User talk:Sinatra

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Sinatra, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! , Los Esqueakis 16:41, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] August 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. An article you recently created, Hans Kurath, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new articles, so it will shortly be removed (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do and please read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you. Tiddly Tom 22:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

it was not the least inappropriate, and as an administrator I have removed the tag put on by the inexperienced editor who did not realize that professors at major universities are considered notable at Wikipedia if the article is documented. But he or anyone else can still challenge the article, so I would advise you to add further documentation: there should have been published some tribute or obituary notice,at the time of his retirement or the time of his death, and it would be well if you found it and added it as a reference. DGG (talk) 22:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I've just added some more information. -- Sinatra 22:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ELT

Thanks for your well-referenced additions to English language teaching and learning. If you are feeling brave, you may be just the right person to do the merger on second language acquisition and language education. Good luck, and feel free to ask me for any help on my page. BrainyBabe 09:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I have to see whether I'll find some time to do that. - Sinatra 19:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Literature

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that we don't generally use a Literature heading on Wikipedia; if the work in question contributed to the writing of the Wikipedia article, it should go under a References heading, and otherwise, it should go under a Further reading heading. Thanks! —RuakhTALK 15:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try to remember this. - Sinatra 19:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Linking to your own research

Hi Joachim. You're inserting links to yourself in many articles and link to papers you have written. Although I'm sure your research is important and of high quality, Wikipedia is not the place to push it. If every researcher and academic started linking to their own research, the situation would become impossible to manage. JdeJ 12:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

That's right, and I thought it is fine as long as the articles and papers have occurred in academic papers. I think the goal of Wikipedia--as I understand it--is also to respect current developments. Or would it be better than to have colleagues insert these links? -Sinatra 12:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Look, I'm sure you're a great researcher and I don't doubt your qualifications for a moment. I do have my reservations about the way you and some of your colleagues are using Wikipedia mainly to push your own research. I've started a discussion about the matter here [1] and would look forward to hearing both from you and from administrators. I don't think it's a good thing filling Wikipedia with too many links to articles in any place, and I find it particularly strange to link almost exlusively to oneself and one's colleagues. Once again, this is not for a minute a hesitation over the papers you have written. JdeJ 13:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

See generally WP:COI and WP:SCOIC on the best way to proceed to avoid controversy. Cheers. THF 14:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear JdeJ and THF, I've commented on the page, JdeJ indicated and I would like to repeat my comment here:
First, let me react to the accusation of vandalizing the References section in the article semantic change. Let me state the following: I have not just quoted myself, but several other authors who have carried out research on this matter. I can offer to add a positive review on my book quoted. As to Crystal, I have not deleted his encyclopedias because I think they are bad, but they are not really exhaustive (Crystal himself says that his list shows only “some” types of semantic change and he doesn't say who these types go back to!) or up to current research on many historical topics (the newer editions lack many of the recent developments). Actually, the vandalism has now been done by JdeJ himself: he has deleted respected and current sources that are specifically on the topic of semantic change; the revert means that the current knowledge and the wide-spread terminology has now been replaced by a basically out-dated terminology in a very general encyclopedia. Second—and more important--, I don't get quite see why experts on a specific field (who are experts not because they've read a lot about this field, but because they have worked in this field themselves) should not write on topics and therefore add links also to their own work. Jean-Pol Martin has written a few things on this in the German wikipedia here, among other things on the destruction of expert articles by laypersons. I am certainly not going to insist on my contributions. I offer my knowledge and expertise and I can give arguments regarding the content; however, I am not going to enter a discussion on judging a contribution on who made the contribution. In my view, collective construction of knowledge shall be content-oriented, not author-oriented.
If the community wishes me to discuss contributions including my own research first on the talk page, I don't see any problem and I'm willing to do so. - Sinatra 14:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)