User talk:Espoo/Archive 3

TU 154 M LUX (101)
Espoo wrote: "Please do not add unsourced wild speculation to Wikipedia such as this: However the evidence might point out that the Polish TU-154M LUX airplane was controlled and deliberately flown to ground, not as in many typical accidental crash cases by the pilots errors, but by the soviets in and deliberate "coup d'etat" and with knowledge and... --Espoo (talk) 05:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)"

I can NOT reveal my confidential classified sources! Check the location of my IP it might help you to guess... I might ONLY provide you with some internet links ...


 * meaconing

Apparently you are very young, inexperienced, very naive, with huge chip on the shoulder (an observation not an insult!) Man do NOT talk about unsourced allegedly wild speculations if you know bull, and  do not understand  foreign languages! You are putting to early an ax over head of others, instead investigating the matter. You should ONLY get involved with the things you know the best, and not with the issues you have no idea about it. Consider that some of us are experts in the field about which you and many wikipedia cops, know nothing, and  we the experts, not you have the right to voice it.

In 1990 ties in the town of Bawashiha near Moscow, there were special trainings for the serviceman of FDB (previously prior to 1991 KGB)  who supposed to specialize in organized assassinations of the heads of foreign governments.

The retired (for cause)on 28 of August 2008 Commanding officer of Polish 36 Special Squadron of Aviation Transport Colonel Tomasz Pietrzak, ex pilot summarized in several interviews the events related to the risks, operational procedures and disclosed some of the issues pertaining to the alleged "accident".


 * 


 * 


 * 

The fact that there is lack of evidence (in English)is NOT an evidence. Majority of evidence is in either POLISH or Russian language, while reports  by western journalists are  frequently written by classical airheads with no knowledge and understanding basics of events in this political assassination.

There was a TAWS (made by Avionics Systems of Tucson, Arizona) system on the plane  which by the directive of 36 squadron piloting the  VIOPs should be for operational reasons disabled.

The role of Russian IL76  is also crucial to generating artificial fog at Smolensk, and [meaconing] of TU 154M LUX (101). Meaconing is the interception and rebroadcast of navigation signals. ref. Satellitennavigation by  Hans Dodel, Dieter Häuptler


 * 


 * 

Polish government is already officially  conducting an investigation as the coup d'etat, except that the head of an investigation Premier  Donald  Tusk   together  with soviet ambassador Vladimir Grynin, based  on existing evidence are  believed to be guilty  of conspiracy to kill President  Lech Kaczyński.

I do speak fluently at least four (4) languages and  can provide you with the sources in foreign languages. You might to attempt  to translate them  using http://babelfish.yahoo.com ]

I personally  knew  assassinated  Polish President Lech Kaczyński and  we  know  more about than many of you.


 * 

(very poor automatic babel fish translation)
 * Babel fish translation from Russian

P.S. The members of the Chechen forum confirmed that behind the name “Georgiy Gordin” is  the hidden  Proshyn Sergey son of Alexander,  the vice-consul of  Russian Federation  in Stanbul'. Forum is cleaned, communication about [Gordine]-[Proshine] was preserved in the cache Of google according to this reference:
 * googlr cache


 * pic 1


 * pic 2


 * pic 3


 * pic 4

Some excerpts:

Such phrases as: "calm down" “[uspokoysya]! ”, “do not kill us!”, “look to it into the eyes! ”, “give pistol!” immediately the passengers of liner could pronounce only after catastrophe in the Polish language. But, here command in the Russian language: “Everything back, we depart from here! ”, could return only the commander of that special unit, which shot the wounded Poles.

The Poles survived in the catastrophe, understood that the soldiers “in the black” (on video) arrived to kill them and they fired back. This audibly on the film. The executors of the instructions Putin “worked” with the mufflers. But video recording with the sound and the image as attacking, so survived, re-played all their craftinesses.

Official version - “during the catastrophe perished all”. Expert report: the probability of the general loss of all people in the aircraft of the Polish President the same as, if water from the open crane would flow not downward, but upward - directly to the ceiling. I.e., the probability that in this catastrophe perished all of 96 people on board the aircraft Tu-154 - zero.

From the fourth correction the conclusion that, in any event, on the Polish liner had to be the survived and even surviving passengers. Them it could not prove to be exclusively in one case - if special unit finished them already after landing.

We can even name the number executed (finished)[dostrelyannykh] - their quantity varies from 10 to 21 people. According to the estimation of the most experienced experts, in this catastrophe not identified they could remain (to become the not identified mash or very strongly to be charred) maximum 10 of 12 people. Not all during the catastrophe were located in the nose section of the liner. They rapidly extinguished the flame. Most likely, not really identified of the remains on the spot of drop it was extremely little or them it was not generally.

So that the remains “only genetic material from 21 people” on the version the FSB, and are the number, in reality, the survived people after catastrophe on board the presidential aircraft Of Lech [lekha] Of Kaczyński's [kachinskogo]. The soldiers of Russian special unit finished them, and then they exported and converted into the pieces of burnt meat in order to hide the tracks of crime.

Correction the fifth. How they did arrange the wreck of the liner of the Polish President? Experts to us explained, which is elementary. The aircraft brought down Russian intelligence agencies, at the low altitude, after changing the parameters of landing. For this there are several methods. For example, per-second manipulation with course glide system at not a high altitude before landing itself.

Or electromagnetic pulse on the longitudinal or by-passes of control of aircraft (controls, ailerons) before the landing. Pilots saw everything and they understood, but to make already nothing they could. Time was not sufficient. For this very reason in order to hide the tracks of crime, survived crew members and those, who could hear their negotiations, it was necessary to finish on the earth.

In what were counted the executors of the order Putin, so in the fact that among those survived the armed and brave people, which even in this position showed efficient resistance, proved to be. Special-group could not without difficulty shoot the wounded Poles for the established limit of time. It was necessary to be detained on the spot execution and there their [zastukali] the run up people, in the first place, Andrey [Menderey] Mienderiey, who removed proceeding into the camera.

Everything which was then, between other, it went accurately according to the plan outlined in the Kremlin. They surrounded crash site, no one they released, they exported those been killed in the avia to catastrophe and shot down on the earth. The tracks of attack and violence removed. Why Putin did decide to commit crime in his territory? Experts assert that thus to bring down aircraft and to ensure the reliable cover of act of terror, it is possible only in the completely controlled to Russian intelligence agencies territory.

To execute [dostrelyat] those survived, to tear on the part and to burn the pieces of the body of the shot down passengers of liner and crew members. To ensure “mysterious disappearance” of evidences, for example, of that weapon, from which fired back the survived in the catastrophe guards Lech [Lekha] Kaczyński's [kachinskogo] and servicemen.

Lech [Lekh] Kaczyński's [Kachinskiy] was found in the relative safety until Putin looks new “Polish [Yanukovicha]” - the tightly thinking “friend of Russia”, Polish premier Donald Tusk. This was that boundary, after which the State Security Agent top of Russia studied only one question - as to clear road to its marionette or to its adherent of the same company “of the friends of Russia”. Knowing habits, and the previous affairs of Putin, it is not difficult to surmise, what methods they planned to make this. What also as they made, the entire world learned on April 10 in the morning.

From the seventh correction the conclusion that the rate of the Kremlin to “Polish [Yanukovicha]” - Donald [Tusk], his associates and electorate neglected the mechanism of the physical elimination Of Lech [lekha] Kaczyńskiego [kachinskogo]. It is desirable, together with its brightest adherents. Methods - most usual of the arsenal of Putin and his comrades on the KGB.

In the Kremlin, until now, they consider that no one will believe, that the leader of the Russian Federation could be decided to similar. To bind its subordinates to organize the murder of the President of another state in its territory! It will not believe, including its eyes and ears. If we to politicians and for Burgers the satisfactory countries produce the unquestionable proofs - nevertheless they will not believe.

From the eighth correction the conclusion that Putin always killed people, which were considered its enemies. And always in this case it risked, carrying out the most sensational special operations, including abroad. Lech [Lekh] Kaczyński [Kachinskiy] was in the first troika of the enemies of Putin and only, it could suffice to whom. Here still and “Polish [Yanukovich]” was screwed tighter.

From the eleventh correction the conclusion that Putin always placed his autograph under the organized and carried out act of terror. He placed it and now.

I will not astonish, if we soon again see together two general partners in the affair of slaughtering [ubieniya] of the President of Poland. Putin and “Polish [Yanukovicha]” - Donald Tusk. And both will into two throats tell one and the same Kremlin subject about “achieved results of joint investigation” and “indissoluble friendship between the Russian and Polish peoples”.

Therefore the murder of the President of Poland and substantial part of its political elite to now become serious testing for many countries of Western democracy. You have plenty of references you need to know and understand the sources of  references  and the foreign languages! Without it you can eat the crap.


 * 


 * [http://klubgptorun.salon24.pl/169245,katastrofa-w-katyniu-to-sie-samo-nie-stalo


 * 


 * 


 * 


 * il 76

http://sympatycypis.pl/forum ]

prof. dr hab. Jacek Trznadel Przewodniczący Rady Polskiej Fundacji Katyńskiej


 * 


 * 


 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.91.134.18 (talk) 08:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It is perfectly OK to add translations of information from non-English sources as long as these are reliable. It seems you have not looked at Verifiability at all - otherwise you would not have such blatantly wrong ideas about using Polish sources and about other more important aspects of writing an encyclopedia. I've copied the most important parts you haven't read/understood for you here:


 * The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth&mdash;whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.


 * All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source to show that it is not original research, but in practice not everything need actually be attributed. This policy requires that anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question. --Espoo (talk) 20:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Alveolo-palatal
I realized after my last edit that it might be more appropriate to discuss this in a talk page than by revert warring. If I haven't convinced you with my curt edit summaries then let's discuss our disagreement. — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 22:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) most WP users are incapable of understanding what "voiceless alveolo-palatal fricative" means
 * 2) most WP users would prefer to get an easy to understand explanation in the article on the corresponding letter instead of having to go to the page explaining the corresponding IPA symbol
 * 3) "similar to the  of English sheep" is unnecessarily imprecise, especially without additional info about how it's different
 * 4) "(thought actually longer)" is not only sloppy in terms of spelling but also adds more imprecision because the longer length is not the only or even the essential difference
 * 5) "voiceless alveolo-palatal fricative" is the way a linguist says how this sound is produced i.e. is a how-to guide for professionals and (some) educated people but this is incomprehensible mumbo-jumbo to most WP users
 * 6) the article currently attempts to explain that mumbo-jumbo in the following complicated and more or less incomprehensible ("place of articulation") way, which is clearly a how-to guide: "Its manner of articulation is sibilant fricative, which means it is produced by directing air flow through a groove in the tongue at the place of articulation and directing it over the sharp edge of the teeth, causing high-frequency turbulence."
 * 7) my suggestion was already much more comprehensible and did not sound much more like a how-to guide: produced by keeping the tongue in the position used to say // ("EE") and instead saying a long // ("SH")
 * 8) WP and other encyclopedias try to avoid sounding like how-to guides, but exceptions are necessary when the result is either mumbo-jumbo or unnecessarily complicated or difficult to follow by normal users


 * Would this be acceptable to you?:
 * Produced by directing air flow through the kind of narrow space used when saying // ("EE") and directing it over the sharp edge of the teeth, in other words by keeping the tongue in the position used to say // ("EE") and instead trying to say a long // ("SH"). --Espoo (talk) 20:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Your wording "unnecessarily imprecise" caught my attention; I don't think we need to be explicit about the phonetic peculiarities of the sound at shcha. Certainly at voiceless alveolo-palatal fricative we ought to.  Saying Щ is similar to English SH will satisfy most readers and those who want to know more can click on the relevant link.  So I can see how saying that it's longer is confusing and you're right that we should take it out.
 * It's true that, by itself, the phrase "alveolo-palatal fricative" is opaque, but you seem to be ignoring the description already at voiceless alveolo-palatal fricative and at alveolo-palatal consonant: "articulated with the blade of the tongue behind the alveolar ridge and the body of the tongue raised toward the palate." What you've pointed to as the existing description (which is actually a description of what sibilance means, not alveolo-palatal) doesn't sound like a how-to guide.  Think about it, if you told someone, "excuse me, sir, could you direct air flow through a groove in your tongue and direct it over the sharp edge of your teeth?" they would not know what to do.  It's a description of the articulation as well as the acoustics, not a how-to guide.
 * I think another problem with what you're trying to do or the wording you're providing is that it doesn't really make it any clearer. A reader may, in following the instructions, say .  — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]  21:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Capitalisation of game titles
I don't agree that the question of capitalisation has a clear (negative) answer. I am currently working on our coverage of card games, and all my books that I have just checked capitalise all games; not just in headings but in normal text. This includes Poker. One of my sources is the scholarly book on the history of card games by David Parlett, published by Oxford University Press. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that you start a discussion at WT:WikiProject_Board_and_table_games, making a proposal to cover this in WP:WikiProject Board and table games. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

As to "no reliable sources", apart from those I mentioned there is also Encyclopaedia Britannica. I haven't checked a recent edition, but see 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Old_Maid, for example. (The title is in all caps, but it is repeated at the end.) --Hans Adler (talk) 20:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think I wrote "no reliable sources" - in any case, what I meant was that "reputable sources" i.e. "most r.s." use lowercase. Modern dictionaries and encyclopedias record the current most common usage, and they are quite unanimous on the question of lowercase for games as shown here and here and here and in today's Britannica. The 1911 Britannica is not a reliable source for current English usage. --Espoo (talk) 20:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks like you are right, and since you obviously care about these things and were on the side of reason in the Beatles war, I am inclined to trust your judgement. Nevertheless I guess it makes sense to mention this in the games style guide, as it isn't obvious.
 * By the way, in mathematics there is a saying that concepts named after a person are capitalised (e.g. Boolean after George Boole), with the exception of very important concepts. It would seem to me that that's just a special instance of a much more general rule. E.g. a name of a group of musicians like The Beatles would stay capitalised in ordinary text except if it's very important. This might be something to mention to the fans if it comes up again. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

"Act" - footnotes may be more suitable for wiktionary
Hello. Leaving aside any question of whether I agree with them, I feel that, if they are to be retained, the footnotes that you have added to Act of Parliament, Act of Congress and Acts of Parliament in the United Kingdom ought to go in the Wiktionary entry for "Act" or "act" or whatever rather than in those articles because Wikipedia is not a usage guide, and it appears to me that that is what those footnotes are: see Wikipedia is not a dictionary.

Can I take it that you agree that I have interpreted this guideline correctly? James500 (talk) 16:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Many WP articles have notes, sometimes even an entire section on usage or etymology when this is important for the article and the user. Since many users will be quite surprised or even upset about lowercase here, (especially many lawyers - look at the baroque spelling in most EULAs) we definitely need to add some kind of explanation, but please feel free to edit the info if you feel it is too long and/or dictionary-like. --Espoo (talk) 16:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Tampere
Hi, don't you think you were a bit strict and harsh in deleting everything in the trivia section? Are you an expert on Tampere? I'm not saying the article necessarily needs such a section, but much of the info that was there is nontrivial cultural info about Tampere and at least as well known in that city as most other info in most other articles about major cities, most of which is just as unreferenced. Trivia_sections explains how to deal with trivia sections. --Espoo (talk) 11:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not an expert on Tampere – are you? I just am familiar with a couple of guidelines on Wikipedia, the most important here being WP:REF and WP:TRIVIA. The items weren't sourced, and highly dubious as well. If you think you can add the following back into the article with appropriate sources, go right ahead. -- Soetermans |  is listening  |  what he'd do now?  13:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Tampere has been compared to the English city of Manchester, which is the third largest city in the UK (Tampere being the third largest city in Finland). The term Manserock (rock music originating from Tampere) is suggested to have derived from this.
 * A briefly used and much less common nickname for Tampere is Nääsville, a portmanteau between the old Tamperean dialect word nääs (meaning something like "you know") and the American city of Nashville.
 * A local food speciality is mustamakkara, which resembles black pudding of northern England.
 * The asteroid 1497 Tampere was named after the city by its discoverer, the Finnish astronomer Yrjö Väisälä.


 * I'm not an expert on Tampere either, but I know enough about it to be pretty sure, as i already said, that much of the info that was there is nontrivial cultural info about Tampere. Which items did you feel were dubious? I sent you the same link, and that specifically says Trivia sections should not simply be removed from articles in all cases. It may be possible to integrate some items into the article text. Some facts may belong in existing sections, while others may warrant a new section. Integrate trivia items into the body of the article if appropriate. --Espoo (talk) 13:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * First off, except for the last bit about the asteroid, none of these are sourced. Unsourced claims can be removed without question, the tag has been up there long enough. All other items can be considered dubious without a source. Second, why don't you just do it yourself?. -- Soetermans |  is listening  |  what he'd do now?  12:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You deleted that info because it was in a section called Trivia, which was a bad decision because it's not trivial, and for the most part not even dubious. If you use only the criterion of a missing source for deciding when to delete something, you could delete most of Wikipedia, which would be serious vandalism. Only one item was tagged, so that's the only one that should have been removed. Better and more constructive would have been to instead move that item to the talk page and ask someone with more expertise than yourself to judge if it's nonsense or in fact correct info that simply nobody has yet had time to find a reliable source for. WP:SOURCE says Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source, but it implies that you should know at least something about the topic to have at least some reason for believing something is not correct. I understand and share your concern about preventing WP from becoming a collection of incorrect hearsay, but please concentrate your efforts on the many blatant cases and avoid situations where you are in fact speculating. --Espoo (talk) 19:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That's the ever-on going discussion on Wikipedia, isn't it? Should everything be sourced, or just the information that might seem dubious? When should something be sourced? I read in an another discussion that another Wikipedian insisted to have a scientific medical source to the claim "the common human has five fingers". Even though I do not agree with your point of view, in the future I first shall move all information listed under a trivia section to the corresponding talk page. -- Soetermans |  is listening  |  what he'd do now?  18:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * As promised :-). -- Soetermans |  is listening  |  what he'd do now?  10:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

SWAT
It is a SWAT team. Special Weapons and Tactics. Just like SRT is Special Reaction Team. These are TITLES of teams. They are proper names. They should be capitalized. It is as much a proper name as the Marine Corps, Boy Scouts or Democrat National Committee. What Websters fails to realize is that in many agencies, it is used as a PROPER NOUN. And you aren't considering that either. Niteshift36 (talk) 11:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's a SWAT team, which means a special weapons and tactics team. The indefinite article shows it's a common noun, which should definitely be spelled lowercase, as shown by the sources. For example the Bigtown SWAT Team is a proper noun, so if its official name doesn't use (only) the acronym, it's the Bigtown Special Weapons and Tactics Team. --Espoo (talk) 11:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree and you've violated the 3R by reverting yet again. Apparently you aren't willing to discuss things before reverting myself and another editor. Oh well, I tried to discuss........ Niteshift36 (talk) 11:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I hope you agree it was OK to add the sources, which the other editor apparently hadn't seen, so I wasn't actually reverting. You'll have to find a source for your opinion, and the two biggest US dictionaries prove you're simply wrong, although many people erroneously think all acronyms should be uppercased when written out, so you've often seen it wrong in less reliable sources. --Espoo (talk) 11:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * When did Bartlby become one of the 2 biggest? Random House certainly qualifies as a major one: "a special section of some law enforcement agencies trained and equipped to deal with especially dangerous or violent situations, as when hostages are being held (often used attributively): a SWAT team.". You know what? I'm not going to debate it with you. Obviously others are starting to take issue with it too. I'll let them argue it with you. Niteshift36 (talk) 11:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Bartleby publishes American Heritage Dictionary, and the other source is Merriam-Webster; both are definitely among the most reputable. When they spell something that way, you can be sure that most of the huge number of citations from reputable sources they have in their databases spell it that way. Modern dictionaries describe current usage; they don't dictate it. When usage changes, they change their entries too. --Espoo (talk) 12:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I see you finally changed to reflect that you are talking about Am Heritage. Fine. But I see others are starting to disagree too. As I said, I'll let them get into it. I have nothing further to say on the matter. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Spiritualism v Spiritualism (religious organization/movement)
I saw a dicussion you were involved in a while ago. I agree with your view. I think I will be proposing to move Spiritualism to somewhere else soon. I am trying to organize everything belonging somewhere under Category:Theories. I think the general term for the theory belongs without parenthetical title, and particular instances of it can be clarified with parenthetical titles. Furthermore there is a category Category:Spiritualism to think about as well. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 22:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

KJV Bible
I have reverted your link the ABS text of the KJV Bible. There is already a link to the Wikisource text for this work; there is no point in having two, Wikipedia is not a directory of web links. In addition, you may not have noticed that the site you linked to (not unusually for biblical sites) omits the books of the Apocrypha - and consequently does not provide the full KJV text. TomHennell (talk) 23:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have quite a bit of experience in editing Wikipedia articles, but i must confess i didn't even look at the Wikisource link. The problem with the Wikisource text is that it is confusingly presented as "has original text related to this article", which most users and even some experienced ones think means some but not all of the text. In addition, it isn't searchable. I'm no expert on the Bible, but it seemed to me that the site i found by accident was much better than those listed. I hope you agree that, at the very least, the StudyLight.org link shouldn't be listed first since most users are not looking for a version with spelling that they cannot handle.
 * And since Wikisource isn't searchable, i still believe the Bartleby link provides users with a valuable service not provided by the current links. If we can find a searchable online version including the Apocrypha, that would of course be better than the Bartleby site. --Espoo (talk) 08:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I take your point about labeling the Wikisource: though I am not sure how readily it can be remedied. The Studylight.org site is for the present the best of the biblical comparitor sites - it provides a very wide variety of versions in English across a range of dates, plus a number of the key comparitor texts from versions in other languages.  For the KJV it provides both the 1611 (original spelling) edition, and the 1769 (standard spelling) edition; which is also the text on Wikisource and your ABS site.  For that reason it is understandable that it should be listed first (at least unless a better site becomes available). The ABS site that you linked to claims to be searchable, but fatally undermines this by not providing a full text.  Hence if the verse you are looking for is from the Apocrypha (e.g. "let us now praise famous men") the ABS site won't find it. There are indeed some Christian traditions that so reject the Apocryphal books that they prefer not to find their texts on a biblical site, but Wikipedia should be edited from the perspective of a general reader. TomHennell (talk) 09:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Your solution to the ambiguous Wikisource label is good. I hope you agree that the Studylight link to the 1611 version should be replaced by this one which is apparently the 1769 standard text you're referring to, though it doesn't say more than "Authorized". Most users will be looking for this version, not the 1611.
 * Interestingly, "my" site doesn't seem to say anything about what the version is and from what year. Instead, it confusingly or perhaps purposely misleadingly says "the culmination of English translations of the Bible, the Bartleby.com publication of the American Bible Society’s King James Version", which sounded to a layperson like me as if it's some modernised version, and that misleading/incorrect hype is only compounded by saying it's from 1999 here. --Espoo (talk) 13:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well the 1769 text is not what I tend to be looking for, but then I cannot claim to be a typical user. I will leave it to other editors to see which configuration of Studylight.org they prefer.  Don't be annoyed if your proposal is redacted again, but then all of us have to become familiar with that experience. TomHennell (talk)

American and British English Differences
Would you kindly point out the sources which you claim I'm missing? I could very well be overlooking something and reverting by mistake. As it stands, however, the article is a poster child for WP:OR and needs serious cleanup; more sources and inline citations, especially. R ad io pa th y  •talk•  08:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, as explained in the edit summary, the sources are in references 23 to 27. You removed the entire section beginning "In conditional sentences, US spoken usage..." even though these references are clearly included in that section. Similarly, there is no reason to remove, for example, the section Recently, the American use of just with simple past has made inroads into BrE, most visibly in advertising slogans and headlines such as "Cable broadband just got faster". unless you have serious reasons to doubt the existence of this ad and, in fact, the honesty of whoever added this information. In addition, at least some of your {fact|date=June 2009}} additions seem to be uncalled for and at the very least exaggerated. --Espoo (talk) 08:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * First of all, this article has a major problem with regard to the lack of inline citations; there seems to be an internal logic to the way the article is referenced that only a handful of regular editors seem to understand. I can't make heads or tails of it, or I would help with the cleanup myself.  This is what makes the article vulnerable to accusations of original research.  For an example of an article with proper inline citations, I present this silly bit of pop culture .  All articles have to conform to this, not just the low brow ones!


 * Second, this isn't about trusting someone's honesty, or believing that a particular advert actually exists. Please read up on WP:RS and WP:V; if someone wants to include a mention of a particular Americanism that has crept into British English, he needs to present a verifiable, reliable source to back up his claim, otherwise his contribution can be removed. R ad io pa th y  •talk•   04:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The information in those parts of the article that i've read and the history seems to indicate that almost all of the information in the article is correct and that there are several people with a lot of knowledge about the topic taking care of the article. Since many seem to be experts or very knowledgeable on the topic, they unfortunately have usually not bothered to provide sources for their edits. You're right that the article can be improved a lot in that sense. Please take a closer look at the links you provided because you don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water. Your newest edits in fact partly follow the policies quoted below, so thanks for changing your approach and thereby helping to improve Wikipedia instead of just deleting valuable information (which was an especially bad idea since 1) the entire section on conditionals you'd removed did and does have sources and 2) a simple Google search would have provided you with a reliable page [BBC] with the exact words in the ad). I'll quote some of the most relevant parts here, which should ensure that your legitimate concerns are dealt with without causing edit wars and wasting a lot of your and other people's time and destroying valuable information:

Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors might object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references, and it has always been good practice, and expected behavior of Wikipedia editors (in line with our editing policy), to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them.
 * Please use http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Cable%20broadband%20just%20got%20faster%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a and http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3646825.stm to show your goodwill and your expertise in how to provide and quote sources (and indicate that the BBC doesn't even consider it necessary to mention it's quoting an ad or comment on the "Americanism".)

If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider tagging...

''Be cautious with major changes: consider discussing them first. With large proposed deletions or replacements, it may be best to suggest changes in a discussion, to prevent edit warring and disillusioning either other editors or yourself (if your hard work is rejected by others). One person's improvement is another's desecration, and nobody likes to see their work "destroyed" without prior notice. If you choose to be very bold, take extra care to justify your changes in detail on the article talk page...'' --Espoo (talk) 06:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Hochschule für Musik Leipzig
Next time you want to move or rename a category please discuss it first, if you don't mind. Hochschule means, literally "high school", so if you want to be precise, the word "University" wouldn't be the precise word. Also, keep in mind, that until recent times, German hochschules offered only one official academic degree (Diplom) - something between a bachelor and a master -, and that other post-diplom courses had no official value. Also, there's a german word for university Universität. I am reverting your changes. If you want to chamge the name, please discuss it first. --Karljoos (talk) 02:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This is all nonsense; please look at that discussion page. --Espoo (talk) 06:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Move of Capability Maturity Model Integration
Hi, I was taken aback by the move of this long standing page without any talk page discussion. This is a trademarked name with the SEI referring to the standard in title case in every publication it produces. Using the WP guide "Acronyms and initialisms" does not seem to override the correct case of trademark names. Could you please move the page back to its original name and discuss the matter on the talk page first?—Ash (talk) 21:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

On plug-ins
I would appreciate it if, rather than commenting out my additions to the "Plug-ins and extensions" section of the Plug-ins article, you would raise any specific concerns you have about it, and in general, notify anyone whose non-trivial edits you effectively undo. Please note also that by adding HTML comments, you've caused odd spacing issues for readers.

Given your edit summary and the comments you've inserted into the article, I believe your concerns are the following:


 * I did not add anything to the article.
 * I removed important information from the article.
 * I removed succinct definitions of "plug-in" and "extension" with regards to web browsers.
 * I removed the link to the Plugins category at addons.mozilla.org
 * I linked to kitchen sink, which is a disambiguation page
 * I replaced the link to feature creep with the above link
 * I used the abbreviated "NPAPI" without an expanded form first

I will address these here.

Foremost, the definitions of plug-ins and extensions have been changed from the following wording: "Plug-ins differ from extensions, which modify or add to existing functionality. Plug-ins rely on the host application's user interface and have a well-defined boundary to their possible set of actions. Extensions have fewer restrictions on their actions, and may provide their own user-interfaces."

First, the entire first sentence is appropriated verbatim from the AMO page on plug-ins. Even if you were to immediately follow that with the citation&mdash;which I'd like to stress isn't even the case here&mdash;you'd run afoul of plagiarism by the standards of more than a few. It's not enough to merely cite the source for verbatim copying, but again, even that's not done until after the next sentence; you need to clearly delineate those words from the rest of the text to indicate that it's not original wording, e.g., by using quotation marks or a blockquote. However, that won't do here, because it's the topic sentence of the first paragraph of a section.

Second, simply put, the given definitions for extensions and plug-ins are terrible, which isn't rare. Differentiating the two is hard, that's why even the AMO page author struggles for a good definition. One of the first things I want to do is just throw out contrasting extensions as having freer reign than plug-ins, because it's either wrong or misleading, depending on how sympathetic you are. Sure, plug-ins have a concrete interface with which they may interact with the browser, but in the end, plug-ins have access to the disk, and it's exercised regularly. Eliminating that leaves us with only the following to discern the difference between the two:


 * extensions modify or add to existing functionality (presumably, this is supposed to be distinct from plug-ins)
 * extensions may provide their own user interfaces

This won't do. "Modify[ing] or add[ing] to existing functionality" is certainly one way to describe extensions, and it's not incorrect. But the same statement could easily be applied to plug-ins. QuickTime and MPlayer add the functionality of playing various video containers and codecs. The Flash player adds support for Flash. Adobe Reader adds the ability to view PDFs, and so forth. However, "modify" is good. Modifying is ultimately what's at the heart of extensions. Of course, "adding" is one kind of modification, so plug-ins, too, could be be said to modify. We need to find a way to describe the "modifying" behavior of extensions that plug-ins don't have in common.

Similarly, the interfaces line is odd, because, well, what does it mean? Generally, the only new interface that extensions add is that of their configuration dialogs, and that's just by consequence. So that's a bit of misdirection.

Ultimately, any differentiating definitions between plug-ins and extensions need to include the following:


 * Plug-ins are usually third-party, binary components that handle new content types
 * Extensions are integrated with the browser, modifying its own application logic

Unfortunately, that definition for plug-ins can be applied to extensions as well, as nearly all extensions are created by third-parties, and it is possible for them to contain binary components, though it's rare and this, by far, describes common practice. Potentially these can be even more well-defined, but certainly it's an improvement to two interchangeable definitions which are supposed to be mutually exclusive and one erroneous or misleading factoid.

I did link to kitchen sink, but I did not remove the link to feature creep; they were both present. The kitchen sink page was exactly the article I was looking for; it just functions doubly as a disambiguation page and a definition for the "kitchen sink". However, I have now realized that linking to the Wiktionary page is much more in line with what I was trying to accomplish, and so should have been done the first time around.

The link to AMO was misplaced in the text, so the inexplicable link was removed. It is now in the article, in an appropriate place, and correctly using the  tag. Similarly, the Netscape Plugin API is now introduced properly.

If you feel that this revision excludes anything that the old revision doesn't, do bring it to my attention, or add it yourself, but don't simply retransform something in a poor state to an even poorer one. -- C. A. Russell ( talk ) 22:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
╟─TreasuryTag► belonger ─╢ 21:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
╟─TreasuryTag► constabulary ─╢ 07:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Karate
Hi! I've started a discussion about the quality of the source. I would like to hear your opinions. jmcw (talk) 15:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyedit Backlog Elimination Drive
Hi, as a member of the Guild of Copy Editors you're hereby notified of and invited to participate in the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/May 2010. Please help us eliminate the 8,000+ copyedit backlog! Participating editors will receive barnstars and other awards, according to their level of participation. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 00:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Polish nobility/Szlachta
Hi. You tagged Polish nobility with, and I made the move, thinking it was agreed and I was being helpful. I have now been asked by to undo it. Can you please discuss with him, if necessary with a wider discussion on the article talk page to reach a consensus? I have no opinion on the matter myself, and will undo my move if that is what is agreed. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, this is what i replied to Piotrus's email (and i will start an RM discussion as soon as i have time):


 * As you can see by clicking on the search results in your link, even the academic literature presents the terms as "the Polish nobility, the szlachta,...". In other words, though only the Polish term may be used later, the English term is used first even in academic literature, and "szlachta" is never used without first being explained. It is not English and cannot be used as an article title in an encyclopedia meant for the general public. There is no reason to violate one of the most important WP policies, to use English terms as article titles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ENGLISH


 * See also all the other articles on European nobilities in WP - they have English instead of foreign article names, like it should be: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:European_nobility


 * And Norman Davies specifically says here that "/szlachta/ should be translated as 'nobility'" --Espoo (talk) 21:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds plausible; anyway, I will do nothing unless presented with consensus from a discussion. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Your revision to Cladistics
I'm not convinced that your revision to Cladistics is actually "better", as you claim. Your revision defines a clade as consisting of "an organism and all its descendants". The original had "all the descendants of an ancestral organism, including that ancestor." Now it's true that in terms of logic these are the same, but in terms of focus they're not. Your definition puts the ancestor first, i.e. makes it the focus; the original puts the descendants first, making them the focus. Since in almost cases the ancestor is hypothetical or extinct or both, the original definition is more meaningful, it seems to me. I haven't reverted it (yet). Peter coxhead (talk) 11:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, they're not logically the same because "consisting of all the descendants of an ancestral organism, including that ancestor" is illogical since descendants cannot include an ancestor. I was trying to get rid of that illogical "including" and deal with the other editor's claim that the original definition ("consisting of all the descendants of a common ancestor and that ancestor" by the University of California Museum of Paleontology that i'd added) "could be interpreted as a hybridization of the ancestor with itself", which i don't believe any reader would think. How about the newest attempt? --Espoo (talk) 12:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Grab some glory, and a barnstar
Hi, I'd like to invite you to participate in the Guild of Copy Editors July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive. In May, about 30 editors helped remove the tag from 1175 articles. The backlog is still over 7500 articles, and extends back to the beginning of 2008! We really need your help to reduce it. Copyediting just a couple articles can qualify you for a barnstar. Serious copyeditors can win prestigious and exclusive rewards. See the event page for more information. And thanks for your consideration. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 14:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

'Airport' edit links
You placed a request on the WP:BUNCH talk page for someone to look at the Airport article. I've done some work on it if you want to take a look. HarryHenryGebel (talk) 17:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

GOCE Backlog Elimination Drive Wrap-up
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Utahraptor at 22:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC).

Grave accent
My apologies. For some reason the link was dead when I tried it before, but now it works fine. Perhaps it was a problem with the diff page. — Eru·tuon 15:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

November 2010 backlog elimination drive update
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Utahraptor (talk) at 15:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC).

Luthier
In case you hadn't noticed, I'm with you about the "hardly anyone says 'luthier' when they mean violin maker" business. I will continue to assume good faith about that. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 23:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, i realised that. I see on your user page that you're a violist from the States like myself, so i guess it's a question of actual knowledge, not just a question of good faith, though perhaps i misunderstood what you're saying here. --Espoo (talk) 11:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * These days one of my favorite instruments is a 16" viola with octave strings, tuned the same as a cello, and played with a cello bow. The C string on that one will rattle your collar-bone and make you grin...
 * I am a luthier. I get paid to set up and repair violins, violas, cellos, and basses. I also rehair bows, recamber them, and refurbish their grips. I agree that in spoken English, certainly the US variety, "luthier" is not used as often as "maker" or "builder" or "repairman" or "string tech", at least not by folks in the business. The difficulty is this: that usage falls right at the borderline of "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth", in an area where reliable sources are skimpy and hard to find.
 * "Small improvements are our bread and butter." I will be keeping an eye on that page (as if I could keep myself from watching it ;-)) and hoping that the coolest heads will prevail. Live long and prosper, __ Just plain Bill (talk) 22:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

GOCE elections
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors via SMasters using AWB on 01:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

November 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive Conclusion
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 23:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC).

GOCE Year-end Report
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 06:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)