User talk:Kelly Ramsey

Welcome to the Wikipedia[edit]

Here are some links I thought useful:

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be Bold!

Sam [Spade] 17:46, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Account Unjustly Blocked[edit]

I have discovered that my account "Happyjoe" is blocked from editing due to some sort of misunderstanding over the Big Spring, TX article. I am uncertain who to contact to have this mistake fixed. Please remove this block so that I may complete necessary editing on other articles. Thank you for your timely assistance in resolving this problem... Happyjoe 69.145.215.206 04:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't any administrator status. In any event, the "Blocked" message explains the procedures for appeal. - RamseyK 06:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

I applaud the idea of using inline citations, but what you just did to the Christian Reconstructionism page was hardly constructive. Many pages on Wiki were written with the references listed at the bottom of the page. Not ideal, but hardly "original research" or uncited. The page is now barely readable.--Cberlet 14:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many pages have problems. Wikipedia's consensus standard for how to cite sources is inline citation, at the end of a paragraph, sentence, or assertion. If a paragraph, sentence, or assertion is an established fact, then providing the citation to verify it will easy, if not trivial - especially for editors who have read widely about the article's topic.

(Even in a collaborative environment among experts - professional academic writing, notably, including Biblical scholarship - one cannot just attach a list of books to the end of a monograph and say, "Referenced." Even mass-market nonfiction books don't do that. Inline citations are the professional norm, too. It's unavoidable - everyone has to show one's work.)

In contrast, leaving references to a list of books at the bottom of the page is a method of attribution that prevents both readers and other editors from doing even the most basic fact-checking. This is an incremental, collaborative environment; the vast majority of readers and editors will not have read all the major books about a specialized topic. (Is such-and-such paragraph accurate? Where does one even look to check?) Given only a long list of books as references, readers and editors have only two options: either (a) dismiss every single bit of it as unsubstantiated opinion, or (b) take it on faith that the few people (or one person, often) who wrote all that were both knowledgeable and accurately representing the prevailing consensus. Neither is what we do here. - Kelly Ramsey 00:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, in many print encyclopedias, the standard is references at the end of the article except for actual quotes. However, I am not arguing against moving towards inline citation here at Wikipeida, I am pointing out that the way you paste large banners all over a page is not constructive, and makes the page hard to read when a simple fact request will generally suffice. You are not helping make an article better by just doing drive by critiques based on citation style.--Cberlet 04:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Banners and tags are the Wikipedia fact requests. That's how editors notice articles that need work; they then fill in the missing parts with piecemeal, drive-by improvements. (Well, there {{fact}} tags, too, which are extremely common, but in an article with that many unverified assertions the result would be a horrific mass of ^{[citation needed]} after ^{[citation needed]} after ^{[citation needed]}.) - Kelly Ramsey 04:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colon indents on discussion pages are also a Wiki standard. Do you find it abrasive that I just reformated this page? I find what you did to the Christian Reconstructionism page abrasive. Some of us Wiki editors spent months working on the CR page at a time when intext citations and footnotes were not being used on a regular basis and end references were a standard. Can you please take a moment and consider the possibility that what you did to the CR page was neither constructive nor helpful? In fact, there are no "unverified assertions" on the page, there is a lack of intext citations. There is a difference. The page was edited over many months by both pro- and anti- CR editors with the help of some neutral editors who assisted the effort. It is one of the better referenced and NPOV articles on Wikipedia. One flag at the top would have been sufficient for notification. Almost all of the inline citations needed are in books in the library where I work. I will start adding them after I am through writing an article for publication (with a style sheet that requires footnotes, not intext citations). My most recent print publication was a revision of an entry in the Encylopedia Judaica. It uses end references rather than footnotes or intext citations. Not everyone on Wikipedia needs a lecture from you regarding citations--either here, or on pages where you deface the page with multiple flags. A modicum of humility would be refreshing--Cberlet 12:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My talk page, my format quirks. Your choice to reformat someone else's talk page to make a point is most illuminating. As for Wikipedia articles, you would do well to keep in mind that this is a large-scale collaborative environment. An article is in rather dire straits if its opaque citations render it dependent on an esoteric few - or one - to perform the most basic of verification tasks. This is why the current consensus is that neglect of inline citation is not a practice of better referencing. Not everyone needs a lecture - but, since you've taken the time, please allow me to point you toward one about article possessiveness that you should find educational. - Kelly Ramsey 18:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Must you always respond with an aggressive and combative tone and content? I am not possessive about the Christian Reconstructionism page, I am suggesting that the way you pasted banners all over the page was disruptive and unconstructive. Your apparent inabilty to accept constructive criticism is quite illuminating, and makes any further discussion seem pointless. I will return to adding the cites you requested on several pages. Perhaps someday you will decide that improving article content is just as important as pasting citation banners.--Cberlet 04:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I simply disagree with your suggestion, and have *ahem* cited chapter and verse of Wikipedia guidelines to explain why. You have not. Agreed, further discussion seems pointless. - Kelly Ramsey 07:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Sociology Newsletter: II (April 2010)[edit]

Sociology Project • News • April 2010

Spreading the meme since August 2006

The Sociology WikiProject is conducting a roll call (or min-census, if you prefer). More then five years down the road, we have over 50 members, but we don't know how many of them are still active in the sociology area. If you are or want to become once again an active contributor to the sociology content on Wikipedia, please move your name from the inactive to the active list on our roll call (or add yourself to the list if you haven't joined yet!).

In other news, we have reactivated the newsletter :) At least, for this announcement. We also have a new, automated to do listing, an active tag and assess project (which has identified about 1,800 sociology articles on Wikipedia, and assessed about 1,3000 of them), and three new userboxes for your self-identification pleasure :) On a final note, I highly recommend watchlisting the Wikipedia:WikiProject Sociology page, so you can be aware of the ongoing discussions.

You have received this newsletter because you are listed as a recipient of WikiProject Sociology Newsletter (Opt-out). • signed

WikiProject Sociology membership[edit]

You are listed in the Category:Wikipedians interested in sociology, probably due to the use of "This user is interested in sociology" userbox, but you have not added yourself to our official member list for WikiProject Sociology. This prevents you from, among other things, receiving our sociology newsletter, as that member list acts as our newsletter mailing list (you can find the latest issue of our sociology newsletter here). If you'd like to receive the newsletter and help us figure out how many members we really have, please consider joining our WikiProject and adding yourself to our official member list. Thank you, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 13:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 12:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]