User talk:BF
|
|
Past<b>
*Recent Past * Purple Graffiti
* Pink Graffiti
<B>Now<B>
New Age Vandalism
Thanks for your supportive comment. I do keep a watch on New Age . The vandal was not a mindless one but someone who wanted to put their own POV on to the article and was clearly ignorant of WikiP etiquette. Reading their lengthy work there are a few points which might usefully be added to the article in the future. eg Pioneering antecedents of the New Age I'd only faintly heard of such as or Nicholas Roerich and Helena Roerich and Allen Kardec . Lumos3 10:12, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I think the Vandals were followed by the Huns. BF 17:57, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Stunned
Dear BF
Sorry to see how shocked you are by recent changes to New Age.
A summary of what’s been going on is
- User 218.168.238.53 did the major rewrite which I reverted out and you stored in the alternate article.
I began incorporating what I considered to be valuable bits from this into the main article
- User 210.60.55.8 then also did a rewrite that pushed the article towards saying the New Age was a media driven event which started in the 1980s , which I know not to be true from my own involvement in it.
Rather than revert this I decided that as its was less extensive than 218 I’d try to remove the factual errors.
- This has led me to see that there was a lot wrong in many sections of the article. I’ve tried to correct these by some copy editing.
- The new intro. is mostly mine. I was embarrassed by the one quoted in the newspaper as it seemed to give the reader little idea of what the new age was about apart from saying it was alternative.
I would welcome your help in improving the article if you disagree with anything I’ve done.
A wikipedia article is not an entry in stone , rather it’s a standing wave in a river. There’s a continuous flow of change through it. Some good some bad . It needs guardian angels to help it keep its form and grow to be better. Lumos3 23:26, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You said
- But guardian angels need some time off too! The article looks fine, now. The recent picayune "enhancements" are more of the same— editor's personal taste, preferences, choice of style— rather than adding new information and new ideas. This recycled past to do with the article makes one wonder about in-house fighting, edit wars, and inappropriate behavior by random forces who need to retain those who blindly live in "The Matrix". The Diane Brandon Metaphysical Gnostic quote was white-outed; she personally gave permission to use her website, and now it's just a link-to. Would you request the article be locked down for several weeks, until the dust settles? I know doing this might imprison the text. However if someone really wanted to edit during that time they could ask for the 'keys' BF 16:13, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I dont know of any process in wikipedia that allows for a lock down except during an edit war or cases of extreme vandalism. Neither is the case with the New Age article. I would not support such a move . I believe the best stability is in the vigilance of of the article's "Guardian Angels" . Lumos3 16:29, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Dear BF
Please don't withdraw your energy from the New age article. If there are things missing from recent changes to the article that you think should be in there then reinsert them to the current version. Articles on Wikipedia do not belong to anyone , they are Wikipedia's alone. We need to get to a New Age article that reflects all views and not those of one person or group. The citation problem is one that affects every Wikipedia article, all articles are continuously on the move and we must ensure the latest version has all the golden bits from all past versions still in it. Lumos3 23:42, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)