User talk:MartinDK

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Original research in Carousel 2 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Croatisation 3 Your Turn 4 Janicism 5 Notability

[edit] Original research in Carousel

Note also that someone else came up with an explanation of the source of the material in question at talk:Carousel. Fourohfour 13:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi! I know, I read the talk page and checked Google several times before I removed it. The editor you are talking about says that he believes it was copied from the book. That by itself was enough for me to remove it. He also said that the tone of the introduction was nostalgic. Unless someone comes forward at explicitly say they have read the book and that the passage isn't copyvio I will not reinsert it. Written sources are usually very reliable compared to web pages but since they are also that much harder to verify we need to be careful when someone says it is plagiarized. MartinDK 15:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Croatisation

Hi MartinDK, just a quick note to express my appreciation for taking the time to explain the difference in policies. You were right in that I meant WP#NotBattleground when talking about WP:POINT.

Cheers, iruka 05:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi!

Thanks, it was no big deal. Also, I forgot to tell you that you are of course free to move the article if you feel that the title is POV. Also you can do an entire rewrite if you feel like it. There is a lot you can do without having to ask anyone for permission to do so. Best of luck with the article, I am sure that with your commitment to the subject you will be able to turn it into a more informative and balanced article. Cheers, MartinDK 07:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your Turn

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Long_Island_Music_Hall_of_Fame - While I think the nomination section can be better presented, the article is in much better shape. *Spark* 21:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi!

I replied on the AfD. It looks much better now thanks so it was time for me to fulfill my part of the agreement. Changed it to keep now. I'm busy with another article that needed total reworking to avoid deletion but I will keep this one on my watch list. Cheers and thanks again! MartinDK 22:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Janicism

They've posted up their newspaper article on the Janicism page. I'm disappointed, given the time taken surely they could have created something better! WJBscribe 13:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly! I am still looking forward to the video. Seriously, how can anyone post this

The Touching of the Vegetables

When a baby is born, a Chief Janni comes to the family with a basket of assorted vegetables. He touches the baby's head with the vegetables, and the family then rejoice in the fact that a new baby has entered the community. They then eat the vegetables.

and still think they are going to be taken seriously? MartinDK 13:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

If I may throw my two cents in, my favorite part is the blogspot page, which was obviously created in the past few hours, followed by the comment, "So what if its not reliable, its a source." -- Kicking222 13:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I know! Especially when you consider the fact that this kid didn't even know that the time was going to be printed on the blog entries. Also, have you tried looking up random sections of the blog on Google? MartinDK 14:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

In an attempt to pre-empt whatever the Janicist lobby will come up with in the way of video evidence of these book burning ceremonies.... Do you think this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IR07cIS-7-4 may be a Janicist festival? It seems to have the right level of attendance (and professionalism)... WJBscribe 16:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

ROFL I think that might be as close as we are going to get to one. This might be a notable religion... like notable on the local street for starting small fires... the good thing is that this kid is getting annoyed at me... We must be doing the right thing then!MartinDK 16:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

And now they've resorted to vandalising our user pages. Wow- it seems religious extremists come in all guises (including those who worship prophets of Nutrition, Geometry and Anatomy apparently). Good to know we're getting to them :). WJBscribe 19:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't think about it, I reported it on IRC MartinDK 19:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notability

Sorry if this is not proper form; I am new to editing. I wanted to ask about this: "We are not a collection of every local fact known to mankind."

I heard someone say that Wikipedia was an attempt to amass the sum of all human knowledge. I had thought that was from Wikipedia itself, but now I think it was probably just some sloppy journalism I read somewhere. Is that Wikipedia's goal, implied goal, eventual aim, or even part of Wikipedia's underlying philosophy?

I can understand not wanting to have articles on every silly fact about someone's local high school, but why is there such a focus on notability? For example, in the article about the Tamir author Subrabharathimanian, it's suggested for deletion because he and his book aren't well known in English-speaking countries. Does/Would it hurt to have every little fact in the world available, and let the reader decide whether he's interested or not? Or is the problem that it would fill the encyclopedia with enormous amounts of minutiae, and lower the quality of the encyclopedia's "average article?" Also it could burden the servers, and take time away from users and admins which could be better used on more valuable articles? Tragic romance 04:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me answer that one bit at a time. You are asking some big questions here. First of all Wikipedia is not a project to sum up all knowledge known to mankind. It is an attempt at building an encyclopedia free for everyone to read and edit. But it is still an encyclopedia and every encyclopedia needs to set guidelines to determine what gets to styay and what doesn't.

It is right that Wikipedia would not suffer from having the article you mention. The servers won't die because of it. In some ways Wikipedia isn't not a normal encyclopedia. We have articles on every Simpsons episode etc. The problem with this particular article is that he is locally notable. In such situations we need to determine if the article would be better suited for the local version of Wikipedia and not the English one. In this case there is a local Wikipedia that could be used instead. The article belongs there instead where it will most certainly be considered notable and where the people editing the Wiki have better chances of verifying the information using reliable sources rather than the editors themselves. Remember that the criterion is always verifiability and not truth and editors cannot act as reliable sources themselves. MartinDK 17:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)