User talk:Sea level
Welcome!
Hello, Sea level, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- RHaworth 20:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
POV
[edit]Hi, I saw your edits to Samuel Alito. You should be aware that we have policies regarding not using biased content and not adding content based on original research. As such, you should read these policies before adding content of the type you added. Also, your experiences before joining law school (while doubtless important to you) are not notable enough to belong in an encyclopedia (the same is true for most of us). Thanks for your attention, and welcome to Wikipedia :) -- Pakaran 23:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
more POV
[edit]I have turned legality of warrantless surveillance into a redirect. A transcript of some enquiry is not encyclopedic material. If you wish to copy your version to a talk page, you may do so but please state the source of this Q&A session. -- RHaworth 20:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- Talk:NSA warrantless surveillance controversy asked that the legality of warrantless surveillance be developed as a separate stub so redirecting it back there seems oddSea level 21:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
OK. I don't really want to get involved. Legality of warrantless surveillance as you left it is not, in my opinion, even remotely close to a Wikipedia article. But as long as it is noticed by a few Wikipedia editors interested in this subject, I shall be happy. (Accurate spelling, even in talk pages, is a good thing.) -- RHaworth 21:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Talk pages
[edit]Hi Sealevel,
Talk pages need to keep on topic -- that is, on how to improve the corresponding article. General chat about the subject itself isn't on-topic, and I'm sure you'd appreciate that if it was, they'd soon be swamped with dozens of messages, and it would be hard for editors to carry on their discussions. — Matt Crypto 14:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Its the general policy of Wikipedia to discuss an article on the discussion pages. The discussion pages allow us to ask and answer questions, to provide information which may stimulate thought about how to make the article better, and to engage one another. If you are sure that you know more about the NSA than I do, feel free to correct any misinformation. If you don't think steaganography or L0pht or @astake should be mentioned in connection with NSA feel free to say why. If you don't think NSA infrastructure or personnel or contracts are germane discuss your reasons.Sea level 14:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- There is a big difference between "discussion about the NSA" and "discussion about the article about the NSA". The former is off-topic, the latter is on-topic. Please try making specific assertions about the article, rather than posting long opinions about the NSA. For example, you could say, "I feel we should say more about steganography in this article". — Matt Crypto 14:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- And to emphasise that this is Wikipedia policy, and not just me, here's a section from the Talk page policy:
- On Wikipedia, the purpose of a talk page is to help to improve the contents of the main page, from an encyclopedic point of view. Questions, challenges, excised text (due to truly egregious confusion or bias, for example), arguments relevant to changing the text, and commentary on the main page are all fair play.
- Wikipedians generally oppose the use of talk pages just for the purpose of partisan talk about the main subject. Wikipedia is not a soapbox; it's an encyclopedia. In other words, talk about the article, not about the subject. It's only the habits we encourage that keep Wikipedia from turning into another h2g2 or Everything2.
- — Matt Crypto 15:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- I don't consider it partisan to provide information someone has asked for. If you think some portion of what I have said represents a point of view, the appropriate place to discuss it is in the article. I just put in a section discussing a topic that might well be addressed in the article and found it removed. The reason for having the discussion page is so that the encyclopedic aspect of the article can be kept clean while discussion takes place. The basic rule is the same as that of the Senate, any Wikipedian can discuss any proposal fully and consensus then decides what goes in the article.Sea level 15:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- It would be quite acceptable to say, on the Talk page, "I propose we add the following text to the article in So-and-so section:", and then relate some text. I'd encourage you to make it as encyclopedic, verifiable and as NPOV as possible, though. In the sections I removed, you were clearly just expressing your opinion about the NSA, and that's not what talk pages are for. — Matt Crypto 15:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- I'm going to propose we do it a little differently, if you don't mind. First I'd like to raise what I consider issues and ask if there is interest in there being included in the article. If people want to say NO its irrelevant that the NSA has security problems with disgruntled employees and whistleblowers, then that's fine. I won't propose an addition to the article. I would leave the question on the talkpage in case someone else comes along lateer and says "hey, I'd like to see that written up". As to my POV, I'm against lying, spin, misleading statements, unsubstantiated opinions and for the Truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I think that most people would consider that NPOV. Sea level 15:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- There's a world of difference between NPOV and "The Truth". — Matt Crypto 16:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- I'm going to propose we do it a little differently, if you don't mind. First I'd like to raise what I consider issues and ask if there is interest in there being included in the article. If people want to say NO its irrelevant that the NSA has security problems with disgruntled employees and whistleblowers, then that's fine. I won't propose an addition to the article. I would leave the question on the talkpage in case someone else comes along lateer and says "hey, I'd like to see that written up". As to my POV, I'm against lying, spin, misleading statements, unsubstantiated opinions and for the Truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I think that most people would consider that NPOV. Sea level 15:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- It would be quite acceptable to say, on the Talk page, "I propose we add the following text to the article in So-and-so section:", and then relate some text. I'd encourage you to make it as encyclopedic, verifiable and as NPOV as possible, though. In the sections I removed, you were clearly just expressing your opinion about the NSA, and that's not what talk pages are for. — Matt Crypto 15:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- I don't consider it partisan to provide information someone has asked for. If you think some portion of what I have said represents a point of view, the appropriate place to discuss it is in the article. I just put in a section discussing a topic that might well be addressed in the article and found it removed. The reason for having the discussion page is so that the encyclopedic aspect of the article can be kept clean while discussion takes place. The basic rule is the same as that of the Senate, any Wikipedian can discuss any proposal fully and consensus then decides what goes in the article.Sea level 15:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- And to emphasise that this is Wikipedia policy, and not just me, here's a section from the Talk page policy:
- How So? The Truth is the only relation between a proposition and reality which is not skewed by a POV. If you conceal some facts or spin them or intentionally mislead people to get them to see things from your perspective rather than to see the truth, thats a POV. Right now I'm listening to Negraponte's speech on CSPAN. How would you rate it? Truth or POV?Sea level 16:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not currently listening to that speech. In a nutshell, the NPOV policy is that we don't try and decide for ourselves which of various competing viewpoints is actually "The Truth". Instead we attempt to describe the major POVs without taking sides. — Matt Crypto 16:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- You should find the transcript someplace and read it and get back to me. The truth has no side. You don't have to decide what is the truth. You just have to avoid trying to spin, or mislead, or hide inconvenient details, or substitute opinion for substantiated facts. Its not hard to embrace both being truthful and not taking sides, indeed its essential. Its the not hiding inconvenient details part that creates the biggest problem for some.Sea level 16:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not currently listening to that speech. In a nutshell, the NPOV policy is that we don't try and decide for ourselves which of various competing viewpoints is actually "The Truth". Instead we attempt to describe the major POVs without taking sides. — Matt Crypto 16:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- How So? The Truth is the only relation between a proposition and reality which is not skewed by a POV. If you conceal some facts or spin them or intentionally mislead people to get them to see things from your perspective rather than to see the truth, thats a POV. Right now I'm listening to Negraponte's speech on CSPAN. How would you rate it? Truth or POV?Sea level 16:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)