User talk:Freeknowledgecreator

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by when more than 1 section is present.

Edit

Not sure if I am doing this right, but I want to contact you about an edit re Jonathan Dollimore - am I in the right place? And is this a private or a public communication. Apologies but I'm newish to this. Skodajag (talk) 09:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Skodajag. This is my talk page, so yes, you can contact me here. The communication is public inasmuch as anyone with an internet connection can potentially see it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I am Jonathan Dollimore. Years ago now someone wrongly described me as a sociologist somewhere on the internet, and it's got duplicated all over the place. I'm definitely not a sociologist! But I do have a first class honours degree in philosophy, (Keele, 1984) and all of the half dozen or so books I've published are philosophical, among other things. That's why I was trying to correct the Wiki entry, but it was reverted. Advice on how I might correct the entry would be gratefully received. Skodajag (talk) 14:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply, Skodajag, and for explaining who you are. I see no reason not to accept your claim that you are not a sociologist. I am not going to argue with you about whether you are a philosopher or not, as that would be presumptuous and pointless. However, I feel I should remind you that Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and the principle of verifiability. See WP:VERIFY, which states that "content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors". In this case, I believe that means that the claim that you are a philosopher requires a published reliable source stating that you are a philosopher. Rather than discussing the issue further on my talk page, it would be preferable to discuss it at Talk:Jonathan Dollimore, and present relevant sources there. You may also wish to review WP:BLPHELP, which is a page providing people with Wikipedia articles about them with information about how to get help in dealing with those articles. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:26, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/books/academics-tell-all-tale-omits-day-job — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skodajag (talk • contribs) 11:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am aware of that article. It describes you as a "social theorist and philosopher", but presumably it simply copied that description from past versions of your Wikipedia article. See WP:CIRCULAR and WP:CITOGEN. Per Template:Circular reporting, if a "source is quoting material first published in Wikipedia" ... "this is a situation of circular reporting or "citogenesis", and the cited sentence can not be verified from the source". FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:32, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I give up. It's hardly important in the scheme of things Skodajag (talk) 11:32, 3 February 2018 (UTC) Skodajag (talk) 11:32, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tagalog grammar

Sorry, but saying Tagalog grammar is the grammar of Tagalog, and the Tagalog language is the language spoken in Tagalog, is not useful for readers. Anyone literate enough to read the article knows what "grammar" is, and per the MOS the lead to an article is not the place to define the words in the title. And anyone who doesn't know what Tagalog is is not going to know what the Tagolog region is either. You might be able to reword the lead to make it a better intro to the topic, but tautological definitions are not the way to do it. — kwami (talk) 23:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are mistaken. It is perfectly possible to have a very basic ability to read English, and still not actually know what grammar is. A child or an uneducated person might not know what grammar is, for example. A statement such as "Tagalog grammar is the body of rules that describe the structure of expressions in the Tagalog language" would by no means be self-evident to all readers and would be useful and informative for some of them. I also see no violation of WP:MOS. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If someone doesn't know what 'grammar' is, they can look it up. That's how we normally handle such things, per DICT. And if they do need to look it up, they're going to need to look up half the words in the article anyway, so it's not making the article inaccessible. They're also most likely to be coming to this article from the main Tagalog article, so they won't need a definition of Tagalog either. And even if they did, saying it's the language of Tagalog is of absolutely no help. So the lead is just a paragraph of gobbledygook instead of a useful intro to the topic. It's not quite as bad as saying "X Y is the Y of X", but it's close. — kwami (talk) 23:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is another disingenuous response. The lead of the article, in your preferred version, reads "In Tagalog, there are eight basic parts of speech: verbs, nouns, adjectives, adverbs, prepositions, pronouns, conjunctions and particles. Tagalog is a slightly inflected language. Pronouns are inflected for number; and verbs, for focus, aspect and voice." There isn't even a direct mention of grammar, so someone who does not know what grammar is will not be encouraged to look it up or know how to do so, in the absence of a link to the Grammar article. Furthermore, it is ill-advised to make assumptions about how someone reading the article will or will not reach it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]