User talk:Timeastor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Timeastor, 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 place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Lradrama 14:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

To you are my low bows. Thank you. Shall strive to be useful, within the limits of what skills are given me by God.Timeastor 15:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reliability and verifiability

Not always are third-party resources reliable and verifiable.)) Even the largest sites with the strictest editorial policies can give false information. And it is grieving me a bit to realize, that no word of my own experience or research can be regarded as “reliable”, only because it comes from me.)) The simple phrase of “I have seen it with my own eyes” will be treated as absolutely non-encyclopedic, while reference to some far-away site, where someone “established” describes the same that he saw with his eyes, will probably be treated as “verifiable”.))

I have read a book. I am describing it. Why should I be less objective than some source?

I have known some things for a truth. I have been there, seen it. Not “I heard it somewhere”, as Jimmy Wales put it.)) Why should I lie or be unreliable? But if I say “I”, I will get the turn-down.))

Of course, you cannot check my information for accuracy, but then, as I said, no information can be one hundred percent reliable. Take the instance with hoaxes on governmental level, of which there are many in history. However, I am not complaining.)) I am only trying to suggest that Wiki would have been a lot more comprehensive without the obligation for editors to refer always (but generally, this is justified) to third-party sources, as a panacea.)) And I sincerely, without any sarcasm, do not think that the quality of content would suffer much.Timeastor 10:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alexander Rosenbaum picture

Hi Timeastor. Since you didn't comment on the Rosenbaum's talk page, I thought I would ask you here. I saw that you replaced picture in the article. New picture seems to be inferior to the previous one - it is blurry and doesn't show artist's face. I wonder what was your motivation for the replacement. Thanks, Wikiolap (talk) 21:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey. I did not reply on the talk page, because I never check them for the reasons I have stated on my user page (discussion section). Yes, the picture is inferior, could I take a better shot, I would surely have done that. :))) The camera is quite poor. You see, the picture was taken by myself and that is why it is maybe dearer to me than my previous sketch, made from Rosenbaum's magazine photo. It was a quest :))) to visit his concert, to take a picture myself for a Wikipedia article... I did not want to meddle with pictures from any sites, I never seem to know for sure what images are free and what are not. All this licensing confounds me. Well, no problem if you have to revert to the previous photo. For that matter, the previous one, made (but not taken directly) by me also, is not very distinct either. :))) Use your discretion on this one. I never undo someone's changes.Timeastor (talk) 07:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)