User:Gbog/Baston

Here is some stuff that I want to keep somewhere.

MT

---

(I don't understand what those three paragraph want to say exactly, I would remove them) (gbog)

Well, I'm afraid if you removed everything you don't understand, there wouldn't be much left. How about asking first?—Eloquence

Attack ad hominem. Nice, so nice of you. But I am sure that you are aware that it should be removed quickly gbog 18:20, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'm merely pointing out that removing everything you don't understand is not a solution, as you yourself explain on your user page that English is not your first language. That's OK, but it is a matter of courtesy to ask instead of simply removing what you do not understand.—Eloquence

A word like "courtesy" sounds very weird in your mounth... Let overview it again: 1) You don't read me carefully enough (and then you don't see that I actually understood you, but said your paragraphs were flawly and unclear, and therefore should be replaced by my clear and short quotation) 2) You attack me Ad hominem, meaning subtly that I don't understand English at all 3) You ask me for courtesy!... You are kidding me, aren't you? In few minutes, a real collaborative contributor hidden behind the "Eloquence" will pump of the box and tell me "You have been trolled!". If so, well, I have to agree that you are quite a good troll!... I have to admit that I nearly believed that it was possible to someone to defend itself like that! Good joke, man!... Let's shake hands, laugh again together on this wonderful joke of yours, dry this little laughing tear, and go back to real world, and real work (boldly editing a collaborative article that have a ugly POV header)... gbog 04:27, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Cf [1]

---

You're being ridiculous. —User:Eloquence 06:29, Dec 15, 2003 (UTC)

Cf Talk:Mother Teresa/Archive4

---

NPOV clarification, request for feedback

User:Gbog has objected (without explanation so far) to a change I made to Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial, it has since been moved to the talk page. The change clarifies that the suspicion that an article is POV is not always an indication that this is the case, as there may be cases where there is a large disparity between facts an opinions.

I would like to invite public feedback on this proposed change, as it seems like an important (if minor) caveat, to avoid knee-jerk reactions (please comment on the talk page and feel free to remove this request after a couple of days).—Eloquence 09:41, Dec 21, 2003 (UTC)

I have explained my objections as anybody can see on Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial talk page.

For the people who could be interested in the little campfire flame here, short explanation: User:Eloquence has created a FAQ on Mother Teresa discussion page and I wanted to add a little quote grabbed in Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial. Very astonishingly (never been able to write this one), He disagreed to my proposition. So he wants to change the source instead of allowing me to add this tiny little quotation (don't ask me why). As I am a new contributor here and he is a Sysop, I am obvious completely wrong when I try to edit pages like Mother Teresa and when I ask for discussions before an harmful change in Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial, and He is surely in his full right to unfairly revert me in the first case (I had discussed my proposals before making them), and to change the other without having discussed the case with me or anyone else, but I would like other Wikipedians to confirm (and forgive and explain) all my wikisins. Amen. gbog 12:37, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I explained to you why the quote is inappropriate. You didn't understand. That's why I think the NPOV tutorial needs to be clarified that merely suspecting that an article is POV doesn't make it so, as on cases like Mother Teresa, quite a few people will have this suspicion.

In any case, feel free to modify the FAQ or the article as you please. I won't edit either for a while and leave it to others to argue about the details.

Hosannah! You finally gave my full rights to edit those pages. Thanks a lot. Smack! (I hope it is true and I hope you will correct my poor English when you will come back, because I saw many times that you are very good for that particular job) gbog

I personally think you're quite incompetent, but hey, Wikipedia doesn't require its contributors to know what they're doing or to be able to rationally explain it. So go ahead, knock yourself out.—Eloquence

I think this displays quite eloquently (no pun intended) the need for a filter project. The current Mother Theresa article is an enormous improvement on the embarrassment it was for a long period of time, but now here we go again. I could list a number of others in this category. Despite this, Wikipedia has a good audience, role, function etc.. It's very worth doing as is. But there's an opportunity to be much more, whether by an approval mechanism, Wikipedia 1.0, or whatever.

If we do the filter project correctly, it will in the medium term vastly improve the "base" Wikipedia too, by concentrating attention on the (many) articles that really need attention. Andrewa 20:53, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Stop calling people "you're quite incompetent", least of all to people who are not vandals! That is anti-Wikilove! --Menchi (Talk)â 21:28, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

People who have no understanding of the subject they write about, nor of Wikipedia's policies, but yet insist that they know better than everyone else, without any arguments to support their beliefs, and have lots of time to spend, are much worse than vandals. Vandals are easy to deal with. To prevent people like this from doing too much damage you need to be constantly involved. No amount of Wikilove will undo the damage they do to this project. They simply censor the information they do not like.—Eloquence

Yes, you are right. I'm really worst than a vandal: I did try to edit your prose against Mother Teresa and to edit your FAQ on the MT article. But you forgot one little tiny thing. On the top of MT article, there is a little ugly POV header, and archives are showing enough that many people think the article was biaised. That the only reason why I tried to edit and improve the article. I am not a Catholic, I am sure to share more ideas with you than with them, but there is one idea we may not share: religious tolerance. I don't agree with any anti-religious crusade. What I think is worst than vandalism is to transform Wikipedia to a kind anti-religious sandbox for those who think they are more clever than others because they don't believe in god.gbog

Somewhere you said Wikipedia should be informational and educational. I can't believe that the intend of this great projet is to "educate". If so, it is not for me. I will not write any cathechism, here or elsewhere. I don't believe I'm clever enough to educate people and I think they should do that alone, when they are adults. I have few info on few topics and I'd like to share them, that my goal here. I thought if was enough.gbog 03:11, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I don't believe I'm clever enough to educate people. Indeed. You aren't. That's why you should not be working on an encyclopedia.—Eloquence

Cf. [2]