User talk:Mary Ash/Archive 4: Difference between revisions
imported>David Finn (→Schnitzel: plagiarism) |
imported>Milton Beychok m (→About photo for Russian Blue: new section) |
||
Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
:::::When we have two instances of sites using the same exact wording throughout an entire article, we call them mirrors of each other - there is no difference, one is an exact copy of the other. In this case it would be unrepresentative to include both sources, as each of the sites actually has only one source, the same source - that is the source we should provide as evidence to back up our assertions. The 'source' I removed was a mirror, a site that was plagiarising the words of another, and it is something that the person adding the source should have seen. | :::::When we have two instances of sites using the same exact wording throughout an entire article, we call them mirrors of each other - there is no difference, one is an exact copy of the other. In this case it would be unrepresentative to include both sources, as each of the sites actually has only one source, the same source - that is the source we should provide as evidence to back up our assertions. The 'source' I removed was a mirror, a site that was plagiarising the words of another, and it is something that the person adding the source should have seen. | ||
:::::This is why we have a collaborative encyclopedia - sometimes opinions differ, and it takes multiple opinions to establish the correct approach. As in this case, articles benefit from multiple author input - the idea, as you put it, that "Unless you've followed this little soap opera, I'd suggest you'd leave it alone" is really the opposite of having a collaborative encyclopedia where many authors feel free to evaluate the facts and offer an opinion. The encyclopia is built, not by one person, but by a team of people working together. One persons soap opera is actually just a small matter for the encyclopedia as a whole, and participation by uninvolved authors is exactly what is needed to turn a personal disagreement into a community discussion. [[User:David Finn|David Finn]] 06:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC) | :::::This is why we have a collaborative encyclopedia - sometimes opinions differ, and it takes multiple opinions to establish the correct approach. As in this case, articles benefit from multiple author input - the idea, as you put it, that "Unless you've followed this little soap opera, I'd suggest you'd leave it alone" is really the opposite of having a collaborative encyclopedia where many authors feel free to evaluate the facts and offer an opinion. The encyclopia is built, not by one person, but by a team of people working together. One persons soap opera is actually just a small matter for the encyclopedia as a whole, and participation by uninvolved authors is exactly what is needed to turn a personal disagreement into a community discussion. [[User:David Finn|David Finn]] 06:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC) | ||
== About photo for [[Russian Blue]] == | |||
Mary, I finally found the real name of the author of [[:image:Russian Blue 001.gif]]. Please read [[Talk:Russian Blue]] for details. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 14:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 08:55, 10 August 2010
Archives
Mary, I'm not sure what you were trying to do with your archives but they are very messed up. One of them is in mainspace, and the other two are in main talkspace. They need moving back to your userspace. --Chris Key 09:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- I have moved the pages back and added the archive template to this page. --Peter Schmitt 09:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Swedish proverbs
Hello. I'm intrigued by your interest in Swedish proverbs! Are you perhaps a speaker of Swedish, or how did you otherwise aquire this interest?
"Du är inte så dum som du ser ut", as you will of course know, will not gain one many friends in Sweden. It is the verbal equivalent of striking someone in the face with a herring :) Johan A. Förberg 13:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Schnitzel
Please stop and read the talkpage before changing the article text - readding the reference I removed was not necessary, and your addition about the etymology of kaisers is not needed on a page about foodstuffs. It would be better if you joined in the talkpage discussion before radically altering the article text. Thanks. David Finn 14:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- David if you do read the talk page you will realize that Hayford called for more research after describing my original article as nonsensical as there were no kaisers back then, according to him. I added the details to explain that indeed the term kaiser in reference to Caesar was used during that time period. Unless you've followed this little soap opera, I'd suggest you'd leave it alone. Have a nice day!Mary Ash 15:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- The etymological origin of "kaiser" has no relation to the history of schnitzel recipes. With research Hayford meant that the true history of the recipe has to be researched. --Peter Schmitt 15:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- He called my article nonsensical as the term Kaiser was not used back then. Hence the references backing up the history of kaiser. I carefully found citations and references stating the term was used by German and Slavic peoples in reference to emperors. Was trying to back up YOUR research too. I have three independent sources all stating the same fable. How is that different from Hayford's telling of the creation of the Croque Monsieur. And I sure didn't call his article nonsensical. We could claim that was fable too. We are dealing with ancient history, some of which is lost in time, so I like how you rewrote the fable part. Something I considered but did not want to be accused of plagiarism as other articles write the same way. Mary Ash 15:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- The etymological origin of "kaiser" has no relation to the history of schnitzel recipes. With research Hayford meant that the true history of the recipe has to be researched. --Peter Schmitt 15:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- Mary, you talk about the potential problems of plagiarism - that was the reasoning behind the change I made to the article. You say there were three sources used to verify the legend - germanfoodguide, GuteKeuche and berliner-schnitzelstuga. However germanfoodguide and berliner-schnitzelstuga contained exactly the same words. That is to say, one plagiarised the other, or both plagiarised a third source.
- When we have two instances of sites using the same exact wording throughout an entire article, we call them mirrors of each other - there is no difference, one is an exact copy of the other. In this case it would be unrepresentative to include both sources, as each of the sites actually has only one source, the same source - that is the source we should provide as evidence to back up our assertions. The 'source' I removed was a mirror, a site that was plagiarising the words of another, and it is something that the person adding the source should have seen.
- This is why we have a collaborative encyclopedia - sometimes opinions differ, and it takes multiple opinions to establish the correct approach. As in this case, articles benefit from multiple author input - the idea, as you put it, that "Unless you've followed this little soap opera, I'd suggest you'd leave it alone" is really the opposite of having a collaborative encyclopedia where many authors feel free to evaluate the facts and offer an opinion. The encyclopia is built, not by one person, but by a team of people working together. One persons soap opera is actually just a small matter for the encyclopedia as a whole, and participation by uninvolved authors is exactly what is needed to turn a personal disagreement into a community discussion. David Finn 06:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
About photo for Russian Blue
Mary, I finally found the real name of the author of image:Russian Blue 001.gif. Please read Talk:Russian Blue for details. Milton Beychok 14:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)