Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ZimZalaBim (talk | contribs) at 20:02, 4 August 2006 (Added Talk:Personal finance). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives
5/13/2006 - 6/17/2006 7/2/2006 - 7/7/2006 7/7/2006 - 7/9/2006 7/10/2006 - 7/20/2006 7/20/2006

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting -- ~~~~ at the end.
Start a new talk topic.

Welcome

Hello, Chuck Marean, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!

Organized archive links

Chuck - I organized your archive links so they are in chronological order and provide the dates. I'm not sure you've actually included all of the talk history - I'll take a closer look. If you don't like what I did, feel free to revert/change it, but I think this is more user-friendly. Cheers. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 13:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:About

I reverted your edit to Misplaced Pages:About . I understand you might be distracted by the link, but this is a standard disambiguation link for Misplaced Pages-space articles that also have an entry in the main encyclopedia space. It is beneficial for visitors to this page to discover right away that there is an actual encyclopedia article about Misplaced Pages as well as this About page. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 02:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

And I reverted again, with an edit summary that tracked with Michael's, viz., that we use such dab links often in order that one might distinguish between project space and mainspace. Once more, if you think extant practice to be wrong, you ought to try to convince others of the superiority of your formulations other than by reverting (whilst it is surely good that you've attempted to make the case in edit summaries, such summaries as this aren't particularly cogent or pellucid). Joe 20:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

This article might help provide guidance: WP:BRD, ie, be bold when editing, but when reverted, it is best to discuss rather than just make the same edit again. We certainly want to avoid edit wars. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 22:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Simple English Misplaced Pages

Chuck, I've noticed many of your edits have been to try to shorten or simply the language of the introductory and help pages. Did you know that there is a simple english version of the Misplaced Pages: http://simple.wikipedia.org/Main_Page. You might want to explore that project. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 11:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Personal finance

Regarding edits on Personal finance, please do not start edit wars. Per the guidelines at WP:BRD, if someone reverts your edit and leaves a message on the article's talk page (as I did at Talk:Personal finance), it is best to discuss it there rather than simply re-inserting the disputed content. Thanks. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 16:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Chuck, please see my comments/questions on Talk:Personal finance. Thanks. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 23:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I clicked the link. It was about stocks and bonds, not personal financial records.--Chuck Marean 01:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The article on financial economics is not solely about stocks and bonds. I'm replying in more detail at Talk:Personal finance --MichaelZimmer (talk) 01:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

(unindenting) It's possible, Chuck, that I'm dense, but I'm having difficulty making sense of your edits to personal finance. You seem to misunderstand the topic—were personal finance to be defined solely as an individual's keeping his business and household finances separate, the topic would not merit encyclopedic consideration, inasmuch as the article would be only a dicdef—and continue to make edits that serve only to render the article overly simplistic and much too informal. I'm certain that you're irked by what you might well perceive as other users' cursorily and untowardly reverting your edits; similarly, I'm sure other editors are irked by the frequency with which you make less-than-constructive edits. With respect to the four sets of edits you made to the article, I hope you'll permit me to elucidate that about which I was concerned in each (namely, that which I thought to be unencyclopedic and against guidelines and policies that reflect the considered consensus of other editors); we may, then, be able facilely to understand the differences in the principles that underlie our editing, toward common benefit.

• Edit one You properly moved {{finance}}, and no one has reverted such change; it was a good one. You simplified, though, the definition of personal finance, exacerbating the problem of {{inappropriate tone}}, about which the article already was tagged, writing in the second person (you might want to see WP:MoS, WP:LEAD, and WP:1SP for more on what tone is appropriate for an encyclopedia), and, most importantly, misstating the fundamental definition of the article's subject.
• Edit two Financial economics is the overarching branch under which personal finance, for one, lies, and to interpret financial economics to refer exclusively to the transacting in stocks and bonds is wholly to misinterpret the latter article. Your Limited Resources section is (a) WP:OR, (b) perhaps POV, (c) inappropriate for a lead, (d) poorly phrased (and overly informal), and (e) partially incomprehensible. Even as I'm not particularly a fan of Essjay's formulation that the question one must ask before pressing save is whether his/her edit will improve the project (if only because, save for those who disrupt with volition or whilst cognizant of the community's disfavoring of their work, every editor thinks his/her edits to improve the project), you might do well to consider before pressing save page not solely whether your edit better elucidates the topic for you (or even for some other readers) but also whether the edit conforms to some encyclopedic concerns and is likely to be of benefit to most readers; the latter concern is of paramount import in view of the incomprehensibility of much of your text.
• Edit three You restored what you term the welfare section, which is, as I've explained, unencyclopedic, and the reinsertion of which ought first to have been discussed. Your edits to the first sentence, pace your edit summary, did not serve to improve the encyclopedic tone of the sentence, although they did serve properly to define the term. This edit was one that demonstrated, at least relative to the first sentence, a willingness to comport your editing with encyclopedic principles, for which you are to be commended, but it's rather a tautologous restatement of the title; the prior version better explains the article.
• Edit four To be plain, personal finance, at least as treated by the encyclopedia does not solely refer to keeping household finances separate from those of business. The second sentence of the lead, which you left intact, indeed recognizes this, but the first sentence should not misstate the topic. Financial economics, moreover, as explained supra does not refer solely to stocks and bonds. The Personal Income section you added would surely be more appropriate for income, social welfare, welfare (financial aid), charity, or money, though its tone and OR would likely render it unencyclopedic. Your intimation that, because the state serves to effect a monetary system, those benefitting therefrom must be willing to help others, lest the state should cease to control a monetary system and, by and through the judicial system, to protect financial interests, is one that tracks closely with the thinking of Cass Sunstein, and so a citation to one of his recent works might well be in order; the section as it was, though, was misplaced and unencyclopedic in substance and form.
• Edit five As I'm sure you understand, the tone here was unencyclopedic; the paragraph further served poorly to recapitulate personal budget, to which a {{main}} ought to have linked, and wrongly to explain a budget (which, in the era of computing, doesn't necessarily comprise three pages, as, if nothing else, a reading of personal budget would make evident.

I hope you'll not think me to have attempted to castigate you for every edit with which I (and others) had a problem; instead, I'm trying to help you understand how better to write an article (something on which, of course, I'm no expert—everyone has room to improve and everyone here has something to teach) in order that the your editing be symbiotic vis-à-vis the project and you. If you think any of my interpretations to be wrong, please feel free to write me in order that we might discuss, not only so that we should learn to collaborate but also in order that we might ameliorate whatever deficiencies exist in, inter al., personal finance. Joe 18:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The first edit did oversimplify first sentence.

The second edit was because of reading the link about stocks. The writer simply ment finance, which I also know nothing about.

In edit three, I see what you mean about the first sentence. It made sense to me at the time, but now I see it didn't use enough words to be understood. The welfare section was my attempt to summarize the introduction of a book I'm reading and disagree with its introduction. The book assumes everyone has enough money to save up for things which got me a little upset.

Edit four. Household finances is in fact what personal finance means. That it should be kept separate from business finance is-- I now see-- a separate idea. The Personal Income was another attempt to deal with the book's introduction, which I disagreed with.

Edit five is a summary of part of a book I'm reading. The paragraph about budget just says what the book says. I know nothing about budgets. The word encyclopedic--I looked it up-- does not refer to tone. It means comprehensive. So maybe you mean "more wordy". That might require more memory to be facile.

I read the article to find out about personal finance. I found out it doesn't know either, so I'm reading a book on the subject, and will be posting my notes. I'll be taking my time, and will be writing the way I write. If you want to upgrade my writing, fine. I'm just not able to. Your writing is a matter of talent.

I will try to be detailed enough in any sentences I write. --Chuck Marean 04:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate that your considered reply, and I am certain that we'll continue to be able to collaborate successfully. One item of which you might want to be aware, lest there should be confusion over user's comments apropos of your edits: It is true that encyclopedic is most often used as a synonym for complete (I'm envious of Brad Rutter's encyclopedic knowledge of Shakespeare), but on Misplaced Pages the term is almost invariably used as a synonym for not characteristic with an encyclopedia ], in tone, style, level of detail, or import; see, for example, the indiscriminate collection provision of WP:NOT, where encyclopedic is used to describe that which is appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedic, or observe a few XfD discussions.

Well, that's what I ment. Enough info and not just tone --Chuck Marean 18:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Chuck - If you come across an article that needs improvement, but don't know much about the topic, feel free to add the Expert template (just add {{expert}} to the top of the article). That way, editors with more intimate knowledge on the topic can improve the entry. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 13:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Added Talk:Personal finance

I do not know what your reason was for creating this page as a redirect , but it has been deleted in accordance with the deletion policy. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 20:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)