User talk:Dewritech

Not improvements

Some (a minority) of the edits you are making are not actually improvements. For example I have just partially reverted two of your edits, on Lebanese pound and Franc. Please could you stop making large numbers of unreliable edits.---Ehrenkater (talk) 15:11, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. As for my edit on Lebanese pound you may want to read Conjunctive adverb#placement; as for my edit on Franc you may want to read MOS:CAPS#Anglo- and similar prefixes.-- Dewritech (talk) 16:15, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Guttenberg

I see you've reverted my addition the Guttenplag image of Guttenberg's thesis plagiarism. As you can see [1], the result of an RfC was that the section on Guttenberg's plagiarism should be expanded to a few paragraphs, reflecting its (apparently decisive) importance to his political career. Your interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines (that when a "main article" is separated out, a topic no longer needs to be given due weight in the original article) was not shared by those who commented in the RfC. I'd like to move forward on this issue somehow, but if you revert me every time I try to expand the plagiarism section to give it the due weight it deserves, that's impossible. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I reverted your addition of the Guttenplag thumbnail due to the fact that it presents POV-data. Although part of your caption addressed this issue ("A representation of claimed plagiarism in Guttenberg's thesis.") the thumbnail needs additional information with regard to its information's origin, political stance of its authors, contradictions to others’ findings (e.g. attorney), etc. All this information and this thumbnail is contained in the separate article on the plagiarism; Causa Guttenberg. It might be of interest for you, that in the German Wikipedia this thumbnail only appears in GuttenPlag, an article about the crowd platform. It neither appears in the article on Guttenberg nor in the separate article on plagiarism. In addition, to just mention the attorneys’ findings, as according to Causa Guttenberg they identified "23 relevant copyright violations", would violate NPOV, too. Therefore, every information and every use of photos has to address WP:NPOV. As for the RfC, it supported a small expansion of the main article without consensus on the amount of content. Maybe you want to follow the RfC’s final comment (Small expansion since the scandal has its own page, I do not believe there should be much more expansion to the section other than a paragraph shedding a little more light on the subject.) and add some information, e.g. on the different number of findings of GuttenPlag, University, and attorneys.-- Dewritech (talk) 15:48, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Leaving aside the issue of the Guttenplag image for a moment, we should address the fundamental point: how do WP:WEIGHT and WP:BALASP apply to Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg? My understanding of your position is this: Causa Guttenberg covers the plagiarism scandal in detail, so that scandal should receive only a short treatment in Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg. However, that position seems to be fundamentally at odds with WP:WEIGHT and WP:BALASP. Quoting from WP:WEIGHT:

"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."

Note that WP:WEIGHT applies to each article, rather than to all of Wikipedia. Within each article, the topics should be treated according to their weight.

Quoting from WP:BALASP:

"An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject."

Note that here too, balance should be given to different subjects within each article, not across the entirety of Wikipedia.

To give an example of how WP:WEIGHT and WP:BALASP apply, let's consider the two related articles "Barack Obama" and "Presidency of Barack Obama." The article "Presidency of Barack Obama" covers Barack Obama's Presidency in great detail. However, this does not mean that Obama's Presidency receives only a short treatment in the article "Barack Obama." In "Barack Obama," his Presidency takes up a share of the article proportionate to its importance to his biography (which is, of course, a large share). If we were to dramatically pare down "Barack Obama#Presidency (since 2009)," using the justification that it's already covered by "Presidency of Barack Obama," we would be violating WP:WEIGHT and WP:BALASP.

The same principle applies in the article "Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg." The plagiarism scandal should be given weight proportional to its importance to his biography. The existence of a separate article, "Causa Guttenberg," which covers the scandal does not mean that the article "Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg" should cover this subject only briefly, any more than the existence of "Presidency of Barack Obama" implies that the Presidency of Barack Obama should receive only short treatment in "Barack Obama."

So let's consider whether the plagiarism scandal gets due weight in the article "Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg." Here is a breakdown of a number of different subsections in the article:

• Center for Strategic and International Studies: 415 words.
• No Disconnect Strategy: 188 words.
• NSA scandal: 213 words.
• Russia: 262 words.
• Spitzberg Partners: 207 words.
• Plagiarism scandal and resignation: 83 words.

In the media, coverage of the plagiarism scandal dwarfs coverage of Guttenberg's time at CSIS, the "No Disconnect Strategy," his comments on the NSA scandal, his comments on Russia, and his formation of Spitzerg Partners. How can the relative weight given to those subjects in "Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg" possibly be reconciled with WP:WEIGHT and WP:BALASP?

Once we agree on what WP:WEIGHT and WP:BALASP mean, then we can move on. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

As for counting words, in the English Wikipedia the articles about Guttenberg contain 9,377 words. 4,639 of these words are related to the plagiarism issue, almost 49.5 percent. Therefore, one in two words on Guttenberg is related to plagiarism, which obviously meets WP:WEIGHT and WP:BALASP.

As for a split, see #6 of WP:CORRECTSPLIT:

• Create a good summary of the subtopic at the parent article.

Therefore, you may want to work on the summary.-- Dewritech (talk) 13:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Dewritech, it's almost as if you completely ignored the half of my post where I discuss Wikipedia policy. Specifically, the fact that English Wikipedia devotes 4,639 of 9,377 words on Guttenberg to plagiarism is irrelevant to WP:BALASP and WP:WEIGHT. I explained this in detail in my above post. What matters is balance within an article, not balance across English Wikipedia. Please read my post again and then tell me whether you agree.

Secondly, you're fundamentally misunderstanding WP:CORRECTSPLIT. The point of splitting an article is summarized by WP:SPLIT as follows:

"refactoring an article into child or sister articles can allow subtopics to be discussed more fully elsewhere without dominating a general overview article to which they are non-central"

Clearly, Causa Guttenberg is too long to be included as a subsection of Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg. Including all of Causa Guttenberg would violate WP:BALASP. The point of splitting out Causa Guttenberg is to allow it to be covered in detail on Wikipedia, while allowing Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg to cover its topic with the appropriate balance of subjects. Therefore, when WP:CORRECTSPLIT says that one should

"Create a good summary of the subtopic at the parent article,"

what is meant is that one should create a summary that obeys WP:BALASP and WP:WEIGHT. That means that if the subject deserves one third of the parent article, the summary should be one third of the parent article. You are erroneously interpreting "good summary" to mean "short summary." Your interpretation is clearly at odds with WP:BALASP, and if we were to apply it consistently across Wikipedia, it would lead to absurd results. For example, the page on Barack Obama would barely mention his Presidency, since there's a separate article on the Presidency of Barack Obama. In other words, your interpretation of WP:CORRECTSPLIT is clearly in error.

-Thucydides411 (talk) 22:31, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks you for comment. I'm sorry, but the misinterpretation of WP:CORRECTSPLIT is on your side. Let us read #6 of WP:CORRECTSPLIT in total:

• 6. Create a good summary of the subtopic at the parent article. Note: it may be best to prepare this in advance as summarising several pages of text and selecting a single image may not be a trivial task.

Therefore, in the process of splitting it's a usual task to summarize several pages into some few paragraphs. And as WP directly links to the sister article, all information is instantly available – and the fact that there is a separate article on a certain topic emphasizes its relevance. We have to keep in mind the close wikilink connection between topic and subtopic!

Let me give two examples related to US presidents: as fo Bill Clinton's impeachement, less than 3 percent of the words of his main article relate to this issue; as for Watergate, less than 8 percent of the Richard Nixon article relate to it. Due to the fact that there are seprate sister articles on these issues (Impeachment of Bill Clinton, Watergate scandal, and Impeachment process of Richard Nixon), theses are no violations of WP:WEIGHT or WP:BALASP. Same here, although the summary might be in need of some additional information, which is in line with the RfC you initiated earlier. Therefore, you may just want to follow the given link from WP:SPLIT to WP:SUMMARY. Thank you.-- Dewritech (talk) 15:43, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

The quote you give above from #6 does not at all support your conclusion. Despite the fact that you say, "Therefore," I honestly see no logical connection between the quote and your conclusion. It looks to me like you cited a sentence from WP:CORRECTSPLIT and then proceeded to write down what you would like policy to be. We need to create a "good summary" of the plagiarism scandal. What length should this "good summary" have? WP:BALASP and WP:WEIGHT dictate that.

The examples you give of Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon do not support your point. Bill Clinton had a long political career: nearly 11 years as governor of Arkansas and 8 years as President. Obviously, there are numerous political events, policies, crises, etc. that the article on Bill Clinton should cover, and WP:BALASP might dictate that the impeachment should only get a few percent of the article. The same goes with Nixon, a longtime Congressman, Senator, Vice President and President - someone who was continuously prominent in American politics for nearly 30 years. Again WP:BALASP might well dictate that about 8 percent of the article be devoted solely to Watergate. After all, Watergate is competing with some hefty topics for space in the article - topics like: the HUAC hearings, Nixon's Vice Presidency, Nixon's failed run for Presidency, Nixon's successful run for the Presidency, the opening up of relations with China, the Vietnam War, the Middle East (including the 1973 War), Civil Rights. You get the picture - there are a lot of subjects to cover for both Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon, and those articles seem to me to be following WP:BALASP.

Notice, as well, that the summaries given of the impeachment scandal in Bill Clinton and Watergate in Richard Nixon are fairly weighty. They are enough to let you know the major players and events in those scandals. By contrast, the plagiarism scandal summary Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg article barely lets you know anything about the scandal. We're basically saying, "If you want to know about the most important event in this person's political career, you have to read a different article."

Again, WP:BALASP and WP:WEIGHT apply within a single article. The guidelines are crystal clear. You've been trying to formulate a reading of WP:CORRECTSPLIT that bypasses WP:BALASP and WP:WEIGHT. Using this rationale for ignoring WP:BALASP, you've consistently prevented any expansion of the extremely threadbare coverage of the plagiarism scandal in the article Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg. That's why it's so important for you to admit, at this point, that your reading of the guidelines is incorrect, and to allow us to follow policy in the article Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:43, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

The summary on the impeachement scandal in Bill Clinton clearly follows WP:CORRECTSPLIT. Same with Nixon. Otherwise, according to your interpretation of policies, Clinton's Vietnam War opposition and draft controversy would be more important than the impeachement issue; and – just another example – Energy policy would be more important for the presidency of George W. Bush than the invasion in Afghanistan. Both obviously isn't true at all (I hope we agree on this). But due to the existing sister articles on each of these topics, the articles on Clinton and Bush (and many others) does not violate WP:BALASP and WP:WEIGHT. We must not ignore the close connection between an article and its sister articles. As for Guttenberg, the coverage of the plagiarism issue does not violate WP:BALASP and WP:WEIGHT as with Causa Guttenberg there is a large sister article on this topic, but the summary might be in need of some additional information according to WP:CORRECTSPLIT. Which, by the way, is also in line with your previous RfC.-- Dewritech (talk) 16:22, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

All you've done is to point out potential problems with balance in the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush Wikipedia entries. They should probably be addressed by the editors. Those balance problems, however, are not anywhere near as extreme as the balance violation in Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg. Can you imagine what the response would be if an editor were to try to reduce the Bill Clinton impeachment scandal to two or three sentences, citing WP:CORRECTSPLIT as a justification? The WP:CORRECTSPLIT policy is not at odds with WP:BALASP and WP:WEIGHT, and is in fact meant to allow editors to balance articles correctly. The "good summary" stipulated by WP:CORRECTSPLIT is a summary that gives the subtopic the appropriate weight, relative to the rest of the article. Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg's English Wikipedia entry does not come anywhere close to doing this. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:31, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

There are no balance problems in the articles on Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. Both are rated WP:GA and follow WP:CORRECTSPLIT offering good summaries of sister articles. Therefore, these articles don't violate policies like WP:WEIGHT or WP:BALASP. Also the article on Guttenberg doesn't violate theses policies. The article's summary on its sister article might be in need of some additional sentences but there is no violation of WP:WEIGHT or WP:BALASP.-- Dewritech (talk) 16:11, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Sting in the Tail

What I did was remove non notable blogs from the review section. They aren't reliable sources and don't belong in the article. 2602:306:C5E9:B450:1427:2307:C266:D1C9 (talk) 15:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Discuss on Talk.-- Dewritech (talk) 15:27, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Learn policy before blindly reverting IP addresses because you have a large ego. 2602:306:C5E9:B450:1427:2307:C266:D1C9 (talk) 15:33, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

You don't need to discuss things violating policy on the talk page. Please learn policy before threatening people. 2602:306:C5E9:B450:1427:2307:C266:D1C9 (talk) 15:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

You don't create consensus to add unreliable sources. It isn't incumbent on me to discuss removing policy violations first. Please remove yourself from the situation as clearly your ego won't allow you to see clearly. 2602:306:C5E9:B450:1427:2307:C266:D1C9 (talk) 15:48, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

You may want to read WP:CON and WP:SILENCE as the content you removed has been undisputed since September 2012.-- Dewritech (talk) 15:53, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I am familiar with WP:CON as I showed before. You cannot gain consensus to violate policy. Those links are blogs that are not reliable sources. The fact that nobody removed them before now doesn't mean they shouldn't have been removed. Those same links were removed from other articles in the past which belies your erroneous belief that something sitting there long enough magically becomes reliable. 2602:306:C5E9:B450:1427:2307:C266:D1C9 (talk) 16:06, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

These blogs are cited in many other articles. Therefore, discuss your removals.-- Dewritech (talk) 16:11, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Europe 10,000 Challenge invite

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 05:46, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Norway edits

Dewritech thank you for the opportunity to respond to my edits being reverted. Someone has changed the sentence in the Norway article to "Dano-German House". If you look at the edit history, it has always said "German", and that is what is correct. I'm not going to write a lot about history here as you probably get lots of replies, but basically if you do quick research you will see I'm right. Unfortunately for our region, us Scandinavians always try to out-do each other. We're friends now, but when it comes to history, it's bitter. The royal family is German, but I fear someone are trying to insert their own personal made-up notions instead of facts. "Dano-German" is not a correct or common notion even though this family ruled Denmark for a long time, I am Norwegian myself and I'm just trying to fix the article, after someone changed it. It's supposed to say "German House". Thank you very much for reading this, and please reply on my wall or something, I'm not good at wiki, but I know I get a notification when I get messages/replies on my wall.