User talk:Ngord

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Welcome

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia!

Just a few quick tips:

  • Our Tutorial explains how to edit; you can experiment in the test area.
  • We have help pages, and if they don't help (can happen :-), post a question at the Help Desk.
  • Remember that we strive to have unbiased articles.
  • Eventually, you might want to read our Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
  • Use the "Preview" button below the edit box! It helps you catch layout, format, and spelling errors before saving.
  • To sign your messages (to talk pages, for instance—like I do below), add four tildes (~~~~) to your posts. The software will replace them by your signature and a time stamp when you save the page.

Anyway, have fun improving this encyclopedia! Lupo 22:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please don't copy

Copying whole sections from this manual you cite so often (Folsom, Gordon, Spanogle and Fitzgerald's International Business Transactions: A Problem-Oriented Coursebook, 9th (American Casebook Series)) is a copyright violation, unless you could prove that this manual was public domain material. Please stop this copying. Lupo 22:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Be careful. The stuff at Fast track (trade), for instance, was from here and is copyrighted. So, someone copied. Whether it was your teacher or you, I don't care. Lupo 22:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I didn't remove anything at Clarence Thomas; that was someone else. Wikipedia is not the place to publish opinion pieces, though. Please read our guidelines: WP:5P, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Also see the links provided in the welcome message above. Lupo 23:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas

Hi Ngord. I'm a little concerned about your additions to the Clarence Thomas article. Wikipedia has a neutral point of view policy as well as a no original research policy. In addition, there are specific methods that are used on Wikipedia to reference articles to reliable sources, most of which can be found at WP:CITE. In addition, because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, language in Wikipedia articles must be encyclopedic, not an essay, discourse, or academic lecture.

That said, there's a lot of good information in the information you added to the Thomas article. However, the edits, for the most part, read like an academic lecture about Thomas, not an encyclopedia article. Additionally, general conclusions (however accurate, and I'm not necessarily disputing their accuracy) are drawn based on evidence presented, which is original research. I'm also puzzled by the focus of some of the subsections, and I wonder if they don't give undue weight to some of Thomas' views over other, equally as important views. A more specific point: I'm not really sure the definition of originalism presented in the "jurisprudence" subsection is accurate. It seems almost closer to a definition of textualism, though it's not really describing that very well, either. Either way, Wikipedia already has an article on originalism, so the long discourse attempting to explain it in Thomas' article isn't necessary (one or two explanatory sentences, or even just a link to the originalism article, would suffice).

My advice is to discuss edits you wish to make at Talk:Clarence Thomas. Let other editors take a look at your text, a piece at a time, until the language is encyclopedic, neutral, verifiable, and well-cited. I don't mean to discourage you from contributing at all, quite the opposite. I mean to encourage you to get more collaborative input on the text you wish to add so that the article is the best it can be. Thanks. · j e r s y k o talk · 00:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

In re originalism: right. I'm saying I believe the definition presented in the addition, or at least part of it, is not accurately describing originalism. I agree that textualism and originalism are very distinct. · j e r s y k o talk · 23:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)