User talk:JoeCarson
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Well then, read away!
[edit] Why did you undo my additions?
I'd like to know why you undid my many additions on Salvador Allende's article. What's wrong with them? DeepQuasar 00:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Read what I wrote in the edit summary. The quality of writing was not adequate for a wiki article. There may have been other problems, but I only undid your edits based on the grammar, spelling, sentence structure, etc.JoeCarson 12:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- If the quality is not adequate, instead of erasing it so quickly, be constructive and fix it up. English is not my mother tongue, but that doesn't avoid the "validness" and "usability" on contents on what I added. If I don't know how to say something in the most grammatical and correct way, or I just don't have the word but make myself be understood, please be constructive, and do any corrections necessary, cause I think it's obvious, or otherwise, let me know, because if I made those mistakes and didn't notice, don't you think you won't be solving anything by refusing it all? Don't you think the fact of me not knowing what the "pure" way is won't change? Everything you're getting that strict way is putting brakes for free implementation and international communication. With so much linguistic "purity" you are avoiding others to implement what I said and you're just setting frontairs, where communication actually exists, and thus avoid "internationalization" and further spreading of knowledge. If some non-Spanish speaker would tomorrow try to add something on a Spanish article, I wouldn't erase it cause I see some obvious grammar mistake, but I'd be benevolent and fix it up, taking advantage from the knowledge or information someone from other parts of the planet has shared, and will help us be a step fordward in "correction". That's "accumulative knowledge" philosophy: others can part from what you advanced, and can advance on what you didn't, and result SYNTHESE. Please, I beg you to reflexionate on it, be more constructive, and less bureaucratic, less LIMITATIVE. Wikipedia didn't get so huge by putting corsets on free implementation and knowledge spreading. That's being bureaucratic. No democratic society is built up on bureaucratism. You can implement what I said, by correcting it, by making it more exact, by adding background, by contrasting it, but never DELETE it (unless it was a deliberately destructive or manipulative attempt). DeepQuasar 22:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I'm not here to hold your hand. I have no problem fixing some mistakes but I don't have the time to be your editor. The quality of the writing was so bad that it was difficult to read. English isn't my first language either, I know it's hard, but you need to ensure your own additions are at minimum level of quality or find someone who is willing to edit for you.JoeCarson 18:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I keep thinking you over-exagerated. Using the wrong prepossition is not so serious, because any native speaker can easily guess it up and rewrite; and I talk from my experience, that's how it has been done most of the time, in other articles (until some bureaucrat arrives and spoils it all). But it's my word against yours. Anyways, I do think some kind of bureaucratic hierarchy is imposing or has imposed among wikipedia, which plays against its own philosophy. Day by day, it's more difficult to access your right to post some additional information into an article and so make it more complete, without it being removed, instead being left for further modifiations and improovements, which will end up resulting on a very richfull macro-synthese. You say I did some or other grammar mistakes here or there, maybe due to very long sentences that didn't seem to ever end, what is uncommon to English speech (that'd not be exactly a "grammar mistake", anyway), or maybe due to some mistaken phrasal verb, but I keep thinking that's not a reason for erasing it all, that's not constructive, but destructive; that's not advancing, going fordward, but going back. If you want to be constructive, I AM NOT telling you to be my personal editor, I'm telling you to think "collectively", and just edit the part from the whole article you think it can be improoved, as I and many others have done many other times. That's wikipedia's philosophy, that's how it has grown so much from little, or nothing. I think what I'm claiming makes much sense. I'm claiming for a Wikipedia's agilization and democratization, not bureaucratization and constant obstaculizing most of participation because of trivial things, because that will result on a declining from the whole community, and the encyclopedia itself, as something alive. I think I make much sense, even if I made some typo, forgot some "-s" or got the wrong preposition or phrasal verb.
- Today, it has been "mistakes" on spelling and order, or prepositions, tomorrow it will be "it's biased", "no sources", and that stuff. Seriously, you guys, that way it's impossible to construct a good, critic , complete article - everything minimally riské is rejected, just cause some "old guy" didn't like its whole. That's not, men! This is not a personal, but a general critique! Bureaucratism is killing wikipedia's freshness, and wikipedia's spirit, itself. DeepQuasar 19:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- If you want me to read your entire post, I suggest you improve the quality of your writing or decrease the length of your posts. The quality really does distract the reader. If your writing only had minor errors, I would correct them, but you require nearly complete re-writes.JoeCarson 12:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Hmmm, I think we are mixing two different things. I think It's not a matter of grammar correctness, what you talk about, but a matter of usage, or style. Analytically speaking (I'm philologist), the grammar rules are respected, but the style doesn't correspond to native usage (because I've never been in an English speaking country), and that's what you say "it distracts, and needs to be rewritten", and you may be right, but I'm sorry, I can't help that out right now. That's why I ask for tolerance, in the name of the non-native second language English speaking community; please, let's not be so perfectionist, or we won't let other share their knowledge with us. I can find the right preposition or phrasal verb in a dictionary, but not what is the most normal style for a native, when writing a whole paragraph, cause I don't know (not 100%). That's why I insist, if I have some useful information to give, I'm afraid we'll have to learn to cooperate beyond linguistic frontairs. Just take that information, and let natives rewrite it down, let them change the form, if you want, but do not erase THE CONTENT. That's human cooperation, that's accumulative knowledge, that's progress. Other can do what you can't, by taking advantage from what you have done. That's wikipedia. Grain by grain, you make a mountain. Sorry if I have bothered you with all this stuff, but I needed to transmit my point on this. I think it's important for community. Thank you very much for your pacience. DeepQuasar 13:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Just some friendly advice. You are clearly an intelligent person and your Spanish writing probably reflects that fact, but your writing seems to be a direct English translation of your Spanish thoughts. It often takes 2 English sentences to communicate what a Spanish intellectual communicates in a single sentence. Try thinking in English and writing down those thoughts. Your sentences may come off as less intelligent, but they would be easier for someone fluent in English to intellectualize. Also, you may try what I do when faced with a programming language I am not fluent in. I can usually read a language that I cannot write well, so I copy a bit of code that seems to do something similar to what I want and try modifying that.JoeCarson 13:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Thank you for your advice. : ). DeepQuasar 04:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
[edit] Request for Mediation
 |
A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/National Socialism.
|
[edit] Request for Mediation
|
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediator accepting this case is a non-MedCom member, and your input is once again required; please sign the relevant section on the case page, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate with this editor. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree again, so please check as soon as possible. Once all the editors have re-signed, Mediation will be able to begin. |
[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Nazism
|
WP:RfM/Nazism; The case is currently at the final stage of Mediation, at which parties are invited to post "Suggested Edits" which they wish to implement into one of the involved articles, as well as to support, oppose or propose amendments to existing suggestions. Further instructions are given at the Mediation location. Kindest regards, |
[edit] Please take a look at Controversies over the film Sicko and comment on merge proposal
Hi,
The title says it all. I am requesting your opinion only because you've edited the Sicko (film) article and therefore appear to have an interest in the movie. I created the "Controversies" article and think it should stay, but I'd welcome your opinion whatever it is. If you consider this message annoying, I apologize. I'm leaving this message with you and some others without violating WP:CANVASS. I won't be leaving another message asking you to comment again. Noroton 23:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] New York City Meetup
 |
New York City Meetup
|
The agenda for the next meetup includes the formation of a Wikimedia New York City local chapter. Hope to see you there! --Pharos 20:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] You're invited!
...to the next New York City Meetup!
 |
New York City Meetup
|
In the morning, there are exciting plans for a behind-the-scenes guided tour of the American Museum of Natural History.
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to discussing meta:Wikimedia New York City issues (see the last meeting's minutes).
In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.
You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] New mailing list
There has been a mailing list created for Wikipedians in the New York metropolitan area (list: Wikimedia NYC). Please consider joining it! Cbrown1023 talk 21:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] You are invited!
|
New York City Meetup
|
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, and have salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).
Well also make preparations for our exciting Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, a free content photography contest for Columbia University students planned for Friday March 28 (about 2 weeks after our meeting).
In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.
You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
You're also invited to subscribe to the public Wikimedia New York City mailing list, which is a great way to receive timely updates.
This has been an automated delivery because you were on the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 03:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] NYC Meetup: June 1, 2008
|
New York City Meetup
|
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, elect a board of directors, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).
We'll also review our recent Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, and make preparations for our exciting successor Wiki Week bonanza, being planned with Columbia University students for September or October.
In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.
You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
Also, check out our regional US Wikimedia chapters blog Wiki Northeast (and we're open to guest posts).
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
