I'm in a dispute at Discrimination against atheists about the reliability of the sources I pulled from Kazimierz Łyszczyński. The argument against is that neither of us speak polish, and we can't assume that sources on a Wikipedia article are correct as anyone could use any sources for any claim. The claim I am trying to verify is that Kazimierz Łyszczyński was executed because he was an atheist, or at least that atheism was the excuse used to execute him. Were you the one to originally add these sources? If so, could you drop by and testify to their accuracy at Talk:Discrimination_against_atheists#Inquisition? Thanks for your time. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 08:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
It was not necessary to check the Polish sources as there was an English source for the claim already in the article. Also, just because a source is in a foreign language does not make it in any way invalid; you should check Wikipedia's policy about whether or not his "I can't read it, therefore it's a bad source" argument is valid. I hope that this helps. selfwormTalk) 16:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I was trying to include the material using the sources you gave in Kazimierz Łyszczyński. It was another editor that made the "We can't read it so it's not reliable" argument. I guess he thought we should assume that wikipedia articles are poor quality. Sorry for any confusion, and thanks for your contributions at Discrimination against atheists. That should wrap up my dispute with that editor nicely. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 18:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, I agree that foreign language resources can be used to source information added to an article. I speak French well and as a result often include citations to French-language sources on English WP. I gather you read Polish, so of course there is no problem with your verification of a Polish source. However, editors do need to be able to actually read the source they are citing: "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds .. material" to attribute it to a "source [that] clearly support[s] the information as it is presented in the article". If one does not have access to a source and cannot read what it says, one cannot possibly verify what the source says. Unfortunately, this is what AzureFury has been attempting to do; I am not exactly clear why s/he cited only the Polish references from the Łyszczyński article, and did not attempt to track down the English language sources also cited in it, and which you also mention above. But anyway, the problem has been solved by some good research and verification from you. --Slp1 (talk) 02:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
For the record, I copy and pasted the reference section from the article. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello again S1p1. I'm glad that we have successfully settled this particular issue. Also, just so you know, you're two quotations "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds .. material" and "source [that] clearly support[s] the information as it is presented in the article" do not prevent the use of sources written in a language that few on Wikipedia are able to read. Just because user X does not know how to read the language or does not have access to the source does not make the source invalid. Just as long as there exists someone who is able to verify the source (sure it may take some effort to track down such a person), it is assumed to be a valid source (unless there is some other reason to doubt it). selfwormTalk) 05:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. If you look on my talkpage you'll see that I've recently agreed to do precisely this for another editor who has found French material she doesn't understand. As I stated above, non-English language sources are valid sources; though it's also true that English-language resources are preferred when they exist and are of equal quality. However, just as with any source, the information needs to be verified by someone with access to it: this may include physical access to old newspapers, knowledge of the language involved, a convenient library etc. The question is not whether it is a valid or invalid source, but whether the information has been verified. In this case, a copy and paste list of Polish off-line materials was produced to support a statement proposed for inclusion. The editor involved apparently has neither access to the material involved, nor a knowledge of Polish, and so clearly could not verify what the sources said or did not say about the matter. All in all, it was a good idea of AF to seek you out, so that you could verify the material, and thank you for that. --Slp1 (talk) 11:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
This medal is awarded to Selfworm for knowing how to prove that the square root of two is irrational. You know one of the simplest proofs in the world! Great job! /sarcasm.
Well thanks a lot :) selfwormTalk) 19:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Lotsaboxen
Suggest your user page would be even cooler if "Lots of boxes" was changed to "Lotsaboxen." I find many of your userboxes match my own, some displayed and some not, though I trust you realize that Flying Spaghetti Monsterism will go out when Cthulhu comes. I mean really: why settle for a lesser evil? Feel free to email me. kcylsnavS{screechharrass} 23:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi Svanslyck. Thanks for the suggestion and feel free to use any of my templates if you're interested. Take care. selfwormTalk) 02:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I do think it was cruel of you, though, to put the GWB box right next to the SSM box - and in the same pew too! <evil grin> kcylsnavS{screechharrass} 02:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry but I'm not following your acronyms. GWB? SSM? :0
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fréchet derivative, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Springer (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) 11:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Barnstar of Good Humor
After browsing through your User page, you had successfully lightened up my day. But maybe this barnstar doesn't show all my appreciation so I will give you the ulimate badge here at User:TheQ_Editor/UltimateAward <-- click the link TheQ Editor (Talk) 22:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
User page
The Userpage Barnstar
Excellent design, appreciate the effort. Ies (talk) 04:46, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Selfworm. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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.
You've been around a while so I would imagine you already know this, but as due diligence - this is terrible advice that, if followed on a page under discretionary sanctions such as that one, would rapidly get you blocked or topic banned. Specifically, that page is under an extra-restrictive "Consensus required to reinstate" requirement. I'd be happy to discuss further, but since I'm already rather off-point on the talk page discussion I would prefer that discussion occurred in user talk space. Kind regards! VQuakr (talk) 00:01, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up.selfwormTalk) 06:53, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you!selfwormTalk) 18:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, Selfworm. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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.
