User talk:Rhododendrites/2013a

Interested in writing a paper about Manypedia?
Hi! I'm one of the authors of Manypedia, Paolo Massa, see http://www.gnuband.org I saw the work you have assigned to your students and enjoyed a lot the fact you decided to use Manypedia and the comparisons your students handed in. Great work, thanks! I have been thinking about writing a paper about Manypedia from the user perspective since some time so I was wondering if this can be of interest for you too. We could start from what your students did or enlarge the sample and see how users use manypedia. We also have logs of access (comparisons performed) but I'm not sure this is very useful. Waiting for your reply, thanks! --phauly (talk) 09:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the message. I find cultural/epistemological differences across Wikipedia versions fascinating, so I was excited to stumble upon Manypedia. It's an great tool, and made for a very interesting class activity and subsequent assignment which you saw. Since coming across it I've wanted to make time to explore its seemingly great potential for research (both as a tool and object of study). Needless to say, I'd love to open a dialogue. Were there one or two articles in particular that caused you to see a need for something like Manypedia? --Rhododendrites (talk) 04:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Your Web site
Nice clouds and all, but 504 separate errors on validation? 86.139.62.158 (talk) 00:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I must admit ignorance about the errors, though; can you be more specific?--Rhododendrites (talk) 00:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Han Bennink
The albums that I listed on Han Bennink's page may not have seemed appropriate, but they still are albums that he did with Peter Brotzmann. Source: http://www.discogs.com/Peter-Br%C3%B6tzmann-Sextet-The-Peter-Br%C3%B6tzmann-Quartet-The-Nipples/master/21904 http://www.discogs.com/Br%C3%B6tzmann-Van-Hove-Bennink-Balls/release/1085323?ev=mrr

Early European free jazz was very political, and offensive titles are a part of that. 70.181.179.127 (talk) 17:08, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I googled it when I saw my revert was undone to confirm. Thanks for the heads up; sorry for the confusion. --Rhododendrites (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey, can i ask you a favor?
Can you read the whole article for grammar problems? I have to recheck the entire article and "save page" again and again and I still feel that there is a bunch of grammars that doesn't make any sense. Thanks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operations_Ginny_I_and_II XXzoonamiXX (talk) 03:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Memex
Hi, just to clarify my point of view about Memex. When talked about the name "Memex" in the original article [1], V. Bush writes: "It needs to have a name, and to coin one at random, "memex" will do" (p.121). So yes we can both speculate on the name.

The text alternates between indexing and association, favoring the last one.

There are some parts in the original text that made me think that is not about indexing. From the original text at page 121: "Our inaptitude in getting at the record is caused by the artificiality of the systems of indexing". and "Selection by association, rather than by indexing, may yet be mechanized".

That's why I think that the term index is misleading in this context.

Why the extended ? Because "It is an enlarged intimate supplement to his [user's] memory" (p.121).

[1]V. Bush, “As we may think,” The Atlantic Monthly, vol. 176, no. 1, pp. 112–124, Sep. 1945.

Ioan.szilagyi (talk) 01:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Postmodernism
Fair enough. Criticisms of criticisms was also a parody in line with the page. Seriously, to consider "post-modernist" more than 40 years of the so-called "French Theory" is not very accurate. Mah! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indicedigini (talk • contribs) 18:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The postmodernism article is frankly quite bad. It's much too heavy on the theoretical/critical element, practically defining it as poststructuralism (the first section of postmodernism is deconstruction?! how about a historical context placing it in relation to modernism in art?). In other words, I agree that it's too broad. I started rewriting it from the very top of the article, but realized I would wind up spending many hours I do not have. My only problem with your edit is that the premise for your removal of the content was that the thinkers didn't like the label being applied to them. It's fine to note that as a criticism, but there's no reason to simply oblige their wishes (e.g. Foucault wanted nothing to do with structuralism or post-structuralism, and yet is profoundly influential in both). --Rhododendrites (talk) 23:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Schools
I've declined your A7 on a school with a long name as A7 can't be used for any schools or educational establishments. High Schools are regarded as inherently notable, and this one goes up to grade 11, so I guess it counts as a high school. Not exactly a brilliant article, but that's not regarded as a reason for deletion, mostly. Peridon (talk) 15:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

NPD/BPD
These personality disorder are infamous for being master manipulators. I think they belong. A narcissist or a borderline is a far more advanced manipulator than your average bully. The worst bullies tend to have one of these two disorder anyways. --DendroNaja (talk) 17:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message. Bullying is probably marginal in its applicability as a category, I agree. But those other two are only mentioned in the article in the context of a (somewhat dubious) list of "Psychological conditions of manipulators." Why not include all of those as categories? We could also include the categories for salespeople, politics, public relations, nlp, marketing, etc. Categories generally aren't just good examples (unless, perhaps, dealt with extensively in the article). --Rhododendrites (talk) 18:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
I don't know if you meant to do what I meant to do but didn't--I meant to revert the IP's addition of a non-notable source, which you took care of. I wanted to roll them back and didn't see that there were two IPs used in these edits (it's the same person), and what's funny is that they didn't realize that I failed to remove that paragraph, as the edit summary here points out. Your observation in the edit summary is correct, and there's background to it: see WP:ANI, "Talk:Animal welfare", plus a thread on Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources and one on User talk:Anthonyhcole. Again, thanks-- Drmies (talk) 16:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Aha. I didn't know about the background. I just saw the date going back and forth so went to check the source and realized it was problematic. No problem. --Rhododendrites (talk) 18:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, again, I'm glad you caught and corrected me. Look through my recent contributions and you'll see all the IPs that I warned for promotion--that's them. (The warnings are there to make a point about IP-hopping, not because I think it will matter.) Drmies (talk) 18:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)