User talk:Vsop.de

Anthony Burgess
Actually, no that is not a proper inline citation for a source, which is mandatory for quotations. Please see WP:CITE and WP:REFB for instructions for how to add a proper inline citation. I have not removed your addition yet, but I will do so this time tomorrow, giving you time to add inline citation for your addition. Sara&#39;s Song (talk) 06:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll add
 * cited in: Geoffrey C. Gunn, New World Hegemony in the Malay World, The Red Sea Press, Lawrenceville NJ and Asmara/Eritrea, First printing 2000, ISBN 1-56902-134-1, p. 143
 * but am not amused. To the statement, the setting of Devil of a State had been changed from Brunei to an imaginary East African territory, "Citation needed" had been added months ago. And when I add one I am threatened with removal should I not - within one day - make the citation fully compliant with WP instructions for "proper inline citation" which probably 99 percent of Wikipedia's content don't conform to anyway.
 * My source can be found at google
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=55mXS56nMPkC&pg=PR1&dqe#v=onepage&q=&f=false
 * I wonder whether "this time by tomorrow" I'll get an answer or comment to my question: "What are articles about the single books good for when you put everything into the article about the author, too."
 * Sincerely yours Vsop.de (talk) 10:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested in hearing what does not amuse you. Basic Wikipedia policy states that quotations and content that is challenged must be accompanied by a reliable source. The guidelines encourage "inline citations", you have been provided with links to pages that can show you how to format such. As for your imperative question, I don't know. Why are you adding lengthy quotes in that case? A quote isn't necessary, all it needs is a citation. Editors have been trying to tame this particular runaway article for years. Again, please do tell that you aren't amused. I'm not amused by the snarkiness of your response. Cite correctly or expect it to be removed. I was giving you a break. I should remove it post haste. Sara&#39;s Song (talk) 10:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk: Anthony Burgess - POV-check
POV-check There has been a great deal of pop-world plagiarism from Burgess. Some examples: Plagiarism? Sounds POV to me. Can this be rewritten to sound more objective? David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 02:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * When I deleted all this as "trash", Wildhartlivie disagreed: "even if you don't agree or don't like a comment, pls don't delete talk page posts from other editors."
 * It's not about what I disagree with or dislike but that the entries in question are TRASH, aren't they? The first one is anonymous and also crippled because someone has already removed the examples. And both make no sense anyway because no one knows what they refer to.
 * Are we supposed to delete TRASH in the articles only? But in talk to preserve it for future generations like it was from the bible/quran hereby making it more and more impossible to find RELEVANT discussion? I certainly do not think so. --Vsop.de (talk) 11:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't much matter whether you consider someone's comments trash or not, WP:TALK is clear about deleting, changing or removing someone else's comments. In fact, no one removed examples, if you'd bothered to look through the posting history, you'd see that the poster was referring to an existent statement in the article at the time that said "There has been a great deal of pop-world plagiarism from Burgess. Some examples:" He was stating that the sentence reflected POV. It is not a trash statement. It's clear you had no idea what was originally posted so it's more than a little off-base to delete the post as "trash". I'm not even sure you know what you are calling "trash". The quote the poster put up to discuss? The response he made to the quote? Are you referring to the article quote stating that pop-culture stole from Burgess or the poster's assertion that the quote itself was a POV statement? As it is, behavioral guidelines say not to refactor, delete or change someone else's post. So, no, we do not just delete comments. And yes, they are preserved in an archive. Take a little time to learn the rules before you act. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * What I meant by “trash” is quite obvious: something to be removed because it is obsolete, no longer of any value. I did not imply that the entry in question never had any. Although it could have made clearer that the first line is a quote from the article. But what about my caveat that preserving all and any in the talk page will make finding the relevant issues more and more difficult? --Vsop.de (talk) 13:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Talk page "clutter" isn't considered a problem on Wikipedia. There are no "stupid questions". It's easy enough to search talk archives to find what anyone might be looking for. The policy is that only blatantly irrelevant comments are removed. If an editor made a good-faith comment that relates to an article, it stays. That's it. If you want to argue this policy, I suggest doing so at WT:TALK. Equazcion  ( talk ) 13:32, 30 Jan 2010 (UTC)

Heinrich Harrer
You seem to be an expert on Heinrich Harrer, and it isn't POV to say notable things that he's done in an NPOV way. If you'd like to work together with me to craft some of those notable things you put in the talk page, i'd be happy to help. Doc Quintana (talk) 23:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your support
This article was bordering on comedy if not a fine example of utter non-sense. I was contemplating a just deleting, but this list seems OK now. Btw, I added Hindenburg's wife with the note that he was a widower during office. Unmarried wouldn't be correct, in the light that she was his dead wife. Hope this makes sense. Mootros (talk) 21:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)