User talk:Arno Schmitt

Tasks: start a new article • add basic, wanted or requested articles • add definitions • add metadata • edit new pages

Welcome to the Citizendium! We hope you will contribute boldly and well. Here are pointers for a quick start, and see Getting Started for other helpful "startup" links, our help system and CZ:Home for the top menu of community pages. You can test out editing in the sandbox if you'd like. If you need help to get going, the forum is one option. That's also where we discuss policy and proposals. You can ask any user or the editors for help, too. Just put a note on their "talk" page. Again, welcome and have fun! Robert Tito 09:02, 3 February 2007 (CST)

biography on user page

until the user page is filled out, registration is for "read only". Please remedy this. Thanks. NancyNancy Sculerati MD 06:09, 4 February 2007 (CST)

Welcome back

Hi Arno. Welcome back to CZ. I just wanted to remind you of a few of our guidelines here. FIrst, you need to have a slightly more substantial biography. This helps other users to have some idea about your expertise and experience as you collaborate with them here. Since you're active again, we'd like to see that up before you make more edits. Secondly, its great to see you jumping in to articles. However, please try to keep your comments constructive to improve articles. Thanks. -- Sarah Tuttle 10:13, 14 November 2007 (CST)

signing your edits

Hi Arno, could you please sign your edits on talk pages. Do this by using four tildes ~~~~ after your posts (but only on the talk pages). That will give your name, date and time that you made the post. Thanks, Matt Innis (Talk) 13:53, 14 November 2007 (CST)

Expand bio, please

Hey, it'd be great to know a bit more about you - education, particular research areas, publications, etc. Stephen Ewen 02:19, 15 November 2007 (CST)

By the way, you might wish to stop by Anthropology and CZ:Anthropology Workgroup. Stephen Ewen 02:23, 15 November 2007 (CST)

One more thing. Let me know if you want help getting {{Cite quran}} to work. Stephen Ewen 02:32, 15 November 2007 (CST)

Let me try this a different way. You must expand your bio to about 50 words. This is a requirement of all Citizendium contributors. Note that http://en.citizendium.org/robots.txt prevents search engines from crawling CZ pages where your name may appear. Stephen Ewen 15:44, 15 November 2007 (CST)

I have it on my list of stuff to do. Thanks for the bio. Stephen Ewen 03:02, 16 November 2007 (CST)

Major content changes to developed articles

Hello Arno, just a quick note. I have reverted your changes to the article "United Kingdom" for reasons given on its Talk page. I should explain that,m unlike WP, you will find articles in various stages of development and should bear this in mind when changing things. Some articles, like this one, are fairly polished and have been created [or at least partially vetted] by experts; others are more immature; whilst yet others may be even non-existent. When editing articles in the developed category, it is wise to consult on the Talk page unless you are a world authority in the specific area.

I do not want to discourage you from making contributions to CZ, obviously, but we do try to control quality of articles here. The clearest expression of that is with the Approvals process, but there is also some continuous scrutiny of others. Please do feel free to criticise content, even of Approved articles, but the best place as I have mentioned, is on the Talk page, at least initially. Many thanks. --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 04:18, 16 November 2007 (CST)

Martin, you are overspeaking here, are you not? Arno is as free to edit developed articles as any other person, editor or author. If there is some debate about added content, then that should be taken to talk and brought to resolution. Stephen Ewen 05:09, 16 November 2007 (CST)

I am insisting on the same process for edits which are made by Richard Jensen to the same article(s). It is not about developing articles, but about deleting well-argued points of the UK constitution and replacing them with personal opinions. This is not acceptable, and I am not overspeaking. --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 05:14, 16 November 2007 (CST)

I see reason on both sides. On the one hand, deleting well-argued points of the UK consitution and replacing them with personal opinions sounds wrong (I haven't looked at the text). On the other hand, there is no policy that states that all further development of developed articles must occur on the talk page, and I would be opposed to such a policy. In fact, I'd like to point out that there is a fundamental policy that points somewhat in the opposite direction: "III.3. ... Editors will not have the right, except perhaps in very unusual cases, to "lock" articles and thereby prevent the collaborative process from continuing. ..." Obviously, we walk a fine line: we want "aggressive" development of content on all fronts; but we do, naturally, want to be left in the end only with high-quality content. The tried-and-true way to achieve both aims is collegial communication and compromise. --Larry Sanger 09:16, 16 November 2007 (CST)

I have replied to you by email Larry. It is not acceptable for anyone to make major changes to standard academic analyses on complex issues without discussion on the Talk page. I have had this fight with Jensen on the same issue. Of course, people are encouraged to contribute to the development of articles, but there is a limit to what is acceptable without prior discussion. --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 09:35, 16 November 2007 (CST)

I think is is perfectly acceptable to add to a wiki page without commenting on the talk page. Only deleting should require comment. Be bold. Especial with the text in question which I just checked and was sourced for wikipedia so I wouldn't count it as "academic analyses on complex issues". Having said that, the edit made by Arno were not, in my opinion, an improvement. Derek Harkness 10:27, 16 November 2007 (CST)

Martin, as to what is "acceptable," that is your opinion, which is interesting and which I respect, and which I am sure you hold for the very best of reasons. But I am speaking as Editor-in-Chief when I say that there is no such policy. If you want to propose one, that is your right. Perhaps you should, so that you could have clarity on the issue. And I agree with Derek--we're not defending this particular edit, we are defending a principle.

Also, Martin, let me concede this point, which I should have done at first: it is recommended that anyone discuss any controversial edit on the talk page first. But that is very different from requiring that someone do so. --Larry Sanger 11:18, 16 November 2007 (CST)

Hi, Martin, Hi Larry, there were three statements in the article I did not like. On one I am not sure. I was sure, though, that the source given did to back up the statement was wrong. I raised that on the discussion page.

And there were two points that were obviously wrong. This is NOT controversial. I am not saying that what I put in was excellent. I'm just saying it was less wrong than what Martin reinstated. Arno Schmitt 12:21, 16 November 2007 (CST)

The article content relating to the House of Lords (as the final court of appeal) and bicameral structure are correct: I have nothing more to say on these. Other things may require updating or correction of sources, whcih you are free to do if you wish. --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 13:40, 16 November 2007 (CST)

Terrorism

Hi Arno, I took a look at terrorism. It looks like you are asking to make some changes which you are welcome to do on the Draft version at anytime. The approved version will remain the same until the article is re-approved, at which time the Draft will replace the current version. Feel free to jump in! I'm sure someone will join you. If not, then ask an editor for re-approval and see what happens. --Matt Innis (Talk) 07:03, 16 November 2007 (CST)