User talk:Zerasmus
Welcome!
Hello, Zerasmus, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!
If you think that this subject doesn't meet the notabiity criteria, you can request that the community discuss its deletion at the Articles for Deletion page. That page contains clear instructions on how to make your request; the most successful requests make a clear, specific case that the subject doesn't meet one of Wikipedia's basic rules. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- I just checked, and discovered that this article has been referred for deletion discussion before. Before you request its deletion, you should read the previous discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angry White Male. Make sure you understand the rules that are being discussed and the reasons that the community decided not to delete it, and if you still want to request deletion, don't forget to address the specific rules you think were overlooked in the last discussion, or what's different in your new discussion. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Unless I am mistaken, or unless the standards of "neutral" have been redefined, an article on a partisan, derogatory term applied to a specific racial or sexual group should include an account of the partisan, and hostile, nature of the term. The term is American, Democratic Party, Liberal in origin and is in the context of dismissing a large bloc of voters based on their race, sex, social class and the selection they made in a partisan election. This information is ignored, and "angry white males" is connected to "Soccer Moms" and "NASCAR Dads", with obvious and offensive social implication, and without acknowledgment of the author's obvious partisan and likely racial bias. This is SHAMEFUL!
Zerasmus (talk) 22:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Great! Once you fully understand Wikipedia's rules for inclusion, you'll be ready to follow the instructions and make your case at Articles for Deletion. Or if you prefer, you can just continue to complain about it, which is fun but not useful. By the way, have you read our articles on Nigger, Bitch, and Faggot? Fascinating reads. Honky could still use expansion, though. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well thanks for the pointers to the other derogatory term articles. Those terms, however, are not placed in adequate context but are instead presented etymologically. Historical dictionaries have their uses, but they are not anything like an encyclopedia. All of those articles deal with emotion charged conflicts between social groups. Those groups are not identified other than the target groups. The abusive groups also have identities and they have purposes and social contexts of their own. The term is not understood in contemporary context as presented. While I suppose this has limited usefulness, the reader is *NOT* made aware of the conflict or the parties to it. Generally, that is what most readers want and need from an encyclopedia. From the looks of it, I think Wikipedia has lost its way. I did my first editing more than five years ago, in another life. Now, it looks like it is being run with the same assumptions as a term paper, complete with "references" as if they mean something they most certainly do not. A reference is nothing more than a citation of someone else's opinion which got into some sort of print. The current rules presume that old opinions are somehow better than current ones, and that the bulk of written material in this world is *NOT* tripe. Neither of those assumptions hold up to educated scrutiny. Early on, wikipedia *WAS* an outlet for suppressed knowledge, for non "politically correct" explanations, for minority views of current and past events. The current rules do not allow such material, unfortunately, and from a cursory examination of the articles now online the site has come under the utter domination of a group of people hostile to views other than their own. These groups, from the POV of an average American, are identifiable as to "political party" and in fact to a rather narrow range of opinion in that power structure. By common reputation, these groups already control all other common venues for news and opinion in the USA while denying they do so, and now have added wikipedia to their stable of outlets. It is my hope that some faction within this organization remains which wants to insist that, assuming there are always at least two points of view on an issue, more than a single POV gets presented. From experience, I am not hopeful and feel that participating in such a venture brings with it unacceptable personal risks, based on previous experience with what I perceive to be the dominant group here. Liberal Democrats, USA style. The Great Coalition. I wish holdouts the best of luck. Wikipedia is a great idea, but sometimes a venue becomes overly regulated, which produces uniformity. Uniformity is the deadliest enemy of Truth. Zerasmus (talk) 16:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- I think you would have a blast over at Conservapedia. It would seem to have all of the features you're looking for in an online encyclopedia. -Chunky Rice (talk) 16:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- So, you decided to go ahead and go with lots of random insults and complaints without doing anything to either have the article deleted or to make it better, then? I hope you enjoy it. Have fun! -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- First, only a "liberal" would call me a "conservative". I certainly do not think of myself that way. After just one peek at Conservapedia I can tell my powers of expression must be in severe decline. Second, I don't think my comments were random or insulting. But I do think you would likely think the same thing about any contribution I attempted. The site has a particular twist now.Zerasmus (talk) 19:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, so I tossed in my comments to the authors of the article. I have done my bit on trying to make the article less of what I think is a "red flag" and more useful to people who have never heard the phrase before. So I *DID* try to make it better rather than just stomp off in irritation, even though I don't think anyone over there could tell the difference. Conservapedia indeed! Supercilious is the word that comes to mind. But, FisherQueen, I did give it a go.
- First, only a "liberal" would call me a "conservative". I certainly do not think of myself that way. After just one peek at Conservapedia I can tell my powers of expression must be in severe decline. Second, I don't think my comments were random or insulting. But I do think you would likely think the same thing about any contribution I attempted. The site has a particular twist now.Zerasmus (talk) 19:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- So, you decided to go ahead and go with lots of random insults and complaints without doing anything to either have the article deleted or to make it better, then? I hope you enjoy it. Have fun! -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- I think you would have a blast over at Conservapedia. It would seem to have all of the features you're looking for in an online encyclopedia. -Chunky Rice (talk) 16:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well thanks for the pointers to the other derogatory term articles. Those terms, however, are not placed in adequate context but are instead presented etymologically. Historical dictionaries have their uses, but they are not anything like an encyclopedia. All of those articles deal with emotion charged conflicts between social groups. Those groups are not identified other than the target groups. The abusive groups also have identities and they have purposes and social contexts of their own. The term is not understood in contemporary context as presented. While I suppose this has limited usefulness, the reader is *NOT* made aware of the conflict or the parties to it. Generally, that is what most readers want and need from an encyclopedia. From the looks of it, I think Wikipedia has lost its way. I did my first editing more than five years ago, in another life. Now, it looks like it is being run with the same assumptions as a term paper, complete with "references" as if they mean something they most certainly do not. A reference is nothing more than a citation of someone else's opinion which got into some sort of print. The current rules presume that old opinions are somehow better than current ones, and that the bulk of written material in this world is *NOT* tripe. Neither of those assumptions hold up to educated scrutiny. Early on, wikipedia *WAS* an outlet for suppressed knowledge, for non "politically correct" explanations, for minority views of current and past events. The current rules do not allow such material, unfortunately, and from a cursory examination of the articles now online the site has come under the utter domination of a group of people hostile to views other than their own. These groups, from the POV of an average American, are identifiable as to "political party" and in fact to a rather narrow range of opinion in that power structure. By common reputation, these groups already control all other common venues for news and opinion in the USA while denying they do so, and now have added wikipedia to their stable of outlets. It is my hope that some faction within this organization remains which wants to insist that, assuming there are always at least two points of view on an issue, more than a single POV gets presented. From experience, I am not hopeful and feel that participating in such a venture brings with it unacceptable personal risks, based on previous experience with what I perceive to be the dominant group here. Liberal Democrats, USA style. The Great Coalition. I wish holdouts the best of luck. Wikipedia is a great idea, but sometimes a venue becomes overly regulated, which produces uniformity. Uniformity is the deadliest enemy of Truth. Zerasmus (talk) 16:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Please dont remove other's legitimate comments from the talk page. See our guidelines for identification of material that would be appropriate to remove (such as slander against living people/editors or digressions into chatting or soapboxing.): WP:TPG -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Did I remove something?? If so it was an oops. Zerasmus (talk) 23:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
A question
[edit]What name did you use in your previous Wikipedia editing? Why did you decide to create a new account instead of using that one? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- I don't recall the handle I used. I was most pleased with a description of affirmative action acceptable enough to people of various persuasions that it survived for quite some time. But now is now. It has been years. My fingers were probably on over a hundred entries, mostly in minor ways, before I just stopped. I do believe that a free forum of information and observation is an absolutely wonderful thing and I admire those who attempt it. This is the promise of the internet.Zerasmus (talk) 19:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)