User talk:A Pirard

Original research
Before removing text barely needing references, you should first remove the several ones crying for them but that have invalid ones.

I have added references as commanded. A Pirard (talk) 07:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I think your edit to Google Translate constitutes original research.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * (En français, voir fr:Wikipédia:Travaux inédits - not using Google Translate for that, fyi).Jasper Deng (talk) 03:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Vous n'avez pas de bonne références pour l'article Google Translate. Ne pas de recherches personnelles dans l'article, s'il vous plaît. You don't have good references for the article Google Translate. Please don't add original research to the article.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Vous n'êtes pas une bonne référence. You are not a good reference.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Please be polite!!!! You're talking to a linguist and a computer scientist and I certainly know Google Translation better than some citations that hardly say more that Google Translation translates and certainly not that Google recently started a cache that prevents Web authors improving their text to hide translation errors. A Pirard (talk) 07:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Our original research policy does not even allow an expert himself to be a reliable source.Jasper Deng (talk) 16:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * La traduction peut être interprété à anglais parce que la dictionaire de russe n'a pas le mot correct. The translation could be translated to English because the Russian dictionary does not have the correct word.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Certainly not, it happens even though there is a very simple and obvious Russian Translation but when Google cannot find it. And you undoubtedly must know that when Google cannot find a translation, it leaves the word as is.

You should experiment Google Translation and read what I wrote:

Proof on request of a supervisor: translating for example French: obvious to Russian : очевидный : obvious meaning nothing in French, the translation was obviously made through English.

How can you explain that Google translation if English is not the intermediary language?

- No it is no more "original research" than the list of dictionaries and the statement "going through English" above. It is a help for the user to fully understand what is already incompletely said and to use Google Translation more effectively.

You did not know that English is the intermediary language, now you do and you know why Google Translation behaves like that.

If being that useful is not the goal of Wikipedia, what is it?

My text is fully compliant with:

The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged. That "Paris is the capital of France" needs no source, because no one is likely to object to it and we know that sources exist for it.

Because the citation is in Google Translation itself. I can add URLs that display what I say if you like.

In any case, courtesy urges to discuss any modification to a text rather than wild rubbing, thank you. I'm open to any motivated modification if I'm not losing my time.

I have temporarily removed and held back the following and I'm going to add citations.

Proof on request of a supervisor: translating for example French: obvious to Russian : очевидный : obvious meaning nothing in French, the translation was obviously made through English. You may also find a L1 -> EN translation for which Google found no EN -> L2 translation and hence an ENglish word amistst an L2 text. Ask anyone using Google translation intensively. Also, it's obvious, by itself and from the list above that Google translation, does not use 2500 dictionaries. And if a quotation is necessary, read "going through English" above.


 * That is not a reliable source. It must be third-party. Also, on enwiki we have a manual of style that must be followed. English can be used if the word is not found in the second language. That is the problem even with "obvious" original research. This is not as clear-cut as you think (not the same as "Paris is the capital of France"). You have no proof that Google uses English as an intermediate.Jasper Deng (talk) 16:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not a supervisor; they don't exist on enwiki. Even though I have some certain user permissions, I'm no more credible than you as an editor and cannot make any forceful decisions.Jasper Deng (talk) 16:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

So you want references. I have added [25] and [26] and I will add more. Could you please add reference [25] to "10th stage (as of this stage, translation can be done between any two languages, going through English, if needed) (launched May 2008)" within the same article? I'm sorry I don't know how to do that. Thank you. A Pirard (talk) 21:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

If you want references so badly, could you please first fix the references to invalid URLs.

Also, this one is unreliable : : it's obviously written just to boast Google Translate but, when translated to French, a very large part of it is plain hilarious. A Pirard (talk) 21:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a good reference, I agree. However, I know for a fact that French is a difficult language in terms of grammar, and it's already agreed that GT is no good at that.Jasper Deng (talk) 21:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)