Good first contributions. The important thing to me is that you're taking initiative and that your writing style is sound, and it is. I've adjusted some of the formatting. You want to make bold-type argument headers to start-off each argument. And, not make an entire section out of the argument using, as you did, ==== ==== . Keep it up. Good stuff. -- Brooks Lindsay (Talk) 10:29, 29 April 2010 (EDT)
Thanks Brooks for the compliments, I really appreciate it. And I'll definitely use some of your tips; I think I'm finally getting used to the formatting. :)
More good stuff
Very nice work. More comments: You are writing fairly long argument titles. So, one of the more recent ones was: "Illegal immigrants deprive Americans of social services such as government welfare, housing, food, and shelter." I would write this as "Illegal immigrants deprive Americans of social services. These can include government welfare, housing, food, and shelter..." Try to make the argument titles/headlines about the length of a news headline - very short, usually no more than 7 or 8 words, and sometimes using pithy wording in headline style (which may be slightly off grammatically, but there's an accepted style that you'll get the hang of). Best, -- Brooks Lindsay (Talk) 13:54, 30 April 2010 (EDT)
Hey, I wasn't exactly sure if you wanted me to continue building the debate on illegal immigration, or to move on to another debate. Whatever you need me to do, I'm up for the task. Just let me know whatever you need done. And also, I oversaw a user name Lenka, who has done a lot of the Table of Contents pages, even one on my recent debate on immigration. I was just wondering how to do that, because it looks pretty cool now. Thanks, -Isaac
Re: Deporting all illegal immigrants
I really like your work, keep it up! :)
Lenka 16:08, May 1st 2010
Really great work! Very impressed. You are definitely worthy of the title of Debatepedia.org Intern! :) If you want to continue as an Intern, essentially, I want you to continue to do what you are doing, which is edit consistently and ask me questions about what needs doing on the site. In general, I want you to explore your own personal interests, but also follow my lead on important topics that we're working on, and to work with the other intern User:Lenkahabetinova. As you'll see on Recent Changes, she is also a very ambitious editor. I think you guys will get along great. For now, I want you to work on Debate: Arizona immigration law. And, have a look at the Debate Digest Cue for important topics that I'll be working on coming up. Good stuff! -- Brooks Lindsay (Talk) 21:41, 4 May 2010 (EDT)
Not a problem
Definitely, focus all your attention on your exams for now. Lenka is actually a high school student in the Czech Republic, so is in a very similar situation, but not with AP exams. Anyway, we'll talk soon, and share a phone call after your exams, perhaps. You can "sign" your comments by writing ~~~~ -- Brooks Lindsay (Talk) 23:07, 4 May 2010 (EDT)
Re: US withdrawing from the UN
Is this really a serious topic? My general opinion is that there is no real movement in the United States to withdraw from the UN, accept from perhaps the neocons of the Bush era. But, let me know if there is some serious movement, recently, on this front. In general, I try to focus attention on topics in which there is widespread division and debate, and in which real choices need to be made. Does that make sense? Among all the topics out there today, I don't see withdrawing from the UN as a pressing one. You're fine to spend a little bit more time on it if you like, but I'd recommend that you move onto another topic soon. -- Brooks Lindsay (Talk) 14:19, 13 May 2010 (EDT)
The Greece bailout could be a good one. I do, though, tend to see it as a no-brainer; that a bailout is necessary. And, one of the issues with these kinds of topics is that it's often a question of degrees instead of pro/con. But, go ahead and create it! -- Brooks Lindsay (Talk) 20:18, 13 May 2010 (EDT)
Hey, I really like the Debate: Greece Bailout you created. However, I am not quite sure what the main question should be. I mean - the obvious one whether we should or should not bailout Greece could stand if we defined "we" as the EU, for example. Because as Brooks said - a bailout is necessary, the only controversy is who should take action. What do you think?
Lenka 12:16, May 14th 2010
Hi. The title is fine, just (for the next time) do not capitalize the first letter of the second (third...) word unless it is a name or something. (E.g. Debate: Greece bailout)
Sure, I am quite interested in this debate, I'll join you in the effort :)
Lenka, May 15th 2010, 16:24
PS: Just one more thing: The motion concerns the EU, therefore arguments concerning US citizens look kinda weird. Just my opinion.
Great work. The Greece article is looking good so far, and you've adopted our methodology very nicely. I like that you're writing tight argument titles. Good quotations. Keep up the good work!!! I'm going to finish refining the Mine Ban Treaty article as our next Debate Digest article, and then we'll make the Greece bailout our next/next one to work on jointly and feature on the main page etc. -- Brooks Lindsay (Talk) 17:29, 15 May 2010 (EDT)
Good thinking, but...
I like the way you're thinking. In general, we don't really have enough resources (community size) to break-down the pros and cons of every candidate, but major candidates, yes, potentially. And, of course, we should keep focused on the big topics coming down the pike in the election. For all of this, we can just do a "2010 election" category and a portal potentially. You can categorize an article (and start a category) by simply typing "[[Category:2010 US elections]]" at the bottom. -- Brooks Lindsay (Talk) 15:57, 17 May 2010 (EDT)
Good work on Debate: Greece bailout. I've been editing it. Couple of things:
1. I've consolidated arguments that are the same, creating what are known as Argument pages, in which multiple quotations that make the same argument can be deposited. This is an important feature of our model, and you can learn how to do it here: Debatepedia:Argument pages.
2. The other thing is that in one case you mis-cited a source (Don't worry about it, though, not a big deal). The correct citation is: The Greece bailout is not fair to European taxpayers. Wilhelm Hankel, said it sets a terrible precedent: "It is not just about one country. After Greece there’s Portugal, then there’s Spain, then there’s Ireland. I added up the amount of debts that just this group of countries might need. It is more than two trillion euros. Europe cannot afford this and our taxpayers are not able to pay this."
- You wrote that the quote was from the news article that cited the quote. -- Brooks Lindsay (Talk) 18:13, 18 May 2010 (EDT)
No worries on the mis-citation. On the category, I like it. I do have some concerns regarding the over-all project, but I think I'm going to let the project go forward. My concerns are that these are non-permanent debate articles. That is, they are very much so one-hit wonders that serve a purpose only for the short period of time for which they are on the site. But, this is a debatable point, as obviously elections and candidate-selection is an important thing. And we made articles for Obama vs McCain and Obama vs Hilary, so...-- Brooks Lindsay (Talk) 21:49, 18 May 2010 (EDT)
Re: DC voting rights, Greek video, etc.
Here's the article on Debate: Washington, DC voting rights. Now, this is a realistic one. There was a big effort to get voting rights for DC (and I actually live in DC), but it failed due to Republican efforts to tie it to looser gun control laws. Any way, it's still an important topic. Why don't you work on this. It is not DC statehood, which is more far-fetched (and unconstitutional at the moment). You'll find plenty of pro/con resources on this topic, and the article on Debatepedia needs some work. A very worthy project. And, yes, I just made a video on the Greece bailout. Uploading to Facebook now. Will post it on the Facebook group soon. Trying to do one for every Debate Digest article. -- Brooks Lindsay (Talk) 21:31, 19 May 2010 (EDT)
Yes, open that new debate up. Obviously, very important, and now that there is a concrete piece of legislation/law, it is easier to debate it (it's not a moving target). You go ahead and create it with the title "US 2010 financial reform legislation" or something. -- Brooks Lindsay (Talk) 19:11, 23 May 2010 (EDT)
Yeah, don't worry about that. Keep working on the financial reform bill. Let's push that out next. And, then return to the Washington, DC voting rights act. And, then maybe the EMF article. -- Brooks Lindsay (Talk) 15:12, 25 May 2010 (EDT)
Oh yes. Have you ever heard about the British sitcom "Yes, (Prime) Minister"? It's the same in here. :) In fact, the vast majority of the population dreads communist rule (ehm, our history didn't use to be shining bright). The problem is that all left-wing parties tend to support the communists (who still have approximately 11% of the popular vote "thanks to" some of the elderly who no longer remember political processes, executions, etc.), therefore the simple fact that a right-wing coalition is about to be formed is just a huge relief for students, business people, and basically everybody who prefers work over welfare benefits. And a balanced budget over "Greece scenario", so to speak :) In addition, this was almost a revolution as plenty of corrupt/greedy/in any other way unreliable and discredited politicians were forced to step down. In conclusion, we just hope that the new government will mean austerity, lower taxes and cuts in spending, and economic growth in the years to come.
Lenka 30th May 2010
Works, Create debate
Bud selig call etc
Hey, I've just posted the flotilla debate to the Debate Digest. And, I've consolidated some of the arguments and quotations. Still working on it. Will make video tonight or tomorrow. -- Brooks Lindsay (Talk) 15:36, 6 June 2010 (EDT)
Looks like the videos are back up. Certainly, one-time edits or vandalism are frequent, so don't get too worked-up about it. Just revert bad edits, and give a warning to the user if necessary (warning them that they will be blocked if they proceed), and move on. Great work recently! I'm just putting some finishing touches on the Israeli raid debate. -- Brooks Lindsay (Talk) 15:47, 7 June 2010 (EDT)
Thanks. Yeah, great feedback! I agree with all of what you're saying, although I still think blowing out the rudder of the Mavi Marmara would have been a better tactical move, and only once it had actually broken the limits of the blockade. And, while Israel may have had the "right" to do what it did, it does not mean it was the best of all available choices. Going commando into a crowd of about a hundred is bad tactics. The event was obviously a massive PR blunder for Israel, and killing 9 people is always something that should be avoided if possible. Blowing out the rudder would have avoided it, and squashed any potential story. -- Brooks Lindsay (Talk) 13:16, 9 June 2010 (EDT)
Hi Isaac, could I put you on a somewhat mindless task for a little bit. I want to create all of the categories that appear in red in the category section here:
Go through A to Z, and paste the following into any category that appears in red (and is not yet constituted):
"A category of articles related to [category title]."
Looked over your work. Good work.
Another task we are trying to do is to constitute the discussion pages for all debate or argument pages, with the following:
"Click on the "+" tab above to add a comment, or just click "edit". Sign your comment by writing "~~~~" at the end. Join us on Facebook for broader community discussion."
Many already have this. But, if you could figure out a method for finding those argument and debate pages that don't have the above, that would be really helpful to users, discussion on the site, and to traffic as well. -- Brooks Lindsay (Talk) 18:17, 17 June 2010 (EDT)
Exactly: Constituting discussion pages
Perfect. That's the solution. Good stuff. Could you go through all new pages for the past couple of months until all are constituted and you start encountering ones that had previously been constituted? Thanks for taking up these tasks Isaac! After this one, I want you back on more enjoyable, high-level tasks again! :) - Brooks Lindsay (Talk) 20:26, 17 June 2010 (EDT)
Re: New pages etc
Huh, you're right. It looks like we can't click on "next 50." Frustrating. Why don't you go through all of the Debate Digest articles for the past three months and all of their argument pages, and start with that. -- Brooks Lindsay (Talk) 15:23, 18 June 2010 (EDT)
Yes, you'll want to just go through each article in the Debate Digest starting with the most recent and click through each argument page from top to bottom, and put the text in the talk page for each argument page. Does that work? -- Brooks Lindsay (Talk) 01:19, 23 June 2010 (EDT)
Argument page talk pages
Hi Isaac, so I'm going through all of the argument page talk pages, and constituting them. I could use your help. If you could go to the link "special pages" at the bottom of the left toolbar, then to "all pages", and then type in "Argument:", and then click on "next page" until you get to the end. Then work backwards, putting in our little talk page paragraph in the talk page of all argument pages. -- Brooks Lindsay (Talk) 16:53, 25 June 2010 (EDT)
Re: Book form pro/con encyclopedia
Well, the idea with the online version is that it can always get better. A print version is static. I know Wikipedia has thought about some print versions of its encyclopedia. Maybe in the future we'll consider it too. -- Brooks Lindsay (Talk) 16:05, 1 July 2010 (EDT)
Debate: Republican vs. Democrat, eh? Excellent! I love your strong thinking about needs on DP. This is a worthwhile debate. I'll be putting time and attention into it along side ya. Good stuff on Penn. So, are you starting undergrad there in the fall? - Brooks Lindsay (Talk) 16:46, 7 July 2010 (EDT)
What is your work plan for the next week etc... Any debates of interest? Take a look at the Debate Digest Cue again to see if there are any articles you'd like to work on. I've just re-prioritized the list. - Brooks Lindsay (Talk) 13:16, 19 July 2010 (EDT)
Re: Advertising etc
Hi there. Folks at IDEA are trying to think through there long-term strategy on advertising and sponsors right now. They are leaning in the direction of sponsors, but things are a little bit slow in the works, which is not ideal and not what I would wish. But, if you wanted to put together a list of prospective sponsors - Universities, Consulting Firms, and Law firms - that could be a good project. I'm hesitant though, given the pace of things with higher-ups at IDEA, to assign you to this project, but it could be educational. Up to you.
Hey Isaac, glad to hear you're doing well and ready to rock!
The debate you mention could work. Although economics debates are a tough kind on Debatepedia - raw factual and numerical debates don't lend themselves as well to our model I don't think. You would probably want to make the debate article specific to the Fed's decision I think, not just quantitative easing in general. But, have a look at some of the other articles on the "upcoming features" list and see if they're something that would be even more interesting to you. Like the pocket knife ban debate that's been heating up. Ban on mountaintop removal, mandatory voting, oil drilling in the Arctic, are all good ones too... -- Brooks Lindsay (Talk) 10:11, 21 December 2010 (EST)