User talk:Pia L/Archive 4



Scandinavia
You're welcome to take part in the discussion about Scandinavia, it would give a better impression than just reinserting your own version while ignoring the opinions of others. I do appreciate that you took the time to look up the sources, and they definitely deserve a mentioning, but to categorically rule out the fact that many consider the core of Scandinavia to be just Norway and Sweden without even motivating why seems strange. That's not to say that there aren't many who see Scandinavia as Norway, Sweden and Denmark. JdeJ 06:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. If you read the discussion thread above your own comment on the talk page of Scandinavia, you'll notice that I have contributed already and that a large amount of contributors (me included) have discussed this issue for a long time. If you go back through the history of the article itself, you'll also notice that the wording in the current intro is not authored by me. My version has long been edited out---however, the current version is workable and acceptable because it is verifiable. In addition, if you read the article, beyond the first line, and then spend some time reading the sources cited in the article itself, you may also notice that the issue requires a little more effort than, "This is wrong because I and my friends use the term this way or that way" or "I overheard a German use it in this way so I'm removing the English sources."  If you don't feel that your contributions need to have a reliable English source that is considered an expert in English language usage, and if you, in addition, remove 5 reputable sources written by the English usage experts of five major encyclopedias, 3 of which are the major encyclopedias recommended by the Wiki geography naming project, then there is not much to discuss, I'm afraid. Pia 06:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
I must say I'm impressed by the work you put into Wikipedia and to finding sources. I've been in "the different camp" in the articles about Scandinavia and Kjárr and we've had some differences in opinions but I don't hesitate to admit that you've been right in both cases and you have managed to prove it with good background work. It's nice that somebody really takes the time to go to the sources, just like all of us should do. Keep up the good work!! JdeJ 00:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

How are you doing?
Hi Pia. How are you doing? Would you be interested in the work towards GA on the articles Nobel Prize or Raoul Wallenberg? A couple of users have done the most work, but there is some reference checking and other cleanup that might be necessary. Only if you are interested, of course.

Fred-Chess 22:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Why a stub?
Dear Pia L, I don't mind that you revert me (you are one of few editors who can do that without me caring about it), but why reinsert the stub tags? I think the article is too long to be labelled a stub.--Berig 22:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I suspected it might be a kind of edit conflict. Great work by the way :-).--Berig 22:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

More on the Hilleviones
It's time for me to go to bed, but here you have an old 19th century reference that the Hilleviones referred to Halland that could be useful. Take care,--Berig 22:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * PS, here is an even newer one.--Berig 22:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Spamming Nathaniel Branden
You implied here that the link to the CGI website was spam "against this user for deleting promotional links" the link isn't promotional, it is there to attempt to clarify the issue of the status of the school (which I don't even thinks matters in this article) it was not added I think to promote the school. Crazynast 05:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Crazynas is correct. That link is not promotional.  I have no interest in the school and don't care if the name of the school is deleted from the article and all of Wikipedia.  User:Crculver has a history of violating the 3rr rule (take a look at his home page) and of making reversions without comments.  And after you read this message you may understand that he doesn't always work well with others.  On this school issue, take a look at the choices he had:
 * He could have said nothing since the school is operating legally and there is no scandal and nothing is wrong.
 * He could have said the school is approved (which it is) - they are valid Ph.D.s and California accepts them for licensing.
 * He could have said the school does not have Western Regional Acccreditation but it is approved - which would be unnecessary but true.
 * He could have mentioned any of the many accreditations the school does have like:
 * The Society of Modern Psychoanalysis,
 * The California Board of Behavioral Sciences,
 * Division of Allied Health Professions of the Medical Board of California (approved),
 * California Psychological Association Accrediting Agency (approved), and
 * The American Psychological Association (approved).
 * But instead he persisted in constently changing every entry to read "an unaccredited school". Listed like that, by itself, with no explanation of the value of other accreditations makes it look like Branden and every other CGI graduate has an invalid degree - that is what is demeaning and libelous.  I and several other editors attempted to convince him that accreditation, approval and licensing are fairly complex issues that it was wrong to just put that "unaccredited" out there.  The book he cites as a source is a pop culture critique of Ayn Rand's philosophy movement and is known to be a strongly POV attack and is known to have many errors.  He refused to concede that putting that entry was wrong or that his source was biased.  So all that was left to me was to put up a higher quality source - I cited two sources initially, but one was lost during CRCulver's reverts.  I had the page listing the schools accreditations and I had a link to the state showing the school was approved.  Now you have the entire history of this sorry mess.  Put yourself in the place of all of the professionals who have graduated from CGI, including Branden, that have valid degrees and used them to attain valid licenses to practice psychology, based their career and well-being on them and then this article has a single statement that makes it appear that all of them may not be practicing with valid credentials. Steve 06:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Crculver has once again done exactly the same thing. He ignored the discussions you, Crazynas and I have been having and just put the "is an unaccredited institution" back in. Steve 17:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have replied to your remarks on my talk page, underneath those remarks. Steve 00:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit to Talk:Sweden and a question
Pia, I hope you are OK, despite your somewhat curious edit to Talk:Sweden (you're not bipolar, are you? I've seen what it can lead to).

On another note, I want to ask you something regarding education in Sweden. There was allegedly an article published sometime during the Summer that reported how Swedish pupils had the lowest discipline and order in school compared to all other nations in the study. Naturally, it is a result of the social democratic education policy, that gave the students a wealth of freedom and laise fair, with focus on personal responsibility.

I haven't been able to verify what study this was despite searching the Internet a lot. Do you maybe know what study this is? Was it PISA? Despite looking through all I can get access to (for free) on the Internet, I haven't been able to find the result of a PISA evaluation of order and discipline. Maybe you know? / Fred-Chess 16:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Translation, continued
No, it's on a pillow that my family owns. My family is part Swedish, so we thought it was cool when we saw it for sale. I had no idea that the message was so deep. Thank you so much.Cameron Nedland 04:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks
from Crete ;-). Don't know how I've ever missed your message ;-(. Lycaon 13:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Moving images to wiki commons
I have copied it across. It wasn't really much of a worry, just that someone browsed by the image and thought it should be on the commons (where any wikipedia project can use it rather than just the english language one). There is no real task force which is working, I imagine someone would have moved it at some point but you weren't under any obligation to move it yourself. If you want to move any yourself (though I wouldn't really worry about it too much) then  this rather uninviting looking tool page allows you to create the upload text for the commons (help here) - then it is just a case of saving the image to your computer, creating an account at the commons (if you don't have one) and going here, pasting the text that the tool created in the summary box and selecting the file from your computer. If you have any questions feel free to ask, Best Wishes, SFC9394 20:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC) P.S. Cool looking landing strip - would be fun to take off from there! SFC9394 20:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi!
Hi Pia, and thanks for dropping me a message :). Sometimes, it is just too fun writing some articles about obscure Scandinavian stuff. I have been thinking for a while of inviting you to WikiProject Norse history and culture. It needs users like you who make high quality contributions and who are interested in Scandinavian history, linguistics and culture. What do you say?--Berig 20:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand that. I hope to see you around, even if you have a lot of things to do IRL. Take care,--Berig 21:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Awesome
Pia, your last contribution to Codex Runicus is a beauty to behold. I am very impressed :).--Berig 07:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree Pia. With your images as a guide anyone can make a try at transliterating the pages in the pictures for themselves.--Berig 08:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:CodRun1.jpg
I like it but why did you limit yourself to the fragment ? Nasz 08:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Nasz, it is not necessary to transliterate "one page". If anyone wants to read the whole text s/he can go to a library.--Berig 08:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Nathaniel Branden
Thank you for cleaning up the references I added to the article. I'm still pretty new to Wikipedia, though I've used other wikis, and I guess I'm not up on the proper form. Your version of those references were academically professional and would certainly please my teachers. :) ThAtSo 22:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your polite comment. I just want these articles to be more comprehensive and balanced, not just bashing one group or another. I'm a student, not a full academic, but I do appreciate the value of good research and objectivity. Since you're interested in Branden, maybe you might be interested in what's going on with the Ayn Rand Institute article. I'm not sure if it's in good form to say more, so I'll just suggest that you might want to look at it and form your own opinion. ThAtSo 22:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It's totally understandable if you want to sit this one out. I did the same with the LaVeyan Satanism issue on template:Objectivism. I think your advice on attribution is sound, which is why I supported my last change to Ayn Rand not only with references but with a selection of quotes on the talk page. Despite this, it got reverted, and important facts were lost. I'm going to try a bit harder there, but I'm getting much more resistance than I could ever have imagined. I was told that, with Jimbo being an Objectivist or at least a fellow traveler, Wikipedia was a safe haven for students of Rand. That's part of what attracted me to it, since I've really gotten into her philosophy in the last few years. What I find is that the students seem to have taken over the school and set up their own classes, which aren't up to objective academic standards, and I don't know how to help. ThAtSo 23:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry ThAtSo, if you were looking for a safe haven for a particular set of ideas on Wikipedia, you're in trouble. Here too, because I tend to feel that people searching for "objective academic standards" would sometimes do better staying clear of certain -isms, especially those that focus on teachings about personal enrichment or religious fulfillment or psychological improvement etc etc for their disciples. That one included. Actually, I don't have much apetite for -isms at all, well, except maybe for a teaspoon or so a day of a certain kind of rich, smooth, full-flavored skepticism. ;) Best, Pia 00:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, at this point, I'm pretty close to just giving up. I was warned by friends not to bother trying, but I thought they were being paranoid. Now I'm starting to think that I'm the fool here. Wikipedia seems to exist to prove Yeats was right: "The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity." ThAtSo 18:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)