Hans Dunkelberg

Good links !

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		I went home at 2:00 AM last night when we had nought but a few redlinks and consensus and Voila! I return to the site 12 hours later to enjoy a tightly organized articulation of the International reaction to Fukushima. Nice work! Geofferybard (talk) 20:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Technical Error

This is an automated message from VWBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Technical Error, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://technicalerror.com.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) VWBot (talk) 13:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I guess the program has generated this notice namely due to the similarity resp. partial identity of the two following spots within the short story and within my summary of it:

Clarke:

"(...) Dr. Sanderson tells me that it will cost over five thousand pounds a day to keep Nelson alive.' (...)"

/ Me:

"(...) It would cost over five thousand pounds a day to keep him alive, and nobody knows if one could, at all, really provide him with all of the substances he is in need of. (...)"

...and Clarke:

"(...) There was something that Nelson`s assistant had said, when he was describing the original accident. (...)

"When I looked inside the generator, there didn`t seem to be anyone there, so I started to climb down the ladder. . . ."

(...)

/ Me:

"(...) Nelson's assitant has mentioned that there did not seem to be anyone in the generator to him, immediately after the original accident. (...)"

As one sees above, there are two identical followings of six to eleven and of five to six words respectively, depending on how one counts the single words. I have learned at Vienna University that one had to cite from about five to six words and therefore given the source at the end of my summary, as correctly as I could. The program has perhaps not been able to determine if I have cited correctly, because I have given a printed book, not a text on the internet, as the source, so that the program could not verify the reference. The program may also not have been able to recognize that the identical following of nine words is a very dry information about a certain crucial part of the content of the short story which can not well be changed, if one wants to summarize the short story in the best manner possible. All the spots that I think could eventually be counted critical are in the paragraph at the end of which I have set the reference. I rather assume that I have not broken the law, in this case, still now.

To avoid causing too much work for the colleagues, I have changed the two spots to:

"It would cost a decisive amount of money every day to keep him alive, and nobody knows if one could, at all, really provide him with all of the substances he is in need of."

/ "Nelson's assitant has mentioned that there did not seem to be any person in the generator to him, immediately after the original accident."

There is a further spot at the end of the short story and at the end of my summary of it — immediately before my reference to the 1956 printed edition — that could perhaps be counted critical regarding the copyright:

Clarke:

"(...) The power station was invisible beyond the foothills of Mount Perrin, but its site was clearly marked by the vast column of debris that was slowly rising against the bleak light of the dawn."

/ Me:

"(...) He does not manage to intervene, at the power station, via telephone, any more; at the horizon, just above the site of the station, there is already rising into the sky a vast column of debris."

I have changed this last sentence of my summary to:

"(...) He does not manage to intervene, at the power station, via telephone, any more; in the distance, just above the site of the station, there is already rising into the sky a gigantic fountain of debris."

I have moreover inserted further references — again to the printed book, because this appears to me to be the most reliable way of referencing, in this case — at the spots at hand. These references refer to particular shorter passages — with exact information on pages and lines —within the passage of Reach for Tomorrow that comprises the short story "Technical Error" and that I have already cited as the source of my summary, as a whole, with the page numbers, right when I loaded up the article, for the first time.

I have removed the "csb-pageincluded" tag, for now. --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 22:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Academic sources on SF

While I haven't noticed anything specifically on Clarke yet, there's a lot of good source material on the SF Studies site here [1]/ Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link! I am currently in Austria and can`t afford the fees for borrowing books via the interlibrary loan system. I have made that "Technical Error" article, more or less, by hook or by crook — and, as it now appears to me, also the suggestion to merge the several articles on the Clarke short stories in Reach for Tomorrow into the article on this collection. I am quite confident that I am going to find some quotable spots on Google, and maybe also on that SF studies site, for these articles, but will need some days for that. I am, at the moment, trying to write an SF novel, in English, and that, of course, is engrossing me, quite a lot. --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 23:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Now that You have updated the link, I am reminded, quite strongly, by the content of that site of what I have already got aware of, several months ago, when I began looking for sources on science fiction. Of course, there are all these great bibliographies. Particularly a certain Hal Hall seems to have made an honest-to-goodness gigantic bibliography on secondary sources regarding science fiction. (I guess that could be this man.) After all, I am not yet over there on that other planet that America seems to be, to me, sometimes, even though I strongly suppose I am going to fly there, again, soon. --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 23:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

A new barnstar for you

		The Resilient Barnstar
		Thanks for taking the time to discuss and understand where I was coming from! Yworo (talk) 20:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

It was really pleasant to see that. --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 22:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Alexander Mayboroda

Hi. I saw your comments at Talk:Alexander Mayboroda. I've just sent a related article from the same author to AfD here and wonder if Mr Mayboroda should be added. Any thoughts? andy (talk) 13:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

He's now at AfD here. andy (talk) 16:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring

As you are a editor who has made edits at The Green Hornet (2011 film), this is a neutral request for you to visit that page, where edit-warring appears to be occurring, and weighing in with your thoughts on the matter. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank You for this notification! I, but, am occupied with an own work of fiction, at the moment, so that I am urged to interrupt my activity within Wikipedia, for a while. --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 11:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring for article Miley Cyrus

There are reliable sources in the article, from youtube Many inappropriate sites used as sources.

Please add BLP sources, Article has the non-reliable sources.--176.44.64.193 (talk) 21:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:French literature (small)

That template has now been freed from bondage, or released from captivity.
It probably looks fine now. Please check. Varlaam (talk) 02:19, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Cicero

Although I don't object to your current revision, I still disagree on the value of transparently presenting a traditional anecdote. This one, for instance, is notable because Plutarch chooses to end his Life of Cicero with it as a summation of Cicero's qualities (and if I'm recalling correctly it was even popularized through a scene in the I, Claudius series); in Plutarch's estimation, it encapsulated something of the temper of a time when one could recognize the quality of the opposition.

It most certainly does not show Augustus as "conscience-stricken," as you had it at first (which is what set me off); setting aside the question of whether the ancient awareness of guilt can be labeled accurately as "conscience" in the English sense, what you said was clearly an original interpretation unsupported by any cited source. Summarizing a passage is not considered OR; saying that you think it means Augustus felt guilty is (as WP:PSTS plainly says), because Plutarch doesn't say that at all. Plutarch's point is that Augustus was capable of recognizing Cicero's greatness and patriotism, whatever the political circumstances had been; there is no regret expressed about the actions that got Cicero out of the way, and allowing the son to diminish the memorials to Antony obviously suited Augustus's own purposes, as allying himself after the fact with a great Republican cloaked his own consolidation of one-man rule.

There is also no issue with neutrality, although the anecdote should've been framed with something like: "Plutarch records an anecdote" to show that this should be taken as an exemplum, not historical fact. I've never seen any WP policy that excludes ancient testimonia, as long as you don't interpret them yourself, which is what you did. I agree, however, with the PSTS guideline that says the presentation of a primary source (some would consider Plutarch a secondary source) should be framed by a (modern) secondary source. Which is still not the case with the passage in question. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I was not the one who inserted the hint to the passage of Plutarch as a source for the anecdote. I, for my part, only shortened / weakened the paraphrase, saying Augustus had been reported to have called Cicero .... [Plutarch wording]. It should have been clear that it was only necessary to depict this detail to have been reported because it was not clearly verified (at least not so far in our article). So what I did was exactly what You suggest should have been done, above, Yourself, just that I still did not mention the name Plutarch in the text itself and relied on the readers looking that up in the footnote, in case they should be interested in who has reported that detail.

My hint to a conscience-strickenness of Augustus due to his involvement into the proscription of Cicero was founded on a modern source, very probably from the second half of the twentieth century. I have re-read the larger part the texts on Augustus that I have in my flat, after our little to-and-fro of edits had begun to unfold, though I did not really hope, any more, that I could find that source among them: I, unfortunately, have only texts of utmost top credibility, at home, so that not even this slightly — perhaps even rather strongly — interpretative, but, at any rate, still learned and modern statement could have been expected to be included in them. --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 15:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Edwin Hubble

I have started a new section on Talk:Edwin Hubble regarding our recent edits. -- Fyrefly (talk) 02:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello again. I was hoping you could take a look at the very last point I've brought up on the Hubble talk page regarding the final sentence of the translation. I think it's the only thing yet unresolved. -- Fyrefly (talk) 16:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

You misunderstand our policy on sources

Please stop removing material such as the recent removal at Erich von Däniken‎. If you really don't think the sources meet our criteria for reliable sources at WP:RSN you can ask there but I don't think people will agree. If you have an NPOV issue, ask at WP:NPOVN but I think you'll be told that so long as the comments are attributed than that is ok. In fact, it violates NPOV to remove them as all significant views should be in an article. Dougweller (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I removed a section on alleged legal troubles only founded on Internet sources with certain technical flaws that could be perceived as uglinesses. When I searched for the text indicated as a source on those both pages, the titles of those texts did either not appear at all or did appear only for one to two seconds or so and then vanish. Had there not been the links to these problematic Internet pages, in the references, I would not have removed the content from the article. The technical difficulties that I experienced on those Internet pages, after all, convinced me that there were considerable problems with the references so that these references had to be considered poor, which would have obliged me to remove the potentially libelous content that was sourced through them.

I also removed a short paragraph of the "Criticism" section of the Erich von Däniken article, because it only contained views of authors who had published with renowned publishers such as Oxford University Press but whose works were the subject of that "Criticism" section, themselves—criticizing Däniken—, thus not tertiary, but secondary sources failing WP:VERIFY.Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 02:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Element (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Lacking overview

Template:Lacking overview has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Inactivity

Hans, I see you haven't edited for nearly six months. While I hope you are still very active at de.wikipedia, I am happy that you appear to have abandoned your efforts here. I've rarely seen someone overestimate their own non-native language skills as greatly as did you, and I was oft tempted to knock that en-4 label you gave yourself down to an en-3. Good bye and good luck. HuskyHuskie (talk) 14:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Brands

Hello, Hans Dunkelberg. You are invited to join WikiProject Brands, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of brands and brand-related topics. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)