User talk:JimmeyTimmey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hey, as it seems we must convert all the references in other formats (see talk page). Can I count on your support? Fred Plotz (talk) 20:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Partially I agree. We should certainly delete nothing more. In-depth information as listing the DFG programs is abdicable indeed, as long as the original lists are easily accessible from the article, which is given. The lists of faculties and associates are obviously no problem; converting the popular culture section in prose will require nothing more than adding two or three sentences and deleting the bullets, so thats basically a thing of two minutes. Changing the layout of the gallery, if necessary or not, is no problem as well. The only thing which requires some work is changing the format of references. Of course one can doubt if this is necessary or adds value, but the WP:cite web format is obviously common, and generally speaking, the "retrieved on..." part of the footnote makes some sense, even if in our case the date will be the one of the day we change it. Anyway, I think if it takes one minute for every footnote, the whole process can be done in less than two hours; if we work together considerably less.

GA status itself is, from my point of view, not a self purpose, although it would be kind of rewarding after the months of work we put in the article. However I hope the review will bring some improvements in style, which presumably would be partially considered a bit clumsy by a native speaker. These improvements in turn are necessary for getting it featured, which is not only a question of status, but will bring the article on the main page. This was of course a marketing instrument that should not be underestimated, and if we make that, Mr Eitel will make us honorary senatores, at least ;-) Fred Plotz (talk) 10:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

After Eustress' edits and comments, I am even more convinced that GA is bullshit. It is a bureaucratic dictatorship that suppresses free and independent writing, and thus the diversity in wiki articles. From my point of view, most of the recent edits did not make the article any better. Some of Eustress' suggestions are useful, but most seem absurd to me. For example:

"Avoid starting sentences with numbers" - This is really just a matter of taste.

Didn't find a sentence yet where this is the case

"Only put inline citations immediately after punctuation marks (e.g., periods, commas)—never in the middle of phrases (per WP:CITE)--international rankings section" - I actually consider this a harmful suggestion because it would make the article and its references less clear.

Putting the cites at the end of the sentence is no problem, I think.

"For the Academic Ranking of World Universities, I would only refer to the most recent ranking" - Well, I would not to this because the past is as important as the present.

Yes, I completely agree as the rankings are only flickering due to changes in methodology. And it was Brown and Dartmouth in every single edition.

"Don't abbreviate "approx." - Is that really a point of criticism?! I don't believe it!

Already changed, I don't see a problem

"You need to provide U.S. dollar estimates for the Euro figures throughout doc" - Ok, this is probably one of the most stupid ideas. We would have to correct the numbers continuously according to the exchange rate...

We take the current exchange rate and leave it like this afterwards

"The History, Campuses, and Organization sections (and most of the article) come almost entirely come from a Catholic encyclopedia or the University itself" - So what? As far as I know, there is not much dispute about these issues. I particularly do not see what should not be neutral or biased in the organization and campus sections?

There's no bias in the sections. However I have another history of the uni from QS (which is clearly based on the Heidelberg source) and I'm going to replace some cites with it. It's a third party source and states exactly the same. And that's that.

Seriously, this whole GA thing does more harm than good. JimmeyTimmey (talk) 18:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to change some of his edits which are seriously misleading (such as focus on natural sciences) and I'm going to tell him why.

To summarize, I'm going to adress those things I consider usefull and I will give my statement to others which are senseless or simply incorrect. If we don't reach agreement, the whole thing can be undone in few clicks. Fred Plotz (talk) 18:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Du, ich hab das auch gelesen und hätte echt gute lust einfach mal zu reverten, aber es soll keiner sagen können, ich hätts nicht wenigstens versucht. Ich werde einigen schwachsinn korrigieren müssen und ansonsten den angemahnten wp vorschriften nachkommen. Am meisten ärgert mich dass der typ tut als wär das ding voll von pov. Ist es nämlich nicht, wirklich nicht. Guck dir mal seine edits an, seine uni vor allem und ihre vorschriften, dann weist du auch was das für einer ist. Fred Plotz (talk) 09:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, nach einem kurzen besuch auf der diskussionsseite unseres artikels bin ich zu dem schluss gelangt: mir reichts gerade. Der kann mich mal, ganz ehrlich. Wir sollen eine zweite meinung einholen müssen, bevor wir klare fehler korrigieren dürfen? Nö, so nich, nich mit mir. Außerdem sollte man von einem normalbegabten menschen erwarten können, die seite der HRK bedienen zu können. Ich werde jetzt die nominierung zurückziehen und seine edits revertieren. Fred Plotz (talk) 10:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Ich versuche gerade zu speichern. - edit conflict! Fred Plotz (talk) 12:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Hallo? Ich hab gerade gemacht was Du gerade tust. Lass mich mal speichern!!!

Jo, hatte da technische schwierigkeiten, lag aber wohl eher an mir. Dachte es geht nicht weil du auch gerade daran rumwerkelst. Hab im wesentlichen den schaden behoben, glaub ich. Bin mal gespannt ob der gute noch was von sich gibt :D Naja aber sag was du willst, der artikel is jetzt schon besser, so alles in allem. Hat's doch was gutes gebracht, oder? Fred Plotz (talk) 13:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)