User talk:Manway/Archives/2012/October

Help
Hi Manway. I am having this issue with one of my translations: 1. Is it normal? What can we do? Thank you! --USAnne (talk) 08:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Anne: From what I can see, the references are mostly blogs and online opinion sites. There are problems with some of the references. For instance, I looked at the following: "Despite this budget, the situation of the Brazilian Armed Forces is scrapping, which, according to his analysis, is due to the way this budget is used." One of the listed refs leads to an opinion article about the scrapping of the Armed Forces, true, but he is never mentioned. Not acceptable. Here's a guide about what constitutes a WP:RELIABLE source. Don't feel bad about this. Work to improve. Use your userspace to flesh out an article instead of going live with it immediately. See WP:USERSUBPAGE. That will give you a chance to work with it, then when you feel it is done right you can move it over into Wikispace live. In fact, if your article is deleted, ask any admin (I'm not one) to restore it to your userspace so you can work on it. Hope this helps. Regards, -- Man way  13:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Manway,
 * Thanks for your advice. My point is that the sources that are in the Wikipedia article in Portuguese are the largest newspapers:Valor Econômico Newspaper, TVs:TV Globo, magazines: O Dia and even radios:Radio CBN in Brazil and Latin America. The "blogs" are columns of just some of these publications, which are published on paper and then on the Internet, as is the case here:Jornal do Comércio and here:Revista Veja. I don't know what could be better than these sources, because I know Brazil. I think that's why these sources are in the article in Portuguese.


 * I believe that this researcher reaches various points in the academic criteria of Wikipedia: Academics
 * "Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable:
 * 1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
 * 2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. (Harvard University fellow)
 * 7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
 * 8. The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area.
 * 9. The person is in a field of literature (e.g writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g. musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC."
 * Besides, These sources were not a problem for Wikipedia in Portuguese. Why it would be only in the translation? Kisses, --USAnne (talk) 14:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you're right. But as I said, you will have to convince the people and admin on the deletion page, not me. I'll be glad to pop in and weigh in on the discussion, but I'm running late this morning and have to get to work. Use the same arguments there you've done here. You're doing a great job. Get them convinced. Thanks for the kisses. Need as many of those as I can get, recently. Regards, -- Man way  14:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I forgot it: "One of the listed refs leads to an opinion article about the scrapping of the Armed Forces, true, but he is never mentioned" it is a radio (a very large radio http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%A1dio_CBN) he is mentioned in the interview (you can listen it). Kisses again and good work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by USAnne (talk • contribs) 14:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Lamanite article
Hello Manway,

Yes I did explain.. Not only did I fill in the explanation on the save page, I also added a section in the talk section of the article, at the bottom. Those working on this article before have shown great bias. I simplified the article by eliminating one-sided opinion, and focused on the facts as stated in the Book of Mormon itself. If one tries to talk about what everyone thinks of it, it becomes biased and intellectually abusive.

I believe my version is fairer.

Thank you

Dan Shumway (yippyman) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yippyman (talk • contribs) 17:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Dan: Your version is the "faith-promoting" version. And please don't throw around the "anti-mormon" canard. We are not anti-mormon here. We are not "pro-mormon" either. We are objective and fair. To both sides. Regards, -- Man way  00:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Opinion
Hi Manway! Do you agree with my arguments/improvements here 1? Please let your opinion/support. Thank you. Hugs!--USAnne (talk) 23:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
I've provided a preliminary third opinion per the request. Go  Phightins  !  19:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)