User talk:HarmonicFeather

Thanks for the revamp of off-the-record messaging :) -- intgr 05:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure! :) HarmonicFeather 07:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for clean up for Violence against women?

On the talk page there has been discussion on improvements via expansion but the tag particularly references the style guidelines. To help in this improvement, what particular style features should be worked on? Agne 23:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of the main things that I noticed was a lack of coherent structure. The introductory section is as long or longer than the entire rest of the article combined, and the rest of the article seems poorly structured (e.g., is "types of violence" really a subset of "history of violence"?). The references, external links, and interwiki links also seem very excessive for such a brief article -- I'd recommend either pruning some out, or significantly expanding the article. HarmonicFeather 00:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably going to be the significant expansion. Unfortunately, the day that I had dedicated to doing so was wrecked with the database locking and at the moment other editors have not stepped for to facilitate. But I appreciate the suggestions, they help. Agne 00:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

I accidently reverted it since it had many vandal-like keywords. I will fix it. --Ineffable3000 16:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I already reverted your revert, so no need. I'm curious: what in particular made you think I was a vandal? I'd like to avoid confusion in the future. --HarmonicFeather 18:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rape Culture

Hey, I was wondering if you'd be willing to specify what in particular about the article needs to be cleaned up, and more importantly, what you think the neutrality issue's due to. The main thing I can find for that is the Dworkin quote, since it doesn't really illustrate what it's supposed to illustrate. I know a big issue going on's been whether or not it's "balanced" in regarding how the theory addresses male victimization, but I don't think many folk have actually looked for reliable sources on whether or not it does address (female) violence against men in a substantial way. A couple of IP's and a user have added "and men" ad nauseum after every appearance of the word "women", without regard to or a source for whether or not the rape culture theory really does address "women and men" in the same way, to the same extent, on that matter. One of the IP's actually changed the wording of the quote that way; I reverted. Basically, I don't think we can have the article say the theory does something it doesn't do, or that people who use the theory use it in a way they don't use it. The wp:npov policy doesn't trump wp:nor; you don't, can't, write a neutral article about a nonneutral topic by presenting the topic as neutral. And I think some people've been forgetting that the topic might not be balanced to their satisfaction (isn't, as far as I can tell), and so an article that complies with NOR (and, for that matter, NPOV) won't present the topic as balanced to their satisfaction.

I don't know if I've hit on what your neutrality concerns are or not. I'd like to hear from you, though. The Literate Engineer 13:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

College of the Redwoods

I was briefly reviewing this page and found a recent edit you marked as minor...I don't generally consider it such. I was going to modify your changes as they appear to be very POV, but wanted to see what, if any sources or information you were drawing upon for the assertions made concerning anti-student attitudes, etc.

The college has lately been suffering from a decline in enrollment, whose causes are currently unknown, but may relate to poor management, a lack of emphasis on modern technology, and pervasive anti-student attitudes among some of the upper management, including ex CR president Casey Crabill.

The Yahoo education source I'm providing a link for here appears to offer a much different enrollment figure, and I don't know your source.

http://education.yahoo.com/college/facts/5856.html

There are other available Web sources that indicate enrollment went up more than 50% bewteen 2000 and 2003 when viewed in sum. Again, the article reference seems unfounded unless there is newer data available from a reliable source.

http://www.northcoastjournal.com/083001/news0830.html

There was a drop from its peak when the college first opened, but that appears to have turned again in recent years.

http://www.humboldt.edu/~economic/landscapes/college_3.html

Please be assured I have no relationship with the college, but I think the assertions you've made need some sort of citation or further backing or they should be removed, especially since the enrollment figure provided here is much higher, and there is also no enrollment history source provided - I'd certainly be interested in seeing one. President Crabill is referred to as being "very popular" in late 2005 here through another well-known area source.

http://www.northcoastjournal.com/102005/news1020.html

She was also spoken of positively here:

http://www.humboldtwib.com/files_public/ECMinutes6-2-06final.pdf

Woman of the Year 2006 here

http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a01/articles/an012006020.htm

There are a lot of other positive sources on the Web from a brief review, and I can't find anything to support the contentions you added. Crabill went to a NJ college who seems thrilled to have her, and was apparently a finalist for a number of other recent jobs from looking at the Web. That information wouldn't seem to support the position you posited. Overall, what are your sources? The enrollment figure was dropped from 7,000 to 6,000 and I can't find a source for that either. The article appears to need to be modified. Tvccs 03:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User no GFDL has been nominated for deletion

Abu Bedali has nominated the template Template:User no GFDL for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_February_3. If you want it to stay please share your thoughts on the matter. Thanks.--CyberGhostface 01:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]