User talk:Superzoulou

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, Superzoulou, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Aboutmovies (talk) 07:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Artificial cranial deformation, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Alan and Paracas (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Moving template meant for you from my talk to yours =)[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Chen Ziming has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. joe deckertalk to me 02:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

--Khazar2 (talk) 06:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Hey SZ, just wanted to let you know that after some deliberation I transformed Wang Juntao back into a redirect. After I removed the unsourced information from the article, only two sentences were left.
I'm not opposed to your idea of splitting the Arrest article, but next time you might check out WP:SPLIT as a helpful resource for how you can do this and avoid duplication; it's probably better that we just chop up that article and parcel it out to the two. That way people who come here searching for information on Wang Juntao don't end up with an unsourced mess (or a stub) when they could be looking at a 22-reference article like the Arrest one. Anyway, thanks for getting me back interested in these two. I've been working for a while on CPJ International Press Freedom Award winners, and these are two I never really fleshed out... Cheers, Khazar2 (talk) 03:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 28[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Goutte d'Or, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Saint-Ouen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Goutte d'Or[edit]

Hi! About "Little Africa" I did a google search for "Petit Afrique" and found http://sites.duke.edu/globalfrance/2011/09/28/la-contribution-d%E2%80%99afrique-en-france/ - It seems like it's prevalent. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:49, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Hmm, I checked the rest of the pages and didn't find many links for "Petit Afrique". I'm omitting it for now... WhisperToMe (talk) 01:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
~:Hi, it should be "Petite Afrique ;). http://sites.duke.edu/globalfrance/2011/09/28/la-contribution-d%E2%80%99afrique-en-france/ is clearly not written by a native French speaker. There are some web pages that refer the "Petite Afrique" or little Africa", but they are not authoritative, and may well use Wikipedia, or the newspaper article used in Wikipedia, as their source. Actually the area that would most accurately be described as "Little Africa" would be around Château-Rouge. It may be considered part of La Goutte d'or, but what I, and presumably most other Parisians, have in mind when speaking of "La Goutte d'or" is mostly the small area around the "rue de la Goutte d'Or", and it is more North-African than Subsaharan-African - ok that's Africa too, but probably not what we have in mind when speaking of Africa, and given the high number of North African people in Paris, it would not make much sense to call it little Africa just because many inhabitants are of North African descent. --Superzoulou (talk) 06:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Paris Ouest[edit]

As requested, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paris Ouest. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: kudurrus in Wikidata[edit]

The most recent survey of Kudurrus and their classification is by Ursula Seidl (1989) “Die Babylonischen Kudurru-Reliefs: Symbole Mesopotamischer Gottheiten” in which she catalogues the kudurru AO 6684 (RA 16 117-156) “bequest of land by Marduk-zâkir-šumi to Ibni-Ištar”, which I presume is the kudurru this wikipedia stub (Marduk-zakir-šumi I kudurru) refers to, as number 99. The other kudurru of Marduk-zâkir-šumi, VA 208 (VS I 35), which she catalogues as number 100, records a land sale. The better known of the two Marduk-apla-iddina II kudurrus, BM 40006 BBSt 116f, is presumably the subject of the other stub (Marduk-apal-iddina II kudurru), catalogued as 101. In summary, I think they both deserve inclusion although the articles require major work. There are around 160 kudurrus of which perhaps 40 are sufficiently preserved to deserve treatment in Wikipedia. I’m working on the Kassite-era ones at present. By the way, what exactly is the purpose of Wikidata? BigEars42 (talk) 10:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Paris[edit]

Unfortunately I think we are faced with a geek with whom civil discussion is impossible. A guy who has two user accounts (Tibetan Prayer and Dr Blofeld), who spends his days and nights editing Wikipedia (any social life?), a guy who has rewritten 80% of the Paris article in one month (any normal and sane editor would never do that; imagine if I went into the Israel article and rewrote 80% of it in one month, crazy!), and who complains to his friends when someone corrects his edits. Hard to see how we can have a fruitful discussion with someone like that. My only hope is that it draws the attention of enough editors so we can override his crazy edits. Der Statistiker (talk) 13:45, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Paris[edit]

See what happens when the personal attacks stop and you offer constructive criticism. I believe you and Promenade are acting in good faith, the odious German chap on the contrary has shown himself to be quite inhumane and incapable of polite conversation. Please keep things constructive from now on, and avoid attacking the work that's been done on it to date and you'll see that I am willing to work with you rather than against you. Many of the issues you've identified (like the oval shape, wrong area, female names etc) existed long before I edited it.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 08:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

My comments were no meant to be offensive, I was just trying to point out that there were issues with parts of the article. Sorry if that was interpreted as attacks against the work, I appreciate that it was done in good faith, and that it may sound reasonable to people who are not very famiiar with the city, but really I think that it deserves some serious review, and I had a feeling that the message was not getting across. --Superzoulou (talk) 18:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I thankyou for your approach to the article and situation to date and I genuinely am open to your input as I can see that you know the city better than me. Contrary to what Der Stat and Promenader imply, I certainly didn't edit the article to degrade anybody's work, in fact I would never have edited it but for the fact that Gilderien nominated it for GA and it would have failed and I wanted to see such an important city pass. I suppose the actual editing job done on it was a little rushed given that there was a deadline to do the changes for GAR, so is currently not perfect, and errors and misunderstandings could have crept in, which is why I really need you to work with me and not against me as the others are. I was quite responsive to your lead concerns and didn't revert your edits. I do get the feeling that you are exaggerating how bad the article actually is, but I'll assume good faith that you know the city extremely well and are in the position to make just judgements which the average person here is blind to. But I really mean it that the best way forward is for you to pick the most problematic section first and write your version of it, and then it can be discussed. You just saying what is wrong with it and Der Stat and Promenader coming up with the repetitive "let's revert, how dare you invade our turf" approach really isn't helping the situation. Please draft a version of the demographics section in your sandbox and you might be surprised that I might be accepting of it if it isn't too long and doesn't have too many tables. The average reader doesn't want excessive data and information on demographics, but some issues like agglomeration etc might be worth pursuing, your call. A lot of editors on here are willing to make a great number of critical comments on the work of others but when it comes down to it are unwilling to edit themselves. You've already made a lot of good edits, I hope that you'll feel confident enough in me that if you write and improve a given section which isn't excessively bloated I'll likely be supportive of it.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 17:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, re-reading the older "demographics" section, I do see that the many tables may have looked unappealing. I can try to edit some things but there are two catches: the first is that I can spot places in the article that do not seem to emphasize the rights points, but replacing them with relevant and properly-sourced content is much more difficult and time consuming. The second is that there are structural questions that we need to sort out. For the demographics section, that includes: how much data about the suburbs should be included and is it the right place to talk about ethnicity, religion or wages (looking at similar articles, it seems to be the way it is usually done). The way we address these issues in one section will have an impact on the structure of the whole article. --Superzoulou (talk) 18:08, 5 August 2013 (UTC)