User talk:MJKazin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, MJKazin, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Cheers, TewfikTalk 00:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for fixing that bad entry in the 21st Century article. It had been bugging the heck out of me for days, but I couldn't figure think of a satisfactory way to fix it. Finally, you had the guts to just delete it. Good one on you. -Zeno Izen 10:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rutgers University

Noticed you made an edit at Rutgers. I didn't agree wholeheartedly with it. IMHO, familiarly (NOT formerly) was an appropriate adverb, and much more connotatively affectionate than that vulgar commonly. However, that being said...what do you think of the article, it's scope, etc.? I'm in the process of preparing it for a Good Article nomination (or if possible, as a Featured article nominee), and would very much desire your opinions/comments/criticism/suggestions. —ExplorerCDT 03:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I had thought "commonly" more appropriate, since it is the one more likely to be used by English speakers for said purpose. "Familiar" seemed to me to be more appropriately define intimacy than commonality, which is what I understood the article to express. My girlfriend, a professional writer, agreed. I did think it amusing that you described the word "common," by using the word "vulgar," derrived, as you probably know, from the Latin vulgus- used to denote the 'common-folk in Ancient Rome.
As long as we're discussing language I'd like to add the following. While I have no problem with the big words you make use of, I think Wikipedia isn't the place to demonstrate the breadth of one's knowledge of the English language. Wikipedia is made to spread the availability of knowledge, and as such, I personally think it should read more like USA Today that the New York Times.
As far as the Rutgers article is concerned, I believe you've done a great job. I've had little there that I felt the need to modify, and I'm sure the article could be ready for featuring in the near future. That said, I think it needs two things before it is ready:
  • First, I believe it requires either more fleshing out, or temporary removal of the painfully obvious "stub" sections. I realise you are still working on the article, so this point is probably irrelevant.
  • Second, I think it should get a little breathing time to have a broader point of view applied to it. Please don't take this the wrong way, but it is my opinion that no serious article should be written or editted by a single person. Especially when that person seems so intimate with the subject matter. The possibility of bias and mistakes is too high, and while I value my potential contributions, I would expect others to find those lacking in kind. I'd be much more inclined to vote for this article in three months time, after the student body at Rutgers will likely perform various modifications.
I'd like to close by saying please feel free to disagree and do what you think is right. I'm not the type to take this sort of thing personally.
MJKazin 04:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • You knew exactly what I was thinking regarding my previous use of the world vulgar. By the way, let me thank you for your suggestions. Thinking about the more educated level of English (compared to USA Today comprehension), I always thought that the Simple English Wikipedia would be for the more accessible article. Perhaps I should begin writing a Simple English version so to have both sides (the USA Today readers and the NY Times readers) covered. The stub sections I put up there in the hopes that a.) I'd be inspired to finish quicker (hilarious at best) and b.) other editors would jump in based on my roadmap seeing the futility of the pipe dream of a.). I assure you, once I get inspired by the muse to finish those sections, the Sectstubs will be long gone. As for the sit back and wait, I would agree. Your girlfriend being a pro-writer would agree with the sentiment that even a writer should throw his/her manuscript in the desk drawer for a few weeks before going back to edit it or to redraft in order to ensure a fresh attack. I was thinking in the meantime, while I sit back and before any modifications I might make before nominating it as a featured article candidate, I'd throw it to the wolves at Peer Review. —ExplorerCDT 04:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • P.S. What do you think of the Template (Template:Rutgers) or the affiliated pages (some of which are in beginning stages)? —ExplorerCDT 04:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)