User talk:Mycomp

[Archive 1]

Dates
Mycomp, linking single years is not an improvement. Now, would you please, please read MOS:UNLINKYEARS? And, while there, would you also please have a look over other sections of the WP:MOS? Thank you. Dahn (talk) 05:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Got it.--Mycomp (talk) 06:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Bagui School
Dear Mr. Mycomp: Please give specific issues, otherwise, I do not know how to modify. Please help correct mistakes: Bagui School.thank you! Wolder (talk) 08:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There are many elementary grammatical mistakes, among other things. I wish I had the time to fix them all, but I don't. I already did my best (take a look at how the article was written before I rewrote it).--Mycomp (talk) 08:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

(Response): Dear Mr. Mycomp: Thank you very much for your help Wolder (talk) 08:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Ion-carja-intoarcerea.png)
 Thanks for uploading File:Ion-carja-intoarcerea.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. FileBot (talk) 22:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Mycomp! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 5 of the articles that you created  are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the list:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 20:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Valery Oişteanu -
 * 2) Radu Goldiş -
 * 3) Bogdan Mischiu -
 * 4) Oddvar Einarson -
 * 5) Dan Puric -

Not dead - Rudolf Kreitlein
Was just typing exactly the same thing. But you were faster, damn you! ;-)Trigaranus (talk) 13:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Title
It was probably from the article on the director Nobuhiko Obayashi, but I don't know if that's the official English title. If there is none, you're right, the article should be under the original Japanese name.–Cattus talk 12:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Radu Goldiş
Hello, Mycomp. I've just come across this article, which you created years ago. It still needs references, but I know nothing about the person. Can you help? Markiewp (talk) 19:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Image
Yes this is classic for osteoporosis. Elderly people get vertebral compression fractures. Note this image here  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not all stoops are due to osteoporosis. See this article, for example, in the Annuals of the Rheumatic Diseases (1996). It is nothing but pure speculation to conclude from looking at a single photo of a woman walking on the street that she has osteoporosis. At least the caption has to be changed to something like "A stooped back is often the result of osteoporosis".--Mycomp (talk) 06:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The name Ioan
Hi. I replied on my talk page. — Adi  Japan  05:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Aristophanes 68  (talk)  16:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Re:Florian
Hi. No, I hadn't. If it's okay by you, I'll add from it when I have more time (I have to run now). Still, my view is that we should keep both accounts of the incident in the text: not that the other one, indirectly sourced from Flacara, has much credibility, but it serves to show that they didn't like him much either - in my book, that is a badge of honor :). Dahn (talk) 13:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course, that's what I generally do. And thank you. Dahn (talk) 17:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

September 2013
Please do not add or change content, as you did to Pál Csernai, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. GiantSnowman 12:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Spiegel Online and FC Bayern's official website are not a reliable sources? --Mycomp (talk) 12:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * They are - but you did not include them in your edit. GiantSnowman 12:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=571505801 your edit] to Gyula Lóránt may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * title=Gestorben Gyula Lorant|publisher=Der Spiegel|language=German|accessdate=September 4, 2013 }}

Ways to improve Mikihiko Renjō
Hi, I'm Sulfurboy. Mycomp, thanks for creating Mikihiko Renjō!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. /

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Sulfurboy (talk) 08:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
EvergreenFir (talk) 18:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Dokka v Doku
Because Doku is his given first name based on all info I gleaned from the article; "Dokka" is how he is referred to colloquially. Quis separabit? 13:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Re:Andriy Husin
Why state his full name in the death section, its about one individual. And his family wasn't riding with him on the motorcycle and the article doesn't even mention his family, and assuming he has more than one wife, just say wife. Thanks. Tandrum (talk) 03:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It is preferable to use the individual's family name in the first sentence of a new chapter (see featured biographical articles); and as his family is still alive, in English it should be "is survived" not "was survived" (look at the obituaries in newspapers); also, in careful English it is correct to say "he is survived by his wife" (gives 11,300,000 googlits), not "he is survived by wife" (327,000 googlits).--Mycomp (talk) 07:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Chimet
WP:COMMONSENSE. Permit me to explain.


 * Generally speaking, Romanians' knowledge about the United States is not especially accurate. (Of course, Americans know even less about Romania, but that's another story.) So, regarding any Romanian source dealing with the US, it's a good idea to try and back up some of the information from American sources.


 * We are editors, not scribes; we take reliable sources and shape them into articles, but we never assume those sources are infallible. It's absolutely appropriate to stop and question something if it doesn't seem right.


 * As it turns out, there's very good reason to question what RL has to say in this situation. Because there's no such thing as the American Society for the History of Culture. I don't think this point needs to be belabored, but an organization that existed in 1974 and had some minimal relevance would be mentioned somewhere on the Internet - on a website, in a newspaper, in a book. The fact that there's nothing is strongly indicative that there's something odd going on here.


 * While we're at it, what is this "National Book Fair" in Los Angeles? I can find reference to several book fairs in that city, but none that precisely matches.


 * In sum: it's perfectly possible that Chimet did receive some sort of award in Los Angeles in 1974 (or '73, as some searches indicate). But the source doesn't give an accurate account of what transpired, and until we do have that picture, it's best not to include the detail. (Plus, since it sounds like advertorial language from the book's back cover, it's questionable whether it should be included even if we do clarify the situation, but right now, clarification is a must.) - Biruitorul Talk 01:19, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I'm not convinced by your arguments. What you imply is that we editors can question a reliable source arbitrarily- when we agree with it, we use the info, when we don't, we delete it. If a leading Romanian literary weekly, Romania literara, a reliable source as you yourself have agreed, says that his book got the award, we can use that info, I suppose. Whether you or I have ever heard or not of the "American Society for the History of Culture" or of the National Book Fair (which is a translation of "Tîrgul Național al Cărții" as it is in Romanian in the source) is irrelevant. There was actually a National Book Fair in Los Angeles, the first one taking place in 1936, but if it is the same one or not is again completely irrelevant to this discussion. Just because things cannot be found with a search engine does not mean that they are false, but again, this is also irrelevant. If, let's say, the New York Review of Books said that a certain American book had won a prize in 1974 at a book fair in Romania, would you delete that information too, because Americans don't know much about Romania, and you can't find anything about it on the net?


 * I repeat from WP:VNT, "editors are not making judgments as to what is true and what is false, but what can be verified in a reliable source" because your idea of common sense might not match mine. So, it all boils down to whether "Romania literara" is a reliable source or not, I guess.--Mycomp (talk) 03:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * First, let me restate my main contention: any entity of any significance active in the United States in 1974 will have some kind of Internet presence. It could be trivial, it could be passing, but there's going to be something. While the WWW didn't exist in 1974, there were plenty of books being published, while print newspapers and magazines still had a mass readership. Some of that is still offline, but a good part of it has been digitized. I mean, the Town of West Greenwich (population 1841 in 1970) gets five hits - for books published in 1973-74 alone. Yet the "American Society for the History of Culture", supposedly a nationwide organization, only gets one hit, and that in a Romanian magazine? Occam's razor starts to kick in.
 * Now, on to subsidiary matters. No, it's not arbitrary to question a source if there seems to be a good reason for questioning it. It actually can't do any harm. If we find corroborating information, then the source is probably accurate and our question was for nothing. If we don't and we expect it, then yes, that might point to a problem with the source. After all, every source is potentially fallible. I have no problem with RL - I've cited it myself on a number of occasions. But even they make mistakes, such as printing the name of an organization that is nowhere else to be found. And no, the standard I'm using is not whether I've heard of something, but whether Google has. Big difference. Given the vast size of what Google has indexed and what's been uploaded to Google Books, and given that the US of 1974 was an advanced and highly literate society, yes, the utter lack of hits is relevant.
 * There are a few American (and British) scholars of Romania I trust implicitly - Keith Hitchins, Tom Gallagher, Dennis Deletant, Katherine Verdery, etc. - but outside that narrow band, certainly my impulse would be to check an American source on Romania against a Romanian one.
 * If you still disagree, you may wish to consider WP:3O.
 * As for Ştefăniţă Regman: a "researcher" is not necessarily a university professor with a doctorate. There is, for example, such a thing as undergraduate research. There are also high school teachers who carefully study documents and assemble them into books published by prestigious outfits like Editura Curtea Veche, and prepare articles for peer-reviewed magazines such as, well, România literară. Regman, for example. - Biruitorul Talk 05:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)