User talk:White whirlwind

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 730 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

		The Barnstar of National Merit
		For your excellent work in the translation and improvement of China-related articles, I hereby award you this barnstar. Well done! Philg88 contact 09:08, 27 June 2024 UTC [refresh]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Hello White whirlwind,

Would you be able to help evaluate the accuracy of translations of Wikipedia articles from Chinese to English Wikipedia?

This would involve evaluating a translated article on the English Wikipedia by comparing it to the original Chinese article, and marking it "Pass" or "Fail" based on whether the translation faithfully represents the original. Here's the reason for this request:

There are a number of articles on English Wikipedia that were created as machine translations from different languages including Chinese , using the Content Translation tool, sometimes by users with no knowledge of the source language. The config problem that allowed this to happen has since been fixed, but this has left us with a backlog of articles whose accuracy of translation is suspect or unknown, including some articles translated from Chinese. In many cases, other editors have come forward later to copyedit and fix any English grammar or style issues, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the translation is accurate, as factual errors from the original translation may remain. To put it another way: Good English is not the same as good translation.

If you can help out, that would be great. Here's a sample of the articles that need checking:

• Christopher J. Marut
• China Railway Siyuan Survey and Design Group Co., Ltd.
• Christian Alliance Cheng Wing Gee College

All you have to do, is compare the English article to the Chinese article, and mark it "Pass" or "Fail" (templates {{Pass}} and {{Fail}} may be useful). (Naturally, if you feel like fixing an inaccurate translation and then marking it "Pass", that's even better, but it isn't required.)

If you can help, please let me know. Thanks! Mathglot (talk)

I'm just letting you know, this edit summary wasn't appreciated. "Lazy reverting"? Really? Do better next time. You know as well as I do if you add content, a source has to be provided and if it isn't, that addition is likely to be reverted; nothing lazy about it. Snickers2686 (talk) 17:40, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Snickers2686: I'm sorry that edit summary bothered you. Unfortunately, you are quite wrong. You said, "if you add content, a source has to be provided." This is false. According to WP:Verifiability, "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material." WP:Citing sources says the same: "Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in article space." Wikipedia does not now have, and never has had, a policy that all material requires a citation. As I understand your revert's edit summary, you weren't challenging the substance of the content itself or its inherent verifiability, only the fact that I forgot to add the citation. Hence, no citation was required. (The type of material I tend to add on judges' pages nearly always comes from their SJC questionnaires and presents no verifiability problems.)  White Whirlwind  17:59, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, if it's going to be challenged, as it was, then it needs a source. Not hard to understand. You added content that wasn't from citations already provided, that's why it was reverted. End of story. Snickers2686 (talk) 02:14, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You'll want to review WP:Verifiability. "Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. Consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source, and the material therefore may not be verifiable. If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." If you don't understand the official policies here, it'll hinder your ability to contribute to the project.  White Whirlwind  02:25, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to be quoting policy to me, I understand it quite well. Been involved in the project for years with hardly any intervening action, so I think I'll be just fine, thanks Snickers2686 (talk) 02:49, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought perhaps I did. I’m glad to hear that I don’t.  White Whirlwind  05:07, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi White whirlwind, I am working on improving and adding content to the

So, he concurred with the result, reversing the court below. He disagreed with the grounds of reversal. That's a concurrence, not a dissent. At 304 U.S. 80 Butler's opinion is not listed as a dissent. Knockanar (talk) 17:48, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:Original research. We are bound by what we find in the major WP:Reliable sources. Let's try checking other prominent treatises and law review articles.  White Whirlwind  20:55, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks; I went onto Westlaw this afternoon and checked a few, and they all call it a dissent, which I don't understand at all (I assume you are a lawyer like me, and we have both known since law school the difference between a dissent and a concurrence). I tinkered a bit with the paragraph about Butler's opinion, calling it a separate opinion that is often called a dissent ... Knockanar (talk) 21:03, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Knockanar: I understand your concern and confusion. But if the majority of the reliable sources call it a dissent, then so shall we.  White Whirlwind  21:24, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, White whirlwind. What is the problem with |author-mask= that you refer to here? Kanguole 00:14, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kanguole: It doesn't work well with the ref mouseover feature. Users just see a blank line without the context of an above entry specifying who the author is. (Edit: to be specific, I'm referring to the "Reference Previews" beta feature, which has nearly half a million users and appears headed for standard adoption.)  White Whirlwind  00:45, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You mean mw:Reference Tooltips? I'm one of those half million users. I have an ingrained reaction at the sight of repeated author names, so it would be a pity to lose this feature. I've raised the issue at Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 86#Reference Tooltips and author-mask. Kanguole 19:36, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Maybe the coders can come up with way to disable the mask parameter for the mouseovers.  White Whirlwind  21:28, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

@

WP:VERIFY has never required that and never will.  White Whirlwind  03:16, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I would appreciate your feedback vis a vis Talk:Brown v. Board of Education#Proposed removal of claim added in 2006. Fabrickator (talk) 19:54, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Paul Demiéville.jpg. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:20, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Hey! As you know I've been building upon your excellent work on Zhuangzi (book) and am doing my very best to treat it with care, but I am sensitive to the fact that it's your work, so I just wanted to check that you think my tweaks and additions are appropriate—not to make more work for you to do if you don't have the time, I just like to be communicative. :) cheers! Remsense留 11:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw your edit summary on Zuo Zhuan: I did fix the template by adding the ability to bracket terms, I just forgot to edit the template in place on that specific article. apologies. Remsense诉 21:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello White whirlwind!

• The
  New Pages Patrol
  is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
• We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
• Kindly read
  project talk page
  with questions.
• If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider
  applying here
  .

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Skyerise (talk) 20:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sorry for swapping the portrait it was pretty late and ive shouldve gone to sleep at that point idk why i did that anyway have fun and be yourself despite what the haters say. peace ―Howard • 🌽³³ 10:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]