Talk:Fabian Pascal

message: Seems to of rather marginal value. RedWolf 06:44, Nov 22, 2003 (UTC)
==== Gadgetopia Link ====
I added a link to a raging conversation thread I had with Pascal on my blog.  I don't mean for this to be self-promotional, but I think the conversation is extremely representative of Pascal's views and how he approaches those who dissent.
If the powers-that-be find it inappropriate, I accept deletion without argument (but read the thread first, and I think you'll agree it effectively sums up everything that is Fabian Pascal).
If you do delete, please put a note here.  Thanks.
-- Deane
:I removed the gadgetopia link referred to by Deane. Rather than a conversation, the link led to an essay about a conversation, and Fabian was not immediately apparent as a conversant at the linked webpage. As one who is reasonably familiar with Fabian's views, I did not find the linked essay reflected those views as claimed.
:I found the essay extremely representative of those who dislike Fabian and representative of how some other people approach him rather than vice versa. As such, I felt it strongly expressed the author's POV and apparent dislike as well as the author's original research.
:I replaced an unattributed quote that I felt was taken very much out of context to create POV with another quote from an earlier point at the same source. 1. The replacement quote expresses Fabian's disdain accurately without additional context. 2. Starting from the replacement quote, one will quickly encounter the quote I removed. 3. One will also see the other quote in its proper context.
:I added links for both quotes for attribution/verifiability. Bob Badour 05:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I reintroduced the gadgetopia link as verification of the 'critics view' statement in the article. Bob Badour 06:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Cdsmith's assessment. I made the changes he recommends and removed the POV tag. I would encourage any who can improve conformance to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or who can improve the quality of the article while conforming to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to forge ahead and do so. Mistakes are easily reverted. Bob Badour 17:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Remark

message: I added a link to a raging conversation thread I had with Pascal on my blog.  I don't mean for this to be self-promotional, but I think the conversation is extremely representative of Pascal's views and how he approaches those who dissent.
If the powers-that-be find it inappropriate, I accept deletion without argument (but read the thread first, and I think you'll agree it effectively sums up everything that is Fabian Pascal).
If you do delete, please put a note here.  Thanks.
-- Deane
:I removed the gadgetopia link referred to by Deane. Rather than a conversation, the link led to an essay about a conversation, and Fabian was not immediately apparent as a conversant at the linked webpage. As one who is reasonably familiar with Fabian's views, I did not find the linked essay reflected those views as claimed.
:I found the essay extremely representative of those who dislike Fabian and representative of how some other people approach him rather than vice versa. As such, I felt it strongly expressed the author's POV and apparent dislike as well as the author's original research.
:I replaced an unattributed quote that I felt was taken very much out of context to create POV with another quote from an earlier point at the same source. 1. The replacement quote expresses Fabian's disdain accurately without additional context. 2. Starting from the replacement quote, one will quickly encounter the quote I removed. 3. One will also see the other quote in its proper context.
:I added links for both quotes for attribution/verifiability. Bob Badour 05:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I reintroduced the gadgetopia link as verification of the 'critics view' statement in the article. Bob Badour 06:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gadgetopia Link 

message: I edited some rather obvious unverifiable POV in the main article. Not everyone would agree that Fabian's criticisms are vitriolic, nor would everyone agree that Fabian criticizes DBMS users, nor would everyone agree about what he criticizes DBMS vendors and experts for. At the same time, the earlier statement left out many things Fabian does criticize very bluntly and even sweepingly.
After separating out the non-controversial and the critics' POV--identifying it as a POV--I reintroduced the gadgetopia link as justification for the critics' POV statement. I have concerns regarding whether the link constitutes a reputable source, however. Perhaps a better source could be found.
I did not write a statement from his defenders' POV because I do not have a reputable source for it, and it would almost certainly be my own original research.
Neither do I have a reputable source for the statement I wrote as the non-controversial description of Fabian's criticisms. Anyone who is familiar with Fabian's work will find it rather obvious that he criticizes all of the things mentioned in the statement. Hopefully that suffices.
Bob Badour 06:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Cdsmith's assessment. I made the changes he recommends and removed the POV tag. I would encourage any who can improve conformance to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or who can improve the quality of the article while conforming to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to forge ahead and do so. Mistakes are easily reverted. Bob Badour 17:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV, OR and Reputable Sources 

message: Changed "personal conduct" (too broad) to "polemical style"; also changed "aggressive" to "confrontational" (as far as he doesn't physically attack his opponents). Even "confrontational" doesn't quite cut it: it is the matter of whether one should refrain from personal insults in a professional exchange, or "call spade a spade". GregorB 20:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewording