User talk:Robert Merkel/archive 1

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

user:mydogategodshat

____________________________________ 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)

Nice work, Robert. Tannin

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)

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)

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)

Main Page[edit]

Please only list items on the Main Page that have been updated to reflect the current event. How is a person going to know why a page is listed when there is no mention in the article (and no current date links)? This is a clearly stated guideline at Wikipedia:Selected Articles on the Main Page. --mav 19:58, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Zanmium, have you tried to contact Rozwell about the images he has uploaded inappropriately and repeatedly? --Robert Merkel 06:04, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Yes, I said to him that if he didn't stop, I'd ban him. He only uploaded one more image after that, seconds later. He's had no response. Has he uploaded later after I started deleting? I haven't check yet. - user:zanimum

I deleted some stuff as well, but I'm not sure whether that was before or after you did. In any case, he appears to be gone for now. --Robert Merkel 23:37, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Lets only hope. - user:zanimum

Hello. Thanks for your comments on my talk page. I've replied there. As you can see, I'm not entirely convinced. But I am starting to have doubts, so feel free to keep trying... :) -- Oliver P. 17:26, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! :-) BL 11:26, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The photos of the Me 262 you removed I added. They were taken from http://www.luftwaffepics.com/, with full permission from the person in question. It appears they have been removed completely from the wiki however, so I cannot easily restore the edit. Unless you can offer real evidence that I should not use them, I'm going to re-upload it. User:Maury Markowitz

There were two Me262 photos, a black and white one, and a colour one. The colour image was traced back through a German site who appeared to have ripped it off, without permission, from a Russian site, whose copyright notice did not allow reuse.

The black and white one had no copyright attribution at all.

If you've got permission to upload the black and white one, that's all well and good, but where did he get the images from? I suppose if it's a WWII Luftwaffe photo we could surely argue fair use...--Robert Merkel 23:49, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Is the diagram of a hockey rink here of any use to you? It's a North American one. It does use a term I've never heard before -- restraining circle. It's normally called the face-off circle. The face-off spots are a little heterodox, too, but that's not all that important. Trontonian

Sure, that's considerably clearer than most I've seen before.. --Robert Merkel 03:26, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It just occurred to me that the face-off spots are more commonly called dots, too.

Don't know if you plan on contributing to Melbourne at all, but can you check the talk page and let me know if you agree with me? Cheers, Neolux 19:15, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Would it be better to have Corby's page at Fernando Corbató or Fernando J. Corbató? (Clearly there should be a redirect from the other form, whatever we pick.) Noel 19:23, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

It doesn't really worry me. Generally we have name articles without the middle initial, but we make exceptions for Arthur C. Clarke and George W. Bush, for instance. --Robert Merkel 22:50, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I finally got around to doing something about this. I checked with Google first, and the full FJC form is by a good margin (3:1) more common, and I know he prefers the full form, so I did the move. I also added redirects from the non-accented form, in case someone does a search for it with ordinary characters. Noel 20:25, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Robert, please visit the White Australia Policy talk page and read my comment. Tell me if you agree or not. Cheers, Dr Adam Carr

I have done a totally NPOV upgrade of Melbourne Football Club, a model of its kind :) Go Dees Dr Adam Carr 12:22, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Press release[edit]

Editing on the meta version of the press release has effectively stopped. Please be advised that we may be distributing the non-English press releases as early as Monday 29 September. The English version will be distributed the week after in order to smooth out the load on our servers. --maveric149 22 Sep 2003

Hi Robert

Re: Battle of Normandy. I appreciate your contributions to this. I was actually writing from a British/Canadian perspective, where Normandy is undoubtedly the best-known land battle of WW2. I'd rather not make reference to the US more than I have to, to counteract the mistaken perception that D-Day was primarily a US operation. Incidentally, what would you say was the best-known WW2 battle from an Australian perspective?

Thanks again.

DJ Clayworth 13:08, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I'd have to say that from where I'm standing, the ones that were considered most important were the ones where it was Australia's (or at least Australian soldiers) arse on the line. Therefore the Kokoda Track, maybe the battle of Milne Bay, and El Alamein (the Rats of Tobruk). Also, the air raids on Darwin were regarded as highly significant to Australians as it's the only attacks on Australian soil by an enemy force. --Robert Merkel 13:19, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for that. But do you mind if I revert the Normandy article? I think taking the English-speaking world as a whole, Normandy is still probably the best known. Alamein would be well-known in Britain, but pretty much unknown in the US. Wasn't there also a substantial Australian presence in the Far East?

I also notice that Kokoda Track and Milne Bay don't have Wiki entries. Maybe There's an opportunity there.

DJ Clayworth 13:33, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

As to the Kokoda track and Milne Bay, they were part of the Far East campaign (immediately to the north of the Australian mainland. At some stage, I will look at adding articles for them if somebody else doesn't. As to the point of discussion in the article, I think trying to categorize one battle as the "best-known" is probably a pointless exercise. The Normandy invasion certainly was one of those few. --Robert Merkel 13:48, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I'll go for 'one of'. DJ Clayworth 14:19, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Robert: I have now completed my work on the Prime Ministers of Australia series. I have turned all the stubs into articles, written several articles from scratch, and edited, either lightly or heavily, the existing articles on the recent PMs. I cut a lot of extraneous political commentary from John Howard: I didn't look to see who I have offended. I would welcome your comments on the whole series. Adam 16:53, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Self-appointed Wikipedia quality control experts[edit]

Dear Mr. Merkel:

    Recently, my assistant was doing her monthly Google search on me to see if there have been any recent reviews on my books and recordings, as well any recent discussion on my work in various guitar and jazz chat sites. (I do like to stay on top of these things and respond wherever possible.) She came across a rather mildly provocative hit with your name attached to it and it read:

    "Has this guy done anything to warrant a Wikipedia entry? LexisNexis gives me nothing, and google just gives me the label's website and not much else."

    At the risk of seeming overly sensitive, please allow me, with all due humility, and as someone who is reminded every day that everything I have has been given to me, to supply you with an ABRIDGED bio. 
    If you still question whether or not I am worthy of inclusion, you have my complete permission to delete my name (or see that it is).

     Steve Rochinski was born in Washington, D.C. on January 20, 1954.

A self-taught guitarist, he has worked with the Candoli Brothers,Tim Hagans, Pat Harbison, Gary Foster, Hank Marr, Brad Goode, Joe Hunt, Chuck Redd, Richard Evans, Tal Farlow, Attila Zoller, Jimmy Raney, Bob Freedman, Tony Tillman, as well as numerous studio, concert, club date and international clinic appearances.

     Steve has received numerous grants and awards including a prestigious 1993 Jazz Fellowship from the National Endowment for the Arts for private study with jazz guitar legend Tal Farlow. 
     Upon leaving the musicians road life in 1984, he became Professor at the world-renowned Berklee College of Music (Magna Cum Laude, 1980) where, in addition to curriculum development, he teaches all levels of harmony (author of Harmony 4, the last in a series of the Core harmony curriculum), ear training, ensembles, and improvisation labs. Steve has taught and influenced some of the most successful names in contemporary jazz and pop music. He is also considered to be one of the worlds leading experts and consultants in the field of  contemporory jazz and popular harmonic common practice and pedagogy.
     He is the author of the award winning "The Jazz Style of Tal Farlow: The Elements of Bebop Guitar" and "The Motivic Basis for Jazz Guitar Improvisation" (Hal Leonard Corp.) He is an artist endorser for Evans Custom Amplifiers.

In 1995, Steve released his critically acclaimed debut CD “Until Further Notice…” (LineOut Music/Northcountry Dist.) He currently records for Jardis Records, Germany’s leading jazz guitar label. His releases include “A Bird In The Hand”(JRCD9922) and “Otherwise” (JRCD20033). (www.jardis.de).

    Steve's books and recordings continue to generate healthy international sales and his music has been featured on prominent jazz radio programs throughout the world
    In November 2001, Steve's life and career was featured in the 7th Anniversary issue of the internationally renowned magazine for jazz guitar fans, "Just Jazz Guitar"(No.29;November 2001). 
    Steve will be profiled in the next edition of the book  "The Jazz Guitar: Its Evolution, Players, And Personalities Since 1900 by Maurice Summerfield

(Ashley Mark Publishing).

    He remains active as a performer and clinician and is planning several recording projects including a release with his long-time friend and musical colleague, Blue Note recording artist, trumpeter Tim Hagans .
    He currently resides in Brookline, Massachusetts with his wife and two children where he is currently writing music and books. 
   (Reviews, books, radio playlists, and recordings will be gladly supplied upon request.)

Mr. Merkle, I would like to think that your reaction was to an initial entry into Wikipedia that was incomplete and somewhat confused in terms of what would have been relevant and appropriate background. This was an error for which I accept full responsibility. If you feel this information is worthy of inclusion, please pass it along so that it can be properly presented.

The next time you find the urge to well up with indignation at an entry consider asking yourself this question:

"What have I done to warrant such a response to this silly Wikipedia entry that, in the grand scheme of life in a sad and confused world, should mean relatively little to me? LetmeNixthis feeling and get on with worrying about my own worldly relevance and how I can generate public approval for my contributions to making this life a bit more bearable for all who are interested.

    Humbly yours,

    Steve Rochinski