User talk:Tomyumgoong: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:25, 13 March 2006

Wikipedia Censorship claim

Dear Tomyumgoong: I have reverted your reinsertion of the claim re. Wikipedia's censorship of the Justin Berry article. The link is indeed not vandalism, but the á priori implication in the text that you reinserted that the article was indeed censored, which was not the case, is not acceptable. Wikipedia is not an experiment in free speech, as per WP:NOT, and the removal of text was carried out under the direction of the Wikimedia Foundation via WP:OFFICE. This claim is thus clear vandalism and the 3RR does not apply to its removal. Thank you for your assistance in this matter, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please feel free to discuss this further with me if you so desire. All the best, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 00:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT states that Wikipedia is not censored, and that the factual information it contains is constrained only by the laws of the state of Florida, and NPOV. Removing text under WP:OFFICE and refusing to be forthcoming as to why the text was removed, or what replacement text would be satisfactory, and evading and stonewalling when any specific questions are asked, certainly qualifies as censorship, although I certainly understand why you would prefer to use a different term. Self-Adjoint 02:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-== Categories that are members of themselves? ==
-It certainly isn't desirable! The problem is having the userbox on the category page - the userbox automatically added the category to itself and the loop is created. The solution is to substitute the userbox and then manually delete the category. Alternatively you can just remove the userbox from the category page - I don't think it is vital to have it there.
-What is subst'ing? Well, in [[:Category:MIRC users]] for example, you would replace <nowiki> {{User mirc}} with {{subst:User mirc}}. Then you save. Then you edit again and remove the text "[[Category:MIRC users]]"</nowiki>. I can help you out with that if you like, just let me know.--[[User:Commander Keane|Commander Keane]] 03:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
-:You may find that when you follow the procedure I prescribed that the category doesn't properly update. This is a flaw in the Mediawiki software that Wikipedia uses. To "refresh" the category you need to [[Help:Dummy edit|null edit]] each of the pages that should be appearing in the category. You can do that by opening the edit window on each of the pages and saving (no need to change the page). You don't need to do this, the next time each of the userpages is edited it will be "refeshed" and will appear in the category - I'm letting you know why things was appear strange.--[[User:Commander Keane|Commander Keane]] 04:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
-== Userboxes ==
-All the 3 userboxes were speedy deleted under the [[WP:CSD|criterion]]:
-:''Templates that are '''[[polemic]]al''' or '''inflammatory''' ''
-You could have checked this yourself by visiting the Log and searching for the template. You go to [[Special:Log]]. Select "Deletion log". Type in the title of the userbox. Example: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=Template%3AUser+War+on+drugs]--[[User:Commander Keane|Commander Keane]] 09:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
-:What you can have on your userpage is discussed at [[Wikipedia:User page]]. But these userboxes weren't on a user page (having them on your userpage is fine as far as I know) they were in the <code>Template</code> namespace. The template namespace is for writing an encylopedia, hence the speedy delteion criterion above. For a place to discuss this ask at [[Wikipedia talk:Userboxes]]--[[User:Commander Keane|Commander Keane]] 10:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
-== Re: Userboxes ==
-<small>''I had posted something in this section, but it is basically a repeat of what Commander Keane has said in the previous paragraph. So I have removed my comments. You can check the page history if you want to know what I posted. &mdash; [[User:Kimchi.sg|Kimchi.sg]] | [[User_talk:Kimchi.sg|Talk]] 11:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)''</small>
-== Commas ==
-Hi, I have restored many of the commas to [[Panama Canal]].  Please leave them in, as the article is much more readable with them there.  For example, this version of the sentence:
-:Since opening the canal has been enormously successful and continues to be a key conduit for international shipping.
-starts out reading like the sentence:
-:Since opening the canal, Paris Hilton has opened many supermarkets.
-When the reader gets to "has been...", he/she realises that "since opening the canal" is not actually a cohesive unit, and has to go back and start again.  The version with the comma:
-:Since opening, the canal has been enormously successful, and continues to be a key conduit for international shipping.
-avoids that ambiguity, and hence results in a less awkward read with no false start.  Please see the [[comma]] article for the many ways in which commas can be used to improve readability by adding appropriate structure to text.  BTW, your other changes to that article are helpful and much appreciated.  Cheers, — [[User:Johantheghost|Johan&nbsp;the&nbsp;Ghost]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Johantheghost|<sub>seance</sub>]] 13:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
-:I have once again restored punctuation which you removed from this article, in order to restore readability.  (For example,
-::Because of the S-shape of the Isthmus of Panama the canal runs from south-east at the Pacific end to north-west at the Atlantic To avoid confusion the canal authorities classify transits of the canal as northbound (Pacific to Atlantic) and southbound (Atlantic to Pacific).
-:badly needs to be broken up.)  If you want to discuss this, please do so on the [[Talk:Panama Canal|talk page]]. — [[User:Johantheghost|Johan&nbsp;the&nbsp;Ghost]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Johantheghost|<sub>seance</sub>]] 14:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
-:::[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Johantheghost&diff=42565710&oldid=42408517 ''reply'']
-::The commas are not excessive, and their use in [[Panama Canal]] is not overpunctuation.  The article went through an [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Panama Canal|extensive FAC review]], where 10 people reviewed it and made comments, and extensive improvements were made to the article.  The punctuation was not at any time raised as an issue, and so far you are the only person who feels this way.  Therefore there is, as I see it, a clear concensus supporting the article in its current form.  The sentence which you created:
-::::Because of the S-shape of the Isthmus of Panama the canal runs from south-east at the Pacific end to north-west at the Atlantic To avoid confusion the canal authorities classify transits of the canal as northbound (Pacific to Atlantic) and southbound (Atlantic to Pacific).
-::is not valid English, as well as being totally clumsy and unreadable. Please read [[Comma (punctuation)]], where you will find numerous examples supporting the usage of commas in the article.  For example, the sentence:
-::::Because of the S-shape of the Isthmus of Panama, the canal runs from south-east at the Pacific end to north-west at the Atlantic; to avoid confusion, the canal authorities classify transits of the canal as northbound (Pacific to Atlantic) and southbound (Atlantic to Pacific).
-::matches the ''Introductory words and phrases'' example given in [[Comma (punctuation)]]:
-::::Once upon a time, I didn't know how to use commas.
-::The introductory phrases here are "Because of the S-shape of the Isthmus of Panama" and "to avoid confusion".  The following sentence:
-::::After this attempt collapsed, the work was finally completed by the United States, and the canal opened in 1914.
-::matches the same rule, the intoductory section being "After this attempt collapsed"; and the example on ''to separate two independent clauses ... joined by a co-ordinating conjunction'':
-::::I passed the test, but he failed.
-::The two clauses being "the work was finally completed by the United States" and "the canal opened in 1914".
-::The article is therefore correct, according to Wikipedia (or at least the commas in the sentences which you have been editing are correct, or at the very least justifiable).  If you think that [[Comma (punctuation)]] is wrong, then lobby to get it changed.  If you want to discuss this further, then please use the [[Talk:Panama Canal|Panama Canal talk page]], as previously requested.  Given the examples I have shown above, as well as the approval of the FAC process, I feel I have ample justification for believing the present version of the article to be the preferable one.
-::If you continue to edit the article without discussion, as you have [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Johantheghost&diff=42565710&oldid=42408517  threatened to do], I will have to take this to arbitration, which would be a gigantic waste of time.  So please use some sense and don't do that.  Read [[Comma (punctuation)]], and make reasoned arguments on the talk page. — [[User:Johantheghost|Johan&nbsp;the&nbsp;Ghost]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Johantheghost|<sub>seance</sub>]] 11:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 == Wikipedia Censorship claim ==