Ultraexactzz (talk | contribs) →ethnic slur in writing history: yeah, but |
Bellerophon (talk | contribs) →ethnic slur in writing history: Comment |
||
Line 109: | Line 109: | ||
:I must be blind, but I read the diffs twice before commenting, and I didn't see more than a wording dispute here. -- [[User:Luk|<span style="color:#002BB8;">Luk</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Luk|<span style="color:#009900;">talk</span>]]</sup> 13:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC) |
:I must be blind, but I read the diffs twice before commenting, and I didn't see more than a wording dispute here. -- [[User:Luk|<span style="color:#002BB8;">Luk</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Luk|<span style="color:#009900;">talk</span>]]</sup> 13:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC) |
||
::Even if an edit is badly written, or if the sourcing is flawed or suspect, it's not vandalism if it is (or appears to be) a good faith edit. And you had reverted three times when I posted here. Even if the edits are clearly unhelpful or problematic, that doesn't make them vandalism. The fact that the IP started a discussion here is a mark in their favor, honestly - and I'm surprised they were blocked so quickly (but that's AIV for you). In the future, rather than bumping up against [[WP:3RR|3RR]], you might consider posting a request at the edit warring notice board or some similar forum, if only so other editors can confirm your analysis that the edits were unhelpful - or, in the alternative, so that they can find some middle ground between your version and the other editor's. [[User:Ultraexactzz|UltraExactZZ]] <sup> [[User_talk:Ultraexactzz|Said]] </sup>~<small> [[Special:Contributions/Ultraexactzz|Did]] </small> 16:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC) |
::Even if an edit is badly written, or if the sourcing is flawed or suspect, it's not vandalism if it is (or appears to be) a good faith edit. And you had reverted three times when I posted here. Even if the edits are clearly unhelpful or problematic, that doesn't make them vandalism. The fact that the IP started a discussion here is a mark in their favor, honestly - and I'm surprised they were blocked so quickly (but that's AIV for you). In the future, rather than bumping up against [[WP:3RR|3RR]], you might consider posting a request at the edit warring notice board or some similar forum, if only so other editors can confirm your analysis that the edits were unhelpful - or, in the alternative, so that they can find some middle ground between your version and the other editor's. [[User:Ultraexactzz|UltraExactZZ]] <sup> [[User_talk:Ultraexactzz|Said]] </sup>~<small> [[Special:Contributions/Ultraexactzz|Did]] </small> 16:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC) |
||
::: My interpretation of vandalism is carefully pitched against [[WP:VANDTYPES]]. I feel that the removal of referenced content, combined with the insertion of POV and frivolous explanations in the edit summary is sufficient to qualify these actions as vandalism; particularly when considered, in context, against the IP's previous disruption and block. In terms of discussion, the IP made no attempt to discuss anything, he simply posted an external link to the page history without making any salient point on article content. Notwithstanding any of that, I don't want to get into an argument about this, I have no agenda with this article and I have now removed it from my watchlist and intend to walk away. I am just a bit peeved that I have been accused of edit warring when I don't believe that to be the case, and it is situations like this that cause me to question why I bother trying to protect articles from vandalism. [[User:Pol430|<font color="#00008B">'''Pol430'''</font>]] [[User talk:Pol430|''talk to me'']] 17:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:18, 6 January 2012
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hello,no mention of Writers Chat rooms
Hello, see no mention of writers Chatrooms online. Thanks (Dr.Edson Andre' J.)Andreisme (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
writing in today's world
Writing is bliss. It is the life saver of a shy person or an introvert. If a person is too shy to express his feelings to another or voice an opinion in a formal way, then writing is away to go.
Writing has had an impact on mankind since time immemorial. When people first began communicating, they felt a need to compile their important dates and inscribe details, so the importance was realised since then. With the invention of the printing press, writing became a revolutionary tool. Political writings played an important part in determining the fate of nations. A read of the speeches of W.E.B. Dubois, enable to experience first hand the might of the pen, which has the potential to move millions.
Even today writing has proved consistent in its power to move and reach many. The internet has only expanded the boundaries and done away with any limitations. 100 years back, writing was revolutionary but its circulation was slow, but since 15 years or so writing has surpassed all and ventured new vistas. The books and novels may have upgraded to online articles and blogs, but nonetheless people have written and will continue to write further and give voice to their opinions.
The face book, blogs, websites are all examples of these evolved forms of writing. Many eminent personalities from different walks of life have brought forth their expressions through them. My writing though, has been limited to my personal readings. My only audience has been the students and instructors of my online courses and my family. I write journals, though they may not move the world, but they do affect me and help in a very therapeutic way.
Hence I strongly recommend writing. Write to vent your feelings, or voice your concerns; to allow your creativity to take form or relax a nervous disposition. Just write on!!
OMAR BAKATHIR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.94.98.208 (talk) 17:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Hangul
Under Featural scripts, it says, "in practice, Korean is learned by children as an ordinary alphabet, and the featural elements tend to pass unnoticed." Where's evidence? Considering Hangul is represented in feature, phoneme, and syllable levels simultaneously, why would children learn it as an "ordinary alphabet" (what's an ordinary alphabet? Latin script?) any more than as a featural system or as a syllabary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.83.45.98 (talk) 18:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey, plese add ruwiki ru:Письменность. --91.210.22.89 (talk) 19:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Archiving
Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep the last ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 21:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
On the edits by SummerWithMorons
I think that the series of edits by SummerWithMorons are non-NPOV, and are unfairly biased against Western culture.
I also think that many of these edits, especially the one in the introductory section, are not relevant enough to be included in this article. I suggest that such material be moved to another article, such as cultural bias.
I have removed those edits which I feel are not suitable. I invite the author of these edits to discuss them with me on this talk page. Mathmagic (talk) 18:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- I've removed one of the Globalize templates added by the editor in question: the edit summary for the addition, as well as the content edits made at the same time, show a mistaken notion of what writing actually is. Eastern writing is not "pictographic writing", and all writing systems, not just Western, function as actual or potential transcriptions of speech. Ergative rlt (talk) 02:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
taking notes from vocal messages
Should this article contain at least a "See also" about (I'm not sure what it's called...) taking notes from a vocal message that includes things such as long pauses, deep breaths, an angry voice, sighs, or other important cues and clues? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.237.22.148 (talk) 01:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Pending changes
This article is one of a small number (about 100) selected for the first week of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.
The following request appears on that page:
However with only a few hours to go, comments have only been made on two of the pages.
Please update the Queue page as appropriate.
Note that I am not involved in this project any more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially.
Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 20:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC).
Coincidental?
In the Writing as a category section, in the last paragraph, it states that: "Writing is also a distinctly human activity. Such writing has been speculatively designated as coincidental. At this point in time, the only confirmed writing in existence is of human origin." I don't understand what's coincidental. The last sentence implies that there is some comparison being made, but it seems that only a fragment of a statement is actually being made here. 74.243.12.168 (talk) 00:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
The role of left-handed people
Most of the people on earth are right-handed, roughly 10:1. This meant that when someone wrote in ink, that the preferable way to write, was left to right, to avoid smudging what had been written. For some reason, prejudice against left-handedness did not seem to stop Asians from writing right to left, risking smudging!
I have not seen anything written on this, but something was clearly awry when you have 3/4 of the people on earth writing potentially smudged documents without complaint!
Not badly done in Left-handedness#Handwriting_and_written_language. Nothing in this article, oddly enough.
(And no, this is not like driving on the right or left. Not nearly that arbitrary due to the supposed overwhelming numbers of right-handers!) Student7 (talk) 23:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
ethnic slur in writing history
View history of writing . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.87 (talk) 12:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- That's lovely, but you are removing sourced content and replacing it with your own, badly written, original research and novel synthesis. Wikipedia considers this vandalism and you have been reported to AIV. Pol430 talk to me 12:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- No, just sorted by time. In history section chronology matters. Just think a bit more and if you get somethnig answer why not ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.87 (talk) 13:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- Either way, both of you are inches away from being blocked for edit warring. Good job starting a discussion here, but don't revert the article again until there's a consensus. Thanks. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- Same, consider yourselves warned about the consequences of edit warring. -- Luk talk 13:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- No, just sorted by time. In history section chronology matters. Just think a bit more and if you get somethnig answer why not ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.87 (talk) 13:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm not particularly happy about being accused of, or warned for, edit warring when I revert obvious vandalism. If you check the IPs talk page and contribs you will see sufficient evidence that they are a long term vandal that has come back after their previous block and started editing again along the same lines, in the same subject areas. I was drawn to this page because the IPs edits triggered an edit filter flag when they removed references; not because I am trying to edit the article to my own POV. The IP has now been blocked by the reviewing admin at AIV and I was going to come back and revert to the last good state once the Ip had been blocked. Now you have threatened me with the ban-hammer I won't bother, but I would be grateful if you reviewed your comments. Pol430 talk to me 13:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- I must be blind, but I read the diffs twice before commenting, and I didn't see more than a wording dispute here. -- Luk talk 13:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- Even if an edit is badly written, or if the sourcing is flawed or suspect, it's not vandalism if it is (or appears to be) a good faith edit. And you had reverted three times when I posted here. Even if the edits are clearly unhelpful or problematic, that doesn't make them vandalism. The fact that the IP started a discussion here is a mark in their favor, honestly - and I'm surprised they were blocked so quickly (but that's AIV for you). In the future, rather than bumping up against 3RR, you might consider posting a request at the edit warring notice board or some similar forum, if only so other editors can confirm your analysis that the edits were unhelpful - or, in the alternative, so that they can find some middle ground between your version and the other editor's. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- My interpretation of vandalism is carefully pitched against WP:VANDTYPES. I feel that the removal of referenced content, combined with the insertion of POV and frivolous explanations in the edit summary is sufficient to qualify these actions as vandalism; particularly when considered, in context, against the IP's previous disruption and block. In terms of discussion, the IP made no attempt to discuss anything, he simply posted an external link to the page history without making any salient point on article content. Notwithstanding any of that, I don't want to get into an argument about this, I have no agenda with this article and I have now removed it from my watchlist and intend to walk away. I am just a bit peeved that I have been accused of edit warring when I don't believe that to be the case, and it is situations like this that cause me to question why I bother trying to protect articles from vandalism. Pol430 talk to me 17:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- Even if an edit is badly written, or if the sourcing is flawed or suspect, it's not vandalism if it is (or appears to be) a good faith edit. And you had reverted three times when I posted here. Even if the edits are clearly unhelpful or problematic, that doesn't make them vandalism. The fact that the IP started a discussion here is a mark in their favor, honestly - and I'm surprised they were blocked so quickly (but that's AIV for you). In the future, rather than bumping up against 3RR, you might consider posting a request at the edit warring notice board or some similar forum, if only so other editors can confirm your analysis that the edits were unhelpful - or, in the alternative, so that they can find some middle ground between your version and the other editor's. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)