User talk:Robert Merkel/archive 1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Thanks for checking the Idanha picture. Still working out the bugs.. looks tiny on my screen am adjusting as I go along. Dmsar 08:23 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I saw your adjustment to my entry on the clitoris.
I'm very new to Wiki, so I appreciate the assist. I realize I editorialized a bit in the text on the clitoridectomy, but don't you think that chopping off the tip is a highly barbaric act that deserves a little comment? Even as a newbie, I *had* to go in and edit the inaccuracies about the "small knob-like" clitoris, when in fact the organ is much larger in the interior, and of much greater significance than commonly believed. So I'm grateful that your subsequent edit blessed my more detailed description. Is there a policy about editorializing, or is the group-effort supposed to leaven the articles to the proper level of "objectivity"? - Gjalexei
p.s. I also just checked the clitoridectomy article ... you were absolutely right to edit my stuff down in the Clitoris article, given the very thorough handling of the subject in the clitoridectomy entry!!
Welcome to Wikipedia! I appreciate your gentle handling of the clitoris and your NPOV treatment of evolution.
You might want to vote on the fate of subpages at Talk:Characters (The Simpsons) --Ed Poor
Thanks for your clarification on the single lens reflex camera article. :-) --KQ
Hey Robert, thanks for your fast feedback on Kitsch. I know it looks like a dictionary definition now, but with some work (see the talk page) it can become a full-fledged reference work. Defining "Kitsch" is like defining "Art", a dictionary definition doesn't do it justice. In fact, the best synonym I've seen for "Kitsch" is "Anti-Art". It's a meta-cultural phenomenon, not just a word... :0) Steve Rapaport
Robert, as a major contributor to it, you may want to look at Gough Whitlam and run your eye over the changes I just made. It was already a very good article. I think it's even better now, but ... well, see for yourself. BTW, your para describing Whitlam's more recent status is wonderful writing: lively, vivid, and yet non-partisan. Well done! Tannin
Hi Robert, excuse my slow reply. Take a look at the Whitlam page (relatively small change, semi-revert) and more particularly the talk. Tannin
Isis, you didn't mention that you and Guzzler were having a edit cold war (which just got a little nasty, judging by the edit by Guzzler I just reverted), over the contents of K. Kay Shearin, which I gather is, well, you. It might have been worth pointing out. --Robert Merkel 08:25 Jan 16, 2003 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if I misled you by not saying anything, but I didn't see the situation as either "an edit war" or pertinent to the issue of his offensive name. The information the guzzler added to K. Kay Shearin was partly accurate, and when I corrected his misstatements and added my side of if, he didn't quibble about those facts. I did see it as his "acting out" -- putting info in the article about me he thought would make me uncomfortable because I was criticizing his conduct in this forum -- but I thought that just meant I was making it too hot for him on the issue, so he was getting personal to try to distract me from that, and I'm contrarian enough not to be distracted that easily. -- isis 05:34 Jan 17, 2003 (UTC)
Rob thank you for your contributation to the Herald-Sun page - i'm hoping to find more information about The Sun News Pictorial so it can have as much detail about it in the article as The Herald - the other of the two papers that merged to form the H-S.
PMelvilleAustin 01:46 Jan 21, 2003 (UTC)
Hi, I liked your comments on Wikipedia:Content advisory, could you please add something similar to the Content Advisory page, that parents can read? MB 13:37 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)
_______________________________ Can Anybody Tell Me Why This Article Shouldn't Be Moved To "new product development"?
By the way, whomever is writing these marketing articles, they're a promising start. --Robert Merkel 04:09 9 Jun 2003 (UTC)
You can change it to lower case if you prefer.
The only reason The Caps Are There is that I have written more than 30 articles in 4 days and I am getting sloppy
____________________________________ Could the person working on the marketing articles please apply some ordering and weeding to the "see also" links? There's too many, and there in seemingly random order. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about the topic to do so. --Robert Merkel 04:20 9 Jun 2003 (UTC)
The criteria Ive used in chosing what see also links to use are the links must be closely related to the article topic and should be useful for further navigation. I ask myself what might I be interested in viewing after reading this article. The one exception is the root marketing page. Because it is a root page for the whole topic of marketing, I put all of the marketing articles links on that page. As for the order, you are quite right, I could spend some time putting them in alphebetical order or order of importance, but I donnt have time for that yet. I figure I have about another hundred articles to write to get this encyclopedia up to a level that it ussable for university undergrads user:mydogategodshat
__________________________________ Some questions:
- Who first coined the term "personal marketing orientation", and when? What were the idea's antecedents? Who are its major proponents? What criticisms are there of the idea?
In my edit, I placed some of the article's claims in the context that the theory claims certain things to be the case, rather than asserting that they are the case. Everyone else may be an individual, but I'm not ;) --Robert Merkel 04:30 9 Jun 2003 (UTC)
I'm not sure who coined the term. My first notice of it was in Ward Hanson's textbook "Principles of Internet Marketing", 2000 (1st edition)
As for your correction, it was enlightening. It never crossed my mind that there might be some people that would prefer to have their available choices limited to a few standardized products rather than getting exactly what they wanted. user:mydogategodshat
- In that specific case, you're right. It concerned me that the article was asserting things as facts that did, admittedly, sound plausible, but may not in fact be true. Lots of plausible suggestions get made all the time that turn out to be completely wrong. The easiest (and IMHO correct) thing to do clarify that the theory assumed things to be true without the Wikipedia actually making the claim that it was true. Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy is very clear - the Wikipedia should state facts (including facts like "this theory states that x, y and z are true") but should not editorially state opinions.
- More broadly, the point I'd make is that marketing seems to me (as I've stated, I know little about the field) to be something of an applied social science. If so, is there competing theories and ideas, and research to determine which ideas are most accurate and useful? Or am I overestimating the development of "marketing theory" as an academic discipline?
- I hope my comments are helpful. I do appreciate your efforts to improve this part of the 'pedia! --Robert Merkel 14:02 9 Jun 2003 (UTC)
_______
Ill try to be more neutral in the future.
As for your insertion "Mass production has traditionally depended on the standardisation of goods sold", it is no doubt true that mass production techniques like assembly lines do require standardized outputs in order to be cost efficient, but I dont see what the standardization requirements of an assembly line have to do with the personal marketing orientation. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be engaging in a reverse causality. The article deals with how the individualization of goods depends on the production processes available at the time. But your insertion deals with how production processes depends on the goods. user:mydogategodshat ---
Hi. Sorry, I meant to reply earlier.
I agree that the Crime in Sydney article does need further work, but then again so do many other articles here ( eg World War I, to name one example off the top of my head). I'm glad you didn't take offence over my rewriting that disclaimer (well not too much anyway!).
I respectfully disagree that the article is as minor as you seem to feel it is -it does seem to me to be more important than an article on a Simpsons character. This is all about stuff that goes back 200+ years now.
Hope all is well in Melbourne ( I was born in that city myself, if that's any consolation!) Arno 10:31 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- My point is very simple. Sydney's violent crime rate is not that high by world standards, and the place isn't likely to break out into race riots like you'd find in India or Indonesia any time soon. Having an extensive discussion of single examples of (very nasty) race-related crimes in the main article is going to give a highly misleading impression of Sydney.
- I agree an excellent article could be written about the criminal history of Sydney, and would be a very valuable addition to the wikipedia, Taking up half the Sydney article with a perspective-free discussion of crime in Sydney does both the topic of "crime in Sydney" and the wider discussion of "Sydney" a power of no good.
- I would also argue that ideally, to give a balanced perspective, similar articles should be written about crime in New York (the Mafia), crime in London (the East End gans and whatnot), crime in Chicago (from Al Capone on), crime in Los Angeles (Cripps and the Bloods, for instance), crime in Johannesburg, crime in Japan (the yakuza), crime in China (the government) and so on.... --Robert Merkel 13:32 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- Feel free to do just that, or to make a start on it! That NY one would be interesting - you could start with the gangs of New York of the 19th century ( and there were a lot of these feral characters around) and then move on to the rise of the Mafia in the 20th.
- I concur that the Sydney one could use more work - its had its own 19th century gangs, or pushes, such as the Cabbage Tree Push and the Town Hall Push, all stuff that should be mentioned on that page.
Arno 09:06 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I thought you might be interested in the opinion poll going on now at Talk:Clitoris. MB 18:08 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind, but I moved your "vote" to a new opinion catagory I have created, b/c your comment did no correspond with the opinion you were agreeing with. MB 23:23 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- No problem. I tried to pick the closest rather than create a new category. By the way, I find it slightly strange that people are getting so worked up about what I'd have to say is a fairly innocuous and not at all "porny" photograph (in its current form, anyway), and, from the other perspective, why shifting the picture to a place where somebody has to explicitly choose to click on is equivalent to the sky falling in. --Robert Merkel 05:27 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Robert, I don't agree with you about the tattoo pics not homing in on the tattoo sufficiently. I wanted not just a pic of a tattoo in close-up but to show it in context i.e. with some of the person shown (my 19 year-old son). On my screen (a CRT at 1024 by 768 resolution) the two pics are very clear and sharp so I'm puzzled that you find them too small, 250 pixels wide is just right for a portrait-format pic. Are you using a resolution above mine? The pic might then look small.
The bottom line is that I don't intend to alter those pics but, in the spirit of Wikipedia, you are welcome to do so.
Best Wishes Adrian Pingstone 14:09 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I just think it would be nice if one of the photos showed a tatto o in detail, but I'm not too fussed about it. By the way, I've queried the copyright status of the Me262 pics you prepared...--Robert Merkel 15:42 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- No problem, I'll add a detailed view of a tattoo soon.
- Yes, I agree that the Messerschmitt Me 262 copyright notice is baffling, by all means remove my pic (the coloured one).
- Adrian Pingstone 16:04 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- No problem, I'll add a detailed view of a tattoo soon.
- I think the tattoo matter is sorted. I've added a close up of the eagle so the reader now gets both longshots and a closeup. Also I've made the three pics into one unit so that text can never get between them (a trick I'm using increasingly). Hope you like the look of the page.
- Adrian Pingstone 17:12 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- I think the tattoo matter is sorted. I've added a close up of the eagle so the reader now gets both longshots and a closeup. Also I've made the three pics into one unit so that text can never get between them (a trick I'm using increasingly). Hope you like the look of the page.
Re: baseball diagram, see the talk page for that article -- User:GWO
BTW, the USAF Museum is not technically part of the US govt, and if you poke around their website, you'll see they emphasize this and explicitly claim copyright; presumably that's also why they stamp their name on the pic. I looked at them a while back and decided against using any of their photos. Somebody just needs to go visit the &%*#! museum and take all the same pics themselves. :-) Stan 05:37, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- Shite. Should have paid more attention. I'll delete the picture from the article (if you haven't already) and put a request up on requested images. Bloody ridiculous. --Robert Merkel 09:30, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Thanks, I'd already read it before writing my answer, and I am sure I was objective, if not, I would not have written the article. Please take a look to Anu and read the theory of Mr. Sitchin, and tell me if that accomplishes the NPOV policy (I've not written that nonsense). I don't remember now the name of the article, but there is another one concerning Bloody Mary and her persecution of Protestants that, as I think, doesn't accomplish that policy too. If I find the article, I'm going to leave its name here. Anyhow, any problem, just tell me. If I'm not objective... well, I'm not the exception, but as I've written NPOVs are very personal POVs. Thanks for your message. The Warlock 05:52, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- The article concerning Bloody Mary (not Mary I of England) is Witchcraft Act. You can be completely sure that I'm not a Catholic, but I think the comment is not objective but full of subjectivity. I left a comment on the talk page of Anu, I didn't on the other, but my opinion is the same. And Wikipedia has plenty of comments that lack of a NPOV. If I am the one that is going to be criticised fot writing that, good, go on. I insist that I was objective, but that opinion is just a POV. If I've reacted in this way is because I consider unjust the critic, especially because it was written elliptically that I don't know what I was talking about, and as I said, when I don't know, I just don't talk. Thanks for your time. The Warlock 06:14, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Hi, Robert: I have never asserted that gods or demons exist. I don't believe in religions since a long time ago, but I'm interested in the belief of so many people (mainly Christians) in them. I've found and empty link on such a topic and tried to write a good article on THAT BELIEF, not mine. It is true, in current times many Christians don't believe in demons, but it does not concern Christian theology or demonology, just their own POVs. I think that asserting the existence of deities, good or evil, is not a NPOV, but the links are there, and lots of articles on God and its (philosophically God is it, not he) "infinite goodness", the "virginity" of Mary, etc. If my article does not fit with the NPOV policy, those others do not too, as I understand. I didn't want to offend you, I hope you did not get angry, but I hope the same about your like for good articles referring to mine, if it is not good... well, it's not a NPOV but a POV... I think. If you think you can improve the article... It's all yours, not mine anymore. But please take into account that when speaking on "Demon possession in medicine" I denied the possibility of such a thing, and explained the pshychiatric (and I think more sceptic) POV on the subject. Paranormal phenomena are not related to demons or deities, and is has been scientifically proved. If you think I could believe in demon possession, please read again the medical POV on the subject, I laugh when hearing of demon possessed people. I just explained what is demon possession in Christianity and other cultures, what happens if the insane does not believe in science but in religion, and what does medicine think about all the stuff. The problem is that the religious stuff exists and most people believe in one creed or another... if not, just read about the Neopagans and their revival of witchcraft... I hope this is the beginning of a good understanding, being that we don't think too different on the subject (please read what I've written on religions on my personal page, thanks) :-) The Warlock 08:07, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking the time to reply, and rest assured that I'm not offended, and I hope that I have not offended you. Perhaps my problem with the article is perhaps not so much the viewpoint, more the fact that the article needs a little copyediting to be easier to understand. Anyway, like I said, I'll have a go at it on the weekend, and see if you like the result. --Robert Merkel 09:30, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)