Iadrian yu (talk | contribs) ←Replaced content with 'Due to my learning process on wikipedia`s standards i have deleted the previous discussion page. I want to thank Biruitorul and DC76 for their patience. ~~~~' |
|||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Numbers== |
|||
Due to my learning process on wikipedia`s standards i have deleted the previous discussion page. I want to thank Biruitorul and DC76 for their patience. [[User:Iadrian yu|iadrian]] ([[User talk:Iadrian yu#top|talk]]) 01:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC) |
|||
I reverted [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Romanian_language&diff=247837998&oldid=247556077 this edit], because I thought it was strange how you changed the upper digits and left the lower ones intact. I'm sorry if I was wrong, but do you have sources for your numbers? — [[User:AdiJapan|<font color="#048">'''Adi'''</font>]][[User Talk:AdiJapan|<font color="#37B">Japan</font>]] 06:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
It`s been corrected now in 2008 that there is at least 30% Romanian population in municipal of Vrsac, Bela Crkva and Alibunar. The sources that are represented here are numbers given by ultra-nationalists in Serbia and many of the Romanians are ignored because of their integration in Serbian society excluding Vlachs that are also Romanians. The real numbrers are around 60 000 in Vojvodina only, that is the reason why i changed only the upper digit in the demographic data. The problem is i can`t find a reliable source except the TV station that published these numbers. www.b92.net [[User:Iadrian yu|iadrian]] ([[User talk:Iadrian yu#top|talk]]) 14:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Well, when you find sources, you can edit the article and put the exact numbers stated by the sources. If they say "around 60,000 people" then our article should say the same. Don't forget to mention the sources in the article. — [[User:AdiJapan|<font color="#048">'''Adi'''</font>]][[User Talk:AdiJapan|<font color="#37B">Japan</font>]] 13:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Yes, but these sources represented here are incorrect. The article should be at least corrected in one way or another. The numbers given by Serbian authorities are ridiculous. [[User:Iadrian yu|iadrian]] ([[User talk:Iadrian yu#top|talk]]) 14:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:The numbers come from the last Serbian census (2002). If you have sources stating that the numbers published by the Serbian authorities are incorect, you can add that information in the article. |
|||
:As a general rule, please remember that, for Wikipedia, truth is not important, [[WP:V|verifiability]] is. Even if you know the truth, if it has not been published by reliable sources, for Wikipedia it does not exist. — [[User:AdiJapan|<font color="#048">'''Adi'''</font>]][[User Talk:AdiJapan|<font color="#37B">Japan</font>]] 14:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Vrsac article. == |
|||
I have found the source that says that in VRsac lives 8.051 Romanian. In City only. Here is the web page. Of course, data from 2002. http://www.banaterra.eu/srpski/ZZ/ziveti%20zajedno/index.htm |
|||
And i will dedicate the rest of the day to find more sources about this. |
|||
[[User:Iadrian yu|iadrian]] ([[User talk:Iadrian yu#top|talk]]) 18:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
The recent edits that i made sources are here: |
|||
1. http://www.banatul.com/ |
|||
2. http://www.banaterra.eu/srpski/ZZ/ziveti%20zajedno/index.htm |
|||
3. KULTURNE PRILIKE KOD RUMUNA U BANATU 1945-1952. By Mircea Maran. |
|||
4. http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Official-status-of-Romanian-language-in-Vojvodina |
|||
5.http://www.publicinfo.ro/pagini/misiuni-diplomatice-ale-romaniei-.php?IDord=161&sort=desc&pg=1 |
|||
6. http://www.naslovi.net/2006-03-22/dnevnik/vrsac-dobija-uciteljski-fakultet-na-rumunskom/123496 |
|||
7.http://www.dnevnik.co.yu/index.php |
|||
That is for today... |
|||
[[User:Iadrian yu|iadrian]] ([[User talk:Iadrian yu#top|talk]]) 19:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Please don`t delete my work. Why did you changed the numbers again in 5.913? when i have the source that only in city there is 8.051 Romanians? Show me where is the source for Romanians in VRsac city? I would rather leave it N/a than that funny number. Somebody might see it, or even worse believe it. [[User:Iadrian yu|iadrian]] ([[User talk:Iadrian yu#top|talk]]) 22:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:1) I see you already edited [[Romanians of Serbia]]. |
|||
:2) [[Comunitatea Românilor din Serbia]] seems like a notable NGO, it might desearve an article of its own. You can start it, but I strongly advise you before that to look around on WP for a good model of such an article. If your article would be written poorly and exhibit some of the features you've been showing, like playing with numbers, you might have serious problems (like be banned) and the article might be deleted as not corresponding to a minimal standard of decency. The info about devastated office could be mentioned in that article. But again, try to be as laconic as possible (don't make 20% of the article about that incident. 1% is quite enough. The organization does a lot of other stuff that desearves to be mentioned in 99%.) And whatever you write, write in neutral tone. Always. Even declarations of war are expressed very calmly. Neutral tone is a must. There are more, but this is minimum-minimum, otherwise you loose your reputeation in a second. |
|||
:3) I must warn you very seriously: never play with numbers again as you did in the two articles I noted. If you did it in other articles, please revert yourself. You were very lucky you crossed Biruitorul who is 200% super-diplomatic, someone with less patience could have blocked you as a vandal on the spot. Never ever do this again. Biruitorul was (maybe still is) about to request a block of you: you crossed a lot of WP policy with playing with numbers. '''You don't even imagine how narrowly you escaped so far'''. Even if everybody knows a sourse is wrong, at most find another sourse that brings doubt to the credibility of the first sourse. But never ever put different words in someone's "mouth", never atribute to X what X did not claim, especially not numbers. Is it so difficult to say: "Romanian in Vrsac: 5,000 according to sourse A, 9,000 according to sourse B." ? [[User:Dc76|Dc76]]\<sup>[[User_talk:Dc76|talk]]</sup> 00:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC) |
|||
P.S. About your claims that there is incorrect information on WP. I must tell you that you have not seen even 1% of the incorrect info yet. If you ever again revert-war and play with numbers, you can be blocked. This way you will correct exactly 0% of the incorrect information. Patience. If an info is incorrect, sooner or later a sourse will surface. Spend you time looking for sources, not reverting or changing numbers. If it's hard, means you are doing the right thing. If it is too easy, something is wrong. [[User:Dc76|Dc76]]\<sup>[[User_talk:Dc76|talk]]</sup> 01:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC) |
|||
I am sorry, I am new to wikipedia, and Bruitorul explained a lot to me how wikipedia works. I am deleting much of the talking on this article because i did`t take in consideration wikipedia rules. I have done some research how wikipedia works, it`s rules, everything. I will be much careful from now on, i just lost my temper when i saw the Vrsac article in the first place. I did`t played with numbers, just modified then from unofficial sources in 3 places, and i will change them back if there are still like that. I will also try to make time for this article you suggest, to make it as best it can be, reliable, official and accurate. I don`t think i will even mention the vandalism that is happening from time to time, it shows a really bad picture. Maybe i will use it only as a reference. |
|||
Thanks again for your patience with me, and if Bruitorul did`t sent the request for my ban :), i will continue to contribute to wikipedia by respecting the official standards and rules. |
|||
[[User:Iadrian yu|iadrian]] ([[User talk:Iadrian yu#top|talk]]) 01:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::I looked into the last sourse you included in [[Vrsac]]. It is a collection of newpaper articles. So 1) if you use info from a specific article, attribute it to that specific article, for example ''"Românii din Valea Timocului îsi cer drepturile! (I). Convorbire cu dl. Viorel Dolha", Adevarul de Arad, no ?, year ?'' Don't atribute it to a .doc file. Very often, newspapers keep their articles stored online, and you can link to their webpage. As a last resort, link to the .doc file. Just look how this is done for other, higher quality Wikipedia article. 2) I've read a little bit the .doc file. It contains a lot of info that can be used in different articles. But the info there is in 1000 pieces. It is very hard to sort things out for someone who does not know the background. For example they mention locality X and assume the reader knows where it is, in Banat, in Timok Valley, or on the moon. How am I supposed to know? I never heard about that locality before. I would have to read 10 pages and google a lot only to understand 1 line. It is almost impossible for me to edit using such a sourse. It must be someone who knows more background and understand quicker the sourse. Your edits must be informative in several aspects, not just concentrated on number of people of an ethnic group. Try through your edits to convey ''information'' to the reader. Let the reader draw his/her own conclusions. Think this is an article about a city in Canada. Would you like to read only conclusions and no information? Don't you prefer when the article gives you all info and you draw conclusion on your own. 3) I did not find anywhere in the .doc file where it says that the official 2002 Serb census underestimates the numbre of Romanians. Maybe you can help find such a thing. If you can not, modify the sentence from the article: it must reflect something which is in the sourse. 4) I did not find anywhere in the .doc file where it says there are 9,000 Romanians in Vrsac. I only find 35,000 in Voevodina. Please, try to find within this file (or somewhere else, if you want) a specific reference about Vrsac municipality. That would help much better. E.g. "here sourse A says this, here sourse B says that." B/c now it almost looks like "Here sourse A says that. Here I tell you don't trust sourse A." Total nonsense from the point of view of the reader. [[User:Dc76|Dc76]]\<sup>[[User_talk:Dc76|talk]]</sup> 02:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Yes, try it yourself, google it, there is no other official data on the internet except some newspapers and some books. I understand , it`s a matter of perspective, the wikipedia just gives the information , the reader thinks what he likes. I will try to find more reliable source about this. I try to do my best. Thanks again. [[User:Iadrian yu|iadrian]] ([[User talk:Iadrian yu#top|talk]]) 12:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC) |
|||
No, I'm not requesting any block. I must say there were points when I nearly did, though. Just be more attentive in the future, that's all. And thank you, Dc76, for also showing patience and explaining policy. [[User:Biruitorul|Biruitorul]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Biruitorul|Talk]]</sup></small> 13:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC) |
|||
I will find the source in a couple of days. I have read somewhere that Romanians from Vojvodina (CRI) contested the census from 2002 about the numbers from Romanian to the European Court. The Romanian state did`t support it official because of the possible political problems with Serbia. Unofficial Romania supports it. I just can`t find the web page again.. One of my friends knows it, but he is away for a couple of days. I will get this information ASAP. [[User:Iadrian yu|iadrian]] ([[User talk:Iadrian yu#top|talk]]) 15:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Take your time, no rush. Do we have your promiss that you will never play wiht numbers again? (Beware that if you promiss smth and then break your word, actionability agianst you is much faster.) [[User:Dc76|Dc76]]\<sup>[[User_talk:Dc76|talk]]</sup> 15:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC) |
|||
I`we learned my lesson :). I won`t change anything until i have some reliable source to back it up. I am not all clear about what source is ok and the one that are not acceptable (approximately i get the idea, but just to be sure), so if you don`t mind, when i find something i`l ask you on your page about it, so i can get the hang of it. [[User:Iadrian yu|iadrian]] ([[User talk:Iadrian yu#top|talk]]) 15:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC) |
|||
You would have to ask more than just me. "Acceptable citation" in history/plitics areas is always contested by someone. Typical acceptable thing is a mainsteam article or book by a scholar. For example, noone is going to doubt [[Niall Fergusson]]'s word on something related to the [[British Empire]]. But generally finding enough citations of such standard is close to impossible on the politically contigous topics. [[User:Dc76|Dc76]]\<sup>[[User_talk:Dc76|talk]]</sup> 16:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:31, 4 November 2008
Numbers
I reverted this edit, because I thought it was strange how you changed the upper digits and left the lower ones intact. I'm sorry if I was wrong, but do you have sources for your numbers? — AdiJapan 06:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
It`s been corrected now in 2008 that there is at least 30% Romanian population in municipal of Vrsac, Bela Crkva and Alibunar. The sources that are represented here are numbers given by ultra-nationalists in Serbia and many of the Romanians are ignored because of their integration in Serbian society excluding Vlachs that are also Romanians. The real numbrers are around 60 000 in Vojvodina only, that is the reason why i changed only the upper digit in the demographic data. The problem is i can`t find a reliable source except the TV station that published these numbers. www.b92.net iadrian (talk) 14:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Well, when you find sources, you can edit the article and put the exact numbers stated by the sources. If they say "around 60,000 people" then our article should say the same. Don't forget to mention the sources in the article. — AdiJapan 13:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but these sources represented here are incorrect. The article should be at least corrected in one way or another. The numbers given by Serbian authorities are ridiculous. iadrian (talk) 14:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- The numbers come from the last Serbian census (2002). If you have sources stating that the numbers published by the Serbian authorities are incorect, you can add that information in the article.
- As a general rule, please remember that, for Wikipedia, truth is not important, verifiability is. Even if you know the truth, if it has not been published by reliable sources, for Wikipedia it does not exist. — AdiJapan 14:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Vrsac article.
I have found the source that says that in VRsac lives 8.051 Romanian. In City only. Here is the web page. Of course, data from 2002. http://www.banaterra.eu/srpski/ZZ/ziveti%20zajedno/index.htm And i will dedicate the rest of the day to find more sources about this. iadrian (talk) 18:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
The recent edits that i made sources are here: 1. http://www.banatul.com/ 2. http://www.banaterra.eu/srpski/ZZ/ziveti%20zajedno/index.htm 3. KULTURNE PRILIKE KOD RUMUNA U BANATU 1945-1952. By Mircea Maran. 4. http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Official-status-of-Romanian-language-in-Vojvodina 5.http://www.publicinfo.ro/pagini/misiuni-diplomatice-ale-romaniei-.php?IDord=161&sort=desc&pg=1 6. http://www.naslovi.net/2006-03-22/dnevnik/vrsac-dobija-uciteljski-fakultet-na-rumunskom/123496 7.http://www.dnevnik.co.yu/index.php
That is for today... iadrian (talk) 19:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Please don`t delete my work. Why did you changed the numbers again in 5.913? when i have the source that only in city there is 8.051 Romanians? Show me where is the source for Romanians in VRsac city? I would rather leave it N/a than that funny number. Somebody might see it, or even worse believe it. iadrian (talk) 22:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- 1) I see you already edited Romanians of Serbia.
- 2) Comunitatea Românilor din Serbia seems like a notable NGO, it might desearve an article of its own. You can start it, but I strongly advise you before that to look around on WP for a good model of such an article. If your article would be written poorly and exhibit some of the features you've been showing, like playing with numbers, you might have serious problems (like be banned) and the article might be deleted as not corresponding to a minimal standard of decency. The info about devastated office could be mentioned in that article. But again, try to be as laconic as possible (don't make 20% of the article about that incident. 1% is quite enough. The organization does a lot of other stuff that desearves to be mentioned in 99%.) And whatever you write, write in neutral tone. Always. Even declarations of war are expressed very calmly. Neutral tone is a must. There are more, but this is minimum-minimum, otherwise you loose your reputeation in a second.
- 3) I must warn you very seriously: never play with numbers again as you did in the two articles I noted. If you did it in other articles, please revert yourself. You were very lucky you crossed Biruitorul who is 200% super-diplomatic, someone with less patience could have blocked you as a vandal on the spot. Never ever do this again. Biruitorul was (maybe still is) about to request a block of you: you crossed a lot of WP policy with playing with numbers. You don't even imagine how narrowly you escaped so far. Even if everybody knows a sourse is wrong, at most find another sourse that brings doubt to the credibility of the first sourse. But never ever put different words in someone's "mouth", never atribute to X what X did not claim, especially not numbers. Is it so difficult to say: "Romanian in Vrsac: 5,000 according to sourse A, 9,000 according to sourse B." ? Dc76\talk 00:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
P.S. About your claims that there is incorrect information on WP. I must tell you that you have not seen even 1% of the incorrect info yet. If you ever again revert-war and play with numbers, you can be blocked. This way you will correct exactly 0% of the incorrect information. Patience. If an info is incorrect, sooner or later a sourse will surface. Spend you time looking for sources, not reverting or changing numbers. If it's hard, means you are doing the right thing. If it is too easy, something is wrong. Dc76\talk 01:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry, I am new to wikipedia, and Bruitorul explained a lot to me how wikipedia works. I am deleting much of the talking on this article because i did`t take in consideration wikipedia rules. I have done some research how wikipedia works, it`s rules, everything. I will be much careful from now on, i just lost my temper when i saw the Vrsac article in the first place. I did`t played with numbers, just modified then from unofficial sources in 3 places, and i will change them back if there are still like that. I will also try to make time for this article you suggest, to make it as best it can be, reliable, official and accurate. I don`t think i will even mention the vandalism that is happening from time to time, it shows a really bad picture. Maybe i will use it only as a reference. Thanks again for your patience with me, and if Bruitorul did`t sent the request for my ban :), i will continue to contribute to wikipedia by respecting the official standards and rules. iadrian (talk) 01:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- I looked into the last sourse you included in Vrsac. It is a collection of newpaper articles. So 1) if you use info from a specific article, attribute it to that specific article, for example "Românii din Valea Timocului îsi cer drepturile! (I). Convorbire cu dl. Viorel Dolha", Adevarul de Arad, no ?, year ? Don't atribute it to a .doc file. Very often, newspapers keep their articles stored online, and you can link to their webpage. As a last resort, link to the .doc file. Just look how this is done for other, higher quality Wikipedia article. 2) I've read a little bit the .doc file. It contains a lot of info that can be used in different articles. But the info there is in 1000 pieces. It is very hard to sort things out for someone who does not know the background. For example they mention locality X and assume the reader knows where it is, in Banat, in Timok Valley, or on the moon. How am I supposed to know? I never heard about that locality before. I would have to read 10 pages and google a lot only to understand 1 line. It is almost impossible for me to edit using such a sourse. It must be someone who knows more background and understand quicker the sourse. Your edits must be informative in several aspects, not just concentrated on number of people of an ethnic group. Try through your edits to convey information to the reader. Let the reader draw his/her own conclusions. Think this is an article about a city in Canada. Would you like to read only conclusions and no information? Don't you prefer when the article gives you all info and you draw conclusion on your own. 3) I did not find anywhere in the .doc file where it says that the official 2002 Serb census underestimates the numbre of Romanians. Maybe you can help find such a thing. If you can not, modify the sentence from the article: it must reflect something which is in the sourse. 4) I did not find anywhere in the .doc file where it says there are 9,000 Romanians in Vrsac. I only find 35,000 in Voevodina. Please, try to find within this file (or somewhere else, if you want) a specific reference about Vrsac municipality. That would help much better. E.g. "here sourse A says this, here sourse B says that." B/c now it almost looks like "Here sourse A says that. Here I tell you don't trust sourse A." Total nonsense from the point of view of the reader. Dc76\talk 02:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, try it yourself, google it, there is no other official data on the internet except some newspapers and some books. I understand , it`s a matter of perspective, the wikipedia just gives the information , the reader thinks what he likes. I will try to find more reliable source about this. I try to do my best. Thanks again. iadrian (talk) 12:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm not requesting any block. I must say there were points when I nearly did, though. Just be more attentive in the future, that's all. And thank you, Dc76, for also showing patience and explaining policy. Biruitorul Talk 13:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I will find the source in a couple of days. I have read somewhere that Romanians from Vojvodina (CRI) contested the census from 2002 about the numbers from Romanian to the European Court. The Romanian state did`t support it official because of the possible political problems with Serbia. Unofficial Romania supports it. I just can`t find the web page again.. One of my friends knows it, but he is away for a couple of days. I will get this information ASAP. iadrian (talk) 15:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Take your time, no rush. Do we have your promiss that you will never play wiht numbers again? (Beware that if you promiss smth and then break your word, actionability agianst you is much faster.) Dc76\talk 15:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I`we learned my lesson :). I won`t change anything until i have some reliable source to back it up. I am not all clear about what source is ok and the one that are not acceptable (approximately i get the idea, but just to be sure), so if you don`t mind, when i find something i`l ask you on your page about it, so i can get the hang of it. iadrian (talk) 15:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
You would have to ask more than just me. "Acceptable citation" in history/plitics areas is always contested by someone. Typical acceptable thing is a mainsteam article or book by a scholar. For example, noone is going to doubt Niall Fergusson's word on something related to the British Empire. But generally finding enough citations of such standard is close to impossible on the politically contigous topics. Dc76\talk 16:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)