User talk:Berserk798

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Hello new user and welcome to Wikipedia.

Nice work on the Common Era article! You will go far around here by maintaining a civil tone and supporting your edits with sound reason and reliable sources. Common Era is strongly contested as you have discovered and it needs editors like you to improve it.

A few tips for you:

- Sunray 07:09, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)


Thanks! I appreciate it. Those links are pretty helpful. I'm (obviously) new around here, and am just getting the hang of it. I look forward to helping improve Wikipedia and working with people like you. Berserk798 17:00, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] What the Bleep Do We Know?

Thanks for the note. I'm sorry that you feel my edits to the article were pov, but I assure that they were not; in fact, I corrected some pretty blatant pov. This article has historically been a pov magnet for What the Bleep advocates and WTB "street teams." I've been repeatedly correcting this for a year now. Please be more careful with your accusations of pov and open to considering that your personal interpretation of the npov policy may not be shared by others, and also please sign your comments using by using "~~~~". FeloniousMonk 15:51, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Explain to me how saying "an alternate and controversial view of the physical world" as opposed to "a different view of the physical world" is less POV? Wouldn't that be going directly against the guidelines of the NPOV Policy I quoted?
Is calling the experts "those that have been presented as experts" less POV? We're supposed to give a sympathetic view to both sides and assume that everything is at least plausible. We can't just say they're "presented as experts" as that's your point of view. There's a sizeable community that considers them to be experts in the field of quantum physics.
Your reinsertion of the sentence "The filmmakers assembled a panel favorable to their views to make their point (see below)." is not only redundant, as the next paragraph says "The film presents scientific experts to support the film's underlying philosophy, but, by and large, the scientists have previously been involved in promoting similar ideas. Arguably, their presence in the film represents the filmmaker's efforts to find scientists sympathetic to the film's ideas.", but it doesn't seem very neutral at all.
Saying that these chosen experts do not represent the scientific community is just stupid. There isn't one scientific community with one outlook on things. There are several different scientific communities each with their own ideas. I suggest we change it back to may not.
Using words like "purported" and "alleged" is also a bad idea. I think "controversial" is much more neutral.
Please address each of these and explain how it made the article more neutral. Thanks! :) --Berserk798 16:18, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bach style section

Berserk—I want to rewrite this section. :-) Tony 00:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

Hello Berserk, i found your name on the Mozart talk page and I'm asking you for help on the Mozart article. I'm active on the german wikipedia, there somebody, probably closely related to the study author Martin Braun, tried to place links to "scientific studies" proving the authenticy of two Mozart portraits. This person also tried to place the portraits. On de:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart we removed the pics and links of this self proclaimed expert. I did the same here, but get reverted. As I'm no regular here, I simply need somebody to watch out. I hope you got the idea, despite of my english. --stefan (?!) 13:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Grand Kremlin Palace

hi Berserk798, how are you? I am having some issues on this article about its neutral-point-of-view (which it is not I believe) I just noticed as well your issues you are having with Hermitage Museum, I find some words rather questionable for an encyclopedia as well. Maybe you could take a look at the article I mentioned above and care to give some input on this, I would appreciate that. thanks alot and with kind regards Gryffindor 11:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

While the Hermitage Museum was one of the very first articles I touched in Wikipedia and could have been too enthusiastic in my judgments, the Grand Kremlin Palace is a different matter. I advise you to travel to Moscow and to see the palace interiors for yourself before embarking upon pointless discussions. There are so many things in Wikipedia to do - can't you find a more useful engagement? My advice: write something yourself rather than crticising those who contributed more than 500 articles to this project. --Ghirla -трёп- 19:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response

  • The article states that the Hermitage Museum is the "most important" museum of human history and culture in the world. I removed that statement in accordance to Wikipedia's style guide, because it's not a verifiable fact but merely someone's opinion, and that it gives no actual information about the museum.
    Not at all. It says "one of the most important". While I don't believe that the phrase is mine, yet the statement is factually correct. If you remove it, I would not revert: the fact is obvious enough. --Ghirla -трёп- 19:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I changed "Leonardo" to "Leonardo da Vinci" because many people will not correctly identify the name Leonardo as being Leonardo da Vinci.
    While I can imagine the hamburger-chewing public you take so much care about, it's not very likely that they are able to read anything more advanced than cartoons. If you think the problem is real, make your changes. --Ghirla -трёп- 19:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I changed "but there is actually much more to see" to "there are several more collections, however, including" because the former sounds too informal for Wikipedia, in my mind. This is, however, very debatable.
    Indeed. I see nothing wrong here. --Ghirla -трёп- 19:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I removed the "superb" description of the Faberge jewellery in accordance to Wikipedia's style guide, the POV factor, and because it gives no information about the collection. If you want people to realize how superb it is, tell them facts that show what makes it superb.
    This change is OK with me. I don't believe there is so much Faberge jewelry in the Hermitage. --Ghirla -трёп- 19:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I removed the "breathtaking" description of the ancient gold collection for the same reasons as the "superb" description.
    I have objections here. Perhaps we should state clearly that the Hermitage contains by far the largest part of the steppe (Scythian, Sarmatian, Bosporian) gold produced before Christ\s era? --Ghirla -трёп- 19:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I removed the statement that describes the German architect as "stylish". This is, obviously, for similar reasons as the two previous edits.
    Please read carefully: Klenze was not stylish but fashionable. Only those who have no idea about 19th-century architecture may dispute the fact. --Ghirla -трёп- 19:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I removed "its quality is still unsurpassed". Please, don't even argue with this one. The same reasons as "superb" and "breathtaking".
    The epithet is surely judgmental, yet it is basically correct. In terms of quantity, the Hermitage's collection is now the second best; yet the fame, size, diversity of subject matter, importance for the history of painting - in one word, quality - of Rembrandt paintings represented here have no rivals elsewhere. --Ghirla -трёп- 19:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I think "notable" is more neutral than "remarkable", but this is debatable.
    I don't see it at all.
  • "Several" means the same exact thing as "a lot" except it sounds more encyclopedic and is less informal. Why do you even have an issue with this?
    Because Schukin bought up the whole Picasso's studio circa 1909. Every large or otherwise eminent painting from the period went to his collection, which was later divided between the Hermitage and the Pushkin Museum. Those early Cubist paintings by Picasso that may be seen in the West were sold abroad by the Communists. Even in the present state, the Hermitage's collection of 40 major works by Picasso may by no means reduced to "several paintings". --Ghirla -трёп- 19:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Describing some paintings as "somewhat less irreplacable" than others is fallacious and POV. Similar reasons as the "superb" and "breathtaking" edits, but I hope I don't need to go into detail about them.
    Please do. There are less than dozen Van Eyck's in the world, each long appropriated by a major museum, so the loss of every one is irreplacable. There are no (and never will be) other Van Eycks on the market to buy and to fill the gap in the collection. On the other hand, there are thousands of Renoirs or Monets in the market, so there is hope that a new painting by one of this paintings will be acquired, hence the loss is retrievable. --Ghirla -трёп- 19:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The period was only "tragic" in the eyes of some people. Obviously the Soviets didn't think it was too tragic; obviously the people abroad who bought the paintings didn't think it was tragic at all. This is purely, wholly, undebatably POV.
    The article is about a particular museum. For the museum officials the loss is tragic, and they say it openly in every publication you can consult. What others think about the matter is of little consequence to this article. --Ghirla -трёп- 19:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Saying that the impressionist works were "by far the most precious" is POV for obvious reasons as well.
    Please consult auction records. The paintings are sold and bought, and every artwork has a price. --Ghirla -трёп- 19:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not given the right to judge whether or not works of art are "incredible". I don't think we should be describing this movie as such.
    It's not my phrase. There are many enthusiasts of the movie who I'm pretty sure will restore it. --Ghirla -трёп- 19:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List_of_oxymora

I replyed to your comment on Oxymorn page. I'd like your input on my proposal since your the only active editor over there:) ---J.Smith 23:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your New User Page Layout...

Is very nice. : )

Though I mock your 'mana-sama' thing.

[edit] Image Tagging for Image:Moidixmoisportrait.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Moidixmoisportrait.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/e/r/User_talk%7EBerserk798_ec59.html"