User talk:Todxohuman

February 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. I notice you recently added several personal commentaries and reflections which are critical of the South Korean government's position on The Four Major Rivers Project. While I understand the controvertial nature of the project, please read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia, and in particular read Wikipedia's policies on taking a neutral point of view, and providing verifiable references which have been previously published in reliable sources. Astronaut (talk) 16:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

What is neutral point of view
Just parrot Korean Goverment's fraudulent propaganda to falsely justify its wrong govermental project. The Korean Goverment, in fact, Mr. Lee's greedy gang argues they are going to prevent flood damaging in Gangwon Province by doing the Four Major Rivers Project in Gyunggi, Gyungsang, Junra and Choongchung Provinces. So fantastic technology!
 * My reverting of your edits is nothing to do with the Korean government or allegations of propoganda - in fact I have no opinion about this project. If the project is controversial, why not add an "enviroinmental concerns" or "criticism of the project" section?   Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and readers have an expectation of an encyclopedic style of writing without having to filter out your personal commentary on each paragraph.  You might want to read Wikipedia's policy on soapboxing.  Astronaut (talk) 02:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Just Style. For real encyclopedia, I think it would be better to keep removing articles of any governments' or political parties' propaganda. I just rearrange my writing to give a look of encyclopedia.
 * Ah! An improvement.  We have a section which discusses the criticism the project has attracted. I have added an introduction to the parts that criticise the project.  However, it still needs some work throughout the whole article:
 * The generally advert-like tone of the first part needs to be toned down.
 * The criticism sections need to be copyedited to improve the English.
 * The final section just seems to be a rehash of the criticisms followed by some serious non-NPOV ranting against the Lee administration (something that really has no place in an encyclopedia).
 * If you read the policy on soapboxing I linked above, you might have also seen on the same page that Wikipedia is not censored. That is why criticism of this project is welcome in the article just as much as the government's objectives for the project are welcome in the article.  My concern was not with what you were trying to say, but with with the style and tone of your writing.  I will come back another day.  Astronaut (talk) 05:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)