User talk:Highland14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The article on Salomon Gluck has serious references at the end, citing published articles, easily checked. There were many heroes in the history of France and WWII. Here we have a Jewish Physician, out of the country, who returns to fight the war, is taken prisoner, goes back to civilian life. Although he is not allowed to practice medecine because of the racist Laws of Vichy, he nevertheless cares as a physician for young orphans. He enters the Resistance and finally is deported, in a very special convoy, never to return. His life story shows many aspects of the war, seen through the life of an individual.

Welcome!

Hello, Highland14, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! 

The articles you write will be more quickly accepted if you learn Wikipedia's editing style - see the links above. One space between words and after periods, link important names, events and concepts using double brackets [[like this]], would be a great start. Mak (talk) 16:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] re Salomon Gluck

First of all i have to ask, are you related to this man in some way, the way you write about him makes it seem so, in which case you would have what is known as a conflict of interest, see WP:COI. however that is not my main concern, the problem is that, you are wrong, the refs you have given, are, for the websites, mostly in french, therefore uncheckable to many editors on this english wiki, and the articles, are impossible to check up on. secondly, while i am not denying that the many resistance fighters were not brave, your article shows no reason why gluck is more notable than others, what exactly did he do for the resistance?, was he involved in signficant attacks?, or responsible for major events? etc, if not, i am afraid i see no way this article will last on wikipedia, and sooner or later it will be deleted. finally, simply linking practically every other word is not improvement, in fact it makes the article worse, as you don't check to see if they link to other articles, meaning the page is filled with horrible dead links. all these issues need to be addressed, both on this article, and the other ones you have created, although on the other ones, you need to wikify them even more, they should be in continous prose, as i have attempted to do to gluck, not short, single line paragraphs.--Jac16888 10:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I repeat again that the references are easy to check, look at the New York Times reference, the Jewish Press reference, [=in English], look at the websites quoted, not counting the original article published in a special volume in France. It makes no sense to repeat that there is a problem about the references. By the way, I did take into consideration your remarks about judgements : could have remained in England, his interactions with other prisoners. They are published as such in the volume cited. Thanks for the improvements to the text.

if you read the article's talk page you will see that the websites are of little use as references, and as for the newspapers, how is newspaper articles, some over 10 years old, easy to check as a reference? but they are still not the main issue. how is gluck notable?--Jac16888 12:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
btw, you should be making the same improvements to the other articles you created, remember, continous prose not statements, NEUTRALITY, and not linking every single name and date.--Jac16888 12:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Now you tell me that the New York Times, for example, is not easy to check, I certainly disagree. I do appreciate your comments. (Highland14 12:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC))


A tag has been placed on Liliane Ackermann, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Precious Roy 16:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the tag from the article, because I think it establishes at least some notability, and includes references to third party articles. I would remind everyone to Not bite the new editors, either because you aren't interested int he same areas as they are, or because they don't know about Wikipedia editing style yet. Obviously, a New York Times reference is perfectly acceptable. References in other languages are also acceptable, and I have no idea what Jac1688 is talking about on the Talk:Salomon Gluck that "books and newspaper articles don't actually give any meaning" - paper references are generally acceptable. Mak (talk) 16:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Antoinette Feuerwerker, David Feuerwerker and Liliane Ackermann

Individual people are not to be filed in Category:Biography; that's for articles about biography as a genre of literature or film. People belong in the appropriate subcategories of Category:People. Do not readd the biography category to these articles. Also, do not add Category:Judaism to a person who's already filed in Category:French Jews; Wikipedia does not permit duplicate categorization of this type. Bearcat 04:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Famous people of Strasbourg

Hi, i suggest that you put Salomon Gluck, Rose Warfman and the others into this list, where they actually belong, instead of categorizing them in Category:Strasbourg, where they don't belong. Thank you, cheers, RCS (talk) 11:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Original research

The sentences you reinstated in the Hershel Schachter article are unsourced and WP:OR violations, regardless of how true they may be. Sorry. -- Avi (talk) 04:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

That it is true is irrelevant. Please review the core wikipedia policy of verifiability, not truth. Continued disregard for wikipedia policy and guidelines may result in actions being taken to protect the project. At this point, I would also suggest you review the policy on three-reverts/edit warring, as well as the the various things which wikipedia is not, including it is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If you have any other questions, please feel free to contact me on my talk page. -- Avi (talk) 21:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
We need to adhere to the policies and guidelines, otherwise, every article would devolve into a mud-slinging tar-and-feather-fest. Sometimes, true information suffers as a result, but that is the lesser if the two evils when dealing with a project that is the collaborative effort of hundreds of thousands of people with hundreds of thousands of opinions. -- Avi (talk) 23:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Liliane Ackermann

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Liliane Ackermann, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)