I am an administrator of Wikipedia.
"Including" does not imply any limitation. "But not limited to" is a legal redundancy. It is unnecessary in everyday writing in that it adds no meaning to the sentence. Merriam-Webster provides this definition:
Note that "part of" is used throughout. "Including" by definition implies that a list is incomplete.
We should assume that people will understand the meaning of ordinary English words, like "including". We do not need to drag the text down through redundancy when the meaning of the word is clear. Here is a more detailed explanation from Get It Write Online. It says, in part, "We should use the verb include to preface a list that is not exhaustive.... If we read the definitions of include in reputable dictionaries... we see that the verb "include" is in no way synonymous with the verb "are".... We should not add the phrase "but not limited to" when we use either the verb include or the verbal including because to do so will create a redundancy: the idea that what is being spoken about is "not limited to what is actually said" is inherent in the meaning of the word include itself. The only instance in which the phrase "includes but is not limited to" is acceptable is in a legal document* or a piece of writing that seeks to resemble one. Legal documents* are often intentionally and excessively redundant in their attempt to prevent every conceivable misreading of a passage."
The issue of whether "including" can be reasonably interpreted to mean something that dictionaries says it doesn't can be avoided by replacing "including" with "such as", which unambiguously introduces a non-exhaustive list of examples.
Grammarist.com says: "The adverb currently is almost always unnecessary. It usually just restates information already conveyed through verb tenses and can be dropped with no loss of meaning." While grammarist acknowledges that "currently can be useful when contrasting current conditions with past or future conditions...." it adds that "such instances are relatively rare."
The present tense tells us what the current condition is of something. We can just let the present tense of the verb do its job without adding a redundant “currently”.
Is there any difference between these pairs of sentences?
The second sentence in each pair means the same thing as the first sentence, but it is shorter and simpler.
Maybe some people think the present tense could be interpreted as meaning a permanent condition unless modified by “currently”. It is called the present tense, not the "permanent tense" for a reason: these sentences aren’t ambiguous, are they?
No-one would think that those are permanent conditions. The same is true of the sentences above; Barack Obama is not the eternal president of the United States – he is limited by both the US Constitution and his own mortality.
Is there ever an appropriate time to use “is currently”?
I would answer with a qualified “no”. There are times when clarification can be useful when contrasting current conditions with past or future conditions. In these cases, “is currently” is correct, but “is now” is better because it is shorter and simpler.
For example:
In these cases, the present tense on its own isn’t really enough because the reader has just received contradictory information. Adding “now” provide the emphasis to make the situation clear.
In Wikipedia, however, what may be "now" for the writer (e.g., 2013) will not be "now" for the reader if the article is not updated every year. It is better to use {{As of|year}}, {{As of|year|month}} or {{As of|year|month|day}}, which mark potentially dated statements, and will add an article to the appropriate hidden sub-category of Category:Articles containing potentially dated statements.
What about "is presently"?
“Presently” has traditionally meant “soon” or "imminently", although many people are now using it to mean "now". Will your reader know which meaning you intend? Or could it be confusing? For this reason, it is best to avoid "presently". If you are using it to mean “now”, it probably isn’t needed anyway, for the same reason that “is currently” is redundant.
"Used to be" is a "modal verb". It is a perfectly acceptable formation of the verb. It is preferable to "was previously".
Here are some pages that illustrate the use of "used to be":
Other examples of redundant modifiers I've come across in Wikipedia:
No part of speech has had to put up with so much adversity as the adverb. The grammatical equivalent of cheap cologne or trans fat, the adverb is supposed to be used sparingly, if at all, to modify verbs, adjectives or other adverbs. As Stephen King succinctly put it: 'The adverb is not your friend.' -- Jacob Gershman, "Why Adverbs, Maligned by Many, Flourish in the American Legal System", The Wall Street Journal, October 8, 2014
Correct: The boy ran really fast to catch the runaway ball. Incorrect: The boy sprinted to catch the runaway ball. Adverbs.... They’re okay once in a while, but in excess they’re an indicator of weak verb choices. In our example, the adverb “really fast” modifies the verb “ran.” But does “really fast” paint a more vivid word-picture for the reader? Use a juicier verb like “sprinted” instead. -- Grammarly blog
It is a question of style, but I really don't know why we would use a clunky adverb when there is a perfectly good verb form hanging about that is designed for the purpose.
The phrase "but not limited to" is redundant when used with "including" or similar contructions. The word "including" does not in any way suggest a comprehensive list. Lawyers include it in the wording of legal contracts, but it is unnecessary and wrong in every day writing. If we write Wikipedia like legal contracts are written, people will stop reading it.
This is about whether readers will understand the English word "including". If you use a word that is potentially confusing or may not be understood by many readers, you can hyperlink that word to its definition at Wiktionary. It would be better to re-write the passage to avoid using the word and use plain English instead. I do not think that "including" is such a word. We can assume that Wikipedia readers will have a sufficient grasp of the English language to understand what "including" means, and not require tedious redundancy (see pleonasm) to clarify its meaning.
Why "Ground Zero"? I am a child of the 1980s, and grew up with the threat of nuclear holocaust hanging over my head. My favourite movie is Don McKellar's Last Night about how an array of characters spend their last night on earth before the unexplained end of the world. ("It's not the end of the world: there are still six hours left.")
It did not occur to me when choosing the username that there would be any connection to the September 11 tragedy in 2001 in the United States. I mean no disrespect to its victims or their families.
Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board . . VfD Ridings Vandalism . Template:ON-ED [[Category:Citation and verifiability maintenance templates]]
>blush<
The Working Man's Barnstar
For your extensive work across so many articles to ensure quality, from the minor details to the big—all of which provides evidence that there must actually be more than 24 hours in a day. GrantNeufeld 16:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC) |
[[File:|75px|alt=A Barnstar!]] | The Geography Barnstar
I award you the GEOGRAPHY barnstar, for your excellent contributions in the Malta article Maltesedog 12:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC) |
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
You're a super-duper editor, and you go that extra mile for the cause! Great work! Ardenn 02:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC) Thank you for your help on the Transzap article. That was very kind of you! >— comment added by CourtneyLBrewer ( talk • contribs) |
The Original Barnstar | ||
For lack of a better Barnstar, I award this to both Ground Zero and Khoikhoi for their wonderful efforts in introducing me to Wikipedia on both the Western Alienation and the Bergama articles, my first major contributions. I will forever respect both of you for your professionalism and kindness, and will follow your leads in all my Wikipedia edits. Thanks again for showing me that Wikipedia is, in fact, a noble cause. Gregorof. |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | ||
I thought I'd give you this barnstar for your tireless contributions I have been noticing in numerous articles. Wikidudeman (talk) 05:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC) |
The Barnstar of Diligence | ||
For your tireless contributions, I award you this barnstar. Sometimes I feel as if you're following me around to every article I contribute to and fixing all of my spelling, grammar, and MoS mistakes. At least I know someone reads my work, even if its just proofreading! Keep up the great work. MrPrada 15:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC) |
Thank you for the editing help with the
David Standish Ball article!
Bearian 19:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
All Around Amazing Barnstar | ||
I award you the All-Around Amazing Barnstar. You’re an impressively intelligent editor! RogDel ( talk) 17:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC) |
See Wikipedia:MOS#Acronyms_and_abbreviations:
Spelling out an acronym on first use is not just Wikipedia style, it is standard writing style. It makes writing more accessible to a broader range of readers. Should a reader have to click on a link to find out what an acronym stands for? Why can't we explain to them what it means?
WP:OBVIOUS says “State facts that may be obvious to you, but are not necessarily obvious to the reader.”
The idea of accessibility pops up repeatedly in Wikipedia style manuals and guides: Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible says:
Wikipedia:Explain jargon says:
As Wikipedia:Writing better articles says:
Thanks, I took three (so you'll know when to re-order) Bo 17:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Here are those commas I borrowed ( , , , , , , ) sorry I took so long! BigNate37 (T) 21:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm taking three commas out of the country. And you will never, never, never be able to find them! - The Gnome ( talk) 16:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I found a whole bunch of spares separating subjects from predicates, so I'm leaving them here, since this seems to be the local clearinghouse: ,,,,,,,,,, Sarcasticidealist ( talk) 18:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I found an unnecessary comma in the Jim crow laws article and placed it in the above list for you. -- superioridad ( discusión) 06:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Furthermore, they make articles easier to read for visually impaired people who use screen readers. See the comment that I received about a particular edit:
I have done a fair bit of copyediting around here because many articles are not written clearly. When copyediting, I try to keep in mind that many users will come to the English version of Wikipedia because it is the most complete, even though English may not be their first language. Here are some of the things I keep in mind when editing articles:
I hope that my aggressive copyediting doesn't cause offence. If it does, then you should re-read the warning at the bottom of every Edit page:
Thank you.
WP:OVERLINK specifically says:
WP:REDNOT says: "Do not create red links to articles that are not likely to be created.... Red links to personal names should be avoided—particularly when the name is reported in a context which might cause readers to hold a low or critical opinion of the named individual. Frequently a red-linked name has been placed in an article, and subsequently a different editor has created an article about an entirely different person with the same or a similar name."
The Wikipedia style for capitalizing headings is to use "sentence case" instead of "title case", e.g.,
not:
This may be unfamiliar to many editors who believe that or have been taught that "title case is the right way to capitalize headings". It isn't the "right way", it is one style. Wikipedia has, for better or worse, chosen to follow a different style, i.e., capitalize the heading the same way you would capitalize any sentence:
See WP:MSH for more information.
Many Wikipedians use which and that interchangeably. Each of these words has a specific use that conveys different meanings to the reader. Here are a couple of examples to illustrate the difference:
Each sentence tells us something about the car, but the choice of which or that changes the meaning of the sentences.
In sentence A1, the use of that suggests that I own more than one car and therefore must specify that I am talking about a particular car—the blue one. If I left out "that is blue", the reader would not know which of my cars I was talking about.
In sentence A2, I am telling you that I own only one car, and that it needs painting. The fact that it is blue is incidental. I am only adding that in as additional information. I could leave out that information and the sentence would still make sense.
In sentence B1, the reader understands that only some of the studies were written by graduate students. If I were to omit "that were written by graduate students", the sentence tells the reader, "The studies are well-researched". This would be inaccurate, because not all of the studies were well-researched—only those written by graduate students. "[That] were written by graduate students" is essential to the meaning of the sentence.
On the other hand, in sentence B2, the information that the studies were written by graduate students is not necessary for the sentence to convey the correct meaning; in this case, all of the studies were well-written. The fact that they were written by graduate students may be interesting, but the central point of the sentence, that the studies were well-written, would still be clear even without that additional information.
Summary:
Also note that because which introduces incidental information, unlike that, it is typically preceded by a comma.
This really means "and", doesn't it?
WP:ATE says:
This page has been vandalized about a dozen times. I have listed some below, but I've stopped updating the list because the vandalism was generally boring.
1. 15 June 2005 -- an anonymous editor, who did not like the user name I had chosen, wrote: "shut up! it's a disgrace to real american heros who died on that day to have you digrace their fine memory with this kind of liberal bullshit! Find a new name or just move to frace, oh sorry canda, they have socialism there, you'd like it"
2. 31 August 2005 -- User:BillGates (probably not the real one) edited my page so that it read, "A flaming homosexual since a week ago last Saturday." This is a blatant lie: I have been a flaming homosexual since 1992.
3. 24 February 2006 -- my page was vandalized twice by 209.226.122.156 and 209.226.122.158. The first vandalism was spam, the second was more personal: "Since he likes the internet site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Samuels We decided to start to gather information for an internet site page for Kevin... another Wikipeda hypocrite that goes by the rather pathetic geekish username GroundZero.. Kevin (we will withold last name for now) is in his mid 20's... about 24, single, who lives in Mississauga, while Tawkerbot is from Vancouver. His hair appears to be black. He is not very tall, and could use some exercise, and he could also some vitamins for his complexion. Yeah Kevin, maybe you should get off of typing all day on your computer keyboard, and get some excerise. It get out a little more also. You would probably have a better social network if you got out a little more also, according to reliable sources."
If you're going to go to the effort of vandalizing my user page, make it worthwhile. Post something funny or creative. Thanks.
WP:NOTABLE, an essay on notability, states clearly (in bold text): "There is no official policy on notability."
Further, there is no consensus that "notability" should be a criterion for inclusion. See the grounds for deletion at
Wikipedia:Deletion policy, and, for interest,
Jimbo Wales' view on notability, as expressed in the poll where notability failed to become an accepted reason for deletion.
Multi-licensed with the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike License versions 1.0 and 2.0 | ||
I agree to multi-license my text contributions, unless otherwise stated, under Wikipedia's copyright terms and the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license version 1.0 and version 2.0. Please be aware that other contributors might not do the same, so if you want to use my contributions under the Creative Commons terms, please check the CC dual-license and Multi-licensing guides. |
Hello! Please add your comments to the bottom of my talk page instead of here. Thank you.
I am an administrator of Wikipedia.
"Including" does not imply any limitation. "But not limited to" is a legal redundancy. It is unnecessary in everyday writing in that it adds no meaning to the sentence. Merriam-Webster provides this definition:
Note that "part of" is used throughout. "Including" by definition implies that a list is incomplete.
We should assume that people will understand the meaning of ordinary English words, like "including". We do not need to drag the text down through redundancy when the meaning of the word is clear. Here is a more detailed explanation from Get It Write Online. It says, in part, "We should use the verb include to preface a list that is not exhaustive.... If we read the definitions of include in reputable dictionaries... we see that the verb "include" is in no way synonymous with the verb "are".... We should not add the phrase "but not limited to" when we use either the verb include or the verbal including because to do so will create a redundancy: the idea that what is being spoken about is "not limited to what is actually said" is inherent in the meaning of the word include itself. The only instance in which the phrase "includes but is not limited to" is acceptable is in a legal document* or a piece of writing that seeks to resemble one. Legal documents* are often intentionally and excessively redundant in their attempt to prevent every conceivable misreading of a passage."
The issue of whether "including" can be reasonably interpreted to mean something that dictionaries says it doesn't can be avoided by replacing "including" with "such as", which unambiguously introduces a non-exhaustive list of examples.
Grammarist.com says: "The adverb currently is almost always unnecessary. It usually just restates information already conveyed through verb tenses and can be dropped with no loss of meaning." While grammarist acknowledges that "currently can be useful when contrasting current conditions with past or future conditions...." it adds that "such instances are relatively rare."
The present tense tells us what the current condition is of something. We can just let the present tense of the verb do its job without adding a redundant “currently”.
Is there any difference between these pairs of sentences?
The second sentence in each pair means the same thing as the first sentence, but it is shorter and simpler.
Maybe some people think the present tense could be interpreted as meaning a permanent condition unless modified by “currently”. It is called the present tense, not the "permanent tense" for a reason: these sentences aren’t ambiguous, are they?
No-one would think that those are permanent conditions. The same is true of the sentences above; Barack Obama is not the eternal president of the United States – he is limited by both the US Constitution and his own mortality.
Is there ever an appropriate time to use “is currently”?
I would answer with a qualified “no”. There are times when clarification can be useful when contrasting current conditions with past or future conditions. In these cases, “is currently” is correct, but “is now” is better because it is shorter and simpler.
For example:
In these cases, the present tense on its own isn’t really enough because the reader has just received contradictory information. Adding “now” provide the emphasis to make the situation clear.
In Wikipedia, however, what may be "now" for the writer (e.g., 2013) will not be "now" for the reader if the article is not updated every year. It is better to use {{As of|year}}, {{As of|year|month}} or {{As of|year|month|day}}, which mark potentially dated statements, and will add an article to the appropriate hidden sub-category of Category:Articles containing potentially dated statements.
What about "is presently"?
“Presently” has traditionally meant “soon” or "imminently", although many people are now using it to mean "now". Will your reader know which meaning you intend? Or could it be confusing? For this reason, it is best to avoid "presently". If you are using it to mean “now”, it probably isn’t needed anyway, for the same reason that “is currently” is redundant.
"Used to be" is a "modal verb". It is a perfectly acceptable formation of the verb. It is preferable to "was previously".
Here are some pages that illustrate the use of "used to be":
Other examples of redundant modifiers I've come across in Wikipedia:
No part of speech has had to put up with so much adversity as the adverb. The grammatical equivalent of cheap cologne or trans fat, the adverb is supposed to be used sparingly, if at all, to modify verbs, adjectives or other adverbs. As Stephen King succinctly put it: 'The adverb is not your friend.' -- Jacob Gershman, "Why Adverbs, Maligned by Many, Flourish in the American Legal System", The Wall Street Journal, October 8, 2014
Correct: The boy ran really fast to catch the runaway ball. Incorrect: The boy sprinted to catch the runaway ball. Adverbs.... They’re okay once in a while, but in excess they’re an indicator of weak verb choices. In our example, the adverb “really fast” modifies the verb “ran.” But does “really fast” paint a more vivid word-picture for the reader? Use a juicier verb like “sprinted” instead. -- Grammarly blog
It is a question of style, but I really don't know why we would use a clunky adverb when there is a perfectly good verb form hanging about that is designed for the purpose.
The phrase "but not limited to" is redundant when used with "including" or similar contructions. The word "including" does not in any way suggest a comprehensive list. Lawyers include it in the wording of legal contracts, but it is unnecessary and wrong in every day writing. If we write Wikipedia like legal contracts are written, people will stop reading it.
This is about whether readers will understand the English word "including". If you use a word that is potentially confusing or may not be understood by many readers, you can hyperlink that word to its definition at Wiktionary. It would be better to re-write the passage to avoid using the word and use plain English instead. I do not think that "including" is such a word. We can assume that Wikipedia readers will have a sufficient grasp of the English language to understand what "including" means, and not require tedious redundancy (see pleonasm) to clarify its meaning.
Why "Ground Zero"? I am a child of the 1980s, and grew up with the threat of nuclear holocaust hanging over my head. My favourite movie is Don McKellar's Last Night about how an array of characters spend their last night on earth before the unexplained end of the world. ("It's not the end of the world: there are still six hours left.")
It did not occur to me when choosing the username that there would be any connection to the September 11 tragedy in 2001 in the United States. I mean no disrespect to its victims or their families.
Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board . . VfD Ridings Vandalism . Template:ON-ED [[Category:Citation and verifiability maintenance templates]]
>blush<
The Working Man's Barnstar
For your extensive work across so many articles to ensure quality, from the minor details to the big—all of which provides evidence that there must actually be more than 24 hours in a day. GrantNeufeld 16:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC) |
[[File:|75px|alt=A Barnstar!]] | The Geography Barnstar
I award you the GEOGRAPHY barnstar, for your excellent contributions in the Malta article Maltesedog 12:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC) |
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
You're a super-duper editor, and you go that extra mile for the cause! Great work! Ardenn 02:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC) Thank you for your help on the Transzap article. That was very kind of you! >— comment added by CourtneyLBrewer ( talk • contribs) |
The Original Barnstar | ||
For lack of a better Barnstar, I award this to both Ground Zero and Khoikhoi for their wonderful efforts in introducing me to Wikipedia on both the Western Alienation and the Bergama articles, my first major contributions. I will forever respect both of you for your professionalism and kindness, and will follow your leads in all my Wikipedia edits. Thanks again for showing me that Wikipedia is, in fact, a noble cause. Gregorof. |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | ||
I thought I'd give you this barnstar for your tireless contributions I have been noticing in numerous articles. Wikidudeman (talk) 05:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC) |
The Barnstar of Diligence | ||
For your tireless contributions, I award you this barnstar. Sometimes I feel as if you're following me around to every article I contribute to and fixing all of my spelling, grammar, and MoS mistakes. At least I know someone reads my work, even if its just proofreading! Keep up the great work. MrPrada 15:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC) |
Thank you for the editing help with the
David Standish Ball article!
Bearian 19:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
All Around Amazing Barnstar | ||
I award you the All-Around Amazing Barnstar. You’re an impressively intelligent editor! RogDel ( talk) 17:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC) |
See Wikipedia:MOS#Acronyms_and_abbreviations:
Spelling out an acronym on first use is not just Wikipedia style, it is standard writing style. It makes writing more accessible to a broader range of readers. Should a reader have to click on a link to find out what an acronym stands for? Why can't we explain to them what it means?
WP:OBVIOUS says “State facts that may be obvious to you, but are not necessarily obvious to the reader.”
The idea of accessibility pops up repeatedly in Wikipedia style manuals and guides: Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible says:
Wikipedia:Explain jargon says:
As Wikipedia:Writing better articles says:
Thanks, I took three (so you'll know when to re-order) Bo 17:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Here are those commas I borrowed ( , , , , , , ) sorry I took so long! BigNate37 (T) 21:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm taking three commas out of the country. And you will never, never, never be able to find them! - The Gnome ( talk) 16:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I found a whole bunch of spares separating subjects from predicates, so I'm leaving them here, since this seems to be the local clearinghouse: ,,,,,,,,,, Sarcasticidealist ( talk) 18:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I found an unnecessary comma in the Jim crow laws article and placed it in the above list for you. -- superioridad ( discusión) 06:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Furthermore, they make articles easier to read for visually impaired people who use screen readers. See the comment that I received about a particular edit:
I have done a fair bit of copyediting around here because many articles are not written clearly. When copyediting, I try to keep in mind that many users will come to the English version of Wikipedia because it is the most complete, even though English may not be their first language. Here are some of the things I keep in mind when editing articles:
I hope that my aggressive copyediting doesn't cause offence. If it does, then you should re-read the warning at the bottom of every Edit page:
Thank you.
WP:OVERLINK specifically says:
WP:REDNOT says: "Do not create red links to articles that are not likely to be created.... Red links to personal names should be avoided—particularly when the name is reported in a context which might cause readers to hold a low or critical opinion of the named individual. Frequently a red-linked name has been placed in an article, and subsequently a different editor has created an article about an entirely different person with the same or a similar name."
The Wikipedia style for capitalizing headings is to use "sentence case" instead of "title case", e.g.,
not:
This may be unfamiliar to many editors who believe that or have been taught that "title case is the right way to capitalize headings". It isn't the "right way", it is one style. Wikipedia has, for better or worse, chosen to follow a different style, i.e., capitalize the heading the same way you would capitalize any sentence:
See WP:MSH for more information.
Many Wikipedians use which and that interchangeably. Each of these words has a specific use that conveys different meanings to the reader. Here are a couple of examples to illustrate the difference:
Each sentence tells us something about the car, but the choice of which or that changes the meaning of the sentences.
In sentence A1, the use of that suggests that I own more than one car and therefore must specify that I am talking about a particular car—the blue one. If I left out "that is blue", the reader would not know which of my cars I was talking about.
In sentence A2, I am telling you that I own only one car, and that it needs painting. The fact that it is blue is incidental. I am only adding that in as additional information. I could leave out that information and the sentence would still make sense.
In sentence B1, the reader understands that only some of the studies were written by graduate students. If I were to omit "that were written by graduate students", the sentence tells the reader, "The studies are well-researched". This would be inaccurate, because not all of the studies were well-researched—only those written by graduate students. "[That] were written by graduate students" is essential to the meaning of the sentence.
On the other hand, in sentence B2, the information that the studies were written by graduate students is not necessary for the sentence to convey the correct meaning; in this case, all of the studies were well-written. The fact that they were written by graduate students may be interesting, but the central point of the sentence, that the studies were well-written, would still be clear even without that additional information.
Summary:
Also note that because which introduces incidental information, unlike that, it is typically preceded by a comma.
This really means "and", doesn't it?
WP:ATE says:
This page has been vandalized about a dozen times. I have listed some below, but I've stopped updating the list because the vandalism was generally boring.
1. 15 June 2005 -- an anonymous editor, who did not like the user name I had chosen, wrote: "shut up! it's a disgrace to real american heros who died on that day to have you digrace their fine memory with this kind of liberal bullshit! Find a new name or just move to frace, oh sorry canda, they have socialism there, you'd like it"
2. 31 August 2005 -- User:BillGates (probably not the real one) edited my page so that it read, "A flaming homosexual since a week ago last Saturday." This is a blatant lie: I have been a flaming homosexual since 1992.
3. 24 February 2006 -- my page was vandalized twice by 209.226.122.156 and 209.226.122.158. The first vandalism was spam, the second was more personal: "Since he likes the internet site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Samuels We decided to start to gather information for an internet site page for Kevin... another Wikipeda hypocrite that goes by the rather pathetic geekish username GroundZero.. Kevin (we will withold last name for now) is in his mid 20's... about 24, single, who lives in Mississauga, while Tawkerbot is from Vancouver. His hair appears to be black. He is not very tall, and could use some exercise, and he could also some vitamins for his complexion. Yeah Kevin, maybe you should get off of typing all day on your computer keyboard, and get some excerise. It get out a little more also. You would probably have a better social network if you got out a little more also, according to reliable sources."
If you're going to go to the effort of vandalizing my user page, make it worthwhile. Post something funny or creative. Thanks.
WP:NOTABLE, an essay on notability, states clearly (in bold text): "There is no official policy on notability."
Further, there is no consensus that "notability" should be a criterion for inclusion. See the grounds for deletion at
Wikipedia:Deletion policy, and, for interest,
Jimbo Wales' view on notability, as expressed in the poll where notability failed to become an accepted reason for deletion.
Multi-licensed with the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike License versions 1.0 and 2.0 | ||
I agree to multi-license my text contributions, unless otherwise stated, under Wikipedia's copyright terms and the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license version 1.0 and version 2.0. Please be aware that other contributors might not do the same, so if you want to use my contributions under the Creative Commons terms, please check the CC dual-license and Multi-licensing guides. |
Hello! Please add your comments to the bottom of my talk page instead of here. Thank you.