User talk:Kku/Archive 58
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Kku. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 | Archive 58 |
LInks within quotes
You seem to feel there was something "original" in discouraging links within quotes, over at American way. Per MOS:QUOTE, "As much as possible, avoid linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader." --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- Inasmuch hyperlinks in general tend to confuse a reader, because they alway tend to hinder the reading flow, I would concede. This is, however, a problem that should not impact the general wikiway and would perhaps better be solved via more ergonomic and user-friendly formatting. A totally different issue would be a semantic divergence introduced by misleading hyperlinking; I do in general try to take care that nothing like this happens. Thanks for being open to discussion anyway! -- Kku 13:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- If you want to change the guidelines, I'm not the one to be facing it with, as I did not formulate the guidelines nor am I frequently involved in MOS discussions. To me, there's a more general problem that by wikilinking within a quotation we are effectively providing interpretation of that quotation, and may be doing so in a way that may not be accurate; by wikilinking, we're implying that the speaker has the same interpretation of the wikilinked phrase as we do. I don't mean that this is often a problem in more blatant cases, where we quote someone as saying that he loves Sam Adams and he meant the beer, not the person we linked to; it's more frequently a problem where the difference is subtle, where we might have an article that has a scholarly analysis of a term (say "American way") but the speaker was not coming from the same base of scholarly knowledge, or even from scholarly knowledge at all, but a rougher personal understanding. (For a simple example, quoting someone from millennia ago talking about "stars", and linking to our page on the glowing gasblobs in space... when at the time, a "star" was simply a light in the sky, and there was not differentiation between what we now consider stars and what we deem planets.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- I get your point entirely. As I said - I customarily try to make sure that this does not happen. If it did - and I assume meticulous analysis from my side in advance of editing and a certain minimum intellectual background of the quote's author - wouldn't we be dealing with a quote that contains an implicit lie, since we tend to believe that a <lemma_x (context_y)> was intended to mean lemma x in context y instead of some other lemma or context? Wouldn't it be better then to rather get rid of the quote altogether in a timely fashion unless clear indicators of the factual contradiction are introduced? I leave these questions here as a nice reason for pondering. Plus, as a rule, I try to keep aloof from matters like MOS or any ugly WP abbr. that comes my way. Wikipedia changes faster than any manual entry about it does. -- Kku 14:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- If you want to change the guidelines, I'm not the one to be facing it with, as I did not formulate the guidelines nor am I frequently involved in MOS discussions. To me, there's a more general problem that by wikilinking within a quotation we are effectively providing interpretation of that quotation, and may be doing so in a way that may not be accurate; by wikilinking, we're implying that the speaker has the same interpretation of the wikilinked phrase as we do. I don't mean that this is often a problem in more blatant cases, where we quote someone as saying that he loves Sam Adams and he meant the beer, not the person we linked to; it's more frequently a problem where the difference is subtle, where we might have an article that has a scholarly analysis of a term (say "American way") but the speaker was not coming from the same base of scholarly knowledge, or even from scholarly knowledge at all, but a rougher personal understanding. (For a simple example, quoting someone from millennia ago talking about "stars", and linking to our page on the glowing gasblobs in space... when at the time, a "star" was simply a light in the sky, and there was not differentiation between what we now consider stars and what we deem planets.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Reference errors on 31 January
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
- On the Marker pen page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Edit war warning
Your recent editing history at Unnecessary health care shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 10:47, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for pointing out. Since my latest edit did NOT involve reverting a previous edit, I do not think that any of your criteria apply here. You do seem to have a very decided opinion, though. Conflict of interest? Excuse me for using Daily Mail. I will find something different. I just hope you are not trying to tell me that there is a good reason for denying Big Pharma involvement. -- Kku 10:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Links in quotes
I undid your edit at Indigo children. When you made a link to Big Pharma you created a link to a disambiguation page. Links to disambiguation pages in article space are usually considered to be errors (because they are ambiguous) and are usually corrected by finding the appropriate entry at the disambiguation page and using that link instead. In this case, however, your link was added in the middle of a quotation and we generally don't want to place links in quotations. See MOS:LINKSTYLE item #4.
I see that there's some other business going on about Big Pharma, so I'll just leave this note about what I did at Indigo children. jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 00:00, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
News coverage listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect News coverage. Since you had some involvement with the News coverage redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Si Trew (talk) 21:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
News coverage listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect News coverage. Since you had some involvement with the News coverage redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Si Trew (talk) 21:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Copyright problem on TVI Pacific
Material you included in the above article appears to have been copied from the copyright web page http://www.tvipacific.com/main/default.aspx. Copying text directly from a source is a copyright violation. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions or if you think I made a mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Kku. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, ILO-Motorenwerke, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:
- edit the page
- remove the text that looks like this:
{{proposed deletion/dated...}} - save the page
Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.
Onel5969 TT me 13:01, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for prompting me. I think it is already improving. -- Kku (talk) 14:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Kappe
- I'm puzzled why a page like Kappé International would be started since there's actually no serious claims of significance by our WP:CSD policy. Please also note that Wikipedia is not a business webhost. SwisterTwister talk 22:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- I'm puzzled how you fail to open a new talk page section to patronizingly remind me of things I have been well aware of before you. I am not in any way personally involved with the subject or the company, so I probably shouldn't mind. It is at times like these, however that I often wonder how every kind of lowlevel pop-cultural crap is gladly maintained on WP but when it comes to other serious topics all of a sudden people appear to be terribly worried about disk space. A postfactual Trump-era effect, maybe? -- Kku (talk) 23:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Coway Co
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Coway Co requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company, corporation or organization, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. DGG ( talk ) 10:40, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Ten Year Society
Based on the statements on your user page, I think you are eligible for the Wikipedia:Ten Year Society. You might want to consider it. DES (talk) 23:17, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 23:18, 6 May 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
DES (talk) 23:18, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Practopoiesis
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Practopoiesis, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for Deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discusion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:31, 21 May 2017 (UTC)