User talk:Olag

Welcome!

Hello, Olag, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Kukini 13:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June 2007[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Gunther Teubner, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ^Ideology_{Talk to me} £ 15:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hermit! Thanks for your kind advice. However, I would have appreciated it, if you had read the article thoroughly and already given online-sources before reverting edits for rather formalistic reasons. From the article it is almost self-evident that Teubner ist also a Legal Scholar. I only added the fact to give the complete information already in the introductory sentence. By the way congratulations that you already did 1000 mainspace entries. --Olaf g 19:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What differences does it make if I had 100 edits or 10000 edits? From my viewpoint, the information you added goes against WP:BLP in general, and more specifically WP:BLP#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material. It also fails WP:V. I think the lead sentence in WP:V explains what I'm trying to convey: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." You also said,"Given online-sources." Their isn't any references except for a simple external link. I think in general the article fails WP:N. I will remove my note above, but unless this article follows the guidelines of WP:N, I will nominate the article for deletion. Thanks! ^Ideology_{Talk to me} £ 23:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with WP:N isn't that the source you gave isn't reliable, the problem is that their is only one source. Feel free to edit as you wish, and I don't plan on nominating the article for deletion; it isn't work it. Cheers! --^Wikihermit_(Speak) £ 19:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no Wikipedia rule for prescribing the sufficient number of sources. For a stub one source may suffice. But talking about rules, the 5 most important ones are: Wikipedia: Be bold in updating articles, Perfection is not required, Wikipedia: Ignore all rules, Wikipedia: Use common sense, and Wikipedia: There is no common sense. --Olaf g 21:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

using Wikipedia to study meme transmission[edit]

Your recent posts to Talk:Meme were not directly (or, indeed, remotely) relevant to the associated article, and I have deleted the section. Please read and follow the talk page guidelines governing the proper use of a talk page as a forum for discussing improvements to an article, not a general purpose forum for material related to the topic of an article.

As a further point, I would like to bring to your notice the "Show preview" button available next to the "Save page" button for every edit window. This button allows you to see how an edit will look before taking it "live." Reading through your words as they will actually appear may help you find wording with which you are happy without clogging the edit history of the page and the watchlists of interested editors (your target audience for your canvassing).

I would also encourage you carefully to consider your study design (assuming good faith that it exists). The sole commonality shared by editors of a particular article is the fact that they edit that particular article. This does not correspond to any definition of "cohort" with which I am familiar, and seems singularly uncontrolled even for sociological research. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 20:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Eldereft, thank you for your advice. I know that it was probably the wrong place to choose a Wikipedia Talk page for my study. I will try to follow my interests about memes at a more appropriate place. What do you mean by "even for sociological research". I missed that point. By the way, did you like the joke? I mean about Dawkins? --Olaf g (talk) 19:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In physics, I can routinely control sample composition to parts per billion, and experiments can be repeated under precisely controlled conditions. Neither of these obtain when real people and their complex interactions are being studied. Best of luck exploring your interests. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 19:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PFOA[edit]

I thought you would be interested to see the correction i made here [1], the section here [2] and the work I have put into the PFOA page in general. Thanks, -Shootbamboo (talk) 14:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, thank you! I am not a regular guest in the English Wikipedia, so please excuse answering so late.--Olaf g (talk) 14:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. Thanks for the response. -Shootbamboo (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of tea for you![edit]

TEST Catfisheye (talk) 23:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, that is kind indeed. I almost forgot that it still works. Is the weather fine or is it still raining? Off to bed. Best--Olaf g (talk) 23:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lieber olag[edit]

Wir hatten schon mal das Vergnügen, vor einiger Zeit in der deutschen Wikipedia. Ihr Radkampfsportartikel ist köstlich. Herrliche Ironie, herrliche Satire. Allein der Beitrag auf Mautpreller's Page hat mir 'ne riesige Freude bereitet. You do not walk alone.--95.23.230.189 (talk) 11:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

sup[edit]

wow, your here since 2007 --Kharon2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Charbonnier moved to draftspace[edit]

Thanks for your contributions to Pierre Charbonnier. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. C F A 💬 23:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Clearfrienda, thanks for moving it, sources abound, and I will take the effort to cite them. --Olag (talk) 23:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Clearfrienda, I was a little shocked when I reads that it might take months to review the draft. Actually, I think it is now sufficiently sourced to be back in the space of published articles. But how about taking a look yourself at my attempts and giving me feed-back? That would be very much appreciated. --Olag (talk) 13:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Articles for Creation submissions are very slow because there's so many of them. There's essentially always 3000+ drafts waiting for review, sometimes thousands more. I'd say just move it back to mainspace if you think it's ready, for another new page reviewer to find. I won't review your article again per policy, but I'd recommend you convert the bare-url citations into full citations to make it easier for the reviewer. Let me know if you have any other questions. C F A 💬 14:47, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, Clearfrienda for your advice and support. I will do as you suggested, to format full citations (I am a bit lazy, I confess, but that should be done anyway), and than move it. I guess it should be ripe, even if I am not yet so familiar with en-wikipedia standards, as I primarily edited in the German version, so far.--Olag (talk) 15:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder for next time: It's not really standard to move your own AFC drafts after you've submitted them yourself. I know it takes time, but I recommend being patient, waiting on a reviewer, and moving on to another topic until the verdict comes in. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 05:45, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you very much for the advice and the review, which took less time then expected. I will take care to act less contradictory in the future. I know, in a cooperative project predictability is an important asset.--Olag (talk) 19:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]