User talk:Ismarc/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ismarc. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I believe the PDF would be a valid source, but I have a quick question. You are aware that you need only link to the pdf using the {{cite}} template and that you do not need direct quotes most of the time, right? -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 04:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I was aware. I was interested more in getting the information available and some more eyes on it (and even though pdf is called "portable document format", it is decidedly not nearly as portable as I would prefer). Thank you for taking the time check this, I picked an admin at pseudo-random to ask.

Thank you very much for your citation. It will be very helpful in recreating the page (or improving it) once the DRV is over. We've managed to dig up 6 more citations, so we will add this to the list. If one of the administrators I consulted thinks it's okay, the Threshold page will be created as a sub-page of my user page.

Thank you again. Kallimina (talk) 05:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The Citation Barnstar

		The Citation Barnstar
		Thank you for finding this reference and posting it despite your personal feelings on the subject. Kallimina (talk) 05:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I have been going through articles listed as Software Engineering stubs, seeing which ones I could expand on and turn into full articles. There was one which I put up for PROD that was changed to a redirect instead, which was not completely inappropriate and something I hadn't thought of. Now, I'm researching for information on the Apache C++ Standard Library. I'm now in a quandary. There are large amounts of information on using the library on the Apache website for it. From what I've been able to find so far, it's not shipped with any particular compiler, but can be used with nearly all platforms (there's a specific list that are "officially" supported). The original intention of the project (was created at another company and then "donated" to open source) was to provide a complete implementation of the Standard C++ Library. The reasoning behind the need was due to the reference implementation being based upon the Draft standard, which had since been approved. There were press releases of the software being provided to Apache as open source, and there are press releases for each subsequent version, but little to no coverage otherwise. In contrast, there is a reasonable amount of coverage regarding the GNU C++ Standard Library, but is only available for gcc, yet it doesn't have an article. I'm trying to weigh on the ideas I have now. Should there be a GNU C++ Standard Library page, or should all the current pages be merged and a section added to C++ Standard Library that covers other available libraries. I'm leaning towards the merge, but I'll have to think on it more, then I'll probably post some comments in talk pages.Ismarc (talk) 01:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

What can I say, I didn't even see your request. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

You are likely already aware this probation exists, but I need a diff for procedural purposes. Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Men's rights movement, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- v/r - TP 17:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

for the link to the notification. Say, it's too bad the " We have forgotten that before we called this date rape and date fraud, we called it exciting.” quote was removed, it seems to me that this pretty wells sums up the movement. I'll probably put it back.
And here is the thing about being a red link, whether you have something on your user page or not. You red name now is sort of like when mothers tell their kids to eat their vegetables and the kids dump them in a potted plant instead, but it fools mom. The reason for going blue is that there are hundreds of editors on vandalism patrol all the time. probably this is not clear to you that this is one of the way that wikipedia works, but it is. And these unsung heroes check edits made by red linkers because of the high incidence of vandalism from these folks. I know you - but most of these others do not and are likely to spend extra time checking you work, time that could be spent of real vandals because what ever else you might be, I do not consider you to be a vandal. Carptrash (talk) 18:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

(This got kind of length, I apologize for that) I understand your intentions are good, and wasn't sure of the protocol of notifying people, so I wanted to err on the side of making sure you knew. Considering the source, it would fall under WP:Primary, but given the nature of the quote, I don't imagine it would be hard to find a scholarly secondary source that covers it better than just putting the quote as well. For my current signature, I'd liken it to a parent telling their kid to stop hitting their sibling, the kid then intentionally swinging and missing rather than intentional disobedience. In contributions, history and diffs, the name appears blue so those who are doing the hard work of policing vandalism don't have it as a warning sign. For signatures, however, I am still new to editing, so I actually appreciate extra looks at what I say and constructive feedback that would come with it.

I landed on wikipedia and decided to give a shot at editing again because I'm going to start writing a book this summer and am sorely out of practice for writing, editing and researching. I was looking for a breakdown of rape laws by state, saw a mis-labeled headline and incomplete quotation for a definition, and after logging in to fix it kept browsing around and landed on the Men's Rights Movement article. With it's state of disarray and being a controversial topic, I figured it'd be perfect for me to get some practice that was held to impeccable standards. Last night when I signed on, I was initially going to post on your talk page to suggest a collaboration on some restructuring/expansion of the article. I'm still waiting for quite a few books to arrive (and this list is probably only going to grow) and you seem to have a good understanding of the subject matter. I've been putting together a block that would go after the history section, covering the beliefs and views of the men's rights movement, an overview of the issues and then it's relation to feminism (initial paragraph from non-men's rights movement and non-feminist based sources, then a block of men's rights movement perspectives, then a block of feminism perspectives). The idea being that it's new structure and adding it in before it's anywhere close to acceptable would be more disruptive than getting a good start in a separate workspace and then moving pieces into the main article. The feminism based sources are decidedly long (I've fully read through one, but will be probably a week before I understand enough to use it) and seems to be an area you're knowledgable about, suggesting you've been through the sources or are likely familiar with them. I've been focused on putting together the views and beliefs section and thought it would be a good idea to have you work on the feminism perspective section or providing 'blurbs' from the sources you have access to that I do not yet. I still think having you help out on it is a viable idea and you can see where I'm at with it at User:Ismarc/MR/Basis (also linked from subpages). Thanks, Ismarc (talk) 19:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)