User talk:Judetadeus
--Judetadeus (talk) 17:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)--Judetadeus (talk) 17:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Welcome!
[edit]
|
Guide to referencing
[edit]Click on "show" to open contents.
| Using references (citations) |
|---|
|
I thought you might find it useful to have some information about references (refs) on wikipedia. These are important to validate your writing and inform the reader. Any editor can removed unreferenced material; and unsubstantiated articles may end up getting deleted, so when you add something to an article, it's highly advisable to also include a reference to say where it came from. Referencing may look daunting, but it's easy enough to do. Here's a guide to getting started. Good references[edit]A reference must be accurate, i.e. it must prove the statement in the text. To validate "Mike Brown climbed Everest", it's no good linking to a page about Everest, if Mike Brown isn't mentioned, nor to one on Mike Brown, if it doesn't say that he climbed Everest. You have to link to a source that proves his achievement is true. You must use reliable sources, such as published books, mainstream press, authorised web sites, and official documents. Blogs, Myspace, Youtube, fan sites and extreme minority texts are not usually acceptable, nor is original research, e.g. your own unpublished, or self-published, essay or research. Inserting a reference[edit]The first thing you have to do is to create a "Notes and references" section (unless it already exists). This goes towards the bottom of the page, below the "See also" section and above the "External links" section. Enter this code:
The next step is to put a reference in the text. Here is the code to do that. It goes at the end of the relevant term, phrase, sentence, or paragraph to which the note refers, and after punctuation such as a full stop, without a space (to prevent separation through line wrap):
Whatever text you put in between these two tags will become visible in the "Notes and references" section as your reference. Test it out[edit]Open the edit box for this page, copy the following text (inserting your own text where indicated), paste it at the bottom of the page and save the page:
(End of text to copy and paste.) It should appear like this:
Information to include[edit]You need to include the information to enable the reader to find your source. For an online newspaper source, it might look like this:
When uploaded, it appears as:
Note the single square brackets around the URL and the article title. The format is:
Make sure there is a space between the URL and the Title. This code results in the URL being hidden and the title showing as a link. Use double apostrophes for the article title (it is quoted text), and two single quote marks either side of the name of the paper (to generate italics). Double square brackets round the name of the paper create an internal link (a wikilink) to the relevant wikipedia article. Apostrophes must go outside the brackets. The date after The Guardian is the date of the newspaper, and the date after "Retrieved on" is the date you accessed the site – useful for searching the web archive in case the link goes dead. Dates are wikilinked so that they work with user preference settings to display the date in the format the user wishes. References not online[edit]You can use sources which are not online, but which you have found in a library or elsewhere—in which case leave out the information which is not relevant. The newspaper example above would be formatted like this:
When uploaded, it appears as:
Here is an example for a book:
When uploaded, it appears as:
Make sure you put two single quote marks round the title (to generate italics), rather than one double quote mark. Date format[edit]These formats are all acceptable for dates:
Citation templates[edit]You may prefer to use a citation template to compile details of the source. The template goes between the ref tags and you fill out the fields you wish to. Basic templates can be found here: Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles/Citation quick reference Same ref used twice or more[edit]The first time a reference appears in the article, you can give it a simple name in the <ref> code:
The second time you use the same reference in the article, you need only to create a short cut instead of typing it all out again:
You can then use the short cut as many times as you want. Don't forget the /, or it will blank the rest of the article! A short cut will only pick up from higher up the page, so make sure the first ref is the full one. Some symbols don't work in the ref name, but you'll find out if you use them. You can see multiple use of the same refs in action in the article William Bowyer (artist). There are 3 sources and they are each referenced 3 times. Each statement in the article has a footnote to show what its source is. Alternative system[edit]The above method is simple and combines references and notes into one section. A refinement is to put the full details of the references in their own section headed "References", while the notes which apply to them appear in a separate section headed "Notes". The notes can be inserted in the main article text in an abbreviated form as seen in Harriet Arbuthnot or in a full form as in Brown Dog affair. Further information[edit]More information can be found at:
I hope this helps. If you need any assistance, let me know. |
THIS IS AN ABUSE! Please STOP to eliminate the Quotations about Leonard Oprea's work!
[edit]YES, dear Victoriagirl, I READ and I understood very well the Wikipedia's policies concerning self-published sources and Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves. Therefore, I have to tell you firmly: this book of Leonard Oprea is published in the USA by a POD Publishing House. I mean - a book published by a Publishing House, NOT by a self-publishing venture etc. More - these quotations BELONG to their authors, cultural American VIP beyond any doubt, NOT to some other people. And this you or anybody else can easily check up. Thus, if it will be necessary I will RE-introduce again and again these quotations and I am telling you again:
- NO ISSUE regarding THE VERIFIABILITY of Quotations about Leonard Oprea’s work!
- Dear Victoriagirl user, please, respectfully I ask you do not be a Wikipedia censor. It is against the rules of Wikipedia free encyclopedia.
- Dear Victoriagirl since when is a section of Wikipedia article out side of the Wikipedia rules just because it is composed of quotations drawn from a self-published source (nota bene: which actually is a POD book, NOT a self-publishing book and it is a perfect legal // check up its ISBN number// publication on sale in the USA and world-wide on amazon.com, barnesandnoble.com and other more than 100 web-sites and you can also find it in the public American libraries of Boston or of the Cultural Romanian Institute of New York etc.etc.etc.)?!!
- Please, dear Victoriagirl just try to check up professionally the Quotations about Leonard Oprea’s work according to google.com, amazon.com, barnesandnoble.com, Leonard Oprea article of Romanian Wikipedia and according to who are Vladimir Tismaneanu, Norman Manea, Adam J.Sorkin and last but not least Andrei Codrescu, the well-known cultural American VIP who signed these quotations. Years ago, when these quotations were introduced in this article, their sources were carefully verified and everything was and still is according to the Wikipedia rules. Every Quotation content of this article is verifiable anytime by anyone/ sic!/. Thank you for your understanding. judetadeus (talk) 6:24PM, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
To: --Mihai -talk 07:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Mihai ! Thank you for your message. Thank you for the nice editing of my article regarding Leonard Oprea.
Concerning this matter : ( you wrote me: ) It wa good for you to try and popularise his works, but adding them into the Fine examples of Romanian literature I think it was too much …
Well, I’m not too young and I’m involved in it. You know well, ars longa,vita brevis. I used to be an editor , I have a Ph.D. in comparative literature and I did some literary translations in my life.
Therefore, according to the Wikipedia list of Fine examples of Romanian literature, but also it seems, according to your opinion, the Romanian literature almost died 35 years ago. I mean the literature of universal value.
Oh,my God! Dear Mihai, yes - the Wikipedia list of Fine examples of Romanian literature is a very good list of classical values. Yet, it is only, but only a high school list ( probably reminiscent in some ways of Ceausescu’s dictatorship era ). Please, no hard feelings. This is my opinion.
You know, God is very alive. Therefor, the Spirituality&Culture of any people are very alive. So, the Literature of any people is very alive. And times change eternally. Also - people, writers, hierarchies of values etc.
With all my respect, but I believe you have some preconceptions. My friendly advice for you: I think you should be reading more contemporary Romanian writers and leave behind you any preconception.
Concerning Leonard Oprea … Well, and it is not only my opinion, his novel The Straitjacket and also The Book of Theophil Magus or 40 Tales about Man are masterpieces. Forever.
Cheers, Yours sincerely, Judetadeus.
Hi, It's very nice of you to write a new article about a contemporary writer. try formating it into a more wikipedia standard like that used on Andrei Codrescu or Mircea Cărtărescu.
It wa good for you to try and popularise his works, but adding them into the Fine examples of Romanian literature I think it was too much.
Thank you. --Mihai -talk 07:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Quotations about Leonard Oprea’s work
[edit]Hello Judetadeus, concerning your last edit. In both my edit summaries and at Talk:Leonard Oprea I have pointed out the reason for the deletion of the 'Quotations about Leonard Oprea’s work' section. Judging from your last edit summary, it would appear that you've not yet read Wikipedia's policies concerning self-published sources and Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves, which I am citing here for the fourth time. I respectfully suggest that you familiarize yourself the policies. You may wish to read over the policy concerning the three revert rule, as well. Victoriagirl (talk) 22:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Judetadeus, I have responded to your post titled 'THIS IS AN ABUSE! Please STOP to eliminate the Quotations about Leonard Oprea's work!' at Talk:Leonard Oprea. Victoriagirl (talk) 04:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Leonard Oprea + 3RR
[edit]Please read WP:3RR which you have broken with 4 reverts.[1] Note that edit warring can lead to being blocked with less than 3 reversions. Please also remember to sign in and use your user name to avoid the appearance of transgressing WP:SOCK. Per Wikipedia:TPG#Good_practice you should avoid writing in capitals, which is equivalent to shouting and hence not civil. Thanks. Tyrenius (talk) 05:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- As virtually your sole interest in wikipedia related to Leonard Oprea, you should read WP:COI and WP:AUTO. It may be better to let other editors make content decisions. Tyrenius (talk) 05:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Dear Victoriagirl and Dear Tyrenius,
- Please, I re-read carfully the 3RR. And, it is questionable if you are right concerning my possible violations of the 3RR. But, if you consider that I overreacted - O.K., I'm sorry.
- On the other hand - yes, AuthorHouse is the former 1stLibrary Books. Yet, this is a POD Publishing House, not at all, I'm saying crystal-clear, not at all a self-publishing venture. With a POD Publishing House the author must respect the editorial international rules and, despite the fact that he pays some money for the editing&marketing of the book, the rest is the classic way to publish a book and make it available on the market. So, it is a pretty big difference between a self-publishing venture and a POD Publishing House. For example, the oldest POD Publishing House in the USA is Xlibris... a strategic partner of Random House Ventures. Therefore, may I ask: is Random House not credible for you Victoriagirl or for anyone from Wikipedia?
- Last but not least, all your explanations concernig your checking up of these quotations are a totally false argumentation. How do you question cultural American VIPs like Vladimir Tismaneanu (see on English Wikipedia), Norman Manea (see on English Wikipedia), Adam J.Sorkin (see on English Wikipedia) and Andrei Codrescu (see on English Wikipedia) - who are American universitary professors and public persons? They can be contacted to verifiy if they wrote and agreed to publish these blurbs or not.
- Concerning your research to check up on amazon.com the existence of Andrei Codrescu's quote about the literature of Leonard Oprea, well, you missed this reader's review (quote from amazon.com): / *****/ 7 of 7 people found the following review helpful: A marvelous book � this unique vision !, November 17, 2003. I repeat you can find it easily among the 9 reader reviews of the book of Leonard Oprea. Regarding your research on Romanian Wikipedia, sorry, but you did it superficially as well.
- My final conclusion: Dear Wikipedia specialists & cultural friends - please, do not eliminate again the quotations. Please, find a solution to keep them in the article. I am just an old professor who loves great books and great authors; I am not a computer geek. When I introduced this article 4 years ago I did it because I considered Wikipedia being the library of the future and a huge opportunity to transform culture in a living source accessible to everyone. The rest is silence, said Hamlet. God forgive us.--Judetadeus (talk) 17:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Please see Talk:Leonard_Oprea#Quotations and continue on the article talk page. Tyrenius (talk) 17:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Nota Bene: Wikipedia Good references and Quotations issue
[edit]Dear Victoriagirl and Dear Tyrenius,
- Please, be so kind and re-read Wikipedia Good references (you have it below). Here, inside this Wikipedia rule, you have a black on white sentence, I qoute: You must use reliable sources, such as published books, mainstream press, authorised web sites... Yes, I know you will tell me: ... please, in the final sentence it is written, I quote: ... nor is... self-published... But, please, I wrote you several times and do not forget: for many real reasons a POD Publishing House is not, not at all a self-publishing venture. (By the way, I think that you do not understand too well the basic definition of POD. The POD means the Publishing On Demand... which basically is to print a book /already leaglly edited and prepared for printing/ only, but only when this book in demand from the market of books: readers, book stores, specialized /authorized/ web-sites, public or universitary libraries etc.)
Therefor, my question: what is wrong with these Quotations?!! They are on a published book backcover (nota bene: not on a self-published book! ), they are on amazon.com and other authorized web sites... Anytime you can ask their well-known cultural American VIP authors, as I wrote you already... So, for God's sake: what is wrong?!! How should I consider this?!... Please, re-read: Good references: A reference must be accurate, i.e. it must prove the statement in the text. To validate "Mike Brown climbed Everest", it's no good linking to a page about Everest, if Mike Brown isn't mentioned, nor to one on Mike Brown, if it doesn't say that he climbed Everest. You have to link to a source that proves his achievement is true. You must use reliable sources, such as published books, mainstream press, authorised web sites, and official documents. Blogs, Myspace, Youtube, fan sites and extreme minority texts are not usually acceptable, nor is original research, e.g. your own unpublished, or self-published, essay or research.
- My final conclusion: Dear Wikipedia specialists & cultural friends - please, do not eliminate again the quotations. Please, find a solution to keep them in the article. I am just an old professor who loves great books and great authors; I am not a computer geek. When I introduced this article 4 years ago I did it because I considered Wikipedia being the library of the future and a huge opportunity to transform culture in a living source accessible to everyone. The rest is silence, said Hamlet. God forgive us.--Judetadeus (talk) 18:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed Wikipedia is "the library of the future and a huge opportunity to transform culture in a living source accessible to everyone." You are welcome to contribute to that, but so far your only contributions have been about yourself, which, with all due respect, is likely to create a somewhat limited library. Tyrenius (talk) 21:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Repeat request
[edit]As above, please see Talk:Leonard_Oprea#Quotations and continue on the article talk page. Tyrenius (talk) 19:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Judetadeus, given that your last two posts relate specifically Leonard Oprea and respond to points raised on the discussion page, I respectfully suggest that the latter is the appropriate place in which to engage in a dialogue. In the interests of clarity, I recommend that you provide copies of the two posts at Talk:Leonard Oprea. Victoriagirl (talk) 19:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Please keep the talk on the article talk page and don't do multiple posts of the same material in different places (like my talk page) which only confuses the issue. Tyrenius (talk) 20:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Or my user page.[2] Post to users on their talk pages. Thank you. Tyrenius (talk) 21:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Log on
[edit]Please remember to log on with your user name for edits.[3] Tyrenius (talk) 19:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC) Forwarded message
Warning! En Wikipedia anti-Romanian aggressions / message to International mass-media&Internet
[edit]Date: Jan 2, 2008 3:33 PM Subject: Warning ! En Wikipedia anti-Romanian aggressions / message to International mass-media&Internet To: arbcom-l@lists.wkimedia.org, info-en-q@wikimedia.org
Enough is enough: Please stop to ask: "citation needed" for "Leonard Oprea" article concerning: "…anti-communist dissident in Romania…" and "…officially forbade the publications of his writings, considering them subversive…" You had already the necessary and authorized "needed" citations (see the article and see the below excerpt). Leonard Oprea was an anti-communist dissident in Romania and two of his books were officially banned by Ceausescu's communist dictatorship. According to the many distinguished Romanian critics, today Leonard Oprea is a very important Romanian writer. This English Wikipedia board attitude could be considered an English Wikipedia anti-Romanian cultural discrimination and a pro-communist attack against Leonard Oprea. And this kind of attitude could be the subject to the Romanian mass-media and, to the international mass-media as well. Certainly, through Internet this subject could be spread worldwide. On the other side, please stop to "clean up" arbitrary and using methodically only the elimination way regarding the Leonard Oprea article ( like was the last editing which eliminated the "contents", eliminated the "citations needed", eliminated the "external" links and created an un-professional lay-out of the article). Thank you.
Excerpt: ,,Leonard Oprea was an anti-communist dissident[1] in Romania during Nicolae Ceauşescu's dictatorship. Between 1980 and 1987 he published a book and several short stories, which were honored with national literary prizes. After 1987, the Securitate (the secret police of the Communist regime), officially forbade[2] the publication of his writings, considering them subversive[3]. ________________________________ [edit] citations needed [1], [2], [3] - from authorized sources information:
- Romanian Wikipedia - Leonard Oprea article
- USA Congressional Record: "Human Rights in Romania", Vol. 136, Washington, Thursday, July 26, 1990, No.98; http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwcr.html
- CEEOL Author List Romania/ The Central And Eastern European Online Library - Leonard Oprea, Romania, http://www.ceeol.com/aspx/authordetails.aspx?authorId=b74a386d-5a51-4466-ab2c-6156b2c5f90f
- The Romanian National Daily Newspaper "Jurnalul Naţional"/ The National Journal/, January 8-9, 2005; the editorial: "O voce autentic diferită"/A Genuinely Different Voice/ by Vladimir Tismaneanu; http://www.jurnalul.ro
- The Romanian National Weekly Literary Review "Romania literara"/ The Literary Romania/, July 13, 2007; the critical review: "Dumnezeu şi lumea de azi"/God and Today's world/, by Tudorel Urian; http://www.romlit.ro/
- The Romanian National Monthly Cultural Review "Timpul"/ The Time/ February 2, 2005; the critical review: "Cămaşa de forţă – o poveste atroce din vremuri negre"/ The Straitjacket – an atrocious tale from dark times/ by Liviu Antonesei; http://www.timpul.ro/
- The Critical References from the short-stories and novellas' volume, "Radiografia clipei"/ The x-ray of an instant/ and the novel, "Cămaşa de forţă"/ The Straitjacket/ both in the second edition published by Curtea Veche Publishing, 2003-2004, Bucharest, Romania; http://www.curteaveche.ro/
- Gelu Vlaşin's foreword, "Fascinaţia dureroasa a Cămaşii de forţă"/ The Painful Fascination of the Straitjacket/, from the electronic edition of the novel "Cămaşa de forţă"/ The Straitjacket/, published by LiterNet Publishing House, 2005, Bucharest, Romania; http://editura.liternet.ro/carte/ "--Judetadeus (talk) 20:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- If you click on the orange bar above you will see how to use references properly, which you have not done. Tyrenius (talk) 22:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Please read the above policy regarding reversions and edit warring. You are in danger of receiving a block from editing. Tyrenius (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Please read and use one account to edit one article. Tyrenius (talk) 13:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
File permission problem with File:Author Leonard Oprea.jpg
[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:Author Leonard Oprea.jpg, which you've sourced to Image is sourced to subject. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.
If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
- make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
- Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ukexpat (talk) 16:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Blocked for sockpuppetry
[edit] | This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Judetadeus. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC) |