User talk:Jojhutton/Archive 1

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5
My FAQ
Q1: Why do you remove the "United States" from articles? Isn't it more thorough to mention the country?
A1: It is common convention among English speaking scholars to write geographical areas in the United States as (City, State), and leave out the country, as there is no need to disambiguate the location by adding the country, since there is only one Houston, Texas in the world. Every English language manual of style agrees that this is the proper way to write it. WP:PLACE covers this very nicely on wikipedia and is meant, despite the title, to be applied to all articles. Some have disagreed, and thats okay, but there is no convention anywhere on wikipedia that says that (City, State, Country) is the best and proper way to present the information. In many cases, the country name is already placed in the info box, making the addition in the body of the article redundant.
Q2: Does the removal violate any policy?
A2: No. There is no policy that says that removing "United States" is vandalism. In fact there is no policy that says that it needs to be in there at all.
Q3: Have there been previous discussions on this topic?
A3: Yes there has. This archived discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style seems to agree that the convention is (City, State).
Q4: Are you the only one who feels this way?
A4: No, of course not. In various discussions, Other users have expressed support for this convention in the past, in one way or another. They are: User:Woogee, User:Wikidemon, User:ShadowRangerRIT(except in the infobox), User:Pmanderson, User:Tony1, User:Jimfbleak, User:Sambc, User:DGG, User:Rodhullandemu, User:Dohn joe
Q5: What Should I do if I still don't agree?
A5: As far as this page goes, nothing. If you leave me a message here, I will only hat close your question and refer you to these FAQs. Leaving me a message here, means that you have not taken the time to read the FAQ. I'm not changing my mind, unless there is a policy written that says that it must be in there, so any discussion is futile, and redundant. If you revert, and place "United States" back into the article, don't worry, I won't edit war with you over this issue, unless I feel that I am being wikihounded. In that case, I reserve the right to protect my edits

Yes I do enjoy editing and adding to wikipedia, thank you. I try to contribute as often and as correctly as possible, although I don't contribute as much as others. Thank you for your helpful hints, I am still learning the etiquette of wikipedia and I do try. As for the edit I mad about Herbert Hoover, I am aware that citations are helpful toward the validity of wikipedia articles, but pieces of information that are a matter of public knowledge need no citation. This may not be a wikipedia policy, but it is a standard writing practice. You may not agree, but that is what I have been taught. If I said that a dog has four legs, would I need a citation to verify it, or is it a matter of public knowledge? Must a writer cite every single snippet of information? If I said that the President of the United States was George W. Bush, must I find an article to support it? But if I said that George W. Bush was a member of the NRA, then I better find documents to support my findings, then cite them. Again thank you for your concern.

I did not tag the item in the article, which if you check the "history" of the article you will see who did. But, the item should have a citation, as this may be common knowledge to you, but it was not to that editor (or myself as well). To put it more bluntly, if someone asks for a citation, you need one, as that means it has been challenged. Happy editing. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC) I am sorry about the misunderstanding on the citation issue. Again I am still learning the bits and pieces of wikipedia and don't understand every little detail available. I usually learn by looking at how others have done things when they edit, so thank you again for the links above. I have reviewed them and will return to them on a need to know basis. This whole process of adding symbols in certain order to create the needed result is so confusing but the links above will help. I agree that what is common knowledge to one person may not ne common knowledge to another, but I wasn't talking about common knowledge, I was speaking of public knowledge, and public knowledge is not up for debate, therefore is not usually challengable by normal standards. If a third party citation is used for every bit of information in writing, then the research would overwelm the writer and the reader to the point of exhaustion. That is why public knowledge citations are not common in normal writing, but perhaps wikipedia is its own master on this topic. Wikipedia is its own beast. First, see the verifiability policy for part of the reason why we try to have a citation for everything. The distinction between public and common knowledge is not really important. It is public knowledge that David Hill adopted some children in 1850, I know I read it in the state archives in the public records. But until right now as I type that, I am probably the only living person in the entire world who knew that. So, despite it being public knowledge, I would certainly have to have a citation in order to back up what I am saying. Which leads us to Criticism of Wikipedia, which if you read you may come to better understand why some of the rules exist. I'm not saying you are making anything up, but by requiring citations for things that no everyone knows and agrees to (i.e. the Holocaust is public knowledge, but not everyone agrees it happened) we help avoid the problems of made-up stuff that occasionally makes it into Wikipedia. Aboutmovies (talk) 11:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC) So if Wikipedia is its own beast, would that make you and your cronies, the beast masters? Then deciding what is right and wrong for the rest of us who casually contribute to the glory of wikipedia. Long live the beast.Jojhutton (talk) 14:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)jojhutton I had already taken care of part of it early today. In the future, I'd suggest not using the move function until you have a better feeling of Wikipedia functions. You can always just cut and paste text to start an article. Aboutmovies (talk) 01:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC) I was thinking about cut and paste, but thought this would be easier. Thank You.Jojhutton (talk) 01:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Facebook&lang=en&q=User_talk:Jojhutton"