User talk:Arnoutf/Archives/2009/July

WP:BITE

I expect people to have been taught some manners by their parents before they even know what Wikipedia is. Going around and insulting people in Polish or I don't care what other language has got nothing to do with being new to Wikipedia, it's got to do with common decency and as such I have every right to point that out to him/her.HP1740-B (talk) 10:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

interational organisations

I noticed your recent edits in the international organisation membership part of Outline of knowledge.

I think increasing the number beyond (say) the 10 most important ones is a clear example of going beyond the essential topics. For example for the Netherlands, the list consisted of over 70! such organisations after your edit. Arnoutf (talk) 20:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

If you wish to weigh in on the Outline of knowledge, please help us by joining the Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge. Thanks for your interest, Buaidh (talk) 20:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Why Is Joshua Project An 'Unreliable Source'?

Hello there? :-) User:HP1740-B has asked me to ask you why Joshua Project is an 'unreliable source'. He tells me that he remembers you are the one that handled this issue last time. On the page Dutch people, I made an edit which contained information from Joshua Project. User:HP1740-B quickly deleted this, claiming it was an 'unreliable source' because it was a missionary Website. He claims you require a 'clear source' and a Website that primarily focuses on Ethnic Groups. Then why, in many articles related to certain peoples on Wikipedia (And I've read and checked nearly every single one of them!), most data is from websites such as the CIA World Factbook, Census data and news articles that do not focus primarily on the study of Ethnic Groups and do not use 'clear sources'. If we didn't use those Websites, there would be little data on Wikipedia relating to the numbers of certain ethnic groups in certain regions. Also, I've compared the figures that I wish to use from Joshua Project to those of other Websites, and they are all remarkably similar. Plus, he shouldn't be upset at the fact that I put those figures as an estimate in most of my edits on the page Dutch people. Enough of my waffling; please explain to me why it is an 'unreliable source', bearing those above facts in mind that User:HP1740-B has blatantly ignored. He asked me to ask you why it is an 'unreliable source' (He remembers you were the one who resolved this issue the last time it appeared), since we have been having a long discussion on his user page that is simply boring, time-wasting and is going nowhere. Thank you! :-) --Billsta1 (talk) 12:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

If I recall correctly it had to do with a few issues. (1) They are no academic source; or any other type of source mentioned in WP:Reliable, so their reliability cannot be assumed a priori; and must be assessed. (2) They have a mission, which makes it possible their presentation of the data is biased towards their aims (note that social data is not as clear cut as natural science data). (3) They do not clearly mention their methods/sources to arrive at their presentation of the data. This makes it hard, if not impossible, to check whether their data is presented neutrally - i.e. makes it hard to check whether problem no 2 exists. Problems 2 and 3 are problematic; therefore I would not classify this source as reliable. (It is a bit a reconstruction, so I may have dealt with it differently before, but looking at their site this would be my take on this) Arnoutf (talk) 13:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)

The June 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Camino

"Please be more careful?" Well excuse me! Dead links screw Google rankings. You should be thankful I removed it at all. Attitudes like yours is why Wikipedia has gone from a truly collaborative effort to the arrogant navel-gazing cadre of geeks that corrects any newbie and tut-tuts them if they don't do things the way they say. "In short, I do not think your changes are improvements" You need to learn some manners and how to interact with well-meaning people you don't know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.79.129.66 (talk) 09:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Which in itself is a very well mannered comment ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 09:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It was reasonably well mannered, I believe. I don't think calling you arrogant, which you are, is ill-mannered. If you had welcomed me to Wikipedia like you should have done, I would have been even more well mannered. I think your response above shows I was completely right in my assessment of you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.79.129.66 (talk) 17:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Which is another ill-mannered and indeed arrogant remark. (BTW I do not see what is uncivil in the use of words "please" and "I think" (the latter indicating it is not fact but opinion)). Arnoutf (talk) 19:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The mistake to feel stronger....

"Usa" article.Time and world are the best doctors to give right in articles and fade away hipocricy.151.60.117.53 (talk) 08:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

???? I have no idea what this means ???? Arnoutf (talk) 08:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It means that few people in an encyclopedia can't hide or stop reality.It means that you suggested me in a right way.151.60.117.228 (talk) 21:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Why did you block WORLDPOWER27?

Hey, what evidence do you have that WORLDPOWER27 is a sock puppet? I just looked at the evidence and it doesn't seem likely. --Rockstone35 (talk) 00:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't block that user. I did report him. There is behavioural evidence: WORLDPOWER27 had a similar type of language (style errors; and emphasising Latin as a language to have preference over English on English Wikipedia), made similar edits, and reacted equally to comments on his edits as EU100%. There is agenda evidence: EU100%, UEOnly and Worldpower27 (note that the EU has 27 members) started pushing the same POV: The EU is the only relevant superpower at the moment. The patrolling admins found this convincing enough probably per WP:DUCK. Note that Worldpower27 did not appeal the block, so probably did not care too much. Arnoutf (talk) 08:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

True, but how can he appeal if he is blocked? Anyway, if you read my talk page, he sounded legit. --Rockstone35 (talk) 05:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)

The July 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks,  Roger Davies ^talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)

The August 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!

Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators,  Roger Davies ^talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Philscirel

Sadly a rangeblock would not work as Philscirel has been known to use open proxies. All we can do is block on sight. Black Kite 13:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks anyway. Arnoutf (talk) 13:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It just occurred to me that philscirel is just rgulerdem (block log), who also got booted from the Turkish WP. We ought to post a warning in the article's talk page to save future editors time in recognizing old vandals. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 15:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)

The September 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Notability Franco German Manual

Dear Arnoutf, why did you include a notability notice on the Franco German History coursebook page? The page exists in four other languages in Wikipedia. The textbook has been sold more than 80,000 times in each countries and is a result of an official agreement between the two countries. All this indicates that there is a justification for the existence of the page itself. There are references in the article which backs the factual points. I do not see the necessity to include a question mark about the notability of the article. Could you give me a list of the points which justified your concern? Thanks.Gpeilon (talk) 16:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Because it does not hold with any of the criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (books). Re your arguments: Wikipedia is not a reliable source, 80,000 copies is not that many and anyway irrelevent on its own.... the Utrecht Municipality Referene guide has more copies. The official Franco-German agreement is currently not stated on the page, so how could I know; but still the notability then would be the collaboration not the publication Arnoutf (talk) 18:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your points. The coursebook is bought by schools and used every year, it has received an important media coverage in both countries:

http://news.google.com/archivesearch?pz=1&cf=all&ned=uk&hl=fr&q=%22manuel+d'histoire+franco+allemand%22&cf=all

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Histoire/Geschichte%22&hl=de&ned=de&tab=nw

The number of copies does indicate the proportion of pupils which read it each year as part of the curriculum as the books are bought by the school and lent to the pupils of the year. For instance, there are roughly 500,000 pupils in the educational track each year in France, which means that a significant proportion of them use this book as a coursebook.

I am a bit surprised that you say that "it does not hold with any of the criteria " of Wikipedia:Notability (books). How does it not meet criteria 4? It meets this criteria by definition. In addition, with my explanations and as shown in the link from a newspaper in the page it also meet criteria 1. Have I convinced you? Gpeilon (talk) 12:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The links show mainly websites; the single newspaper article does not meet "multiple" nor is it clear that the article is a critical analysis of the book; so no it does meet 1.

There is no reliable source stating that it is used by many schools, so it does not meet 4. Arnoutf (talk) 17:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you serious Arnoutf? I am hardly believing I am having this discussion. Let's consider the problem without arguing uselessly. The criteria states "multiple grade schools, high schools". You are saying there is no "reliable" source about this, this is ludicrous. There is a reference to an article in French from a leading daily newspaper giving this number. It may be in French, but it is a reliable external source. So yes 4 is obviously met. Then I gave you a link to google news with numerous news article on the topic, so yes 1 is also met. Your position is quite surprising. We are serious people, please reconsider your position in the light of the arguments I have clearly exposed. Gpeilon (talk) 19:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Blogs do not counts as multiple newspaper articles, and anyway the article should make its own notability obvious. I will accept majority consensus, for now it is just 1-1 so the tag stays. Arnoutf (talk) 20:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The page on news presents articles from the main French media: Le Figaro, Nouvel Observateur, L'Express, TV5, France Info, Le Parisien, plus major regional newspapers (I spare you the list)... In Germany the coursebook has been the subject of a coverage in the main media by the Deutsche Welle, Der Spiegel and Der Handelsblatt among others. The articles I provided were enough evidence that this coursebook has been "the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience.". In addition you do not deny anymore that there is evidence that it is "subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools...in any particular country". It is actually used in two. The fact that you refuse the blatant evidence baffled me. If you do not recognise these facts, I will have to ask for a third opinion on this issue. Gpeilon (talk) 21:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes please do ask others to comment, that is the key spirit of Wikipedia, discussing issues with multiple editors. Arnoutf (talk) 21:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll offer a WP:3O here: there are often not an abundance of sources indicating that a certain text is used as a standard textbook in an area. The fact that a certain textbook is used is not usually worth commenting about in the news, etc., and it's something well-known by graduates and easily verifiable by residents, and little-known and difficult to verify by others. Because we're merely attempting to establish notability for an encyclopedic article, rather than make an in-encyclopedia claim about exactly how common the book is, we should feel free to apply looser standards of presumed truth (e.g., even if there's only one source, there's probably no reason for a newspaper to lie about what textbooks are in use where) rather than the hard standards of WP:V in determining whether the text satisfies the "subject of instruction" criterion. Certainly the in-article claim about how widely it's used can be challenged under WP:V if you feel it's insufficiently sourced, but that doesn't affect the rest of the article, which could include things such as the history behind publishing the book, the subject matter, any political discussions about the book, etc., whereas a notability dispute threatens the entire article. --Geoffrey 07:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

None of the topics you suggest are there; and due to the short history of the project (first published 2006) are unlikely to be added soon (if ever), but ok fine; remove the tag. BTW I think this discussion should have played at the talk of the article space, not here. In my view the book notability guidelines are ridiculously easy to meet for published textbooks, you only need to be used at two schools. A publisher that does not make that happen for a textbook should not publish the book, but that is not my call. Arnoutf (talk) 10:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for your constructive comments Geoffrey. I know of other sources which give the same numbers. For instance: "more than 75,000", "more than 100,000 in France". I used the Figaro as it is the equivalent of the Times in France, a very respected newspaper. Beyond the question of the numbers, the notability of this article comes from the important symbol of the creation of the book (which motivated the discussion in the press) by two countries which have been fiercely opposed in the 19th and 20th centuries. The project appeared at the 40th celebration of the Elysee Treaty, and it was endorsed publicly by the head of states of the two countries. The book was even discussed at the European Parliament and other countries are now talking of following the same initiative like Poland and the Czech Republic with Germany (second paragraph before the end of the Figaro article). Once again, the time you dedicated to this question is appreciated Geoffrey. Best.Gpeilon (talk) 19:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, tag removed and link to this discussion included in the talk page.Gpeilon (talk) 23:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!

As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)

The October 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Country and WP:CIVIL

Let me see if I understand you correctly. You say that something should be deleted because nobody cares. When I respond saying that I care, you infer that extremists have taken over Wikipedia. The angry tenor of your response surprised me. Are you trying to discredit my views by labeling me as an extremist, simply because I (and one other editor) have slightly different interests than you do? Is that how you would want to be treated when someone disagrees with you? --Stepheng3 (talk) 19:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I do care that the introbox is a summary; because once it ceases to be that it becomes pollution.

And yes I do have other interests, I listed many of them, none of them are in the infobox; as I think adding those would make the infobox worse because of length, not better.

And yes I am a bit upset, as this topic is repeated almost every month in a new topic.

If nobody reads the previous topics on talk pages; what's the use of them. Arnoutf (talk) 21:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

If you're getting upset to the point where you communicate largely in hyperbole, I suggest you take a wikibreak to cool down. Cheers, --Stepheng3 (talk) 21:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I have been arguing (with arguments) that an infobox should not be much longer than a single screen size for usability. Experienced editors tend to agree, however detail creep from (mainly) new enthusiastic editors during the same time has almost doubled the size of the countrybox template. The whole infobox system has grown into an uncontrollable monster that neglects core wikipedia policies such as WP:TRUTH; WP:NOT; WP:TRIVIA but nobody seems to care. Arnoutf (talk) 21:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Well I care. Unfortunately, your communication style has alienated me. --Stepheng3 (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Point taken, trying for damage control on relevant talk page. Arnoutf (talk) 19:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)