Talk:Silesian grammar
OR[edit]
@CycloneYoris excuse me but what OR is present in this? everything is either in the reference or from easily attestable words. Vininn126 (talk) 20:55, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- @CycloneYoris Vininn126 (talk) 23:51, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- By which I mean the only things not in the book are the conjunctions section and the numbers section, both of which could easily be attestable in online Silesian dictionaries. It's a rather bold claim to assume OR when you haven't seen the book... Vininn126 (talk) 23:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Vininn126: You need to provide evidence that this information can be found in verifiable sources, and not take things so personal. Most wiki articles that have been tagged as OR can be fixed by simply adding inline citations as to not give the impression that original research was done. Also, I'm not "claiming" anything, the tag itself clearly states that there is a mere "possibility" that OR might be present in the article, but it's not pointing fingers directly at anyone involved in the article's creation. CycloneYoris talk! 00:16, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- @CycloneYoris I'm not taking it personally, I'm frustrated at the absolute lack of explanation. Is it really Wikipedia standard to tag an article as such without asking the person if everything was from one book? Seems like a pretty easy way to drive people away. Whenever I correct someone on Wiktionary I explain to them somewhere what they can do. Vininn126 (talk) 00:19, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Vininn126: Well, you already removed the OR tag so let's leave it at that; and just for the record, it is actually standard procedure to tag an article as original research without notifying the creator. The purpose of this is to allow another reviewer to come along and give their own opinion on the article, but it is not done to accuse anyone of anything and is merely viewed as standard and common procedure for reviewing the article in question. CycloneYoris talk! 00:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- @CycloneYoris I've spammed the page with {{sfn}}. hopefully that satisfies the need. Vininn126 (talk) 00:44, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Vininn126: Well, you already removed the OR tag so let's leave it at that; and just for the record, it is actually standard procedure to tag an article as original research without notifying the creator. The purpose of this is to allow another reviewer to come along and give their own opinion on the article, but it is not done to accuse anyone of anything and is merely viewed as standard and common procedure for reviewing the article in question. CycloneYoris talk! 00:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- @CycloneYoris I'm not taking it personally, I'm frustrated at the absolute lack of explanation. Is it really Wikipedia standard to tag an article as such without asking the person if everything was from one book? Seems like a pretty easy way to drive people away. Whenever I correct someone on Wiktionary I explain to them somewhere what they can do. Vininn126 (talk) 00:19, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Vininn126: You need to provide evidence that this information can be found in verifiable sources, and not take things so personal. Most wiki articles that have been tagged as OR can be fixed by simply adding inline citations as to not give the impression that original research was done. Also, I'm not "claiming" anything, the tag itself clearly states that there is a mere "possibility" that OR might be present in the article, but it's not pointing fingers directly at anyone involved in the article's creation. CycloneYoris talk! 00:16, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- By which I mean the only things not in the book are the conjunctions section and the numbers section, both of which could easily be attestable in online Silesian dictionaries. It's a rather bold claim to assume OR when you haven't seen the book... Vininn126 (talk) 23:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)