User talk:Zargulon

WP:PNT

I don't understand why you are listing already-translated articles at WP:PNT. This project is for pages that partially or wholly need translation, usually in the former case there are quotes that need translation, or in the latter that they have been dumped into English wWikipedia from other Wikipedias or from other sources. I don't understand your motive for adding them here.

Can you please enlighten me what you expect to be done with them? I think PNT probably is the wrong place to list them, but I am sure we can guide you to a better place to list them.

Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 23:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply at my talk page. I am not quite sure what you mean by "instructions", but I see that the template says "please see this article's entry on Pages needing translation into English for discussion". My guess is from that you decided to list at PNT, whereas, also guessing, the normal way around would be for it to be listed at PNT then have its translation templates replaced by cleanup-translation once the main translation is done but fixes by a subject expert were thought needed.

I have no problem with your way of doing it, but it did puzzle me. In any case, I had already moved them to the "Pages needing cleanup after translation" section, where probably you would have been better off putting them in the first place. That being said, I can imagine it would be thought unusual suddenly to find a page appearing in that section that had never appeared as needing translation, so I can see your bind.

Might I suggest, perhaps, then, that if other articles of this kind come your way, you list them as you did in the top section of PNT, but make it clearer that they need cleanup (so as to let someone else move them down, rather than simply listing in the section below yourself). I myself, and a few others, tend to let someone else move/delete entries about articles we have translated, to let others give an opinion, rather than just do it ourselves, so perhaps that would be a good compromise in your case too? The instructions are almost inevitably followed, it just then allows for a second opinion. e.g. after writing as you did for your articles, put "Suggest move to cleanup section", that would be all that is needed I suspect.

You did right. Keep up the good work. Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 21:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

("Add at the bottom")... ah. I did not see that, as I simply looked at the documents and not at the template itself, which I have now looked at. I suppose it depends on your interpretation of what "at the bottom" means; you took it to mean at the bottom of the "Pages for consideration" section, whereas I would interpret it as at the bottom of the "Pages needing cleanup after translation" section (which is also the bottom of the whole document). I think it's a little fragile anyway to assume that the second is also the last section in the document.

So, since it seems genuinely ambiguous and a little fragile, I would suggest a rewording. It's probably best to take this to the tempalate's talk page, but to get your opinion first, how about just putting explicitly "at the bottom of the Translated pages that could still use some cleanup section of WP:Pages needing translation into English". I would also suggest changing "please add" to "please consider adding", because there may be articles which an editor does not consider useful to list at PNT (e.g. if they are in other projects/categories where a subject expert is more likely to look than PNT). I imagine that cleanup-translation was originally intended specifically for articles originating at PNT (or other translation request pages) but I don't see that that needs must be the case (and if it is, it should say so explicitly at the doc page).

I would also change the title of the section from "Translated pages that could still use some cleanup", which sounds a bit informal to me, to "Pages requiring cleanup after translation". Perhaps you have a better suggestion? We can add a redirect anyway, so if the section name changes we just change the redirect.

What do you think if of that?

Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 08:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm copying this to the talk page at WP:PNT, together with your replies at my talk page interspersed. Probably best to continue any discussion there. SimonTrew (talk) 08:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Translations

		The Rosetta Barnstar
		I award you this barnstar for translating articles from français to english. Keep up the good work.- BennyK95 - Talk 21:13, October 18 2009 (UTC)

Österreichische Freiheitsfront (fr wikipedia)

I know the translation from German is "Austrian Freedom Front", but in the sources in French mentioning it, including from that period (see here), the second name in French is "Front national autrichien", it was not a translation mistake. Thanks for having finished the translation from French to English. After further readings tonight (e.g. here ), I see that there were also French and Austrian chapters of the Ö.F.F. which I overlooked when writing the original French article about a year ago :-/ --Pylambert (talk) 21:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!

As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)

The October 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)

The November 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)

The December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 14:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Zargulon! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 2 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

Aguri Uchida - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Herbert Herz - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 23:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Playing cards

Hello
I noticed you edited the Baraja article recently. I left some questions about this here and here; do you know the answer? Moonraker12 (talk) 14:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)

The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 05:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shine edits

Thanks for your nice message and you did a fair and evenhanded edit on that page.

Frankly, I am becoming a bit disillusioned by the Wikipedia concept.

The United States Patent Office no longer allows Examiners to cite Wikipedia as a reference for anything because the pages keep changing, can be hacked and edited by anyone, and frankly, are just not trustworthy sources of information.

Anything the slightest bit controversial is often hacked by fervent supporters or opponents of the issue.

In the instance of Shine, it seems there is a group of strong-willed supporters (who may in fact work for Helfgott, who runs a small "Shine" industry) that edit the pages relating to him, the movie, and his sister's book, and also spam the netflix, amazon, IMDB and any other review site with laudatory reviews.

In a way this is a troubling trend on the Internet in general. Many fraudsters running bogus operations of various types go onto review sites (which themselves are often bogus or harbors for Trojans) and post self-laudatory reviews. Some review sites pay reviewers for writing reviews or give them "credits" for reviews.

It maybe started out as Democracy but has morphed into Anarchy.

But perhaps that is part of the game - to read these entries and edits and then try to figure out who wrote what and who edited or deleted what, and then figure out why and the motivations of the players and they try to discern a real truth.

And in a way, perhaps the same could be said of traditional encyclopedias, biographies (autobiographies in particular) and history in general. People write things from a certain slant, which can be achieved often by simply failing to mention some facts while emphasizing others.

"Truth is Beauty, and Beauty Truth" right?

Anyway, you did a nice edit. I wonder how long it will stay that way.. ;)

Good Luck!