User talk:Fred Plotz/Archive1

Notability of Bernhard Eitel
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Bernhard Eitel, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Bernhard Eitel seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Bernhard Eitel, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot 14:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand it can be annoying when a page you created gets tagged for deletion, when it shouldn't be. Please, do remain civil though WP:CIVIL, and don't start pointing fingers. If it was done by mistake, it is usualy easily fixed. In this case, the reviewing admin did decline the speedy and no deletion was peformed (hence it not being in the above mentioned log). So what should you do, in case a page you create gets tagged with a speedy deletion template? Well, as mentioned above, you should add a tag, and explain on the articles talk page why it shouldn't be deleted. You can also take a look at the page history, and drop a polite note at the persons talk page who did propose the speedy deletion, saying they may have possibly made a mistake in the tagging, and why you think it is a mistake (maybe point towards the talk page again). That should always be in addition to the hangon tag, the tag is the most important. A demanding, accusing tone rarely helps, but entrenches people in their possitions. In this case, if you would have left a message in a different tone, chances were that I would have double checked the page, and if I would have noticed a speedy tag still there, I would have removed it myself. No damage is done in this situation, but it might be something to remember in the future. Martijn Hoekstra 15:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Welcome
Below is a cheesy welcome template, that actualy contains some usefull links.

Welcome!

Hello,, 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 messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question and then place  before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Martijn Hoekstra 15:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style


 * Thanks a lot! You're completely right, as far as my tone is concerned (but it wasn't sooo bad, was it?). I excuse for being kind of impolite, again. What I do not understand is, why people mark articles for deletion (ok, it's not an article, yet), if reading one single line is sufficient to understand its notability. However, I'm sorry for any inconvenience caused...pal...;-)))
 * That's quite alright.Usualy, it's an honost mistake. They happen, and if you would go over Special:newpages sometime, you might understand that these kind of honost mistakes slip in. Fortunately, there is usualy little harm done, as the admin that follows the speedy tag, will usualy make a good decission on deletion, especialy when there is a hangon tag in place, that explains the issue. Even if that still goes wrong, if the admin is contacted, then they will probably quickly restore the page, and there is still little harm done. Martijn Hoekstra 15:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I understand, so far. Initially, I just wanted not to read my bosses name in this ugly red color. How comes, the bot posted the link to your page?
 * The bot gives a link to the page log. If the page had been deleted, the name of the deleting admin would show up. Other things, like page moves, and marking pages as patrolled also show up at that log. The entry under my name indicates I marked the page as patrolled for special:newpages. As that was the only entry in the log, you probably mistakenly assumed that that was the deletion notice. If you read the warnbot text closely, you'll see that it doesn't say that only deletions will show up. I'll admit it is not completely clear immediately though. Martijn Hoekstra 15:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot 14:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC) That's why I was convicted of you being the "culprit". Anyway, nice to "meet" you, though. BTW: Didn't I make our university's page beautiful? It's beautiful, isn't it??? ;-))
 * Not bad. Bit heavy on the pics in my oppinion, and I prefer them all on the right, to avoid the 'comercial brochure look', but tastes differ. It's fine either way. Martijn Hoekstra 15:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it is ment to be some kind of 'non-commercial brochure', as most of the university articles, especially in the Anglosphere, are kind of advertisments. Look how many pictures e.g. dartmouth college has. I took the Ivie's pages as a model, as they are (still) in view of academics. I would love to make it GA, but I don't want this "was nominated, but failed" tag on the discussion page, and I'm pretty sure it would fail, to this day. Generally, I don't understand the rating criteria applied here. Dartmouth is FA, while Princeton is still B class (they have that ugly tag), and I don't see any difference in quality ?!
 * Actualy, I think darthmouth college looks pretty bad. But the looks of an article aren't that importent, let alone what I think of them. Good Articles have always been a bit oddish. The interpetation of the strictness of the criteria vary wildly. I've seen articles getting failed for GA, on very small points, and when it finaly passed, after many reviews, it passed through FA right away. Another factor for GA and FA is that they actualy have to be nominated. I haven't look at the princeton page and it's history yet, but it's quite possible it just hasn't ever been proposed as a GA. That way, it won't be a GA, untill someone lists it, and it will get reviewed. If you don't see the difference, and they have been reviewed, you can always look up the reasons for not promoting the article. That should also give you some ideas how the standards are applied. Martijn Hoekstra 16:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually princeton was nominated, and the points critisized would apply for dartmouth just as well. I guess, it depends largely on the mood of the peer reviewers? However, must leave now. Was nice talking to you. Have a nice day in holland! Don't smoke too much, tonight :-))). (I know, thats a studpid prejudice....)

Leider funktioniert das Bild nicht
Hey Flo!

Leider will das Bild nicht so recht funktionieren, wenn ich auf den link klicke, ich bekomme nur eine "Seite nicht gefunden" Meldung. Das mit dem Alma Mater Patriotismus kenn ich auch irgendwo her ;) ich denke auf diesem Wege kann man auch die Vorteile der deutschen Unis hevorheben, die besser sind als ihre Positionen in den internationalen Rankings. Ich heiß übrigens Lucas, hab auch nicht so viel nachgedacht als ich mir meinen Usernamen zugelegt habe. Danke außerdem für den Tip mit dem PR-Büro, da werd ich mich mal mit in Verbindung setzen. Und du studierst Jura in Heidelberg? --RoDeWo (talk) 18:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Flo,
 * ich komme aus den USA, daher die Maryland userbox. Ich bin mal gespannt wie sich die Exzellenzinitiative international niederschlägt, bzw. ob sie das überhaupt tun wird. In den USA sind die deutschen Unis nur bedingt bekannt, bei Experten oder Wissenschaftlern schon, aber in der Allgemeinheit weniger. Was hast du nach der Diss vor? --RoDeWo (talk) 17:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Servus,
 * joa, bin in Deutschland geboren aber mit 4 in die USA gezogen. Ich studiere jetzt im 4. Jahr Medizin und mache nebenher meine
 * Doktorarbeit, danach mal schauen, wohin es mich zum Facharzt verschlägt.
 * Ich denke, dass mittelfristig ein Aufstieg in die Top 25 im Jiao Tong ARWU Ranking möglich sein sollte. Wären die diversen Rankings : nicht so anglophon-lastig, bezüglich der Publikationen und peer reviews, sähen die Rankings sicherlich ein wenig anders aus. Ich
 * würde sagen es findet immoment ein Umdenkprozess statt und es wird realisiert, dass man mit international attraktiven Unis, welche : Spitzenforschung betreiben, so die besten Forscher und Studenten anziehen können, Leistungen und Wirtschaftsimpulse erzielen kann, : die mit dem egalitären System der 70er nicht möglich waren. Auch wenn ich finde, dass wir in den USA völlig übertriebene
 * Studiengebühren haben, so lassen sich zumindest mit dem Konstrukt aus enger Bindung zur Alma Mater und den daraus resultierenden
 * Spenden sowie die Unabhängigkeit im Einsatz der Finanzmittel erhebliche Freiräume zur Verbesserung und Intensivierung der Lehre und : Forschung betreiben. Die Tatsache, dass es inzwsichen Studenten in Deutschland gibt, die sich ihre Uni nicht nur nach der Lage
 * aussuchen, sondern auch aus akademischen Gründen eine gewisse Universität wählen, hoffe ich wird ein wenig zu einem engeren
 * Verbundenheitsgefühl mit der Universität führen. Wobei die Unis auch durch intensivere und persönlichere Betreuung erheblich dazu
 * beitragen können, dass sich Studenten vermehrt mit ihrer Universität identifizieren. Bin mal gespannt wie sich die deutsche
 * Hochschullandschaft so entwickelt...
 * Viele Grüße, --RoDeWo (talk) 16:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Germany Invitation
--Zeitgespenst (talk) 17:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops...
Ouch, I'm very sorry about that. Guess I didn't see the diff correctly... · AndonicO  Hail!  13:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Mannheim University of Applied Sciences logo.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Mannheim University of Applied Sciences logo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 18:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Heidelberg images
User:JimmeyTimmey uploaded these images and claims he is the copyright holder of the images but the watermark seems to indicate this is not the case. Do you know anything about the uploader User:JimmeyTimmey? -Nv8200p talk 20:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I am going to withdraw my nominations and I will remove the PUI tags. I recommended you send a letter of permission as per COPYREQ or the images may get nominated again by someone else when there is no one around to defend them. -Regards Nv8200p talk 18:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Heidelberg University - Good Article
Hi! I think using any citation style for references, especially if there are hyperlinks, is completely ridiculous. If we use APA, for example, most people will not be able to read it anyway. I don't see how this would make the article any better. I understand that it may be required for so-called "good article" status, but then I disagree with this standard. I also disagree with the condemnation of any sort of list (e.g. in the "References in fiction and popular culture" section). Where another citation style that is more or less useless would only mean more work, deleting or converting every list would actually make the article worse. If that is required to get "good article" status, I do not consider it desirable. Unless you can convince me of the good of the "good article", I will unfortunately not be able to support this process and would indeed suggest to cancel the nomination. JimmeyTimmey (talk) 21:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

After Eustress' edits and comments, I am even more convinced that GA is bullshit. It is a bureaucratic dictatorship that suppresses free and independent writing, and thus the diversity in wiki articles. From my point of view, most of the recent edits did not make the article any better. Some of Eustress' suggestions are useful, but most seem absurd to me. For example:

"Avoid starting sentences with numbers" - This is really just a matter of taste.

"Only put inline citations immediately after punctuation marks (e.g., periods, commas)—never in the middle of phrases (per WP:CITE)--international rankings section" - I actually consider this a harmful suggestion because it would make the article and its references less clear.

"For the Academic Ranking of World Universities, I would only refer to the most recent ranking" - Well, I would not to this because the past is as important as the present.

"Don't abbreviate "approx." - Is that really a point of criticism?! I don't believe it!

"You need to provide U.S. dollar estimates for the Euro figures throughout doc" - Ok, this is probably one of the most stupid ideas. We would have to correct the numbers continuously according to the exchange rate...

"The History, Campuses, and Organization sections (and most of the article) come almost entirely come from a Catholic encyclopedia or the University itself" - So what? As far as I know, there is not much dispute about these issues. I particularly do not see what should not be neutral or biased in the organization and campus sections?

Seriously, this whole GA thing does more harm than good. JimmeyTimmey (talk) 18:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

OK JimmeyTimmey (talk) 19:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh man, ich kann nich mehr... der Typ macht mich fertig. ^^ Ich wollte gerade mal anfangen seinen größten Unsinn zu korrigieren, aber wenn ich dann sowas lese, das nimmt mir die Motivation:

"The school has been deemed a German Excellence University" - Immer gut irgendwas zu editieren auch wenn man keine Ahnung hat.

"Subsequently, the institution once again became a hub for independent thinkers, studying humanism and democracy;" - Ich frage mich wieviele Studenten haben wohl ihren Abschluss in Humanismus und Demokratie gemacht? Und wieviele waren es vorher ("once again")?

"On October 19, 1386 the first lecture was held, making Heidelberg is the oldest university in Germany" - Die ausgesprochene Sorgfalt der Edits ist zu bewundern und überhaupt bin ich sehr dankbar für die vielen Verbesserungen.

Also ich bin erstmal raus, ich brauch' ne Pause! Sag Bescheid wenn der GA Unfug vorüber ist und wir wieder was sinnvolles tun können. ;) JimmeyTimmey (talk) 23:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Einen hab' ich noch (könnte mein lieblings "good article" edit werden):

"It decruited a large number of lecturers and expelled many students for political and racist reasons." wird mal eben zu "It recruited a large number of lecturers and expelled many students for political and racist reasons." *lol* JimmeyTimmey (talk) 00:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Gute Entscheidung! Wir können den Artikel ja nun ein bisschen überarbeiten und in ein paar Wochen oder so nochmal nominieren, in der Hoffnung dann einen besseren Reviewer zu bekommen. JimmeyTimmey (talk) 11:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Was heißt denn "lass mich mal speichern"? Ich habe vor einer Stunde oder so mal die Größen der Bilder geändert. Meinetwegen kannst du es auch wieder rückgängig machen oder überspeichern. Ich habe keinen Einfluss auf das was du speicherst, also speicher was du willst :D JimmeyTimmey (talk) 12:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, ich sehe es hat wohl jetzt geklappt. War vielleicht ein Fehler in Wikipedia. JimmeyTimmey (talk) 12:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Ja, schlechter geworden ist der Artikel nicht (nach der Korrektur). JimmeyTimmey (talk) 02:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 21:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)