User talk:LoreMariano/Archive 1

Aesthetic Realism
Civility is a requirement. See WP:CIVIL. External links should only appear in two places - either in the "external links" section at the end, or in citations used as references. See WP:EL. As for the order of elements in the introduction, there aren't strict guidelines, though WP:LEAD may be helpful. But a typical format is to first describe the subject in terms that the entity would use for itself, followed by other views.  Will Beback   talk    03:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see an outright ban on quotations in intros. See WP:QUOTE. However in general, it's best to use secondary sources. The fact that there are so few such sources available is a problem. See WP:PSTS.   Will Beback    talk    04:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia works on consensus. See WP:CON. The way to achieve consensus is through discussion on the article talk page. talk:Aesthetic Realism. I suggest you start a thread regarding your edit. Try to seek common ground.   Will Beback    talk    18:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, other users have started a thread to disucss your edits. See talk:Aesthetic Realism. As for signing, are you typing four tildes ( ~ ) at the end of your comments?   Will Beback    talk    19:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Have you changed your preferences? You might try restoring the defaults (there's a button for that).   Will Beback    talk    19:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Your problem with the italics has to do with a line break. Bold and italic formatting ends with each paragraph. For example: ''Gone With The Wind. Now the italics stop mid-title and start afterwards, until I stop them again. You can fix it by deleting the line break. Also, while I'm here, I should mention that reverting to your preferred version and calling it the more neutral is satisfying, but it isn't likely to result in a consensus. Tryo to work with other editors to find a common ground acceptable to everyone. For what it's worth, Wikipedia works best when it accepts different, even opposing, viewpoints and presents all sides using the neutral point of view.  Will Beback   talk    00:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That worked, thanks. And all I can say about your other comment is, Are you kidding me?  Have you been following how many suggestions I've made and how many times Outerlimits rejects them?  Not to mention that he writes as if he owns Wikipedia and has the admin editors in his back pocket.  Not to mention that he can't even spell the Founder of Aesthetic Realism's name right while he professes to know best how to present it.  Not to mention that he feels two paragraphs is "too much detail".  Are you kidding me?!  LoreMariano (talk) 04:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. --SineBot (talk) 19:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did know. Not sure what is causing the problem, I restored preferences defaults. Let's see if that works. Thank you. LoreMariano (talk) 20:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Article intro
An intro should summarize the contents of an article, including criticism. As for hte article in general, there is a core problem with that article. Material in Wikipedia should be drawn mainly from secondary sources, and there are virtually no such sources that discuss Aesthetic Realism. If folks start getting into fights over it then the remedy may be to delete everything in it (stubbify) and start again with material drawn from reliable secondary sources. That would result in a substantially shorter article.  Will Beback   talk    21:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I cna't think of another philosophy group comparable to AR. Objectivism is so much more prominent and well-covered than AR that looking at their articles might not be much help category:Objectivism. As I wrote before, please seek consensus with the other editors. That means giving up stuff you might want, and accepting things you might not like, but can tolerate. Remember that Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, WP:NPOV, requires including all significant views, positive, negative, or other.   Will Beback    talk    18:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism
The article is the same now as it was in July, when you last edited it. I don't see any vandalism.  Will Beback   talk    21:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

URLs
There's no need to compact URLs. If you're linking to a site you can mask the URL by placing brackets around it, and optionally add some text before the last bracket.  This  gives you this.  Will Beback   talk    16:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I used one of the citation templates to fix that. I hope to see more mainstream books used as sources for that article, and more footnotes to cite individual assertions.     Will Beback    talk    18:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Categories
Please make sure that there are secondary sources to support those categories, and that the categories are as "sharp" as possible - meaning that if there's a subcategory that fits use it instead.  Will Beback   talk    06:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Lead
Let's see if we can get a consensus for that version, or make simple improvements to it to make it acceptable. If that proves impossible then we can go back to a one-line intro. If editors continue to fight over poorly source material we might have to go to a one-line article and start over from scratch.  Will Beback   talk    23:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you're upset, but I suggest trying to work objectively without any attachment. I agree that the article as a whole is too long given the lack of independent sources. If you'd like to propose a revision for the overall article that might take precedence over the lead.   Will Beback    talk    01:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles should be based on secondary sources, and so far all anyone can find on this topic are either written by members of the foundation faculty, or newspaper articles that are called smears. If there are no good sources on the topic then we shouldn't write long paragraphs. Not to put too fine a point on it, but no one outside of the ARF, or a few former members, ever seems to write about this topic. I think your suggestion of just having a few paragraphs is appropriate.   Will Beback    talk    06:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you send an email? I haven't received it.   Will Beback    talk    00:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Editing content
You can edit in Word and then paste your text into Wikipedia, but I've found that clumsy. If you're simply having trouble following the revisions in Wiki markup then I recommend using this script: User:Cacycle/wikEdDiff.  Will Beback   talk    02:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Edits (User 71)
No rush. I think this process is going along okay as long as no one is slinging insults and we're making progress. If that takes a while, no problem from my end. So, whenever you get to it, great. 71.224.206.164 (talk) 00:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

71's Notes
Lore, I read your comments and responded on the draft page. For continuity, I copied relevant excerpts to there but only parts directly connected to editing and not the philosophical pieces. About the process:


 * I'm not in a rush, but I do think some pace will be helpful...for one reason at least, since there has been frustration about the intro/cult/homosexuality pages, making continual progresss will help defray the concern that the editing process is somehow a delaying tactic (especially since, if we go in order, the controversial pieces are the last ones we'll get to).


 * I think once we resolve the little issues on the draft page, we should post it on the talk page for open comment. A lot of people have been gathering sources, and I'd like to make sure that if people have content relevant to each section that we incorporate it; also, the more eyes that see the draft before it gets posted to the mainpage, the less likely it is to be vandalized later.


 * As for keeping the main page stable, the best thing we can do is just write a really comprehensive, informative, even-handed article. It will be difficult for people to find fault with a version that gives full recognition to the philosophy and it's reception--both the positive/illustrative and the controversial/critical.  That will obviously be open to some debate later, but I think most of the vandalism has resulted from a cycle of exclusion/exaggeration/exclusion/exaggeration...

71.224.206.164 (talk) 16:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Lastly, if necessary, if after the draft is agreed it is still being reverted/vandalized, then there are a variety of administrative actions Will can help us explore. Everything from a warning template that the article is controversial and should be discussed before editing, to outright bans of certain editors, to official page protection (which only allows edits from registered users or in the extreme only from admins).  This page, along with other social/political/philosophical/religious/cult-accused topics have been a continual source of edit wars and vandalism on Wikipedia, and the community of Administrators is well aware of that.  If we make a considerable effort to create a balanced article, and it is still being undermined, I think there would be plenty of support from above.

Question to 71
Lore, the source page, like our draft page, is a "sub-page" and anything we do on them won't ever show up in the main Wikipedia. So, if there's a link there, we have to use the url in full, as if the sources page didn't even exist. Secondly, I believe that pasting the mere number will not work. Instead, you have to paste the underlying code (called markup). Then Wikipedia will do it's text reducing trick again. So, to clarify, yes, references on Wikipedia are really annoying. I wish I knew as much about Wiki formatting as I did about grammar. That's my best guess. Please ask Will, if you're still not sure.

p.s. If you ever have a question, you can always look at another part of any Wikipedia article that does what you are trying to do, copy that article's markup code (the stuff on the 'edit this article' page) and then change the details. 71.224.206.164 (talk) 01:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think we should post it, and let the content speak for itself. Since this is a very uncontroversial section, I don't think sourcing will be a problem, and we can probably get it posted to the main page and then fix the citations.  But you're right that this will not work for trickier sections.  I'm going to defer to Will's experience on this one, hopefully he has some ideas. 71.224.206.164 (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Refs and PDFs
I'm not sure I understand your question. You can add to a talk page to reveal the coded references. I've added those sections to the AR talk page and the draft page. Let me know if that doesn't solve the problem.  Will Beback   talk    21:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * When text with citation is copied, the only way to preserve the citations is to open an editing window and copy the coded text from there.   Will Beback    talk    23:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Good to know. Thanks, we'll use that method in the future. LoreMariano (talk) 23:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Mainpage
Lore, given that 1) no one has commented and 2) it's a pretty obviously uncontroversial topic, I think we should leave a note on the talk page and then post it to the mainpage. I'll do those; are you ok with doing the references on the mainpage? 71.224.206.164 (talk) 22:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I posted the version with the messed up citations. Whenever you fix them on your draft, you or I can just replace the entire mainpage section with the correct version. 71.224.206.164 (talk) 20:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's not do that again! I flipped when I saw it, after we had been trying to be so careful for such an extended period of time.  Do you mind if I title the section simply "Philosophy"? LoreMariano (talk) 20:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That's what I meant when I said I'd post it and you could do the references; i thought it would happen in that order... I think just 'Philosophy' works for the title. 71.224.206.164 (talk) 05:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Formatting
I could see why you'd prefer a more spaced-out look, but I think wikipedia has a pretty well established policy on page formatting. I won't touch it, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was changed by another editor fairly quickly. 71.224.206.164 (talk) 04:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The policy is here: paragraphs [Between paragraphs—as between sections—there should be only a single blank line]. But the best evidence is just that no other pages do it. I think wiki consensus is towards less wasted space, even if it's a little cramped. 71.224.206.164 (talk) 06:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Small font
Hi Lore,

Not trying to start an edit war over font size!, but I really can't work on text that large. I don't know why my comments rendered in a smaller font, since I didn't use any tags or unusual code. I'll check with Will if we can't figure it out. Also, most browsers have a feature to adjust the text size, so that might help. If you want to change it back i don't mind, but it'd be nice to figure out how to get the size back to normal. 71.224.206.164 (talk) 02:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)