User talk:MarkBernstein/Archive1

Kathryn Cramer

Your statement in your edit summary is misleading. It has not been discussed much at all, the talk page is barely used. The page violates wikipedia policies in its current state. Also, I just noticed in your talk page history you reverted User:Jossi's welcome message as vandalism. Please make yourself more familiar with our policies before you make such pronouncements. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 01:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I've just noted your edits on the talk page. Please do not refer to others edits as "small minded" or them as "zealous" because they have opinions different than yours. That constitutes a personal attack, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. The edits to the article were done because the article reads as an advertisement, this is not acceptable. The sources were unreliable, and some of the information was unsourced. Our policy requires that all edits be sourced and to be sourced reliably. As for the Hugo Award, it was directly given to the magazine. An award for a magazine goes to the magazine, not the editor; misquoting it as such for the sake of advertisement is contrary to the encyclopedic nature of this project.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 01:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Please, before making these intemperate accuations (remember Assume Good Faith?") , read the extensive archive discusssions of the page in question. I notice, pertinently, that you ignore my analogy to Ross's New Yorker; Ross frequently receives accolades for his magazines accomplishments. It is a convention, however dubious, to attribute the success of the magazine to the ability of th editor.

My apologies on the good faith, but my points stand. Your analogy does not stand with other publications. Anthony Hopkins did not win "Best Picture". Silence of the lambs did. Clint Eastwood did not win "best picture". The Unforgiven did. Liam Neeson did not win "best picture". Schindler's list did. They may be the ones to physically accept the award, but they are not the person to whom it was awarded. I provided on the talk page extensive evidence that this is also the case with the Hugos. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 03:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

As for the archives, they do not reflect specifically on this aspect of the discussion. And it is far from an extensive archive discussion, compared to most others on this page, for instance the archive at George W. Bush. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 03:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Assumption of good faith in your case requires more suspension of disbelief than I can muster. Be my guest: vandalize wikipedia at your pleasure. Perhaps others will, once you have mercifully finished, repair the damage. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MarkBernstein (talk • contribs).

Well that was not called for. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 03:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Dave Winer edit war

Hey Mark. Hang loose with Nick Irelan, because usually the admins catch up with this page pretty fast. I submitted it to User_talk:Ryulong and WP:RPP, and independently CSCWEM came around and undid one of Irelan's changes. I hope you don't risk going over 3RR yourself when one of these things happen, because a lot of people watch this page, and can help out when needed. We can discuss on Talk whether the remaining reference to cybersquatting has any reason to still be there. (I think not). EdJohnston 23:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Mark, several of the sites listed in the section that includes Weblogs.com were Userland sites and do not need to be in Winer's article. For example, even the site that the article links to says Editthispage.com was a Userland site. Please remove them if you guys want to force me out of editing the page. Link From Winer Article --Irelan12 (talk) 17:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

re: Electronic Literature

Hi Mark, Thanks so much - I am quite grateful for your insights and suggestions and willingness to help here. I do have some familiarity with this subject and would very much like to work with you to improve these pages.

Here is what I saw when I first looked at the pages. Both pages were badly in need of clean up: The original ELO page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_Literature_Organization&oldid=182338791 The original Electronic Literature page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_literature&oldid=209549580 Since both pages were enormously similar, I made the decision to merge. However, by all means, please do restore the ELO page here if you feel it should be a separate article, perhaps developing it a bit more from its original state: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_Literature_Organization&redirect=no In terms of authors - the pages in their original form each contained lists of hypertext authors that were nearly identical which is why I included them. In addition, the definition of electronic literature on the ELO website does include "hypertext fiction" - I also used current scholarship which discusses "hypertext fiction" as "first generation" electronic literature.

That being said, I appreciate all of your points and wonder if I might ask for your help in improving these articles which were originally badly in need of clean up and am open to any suggestions you might have. Thanks again for this very helpful post and I look forward to hearing from you, -Classicfilms (talk) 16:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is that ELO is a particular organization -- a faction, if you will. So it's not synonymous with "electronic literature", and has sometimes (in my view) been hostile to hypertext fiction. It's not uncommon for two or more organization (or political parties) to have similar over-arching goals but great differences; merging is good, but you don't really want to merge the Republicans and Democrats because both parties want a better US.

What these pages need most, IMHO, are links and citations to the critical literature -- to discussions of the titles in print and on the Web -- so that people will have better guidance in reading and discussing these works. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I restored the page Electronic Literature Organization and updated the introduction. Perhaps if you have some time, you could develop and improve the article a bit. I also think that your suggestion about links from the critical literature is quite fair. If you want to go ahead and make these edits, I'd be happy to look at them. Thanks again for your input and help in improving these articles and I look forward to reading your edits. -Classicfilms (talk) 18:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I should not edit ELO -- I'm COI there -- and as I run Eastgate, it might be better that other hands compose the revisions. I understand that this adds to the burden, but I see no way around it. MarkBernstein (talk)

Keeping your points in mind, I made some further edits to the articles and as far as I can see, they do adhere to Wikipedia:Five pillars - so I'm not sure I have anything else to add. I understand and appreciate the points about your own further involvement. Perhaps the next step would be for other people interested in electronic literature to edit and develop these pages, which I hope will happen over time. Thanks again for your suggestions and help with these pages. Regards -Classicfilms (talk) 19:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment in Jamesdennis's allegations

I have filed a Request for comment on Jamesdennis. You also tried to intervene with him in a productive and civil way. Could you please go to the page and either endorse or dispute my statements about it? Maybe I'm over-reacting, but giving him the last word, and such nasty last words, just doesn't seem right. betsythedevine (talk) 00:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Rahm Emanuel

I bow to the power of the Likudnik Praetorian Guard: consensus with a K. Whichever way you cut it, the C in this instance is for censorship. Wingspeed (talk) 20:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. What are you afraid of? Wingspeed (talk) 20:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

P.P.S. Mind you, The Tinderbox Way looks damned good. You've just shot up in my estimation:) Wingspeed (talk) 21:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

P.P.P.S. Blimey! You actually designed Tinderbox. I'm stunned and honoured to run into you. A pity you ever became a victim of the victims of anti-semitism. Wingspeed (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

P.P.P.P.S. Just bookmarked your blog. Excellent stuff! Wingspeed (talk) 21:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Joseph Lowery transcript

Sorry for changing the text of the transcript in contradiction to the source - I assure you it was an unintentional error that occured when I reverted to the wrong version. I've actually found a source for "get back" - please see Talk:Joseph Lowery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Topynate (talk • contribs) 21:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Ted Nelson copyright problem

Here is the text from the source (which attributes some of the content to Scott Griffin's masters project on Internet Pioneers):

Nelson was raised by his grandparents in Greenwich Village, New York. His father is a movie director and his mother an actor. He had little contact with his father and almost none with his mother. He was lonely as a child and had problems caused by his Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD).

Nelson attended Swarthmore college where he earned a BA in philosophy. In 1960, he enrolled in graduate school at Harvard. During his first year he attempted a term project creating a writing system similar to a word processor, but that would allow different versions and documents to be linked together nonlinearly, by association. This was, in part, an attempt to keep track of his own sometimes frantic associations and daydreamings brought about by his ADD.

Nelson did not complete the project, but he continued to work on it after that semester and it became the overriding concern of his life. In 1965, he presented a paper at the Association for Computing Machineryin which he coined the term hypertext. Nelson's system was very similar to that envisioned by Vannevar Bush.

Here is the text you restored to the article:

Nelson was raised by his grandparents in Greenwich Village, New York. His father is a movie director and his mother an actor. He had little contact with his father and almost none with his mother. He was lonely as a child and had problems caused by his Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD).

Nelson attended Swarthmore college where he earned a BA in philosophy. In 1960, he enrolled in graduate school at Harvard. During his first year he attempted a term project creating a writing system similar to a word processor, but that would allow different versions and documents to be linked together nonlinearly, by association. This was, in part, an attempt to keep track of his own sometimes frantic associations and daydreamings brought about by his ADD.

Nelson did not complete the project, but he continued to work on it after that semester and it became the overriding concern of his life. In 1965, he presented a paper at the Association for Computing Machineryin which he coined the term hypertext. Nelson's system was very similar to that envisioned by

I'm pretty sure the "source" is dated prior to the text copied into our article. They even have the same typos plus our version is missing the last two words and the last period. Unless you still think I'm wrong, please repair it. Thanks. Jojalozzo 19:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

OK. I rewrote the passage in question. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

ANI: Irelan12 and Dave Winer

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Andrew Sullivan at Oxford

We care because Sullivan has spent much of his subsequent career criticising electoral tactics without every acknowledging his own behaviour in this respect. This has been extensively debated on Sullivan's page; please don't reverse any more edits on this point. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oinky (talk • contribs) 18:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I've been watching Sullivan's page for quite a long time, and I'm familiar with the discussion there. It is not at all clear to me that there is anything here to criticize; Sullivan contested an election for a student post several decades ago, and may have used the popularity accrued from a humorous stunt to his benefit in the contest. This is not, as far as I can see, notable. Perhaps you could explain on Sullivan's talk page why you believe -- against longstanding consensus -- that this affair is notable? MarkBernstein (talk) 02:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Since you are familiar with the discussion, and appeared months ago to accept the stated arguments for inclusion, I don't understand why you think it appropriate suddenly to reverse the accepted wording. For the record, in summary, a) a commentator's own behaviour is always relevant because it goes to their locus standi in commentating on others' behaviour b) the point about electoral tactics is at least as relevant as the inclusion of Sullivan's holding office at all and c) As a fellow conservative thinker, Johnson's published views on Sullivan are relevant. I will post this to Sullivan's talk page as well. Best Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oinky (talk • contribs) 09:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I think, if you take a moment to review the Talk page, you'll see that my view has been consistent. I'm an American, and so perhaps my view is not sufficiently nuanced, but I cannot see why this saga of student politics matters or what its supposed meaning might be. He ran for a student office: students do that every day. He won; someone is bound to. You believe, as far as I can see, that he won by exploiting his social popularity or cachet; this might be true, but it's not terribly surprising. You seem to think that he ought to have contested the election on other grounds, but school elections often hinge on personal popularity: kids are like that, and after all, the stakes are not very great. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Mark, you liked the quote when I gave you some of the detail of what Johnson had said. I'm really struggling to understand your motivation here - as I have posted in the Sullivan page talk, historical content is normal in biographical entries. Here's a thought - and please don't be offended - as an American are you maybe misunderstanding the level of maturity of behaviour and importance that adhere's to people's behaviour at University in the UK, and arguably especially Oxford ? Successul politician's published biographies (and Boris Johnson's is certainly no exception - see Andrew Gimson's for one) ALWAYS refer to their behaviour at Oxford, if that's where they studied, and especially at the Union. Please can you accept that this is all factual and stop reversing the relevant edits? Thanks....Oinky (talk) 20:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Mark, I have posted one more time on Sullivan's talk page. I have no wish to engage in edit wars as I said when I first identified the source for the comment. So I don't propose to write any more on this topic. I am sure you are acting from the very best of motives, but I find your approach to the questions of relevancy and sourcing in encyclopedic biography very unusual. I have other calls on my time so I am not going to press the specifc point of Sullivan's biography any further with you now. Best wishes. Oinky (talk) 03:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

GA Thanks

This user helped promote Rahm Emanuel to good article status.

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to thank you for your editorial contributions to Rahm Emanuel, which has recently become a GA. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Swartz

Hi -- please be mindful of 3RR on Aaron Swartz. (I've notified the IP editor as well.) thanks. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello Mark. I have responded at User talk:EdJohnston#Aaron Swartz. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Please leave well enough alone, including staying away from my talk page. Your cooperation is much appreciated. You will note that in light of your stated emotional difficulty with the Swartz material, I did not report your recent shenanigans for discipline. Have some basic decency. 75.67.246.17 (talk) 00:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

No shenanigans -- just solid dispassionate research. Have fun, Carth/75.67!

Far from dispassionate, as you admitted on the Swartz talk page. "Solid dispassionate research" != edit-warring 3RR violations and personal attacks, as you must know. Your relentless abuse has been chronicled in part by me, as you also know. Count yourself lucky that I was not as ill-mannered as you, be kinder next time you happen to disagree with someone, and stop violating Wikipedia rules. Thanks. 75.67.246.17 (talk) 03:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Quote

Hi Mark. I realize you were using the same words as the source, but it's critical to differentiate when we're speaking in the source's voice (as a quote or with attribution) and when we're speaking in Wikipedia's voice (stating plain facts, uncontroversial assertions). I think we can do better with the phrasing of that quote than to directly parrot the views of the source without differentation. In the interest of neutrality it should be clear when we are using their glowing language versus Wikipedia's uninvolved stance on Swartz's work. Please consider. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 16:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

But we mustn't neutralize or distort what the source says. I would have preferred to quote the source, and would be happy with that. If not, how about language that clarifies that this passage is a paraphrase? MarkBernstein (talk) 16:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

And -- voila -- I see that you already have quoted the source. Nice.MarkBernstein (talk) 16:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Partner

I support using the phrase swartz's family preferred, but not at the risk of misleading readers into thinking Swartz's partner was a male, as partner is most commonly used to indicate a same sex significant other. What do you think about female partner? I believe Swartz would have used partner because he didn't care about the gender really, but I still want our readers to know as closely as possible the facts as reported. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 00:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the best approach would be to find a way to make Taren the subject of a nearby sentence. Then you can just use the pronoun "she" and everyone is happy. MarkBernstein (talk) 00:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Carmen Ortiz

Glad to see you make your debut at Carmen Ortiz.  My remark about your

awesome removal of longstanding but dilutive 19-word passage in lede (-‘and later worked … was also a contributing editor….’) --Dervorguilla 22:42, 10 April 2013

at Aaron Swartz still stands.  In my opinion the single most helpful edit to date.  Hoping you can make some overdue bold edits to Ortiz too.  --Dervorguilla (talk) 15:29, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Aaron Swartz

You’re portrayed in a negative way at Talk:Aaron Swartz.
Talk:Aaron Swartz#.27Arrest and state charges.27.2C proposed revision
Talk:Aaron Swartz#Removing excessive quotes
--Dervorguilla (talk) 22:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

--Dervorguilla (talk) 01:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

signing posts

Hey, Mark, could you try to do a better job of signing your posts on talk pages (with ~~~~)? In a bunch of places you've left it out and it has made it somewhat confusing to read. Thanks! jhawkinson (talk) 14:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Seconding Jhawkinson’s recommendation.

Also, try not to make silent alterations to Talk pages (no insertion markup, no timestamp, no edit summary). --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Mass. Lawyers Weekly, print edition

Someone went to the library and checked the print version of MLW volume 41, issues 24–27 (Jan. 28, 2013–Feb. 18, 2013).
The Silverglate article appears in issue 24.
No discussion of it anywhere. Nobody’s even mentioned it.
Silverglate can however be cited as writing a “column”. (Inference: The publisher believes that the writer’s individual point of view is of significant interest to MLW’s readership. And the Aaron Swartz article does seem to be getting read by more lawyers than is the typical BDP.)
For reference:  Column. A special department or feature in a newspaper or periodical under a permanent title and generally reflecting the writer’s individual tastes and point of view.  Columnist. One that writes a newspaper column or conducts a radio or television program resembling such a column in its material and style.  Op–ed page. The page usually opposite the editorial page of a newspaper that features by-lined articles (as by columnists) reflecting individual points of view.
New proposal for the Arrest and state charges section coming up, at Talk.
--Dervorguilla (talk) 06:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

A column is a department -- a recurring feature, so this term does not apply. It's an article, or a story.. 11:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Message from Mass. Lawyers Weekly editor. Comments welcome. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. --Dervorguilla (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

ANEW

Mark, I've just blocked User:Dervorguilla for edit warring at Aaron Swartz. However, that doesn't excusse your violation of WP:3RR. If you promise not to edit the Swartz article for five days (you would be able to contribute at the talk page), you will avoid a block. Please respond here.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that's grossly unfair -- and this might therefore be my final Wikipedia edit, ever. But wikisym was a lot of work and I wish the project well. I'll do as you ask. If you'd like to justify this, you know or can easily find my email address and office phone. MarkBernstein (talk) 02:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:3RR is a very "automatic" hard limit. There aren't many clear lines in the sand about behavior, but 3RR is one. So, BBB23 here is acting like an automated red-light camera-- you cross the line, you get a warning, regardless of how you cross the line.

This should NOT be seen as equating your behavior with Dervorguilla's behavior-- your input is greatly welcomed on the article, and based on your reputation on talk, I think any edits you propose would have a very high chance of being implemented very rapidly.

If it really bothers you, you could reiterate to the admins that you understand and agree to comply with 3RR, offer to make a symbolic self-revert of last revert, and ask not to have to wait out the informal 5-day article-ban BBB23 has imposed.

Personally, I wouldn't worry about it. Just don't make this your last wikipedia edit. Admins are very busy, and they don't try to do a "king solomon" style justice-giving. You cross 3RR, they give you a warning or block-- nothing personal, no comment on the overall quality of your contributions.

Wait out the five days in the penalty box, if you want to make any edits just ask on talk and they'll get made, and I expect to see you back on the article five days from now-- the article and the project need you. --HectorMoffet (talk) 21:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm furious. Sure, I could spend a day or two wikilawyering some more. This wasn't even a clear 3RR, it *obviously* wasn't edit warring, and the complaint was *patently* made in bad faith. I offered everyone a day to convince me otherwise, and I'll keep the door slightly open for you if you want to call or email. But I'm currently planning on abandoning wikipedia as a corrupt and lost cause. That's a hell of a thing for me to say -- a big part of my research was once in wikis, it's only five years since I was program chair of Wikisym. But it's absurd. (And between Filipacchi and Qworty, I'm not sure there's much hope anyway). Ironic that there's plenty of time to chase me away, but it took five years to get Qworty, isn't it?

If you have any argument why I should visit wikipedia again, I'll listen. bernstein at eastgate.com or it's easy to find my office number -- and I'm nearly always in the office. Thanks anyway. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Mark, for what it's worth WP:3RR prohibits more than 3 reverts of a single page "whether involving the same or different material" in a day. I myself wasn't clear on that either (I thought it was on the same topic or actually be edit warring; apparently not so). So while I think it's kind of unfair, it's a bright-line rule and you do appear to have crossed it. So, well, here we are. Again, I think it would be great for your valuable contributions to continue, and at least go out on a high note and not like this. jhawkinson (talk) 00:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

RPA at Talk:Aaron Swartz

RPA; complaint. --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Peregrine's suggestion at Sullivan

Have you seen it? I would be interested in your thoughts. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Aaron Swartz

Why do you keep reverting changes I make in the article? What makes you eligible to decide what's considered to be of "due or undue weight" in an article? Did you go over the entire text in that page to delete every single sentence that you don't think fits, or is it just me and my choice of editing? -Yambaram (talk) 15:27, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

If you take the time to review the (extensive) history of this page, you'll find that I have indeed reviewed every sentence.

As I expect you know, Wikipedia has had extensive policy discussions about religious and ethnic identity in encyclopedia articles. This is made even more difficult, as you probably already know, because factious anti-Semites constantly insert derogatory insinuations in articles whose subjects are, or might be thought to be, Jewish. Wikipedia policy holds that the subject's religion, ethnicity, school ties, and such not receive undue weight. The religious affiliation of a distinguished rabbi deserves a prominent place in his biography. So does the affiliation of a businessperson -- say Moses Montefiore -- whose prominence is tied to leadership of or service to a religious community.

But Swartz is not known for either of these things. On of your edits places his Bar Mitvah -- something almost everyone has -- on an equal footing with winning the Ars Technica prize -- something almost no one has, and something no other thirteen-year-old has ever done. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for you elaborated answer, I hope my comment didn't sound attacking. Your dedication to his article is indeed extraordinary, so if you also keep it clean of vandalism like you keep (what you consider) irrelevant information out, then it's worth it. I'm actually curious to see an example of a "derogatory insinuation", because the only antisemitic elements I've seen were complete vandalism. Needless to say it wasn't my intention, it's just that I have this thing that I want articles of notable people who are Jewish to mention it. I added his Bar Mitzvah in the same sentence as the Ars Technica prize simply because they happened in the same year and because, like you said, having a Bar Mitzvah isn't too special and so I tried to squeeze it in that line. But it doesn't matter because as you insist it has no place in the article at all, and I'm fine with it. Regards, Yambaram (talk) 21:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Watch Rahm Emanuel’s page for a month or two; one of those insinuations is bound to appear. Favorites include editing the lead to replace "a politician" is "a Jew politician", or adding an explanation that his father was a member of "the terrorist organization Irgun." The latter has involved at least two separate campaigns. It's one of the most dispiriting aspects of Wikipedia. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:27, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. The example of Irgun being a terrorist organization is kind of a subjective thing actually. But I do trust the Wikipedia community and believe it'll always abide with its guidelines and NPOV. Yambaram (talk) 21:43, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Grandiose Capital Letter Style

As per Tim Bray, it might make sense to refer to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Titles of people. In English only proper nouns are capitalized. For example, there is only one President Nixon (proper noun) but there are many people who might have the title "developer advocate" at companies large and small. Not a proper noun, so not capitalized in normal English. I know marketing types like to make things sound more important by using capital letters much more often, but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, so should use normal English style according to the guidelines. Or feel free to argue that the guidelines should be changed if you feel strongly and have a good reason. Thanks. W Nowicki (talk) 16:49, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Mass surveillance

WikiProject Mass Surveillance Dear, MarkBernstein. We would like to invite you to join WikiProject Mass surveillance, a group of Wikipedians devoted to improving articles related to the privacy and global surveillance. If you're interested, consider adding yourself to the list of participants and joining the discussion on the talkpage. -- HectorMoffet (talk) 02:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Disrepute

Sorry, I - reviewer of the JCIRT hook - disagree with some of your points on ANI. You say the front-page had:

Did you know ... that Jesus Christ is risen today?

This is wrong, and I would not have approved it. It read:

Did you know ... that "Jesus Christ is Risen Today"?

- which is clearly recognizable as a quotation and as the title of something, and with a question mark. It quotes someone's Christian belief, that is the fact. There is no claim that what the someone (the author of the hymn) believes is a fact, nor could any belief ever be a fact.

Also: you speak of "the responsible party promises not to repeat this episode" and probably mean me. I am not "the responsible party". I did not invent the hook, nor would I. (Look at mine, to see the difference, a few are on my user page, including hymns, one of them for Easter.) I approved it only after the (then only) critic seemed pleased. I didn't move it to prep. I didn't move prep to queue. These are facts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:24, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Do you see nothing wrong with using the front page of wikipedia to testify to your personal beliefs?

And, despite the fig leaf of the quote, the use of "that" is grammatically unambiguous in English. (It may be that you're not a native speaker, though your writing is fluent.) The presence of "that" can only mean that we are being asked whether we know the fact: "Do you know Beth" asks whether you are acquainted with a person, while "Do you know that Beth is from Vienna" asks whether we know the asserted fact.

I understand you think you acted appropriately, but in doing this you contributed to endangering the work of thousands of editors. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Who tells you that the song title represents my personal belief? I try to distance myself from what I write, even if I am close to a subject, and here, I didn't even write it. I said the hymn writer's belief, I meant it. Indeed, English is not my first language, but I can tell the meaning of quotation marks and capital initials. The danger to the work of other editors, I fail to see it. Quirky hooks are meant for a smile, this one didn't work, sadly. (Did anybody ask the readers?) It was meant as short for Did you know ... that Wikipedia has now an article on the well-known hymn "JCIRT"? - I learned that it could be misunderstood and will remember that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The difficulty here is that the published sentence does not and cannot, in English, mean what you say. The capitals and quotation marks are neither here nor there, but there is no ambiguity here. The danger to the work of other editors that you fail to see might take the form of thousands of university students being instructed neither to consult or to contribute to Wikipedia because it is disreputable, not to mention derisory stories in newspapers and magazines. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:51, 29 April 2014 (UTC)