From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Writing systems (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Typography (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Typography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Typography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 / Vital / Core
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.


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. (talk) 00:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The role of left-handed people[edit]

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[edit]

View history of writing . — Preceding unsigned comment added by (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 (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)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── 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)

Writing in Wikipedia  :D[edit]

I am not quite sure some people are able to write ....around here :D using expressions like 'the thing' or 'has two things' [1] in an encyclopedia... it is not about first or second language usage :D ... but probably having a vocabulary of 100 words (even if English is native language). the thing is that you cannot write like this in an encyclopedia :D as it is usually understood in the scientific world :D but also the thing is you often see such things as the promotions of Foucault's philosophy, refers to two things (a very strange semantic formula), etc. Also what actually bothers me is that such degradation of language style in writing can be seen in published books too in the recent years, but in Wikipedia reaches some peaks of mid school gems and I am afraid especially that most of the readers and writers are even unable to notice them.

Because language has two sides: grammar but also semantic rules of expression. --Aleksd (talk) 20:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Writing (Process)[edit]

Should there not be an article for the process of writing like there is for Reading? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Which process? Penmanship, typing, dry transfer, stencil, engraving, typesetting, speech recognition or all of the above? Oicumayberight (talk) 09:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Jane Goodall[edit]

'She researched chimpanzees' and she did not die. She started when she was 26 years old in 1960. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C4FF:8930:CABC:C8FF:FEA7:36DB (talk) 03:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)