W3k4t101
Welcome edit
|
I was trying to put things in context and I am by no means pro-American. But you are injecting into this forum your personal anti-American bias, and I would like to know why you are watching this page so closely? Do you have something to hide and are you trying to promote your own version of history? The progressive movement became more popular after Wilson became a progressive it and everybody knows it. You are not the gatekeeper of history and you should not delete every change. I am an avid reader and I consider myself very knowledgable about history and important world events. You cannot study subjects in isolation from each other. Your comments are not very informative and serve to downplay the progressive movement. You should also provide suggestions as to where my input is supposed to be without deleting it arbitrarily. I am still going to put real information on this page and you will not be able to stop it. What is your native language? Perhaps you have a problem with English?
Progressivism edit
Hi. I undid your changes to Progressivism because you were talking about the USA in the opening paragraph. It is important to give a general idea of what Progressivism is which is not specific to any one country before we start discussing how it developed and differed in different places. Your concerns about the old wording may well be valid and you certainly shouldn't let this put you off having another go at improving the lead. Just remember that the introduction is meant to be as generic and global as possible before giving a quick overview of the main specifics. I appreciate that Progressivism is not as easily generically defined as some other ideologies, because it is more an attitude than an ideology, but we should try to do so as best we can. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
April 2011 edit
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you are reminded not to attack other editors, as you did on English Renaissance. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. Crusio (talk) 06:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
"taxonomically" edit
Which biologists are you referring to? Please provide real references and quotes as per your own standards and I will be satisfied with your argument. But you should provide evidence to back up your claims before deleting material and then post it at the same time of the deletion and provide links just the way I did. I, in fact provided more real information than you did. And I am not sure I understand your logic. If I look up "x" in the dictionary and it doesn't appear but a scientist says it is a real word, should I take his word for it and use it in my thesis just because he says it's a word? Probably not. I would check as many reference materials as I could - especially world renowned ones that have been around for centuries - and if not listed then safely arrive at the conclusion that he is duping me and playing me for a fool. Now, for example, what if I look up "y" in the dictionary and it is not there, I would not use it because people wouldn't recognize it and our communication medium would have become a jumble of nonexistant words. Biologists are not linguists and they are not gods. And they have to adhere to the same linguistic rules as you and I do. Are you basing your views on the fact that biologists are somehow superior?
Hello there, just because a word does not appear in a mainstream dictionary does not mean it is not correct. There is a plethora of words in the English language in the realm of science which are not recognized by even scientific dictionaries due to the vast array of possibilities. It would be impossible to list all of their possible conjugations, etc. "Taxonomically" is in fact a real word and is used all the time by biologists.
Note-- I do apologize, however, for accidentally using the vandalism link instead of the AGF link-- that was a huge error on my own part! Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 17:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, since you asked a few questions (and posed a few fallacies), I've come to respond that you may be enlightened.
- A quick search of the JSTOR database returns 16,423 pieces of professional scientific literature which use the word, and a search in the U.S. PubMed.gov database returns 1,706 pieces of professional medical literature. Most of these pieces of literature were authored by multiple individuals and all of them were peer-reviewed scrutinously. The names involved here are far too many to mention in this space. But since those are weasel words, I'll name a few of the more popular ones, such as Paul Sereno, Jack Horner, and Henry Fairfield Osborn.
- Mainstream dictionaries are not determined by individuals, but rather by popularity. Current mainstream dictionaries include Merriam-Webster, Wiktionary, and American College, just to name a few.
- I am preparing to graduate from college and currently hold certification and a minor.
- My mother tongue is English, but I know a fair amount of German, too.
- I'm American, not French.
- There are no translations being made, and I am quite literate and educated on the English language.
- What does any of this have to do with Cambridge?
- Indeed, no one has any such right, but I do have an unrevoked privilege.
- Here's a reliable link per your request[1], citing usage since around 1828.
- No one has ever successfully hijacked Wikipedia, and I'd hate to be the first.
- How does donating to Wikipedia constitute hijacking it?
- Please show me exactly how your statement "I will go over your puny little arrogant head so fast your head will spin" isn't puny and arrogant itself.
- Wikipedia is not advertised.
- I have far better things to do than dot "i"'s and cross "t"'s. Don't you?
- Google is too well-aware of Wikipedia to allow it to sneak into the first search result. It is Google's algorithm that puts us at the top of your search results, not our doing. And we've got several pages we've hidden from Google.
- "Your scandalous misuse of the English language throughout your site is deplorable and you should be removed from your position without delay." You seem to have transitioned mid-sentence from a plural "you" to a singular "you". Keeping this in mind, your logic is flawed.
- It's good to know cannibals have friends like you.
- Again, I'm not from France, and I doubt the French are working to put an end to the English language.
- Have you never misclicked? Misclicking here had a rather unfortunate side effect. It could have been far worse; I could have deleted the article instead.
- "Plethora" is in fact singular. It refers to a group. You don't say "There are a group", you say "There is a group."
- Not all spell-checkers are wrong, but no spell-checker is complete.
- I shall bear my lack of credibility in mind as I receive my diploma next month and my certificate this week.
- Wikipedia's not run by weasels; it's run by otters.
Hopefully those answers suffice. Let me know if you have additional concerns. Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 05:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Appropriate behavior edit
I noticed that you made several edits at User talk:Crusio (edits which broke the correct display of accented characters), and that you added an "April 2011" section (diff1, diff2).
Please read No personal attacks and also Civility. Since you are new to Wikipedia, you may not be aware that this site is very different from Internet forums where it is common for contributors to abuse each other. However, at Wikipedia that kind of behavior is strictly prohibited and will result in blocks. Text such as "I have real issues with Frenchmen" must not be placed on any Wikpedia page, and "...you will hear from them" is totally unacceptable.
Please undo the edits you made, or simply remove your text from the page. You should do that very soon (before working on anything else at Wikipedia) in order to let others know that you acknowledge that the text is not appropriate. Johnuniq (talk) 04:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Blocked edit
Ramdomly threating to try and get various authorities to act against wikipedians is not acceptable and you have been blocked indefinetly.©Geni 04:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)