User talk:Alexandria177: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:08, 8 September 2010

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Alexandria177! I am SarekOfVulcan and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. Thank you for your contributions. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD

You were WP:BOLD, someone else WP:REVERTed you, now you should be discussing the edit. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, should have sent the cookies first. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My reversion

I reverted your edits for three main reasons: (1) they seemed very expository in nature; (2) they deal with very controversial material, that you didn't even bother to discuss; and (3) they were not particularly well-written. I don't mean that last as an insult, just as a bare statement of fact. If you had presented your ideas at the talkpage, and worked through what you were proposing (as should have been done with such controversial material), these problems could have been addressed. Until you do so, the material will stay out. Lithistman (talk) 21:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And as I learned - with no help from you - it turned out that I was supposed to be bold, and that there was no call for me to seek consensus first, as what I added was not controversial, but simply a clarification of the existing topic. And as it also turned out, the changes were appropriate, and after giving in to your quibbles, now stands. Alexandria177 (talk) 01:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What now "stands" isn't what you initially added, just for the record. And your attitude throughout has left MUCH to be desired, as you behaved very poorly when your initial boldness was reverted, as per WP:BRD. I've cleaned up the section a bit, but it still needs a LOT of work. Lithistman (talk) 21:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Psychological Criticism

Branden might be an ex, but he's also a major figure in Objectivism, and thus his opinion is very relevant to the article. His bias is not our concern; Wikipedia's rules do not say we have to cite "unbiased" sources, but that we just use verifiable ones. Likewise, saying it does not belong because he's an ex is an ad hominem fallacy; it does not logically effect his ability to criticize the book. I know Rand's followers will whine about it (they make up false claims about why things that reflect badly on Rand have to be removed without consideration for the actual rules - see their unwillingness to add William Edward Hickman as one of her inspirations in her article despite the fact that we've got proof in her own gushing praise of him in her writing), but it still has its place in the article.

And yes, you could easily find criticism of psychopathy elsewhere. As for the particular brand of it exposed in AS, I don't know of any, but I have yet to look them up. I'd recommend checking the book The Ayn Rand Cult, which might have something. -- LGagnon 03:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 ::And as I learned - with no help from you - it turned out that I was supposed to be bold, and that there was no call for me to seek consensus first, as what I added was not controversial, but simply a clarification of the existing topic.  And as it also turned out, the changes were appropriate, and after giving in to your quibbles, now stands.  [[User:Alexandria177|Alexandria177]] ([[User talk:Alexandria177#top|talk]]) 01:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 :What now "stands" isn't what you initially added, just for the record. And your attitude throughout has left MUCH to be desired, as you behaved very poorly when your initial boldness was reverted, as per [[WP:BRD]]. I've cleaned up the section a bit, but it still needs a LOT of work. [[User:Lithistman|Lithistman]] ([[User talk:Lithistman|talk]]) 21:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
+==Re: Psychological Criticism==
+Branden might be an ex, but he's also a major figure in Objectivism, and thus his opinion is very relevant to the article. His bias is not our concern; Wikipedia's rules do not say we have to cite "unbiased" sources, but that we just use verifiable ones. Likewise, saying it does not belong because he's an ex is an [[ad hominem]] fallacy; it does not logically effect his ability to criticize the book. I know Rand's followers will whine about it (they make up false claims about why things that reflect badly on Rand have to be removed without consideration for the actual rules - see their unwillingness to add William Edward Hickman as one of her inspirations in her article despite the fact that we've got proof in her own gushing praise of him in her writing), but it still has its place in the article.
+And yes, you could easily find criticism of psychopathy elsewhere. As for the particular brand of it exposed in AS, I don't know of any, but I have yet to look them up. I'd recommend checking the book ''The Ayn Rand Cult'', which might have something. -- [[User talk:LGagnon|LGagnon]] 03:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)