User talk:Telemachus.forward

Hello, this is my page. Feel free to talk to me here about Wikipedia edits.

Thank you for

Great idea, thank you! I do revise a lot and using that preview button is a good idea. Telemachus.forward (talk) 00:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Telemachus.forward, and

• Please
  talk pages
  , by using four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your username and the date, and helps to identify who put a certain post on a talk page. Please do not sign any edit that is not on a talk page.
• Check out some of these pages:
  • New contributors' help page | Help
  • Where to ask questions | Frequently asked questions
  • Introduction to Wikipedia | Guide to Wikipedia
  • The simplified ruleset for Wikipedia | Manual of Style
  • Things to work on at Wikipedia
• If you have a question that is not one of the frequently asked questions below, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click the button below. Happy editing and again, welcome! S. Rich (talk) 18:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  
  

I have reverted a number of your recent edits to Elizabeth Edwards. Despite the short discussion above about using preview, your edits represent the last dozen or so on the history of the article, including one-byte changes with a long explanation that isn't really necessary. It's great to have summary, but not so important to put a whole sentence in summary to add a simple link. But, more to the point, articles are not link farms. The military brat article is already wikilinked in the text, where it belongs, and the term certainly does not need to be defined in the article. The offset quote at the bottom of the article is offset for a reason - it is introduced as a quote and then indented; it doesn't require quotes in that case. The fact that Edwards participated (and was a major advisor to) both of her husband's national campaigns is also mentioned in the text directly. Linking to John Kerry is not so useful either; she really wasn't especially linked to him other than through her husband's 2004 campaign, which a reader could find out in the text or by clicking to her husband's campaign - if they are interested. Her position as a senior fellow at the American Progress Action Fund is also noted in the text and would not be needed next to a link, although the link itself has also been removed because again - it appears in the text anyway.

Thanks for your contributions - I don't want to seem like they are not appreciated, but sometimes less is more.  Frank  |  talk  13:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also appreciate your input. I think you make a lot of valid points. I didn't know about indents for quotes, for example.

On the issue of the "See Also" section, this is customary in Wikipedia and exists for a reason--

Inline Wikilinks don't get read/used in the same way because the reader is focused on reading the article. That's why the "See Also" section is commonly used, to create an easily usable space for further reading.

On the subject of "military brats", the link in the "related subjects area" is visually very marginal and will not be easily seen by most readers (not nearly so in comparison to placing it within the article).

I mean no disrespect to you at all either--

But I can't emphasize enough, military childhoods have been consistently ignored in many biograpies, and this needs to stop.

I know it's not intentional, it's unconscious-- but much has been written about how the lives of military brats are almost invisible to mainstream society. This kind of life is so different, and so full of challenges, that it is essential to any biography of persons who grew up this way and we must stop leaving it out.

I don't mean that in a negative sense either, growing up as a military brat is a mixture of positives and negatives, but is certainly as notable as any other sort of challenging childhood.

I agree (to an extent) with your point that the added description of the term was rather long. But I'd like to mention another common problem, many people (who are not connected in any way to the military) don't understand the term "Military brat" and even think that it's an insult. Perhaps a shorter desription would be a good compromise.

Sincere thanks again for taking the time to communicate and for all of your input.

Telemachus.forward (talk) 18:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place to further personal agendas, such as righting the wrongs of how people perceive the term "military brat" (note your clear agenda above: "...and this needs to stop"). Neither is the article of a well-known person the place the explain the term. If it is referenced and placed in the article, that's fine. There are already two links: one in the inline text, and one from the category since she is a member of the military brats category. Two are enough; if people are interested, they can look further. But to use a biography of another person to further an agenda is not the way Wikipedia works.  Frank  |  talk  19:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No but it is a place where peoples lives are depicted ACCURATELY. And leaving out (as many Wikipedia articles do) some of the key facts of these lives is INNACURATE and MISLEADING by ommission.

Narrowly defining my points as a personal agenda is causing you to miss the critical point of ACCURACY in describing peoples lives.

Would you be in favor of searching other Wikipedia articles and deleting (or marginalizing) any references to difficult childhoods or personal challenges faced by non-military people? I'm sure you wouldn't. Nor would I. So why (by omission) do you advocate doing so here?

Also-- there is no "inline" link to the term "Military Brat" in the article, so it does qualify for the "See Also" section.

Respectfully,

Telemachus.forward (talk) 19:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am advocating no such thing. However, you must understand how Wikipedia works. We do not publish any

reliable sources

to say so. If it is not the case, then there's little reason I can see to include it as a "see also" link. The fact that she was a military brat is not in dispute and I see no discussion about removing that. The conclusion that it is somehow central to her life, or by extension central to her existence because you say it is that way for all military brats is not something that we can put into her article (or any) under any policies I know of around here. If you feel otherwise, please point them out.

The inline link to Military brat (U.S. subculture) is in the sentence which reads: "... grew up in a military family, moving many times and never having a hometown."

Also, it's not necessary to leave me a message on my talk page when you respond here. I have this page on my watchlist.  Frank  |  talk  19:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would never say that any aspect of anyones childhood is "all defining". However most Wikipedia articles consider childhood challenges to be biographically significant.

I played a key role in shifting the "Military brats" article away from a "cookie cutter" description of that lifestyle, so I am aware of that issue. Nevertheless the lifestyle is unique and covers a range of biographically salient experiences.

I didn't catch the inline quote that you pointed out-- (grew up in a military family), that looks good, and eliminates the need for linking it elsewhere. Therefore I won't raise further concerns re the "See Also" issue.

Thanks for taking the time out to respond to my messages.

Telemachus.forward (talk) 20:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict] I have to agree with Frank here. The useful inline wikilink is to Military brat (U.S. subculture), not Military brat which is not much more than a stub, as the important work on the subject relates specifically to the U.S., and the general stub has no useful information pertaining to Elizabeth's biography. The link to Military brat (U.S. subculture), which does, was appropriately placed in the text, in context. While she did write about her own childhood, and the impact coming from a military family had on her, there is no overriding reason to also single that out in "see also" in addition to its proper text placement - we don't, for example, have a "see also" reference to Breast cancer, a subject she is much more closely associated with, because the inline cites take care of that. This is the way the encyclopedia works - we use wikilinks extensively to encourage our readers to learn more about matters that are mentioned in any article they are reading, but we need to keep the focus of a biography on that individual, not on related matters. Tvoz/talk 20:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tvoz, I think that's a good point. I also didn't see the inline link (grew up in a military family), but since Frank pointed that out to me, I'm satisfied the article does enough to reference that part of her background.

I initially didn't realize that was a link to the military brats (subculture) page. So now that I see that, I'm fine with everything.

Thanks again for all of your input and contributions,

Telemachus.forward (talk) 21:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Telemachus.forward. You have new messages at 98.245.148.9's talk page.
Message added 23:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

— SpikeToronto 23:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Telemachus.forward. You have new messages at SpikeToronto's talk page.
Message added 05:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

— SpikeToronto 05:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I trust Spike has answered your concerns. If not, let me know. --S. Rich (talk) 23:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Military brats has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the category's entry on the Category for Deletion page. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Telemachus.forward. You have new messages at 98.245.148.9's talk page.
Message added 05:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

— SpikeToronto 05:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. However, please add the citations at the same time that you are adding the information, otherwise, it doesn't follow the WP:REF content guidelines, and will be probably be reverted. Thank you. --Funandtrvl (talk) 16:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, see also and categories should be narrowly related to the subject and should not include subjects only related in a superbroad way. See also links should also never repeat links already in the article. Articles should be

Telemachus.forward (talk) 23:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In general, see also links are an afterthought. Anything essential to an understanding of the subject should be mentioned and linked in the article. Most of the things I've removed were already linked from the article text. We don't repeat a link in "see also" if it's already been linked from the article text.

talk) 23:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

You deleted War and War Child which are not linked in the article. You also deleted other topics not found in the article.

Telemachus.forward (talk) 23:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 23:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I disagree with your assessment that removing the "see alsos" is dumming-down the article. Yworo is correct that the article's subject is Donna Musil. Maybe there should be separate articles for her organization, and the documentary. That way, there would be no confusion about why certain "see alsos" and categories should not be used in her article. --Funandtrvl (talk) 23:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are many articles about notable people that have See Also sections that pertain to their life's work.

I would also like to ask Yworo not to Wikihound me, or recruit people to gang up on me.

I just noticed this person has a cyber-stalking tool on their Userpage.

Telemachus.forward (talk) 23:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not Wikistalking you, which is defined as following you solely to harass you. Following you to clean up messes you are making of our articles is completely permissible. Plus, I haven't recruited anyone, as you can see from my contribution history.

talk) 23:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I've had no contact with Yworo, but I've had discussions with you before, over the military brats topic, that's why I'm commenting here. --Funandtrvl (talk) 23:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yworo, You just used the word "you" and "our", I am not an outsider to Wikipedia while you belong to a clique of owners. We are equals here.

Also please do not make wild generalizations about my work. You have no right to characterize all of my edits in such a negative lights. Your feedback should be focused on the specific edits, not making negative generalities about me.

And again, don't follow me from place to place on Wikipedia. You are not my "Wikipedia supervisor". Wikipedia has well developed systems for guiding peoples edits and that does NOT involve you following me around all over Wikipedia.

Telemachus.forward (talk) 23:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, and you have no right to tell me that I can't improve any article I want in the ways I believe to bring them more in line with Wikipedia policies.

talk) 23:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

The record shows that you have followed me to three pages that I am editing, focusing solely (only) on my edits in each case. Please do not Wikihound me. Please leave me alone.

You also have a cyber-stalking widget on your user page, with the word "Wikistalker" on it. Please do not stalk me any more.

Telemachus.forward (talk) 23:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

. Telemachus.forward (talk) 00:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand the link, it's for identifying sockpuppets. Are you one? In any case, stalking doesn't apply to good faith efforts to improve articles. If you have a problem with that, feel free to take the issue to a "higher authority". I will edit what articles I please. When you added materials to those articles, you received a notice which said "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." The nature of Wikipedia is that other editors will feel free to improve your contributions.

talk) 01:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

P.S. I didn't find the articles via your contributions or using any other tool focused on you. I followed the see also links. I generally find that when one article has a problem, other related articles also have a problem. I happened to look at

talk) 02:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hkhenson Keith Henson (talk) 20:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to ask you to revert your changes at

Telemachus.forward (talk) 20:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-and-paste reverts can sometimes be appropriate, but only when you're copying from text in the Edit window, not from the Difference Between Versions section above the edit window. That results in the plus and minus signs you'll see all along the edge of Talk:Tyche (hypothetical planet) right now.

As for the "Anyone still interested in this?" section,

assuming that you didn't mean it this way, but reinstating that section could be seen as a slap in the face, especially when your comments appear to be a direct reply to those of User:Serendipodous

.

So, again, I'm going to ask that you revert your changes and start a proper discussion about

talk) 20:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

173.246.35.184 (talk) 21:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not know User:Serendipodous. If it means anything, you can see that I disagreed with him/her in the "Anyone still interested in this?" section.

I should clarify that I do not necessarily feel that archiving was a bad thing. Personally, I probably would have waited a little longer, but I feel that archiving was a good choice in retrospect, after stepping back and considering the circumstances. There were no unresolved discussions. The deluge of poor-quality and junk science news articles have stopped, resulting in no new sources or discussions about relative quality of sources. The article itself has changed very little since 19 March, essentially only a reference move and some bot edits. There were some heated discussions in the past, but they were resolved, and it was probably a good idea to get over them. Ultimately, I feel that it was as good a time as any to archive.

If you read

talk) 02:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

]