Exwheelman5200

"Yea, the monkey speaks his mind" (The Monkey by Dr. John on "N'Awlinz DIS DAT OR D'UDDA")

Exwheelman5200 (talk) 00:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Yea, the monkey is a guerilla, who believes that Wikipedia should inform the masses, not just amuse the intellectual elite.Exwheelman5200 (talk) 13:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

LSD article et al

Hi, Thanks for the note. I actually don't know anyone from Santa Cruz but I am flattered to have you view me as a brother. I have been an occasional editor here for some years now.

I think that controversial subjects will remain so and it is important to not lower the bar on articles to prevent controversy. It won't work. There are always folks who will insist on a more conservative or a more liberal position as is their political leanings. We try to stay fact based with references.

I think I understand where you're coming from and it is a difficult position. Correct me if I am wrong but I think that your negative impressions of the likes of Ginsberg are likely based on popular opinion. I have found that a detailed analysis of someone such as him allows you to see a bigger picture. He will always remain controversial for one thing or another but I think his place (like Huxley's) is pretty much guaranteed in history. Ginsberg did a lot for poetry and a lot to promote other writers.

I continue to have issues with wikipedia. I think that their editing policy is too open. I would prefer to have people at least register themselves before editing (its free after all). I also think that many presumably well-meaning editors are pretty ruthless and sometimes arrogant on their handling of new editors and/or new material. Also they may be handling material with which they have little or no familiarity.

I have had more than a few arguments over deletion and revision of articles. Just look at my talk page. Wikipedia seems to me to have a strong bias towards "pop" culture with a disdain for academics and unfamiliar subjects. Many of my article and revisions were challenged by people who seemed to be simply exercising power rather than working to make an article useful. I don't know how this can be better handled and it makes me loathe to edit sometimes. Every football,rugby or soccer player, every manga character is easily included but when I add an obscure composer, artist or academic with a reasonable degree of significance either presently or historically they are inevitably challenged. This tires me as I prefer not to fight. Even the amount of content is challenged making me wonder what is wrong with an encyclopedia being encyclopedic or at least inclusive.

But I rant on. Don't be discouraged. You have good points to make and seem open to discussion so I believe that you fit the profile of a good editor. Your qualifications are as good as any. Don't be put off by excessively wordy or pompous editors. I think that this attitude is born of an inward lack of confidence. I don't know anyone's background who edits here and I don't care. If they do good editing I have no issue. I have received help and support from other wikipedians when I was under siege and I would like to promote an inclusive and supportive atomosphere but there always comes along some newbie exercising power or simply acting with bad information in spite of good intent. In either case it leaves me with more work and I have given up on a few articles when I tired of the battle.

Much luck to you in future edits and let me know if I can be of assistance in staving off the overwhelming onslaught of editors. Canticle (talk) 02:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

My sister is a "Cruzer", not me, no matter. Thank you so much for answering at all. I have been looking for help for a long time. I believe I started as "Wm5200", which I can not now find, on "Death of Adolf Hitler". Not a nice subject, but I lost my memory, so he's forgotten to me. Good!

I stumbled on some good "death" stuff (long before Ginsberg, who "yes, I agree with you"), and thought I should share it with the "Article". When I got there, the article was sort of weak. I tried to fix it up in "Talk: Death", but will not edit articles themself. A wise choice, with my education.

I put "my two Pence" in about my new reference, which itself referenced what I thought was an outstanding source, Sir Ian Kershaw. Since then things have been tough for me. Not only will "my favorite Admin" not read, or even acknowledge, my new source, she ignores Kershaw, who I thing is great. She won't explain why, either.

I've been trying since then. I admit being blocked, now I have an army of "Blocked Socks". I am not "Wiki", but I am well-meaning. And the article has been vastly improved, mostly by Kierzek, thank you sir.

My favorite Admin has done a huge amount of editing, and is probably good. But she will not assist me in any way, instead works on her "Blocking" numbers. Taking advantage of a "rookie"?

I don't mean to "dump", rather "share", especially with you. I hope that some time some effective editor takes the time to say "Hey, Gwen, what gives?"

Once again, thank you for talking to an "old fool".

Exwheelman5200

I might also qualify as an old fart and it doesn't stop me. You should check out the adoption criteria. You can find an editor willing to addopt or mentor you. It helped me a lot. I would offer to do this for you but I am not sufficiently experienced to do an effective job. Just search for the 'adopt an editor' for instructions Meanwhile, vent all you like to me. And don't easily give up on your ideas. That just validates the inorance of the stupid folks who want to attack you.Canticle (talk) 18:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much, again. I really needed someone to be open to my mind, this stuff seems straitforward, but it's not really, at least not if you are crazy. Was it me, or...

Thank you for the tips, but I probably won't use them. I never intended to edit, just assist, and with the memory thing, now even that's gone. I was big on history, now I can forget what day it is.

Do you like dogs? That's my speed, I'm at "thepluton.tripod.com", but if you aren't into dogs (or personal rambling), don't bother. You have already given me more than enough time, thank you for a touch of sanity.

Exwheelman5200 (talk) 19:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I have a 5 lbs 2 year old Maltese who happily dominates my life. My wife has a 3 lbs 6 year old Maltese that dominates her life. So, yes, I love dogs. You are welcome for the "touch of sanity" for which I am rarely accused. I hope you are not scared off by the more enthusiastic editors. Your thoughts are quite useful.Canticle (talk) 01:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)