User talk:Punkymonkeypun
Welcome!
[edit]
|
Blanking
[edit]Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 14:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
vandalism
[edit]Creating abacus chinese was close to vandalism. If you wish to contribute, please do so constructively. -- RHaworth 06:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- Despite my message above, you promptly edited the article. Worse, you made no to attempt to explain yourself - even an edit summary would have been something. I have blocked you briefly. -- RHaworth 09:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Abacus
[edit]- Via email to RHaworth
At first I would like to know why my first (NOT most recent) edition of Chinese abacus, Roman Abacus and Japanese Abacus were reverted back. The new correction / edition .
I don't know if you have actually hands on Chinese abacus or not. I did on my own. I learned it thirty years ago. I used those with Chinese 2+5 before it becomes obsolete here in Hong Kong.
I also have/use two 1+5 beads, I also use the 1 + 4 (for comparison). And finally I also use the 1 + 4 Chinese (not Japanese Abacus) with the latest technique developed in Mainland China, in 1990, which several people outside China have just heard the name. [Most chinese people in mainland China don't bother to type in English, that's the fact, and publish in English]
Concerning the Japanese Abacus, fact the sentence "the japanese children ng with 2 soroban, 1 is 1 + 5 and the other one is 1 + 4 were stated out by me two years ago some where on the web site.
And I guess if you did read my final editing as there is a list of 4 or 5 Chinese books, which some of the material is not yet know to westerners.
In fact, a lot of westerner (may be including you) use Chinese Abacus (Traditional) follows the western method, not the method that most chinese did, and think that Chinese abacus "must be so" or "should be so".
The other thing is that if you don't want me to change your passage, even I just keep it in the abacus chinese and you still delete all my things and redirect to your site.
And, if you keep what you believe to be correct, why can't I keep what I learned read (and my own experience) in a separate page. In this case it is not you are too bossy.
The only thing I would apologize is concerning the blank pages, as I don't know that you are requesting any explanation from me.
Or, I can just start a new page and type all in chinese, so that most of you can't read the real information.
Hope that you can give me a good reason of your behavior. -- Punkymonkeypun
- I have not touched the abacus article. I suggest you direct your questions to people who have reverted your edits. One problem may be your limited grasp of English: "the japanese children ng with 2 soroban, 1 is 1 + 5 and the other one is 1 + 4" is, I regret to tell you, total gibberish.
- Blanking the Chinese abacus article was pure vandalism. Abacus chinese is a bad title and is totally unwanted - if you have stuff to say about the Chinese abacus add it to the existing article. -- RHaworth 07:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Revert - Japanese abacus
[edit]Both Mr. Finlay McWalter and Mr. RHaworth have already addressed the issue of vandalizing (blanking) Wikipedia articles. I'll say no more on this and move on.
I reverted the "Japanese abacus" chapter back to an earlier date for several reasons.
Wikipedia is respected world-wide as a source of information. Many of its articles are world class, in part because of its high standards. Unfortunately, much of what you contributed was, at best, confusing and difficult to understand. English is not your first language. No fault there. I left your contributions in place for over 10 days hoping someone might take the time to work on the grammar and spelling errors, clean up what you'd written and make it more presentable. No one did. So it had to go.
But from the outset I also found your contributions troublesome. Syntax and spelling aside, personal opinions and editorializing have no place in a Wikipedia article.
In revision 118846409 dated 15:08, 29 March 2007, you write,
"Some Japanese, by mistake, first eliminated one bead from the upper deck when they copy from an ancient chinese abacus book on which the upper most beads were omitted mis-print."
You profess to having a good working knowledge of the subject. The above statement hasn't a shred of truth. If you know as much as you say you do, why write such complete nonsense? It places the validity of all your contributions under a cloud.
In revision 121153914 dated 04:22, 8 April 2007, you write,
"Mathematics/arithmetics in Japan are still aiming at speed, rather than analysing/thinking, even in high school, and use/teach pi = 3 in calcuation."
Again syntax and spelling aside, your observations are subjective and unfounded. Worse, personal comments of this nature are considered to be editorializing and have no place in Wikipedia.
In revision 121155131 dated 04:35, 8 April 2007, you add the comment "dubious" to the end of the following paragraph.....
"Despite the advent of handheld calculators, some parents send their children to private tutors to learn soroban because proficiency in soroban calculation can be easily converted to mental arithmetic" ((dubious))
Wikipedia is not a place to air personal opinions and/or differences. Readers look to Wikipedia for well written, well informed, well rounded, objective content. Please take a moment to consider this.