My Talk Archives
- 1 Don Giovanni
- 2 Re: I am puzzled
- 3 La Vita Nuova
- 4 Italy-USA Foundation
- 5 Contrapasso
- 6 Rome Entry
- 7 In response to your comment on the Talk:Sehnsucht page...
- 8 Your invitation to participate in a Wikimedia-approved survey in online behavior.
- 9 Hand-coding
- 10 File:Stazione20Termini201890.jpg missing description details
- 11 GURPS
- 12 Notification of automated file description generation
- 13 ArbCom elections are now open!
Thanks for trying to help with this. Please see Talk:Don_Giovanni#New_section:The_Music_of_Don_Giovanni. Best. --Kleinzach 23:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Re: I am puzzled
In a very short time you have inserted a lot of "citation needed" tags, all in articles I have started or to which I have contributed in significant measure. Are you trying to make some point I do not understand?
Very much so. You have appealed to the "reliable source" rule to remove a reference that someone made to a book which was self-published (written by me, so I am rather sensitive to this), rather than considering that the only real issue is whether the mathematics is relevant and accurate. I am showing you, in effect, that adherence to the letter of Wikipedia's rules in such cases, to the point of obnoxiousness, can be counter-productive. -- BRG (talk) 20:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- The "reliable source" guidelines are intended to cover things like biographical information, where anyone can make stuff up and so it is necessary to check whether the information is based on facts. Mathematics is something quite different. You can't make up mathematics; it's either correct (and thus, verifiable without sources!) or not. So where a work is published is irrelevant, and I don't understand that you cannot realize this.
- On the other hand, your articles in question are exactly the kind that need reliable sources. If you do not provide a source for every single fact you cite you are open to criticism under the same (I think stupid, but if you agree with WP guidelines, you are bound to obey them!) rule. So go back and put in all your sources!
- You have stated that you "find WP guidelines, on the whole, to be sound, and I dislike seeing them disregarded." I feel the opposite. Five years ago, Wikipedia was a better place, without these guidelines. Editors who put in nonsense still were able to have those things deleted. Since "notability" and "reliable sources" have been invented, Wikipedia is a place I would probably quit editing, if there were a decent alternative. Unfortunately nobody else has the resources that Jimmy Wales had when he started Wikepedia.
- You have cited WP:POINT. There is, however, also WP:RRULE. It is certainly not reasonable to invoke the "reliable source" rule in a case such as this, because the whole thrust of that rule is "verifiability." And as I stated, if the mathematics is verifiable, it does not matter that the source is a self-published book. -- BRG (talk) 20:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Hey Goochelaar, do you care to see if, in a few weeks or so, we can't get to work giving a new life to the New Life? It is not in good shape but I'm a bit too busy right now, and I also think that the article would benefit from your expertise. All the best, Dr Aaij (talk) 17:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm relatively new in this thing of editing wiki pages so I hope I'm doing this talk attempt in the right place. If not, sorry in advance.
The thing is that you've recently removed a link I've added under the external links section of Rome's wiki page (since the photos on the site are Rome related and 100% free to use I guess it was ok to add the link to the external link section). I've seen other places / cities pages that, in the external link section, have a sub section dedicated to photos of the places. Would it be ok to add it in that case?
P.S.: Glad you like the pictures :) Do visit again, I think it has even more photos now
- Hi. Of course your photos don't have any problem in themselves that I know of. It is only that Wikipedia is not a collection of links: we can't have external links to any web page housing good photos, or interesting remarks, or the like. As a rule, apart from the inline references to source specific claims, an article should only have links to the official sites (if any) related to the article (company, organisation etc.), and some very remarkable sites (an important reportage, say, or a controversial review if the article is about a book, and so on). Of course this policy is sometimes ignored, but this is not a good reason to ignore it once more. Nothing personal, of course! Happy editing, Goochelaar (talk) 11:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- You might be interested in uploading some of your photos in Wikimedia Commons, so they can be used in the various Wikipedia projects. See here about how contributing your work. Bye, Goochelaar (talk) 18:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok! Thanks so much for the info and for the insights about Wikimedia Commons projects. I'll check it out and try to contribute uploading some photos there. Thanks again, Regards, Joaomsoliveira (talk)
In response to your comment on the Talk:Sehnsucht page...
"Isn't this article a bit too Lewis-heavy? Lewis may be a great writer, and may have said fine things about Sehnsucht, but this seems somewhat out of proportion. Might this be a case of something akin to undue weight? Goochelaar (talk) 20:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)"
C.S. Lewis is the only person who has really written about Sehnsucht at length. Go ahead and Google around yourself if you don't trust me. I'm not a fan of Lewis (well, I do appreciate his writings on this topic) or a Christian either, so I can say without bias that your claim of undue weight is ridiculously silly. This is what happens when people hedge their minds into these arbitrary rules that Wikipedia has decided on instead of exercising intellectual common sense (and this doesn't just happen on Wikipedia). There seems to be this urge to come up with a name for everything so we can put everything in boxes ("Might this be a case of something akin to undue weight?"). Because Lewis is the only person who's written about Sehnsucht at length, it's impossible for there to be undue weight in this case. andkore 22:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- Do you really believe that you can make your point by defining other people's claims "ridiculously silly" and accusing them of not "exercising common sense"? Goochelaar (talk) 22:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I made my point by saying this: "Because Lewis is the only person who's written about Sehnsucht at length, it's impossible for there to be undue weight in this case." andkore 00:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Your invitation to participate in a Wikimedia-approved survey in online behavior.
Hello, my name is Michael Tsikerdekis, currently involved as a student in full time academic research at Masaryk University. I am writing to you to kindly invite you to participate in an online survey about interface and online collaboration on Wikipedia. The survey has been reviewed and approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Research Committee.
I am contacting you because you were randomly selected from a list of active editors. The survey should take about 7 to 10 minutes to complete, and it is very straightforward.
Wikipedia is an open project by nature. Let’s create new knowledge for everyone! :-)
PS: The results from the research will become available online for everyone and will be published in an open access journal.
UPDATE: This is the second and final notification for participating in this study. Your help is essential for having concrete results and knowledge that we all can share. I would like to thank you for your time and as always for any questions, comments or ideas do not hesitate to contact me. PS: As a thank you for your efforts and participation in Wikipedia Research you will receive a Research Participation Barnstar after the end of the study. --Michael Tsikerdekis (talk) 08:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
|Research Participation Barnstar|
|For your participation in the survey for Anonymity and conformity on the internet. Michael Tsikerdekis (talk) 13:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC)|
Hey all :).
I'm dropping you a note because you've been involved in dealing with feedback from the Article Feedback Tool. To get a better handle on the overall quality of comments now that the tool has become a more established part of the reader experience, we're undertaking a round of hand coding - basically, taking a sample of feedback and marking each piece as inappropriate, helpful, so on - and would like anyone interested in improving the tool to participate :).
You can code as many or as few pieces of feedback as you want: this page should explain how to use the system, and there is a demo here. Once you're comfortable with the task, just drop me an email at okeyeswikimedia.org and I'll set you up with an account :).
If you'd like to chat with us about the research, or want live tutoring on the software, there will be an office hours session on Monday 17 December at 23:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office. Hope to see some of you there! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
File:Stazione20Termini201890.jpg missing description details
is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 09:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Notification of automated file description generation
Your upload of File:B.H.Rogers.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.
This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)