Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 20:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Cochrane Collaboration is an independent medical nonprofit organization that conducts systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health-care interventions, which it then publishes in the Cochrane Library.
 * Cochrane has generously agreed to give free, full-access accounts to 100 medical editors. Individual access would otherwise cost between $300 and $800 per account.
 * If you are still active as a medical editor, come and sign up :)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)