User talk:Otto ter Haar/2006

Archive 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2014

Format

What's the point with you changing the dob fmt of some bio articles? I prefer the one I used so why don't improve articles instead of just changing the format? Julien Tuerlinckx 16:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I responded on the discussion page of Jean Bourgain. Otto ter Haar 09:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx for replying and I agree with you but the point is that the place of birth was already mentionned in the article, you only changed the format of the pob dob, which is kinda useless to me. But it's as you like. Julien Tuerlinckx 14:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Media-stub

Ok, sorry about that, didn't notice! Know what I'm like..Abbyemery 18:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labelled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

When you leave the edit summary blank, some of your edits could be mistaken for vandalism and may be reverted, so please always briefly summarize your edits, especially when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you.

--Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mel, I know already about the edit summary text box and I use it when appropriate. I am not going to write a summary of a spelling correction or redactional correction. I think what you ask is ludicrous. You probably react on my edits on the Reform Party of the United States of America. You should be specific when you leave a message on my talk page. Please don't leave me messages again unless you're willing not to generalise. Be specific and don't cut and paste on my talkpage. Otto ter Haar 07:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't use it when appropriate, as "when appropriate" is every time (that's Wikipedia policy, in fact). For the many editors who do use it correctly, the idea that its use is "ludicrous" is itself ludicrous.
Demanding that I be specific when I'm asking you always to use the summary field is also ludicrous.
The message is our standard template (not "cut and paste", designed for just this purpose. You demand that I leave you everyone who fails to use edit summaries personalised messages, written just for them, when you can't be bothered to type one or two words in the summary box?
Responding to a polite reminder in this aggressive way is uncalled for, and worrying. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For a respons see Edit summaries on Mel's talk page. Otto ter Haar 10:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First:

Wikipedia:Template: {{summary}}.
Cut and paste

See the difference?

Secondly:

At one point use of edit summaries was made policy; it appears to have reverted to a guideline. That's a side issue, however. All the sources, such as m:Help:Edit summary, strongly recommend that it always be used, and that it's a courtesy to other editors. That you reject this, coupled with the way that you've responded to my standard use of the reminder template, says much about you as an editor and person. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've read your exchange with Mel about edit summaries. You make the point that: "What you incorrectly call a policy (edit summary) is not a policy but a guideline." This is true. Nevertheless, according to policy on guidelines, guidelines are "(1) actionable and (2) authorized by consensus." Here's a statement on the difference between policies and guidlelines:

A guideline is something that is: (1) actionable and (2) authorized by consensus. Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception...

A naming convention or manual of style entry is a specific kind of guideline, related to proper naming, or the way articles should be written.

A policy is similar to a guideline, only more official and less likely to have exceptions...

There is a broad consensus among editors on the use of edit summaries. As with many guidelines around here, (including the ones on consensus and the Manual of Style) they are followed by serious editors with only the occasional exceptions. Sunray 17:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advocate

Is the case you refer to the edit summary issue? If so, I can say that nobody's going to make you use edit summaries for every minor edit, and the best course of action for you would be to use them most of the time, and stop discussing the issue with Mel if it's becoming too heated. Let me know, though, if I misunderstood. Andre (talk) 22:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andre, you understood the case very well and I stopped already (for the moment) discussing the issue with Mel, but I am still irritated, because of what I perceive as arrogant treatment. I edit for users who want to read articles, not for administrators who want to scrutinize history pages. Further I am not a native English speaker and neither interested in policies nor in 'Wikipedia politics'. Otto 22:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Otto, I understand. The best course of action would be no action, I think, no matter how irritated you are, unless there's something specific you wish to gain from further interaction with Mel. All of Wikipedia's infrastructure is preventive, not punitive, so unless discussing this with Mel further would make you feel a little better, it's probably best to move on. Andre (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Otto, I replied to your email, let me know if you need anything further, or you have any questions about anything. Pedant 18:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andre and Pendant, thank you both for your appreciated comments. Otto 20:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hilbert

On that article, all I wrote was directly translated from the Italian FA version. Someone or other had put out a request for translation and I just followed up on it. The only thing I can do is check the Italian article for a possible source and ask on the Italian talk page. Unfortunately, Italian Wikipedia articles rarely have any sources at all. The FAC criteria are meaningless because there are very few contributors. But I will see what I can do.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 11:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's worse than I thought

Here are the only three listed references for Italian FA article on Hilbert:

Piergiorgio Odifreddi, Divertimento Geometrico - Da Euclide ad Hilbert, 2003, Bollati Boringhieri, ISBN 8833957144.
Umberto Bottazzini: Il flauto di Hilbert. Storia della matematica - 2003, UTET, ISBN 8877508523
L. Corry, J. Renn, J. Stachel, Belated Decision in the Hilbert-Einstein Priority Dispute, Science n. 278, 14 novembre 1997

I don't have a copy of the first two. All I can tell you is that, if there is a source, it must be one of these three. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 11:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OBL worldwide perception article AFD

You might be interested in this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Worldwide perception of Osama bin Laden

Regards, -- That Guy, From That Show! 07:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maryam Hassouni

According to the IMDb the birth year of Maryam Hassouni is 1986, can you refer to the source that proves this wrong? - Ilse @ 21:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ja Ilse ik heb contact gehad met haar agent, die mij haar geboortedatum gaf.

Alle kranten schreven overigens dat ze 21 is, 1986 is daarmee in strijd, als die leeftijd klopte kwamen alleen 1985 en 1984 nog in aanmerking. Zelf schrijft Hassouni ergens (zie link Nederlandse wiki) dat ze maagd is van sterrenbeeld, dat komt mooi overeen met de datum 21 september. Omdat er sprake was van strijdige informatie heb ik haar agent benaderd, die mij zonder omwegen haar geboortedatum zond. Met vriendelijke groet en dank aan Otto voor het gebruiken van je overlegpagina. - .Aiko 23:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

00:23, 22 November 2006 (CET)