User talk:Sun Creator/Archive 13

AfD notification
Please see Articles for deletion/Nuwaubu. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 July 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 11:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Lists of notable people
By repeated fully consistent decisions at AfD, lists of people connected with a place or profession are justified and meet WP:LISTS if the people have Wikipedia articles. It only needs to be documented they are associated, which is normally done in the article about them. It's technically necessary to copy over the ref, but it is not usually done unless the matter is controversial or challenged (e.g., list of people of a particular religion).  DGG ( talk ) 19:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi DGG, can I first say I have huge respect for the work you do on wikipedia. You don't give much context to what your talking about here. I'm guessing your refer to List of electronic sports players? If so then discussions at Afd must of changed since I used to be involved. Can you provide links to such discussions? Lists that are roughly related but provide no reference to show the list overall is notable used to be deleted as indiscriminate. A list such as List of Virgo's of London could definitely be created with notable people and referenced on every line to show they are all virgo's but such a list could not be justified because overall the list could not establish notabilty. BTW, WP:LISTS that you quote above is not a notability related guideline. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * but such lists as you mention are not of people connected with a place or profession or another notable attribute. How on earth does one show that a list itself is notable? I don't think it applies. I recall one editor who did say that the list itself bust be referred to in notable sources--that we could not have List of people from Boston unless someone had written a book about the making and comparison of lists of people from Boston. The view found very little support. I'll find the link.     DGG ( talk ) 23:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 'How on earth does one show that a list itself is notable?', like everything else on wikipedia we don't do original research, it's notable because some external source makes it so. List of Jewish chess players is notable because when all is said and done the list(the list, not individual content) can be externally referenced to numerous external sources, where as List of Christian chess players, List of Hindu chess players, List of Muslim chess players etc although logically individual people are just as sourcable, the list itself cannot be. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

and, btw, I myself certainly would not be able to check the proper addition of deletion tags at the rate you are going, often 3 or 4 a minute; it's likely that you might have similar human limitations, and thus  not be checking adequately if there are obvious sources. And,checking the contribution list, it seems that is indeed the case. I 've found that in practice anyone who is in fact a full professor at a university can be documented, and so can anyone who has written several books (at least in the Western languages) Obviously the original contributors should have added the documentation, but a better course is to remind them in a personal note modified to show that you have read & considered the actual article and are not a robot, to add it, not place an very impersonal BLP PROD tag on the article. We need to encourage new editors. (of course, if it seems very clear the person won't be notable even if sourced, such tagging is fully appropriate--but deciding that is why i find it takes several minutes for each.)  DGG ( talk ) 20:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I use some tools to try and improve both quality and quantity of my decisions. Occasionally I will make mistakes, although I'd say few compared to the amount I do. If there is an error there are processes for correction, like deproding something I prod. That's fine. At this time New Page Patrolling is overwhelmed with creation of junk articles - many of which are not checked by anyone - suggesting future issues; so at present I tend to err on the side of prodding/CSD/BLPProdding etc, at other times I've erred on the side of article saving. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Just as you say, it's hard to strike a balance. I try to do it by making a rough estimate of likely notability;  if it is likely, I check further, if it is less likely, I may check very superficially. The processes for correction are getting overwhelming also--for months I've been concentrating on  Prods,  and  I find it much more  more difficult to keep up as do the very few others who check carefully;  thus the expired prods default to one or two admins who have the practice of deleting everything expired without bothering to check. That they do this is of course  not your fault, but rather a problem  I ought to do something about, but the job of getting a heedless admin to follow the rules is very confrontational. But I fully understand your good intentions--so I'm just suggesting your balance might need adjustment. Mine does from time to time also--after dealing with many impossibly bad articles I tend to drift towards excessive deletion & delete a few good ones. And I try to work quickly also; what I use a lot, besides Twinkle, is the custom search toolbar on Safari, present to check the databases I use most.     DGG ( talk ) 23:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Basically, more resource are required on cleanup, on both sides. Anyway, keep up the good work. I admire greatly the work that you do. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, only it shouldn't be seen as two sides: checking for references and other cleanup permits us to improve and keep articles that are about notable  encyclopedic  subjects, while at the same time justifying the deletion of those which are not. That's why I like to check before placing a deletion notice--it only has to be done once. A Prod saying "no refs in google news, etc" for a subject that would have such references if notable, placed by someone I know to be a competent searcher, is a prod any admin can confidently delete. (and, if necessary, a good start for an AfD).     DGG ( talk ) 00:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, when anyone creates a new article it does clearly say provide references to reliable published sources and that an article without references, may be deleted. So in view of the resource issue I don't have any issue on deleting such content, that said I mainly do BLPPRODs that requires no WP:BEFORE to be done. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

proposed deletion for Seed germinator
Why did you proposed Seed germinator for deletion? -- Mecanismo | Talk 19:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hold hands up. Seems my mistake to be honest. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Patricia Carson
Dear SunCreator,

I wonder what one would want as a supplementary source on the mentioned page. It is said 'at least one reliable source': on the identity and all personal and family data I have given the most reliable source of all, the Etat présent de la noblesse belge. For her publications I wonder what I can do more than mention her books, with name of the publisher and year of publication. Could you advise me of what kind of source what would expected in supplement?

Thanks and best regards, Andries Van den Abeele (talk) 19:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I do not understand that Etat présent de la noblesse belge is a source. Etat présent de la noblesse belge translates to State of the Belgian nobility. It seems from the article Patricia Carson is not a belgian nobility but a historian/Lauréat? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, I understand now. she was made a member of the Belgian nobility, with the personal title of baroness - Unusual! I removed the BLP Prod. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear SunCreator,

I appreciate that you removed the BLP Prod. Now I hope you remove also the banner 'no reference'. I added the reference where you asked for one. I was assuming that giving beneath the 'Etat présent de la noblesse belge' would be sufficient, as it is for Belgian nobility what Burke's is for the English. But it seems I assumed too much. I hope it is all clear now. But then this honour is not of that importance that it should be mentioned as a status in the opening phrase. It seems enough to me that it is mentioned within the article. I hope you agree. Best regards, Andries Van den Abeele (talk) 08:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Pere Gratacós
Hi there, the article above which you BLPPRODDed was actually referenced, until an editor removed the reference in this edit for some reason. I'll ask for an explanation from them, and also look for more sources. Regards, GiantSnowman 19:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Driekleur trikot‎‎
I removed the sticky prod from this page. It is an article about a championship jersey, not a person. Warm regards, 18:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, my bad. Time for more coffee ;) Regards, SunCreator (talk) 18:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Nuwaubu
Hi Suncreator. I noticed that you returned the citation tags that I had removed in a section of the Nuwaubu article. On the linked site in the concordance section, just mouse over the suprascript numerals to reveal the Hebrew lexical item represented in the translation. All the citations marked in that section do contain the info they claim. I'm not going to revert you. Best, P.Oxy.2354 (talk) 03:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have moused over them but still not there, for example on this is it claims the word 'Nebuwah in the Bible', but the mouse overs in concordance is "Now the rest 7605 of the acts 1697 of Šælömò שְׁלֹמֹה, 8010 first 7223 and last, 314 [are] they x1992 not x3808 written 3789 z8803 in x5921 the book 1697 of Nä±än נָתָן 5416 the prophet, 5030 and in x5921 the prophecy 5016 of ´Áçiyyà אֲחִיָּה 281 the Šîlônî שִׁילוֹנִי, 7888 and in the visions 2378 of Ye`dô יֶעדּוֹ 3260 the seer 2374 against x5921 Yorov`äm יָרָבעָם 3379 the son 1121 of Nævä+". A careful check through each ref in concordance shows no sign of the word 'Nebuwah' either. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 21:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Mousing over 5016 (prophecy) in the example you give shows: "#5016 נְבוּאָה n@buw'ah {neb-oo-aw'}. The editor who's been arguing against deletion has removed the tags. I think the page should go, too, but these citations are legit. P.Oxy.2354 (talk) 09:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So you are confiming that the reference does not support the claim. Both neb-oo-aw and n@buw'ah are nothing like Nuwaubu. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 11:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 July 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Main page rfc April Fools
Nothing is being proposed. It is already there. Marcus  Qwertyus   11:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Two things, there did not seem any question poses that could be endorsed or opposed. If you like to re-add the section please make it clear such as asking, should the April Fools page continue to be run in the same way each year. Regarding it's already there, that applies to many 'special' days, christmas day, 10th wikipedia aniversary, 4th of July etc so not sure the reasoning on focusing on April fools. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 11:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * None of the 17 other Main page candidate entries in that section pose any questions that could be endorsed or opposed. Marcus   Qwertyus   11:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries, I'll add it back in an easy way. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 11:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

hello
Hi i wanted to tell that the Article Basit Jehangir Sheikh, he is no more ... please help me to not letting it delete thanks Faisal its really hard to understand and talk with MOds here please you can e mail me email, primelink22@hotmail.com

hope to see you soon! Bye — Preceding unsigned comment added by Primelink22 (talk • contribs) 12:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Article requires a Reliable source. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 13:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have added the reference http://pap.gov.pk/uploads/previous_members/L-1977-1977.htm, please add more. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 13:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Swietlan Kraczyna
Hello SunCreator, first time I come to your page and my first question is: why would it not be enough to mention, that he was MFA professor in etching at the American Graduate School 'Villa Schifanoia'. He had to to stop teaching there, when the Pope who owned Villa Schifanoia died. His teaching in his own workshop near Florence, at via Colleramole continued and even more so in Barga near Pisa. In 1981 Kraczyna, naturalized American, contacted Luis Camnitzer from New York, who then started teaching multi-plate, color- and photo-etching during summer courses in Europe. It would be a pity that a real master in printmaking like Kraczyna would be taken off en.wikipedia because of my inability as a newcomer to present him correctly. I feel sort of responsible. Thanks a lot for any suggestion, because to obtain reliable sources is hard, apart from him being well-known as a hero photographer during The Flood of the River Arno, which alone shoud make it worth trying. Regards, Kalaharih--Kalaharih (talk) 13:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, this guy is quite notable as you explain above. The issue is that all bio's of living people require at least one reliable source. I suggest you click the google links on the article(such as http://news.google.com/archivesearch?as_epq=Swietlan+Kraczyna) and add a news source. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 13:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello sir Basit Jehangir Sheikh
hello sir, i am new here and i still need to learn more but about this article i am trying to provide some relaible sources but i dont have one about the biographly , secondly he is not a living person anymore he died last year !

thirdly plese dont delete this article i need some more time coz i am busy in my exams these days so i am not getting much time to provie other sources, and its hard to understand policies here as well, i you just dont mind and if you can just tell me what kind of source is sufficient to this article so that i can provie or atleast could able to try to work on that thing!

hopefully waiting for your reply !! thanks Regards, Primelink
 * See the reply just up the page. I added a reference. It won't be deleted. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 15:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

hello
"This biographical article needs additional citations for verification. Please help by adding reliable sources. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful. (July 2011)"

yeh i read that before, but it keeps saying at the top of the page ? why ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Primelink22 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Because a large amount of the content of the article is without a relibale source. This is not un-common when an article is new and not yet matured. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 16:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * so what should i do to make it reliable ? does it would be a reaon to delete the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Primelink22 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * At this point there seems no reason to delete the article. However it maybe there is another reason if a problem is found. I see you claim the person is dead. Do you have reference to show that death occured? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 16:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * ah i see, this person is my father , well yeh i do have a source but they are not in English language, i guess there must be in some news in URDU language newspapers but unfortunatly thay are not yet publish in internet , can you help me in other ways ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Primelink22 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Any printed newspaper and any language is okay, put name of newspaper, date of publication, page number of article, and name of language. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 16:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * ok that would be easy for me :) i will and i will ask how to put that either ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Primelink22 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Example:
 * Regards, SunCreator (talk) 17:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

thanks :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Primelink22 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Amir Benayoun
Can I add a source in Hebrew? שדדשכ (talk) 06:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 06:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't edit the article (because of a bug in my computer) please add these sources:

References: (Translation: the first: Amir Benayoun and Gali Atari are singing together; the second: Benayoun versus Assad)
 * About Amir Benayoun in the website of "Nevel Asor" (his record label)
 * After the words "Gali Atari" - עמיר בניון וגלי עטרי שרים יחד in the website of Israeli News Company
 * After the words the Syrian uprising - בניון נגד אסד - in the website of Yedioth Ahronoth

Thanks a lot, שדדשכ (talk) 21:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, I don't make edits for others. If you want to make an edit, click the edit button and edit yourself. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 21:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 July 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

donno about wiki serverss
They are on the fritz (get it, haha) a lot lately. But also the article has so many cite templates which drives the 30 second save time.

That fellow Tpbradbury put a bunch of wrong access dates (not supposed to have them for a link for a source that exists hard copy, FA made us take them out), but I will figure out how to deal with that later. Almost reverted, but what the heck.
 * https://secure.wikimedia.org is the issue. But here, much to check now. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

turtle article
no problem, Tom B (talk) 20:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Article ratings
Regards, SunCreator (talk) 02:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1949_Ambato_earthquake,3.2(5),3.2(5),3.0(5),3.7(6)=>3.7(36),3.8(35),3.7(3),4.0(37)
 * Painted_turtle,4.3(33),4.1(33),4.6(35),4.5(40)=>4.5(43),4.4(43),4.6(45),4.6(49)>4.4(76),4.2(76),4.5(80),4.4(86)
 * Painted_turtle,4.5(77),4.3(77),4.7(81),4.7(87) Regards, SunCreator (talk) 14:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Painted_turtle,4.6(78),4.4(78),4.7(83),4.7(88). Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Painted_turtle,5.0(78),4.9(78),4.9(83),4.9(88). Weird, rating adjustment because new edits removing old rating? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 12:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you!

 * Thank you! Regards, SunCreator (talk) 18:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Schoepf/Schöpf
Hello, again SunCreator! Regarding Johann David Schoepf/Schöpf: please check out these links to HUH and IPNI. He is listed at both. When in doubt, those are usually the best places to look first. One thing is wrong with the entry, however: Harvard Herbarium lists his B & P abbrev. as Schoepf, not Schöpf. Will change as appropriate. Peace, Hamamelis (talk) 19:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the excellent information. At least one IUCN body used 'Schoepff'(double f), so the name usage is somewhat unclear. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Your'e welcome! And, yeah, I have noticed several occasions where IUCN was somewhat off on how they spell a botanist's name. I get the impression that they don't feel its a high priority to use "standard form" or B & P. Frankly, I can't entirely blame them, as that's not really part of their mission. I once had a non-fruitful e-mail back-and-forth with them over listing a botanist as the authority for an orchid species who was already long dead when the plant was said to be discovered, much less described (I'm talking like 40+ years). Last I looked, they had not corrected it. Thanks, Hamamelis (talk) 19:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 July 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 23:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

blp prod
It is unconstructive to place a BLP Prod on such articles as Ralph Lenhart, who, as a member of the Montana State Legislature, is very easily sourceable. You could save everybody else unnecessary work by making obvious checks yourself. Yes, you're not officially obliged to, but for subjects such as this ,it is   a mechanical and unhelpful   way of editing. We've talked about this before, so I doubt I'll convince you to actually do what all Wikipedia editors are supposed to do, which is to add sources to article, especially BLPs. Almost everybody else who regularly prods articles does this, at least for examples as easy as this one. (There are many other recent examples also, such as Swietlan Kraczyna, Barton Lidice Beneš, Mohamed Orabi, & the foreign minister of Egypt. )   DGG ( talk ) 02:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC) Regards, SunCreator (talk) 14:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) We both have the same objective here, just we are going about it in a different way
 * 2) Wikipedia is a volunteer project, it's important to remember that.
 * 3) Anyone creating an article are advised to reference it and informed if they don't it maybe deleted, especially BLPS. The exact wording is When creating an article, provide references to reliable published sources. An article without references, especially a biography of a living person, may be deleted.
 * 4) The idea of prodding a BLP is so the article creator is encouraged to take responsibility for submitting completely unsourced BLPs
 * 5) More resource are required on referencing BLPs and indeed new articless in general
 * 6) As a volunteer, I'm neither obliged to nor is a good idea imho to directly reference BLPs without giving the article creator a chance to take responsibility and reference it themself.
 * 7) As a volunteer and an admin, you perhaps at times feel under pressure to reference BLPs. That is only reasonable out of a sense of responsibility. But the worse that could happen is the odd article gets deleted and later someone can undeletes or recreates it. It's not going to break wikipedea, my advice is don't sweat, image what it would be like if article creator referenced there own articles.
 * 8) As an aside, I don't watch the BLPs I BLPPROD, so remarks in the edit summary will only rarely be read by me.
 * I see we have discussed this before, but let me try again, not just to explain how I see it, but to persuade you:

@It is unreasonable to expect most new editors to get everything right initially. Therefore they must be taught, but taught in such way that everything practical is done to get their articles improved if improvement is possible—and in cases where it is not, that personal non-threatening actually helpful advice is given.  DGG ( talk ) 19:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, we are both concerned about content and references, but I am also concerned with developing new editors and removing the barriers to increased participation. One of the foundation priorities this year, at general request, is increasing the number of editors, Not discouraging them at the initial entry is critically important--the foundation's research surveys as well as individual complaints have shown that having an article rejected is extremely likely to prevent any further attempt, no matter what reassuring messages are sent.
 * 1) The existing BLP Prod process, and all other deletion processes, is neither friendly nor helpful. In cases where it appears an article is possible, the new editor needs help in doing it properly, not just a warning to do it. In cases where it appears the article is hopeless, the editor needs an explanation why--with respect to that particular article, not in general terms--and guidance in finding more useful work to do here,
 * 2) I find, as do most teachers, that a very good way to provide help is by example. In case of unsourced articles, that means  adding at least one reference and explaining that more are needed., and where to find them. Nobody can be expected to understand initially either why we need sources, or what we consider acceptable sources, especially for biographies.  Those of us with experience here need to share it. This is a community project.
 * 3) The worst that can happen when an article is rejected is that the editor does not return. This is more important  than whether or not we do or do not have a particular article. Wikipedia is edited by volunteers, and the only way we can attract editors is by making editing attractive. As a volunteer, none of us is exactly required to do anything, but as a   member of a community we all of us are expected to act responsibly, and a key aspect of acting responsibly is to help each other. This especially includes here, as in civilized communities generally, the need to help the newcomer and those whose actions show they need assistance.
 * 4) So I suggest something--perhaps for one unsourced BLP article a day that seem certain or almost certain to be notable, and where the editor looks like a possibly productive beginner. you could actually add a source, and explain to the editor in a focused note the need to do likewise?
 * 5) For editors who never learn, then they do need to be differently dealt with, and I will sometimes warn someone that I have sourced their article, but after that it will be up to them--and that if they add too many unsourced BLPs, I am quite prepared to block.

The Signpost: 01 August 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Chess endgame
I find it really difficult to believe that you actually think that edit to chess endgame was "excellent", and "better in almost all ways", but I invite you to explain exactly what you prefer about it at Talk:chess endgame. The primary problem isn't the chess (although there are some issues there), it's the writing. Quale (talk) 04:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * SunCreator, thanks for trying to help. They've reverted Chess Endgame again ... on Wikipedia 2(fools) > 1(expert). I'm outta the Chess section, see you around the music pages. JacquesDelaguerre (talk) 17:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Hubertine Heijermans
Hello, I read in particular (a bit late since july) your points about atracting new editors. Now I am the most enthusiastic person about Wikipedia as a whole, but this last month I was nOT encouraged, wrote long explanations, got driven in a corner, more and more about not adding AT ONCE references, that I knew where acquired. When refering to a a museum it had to be a National one. I got that straightened out, but then the sword of Damocles descended, and for all to see I was writing an autobiography (NOT true), was the same person as the biographer Paldopaldino. I openly said that Hubertine and Kalaharih are the same, but not intentionally. Circumstances at work/plane schedules changed by the economic crises, and lack of help from Palfopaldino AND the latest administrator had their effect in negatif. Then I saw that Paldopaldino has presented himself on the 6th of august with: Here I am, and he still did not get an answer! I myself just noticed a tiny remark in a template, that it seems not to be an auto biographie after all. After all here I was trying to help out this young steward and EVEN after repeatedly telling ALL the truth, No answer and especially not a single word to me or to him of I am sorry. I consider myself to be old fashioned, but in the sense of 'noblesse oblige,' and I hold on to ancient traditions, and believe the same issues are treated differently in different countries. I do think Republics are different from monarchies, and young people in the East for instance could not possible understand what a new or an old world mean or what they represent. Just tell me whether I am just generalizing and it does not mean anything. Yet right now I suffer from too much lack any support lately from the persons that last exploded over this article, while I did my best to find the necessary references. But one cannot send a mail, like the conforming mail I received personally from the Museum Director Rick Vercauteren about 23 etchings belonging to their collection. I asked where have they gone, the answer was: just be reassured we found them, and they are part of the collection, which a wikipedian claims is not true and that nothing of the work is present there. Then I also asked how the site of Musée de l'Elysée shows collections on the Internet, but they have financial stress and not YET anything to have access to the collection at all. Therefore it can only be mentioned and not referred to. But I got hold of the letter of the Director in 1993 Monsieur Charles-Henri Favrod, that thanked the artist for 45 héliogravures. Than the word héliogravures got removed, while I had just explained, that photo-etching usually is called héliogravure and this is also called like that in the letter, but it was removed anyway, even though I took the trouble to explain the difference of héliogravure and photo-etching in a seperate sentence. Because there is, héliogravure is entirely done by hand. in photo-etching machines can do the job. Sometimes like in the States it is just the same word. Some justice, some politeness of certain wikipedians, having overpoweringly scoring the novice I am. And a way to receive some sort of rehabilatation, as you said, when too discouraged I will not return EVER to write another article. Even if I know quite a bit of interesting subjects. Your warnings about how to treat people is so right. I hope I wil see the sun again. Kalaharih--Kalaharih (talk) 18:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, sorry to hear of your problems. Wikipedia can be hard for new editors, this is why some encourage much kindness. In processing page it takes time to sort through issues and policues are firm with copyright and other matters that are enforced. Your English is not easty to understand and perhaps that is making progress slow. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 21:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)