User talk:UBeR
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome!
Hello, UBeR, 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:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
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! Nufy8 22:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Also, using the "Show preview" function before saving your changes is helpful, as saving the same article a large number of times in quick succession makes it harder for people to check what changed, and clogs up the page history. Thanks. Nufy8 23:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm new here. I'll keep that in mind. Thanks UBeR 01:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] American and British English
Hi UBeR,
Since it would be a waste to have separate American English and British English Wikipedias, there is only one English Wikipedia, and it tries to be international in its usage. In some cases, such as spelling differences, both American and British forms are permitted, and it's ordinarily considered rude to Americanize a British spelling or Britishize an American one without a specific reason, in which case it's a good idea to mention the reason in the edit summary. (Nothing fancy, just something like "articles on primarily American topics use American spellings" or "fix strange mixture of American and British spellings within one sentence".) In other cases, there is an English-Wikipedia–wide preference for one form or the other. For example, American-style quotation marks are used ("quote containing a quote 'quote contained within a quote'", not 'quote containing a quote "quote contained within a quote"'); conversely, punctuation after a quotation is placed according to the British ("logical") system: if the punctuation is part of the quote, it is placed before the end-quote, and if not, it is placed after it. The Wikipedia:Manual of Style discusses such issues; you might wish to take a look.
When in doubt, it's best not to change existing text to match your specific form of English, as that can be seen as rude.
Ruakh 03:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- Re: Your comment at my talk-page: Don't worry, I wasn't offended; I myself use American style in my own writing. (I grew up in, still live in, and am now a citizen of the U.S., so I'm really not used to any other style.) I just wanted you to know, before you ran into someone who would be offended; and lest you doubt the seriousness of the issue, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias#Systematic bias towards USA names, where a Wikipedian wrote of the title of Popsicle, "This is systematic bias at its very worst, and is the kind of thing which - seriously - makes me want to quit Wikipedia, because I feel that it is so USA-centric, with little room for international compromise." (Well, in all fairness, he wasn't so much writing about the article title, as about the opposition of American editors to changing it once he pointed out that the word "Popsicle" is a specifically American term for a concept found in many English-speaking countries, but still. Serious.) Ruakh 04:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] John Wayne
You're right :-) Thank you for correcting my edit in the John Wayne article.
"Please stop changing this; "a" is correct, because the setence reads "John Wayne won a Best Actor Oscar." It does not say "won an Acedemy Award," it just links)
Roaming27 07:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Love the irony!
Your edit comment: "I believe it has already been decided that British English would be used on this article, where punctuation remains outside of quatation marks.", contains the quintessentially American grammar "outside of". Tony 06:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, sorry for my assumption. Tony 00:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "Web sites"/"websites"
Hi, I'm not going to argue with you because it is a pointless topic, but I just thought I would point you to the American Heritage Dictionary Fourth Ed [1]. As you can see, "Web site" is merely an accepted variant of the correct word, "website." No where does it state that this is the proper spelling of the term. The usage note points out the transition from the original "Web site" to "Website" and finally to "website," the accepted spelling of the word. I WIN!!!1!1!! Love, Wavy G 22:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- Regarding [2], no I did not blit away any other major edit - i did check first. The only other edits you made in your original edit were only minor layout issues - things were fine anyway. Please by all means revert to the original lowercase version of the article and remake the minor edits. Given you have made a major change throughout the article to capitalise every use of "web" then it is you that should be getting consensus for this change on the article's talk page - I only reverted to the version of the article which has had the normal/common lowercase usage for a long time. Thanks/wangi 20:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Kanye West Revert
For catching that vandal before I could:
Have a nice day :D E. Sn0 =31337= Talk to me :D 04:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Source citation requests
While of course anyone may request source citations, it is generally considered polite and is very helpful to those doing research if you place a notice on the article's talk page as to why you contest an assertion. In the Creation-evolution controversy article, for example, many of the organizations you have requested cites for on their support of creationism are large national or international church organizations, and their positions could well be considered common knowledge per WP:V. Thanks! Seraphimblade 01:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- It seems, Seraphimblade, that the article Creation-evolution controversy is mostly made up of original research. In fact, it's satiated with it. The fact that the Evangelical Presbyterian Church "unapologetically promote[s] creationism and preach[es] against evolution from the pulpits and sponsor[s] lectures and debates on the subject" is not necessarily "common knowledge." Like the link you posted, Wikipedia is verifiable, not truth. Furthermore, "Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." You're welcome! ~ UBeR 01:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Will look for some sources on those positions (I believe creationism is the official position of all the ones listed, I know at least for the Seventh-day Adventists it is). Thanks for elaborating! Seraphimblade 01:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
