User talk:Funfree
Funfree, you are invited to the Teahouse
[edit]
|
Hi Funfree! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |
Talk:Piano acoustics
[edit]Please don't insert your comments in the middle of another editor's comment. It makes it rather difficult to tell who wrote what. It's not too bad when one person does it, but if more than one does it, it quickly becomes impossible to determine who wrote individual bits and what they were responding to. Meters (talk) 17:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Barbara Thiering
[edit]I note that you posted to my talk page about this and were told by both me and another editor that this would be a bad idea, violating both WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Now a third editor has reverted you. Please don't do it again. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 06:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- I don't know what this person means by "this". Assuming NOR refers to "No Original Research", I haven't done any original research, so that's irrelevant. Assuming "NPOV" refers to "Neutral Point of View", I haven't advocated a position pro or con, so that's also irrelevant. The number of "editors" who object is expected to be immense, but hostility is not a reasonable motive for destroying the good works of others. This is proof of the kind of opposition I referred to in my complaints against disruptive interference. User Dougweller has no legitimate argument and ought to be stopped. Funfree (talk) 10:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- You want to use the article to get Thiering's ideas to the public, is that correct? To do that you would according to policy need to use independent sources, but you seem to want to use your own presentation of her work. Am I right? That would be original research. Dougweller (talk) 18:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Dougweller, I find guidance on this subject, a core content policy, at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research . Note that it says, "Articles should be written in your own words...." You appear to be laying traps for me, asking what I want, and referring to my "own presentation". Your understanding of original research appears to be at odds with the policy as formulated. The way you appear to think, nobody could contribute anything to an article about a news story until scholars had published opinions on it, nobody could write about the contents of a novel or movie until they found it repeated in authoritative, scholarly, peer-reviewed journals, etc., or at least outside their own direct experience. That's not the way it works. It doesn't take scholarship to tell the sun is out, or that Paris is in France, or that Mark Twain wrote a book. I quote: "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." Barbara Thiering's popular published works are reliable, published sources. As for the article "Barbara Thiering", I think it ought to include a pointer to a more extensive article, "Thiering theory". As for broadcasting her ideas, that's not my goal, nor am I against it. What I want for the "Barbara Thiering" article is for it to be more informative. You refer to "independent sources". That article states explicitly that primary and secondary sources need not be independent, and the article on tertiary sources also implies that independence is not an issue. For what it's worth, Barbara Thiering and I are independent of each other. If I had the books on hand, I could use nothing but direct quotations to present her ideas, but I don't. As far as I can see, her website ought to be considered an authoritative source. Do you agree? Funfree (talk) 19:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Nomination of Ora Railsback for deletion
[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ora Railsback is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ora Railsback until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Dougweller (talk) 12:18, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Funfree, your tone esp. on Talk:Jesus the Man (book) is well beyond uncivil: your comments amount to personal attacks. I urge you to exercise more caution, much more caution. Besides, your snide remarks at Dougweller are counterproductive. Dougweller is a longtime editor and administrator, and one of the more patient ones, as a matter of fact; insulting them is foolish. You talk a good game about civility, but that's a two-way street. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'd like to defend myself. I don't know what you're referring to. I suspect you find fault with "I scoff at your experience", is that true? It was a direct defense against his assertion that his experience (and my relative lack of it) ought to be taken into consideration in support of his argument, which was insulting. It implies that I haven't taken such things into consideration, which, of course, I have. His experience has failed to help him consider my argument. The following sentence should make that clear. I said quite clearly that the validity of my point of view was not based on any amount of experience, but on my following his leads, looking into his links to Wikipedia pages, etc., and finding them contrary to his point of view. I try to avoid personal attacks, and indeed, there is nothing "personal" in my self-defensiveness. For that matter, I try to avoid self-defense, too. Please show me what you mean by my tone. As for Dougweller, I haven't insulted him, have I? He has done me harm by interfering with my efforts to contribute to Wikipedia. My contributions aren't effortless. Consider that article. If you were familiar with the book, you'd see immediately that it's terribly deficient. If Dougweller would offer a constructive criticism, I'd be glad to receive it, but all he does, in my humble opinion, is destructive. I've been told that this article isn't important, an easily countered argument. I've been told that it represents a "fringe" theory, but that's the book, not me. I've been accused of "NPOV", but I'm not presenting any point of view. I tried to get an article on a very important person, Ora Railsback, started, but despite my inexperience, which ought to be taken into consideration in my defense, I encountered a message stating, in effect, that somebody couldn't find much. Did he think I made everything up? He challenged my finding that Ora Railsback invented the StroboConn. I didn't just imagine that. None of the material I put into that page was my own invention, nor is what I attempt to contribute to articles on other subjects. I'm sitting at home, not paying any rent, because I can't afford it, without books, utterly dependent on my telephone and its link to the Internet to do all of my research. How do you think I ought to feel when it's all thrown out casually? I try to suppress those feelings in my communications, but it isn't fair that my good work should suffer. I don't understand what you mean by "my snide remarks", nor what that "Dougweller" is intended to point to. Please, have a little sympathy considering what I'm going through. Can you offer any constructive criticism towards improving either the "Jesus the Man" article or the one on "Ora Railsback"? Funfree (talk) 18:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- Dougweller, and now John Carter also, have offered plenty of constructive criticism. "I scoff at your vast experience! It hasn't enabled you to think clearly" is sarcasm and insult. It seems to me that Dougweller is thinking quite clearly when it comes to Wikipedia policy and guidelines, and that it is rather your difficulty with accepting criticism that is the problem here. For instance, anyone who thinks that being a contributor to a Yahoo forum makes one academically relevant is in error. Now, you may disagree with their comments all you like, but you may not resort to personal attack: your comments are in violation of Wikipedia:Assume good faith, a fundamental principle. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 19:32, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- No, it is not sarcasm. No, it is not insult. If you mean to imply that I think that being a contributor to a Yahoo forum makes one academically relevant, 'that' is an insult. Surely, you must agree. If not, how do you mean it? I never implied any such thing! I don't doubt the subject's experience, but since he gave me bad advice and didn't consider the validity of my argument, I consider something else the problem. That's why I said "It hasn't enabled you to think clearly. Clear thinking would lead to the understanding that what he said contradicted what I said, and what I said was perfectly accurate. That's not an insult. It's my opinion of the thought processes implied by his opinion. An insult is something that hurts. I have no intention of hurting anybody, only of advancing my argument that his criticisms have been unmerited so far. Funfree (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- How about this. Please don't speculate, on-wiki, about other folks' thought processes. It typically violates WP:AGF. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 20:38, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- No, it is not sarcasm. No, it is not insult. If you mean to imply that I think that being a contributor to a Yahoo forum makes one academically relevant, 'that' is an insult. Surely, you must agree. If not, how do you mean it? I never implied any such thing! I don't doubt the subject's experience, but since he gave me bad advice and didn't consider the validity of my argument, I consider something else the problem. That's why I said "It hasn't enabled you to think clearly. Clear thinking would lead to the understanding that what he said contradicted what I said, and what I said was perfectly accurate. That's not an insult. It's my opinion of the thought processes implied by his opinion. An insult is something that hurts. I have no intention of hurting anybody, only of advancing my argument that his criticisms have been unmerited so far. Funfree (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2014 (UTC)