User talk:LucLeTruc

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, LucLeTruc! Thank you for your contributions. I am Iryna Harpy and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, LucLeTruc. You have new messages at Iryna Harpy's talk page.
Message added 03:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

Just a word of advice, try to resist commenting on every RfC post, these things easily become unreadable. The other editor is free to post their opinion (as are you or other involved editors) and in many ways such posts 'summarise' the rguments for those joining the discussion. Pincrete (talk) 11:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. I just got tired of these ever repeating arguments. But most probably I also repeat my arguments quiet often there ;-). LucLeTruc (talk) 11:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As teachers/parents always say "do as I SAY, not as I DO!" Pincrete (talk) 23:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

;-)LucLeTruc (talk) 23:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

A note to let you know that I'm not ignoring your merge proposal on hijab-related pages. I just want to see a resolution to the current debate before commenting on it, so as to avoid distraction. Eperoton (talk) 17:58, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. You are right, we can easily move the Merkel related stuff after the merge. LucLeTruc (talk) 13:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Native level German speaker?

Hi, I get the impression your German is better than mine (not difficult!), if so, could you take a look at Die Welt. Google translates this as something like: There was also a scarf in the river bed. it also belonged to the suspect, as was later revealed. "The completely soaked scarf was dried and examined with different examination methods for DNA applications," the investigators said. Thus a partial DNA trace could be secured.

Original: Zudem fand sich im Flussbett ein Fleece-Schal. Auch er gehörte, wie sich erst später herausstellte, dem Tatverdächtigen. „Der vollkommen durchnässte Schal wurde getrocknet und mit unterschiedlichen Untersuchungsmethoden auf DNA-Antragungen untersucht“, so die Ermittler. So konnte eine Teil-DNA-Spur gesichert werden.

It's that last sentence that concerns me 'partial DNA trace'/'Teil-DNA-Spur', the 'Rape' article renders this as with traces of the suspect's DNA on it. Is the word 'partial/part' relevant? That is are we talking about a 'partial match', or simply a small amount? Perhaps the word is irrelevant, but I would like a second opinion. … … ps, please 'name' me if replying here Pincrete (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pincrete: Not totally clear to me (even though I am a native German speaker). It could either relate to the fact that this DNA was only a part of all DNA traces found (other were found at this scarf and at a bicycle close by) or that only a partial match could be made as the DNA was impartially recovered (not sure whether this makes sense from a forensic science aspect) which I would consider more likely from the linguistics point of view. I would not consider it to bee too relevant though. According to this source (local Freiburg newspaper which are usually the most detailed sources for such crime cases)[1] there was DNA at the piece of hair, at the scarf in the river, at the bicycle and at the victims body. In that way they could all be linked to the suspect. LucLeTruc (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Iryna Harpy and Pincrete: Maybe you guys can have a look over the article in the end to polish the English in exchange. I tried to correct some stuff but still feel a bit clumsy writing non technical English. Especially as Germans are masters of the "Bandwurmsatz" (Englisch translation sound rather technical: interminable (od endless) sentence). But lets finish the content discussion first. LucLeTruc (talk) 23:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no qualms about copy editing for the final 'polish', but I do think that we need to establish what should and shouldn't be included first. As this is a user's talk page, not the article's talk page, I'll tell you quite honestly that I'm dubious about the article having been created in the first instance, but the cat's out of the bag and I don't see grounds for an AfD that would work. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wil reply on article talk if necessary, but broadly I concur with Iryna, what should be in/out is more important. My problem is my schoolboy-level-Deutsch, I do think though that translation of long-winded German 'official-speak' is going to end up sounding like long-winded English 'official-speak' anyway. Pincrete (talk) 00:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Iryna Harpy and Pincrete: I totally agree. Lets find a consensus for the content first and than think about polishing the language. I totally share Irynas doubts about the article itself. This rape has made nation wide headlines before Christmas and the discussion most probably only died down a bit because more serious stuff happened (the truck attack on a Christmas market). So most probably a discussion about deleting it would not succeed and for me it seems more fruitful to create a balanced encyclopedic article rather than deleting an article with the danger that a similar article is recreated. In general, there seems to be a serious issue in the English wikipedia with people with a very particular POV (usually critical of immigrants and muslims in particular) creating lots of articles about crimes commited by immigrants with a quiet strong POV. I am usually mostly active in the German wikipedia and there such stuff is found much quicker (compare the German language article about the rape case: There all this info about the victim was removed very early). I only stumbled over some aspects here (it might actually have been the burqa thing) which intrigued me to argue for an improvement and i sticked in the english namespace but similar issues seem to exists in quiet a bunch of articles. In case you are interested, here is a short list of articles I have been screening recently:

Interestingly I found most of them by just following some widely spread "see also" links where often the only similarity between the Lemma and the "see also" was that it was foreigners who commited the crimes. It feels a bit like Don Quichotes fight against wind mills. Not sure how I will personally proceed. Cleaning all these articles from POV and badly referenced OR stuff is really tedious. Especially if the discussions develop into endless back and forth like on the Ladenburger talk page. I actually opened a thread on [Wikipedia_talk:Consensus#more_clearly_defined_.22no_consensus.22_policy.3F WP:CONSENUS] to find out whether there exists a more efficent way to handle such disputes (just in case you have some good advice for me as you have some experience with the arguments on the Ladenburger Talk page ;-)). Maybe for some of these pages, a request to delete them because of non significance would be the best way forward (the Niklas P, the Hamburg stabbing and the Reutlingen case beeing the most obvious to me). All of them were, however discussed in national non tabloid newspapers here so the argument for non notability may be not too clear. Not sure whether this will actually solve the issue or whether it will just explode into a new battle of "censoring" accusations. Maybe I should just leave this foreigner related "news sector" of the wikipedia at all and go back to the silent and cooperative realms of natural science and write some articles about different species of earth worms ;-). LucLeTruc (talk) 01:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I try to balance things out for the sake of my own sanity by getting stuck into articles with link rot; needing copyediting; needing translations and verification of sources; etc. There are bound to be as many RECENTISM and NOTNEWS articles for every encyclopaedic article as a by-product of the 'spirit' of Wikipedia being a resource anyone can edit. I don't believe it to be 'bad faith' editing in most cases, but due to the number of inexperienced users who don't understand the fundamentals of what Wikipedia is and isn't... plus sneaking articles in under the radar before that contributor disappears for another 5 years, or indefinitely.

In my experience, articles seldom get deleted simply because there are still a number of editors who believe them to be WP:ITSIMPORTANT, and there are also a lot of editors who are inclusionists. The only way to tackle these articles is on a case-by-case level, therefore trying to clarify policies (like CONSENSUS) is only going to run you ragged because editors are going to be prepared to make absolutist rulings on where CON ends and other policies take precedence.

I do think there's a case for the Ladenburger article being deleted, so there is certainly more discussion mileage to be gotten out of that talk page. In the 'spirit' of editors spreading themselves too thin, I'm stuck with multiple queries and pings about unrelated 'stuff', so I'll get back to it when I have the energy and a moment to collect my thoughts on the matter properly. Did someone actually say that editing is/should be fun? Hahaha! Yes, Wikipedia does seem to have its fair share of delusional editors, too! I guess we have to make the best of having contact with like-minded editors to pull us out of the mire when we start wondering whether we're the only ones who think there are serious problems that need to be tackled head on. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your list. That's all you could find? How many more do you want to know about!

You are quite right that 'see also' (and categories) and spurious linking are all easy lazy ways of establishing non-neutral connections. As Iryna says, you have to balance a desire to fix with one's own sanity. I tend to 'do my bit' if accidentally involved by an RfC or such and then watchlist for a while, then move on. Notable events (Berlin Xmas market, Nice truck attack etc), tend to 'suck in' sufficient editors to ensure a reasonable number of experienced neutral editors ( there are a few editors there of heroic ability to stay calm and neutral, it isn't my natural area of interest, but I happened to get involved in some of these articles in 2016). 'Peripheral' incidents can easily become havens for low quality sourcing/synth/OR and PoV, unfortunately AfD discussions draw in more people prepared to defend the existence of an article than are prepared to clean the article up (sigh). The fact that an article is of poor quality, or NPOV, has never in my experience been a successful argument for deletion on Eng WP.

Take care … do your bit when you can face it … most importantly, stay sane by editing articles on Cuckoos occasionally. Pincrete (talk) 16:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the encouragement ;-). Probably I should rather mainly focus on the Cuckoos and just stroll around this crimes and foreigners jungle when I am up for some excitement. I will just have to refine my strategy there to avoid such an endless discusssion as on the Ladenburger page. But probably a removal of the contested content, 3-4 exchanges of arguments when someone reverts my delete, a quick and precise RFC when the other editor is still not convinced and a final bold revert when the RfC is quiet clear in favour of removal is the way to handle the wildlife lurking in this jungle. A question would be when to draw the AfD "weapon". With poorly written POV articles i agree that it is better to NPOV them. My argument for removing artciles like Murder of Niklas P., Munich knife attack or Reutlingen knife attack would however be that they are just not notable enough to be worth the effort. Especially now after the first wav of sensationalist news speculation has died down. LucLeTruc (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, LucLeTruc. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]