User talk:Dave3457
Hey Dave! Just wanted to let you know that the offer is still open for writing help. Let me know!Fistoffoucault (talk) 03:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, you're probably right, but I knew you'd figure it out. ;-)- Wolfkeeper 23:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Re: Your query about Real-D circular polarization. Sorry, I didn't give the source because it was somebody's blog (as I said on the talk page). I'd have to Google it to find it again, and you're likely to have as much success as me. I put it in Wikipedia on the principle that unsourced questionable info was an improvement over what it replaced which was unsourced misleading info. --Farry (talk) 09:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
|
Femininity
Feb 21, 2011 Being interested in anthropology I have at times followed the development of this article. A year or so ago it seemed to be taking different POV into account. Now it has given way to an ideological approach, reducing "femininity" to simple physical "femaleness". This is blatantly one-sided, not worthy of an encyclopedia. Femininity, for most people, still suggests distinctive traits of character, ways of behaving, reaction towards others, etc. etc. that go deeper than what is merely physical. This idea is not an outdated cultural or religious prejudice that deserves little notice (here it gets none). It is an idea that has been present over the ages, permeating art and culture. In modern times it was defended by Sigmund Freud, Margaret Mead, Virginia Woolfe, etc. not in the name of the Bible, etc. but in that of an objective understanding of the richness of having two distinctive human modes of expressing humanity: the masculine and the feminine. To ignore that viewpoint is the make a totally one-sided and prejudiced presentation. I would suggest a presentation that gives both A) the more 'traditional' view of femininity; and B) the more recent views that react from this concept and tend to reduce the term to a simple difference in body parts. I can write some of the first; and even outline aspects of the second (where I think I could do a better job than what is represented in the current article), and leave the completion of that to others. [Since this is a feeler, so as to see what people think, let me single out just two concrete points in the present article which reveal a narrowness of approach, verging on the ridiculous. 1) large breast size and cleavage are presented as a main parameter of femininity. But this is to talk about femaleness, not femininity. Audrey Hepburn is a classical example of a woman considered very feminine - even though her breasts were small and she had little cleavage. 2) Female body shape and Corset... Here the emphasis on femaleness is again clear. To highlight 'corset', etc. in an article on femininity, is indeed to corset the scope of an encyclopedia article.]Unimpeder (talk) 06:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Feb 27, 2011 From the discussion page about ‘Femininity’, you seem to be one of those who have taken most part in developing this article. A week ago I posted the above on my talk-page, in the hope it might begin a discussion. I would be glad to have your reaction to my proposal, as I think the present article is one-sided and simply not worthy of Wikipedia. However, I see no point in working at a more comprehensive presentation of the theme - if someone is going to revert it each time. So I would like to talk first. A year ago, the article opened in a fairly balanced way: “Distinct from femaleness, which is a biological and physiological classification concerned with the reproductive system, femininity principally refers to secondary sex characteristics and other behaviors and features generally regarded as being more prevalent and better suited to women, whether inborn or socialized. In traditional Western culture, such features include gentleness, patience, sensitivity and kindness.[citation needed]. Nursing certainly calls for such traits, which may well explain the fact that women are generally considered to make better nurses.” The last sentence about nursing was added by me at that time. I see now that this was removed by Uschick in April 2010, after someone had observed “In my experience this [that women are generally considered to make better nurses] is not necessarily true, and nothing this specific should be stated without any supporting sources.” If you want commonsense support of my statement, go out and ask the first ten men and women you meet. I think that the whole paragraph should be restored in the rewriting of the article; one supporting reference might be the following: ‘According to the U.S. Dept. Of Labor. “Women comprised 92.1 percent of RNs in 2003" (http://www.dol.gov/wb/factsheets/qf-nursing.htm).’ The 92.1% says something to the point. [Might someone take this figure as indicating discrimination against women? Perhaps; but he would need good arguments and plenty of [non-biased] ‘supporting sources’] Looking forward to hearing what you think.Unimpeder (talk) 14:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Plane waves
I did not delete the section about approximations to plane waves which you 're-instated' - I moved it to a separate section entitled 'Approximations to plane waves' where I felt it was more appropriate, since the initial discussion relates to 'true' plane waves.
At the moment, it appears twice in the article - you should decide which one should stay and which one should go
--Epzcaw (talk) 19:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
RealD
Hi there. Sorry for adding that image, i had not seen the previous disscusion. In regard to the talk page, I don't think it would be copyright infingment to reove the slogan from the logo as long as you say that you removed the section in the 'portion used' section of the fair use rationale. Also sorry for copy and pasting the section from the other article. Oddbodz (talk) 17:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Oddbodz has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
WQA
Hello, Dave3457. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Aronoel (talk) 22:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
| Hello Dave3457, Fistoffoucault has given you A German Barbie! You see, these things promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else A German Barbie! Enjoy! You can relate to her in any way you like. Most people just rip her head off. Don't worry, it reattaches quite easily! | |
| Thanks for your contribution to the Femininity article. It wouldn't be the same without you! USchick (talk) 03:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC) |
