User talk:SJK

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Old talk has been deleted -- if someone wants to see it they can always look at the history --SJK 23:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Comment

Hey, can you comment on the recent incarnation of the Hacker's article? Take a look at this post here. Thanks. -- Kerowren (talk • contribs • count) 20:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] role of "cult" in Wikipedia:Words to avoid

There have recently been some enthusiastic debates at Talk:Jonestown and Talk:Heaven's Gate over when, if ever, it's appropriate for Wikipedia to refer to a religious group as a "cult." I had thought that the guideline in WP:WTA was quite explicit but there appears to be some genuine confusion about what it intends. Since you originally contributed this guideline to WP:WTA, I'm interested in whether you have an opinion on these arguments:

  • One argument in favor of using the word "cult" for a group like Heaven's Gate or the People's Temple is that the WP:WTA guideline is intended only to discourage editors from applying the word in questionable or marginal cases, and that there should be no reason not to use the word for "indisputable cults."
  • Another argument is that editors can use the "sociological definition" exclusion in these cases, by giving the technical definition of a "cult" in sociological terms and showing how the group in question fits all of these criteria, in order to justify the use of the word throughout the article.

My own understanding from the WTA guideline as written is that editors should just about never consider the word suitable to use in the narrative voice when referring to a specific group, no matter how widely agreed the sentiment is, and that the "use of the term in sociology" is only intended to apply to discussing "cult behavior" in the abstract, not in reference to a specific group or incident.

Obviously the degree to which "cult" is an appropriate term to use in Wikipedia is a question for the community to decide, not you personally, but I have had trouble raising much discussion at Wikipedia talk:Words to avoid, and as you were the editor who wrote the original guideline I think your opinion would carry extra weight. If you would be willing to clarify or expand its intent I think it may help put an end to some of the debate. :-) Tim Pierce 04:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category talk:Law

Thanks for the 411. Bearian (talk) 18:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:RFPP

In the future, when requesting protection, please place your request at the top of the requests, like it says in a bunch of places on the page. Requests have gone unnoticed for hours when they are placed at the bottom. Thanks! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 05:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] View AfD - Articles for deletion/Sacinandana Swami (2nd nomination))

Please note that the discussion you were taking part in is being reopened with a veiw for deletion of article Sacinandana Swami as a possible result of the 2nd Nomination. Wikidās ॐ 20:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Carolinas

Wow, I looked at your edit history—I have never talked to another Wikipedian who has been around as long as you have. Since 2001!

Anyway, I'm writing to ask you to reconsider your comments over at the Carolinas deletion page. By voting, essentially, to "keep" or "redirect", I think you're sending a mixed signal. Usually, in deletion debates, when someone is willing to go to a redirect, it's their way of saying, "yeah, I think the article should be deleted, but I realize that someone might come looking for this information, so let's put the info in a different article, to which we'll redirect this". By voting to keep or direct, I'm not really sure where you stand on this. Cheers! Unschool (talk) 17:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)