Misplaced Pages

User talk:Danish Expert

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Danish Expert (talk | contribs) at 16:39, 25 October 2012 (→CCI Notice: wikilinks added for the the two Example 3 and Example 4 issues solved today). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 16:39, 25 October 2012 by Danish Expert (talk | contribs) (→CCI Notice: wikilinks added for the the two Example 3 and Example 4 issues solved today)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Priestley list

Hi. At Talk:List of works by Joseph Priestley you said on May 2 that you had a new version of the "online works" list to be uploaded, but you haven't edited the article since April. I was wondering if you still had that update at hand (or near completion)?

Underneath your thread there, I've suggested that it would be most efficacious to merge that list of external links, into the rest of the article, to prevent duplication (and confusion or missed-information for readers), in the same way that List of works of William Gibson is written. Your thoughts would be appreciated there. Thanks :) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Electronic Cigarette History

Hey I'm in the process of writing an article on vaping, the use of a personal vaporizer/e-cig, and I was wondering if you could post the references to my talk page for the in depth history you posted, it would be of much help. Thanks. Le rufus (talk) 16:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

FIFA rankings

As I understand it, the point that you are trying to make is that the calculation of points in, for example, Decamber 2006 included calculations based on rankings in, for example December 2005, but those Dec 05 rankings were reached via the previous calculation method, not the one introduced in July 2006. Therefore any false impression about the relative strength of teams given under the old formula still has an influence. Is that a correct reading of your intention?

Assumming that to be the case, I would be uncertain about the merit in including it.

  • Any system for quantifying comparative performances is open to challenge, and the relative accuracy of alternative formulae is only ever going to be subjectively quantifiable, so there is no NPOV case that previous error is carried forward, in which case the carrying forward of previous results is scarcely remarkable.
  • By now, the difference in rankings caused by not retrospectively applying new formulae to old results is both extraordinarily difficult to calculate, and, I would suggest, minimal in the difference it would make to October 2010 rankings.
  • But most importantly for including the claiim in Misplaced Pages, is this verifiably true? I suspect it is: I'd be surprised if they bothered to retrospectively apply the 2006 system, but is there a source that clearly states that?
I am hereby surprised, as promised, to find out that they did indeed do this Kevin McE (talk) 16:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Even leaving aside such issues, I would suggest that it can be said rather more simply and clearly than "The updated calculation methods were implemented by FIFA on a forward progress; meaning that they only replaced the previous method starting from a certain month, and never were used by FIFA to calculate new points and rankings for the past. Thus, the historical charts of each nations FIFA ranking since 1993, are drawed upon all three calculation methods; the first from August 1993 until December 1998, the second from January 1999 until June 2006, and the third since July 2006."

  • Your courage in editing in a language that is not your mother tongue is noted, but phrases such as "implemented... on a forward progress" and "are drawed upon" are not ones that a native speaker would use.
  • Most people interested in rankings do not access an "historical chart of each nation's FIFA ranking since 1993"
  • Your desire to state a lot undermines the clarity of what you wish to say: conciseness is desirable in encyclopaedic writing.
  • The dates of the changes in calculation are already evident in the article: re-iterating them here makes the sentence lengthy and the punctuation awkward.


If we assume that the uncertainties in my second paragraph can be overcome, is there anything essential missing from the much simpler phrasing that I introduced: "The updated calculations remained partially dependent on rankings calculated under earlier forms of calculation. " I'm not totally happy about the repetition of the word "calculations" there, maybe "After each change in the formula, positions calculated under the previous method retained an influence in the ranking." I believe that both of these include the relevant points, ar more proportionate, and better combine clarity and conciseness. Kevin McE (talk) 14:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kevin, the point I tried to add with a few lines, was actualy not related to the "statistical windows", that you highlighted in your reply above. In the article chapter named "Current calculation method", we already have a sentence dealing with the fact, that "opponent strength" to a small degree has been calculated by "old rankings calculated by a previous method". However, FIFA actualy applied the new calculation formula as far back as to 1996, which is already noted with a source in the wiki article. So that particular matter, is in my point of view already covered suficiently by the article. The new point I tried to highlight in the "History chapter", was only to stress the fact, that FIFA never retroactively published rankings for the time frame in Aug.1993-June 2006 based upon their new formula! Instead they preserved all the old data, so whenever you visit their website to look up historical FIFA rankings, then you will find a chart where the ranking positions from Aug.1993-Dec.1998 are calculated by the first method, with ranking positions from Jan.1999-June 2006 being calculated by the second method, and ranking positions since July 2006 being calculated by the third method. I think this info is relevant to add, as ordinary people who are not familair with the FIFA ranking, would tend to assume, that the new formula had been applied retroactively on all data, in order to show both historic ranking positions and the current ranking position, calculated by the same method. This is not the case. Perhaps the point I try to highlight, can be formulated in a better way. You are welcome to give it a try, and of course also more than welcome to continue our talk (either here, or at the discussion page of the article). Danish Expert (talk) 15:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I see: I think my point that your effort did not make clear your intention has been illustrated. To be honest, I don't think anyone who has read that the method of calculation changed in July 2006 would assume that the Dec 2005 rankings were calculated according to the July 2006 formula. But if you think that it should be stated, I'd suggest that clarity and conciseness are met by "Historical records of the rankings, such as listed at FIFA.com, reflect the method of calculation in use at the time." or, if you prefer "Historical records of the rankings, such as listed at FIFA.com, reflect the method of calculation in use at the time, as the current method has not been applied retrospectively to rankings prior to July 2006". Kevin McE (talk) 16:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you, that my first formulation indeed would be more concise and clear, when being reformulated to the last sentence you wrote. Before I checked back to read your answer here at the discusssion page, I already posted an edit of the sentence in the wiki article, with this formulation: The updated calculation methods were implemented by FIFA on a sequentially basis; meaning that they -publication wise- only replaced the previous method starting from a certain month, with the FIFA website still showing the historical ranking positions calculated by the previous method. Obviously the point of my reformulated sentence is now the exact same, as the one you proposed above. And as I happen to prefer your somewhat shorter and better formulation, I agree to use that sentence instead. :-) Danish Expert (talk) 17:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Footy Nationality

I have yet to read it, but I glanced over what you did here . Thanks so much for keeping this going. Erikeltic 15:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Reply

Hi there DE, VASCO from Portugal here,

Thank you very much for your kind words and concern about my WP:FOOTY status. Indeed, i am a member of the project and edit more than i would like to - :) - at the site, more than 90% in association football. Did not know i had been added to the list of members nor that i had been removed from it but yes, my account name has been changed after an admin thought it could/should be done. I am not aware if it's an indispensable condition that you sign up to that list, if so, what are the necessary steps?

Again, thanks for your friendly note, keep up the good work as well, and happy Xmas overall! Cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 02:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no official WPF requirement/policy in place, that in any way would compel you to sign up as a WPF member. It is a free choise, and unconfirmed WPF members, also have full legitimate access to debate at the WPF talk page. So you did nothing wrong. If you add your name to the official WPF member list, it is however a way to confirm your membership of WPF (that you already indicated with the green userbox at your user page). In general, it is allways a good thing, to confirm your membership. First of all, you will become more visible to other WPF members. Second, the confirmed WPF membership also is a sign/reference towards other editors of football related articles, that you indeed, is truely involved and familair with the important content/debate at WikiProject Football. If you want to sign up, and confirm that you are a true WPF member, this is a fast and easy thing to do. You only need to make an edit to the official WPF member list, where you can add your current user name to the bottom of the list. Cheers, --Danish Expert (talk) 10:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

WPF flag

Hello Danish Expert, does the Celtic F.C. page meet WPF Flag policy standards? Adam4267 (talk) 18:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I would assume that the Celtic F.C. season 2001–02 page is not in keeping with the policy? Adam4267 (talk) 18:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I will change all the old Celtic articles to be in compliance with the policy. Thanks for your help DanishExpert. Adam4267 (talk) 19:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Greek government-debt crisis

FYI, I have now, at long last, posted a reply to you on the talk page. ~ NotOnIsraPal (talk) 16:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Johan Lange (football coach)

Hello. I've been trying to establish the facts at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Johan Lange (football coach), but as I'm using Google Translate I could quite easily have got the wrong end of the stick. It could really do with the input of a Danish speaker familiar with football. Is what I've written correct? Oldelpaso (talk) 17:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Greek legislative election, June 2012

This is unsourced and pov. Please leave the hjudgement to the reader.(Lihaas (talk) 11:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)).

During the last couple of weeks you removed much great content from the Greek legislative election, written by me. Always citing it as POV and demanding additional sources. Honestly I think you are way to fast to hit the delete buttom. And your contribution is more harmfull than good, because the way you delete and judge my contributions, tends to be be POV itself. If you disagree about some of my written material, then I will advice you to open up discussions about it at the talk page of the article. I am able to dig up and add references for every single word I write at Misplaced Pages. In regards of article leads, its however OK just to write a brief summary of the content already provided further down in the article, without repeating the references. For the time being I will undo your deletions, and ask you to open up discussions at the articles talk page, if you feel certain content is in need to be further discussed or provided with additional sources. Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 13:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Anti-Greek

Your anti-Greek posting is becoming disgraceful. Please desist or I will be forced to leave another comment here. Remember that I am the master, the true master. I have so many skills, and so much skill, that you are doomed to defeat. Hairgelmare (talk) 18:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to leave as many comments as you like. It would however be appreciated if you try to calm down, and try to analyze the situation with a bit more perspective. Just for the record, I actually love both Greece and the ancient Greek history. I also praise how Greek politicians ran the Greek economy in the 1970s. This however doesnt change the fact, that Greek politicians and the Greek Economy has performed terribly both in the 80s + 90s + 00s, and this is all together the root cause behind the current Greek debt crisis. Greece only woke up to reality and started to do responsible economic decisions in 2010, and with the new government you elected in June you are fortunately still on the right track to counterfeit the crisis. So I now predict, that Greece already in 2014 will have a healthy return with positive real GDP growth rates, and start to get rewarded for the high austerity price you currently pay. I would however advice you to stop the blame and hate game against Germany. Instead you need to turn your blame and hate against the Greek politicians in the 80s + 90s + 00s. And praise the newly elected responsible Greek politicians in the 10s, and praise that you have a friendly EU family led by Germany, saving you from bankruptcy (which would have caused more than twize the amount of pain and dispare, that the Greek people so far have suffered). Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 00:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Pay attention, lad: I am going to vanquish you with a few deadly blows from my awesome axe. I am going to go wild. Your defeat is unavoidable. Thanks for listening. Hairgelmare (talk) 23:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
FYI he was blocked as a sock--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 06:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

August 2012

Please do not attack other editors, as you did to Talk:Greek government-debt crisis. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Please either open an WP:SPI investigation so that you can be laughed off the project or retract your clueless message: As a final comment, I am well aware that Hairgelmare and Dr.K is the one and same person. And just as a friendly advice want to inform you, that it is against the wikipedia policy to use a puppet account to back up your own posted oppinion, in any debate at the talk pages. and learn not to attack longstanding, reputable editors. Δρ.Κ.  20:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

revert

He Danish Expert. Just a short note I have reverted the Czech-royal-assent matter and explained on talk. Nevertheless, I do appreciate your "quest"" to get as much up to date information as possible on the ratification status! L.tak (talk) 13:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Copyright violations

Your addition to European Stability Mechanism has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Misplaced Pages without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Misplaced Pages:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Misplaced Pages. For legal reasons, Misplaced Pages cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Misplaced Pages takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. TDL (talk) 17:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

During the 2 years of all my contributions to Misplaced Pages, I never copied word-for-word text into articles, unless it was a line being properly quoted. The claimed "word-for-word copied line" you refer to now, and rephrased, contained for the first part my complete own formulation, and only for the second 50% it was an identical copy of words. IMHO it did not violate the wikipedia policy as only half of the sentence was accidently an identical copy. As it doesnt really matter to me how the sentence is phrased, I of course accept your new formulation. Just want to emphasize, that I did never upload any word-for-word copies to wikipedia. Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 18:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Avoiding copyright problems

Hello, and welcome. Your addition to European Stability Mechanism has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Misplaced Pages without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Misplaced Pages, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page or to reach out to your campus ambassador. Thank you. TDL (talk) 17:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

During the 2 years of all my contributions to Misplaced Pages, I never copied word-for-word text into articles, unless it was a line being properly quoted. The claimed "word-for-word copied line" you refer to now, and rephrased, contained for the first part my complete own formulation, and only for the second 50% it was an identical copy of words. IMHO it did not violate the wikipedia policy as only half of the sentence was accidently an identical copy. As it doesnt really matter to me how the sentence is phrased, I of course accept your new formulation. Just want to emphasize, that I did never upload any word-for-word copies to wikipedia. Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 18:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Your text: "To complete ratification at the political level, the adopted law however still requires the signature of the known eurosceptic president Václav Klaus, who appears to be delaying the ratification, although his office so far made no public statement on his intention to assent."
The source: "The adopted law still requires the signature of the known eurosceptic president Václav Klaus, who appears to be delaying the ratification although his office made no public statement on his intention to conclude the internal ratification process."
By my count that's only 9/43 (21%) of your own words, and aside from the addition of a "however" it's 34 out of 35 consecutive words copied. That's a classic case of word-for-word plagiarism, and a clear WP:COPYVIO. Unfortunately, since I've found several other cases of copyvios in your recent edit history I'm going to have to request that a WP:Contributor copyright investigations be launched to look at your contributions and clean up any copyvios.
Note that I'm not trying to get you in trouble or anything, I believe that you're acting in WP:GOODFAITH and you've certainly made many valuable contributions to the project. However, copyright violations are a serious concern so this situation needs to be investigated further. TDL (talk) 05:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

2008–2012 Spanish financial crisis

I have edited you recent contribution to 2008–2012 Spanish financial crisis for readability. (Excellent addition, by the way.) Please see that I did not inadvertently change the meaning or emphasis. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

CCI Notice

Hello, Danish Expert. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Contributor copyright investigations concerning your contributions in relation to Misplaced Pages's copyrights policy. The listing can be found here. For some suggestions on responding, please see Responding to a CCI case. Thank you. TDL (talk) 06:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I can see you managed to find 5 lines among my 5000 lines added during the past 6 months, where there indeed IMHO for 3 of them (reported example 1+3+4) perhaps could be a concern about copyright issues. Thus I have now today rephrased or added the needed quotation marks for them, in order to remove the issues. I promise to be extra carefull in the future to avoid making similar kind of mistakes. But I want to emphasize, that I recently added many new lines to Misplaced Pages entirely formulated with own words, and in regards of the example 1+3+4 where you reported me to have caused a violation, they only concerned some 1-line sentences, where I (admitted) failed to correctly list some proper quoatation marks for the repeated words. If you dwell on the nature of the info in those 3 examples, you will find the best way to reflect this info indeed is to cite the words of the source with quotation marks, as the lines deal with some press reports about something not 100% surely set in stone, meaning their claims are best to display at Misplaced Pages by citing them with quotation marks, rather than reformulate their claims and possibly causing a disturbance to the exact info provided by the source. This is also why I in the reported 3 examples, also at first left so many identical words in the upload to Misplaced Pages (with the intend to keep my upload as neutral and accurate/true to the source as possible). My mistake was admittedly, that I forgot to use some proper quotation marks for it, but this has now been fixed. In regards of the reported example 2, it is a very factual line almost impossible to rephrase with other words, and I bet you can find several identical articles with the exact same line uploaded to the internet, and thus IMHO that specific example do not constitute a copyright violation. In regards of example 5, this IMHO does not constitute a copyright violation because of the format of the content, actually being a check list of the remaining "need to be solved" points in the ongoing negotiations between the Troika and Greek government (which is impossible to formulate otherwise, due to being listed as short factual bullet points; and not being formulated as a sentence/line). In regards of example 1, I already agreed with you yesterday on a reformulation on that particulair line, so there is nothing left to correct on that. In regards of the remaining issues you reported (example 3+4), I have now today solved both Example 3 and Example 4. Danish Expert (talk) 15:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
User talk:Danish Expert Add topic