User:Ground Zero

For your tireless work on all things Canadian, especially the elections tables, I hereby award you the **Barnstar of National Merit**. --Death **phoenix** (KC)

A Wikipedia administrator since August 2005, and Holy Roman Emperor.

The Language reference desk is now open to answer your questions about English grammar and usage.

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 userid that there would be any connection to the September 11 tragedy in the United States. I mean no disrespect to its victims or their families.

"Let's build a great Canada!"

-- Marg Margison, correspondent on CBC's Jimmy MacDonald's Canada

"This uncromulent neologism disembiggens Wikipedia."

-- BDAbramson's reason for deleting an article entitled "United Statian" (an alternative word to describe Americans).

Bookmarks: Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board VfD parties colours Manitoba Vandalism .

Vandalism of this page

This page has been vandalized four times:

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"

As noted above, and in the Ground Zero article, the term pre-dates September 11 and has a much broader usage. The headline on 29 August 2005 edition of the New Orleans Times-Picayune newspaper was "Ground Zero", in reference to the damage wrought by Hurricane Katrina. I think that the vandal must be too young to remember the use of the phrase prior to 2001.

His edit summary went further to call me a "liberal fucktard". I am actually a Red Tory fucktard.

16 June 2005 -- an anonymous editor wrote "FUCKING CANADIAN", and gave as an edit summary, "LIBERAL PIGS". Note the incorrect use of the plural.
29 August 2005 -- an anonymous editor converted my "Barnstar of National Merit" to a "Barnstar of National Homosexuality", and added "Canada sucks".
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.
7 December 2005 -- an anonymous editor posted some uninspired vandalism about Canada. If you're going to go to the effort of vandalizing my user page, make it worthwhile. Post something funny or creative. Thanks.

Punctuation

Commas make sentences easier to read by grouping the different parts of the sentence in a logical way. There is no shortage of them, but many writers seem loath to use them. Here is a supply for anyone who is concerned about running short. Please help yourself:

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

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 thought I was the only one who thought that many wikipedia articles lack commas in the appropriate places. I use a screen reader with a speech synthesizer, which will only pause when there is a comma or colon in the text. Usually, if a sentence doesn't sound right when spoken by the synthesizer, it means that it is missing a comma. I've always believed that a comma should separate two clauses, and therefore should naturally break up a sentence into comprehensible parts. I'm just glad someone agrees with me on this point. Graham 9 July 2005 07:40 (UTC)"

Copyediting

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:

Long sentences can prevent these readers from being able to use Wikipedia. Breaking long, run-on sentences up into separate, concise thoughts can make Wikipedia easier to understand. The Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles says: "Use short sentences does not mean use fewer words. It means don't use unnecessary words, and sometimes using full stops/periods rather than commas." . .
Non-English-speaking people can find sentences with complicated structures very difficult to read. It seems that many Wikipedia writers have an aversion to subject-verb-object sentences.
"Which" and "that" are not interchangeable. Each has its own use and conveys different information to the reader. Please see below for more.
Initialisms (acronyms) should be spelled in full in the first instance in an article, and not just Wikilinked, i.e., "Member of Parliament (MP)", not "[[MP]]".
References to places should include the country in which they are located, e.g., "Quebec, Canada", and not just "Quebec" (at least, until such time as Quebec is an independent country.)

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:

If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it.

Thank you.

Linking

The Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles says: "When you do create links, link only one or a few instances of the same term; don't link all instances of it." Many writers link every instance of an article name, creating an ugly kalaidescope of blue and red in the article. It isn't necessary.
Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes warns against "Over-Wikifying": "Wikipedia thrives on internal links, but keep it within reason."
Also, links should be made only where they are relevant to the article, and not to every word. See Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context.

Some of the articles that I have started

Political parties

Other work

Progressive Conservative leadership conventions: 1967, 1976, and 1983;
Ontario Progressive Conservative leadership conventions, 1985;
Parti Québécois leadership election, 2005
Malcolm Wallace McCutcheon, John MacLean and Mary Walker-Sawka (candidates at 1967 PC leadership convention);
Roy McMurtry and Dennis Timbrell (former Ontario cabinet ministers and candidates at 1985 Ontario PC convention);
Alberta elections, 1905-1993, Saskatchewan elections, 1905-1999, Ontario elections, 1867-1995, British Columbia elections, 1903-1983;
Janet Ecker (former Ontario finance minister);
Camil Samson, Quebec politician;
Henri-Georges Grenier (perennial candidate in Quebec);
John Ross Robertson, a Toronto newspaper editor;
Les Boubou Macoutes;
Secessionist movements of Canada;

List of Quebec senators;
Mira Spivak (Canadian Senator);
Bill Sveinson, Barry Chilton and Wilf Hanni (fringe Canadian politicians);
Michael Meadowcroft, founder of the re-founded UK Liberal Party;
Henry Farm and Rathnelly (neighbourhoods in Toronto);
Linear city; Scarborough Hospital;
Centretown West and Lebreton Flats (Ottawa neighbourhoods), and Ottawa SuperEX;
Sayvette, Katz Group of Companies, A&P Canada, Consumers Distributing, Bretton's (Canadian retailers);
Air Nunavut, Provincial Airlines, Innu Mikun Airlines;
Canada's name;
Ethiopia-Eritrea War;
Last Night, a Canadian film by Don McKellar;
Committee on Monetary and Economic Reform, Pilgrims of Saint Michael (social credit groupuscules), and Category:Social Crediters;
Flag of Acadia; and

various defunct Canadian banks.

My rescues

By undertaking sometimes massive re-writes, I have rescued several poorly-written articles on worthy subjects that were nominated for deletion, including:

Italian-Canadian;
Alberta separatism;
Algiers Agreement (converted from text of the agreement);
Israel Polack (converted text from copyvio material);
Sovereign Grand Lodge of Malta;
Student Federalists; and
Kenneth Montgomery Keillor

Which or that?

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:

A1. My car that is blue needs painting.

A2. My car, which is blue, needs painting.

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.

B1. The studies that were written by graduate students are well-researched.

B2. The studies, which were written by graduate students, are well-researched.

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 graduates 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 graduates 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 graduates 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 graduates 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:

Use that when the information is essential to the meaning of the sentence.
Use which when it is not essential.

Also note that because which introduces incidental information, unlike that, it is typically preceded by a comma.

Notability

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.

Disclosure

I previously wrote using the user name "Kevintoronto".

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.