Encyclopedia > Corvus13

Corvus13, can I ask why you have all the extraneous capitals in the folklore sections on minerals? Or are you just cutting and pasting them from somewhere (they have that faux-18th century flavor)? --MichaelTinkler

these are worse than I thought. Where DID you get these entries? They're appalling! Coal = col, but no meaning for 'col'? --MichaelTinkler

O.K. It's 9:40 p.m. EST 11/5/01. I'm giving up after revising coal and just plain cutting Amber's folklore section. First - if this is from a source, acknowledge it, public domain or not. Second - this is offering medical advice (ambitions in Children for Leos, or whatever it was saying). Third, the capitalization was offensive, and should be edited, whatever the source. So, what am I saying? Well. There is a place in Wikipedia for descriptions of gemstones (or Coal. why not.) that are folkloric. However, these have to be in the right tone of voice. I hope I don't sound like I'm ranting, but there you have it. --MichaelTinkler.

Corvus, I'm asking you again. Are the 'folklore' texts undercopyright? Why aren't they in modern English (with the notable exception of the 'his/her' in cyrstallomancy). They could be rewritten into encylopedic style, but they're not there yet. --MichaelTinkler

Fine. I give up. Delete everything I've ever written. There appears to be some personal thing here where if you're not part of the clique, you're not welcome.

Goodbye.

Dude! Chill out. Michael Tinkler is asking you very legitimate questions, IMHO. The stuff you put up is not in modern English. The style is antiquated and reads as if taken from a 19th c. source. At the same time, much of what I've read in your articles is not always well-written. If you are indeed the author, why are you writing in a style that you've already been told is neither encyclopedic nor acceptable modern English (from any country)? You have lots of good information, but the presentation makes it look a bit loony. JHK

Ditto. I see you are quickly removing all your contributions. That's too bad. Perhaps someone will take an interest and put them back (after editing them).

It can be unnerving at first to see one's writing edited by others, but that is indeed the nature of this project. And although your content was interesting, the samples I looked at were in dire need of copyediting. The capitalization was, as MichaelTinkler pointed, atrocious. <>< tbc

I was accused of copyright violation and "cut and paste" without any chance to defend myself. I had my material yanked out of what I wrote without any chance to defend myself. I have been accused of "bad writing" without any explanation as to WHAT bad writing constitutes. I don't need this. former corvus13

I'd like to ask you to give us another chance, too. It's reasonable to ask you to copyedit the stuff that you upload (and to assure us that it's not from a copyrighted source), but it's also reasonable for you to expect us to help you work on the stuff. :-) Just let us know what's going on, and we will help, as much as we can, anyway. --Larry Sanger

not accused, just asked if it was under copyright. Many newcomers don't understand the need to be certain of the point. If something reads as though it's right out of a book (the consistent stylistic approach to each folklore entry) I think it might be right out of a book or off a website. I didn't cut any of 'em out except the cure for insanity, which sounded unsafe at any speed for Wikipedia (lawsuits, anyone?). I edited extraneous caps and asked if there were a source Sorry if I offended. I am a medievalist and don't find the folklore of gems at all extraneous to the entries on gems, but I would have written it differently. --MichaelTinkler

All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License

Search Encyclopedia

Search over one million articles, find something about almost anything!