User:Seahappy: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (15 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Anastasia Shilling. I love Wikipedia ! |
|||
That's me. Anastasia Shilling. |
|||
My resume, before I began private business, is available at www.anastasiashilling.com [http://www.anastasiashilling.com] . One needs a login to view it. The login is: |
|||
Username: seahappy |
|||
Password: bikehappy |
|||
If one is finding me here, then they understand that stealing another's writing or photos is a no no. I do very much appreciate that. |
|||
There is a photograph of me under "Summary" on the website www.anastasiashilling.com [http://www.anastasiashilling.com] . Just click on the little square under Summary. |
|||
---- |
|||
I would love to see the writers and editors of Wikipedia find better words that describe exactly what is being communicated to replace the following words: |
|||
“use” |
|||
“bad” |
|||
“hate” |
|||
For example… If one writes, “The surfer uses wax on top of the surfboard to prevent sliding”, then it is not more descriptive and with more knowledge sharing to say, “The surfer rubs wax on the top of the surfboard, usually with multiple layers of wax building up, to allow the feet to not move unless it is intended”? |
|||
One could write, “It is a bad idea for a surfer to not have wax”. Is it not with more knowledge to write, “A surfer who is without wax on top of the board most likely struggles with the intention to stand on the surfboard”. Now then, the sentence, “It is a bad idea for a surfer to not have wax” makes more sense, but if one had not read the sentences in the paragraph above and did not understand why surfers have wax on their boards, would they have clearly understood that sentence? Which is “that" sentence”? That is another reason that I find writing the words, even if they are repeated, to explain “this, that and it” are also helpful for the readers and the writers to better articulate their communication flow. The reader knows what “that” sentence is that I am referring to though. I am referring to the “bad” sentence. Funny… Double entendre… |
|||
Oh what, Editor? Do ya think that you “got me” with the “you just did what you were suggesting that Wikipedia not do”? I am conscious of how many readers or editors think, but maybe I am not conscious of all editors and readers. |
|||
That pondering in the paragraph before this one raises another point with writing and editing… The writing of words such as “always”, “never”, “must”, and other words that may exaggerate the understanding, in my opinion, are not with truth. Wiks search for truth. (pssst, I call those who read and write with Wikipedia, “Wiks”.) |
|||
To the one who is reading this and “editing” my writing, still, regarding the “bad” sentence… My intention was to refer to the word, “bad” and that is why I put it in quotes. It was my second thought and the sentence following that referred to the “double entendre” that, in stream of consciousness, I began to think about the one who might be thinking that the “bad” sentence was “poorly” written. I write with the word, “poor”, sometimes, in instances where other Americans might opt for the word “bad”. |
|||
This raises yet another point… I am American. I write “American” in rebellion of the English language. Yes, I do understand that “rules” can assist in the commonality of communication. I also prefer to write in the personal and not with a “mass-to-mass” dialogue. I love that Wik has the “discussion pages”. I find, sometimes, more intelligence in the discussion pages then what is on the “article” page. My guess is that in 1,000 years, if Wikipedia is still available, the historians will love reading the discussion pages more then the articles. The “history pages” for each article, well… Not so much. In my opinion, it is the dialogue that allows knowledge to be shared and not the editing. BUT, the editing for the present time is extremely VALUABLE. |
|||
An editor might redo what I wrote in the paragraph above to condense my writing and offer, “The discussion pages are available for future historians and the editing pages will be valuable as well”. That is NOT what I am conveying. It is also why I choose to write in stream of consciousness. |
|||
For years I thought that my writing was “too lengthy” and “not with intelligence” as I was edited, edited, edited. But, then I read (red, readed) some of Einstein’s writing and I had to reread many of his sentences because of their complex logic and structure. Ah, relief for me. Who dares to edit Einstein? Not me. I prefer to study his writing as it is. Thank God Einstein’s writing is as he intended it to be. I love that. Neener, neener to the editors who want to condense writings in order to save space and time for the readers. Seems to me that space on the web is plentiful. No reason to chop, chop, chop, yeah? |
|||
Well, that raises another point… I do appreciate articles as they are today. They are quick to read and “to the point”. As time goes on though, Wiks, some articles can grow in length. How about adding a tab that offers “more reading”? Or not… Just saying that some articles are going to turn into volumes… Pretty sure that is under discussion now at Wik. |
|||
My writing on this page is copy protected. © seahappy It is going on one of my websites first before I put it on my page at Wikipedia. I’m writing in Word before I post it to a privately owned website. Yeah, Word has a built in spell checker. Wha’up with no spell checker? I can’t find the spell checker in Wik’s web writing house. |
|||
I have donated. I donated $100 because I am hoping that the donation money goes to building out a better and more easy to write or edit software, web application at Wik. That is a significant donation amount for me. I wanted to put my money where my mouth is, only I was reading with my ears and not talking with my fingers even several months after I donated. Can ya believe that? I was scared to write on Wik. I see Wikipedia as somewhat sacred text. What an amazing masterpiece Wikipedia is and a body of knowledge that many are HAPPY to have. |
|||
Thank you so very much to all those who are contributing to Wikipedia. Thank you, thank you, thank you from the deepest essence of me. It’s a whole new Earth for me. Questions that I have had for decades are being addressed with Wikipedia. I am getting a better education with Wikipedia in the last couple of years then what I got in college. Unlike Gates, I graduated. Studying for an MD these days. Neurology. |
|||
Well, I want to discuss some personal business and that is not what the Wik editors have said is appropriate for Wik. But, before I go, another point here about the “the user page not for personal disclosure, it is not a blog or a space blah blah blah…” And then, the Wik writers who are telling others what they should and should not do on their user pages said, “it’s okay to put a photograph, information about oneself so that an editor can better understand who they are conversing with…” Ya sound like a bunch of “know it alls” telling others what they can and can not do. I won’t write explicit language here, but I may on my website. Ya’all could blow the roof off of facebook. Just open it up, yeah? Little kids need, in my opinion, a place where they can go to write and post things about themselves without being “sold”. Yeah, I read about facebook requiring real names in order to provide a community service to connect many of us and then facebook sold the names. So NOT good. Gathering marketing data along with sensitive and confidential dates, names, addresses… facebook SOLD OUT. Well, maybe that was their intention to begin with. I’m not on facebook. |
|||
That “bossiness” reminds me of “Moms” telling the little kids what they can and can not do for the good of society. How’s that working out for America? Oh, I’m off topic. I do apologize. |
|||
Okay, I have to go. Personal entry #1. a at ohdiscussion.com Thanks for reading this. Much love to you. SWAK ! (Sealed With A Kiss !) |
|||
A. |
|||
Latest revision as of 23:55, 19 April 2011
Anastasia Shilling. I love Wikipedia !