User talk:Lucidity

West Africa changes

Hey Lucidity,

In addition to responding over at West Africa, I wanted to add a quick note here as well. I do really appreciate your chiming in with your concerns over the regional definition, but I hope that, as Mark suggests, you'll consider talking things over with people a little more before making such changes in the future. There have been a lot of people working on that article, and though I know you probably didn't intend it to come across that way, the fact that you accidentally deleted everyone else's new contributions in making your changes comes off as a little disrespectful. While I'm all for being bold, on articles that have gotten a lot of recent attention, it can be good to discuss things briefly on the talk page before making fundamental changes; it allows us to come to a consensus that can work well for everyone.

Anyway, I see that you've deleted some notes like this in the past, and while you're welcome to delete this one as well, I hope that you will take it at least a bit to heart. All that being said, it's a pleasure to run into another Africa editor, even if we're in temporary disagreement! I hope I'll see you around again, --Dvyost 16:09, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. So, am I to believe that making an honest change with full disclosure as to why with source cited is somehow disrespectful? You're interpretation of disrespect is a very bizarre construal indeed.

2. If you're for bold changes, then don't be so upset by them. Despite saying you're 'for bold changes', the truth of the matter is, you're not.

3. Unfortunately, consensus amongst laymen doesn't amount to knowledge, and that's a major problem with wikipedia... A few authors, usually with no accredited background in the subject matter they are writing and from a very narrow demographic somehow believe that if they come to a consensus after 'talking it over', then the problem is somehow resolved and common opinion magically morphs into fact. The fact of the matter is that this is not how knowledge gains integrity. Such consensus opinions, as in science, are generally only tenable amongst well-respected, highly-trained professionals with sufficient career background in their area of focus to make their two-cents worth its salt. If 3 wikipedians decide that the world is flat, that doesn't make it so, though they may then write an unreliable article into wikipedia. The bottom line is that wikipedia is generally only as good as the credible sources that it can regurgitate its content from; this is the unfortunate but frank reality of the project, so when it diverges from doing so, it becomes more of a blog than a reference source with integrity.

4. Lastly, and tragically the worst part of wikipedia is the level of attachment that regular wikipedians develop for their contributions. Progressive changes all-too-often trigger posting wars and pleas for gradual, change based on dialogue and emotional sensitivity. However, there are three equally valid methods of contributing to the content on wikipedia: 'change it', 'talk about it', or 'talk about it and change it'. No one way is better or worse than the next, they are merely methods. Yet, due to the level of content attachment exhibited by many wikipedians, 'talk about it' is #1, 'talk about it and change it' #2, and 'change it'--a distant #3--becomes so depreciated that whenever some other contributor employs does so, the original poster goes on the defensive and starts advising the new contributor on proper protocols and whatnot, rather than just speaking to the merits of the content itself.

So, thanks but no thanks for the advice; I'm not looking for friends nor to make enemies, and I have no intention of becoming a wikipedian, though I may post on occasion.

Actually, let me offer you my apologies; I had been dealing with a lot of hurricane-related business here in Louisiana that day and really was in no condition to post here at all. In mentioning "disrespect," a word I'm already embarrassed to see in my post, I was referring not so much to your change of the definition of West Africa as to your deletion of the History, Culture, Reference, and External links sections, but that doesn't excuse my bitchy tone.

I agree with you wholeheartedly that we should work from scholarly sources wherever possible rather than a "consensus of laymen"; at the moment, we're trying to assemble as many scholarly definitions and see what the most common defintions are. I think dicussing the merits of the content, as you suggest, would do the article a lot of good, and we've got that discussion going already over on article Talk.

And seriously, thanks again for calling me out on the unsourced nature of some of this; I was working to get part of it up as fast as possible for the Collaboration of the Week and on looking over Brian Smithson's list of reference sources that he just put up, I think you're right that Cameroon should be included. Best wishes. --Dvyost 14:45, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note, Dvyost, to say I genuinely appreciate your reply here. Apology accepted, and, truly, I did make a blunder in unintentionally deleting those other pages. I look forward to getting to the bottom of the regionalization issue though, and, in doing so, making some posts on the talk pages. I've already done a lot of background reading, but need to summarize it in a way to further the collaboration. Again, thanks for your reply... hopefully, we can all figure this challenging issues out together to improve these pages.

Also, what you're doing in Louisiana is truly admirable. I wish you and your efforts the best; there are so many out there needing a helping hand right now. Take care.

Lucidity 01:43, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! I'll look forward to seeing you again on Central Africa or some of the other upcoming collaborations--though I suspect the Africa COTW is quickly going to become defunct. Best wishes --Dvyost 20:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Page moving

Don't move pages by copying and pasting please. Thank you! 209.214.141.24 15:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user is either an idiot or daft; he continues to revert a documented correction. Lucidity 20:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Wings of a Butterfly

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. Please do not move pages anymore by simply copy-and-pasting. There are other ways to do it, and you will be reverted if you continue this disruptive behavior. — Moe Epsilon 01:50 September 15 '06

Look, this is getting absurd. Clearly, this individual is incapable of reading comments or digesting their content. What I have done should not be misconstrued as 'copy and paste'; I am correcting an erroneous article. I own this album; my correction is unquestionably the offical name of the song. Moe Epsilon's obstinance is unsettling in its lack of mental engagement. shocking, simply shocking Lucidity 18:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Abebe-Bikila.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Abebe-Bikila.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. |EPO| 14:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]