| Revision as of 14:31, 12 September 2006 editFloNight (talk | contribs)Administrators20,015 edits Best to remember that every reference is subject to bias including peer-reviewed journals.← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:10, 12 September 2006 edit undoVanished user 19794758563875 (talk | contribs)17,339 edits →Have you "really" left?Next edit → | ||
| Line 66: | Line 66: | ||
| I know just how you feel; I have left one page | I know just how you feel; I have left one page | ||
| and am considering going altogether too. Whether we like it or not, WP will be increasingly used as though it were authoritative; so do we stay and do our best to help that, or are we merely giving the appearance of authority to something so flawed its best feft alone? There are some very good articles here, and some very good editors.] 14:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC) | and am considering going altogether too. Whether we like it or not, WP will be increasingly used as though it were authoritative; so do we stay and do our best to help that, or are we merely giving the appearance of authority to something so flawed its best feft alone? There are some very good articles here, and some very good editors.] 14:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :Both of you should stay and help fix the problems. Best to remember that every reference is subject to bias including peer-reviewed journals. These issues need to be accepted and handled matter of factly. Misplaced Pages is very upfront about its weaknesses, more so than other media. In the long run, wikimedia projects will likely have a postive influence on the way that all media sites deal with real time addition of information. ] 14:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC) |
:Both of you should stay and help fix the problems. Best to remember that every reference is subject to bias including peer-reviewed journals. These issues need to be accepted and handled matter of factly. Misplaced Pages is very upfront about its weaknesses, more so than other media. In the long run, wikimedia projects will likely have a postive influence on the way that all media sites deal with real time addition of information. ] 14:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ::It is this kind of paternalising reactions, by people who think that they have to tell me how science works, that I get the strong urge to leave. At wikipedia, it is process and power over content. And that drives experts away. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 15:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Comments on proposed policy? == | == Comments on proposed policy? == | ||
Revision as of 15:10, 12 September 2006
If you want to reach me, contact me per wikipedia e-mail. I am not checking this page anymore at a regular basis.
 Archives |
|---|
New article on a complex subject
A new article on a complex subject is looking for more high quality contributors:
--Ben Houston 00:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Eulogy
It is a sad day when a big-time contributor, an administrator, someone with 8800+ edits, someone with specialized knowledge in a specific field, departs from the community. I am so sorry for the troubles you went through and for anything that may have built up your frustration all the way to an unbearable level. Your knowledge and contributions will not be forgotten, and I am among the many people who appreciate your efforts and achievements. I wish you the best.
On the other hand, there are many people who announced their departure from Misplaced Pages, sometimes more than once, yet couldn't resist the temptation to rejoin later on. I don't know what will happen in your case, but I do hope that you will change your mind and come back some day, no matter how impossible that might turn out to be.
Good luck!
Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid
This case has closed and the final decision has been published at the link above.
To summarize: Discussion of global issues which concern use of "apartheid" and all polls shall be at Misplaced Pages:Central discussions/Apartheid with subsidiary dialog on the talk page of affected articles. Based on the difficult and controversial nature of this matter, with the exception of Zeq (talk · contribs), who remains banned from editing the article, the principal participants in this dispute shall be granted an amnesty for past actions, but are strongly encouraged to engage in negotiations. All involved administrators are admonished not use their administrative tools without prior discussion and consensus.
- Mgm| 20:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Expert Retention
I invite you to check out Misplaced Pages:Expert Retention; several expert editors who have left or are otherwise upset with Misplaced Pages are listed there (including yourself); several are presently commenting. I think that you could make a useful contribution. Whether anything will come of it, I don't know.
--EngineerScotty 16:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Image
Can you point me to the policy or guideline that gives you the right to delete this without a vote, without discussion, without alerting the uploader, without waiting for seven days, even although you're involved in a content dispute on that page? SlimVirgin 23:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Ben's "big three issues" with NAS article
Going forward, I suggest a focus on dealing with these three issues with the NAS article. If we can effectively tackle these at least my concerns over the article will be addressed. My "big three issues" with the NAS articles are as follows:
- Neutering critics
- Confusing evidence with NAS's interpretation
- Article is about modern NAS theory, not term
What do you think? --Ben Houston 21:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Have you "really" left?
Since you declared your "departure" two weeks ago, you've made more than 100 edits, including today, which makes me wonder whether your "departure" was sincere or not. 17:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.2.251.74 (talk • contribs) .
- I am hovering between leaving because I am disgusted with how wikipedia functions, and staying because of the potential that it could have if there was a willingness to really make an encyclopedia. But I guess the main reason is that I am involved in some issues that I want to finish appropriatly. -- Kim van der Linde 17:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I know just how you feel; I have left one page and am considering going altogether too. Whether we like it or not, WP will be increasingly used as though it were authoritative; so do we stay and do our best to help that, or are we merely giving the appearance of authority to something so flawed its best feft alone? There are some very good articles here, and some very good editors.Gleng 14:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Both of you should stay and help fix the problems. Best to remember that every reference is subject to bias including peer-reviewed journals. These issues need to be accepted and handled matter of factly. Misplaced Pages is very upfront about its weaknesses, more so than other media. In the long run, wikimedia projects will likely have a postive influence on the way that all media sites deal with real time addition of information. FloNight 14:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- It is this kind of paternalising reactions, by people who think that they have to tell me how science works, that I get the strong urge to leave. At wikipedia, it is process and power over content. And that drives experts away. -- Kim van der Linde 15:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments on proposed policy?
Kim,
Could you take a look at Misplaced Pages:Tendentious editors, and comment? As an admin, your perspective would be rather helpful.
Thanks,