User talk:83.249.4.255: Difference between revisions
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
:''If this is a [[Network address translation|shared IP address]], and you did not make the edits, consider [[Wikipedia:Why create an account?|creating an account]] for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.''<!-- Template:Shared IP advice --> |
:''If this is a [[Network address translation|shared IP address]], and you did not make the edits, consider [[Wikipedia:Why create an account?|creating an account]] for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.''<!-- Template:Shared IP advice --> |
||
Why are you deleting a correct translation which is sourced to a dictionary that cannot be edited by users at the Åsa Romson page? I can perhaps understand that you deleted google translate, but this is a serious dictionary (which, of course, gives the same results as the previous google translate source did)? Thereby, you are removing correct and relevant facts from an article, thus making the article less correct and factual and falsely portraying a person's actual words. How can you accept the previous Wiki users' translations of her words that don't even provide a translation source, but have instead been translated by an anonymous Internet user? How does that unknown Wiki user's translation trump official dictionary translations? What source could you possibly feel is more valid for a Swedish/English translation than a Swedish/English dictionary (which furthermore demonstrably gives the same results as the previous google translate link you deleted)? What source can I possibly provide other than a Swedish/English dictionary that you won't delete in these circumstances? There is none. You have thereby made it impossible to correct the politically motivated faults (i.e. political propaganda) in the Åsa Romson article. |
Why are you deleting a correct translation which is sourced to a dictionary that cannot be edited by users at the Åsa Romson page? I can perhaps understand that you deleted google translate, but this is a serious dictionary (which, of course, gives the same results as the previous google translate source did)? Thereby, you are removing correct and relevant facts from an article, thus making the article less correct and factual and falsely portraying a person's actual words. How can you accept the previous Wiki users' translations of her words that don't even provide a translation source, but have instead been translated by an anonymous Internet user, but refuse an official dictionary translation? My head is beginning to spin at the lack of consequential logic. How does that unknown Wiki user's translation trump official dictionary translations? What source could you possibly feel is more valid for a Swedish/English translation than a Swedish/English dictionary (which furthermore demonstrably gives the same results as the previous google translate link you deleted)? What source can I possibly provide other than a Swedish/English dictionary that you won't delete in these circumstances? There is none. You have thereby made it impossible to correct the politically motivated faults (i.e. political propaganda) in the Åsa Romson article. |
||
== May 2016 == |
== May 2016 == |
||
Revision as of 15:22, 9 May 2016
April 2016
Hello, I'm FuriouslySerene. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Åsa Romson, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! FuriouslySerene (talk) 17:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
Why are you deleting a correct translation which is sourced to a dictionary that cannot be edited by users at the Åsa Romson page? I can perhaps understand that you deleted google translate, but this is a serious dictionary (which, of course, gives the same results as the previous google translate source did)? Thereby, you are removing correct and relevant facts from an article, thus making the article less correct and factual and falsely portraying a person's actual words. How can you accept the previous Wiki users' translations of her words that don't even provide a translation source, but have instead been translated by an anonymous Internet user, but refuse an official dictionary translation? My head is beginning to spin at the lack of consequential logic. How does that unknown Wiki user's translation trump official dictionary translations? What source could you possibly feel is more valid for a Swedish/English translation than a Swedish/English dictionary (which furthermore demonstrably gives the same results as the previous google translate link you deleted)? What source can I possibly provide other than a Swedish/English dictionary that you won't delete in these circumstances? There is none. You have thereby made it impossible to correct the politically motivated faults (i.e. political propaganda) in the Åsa Romson article.
May 2016
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Åsa Romson. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. FuriouslySerene (talk) 13:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
An official dictionary is not a novel synthesis for the definition of a word. It is the most valid source possible. What an utterly preposterously ignorant statement. Take it from someone with an MA in professional translation who furthermore works as a professional qualified translator at Sweden's leading university. Furthermore, a synthesis is a combination of several ideas to form a new single idea. A translation is not a synthesis. I don't think you know what the word even means.