User talk:LeadSongDog/Archives/2015/August

Reference errors on 6 August
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * On the Wikipedia:Requested articles/Biography/People in medicine page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=674853932 your edit] caused a missing references list (help | help with group references) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F674853932%7CWikipedia:Requested articles/Biography/People in medicine%5D%5D Ask for help])

Disambiguation link notification for August 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Princess Alexandra Hospital, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Translational Research Institute. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Worked
Good to see that worked. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:18, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, it at least stopped the popup messages. I won't know until I get back next Tuesday whether it solved the browser crashes, but I'm certainly encouraged. Thank you. LeadSongDog come howl!  05:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXIII, August 2015
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Official translation ?
Hello LeadSondDog, you have modified a sentence quoted "word for word" from the Swiss constitution on Naturopathy (check the original source in English if you like WP:V. I am coming to your talk page instead of Naturopathy:Talk, because I am becoming confused as a newbie about one key question for me. What is the weight of "personal opinion" versus "reliable source". The official website of Swiss confederation is publishing a "most probably verified and certified" English translation of Swiss constitution. According to "your opinion" ("hmm, that unofficial translation is quite different from the french text"), you are editing a quote from the original reliable source. Why do you say its "unofficial" ? Why do you edit a WP:RS ? I already adressed a similar question to JzG for one of his edits. I am following as much as possible WP:LISTEN but I need your help for a better understanding. Please explain how it works here... Paulmartin357 (talk) 15:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The English translation itself says on its face that "English is not an official language of the Swiss Confederation. This translation is provided for information purposes only and has no legal force." Compare the official texts (I used the French) for yourself. You (and anyone who can understand it) will see the differences. We need not slavishly echo translation errors found in sources. When a more-reliable non-English source is available which contradicts a less-reliable English one, then we should use that more-reliable source. That said, the word "pourvoir" is remarkably flexible in its meanings, there may be some odd sense that does agree with the English translation.LeadSongDog come howl!  17:30, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * LeadSongDog, you are misunderstanding the source. It says that "English version is not the legal version, simply because English is not the official language", which is common sense. It does not say that "it is not the official translation because this translation is crap, because Swiss confederation cannot pay enough money for a reliable translator". Being published on the official site, this is by default the official translation. If you have any doubt about "pourvoir" in French, then check the German version "sorgen" and "Berücksichtigung". It makes not doubt that "oversee" is a wrong translation. "Ensure consideration is given" is the right translation. It is not only the right translation, but this is the meaning of the votes of the Swiss citizens on this issue if you did follow the public debates. Back to my question: how can "your opinion" about a translation issue override a "reliable source" who is providing an original text in English ? Please revert back to the only "original and approved translation". Paulmartin357 (talk) 17:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Where did I say anything about money? The simple fact is that no translation is perfect, no matter how good the translator. Rendering the French "compétences" or the German "Zuständigkeiten" as the false cognate English "competence" was a very odd choice, the equivalent legal term in English would better have been "jurisdiction" or "responsibility". In any case, all three versions leave one wondering, is this text a mandate for the Confederation and the Cantons to permit, to regulate, to oversee, or to provide? It seems as if (like in many other countries) the text was deliberately vague, so as to create jobs for lawyers. Anyhow, this is way more consideration than the issue deserves, the article isn't Naturopathy in Switzerland. LeadSongDog come howl!  19:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Right. No translation is perfect. But according to WP:NOENG: "Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians". That should close the debate and revert to the original translation published by this reliable source.
 * Where do you read "competence" in the English version ? It says "powers".
 * "Your opinion" about the vagueness of the Swiss constitution is welcomed, but it is not entiteling you to misrepresent the source. To be fair, the Federal Governement shared your opinion about "vagueness" at the time of the debate, prior to the vote. They did publish 4 assumptions for describing their understanding.
 * When I was reporting about the fact that "way too much consideration was made about Anglo American naturopathy", I have been answered "To fix any USA bias, add more material and sourcing for other countries and cultures. That's how we build the encyclopedia." (Brangifer, January 29, 2015) This is simply what I did with Switzerland. Adding content shall not be blamed here. If you think that Switzerland is overrepresented, then let's hope that someone will contribute similarly about Northern Botswana or any other country.
 * In order to answer to your wondering about the real meaning, here is a reliable source, the latest official report about the progress of "ensuring that consideration is given to complementary medicine". You will notice in the text (in French, sorry) that these actions are more than simply just "overseeing".
 * I appreciate to discuss with you. Please don't misunderstand the spirit of my answers. I am sincerely looking for help in this jungle... but I am still unclear about "opinion vs. source" policy. Paulmartin357 (talk) 21:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That new source seems much more directly relevant to naturopathy, though it will take some examination. Art 118a says nothing specific to naturopathy, so if mention of it belongs in any global-scope article it would be one on complementary medicine or perhaps on a subordinate article on regulation of complementary medicine. LeadSongDog come howl!  21:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Why not for your comment. However, we are editors. We are building an Encyclopedia. Informations cannot simply "fall from the sky" but are deserving to be placed into a context. The 3 sentences are linked. "Art 118" introduce "set-up diploma" introduce "naturopath diploma". This is the context. It makes sense.
 * I am OK to contribute also to "Complementary medicine". I will check it.
 * This new source is not containing a lot of info about naturopathy, I guess. If you are really willing to see true reliable sources about naturopathy in Switzerland, I can look for it. But so far, my contributions have not really been welcomed here.... And I am taking the risk to be seen as SPA... Paulmartin357 (talk) 21:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you will find that all the complimentary and alternative medicine articles are similarly controversial. You may find it easier to start with topics where there's less need to resist the fringe POV pushers. Try some other topics for a while and get a better feel for the place. Every so often I'll click on "random article" and see where it takes me. There are close to 5 million articles available to work on.LeadSongDog come howl!  00:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice. But POV pusher is not an excuse for ignoring WP:RULES. POV pusher shall not entitle you to misrepresent reliable sources. POV pusher shall not obscure your eyes to a point where you don't see evidence anymore. POV pusher shall not drive you into stubbornness. None of your arguments are valid. The constitution is carved in stones. The source is reliable. The source is written in English. The English translation is official. There is no need for your translation. "Your opinion" is simply twisting and misrepresenting the source.
 * I prefer to start with a controversial article, so that I can easily discover the positive and the negative aspects of Wikipedia. I think that I have made my opinion about the negative ones. There is an homogeneus population of computer addicts with a predefined set of mind. There are too many admins and editors who are having the power to twist information following their own beliefs. There is no counter power. So sad for the project. Paulmartin357 (talk) 00:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you would find the discussions a more positive experience if you tried a little wp:AGF? The only real "power" here is persuasion. Certainly that's the only power I have. The only homogeneity is that most of us want to build and improve an encyclopedia. The is some level of disagreement about everything here, even that, but we are usually able to find a workable wp:consensus we can live with. Admins (I am not one) generally know better than to use admin tools on articles where they are involved as editors. Of course, persuasion only works with people who treat seriously what is written to them. LeadSongDog come howl!  04:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If you did follow my track as a newbie here, you will notice how difficult it is to benefit from WP:AGF if your WP:RS are not in line with their own beliefs about "mainstream". It makes me very disappointed. WP:AGF shall be applied to both sides. The current question (official translation) is so obvious that I wanted to discuss it on your talk page for getting some help from you for better understanding the WP:RULES. I thank you for the above fair discussion. I will now open a section on Talk:Naturopathy about the same topic, for the sake of improving Naturopathy article. I hope that this time I will also benefit from WP:AGF. Paulmartin357 (talk) 08:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * AGF is a two-way street. Good luck. LeadSongDog come howl!  16:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Copyright violation - faulty software
You sent me a note regarding possible copyright violation -, it was apparently a copyright violation of an edit in History of Singapore. Just to clarify what happened - I restored some content because someone removed two paragraphs from the lead, making the lead somewhat lacking in sense. The apparent copyright violation came from here, where it clearly stated that that part of the content came from Wikipedia. I believe your software is faulty if it can accuse someone of copyright violation when the source content is something that was actually copied from Wikipedia itself. Given that many people copied content from Wikipedia, that is a very poor copyright violation detection software if it cannot differentiate between content from Wikipedia and someone else's original content. Hzh (talk) 20:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a constant problem. Because WP content gets mirrored widely and often without the legally-required attribution we often get false positives. We need more people checking the output to distinguish such false positives from true positives. User:EranBot is gradually getting better at this, but it still needs much work. If you'd like to help, please do! LeadSongDog come howl!  21:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)