I edited the sections, Tourism and Cityscape and added information of 5.18Road and Mudeung Mountain.
I edited the sections, Tourism and Cityscape and added information of 5.18Road and Mudeung Mountain.
Now i want to edit more because I know 'Editing' is not difficult.
Now i want to edit more because I know 'Editing' is not difficult.
== Hi this is byung do jung who having a class in hanyang uinv. ==
Here is my works.
* I made my '''Wikipedia account''' which is "byung do jung" and making an edit with tutorials by using my sandbox
* I edited one article [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aero_Africa]]
* I made a constructive comment [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sydney_Opera_House]]
* I joined the group number two which is named ''Incredible'' with Hyejin kim & sang guk son
* I send a ''user talk'' to confirm my work of today.
Revision as of 12:38, 11 March 2013
: 632
: 82
: 6
: 22
You have the right to stay informed. Exercise it by reading the Wikipedia Signpost today.
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived. Sections without timestamps (not signed with ~~~~) are archived manually when I get around to it.
"You have new messages" was designed for a purpose: letting people know you have replied to them. I do not watch your talk page and I will likely IGNORE your reply if it is not copied to my page, as I will not be aware that you replied! Oh, Template:Talkback is ok. Thank you.
Please add new comments in new sections if you are addressing a new issue. Please sign it by typing four tildes, like this: ~~~~. Thanks in advance.
Piotrus, can you please check back to see whether SMUconlaw has supplied the information you requested for your DYK review? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:47, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thoughts
I know that You are interested and involved in matters regarding Poland and Polish history and I see Your efforts and that You do lot of good things here on en:wiki so we all should be very gratefull for that. I will therefore take some time to explain few things that might be usefull for You. You can remove this text after reading...if You like to read this, its long.
Few thought regarding what is right and what is wrong. Look at the article on pl:wiki "Ostoja (herb szlachecki) and You will notice that it is FA (or medal) article. I have been assisting in creating this article and it seems like it is well written but it is not! There are several major errors in this article, the problem is that we cannot change those errors without new publications so basically what we do is copying all those errors and make people think that what is written in the article is correct since it is of FA quality. In many cases people including many professors do not care about the truth or what is right and publish nonsens that we then have to publish. In my opinion, such copying errors is totally useless. Best scientiests in heraldry we have in Poland would agree with me on this but still, there are no new publication jet to correct those errors. And errors in genalogy and heraldry are so many that You can not even imagine how many they are! So Im familiar with wiki policy that we have to publish errors but is it not a shame that we publish errors that common people believe in?
In the case of article "Ostoja (herb szlachecki)" we are really lucky because here we have in total 7 years of research under supervision of professors of Jagiellonian University that are today best in the subject so what we will publish in few months time will be quite revolutionary in the field of genealogy and heraldry of Ostoja. I will then finally be able to correct all those awfull errors in the article - as for now, Im quite ashamed over the quality of this article. I made few changes in the article on en:wiki "Ostoja coat of arms" - this is published on official page of the Ostoja Clan Association and of course the most correct publication on polish CoA we have today (except for the list of the families), it is of course monitored by all the best scientiests in the field of heraldry. I would rather think that the source (Ostoja Clan Association) is important publication since we do not publish errors and fairy tells although we still have years of work in correcting the list of Ostoja families - still 103 families that we have no clue how they become clan members and therefore researching their origin. For example, as for Lithuanian and Belarus families - did You know that only those that joined in 1413 and 1450 should be concidered? All families that joined any Clan after that is in most incorrect and whatever late documents tell, it is still a mystery how they could get there! If You are interested, I can forward publication on that matter for You to read.
Publications of Gajl (herbarz) that most lists are made of on wiki is just a list of names that in some documents are linked to a CoA but most of those documents are not veryfied being of any value. Gajl want to find as many names as possible to sell his books - what he did past 30 year of researching documents is truly galactic work - his last book just amazing, I cant even imagine that he is still in good mental health and this. He check the documents if they are not false but of course, he cannot examine if there are errors or not - it is impossible for 1-2 persons to do that - it take army of historians working for 30 years to verify 10 CoA and all families that are on his list. Most of art on CoA on pl:wiki and en:wiki use his list and make people think that it is correct - he found the documents, he published the books - so it have to be correct, but is it really so?
I will here give You one good example that refere what Im writing about, about the errors. Check the stub on pl:wiki that I created "Mościc z Wielkiego Kozmina" (yes, it is written Moscic de Magni Kozmin in latin). In the section of "Bibliografia" You see 3 references, the last one of Matelski - or it is a publication of 3 professors - Matelski, Nawrocki and Radomski. In their publication 1997 they write Moscic z Wielkiego Kozmina herbu Ostoja - the voivode of Poznan 1242-1252. Now, how on earth can they publish such nonsens? There is no seals of Moscic preserved and we then cannot establish if there was any CoA in year 1242 - it could possibly be question of family sign (in polish protoherb - that we found just few years ago and now can verify who it belonged to from year 1232). Ask those 3 professors for sources and they will not be able to give You any! But this is not the worse thing in this particular case. Much more interesting would be to ask them for sources that prove existence of Moscic! The tricky part here is that the sources they use are not realible. Paprocki? :)) We have people that digg in the archives in Germany (Teutonic Knights), Poland, Slovakia and more - we know latin, german and russian (except me, read only polish) - and You know what? We can't find any note about him, the guy simply does not exist - and surely he was not the owner of Wielki Kozmin! We will do last check on that in certain archives to be sure before I remove him from wiki and from the website of the Ostoja Clan Association. Is it not strange that we now 2013 still publish fairy tells that have been published by people that did not do proper research and that in many cases invented information? Check in Boniecki (Herbarz) for Poniecki family and You will see Scibor z Ponieca ab. year 1100. If You digg into this matter, You will not be able to see any proof that this guy origin from "Ostoja" family and reading all documents avaiable in the archives and in IH PAN, it does not make sence that he could possibly be owner of Poniec at that time. Same with Sciborze from 1065 - written there by Benedictines and known as falsificate from 100 years later, they simply dated documents 100 years back in time. If we read carefully, we would then know that Sciborze could not be in Ostoja family hands before year 1200.
I could write about all those errors days and weeks and after that I would still not know even 1% of them - add all people that do research on this and You would be terrified! Did You know that more than 50% of all nobility verifications during the partition time given to families by the Herold of Polish Kingdom (Heroldia Krolewska) are absolutely useless? :) So...if I now would write art on Moscic de Magni Kozmin, the voivode of Poznan in en:wiki, I would easily make art with given sources and publications but...I would then also publish something that to 90% is not true. In same time, when discussing names like Jan z Jani, I understand Your point of view - that we have to give source when we publish. Here, I would have to copy from polish and German documents from medieval time and it would be possible to prove it. You know perfectly well that at that time everything was written in latin. Basically, it is not so important wherever art will be spelled Jan z Jani or Jan den Jani, it is just that I don't like to take part in publishing errors - like I did in the case of "Ostoja (herb szlachecki). I also need to make few corrections on the art of "Clan of Ostoja" - here I think we could have GA if I could get time to add page nr. to references. When I started writing, I was stupid to not add them from the beginning.
In the end, it is a question of the intension - do You prefere to write art regardless if it is right or wrong but published and so there is a reference or do You prefere to publish what is more correct? We all do errors since its human to do that but still, what are the intensions? Do we write about Zawisza Czarny that he was most known polish knight and telling the truth? :) Or shall we write the true story about this guy? Think about it...as for me, as soon I have any useful new publication, I will most certainly change much more - as I did already with art "Ostoja coat of arms" - as you can see - there are many imaginary Ostoja CoA. Lets be honest, all heraldists before WW II where amateurs and we also know that since XVII century it was common to group all CoA that are similar and call them "variant" of X CoA - witch is crime on heraldry but...someone invented this horrible thing and all other followed John. Not to mension all crime done on original CoA - here at least the story in the art "Ostoja (herb szlachecki)" is very correct. Finally, there are people that started to make corrections, there will be more and more publications but until then...we should be aware of all those errors in the field of heraldry, genealogy and given names. Best regards, camdan (talk) 06:56, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent work on Armia Krajowa! You are right on the reference and explenation when sources are not sufficient, I reckon that I read to many documents from medieval time so for me latin translation is pretty obviouse and normal. When You see Scibor in pl and Stibor in en I recall to Stiborius and understand the origin of the pronouncement. So if there are no other sources, we translate old medieval names adding latin. Other suggestions I have following Kaj Malachowskis example is to translate Starosta as Lord of regality since it is exactly same function. I have been reading history since 1986 and I can tell You than I now understand that my knowledge is just top of the iceberg. But I will follow Your kind remark and write explanation to the spelling of the name. As for sources, it is almost impossible to defend without them so yes, in most cases we do have to wait for ne publications. Regards, camdan (talk) 18:14, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I undestand that translation could be confusing since offices often changed characters and in Lithuania in XV century it was quite different than office of starosta in for ex. Mazowsze but generally it does correspond well with Lord of regality and it make more sence to the reader that does not know anything about polish offices and ranks. Palatine is different as is the voivode title. Here, to not confuse the reader I would also use polish spelling but before year 1500 it clearly corresponded to german herzog so it is correct to translate as duke. I discussed matter of spelling names (medieval time) in english with some excellent historians and they actually say that to not confuse the reader it's ok to use Jan of Janie although they would prefer Joannes de Janie as most correct. So basically, this discussion would be usefull if we agree on translationg with of. Finally, I would be greatfull if You correspond with me before changing in the future. Even if I would be best in the world on the subject I still would be open for any suggestion with all the respect, right or wrong. Also, as I can see, there are people that are commenting issues without basic knowledge so putting Jan de Jani for voting is useless, unless You just with to have your own right on this. Im pretty surprised how people can come to conclusion that de in Jan de Jani is french when talking about medieval names. I read and study so much history that I now start to make the correction of what I know. This is because there are very few correct publications and few authors that did correct research. So in most, we have to learn with errors for some 20 year and then for next 20 years start to correct all this bullshit those professors and amateurs wrote. so lets make it easy and move Jan de Jani to Jan of Janie camdan (talk) 13:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you on behalf of WikiProject Globalization! We appreciate your contribution(s) and invite you to join us in further improving Wikipedia's coverage of globalization. Feel free to ask questions or make suggestions on the project's talk page.
My account name is 'JinsuRyu' and I joined group No.6 with 'Choi Hyun Hee, Bohyunlee'.
I learned about editing Wikipedia through tutorial.
However I have one question. What's mean "Don't forget to sign your posts on talk and discussion pages properly"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JinsuRyu (talk • contribs) 07:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
assignment before March 12 /Minzi Yuk
I created a Wikipedia account,finished the Wikipedia Tutorial,
made an edit in the Wikipeida Tutorial Sandbox about Gojandong i'm living
,made one constructive edit to a Wikipedia article(Ansan article)
,made a constructive comment to a Wikipedia's article discussion page(about ansan talk page)
,signed talk pages
and joined a group (that includes adding yourself to the linked section below) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minzi Yuk (talk • contribs) 09:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
assignment before March 12 /Young Seong Kim
Hi? my account name is Young Seong Kim.!!
My Group and I created a Wikipedia account,finished the Wikipedia Tutorial,made an edit in the Wikipedia Tutorial Sandbox about Pangyo-dong in Gyeng gi- province.
Made one constructive edit to a Wikipedia article (Pangyo and Pangyo museum article)
Made a constructive comment to a Wikipedia's article discussion page (about Pangyo talk page)
and finally signed talk pages.
and joined a group (that includes adding yourself to the linked section below) My team name is <3Y>
Wikipedia assignment before March 12 11/ sae young jeoung
1. name : sae young jeoung
2. account name : gotpdud
3. I created a Wikipedia account,finished the Wikipedia Tutorial,
4. made an edit in the Wikipeida Tutorial Sandbox : ingye dong
5. made one constructive edit to a Wikipedia article : suwon
6. made a constructive comment to a Wikipedia's article discussion page : suwon
and joined a group
--Gotpdud (talk) 09:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Help with a bias statement
Hi,
Thanks for creating a talk page for me last week, I'm still getting used to how to use Wikipedia as a registered user!
As you're an experienced user it would be good to get some help with a problem I have if you're willing?
The main reason I'm active right now is because I read something really bias on a Wikipedia article and felt the need to do something about it as I've always viewed Wikipedia as informational and impartial unlike many websites on the internet.
It is about a line in the opening paragraph on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx
'He is also considered one of the greatest economists of all time.'
But after giving specifics as to the rules which this sentence has broken I have not heard anything. No other users have commented on the discussion.
Just to specify here, I believe it's broken these rules as quoted from Wikipedia:
"Be careful with weasel words
Weasel words are a way to give unconfirmable assertions the appearance of fact. "Houston is considered the friendliest city in the world." Really, now. Who says so? Do not use expressions like "is claimed", "is thought to be", and "is alleged," without saying specifically who is doing the claiming, thinking or alleging."[1]
"Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil.""[2]
As explained above (the word 'considered' is even used in the example of what not to use), such broad statements should not be made, instead the sentence should refer specifically to the people who say so. An accurate phrase would be for example "Vince Cable lists him as the 4th greatest economist of all time."
That is an undisputed statement. Whereas the broad terminology which is currently used does not state who considers him to be one of the greatest economists of all time, and therefore leaves the impression it is a widespread belief which it is not, and the references do not support that either.
Another rule it breaks is:
"Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements."[3]
If you view the Wikipedia page for Criticisms of Marxism[4] and scroll down to the economics section you can find numerous criticisms by economists who would not consider him to be a good economist at all which is completely counter to the statement.
So I'm just wondering what I should do now? I can't edit the page myself and no one else is contributing to the discussion so I don't know who to bring this up with now? I don't want to give up until that sentence is removed as I believe it's spreading disinformation and was added by users trying to promote his agenda. Not even Adam Smith has such a prominent and broad statement of greatness in the opening paragraph of his Wikipedia article so it seems totally inappropriate for such a controversial figure as Karl Marx to have this stated. In fact I don't think I've ever read a Wikipedia article about a person which has such a broad unspecified statement of praise in an opening paragraph.
Update: I'm going to bring up a dispute resolution as I noticed this has been talked about in depth before as well. Let me know if there is anything else you think I should do. Thanks! Hutchski (talk) 11:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.
What this noticeboard is:
It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.
What this noticeboard is not:
It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.
Things to remember:
Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page.
If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.
Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBotoperator / talk 12:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi.I'm Sanha. I tried to edit and I did it. :D
Hi, Peter.
I am Lee san-ha.
Well..It is the first time to me. Actually i thought 'Editing' is pretty difficult and i was a little intimidated.
But i found 'Editing' easier than i expected.
I tried to edit the page about Gwangju. Gwangju is my hometown.
I edited the sections, Tourism and Cityscape and added information of 5.18Road and Mudeung Mountain.
Now i want to edit more because I know 'Editing' is not difficult.
Hi this is byung do jung who having a class in hanyang uinv.
Here is my works.
I made my Wikipedia account which is "byung do jung" and making an edit with tutorials by using my sandbox
: 632
: 82
: 6
: 22
You have the right to stay informed. Exercise it by reading the Wikipedia Signpost today.
