User talk:Slartibartfast1992/Archives/2008/March

Dirty, dangerous, and demeaning MedCab
I'd be happy to have you as an informal mediator for that case. Mostlyharmless (talk) 21:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, strike that. I've seen your efforts in your previous case, where things got out of control. I think you have good intentions and are probably a good editor, but I'm not convinced about your conflict resolution skills. Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * for whatever it is worth, you would have done a good job mediating. I have full confidence in your skills, age is not important and anyone who thinks it is probably has a job where they get promoted every x number of years regardless of job performance.171.66.38.161 (talk) 11:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm very happy to be mediated - but I've just had a lot of experience of content disputes that haven't been resolveable in the past, and when I saw your last one, it didn't fill me with confidence - but it is understandably a hard job. On second thoughts I've decided to give this a go with you. Cheers, Mostlyharmless (talk) 21:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hopefully mediation goes well, I look forward to hearing Slartibartfast1992's knowledge on the topic. If possible I want to have a discussion on the most contested topics of why a paragraph on Frederick Taylor is relevant and what purpose the list of Occupations considered to be 3D serves.Granite07 (talk) 03:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Subject of case
No, the subject of the case is not who does dirty, dangerous and demeaning jobs, but; whether the article should be about "dirty, dangerous and demeaning" (3D) - which is a transliteration of 3K, and is used (almost without exception, in both academic and general literature) to describe jobs taken by foreigners, or whether it should just be about hard, tedious or dangerous jobs (which describes a very large fraction of work today, and an even larger fraction of work in the past). Currently there is almost no use of the term to refer to the latter idea. Obviously, I'm stating my position here, but those are the two positions. Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I totally disagree with that decision. It makes no sense at all. There is already manual labor and other articles that describe these jobs. Merge the content that talks about those things there. That's a genuine suggestion from me.


 * The term (dirty, dangerous, and demeaning) however is a neologism, and refers to one thing only - migrant labor in low status jobs, and is almost never used to refer to anything else. I made good faith efforts to find other uses, and asked Granite07 repeatedly to show where it had been used in other ways, and nothing of substance was found. Mostlyharmless (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No worries. Give me a wikilink and I'll watchlist the page. Mostlyharmless (talk) 22:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

someone has signed in using my log-on and posted under my username. Who do I contact about this?Granite07 (talk) 05:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * as an addition, whoever wrote this speaks like someone that watches too much MTV and American movies, the word "totally" has not been in common use since 1988. The poor grammar and punctuation is also interesting. Thank you for impersonating me as an uneducated American, you could not be further from the truth. Also be aware that the word "genuine" is only used when referring to Miller Genuine Draft beer. From foreign students I understand that American slang is difficult to master and apparently even more difficult to impersonate.Granite07 (talk) 05:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * for my imposter, I suggest you begin with this lesson suggested by a friend from Turkey, http://youtube.com/watch?v=WmFBOVZ6BLMGranite07 (talk) 06:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

There was a signature, it was mine, but I did not place that comment. My postings are now dated and time stamped with the same timezone as mostlyharmless, near Australia. I believe this person truely attempted to mislead you and impersonate me, this is very serious.Granite07 (talk) 19:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Everything on the page is referenced. The Frederick Winslow Taylor connection is fairly obvious, the specifics are detailed on the mediation page and taken from Wikipedia. Granite07 (talk) 23:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

now that Taylor->3D is laid out clearly at a novice level does it still sound like gibberish? The case page comment is written for mostlyharmless since s/he claims to be an expert on the topic. I understand your expertise is likely in an entirely different field than Industrial engineering (IE). This is likely since already your sense of humor is on several magnitudes more than the average IE, though the dude video was shown to me by an IE. The references support the Taylor to 3D connection but what is written in the article does not make this obvious enough (the reader is assumed to click on the links and read a few more pages if verification is desired), what do you suggest to rewrite this at a lower level of expertise. Granite07 (talk) 23:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Commoners eh? I was asking for a thrid party proofread, does it read well to you? Is the Taylor note in the article referenced properly with three references, two wikipedia articles and one third party?Granite07 (talk) 23:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Link to article for review 3D

link to backup information that may need to be added to article for clarity in relevance clarification

Any feedback you have is appreciated, all I want is to clarify these important aspects of the topic and verify the references provided are sufficient. Granite07 (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The Taylor section is completely separate from the 3D occupation section. Taylor is provided in the article as the background for the term. Taylor is the founder of modern Industrial Engineering which has lead to lean manufacturing of which 3D is a term. All three of the concepts are referenced and links between them are referenced. Why 3D is a term of lean manufacturing and what makes some lean manufacturing jobs 3D is not discussed since there is no reference for this, only that 3D is a lean manufacturing term and lean manufacturing is derived from Taylors theories. Some occupations listed are lean manufacturing occupations but most are not. There is no dispute that 3D occupations include more than just lean manufacturing occupations. Taylors theories are now no longer considered valid and have been replaced.

The next section with 3D occupations is referenced separately from various sources as to what occupations are considered 3D by name, most of these sources are from journal articles discussing migrant asians, but other sources are also used. All literature has a high correlation in terminology and use, those working these specific occupations are 3D workers. The three references on american use of the term is what I think you are refering to, these are provided to disprove an earlier discussion as to if the 3D term is used in more than an academic context and is used in common use.Granite07 (talk) 00:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

references, you say "my references", all but three of the references given in the article are mine. I have researched and found almost all of the 29 references provided. I do not think you meant to say that only one of these are valid.Granite07 (talk) 00:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The proofread link was meant to be to this, ''Frederick Winslow Taylor laid the foundation of lean manufacturing, of which 3Ds is a common term. He perceived the worker as a component of a larger system and dictated a mechanical way of performing labor movements in an attempt to increase productivity.'' Are these two sentences ok, and properly referenced? Granite07 (talk) 00:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You are correct and I agree with you, the connection between 3D and lean manufacturing does not seem to fit at first. But it is a lean manufacturing term as given the website http://www.profitec.com/vocab.htm. As mostlyharmless also points out a 3D job may not necessarily have sterotypical poor working conditions, the term has a meaning beyond its stated terms. There is obviously some discussion as to what this expanded meaning is or is not. The Wikipedia Assembly line article gives a scenario that is lean manufacturing and gives an indication as why lean manufacturing occupations are 3D. Without digging through notes, I am fairly certain the 3D term was used in a lean manufactuing course I took in the Industrial Engineering dept, we did a presentation on outsourcing of labor and the effect on developing world workers. This is an example where the migrant worker argument shows some holes since the term is aslo used for 3rd world workers exploited by sweatshop factories, and they never migrated anywhere.Granite07 (talk) 00:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Removing Taylor from the article is not a problem. But an entire section must then be written on lean manufacturing and referencing sources stating lean manufacturing and 3D occupations in the same sentence, these are much easier to find. From there noting Frederick Taylors contribution to lean manufacturing and how this sets the groundwork for the scenario of 3D occupations in manufacturing, where, like you state, it would not seem to be a 3D occupation. Either way the article would still include all three concepts just introduced in a different sequence. The Fredrick Taylor section addresses and closes this area of 3D occupations that would typically not be 3D, i.e. manuafacturing (clarify - light mfg. not heavy mfg.). Last Fredrick Taylors theories are being replaced by new power-to-the-edge type theories, to put it mildly, Taylors theories are not viewed favorably today. Granite07 (talk) 00:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

an example of a page where 99.99% (100%?) of novice readers will not understand some expert sections Marginalism, The Taylor section is much easier than this and about as important.Granite07 (talk) 01:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The statement that 3D is a lean manufacturing term is cited, this website very clearly states 3D is a lean manufacturing term, http://www.profitec.com/vocab.htm. the sandbox comment? That link to Marginalism is not an argument, it was a joke, partial differentials, how many people understand that, you’re sense of humor is fading fast. You appear to be more lenient in your messages to mostlyharmless than me, even a mistake on your part resulted in a fairly strict reprimand of me, why did you not tell mostlyharmless that comment was not constructive? He called you a 15 year old crank and you asked him nicely to explain himself, while you tell me to go to a sandbox over a joke. And why tell mostlyharmless you’re telling me to use references; I have 26 references posted, how many more do you want? Every concept on the 3D page is referenced and you act like I have three references and one is valid. I have 26 references and 24 are valid. In the entire article, Mostlyharmless wrote 3 sentences about Pakistani migrant workers and posted three references, and then he put links to untouchables in India. Mostlyharmless is a very poor writer. Go look at the articles this person lists as their contributions. The obvious bias here is very likely from the fact that Mostly is only a masters of phil student and is researching asian history. The singular focus on asian migrants has gone beyond absurd and entered the realm of pure fantasy. Just because they are researching something does not mean that is all there is in the world. You have been unfair and treated me with some disrespect while giving mostlyharmless much more respect than this person obviously deserves. There is no place here for anyone who uses language like that on a forum like Wikipedia. Please be more balanced with your comments in the future.Granite07 (talk) 07:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"3 D's or San Ke: The D's in English stand for dirty, dangerous, and difficult; the K's in Japanese stand for kitanai, kiken, and kitsue.", this is a quote from a lean manufacturing website giving lean manufacturing terms. We have already established the validity of the direct correlation between Fredrick Taylor and lean manufacturing. I understand that using Deductive reasoning through multiple references is weaker than a single direct reference. Deductive reasoning when properly formed and supported by valid references is a valid method of referencing material. If this is incorrect please let me know and provide a good source. You’re doing a good job mediating. All that a few more years will do is place you in a university where they will reprogram you to their though process and you'll become full of opinions. You’re a good mediator since you are using logic and common sense rather than a universities position, much like mostly and I have been doing. We are from vastly different fields and though I do not know much about his university it is likely very different than mine. Social sciences (excluding economics) and history in particular is about as polarly opposite from what I do as can be. I am amazed that someone who studies in a social science can be so deft at basic economics. As far as working with mostly, there was never any collaborating occurring in the first place. I am happy to say this process has been beneficial. I have a greater, understanding of citation rules and knowledge about 3D's relation to migrant Asians. It is also not often a person is given the opportunity to point out very basic (fallacy) fallacies of logic, since they rarely occur so perfectly. The Wikipedia open forum process does work, the article is better cited and covers the full scope of relevant topics than it otherwise would have. It is too bad some participants viewed this as a Zero-sum game, it could easily have been a Win-win game. Thank you for your time, patience, talent and knowledge.Granite07 (talk) 20:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for linking to the citations page. Honestly did not know synthesis of sources is considered original research. So based on the 3D lean manufacturing source available, I can write all I want on the 3D article about lean manufacturing vocabulary terms but nothing more about lean manufacturing? Unless someone writes and publishes specifically why 3D is a lean manufacturing term, then nothing can be written on this? The second issue of 3D's use as a slang term within North America, is it ok that therer are sources using the term improperly or specifically as slang, but no source stating the word is slang? And if not ok, then what can the sources showing the word used in not a lean manufacturing or academic way be used for? If you are not the person to be asking this, is there a Wiki admin available to clarify. Or do you recommend I read the rules and stop asking questions that I can answer myself, though it is easier to have things explained than just read?Granite07 (talk) 02:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I read the WP:OR and WP:RS, but this does not answer my question. Here is the question again. If I have a source stating concept A is part of concept B,, Then I can write about concept A being part of concept B but can not write anything about concept B. Is this true? Granite07 (talk) 16:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, close Granite07 (talk) 17:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

== Headline text! = Hey dude! Sorry for the late resp, my talk page is a little neglected :( How are you? I'm busy and getting busier, that's good though- I think I have to work on ways of being more efficient, so I can spend time doing things I really like. Mistakes are made - but we move on, Wiki is always changing and you can too. You've done well to stay with it thus far - that's probably why you were asked to mediate after all.

I'm still kicking around, I want to really get back to vandal-fighting (my first love!), but my internet is going so slow and Lupin's tool is not what it used to be. That and most of my wiki-time is spent spreading Bathrobe Cabal propaganda. how are you holding up?

Cheers!  Dfrg_ msc  08:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

PS. Do a barrel-roll!

Response
I don't feel like dealing with an idiot - Granite. I choose to come here to edit, and I'd rather only edit articles I enjoy. I've given up on the idea that it's possible to create a worthwhile article while working with him, which became apparent during the process. I don't want to have anything to do with either him, the article, or this case again. Mostlyharmless (talk) 22:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I don't want anything to do with this case. I don't wish to go round in circles arguing, or trying to justify things, or even engaging, when I have important things to be doing, and only come here for leisure. Goodbye. Mostlyharmless (talk) 22:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Apologies (You are, of course a 15 year old). Whether you can write an encyclopedia, I don't know, but I shouldn't have made that assumption based on your age. Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)