imported>Nathaniel Dektor |
imported>Harald van Lintel |
| (58 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| nothing here yet --ND
| | {{archive box|auto=long}} |
| | [[User:Nathaniel Dektor/scratch]] |
|
| |
|
| Well, I'll fix that:
| | == Archive 2 == |
|
| |
|
| {{awelcome}} --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 14:19, 7 March 2007 (CST)
| | Nathaniel, this was strange too. It should automatically update itself when you make the new [[User talk:Nathaniel Dektor/Archive 2]] page, but it didn't. I had to change the auto=long function to auto=yes then back to auto=long. We have issues with the cache occasionally, so it probably had something do with not refreshing. Aren't computers fun ;-) --[[User:D. Matt Innis|Matt Innis]] [[User talk:D. Matt Innis|(Talk)]] 19:08, 12 June 2007 (CDT) |
|
| |
|
| == Biographies ==
| |
|
| |
|
| Hi Nathaniel, I notice that you've uploaded several articles (apparently from Wikipedia) about various living people. I can't detect any pattern. So, for lack of a better way to put it: what are you up to? Frankly, it makes me worried because we might have to really fire up our [[CZ:Policy on Topic Informants|Policy on Topic Informants]] at a time when we can ill afford the time to do so. In the meantime, could you perhaps focus on some better-known people? Maybe some dead ones? :-) --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 21:53, 11 March 2007 (CDT)
| | You have to add more than just the Archive 3. You have to create this: [[User talk:Nathaniel Dektor/Archive 3]] (<nowiki>[[User talk:Nathaniel Dektor/Archive 3]]</nowiki>). Go ahead and click on it and type something in the page and save it and lets see if it works. Don't worry, I can delete it. --[[User:D. Matt Innis|Matt Innis]] [[User talk:D. Matt Innis|(Talk)]] 19:28, 12 June 2007 (CDT) |
|
| |
|
| Thanks for the explanation. OK, the only other thing I'd like to request, if I may, is that you have a look at [[CZ:WP2CZ|this page]] and expand the four WP-sourced articles you've imported. We don't want to create just a mirror of Wikipedia. TIA! --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 11:17, 12 March 2007 (CDT)
| | Good job! I deleted them for you. --[[User:D. Matt Innis|Matt Innis]] [[User talk:D. Matt Innis|(Talk)]] 19:40, 12 June 2007 (CDT) |
|
| |
|
| ===Kilmer Middle School=== | | == Special relativity article == |
|
| |
|
| Hi Nathaniel- | | Hi I saw that you made a start with an artice on special relativity. How do you propose to continue from here? Some time ago I gave criticism about the historical contents on its Talk page and I later noted that you were responsible for the first version - but I saw no feedback from you. Could you say what your sources were for the historical claims? Have you looked at issues about accuracy and opinion that have already been addressed, discussed and corrected in Wikipedia? Note that physics textbooks are not always reliable about history. I know almost everything about the early history of the development of that theory and have most original papers (which I read) so I will gladly help with this. |
| My personal opinion on articles on things schools is that they should not be included as seperate articles unless they are notable, period. You said the following on my talk page:
| |
|
| |
|
| :Before that page hopefully gets deleted, I'd be interested if you had an opinion or nuances to add regarding what I said on its discussion page. I'll paste my comment here in case the original gets deleted too soon:
| | Best regards, |
| :What's the use of merely documenting the bare existence of a school? Even if someone diligently maintained the list of faculty, and even a list of notable alumni, I still wouldn't see the appropriateness of such trivia. I'm particularly interested in seeing articles on schools that document the school's history and the ways a particular school is involved with its surrounding community, and its social contexts (generally speaking). I think any obscure school could make for a fine article as long as its history could be told such that its intersection with larger surrounding historical considerations are clear and worthy of note. If one could document, for example, the way a U.S. school handled racial and ethnic issues throughout the different decades of its history, or perhaps how its educational policies fared through different economic periods, I think that would make for a worthy article regardless of how obscure or typical the school may be.
| | [[User:Harald van Lintel|Harald van Lintel]] 08:34, 27 April 2008 (CDT) |
| | | :If you feel you have something to contribute to the article then please do! [[User:Nathaniel Dektor|Nathaniel Dektor]] 17:41, 28 April 2008 (CDT) |
| | | :: I'm slow (as you can see), busy life... but OK I will make some changes later with some clarifications on its Talk page. Regards, [[User:Harald van Lintel|Harald van Lintel]] 10:21, 10 May 2008 (CDT) |
| I personally do not see any use in documenting the existence of a school by itself. I don't even want to take a stab to guess how many schools there are in the United States alone. The existence of a school does not make it notable in the least. Maintaining a faculty list alone can be uber-time consuming. If someone wants to call a particular faculty member or department head or even just find out who that person is, I think they would be more likely to contact the school through its website or by calling the administration office to get who they wish to speak with.
| |
| | |
| Reading about the history of a school is somewhat interesting, however I tend to think that unless there is a very rich, documented history of a school, it would be better to associate things like how a school dealt with a particular issue such as racial or ethical issues on the page for that issue instead of on a page for the school itself. That seems more proper to me than having an entire article dedicated to the school. I do agree that those types of things would be very interesting, but rarely sought after. I think someone looking for information on how schools handled something such a segregation would be more likely to search on segregation itself than to look up "Franklin Park Middle School" to see how that particular school dealt with it.
| |
| | |
| To me, the types of schools that could have thier own article would be schools with infamous happenings such as Columbine High School, not Kilmer Middle School. I do believe the many universities would probably "qualify" to have thier own articles since thier histories are usually very documented and notable; much more than a middle school or high school.
| |
| | |
| I just think that time could be better spent working on articles that will be more needed in the long run--especially in these early stages of development.
| |
| | |
| Anyhow, just my opinion.[[User:Kelly Patterson|Kelly Patterson]] 18:34, 22 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
| :That is basically what I'm saying: starters of a school article should either be ready to produce a rich, documented history of a school or not bother. I think even an obscure school would be fine (though not a priority on CZ) because that kind of history would intersect issues that have their own pages, e.g. segregation in America or what have you. Averageness itself can be exemplary, and worth having if not repeated too much. [[User:Nathaniel Dektor|Nathaniel Dektor]] 18:50, 22 April 2007 (CDT) | |
| | |
| See the Kilmer Middle School talk page. I guess we both needed a refresher on the policies. [[User:Kelly Patterson|Kelly Patterson]] 22:38, 22 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
| :Just on criteria for deletion, I suppose. I don't think anyone wants articles on schools that merely document a school's existence, although that info is indeed maintainable. [[User:Nathaniel Dektor|Nathaniel Dektor]] 23:04, 22 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| ==Crystal Palace==
| |
| I understand that you insist on "active, economical prose", but Nathanial- at Citizendium it is not considered polite to make stylistic changes in an author's original work- especially just before final approval. Changing an author's work on the grounds that you are "activating the prose" in an well-written article by tenured literature professor is just not...respectful. In other words, I would ask you to reconsider changing Riussell Potter's prose in arbitrary ways. To say something is "palpably recounted" instaed of "recounted in a palpable manner" (I'm paraphrasing from memory), when an author has spent hours devoting an original work to CZ is not an improvement, but an imposition of one style on another, and is easily offputting to that author. The change is not a clear improvement, despite the avoidance of a passive tense. I know I would be, and have been, ''demoralized'' by such changes in my own writing. We have a goal to encourage articles and each other, here, and such arbitrary changes are far from encouraging. Would you please consider reverting those edits? It would be wonderful if you would contribute a new article or a start on one. I would do anything in my power to help you accomplish an approved article. It is not a question of ownership of articles, it is a question of ''respect'' for author's style and to allow an article to have a consistent voice. [[User:Nancy Sculerati|Nancy Sculerati]] 19:09, 7 June 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| :I strongly disagree with the above. We are not here to write individual articles in our own style. There may be stylistic differences from article to article, yes, but there should be a common thread of standard copyediting applied to all of them. I have read the rewritten article, and I fully agree with 95% of the changes as being definite improvements. The only one that I find questionable is the "palpable" phrase, which I find awkward in any case. I think that all of us should inure ourselves to having our prose worked over and, hopefully, improved. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 19:16, 7 June 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| | |
| ::Well, I do think that a modicum of "style", not to express personal peculiarities, but rather to make the prose memorable, readable, and effective -- is imporant! Eventually, of course, the style of a long-lasting entry will be collective, not personal.
| |
| | |
| ::In any case, Nathaniel, on careful reading, I think that most of your edits, do indeed improve the flow of the text, but I did revert the one edit (also mentioned by others) which I thought inadvertently distorted the sense of the entry -- it was the language of the ''Times'' which made the event palpable ''to its readers'' (including us), not the Times which had a sense of the events' palpability; the older wording seems to me to make this clearer. Just wanted to let you know why I reverted that one phrase.
| |
| | |
| ::The timing is a bit close to approval -- I'd just say, in similar circumstances in the future, a "heads up" note on the article's Talk page would be a good idea before making a large number of edits. But please, do not feel discouraged about such things -- we are all on a sort of learning curve here! [[User:Russell Potter|Russell Potter]] 19:28, 7 June 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| == Crystal Palace response ==
| |
| | |
| foax:
| |
| I assure you I don't impose an arbitrary style but always aim to make the prose as clear and direct as possible, which is always desirable in good prose. I don't tighten up dilatory prose hastily, but consider my changes closely so as not to change meaning I don't intend to change. I would always state my reason for changing or adding meaning in the edit summary or talk page. Russell, you and Hayford are right about the "palpable" thing--definitely my error: oops. As for the rest, Nancy I assure I don't pursue some personal aesthetic vision of style; I am a professional and a Ph.D. candidate in a program leading to a tenure track position who has taught composition to hundreds of undergraduates at a quality university, and I have spent years honing my pedagogy, with my superiors' approval, to teach these people to communicate what's in ''their'' minds, but as clearly and directly as possible. I gave the Crystal Palace article priority precisely because it's up for approval consideration. I've also edited the dissertations of others and numerous articles in scholarly journals, so I know from experience that a fresh pair of eyes catch my own prose lapses the best, particularly when that person isn't overly involved with the ideas I'm expressing as I usually am. I apologize if you feel stepped on; I always feel a bit the same when someone proofreads me. If you ever feel that I've made an error, please fix it and alert me because even though I proofread others efficiently, I'm not above making a palpable mistake. [[User:Nathaniel Dektor|Nathaniel Dektor]] 19:54, 7 June 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| Oops, I hope I didn't step in on anything.. but I changed one of your (Nathaniel's) edits back only because I thought it sounded better. Russell, please know that you can change anything you want; we still have three days to approve. I also agree that Nathaniel's changes were good.[[User:D. Matt Innis|Matt Innis]] [[User talk:D. Matt Innis|(Talk)]] 20:09, 7 June 2007 (CDT)
| |
| :Matt, I carried the discussion over to the page in question's talk page. You might also find this[http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/grammar/g_dangmod.html] interesting. [[User:Nathaniel Dektor|Nathaniel Dektor]] 20:24, 7 June 2007 (CDT)
| |
User:Nathaniel Dektor/scratch
Archive 2
Nathaniel, this was strange too. It should automatically update itself when you make the new User talk:Nathaniel Dektor/Archive 2 page, but it didn't. I had to change the auto=long function to auto=yes then back to auto=long. We have issues with the cache occasionally, so it probably had something do with not refreshing. Aren't computers fun ;-) --Matt Innis (Talk) 19:08, 12 June 2007 (CDT)
You have to add more than just the Archive 3. You have to create this: User talk:Nathaniel Dektor/Archive 3 ([[User talk:Nathaniel Dektor/Archive 3]]). Go ahead and click on it and type something in the page and save it and lets see if it works. Don't worry, I can delete it. --Matt Innis (Talk) 19:28, 12 June 2007 (CDT)
Good job! I deleted them for you. --Matt Innis (Talk) 19:40, 12 June 2007 (CDT)
Special relativity article
Hi I saw that you made a start with an artice on special relativity. How do you propose to continue from here? Some time ago I gave criticism about the historical contents on its Talk page and I later noted that you were responsible for the first version - but I saw no feedback from you. Could you say what your sources were for the historical claims? Have you looked at issues about accuracy and opinion that have already been addressed, discussed and corrected in Wikipedia? Note that physics textbooks are not always reliable about history. I know almost everything about the early history of the development of that theory and have most original papers (which I read) so I will gladly help with this.
Best regards,
Harald van Lintel 08:34, 27 April 2008 (CDT)
- If you feel you have something to contribute to the article then please do! Nathaniel Dektor 17:41, 28 April 2008 (CDT)
- I'm slow (as you can see), busy life... but OK I will make some changes later with some clarifications on its Talk page. Regards, Harald van Lintel 10:21, 10 May 2008 (CDT)
