Disputatio:Arthurus Balder

Latinitas[fontem recensere]

The page has up to now been written in bad Latin. The latest large-scale additions are in bad English. Unless something is done about this quickly, I think it should go. Information about Balder is not difficult to find (see interwiki links).

Incidentally, to judge by the photo on es:wiki, Artur Balder is not an auctrix.Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:29, 28 Augusti 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tidied up the page, removing some links, adding a link to the hero Curdy. His publicist hasn't bothered to list his books, I notice. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:28, 13 Decembris 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Data hominis[fontem recensere]

Is there a way of keeping the picture but getting rid of the databox? It duplicates information already given in the text, and most other Vicipaedian portraits (e.g., Augustus) don't follow its format). IacobusAmor 13:44, 13 Decembris 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of the databoxes is to get easily extracted information out of the article into a place easily seen. The idea should not be that the databox duplicates information already in the article, but that the article duplicates information already in the databox—the article should be rewritten to focus on pertinent information, and leave the factoids to the sidebars. —Mucius Tever 15:43, 15 Decembris 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no format fitting problem. I have now added the data hominis to Gaius Iulius Caesar Octavianus Augustus. --Alex1011 15:46, 13 Decembris 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For that, I do not thank you. IacobusAmor 15:59, 13 Decembris 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried it without the box; but Myces is right, of course, it does have a purpose. So I've put it back again. I wonder if our bio-infoboxes are too big? Maybe it's just Balder who looks so terrifying at this magnification.

I couldn't quite grasp the grammar of Monaci Germaniensi so I restored Monaci Germaniae ... you know, like Bethlehem of Judaea. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:06, 15 Decembris 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just cut the duplication, as per Mucius Tever's advice. Now let's go and do the same with all the articles that have databoxes, right? IacobusAmor 16:30, 15 Decembris 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete?[fontem recensere]

{{Delete|Self promotion/crosswiki spam. See [[:es:Wikipedia:Consultas de borrado/Artur Balder]], [[w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Curdy]], [[http://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Especial:Registro&type=delete&page=%3ACurdy]] and [[:pt:Wikipedia:Páginas para eliminar/Curdy]]}}

The speedy-deletion template was added to the page by Descíclope. See recent discussion at Curdy. I think we should probably keep Arthurus Balder, shouldn't we? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:56, 17 Decembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we should. --Fabullus 13:52, 23 Decembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no one else having urged deletion, Balder lives. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:36, 14 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The delete template was added to the article again. We have discussed it already so I removed the template. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:00, 20 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I vote for delete. The article is not notable for wikipedia. Which criteria do you accept for authors? Which of them pass the current article? --Μυρμηγκάκι 12:23, 20 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In general, decisions are not reached by vote but by consensus. But you already know this, because you're a major contributor to el:wiki. You're welcome to join us here too, Myrmigaki! Look around a bit: look especially at our page Vicipaedia:Propaganda and the links there. Read the discussions. Then you'll better understand the current consensus.

That page Vicipaedia:Propaganda contains a list ("Propaganda multiviciana") of cross-wiki-spammed biographies that have reached us here. You might find it interesting: not all of them have yet been noticed by others, I think. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:57, 20 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have removed the edit by Usor:Lolox76. It appeared to begin with legal threats (which will lead to blocking if repeated) but mainly consisted of a very long draft article about Arthur Balder in English. If anyone wishes to use this material to improve the Latin page, feel free to do so: it can be found in the history of this page. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:55, 14 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat it, 'cause is very simple. The latin article contains publicly statements about propaganda which are not appropiate. That's why I insist in visiting the "long" english draft here Artur Balder. Paying a quick look to the references it is obvious that there was an internal campaign from some wp editors by unknown reasons to eliminate all articles of Mr. Balder WITHOUT, even in those times, to look at the real references, easy then as now to find out throughout the www. See here the statements of some of those wp editors: Orland states "As of jan 2011: Balders carreer has widened, and his biography survived a new deletion talk. He is now, with fair reason, back in the encyclopedia." Well, he was the one wp editor who was contributing to the deletion of the article, no matter the references were. For instance: here again. Wikipedia is not a private edition software. There are other more valuable informations about the subject in the main english accepted article, as in the Spanish and German one, than the information of "propaganda Multiviciana". I recomend you openly to reconsider the nature of the explanation. I may not be able to contribute in latina, but I can eliminate some lines in the article if they are obviuosly wrong or innapropiate. --Lolox76 16:02, 15 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Atention: Artur Balder article is being destroyed by a Dutch user with cross wp vandalism[fontem recensere]

A Dutch user, http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gebruiker:MoiraMoira, is aabusing with vandalism all the trasnlations of the subject Artur Balder.

In some wp, her actions have been deleted after review of local administrators. http://eo.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Artur_Balder&action=history

Those are the facts:

The article Artur Balder was voted to be kept at the English wp after review of the references http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artur_Balder

After that, some translation of this article, well done by native in other wp, were uploaded. She is still deleting them under the excuse: "cross wp spam", and indeed they are translation of an accepted wp well referenced article.

Im looking for penalties at the local wp because of pure vandalism done by http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gebruiker:MoiraMoira

--Lolox76 23:25, 26 Iulii 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In context I don't understand your term "the local wp". If you're looking for penalties here, Lolox, I doubt you will succeed. In my opinion MoiraMoira would be correct in saying the original spreading of Balder across the Wikipedias was cross-wiki spam. In any case, MoiraMoira, or any other user, is able to propose deletion, just as you, or any other user, are able to propose retention. I see no vandalism. Andrew Dalby (disputatio)

Harassment is too when, for example, an editor deletes an article without consensus in other wikis. Thats what happened there, and you know were. The attacks ... can be considered cross wp vandalism. This user is the one who did not keep the discussion at the Dutch wp, instead of that, the user destroyed well translated articles, that were approved long time before the English one, without local consensus at several wikipedias. As a result, the article is back in most of them, by local wp editors, not by me. The discussion cannot be kept in one wiki, because the attacks were cross wp by the mentioned user. International court is needed to investigate the facts. On top of that, there you have solved the question of the image at commons. And one thing more: the author is translated into Dutch. Thats enough, with the international references, to guarantee notability and keep a sketch of the English one at the Dutch wikipedia, as I provided it. The cross wp vandalism against the article, supported by collaborators ..., should be investigated.

--Lolox76 (talk) 02:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

One thing more: it is too far when, at some wikipedias, and now there are several cases at the Dutch one, this kind of agressive reactions from editors, blocking certain persons and names, come out specially when the subjects are of openly of jewish origin, as is the case of Artur Balder. I dont want to use, not yet, the word, but there is a certain degree of antisemitism in the cross wp vandalism ... against Artur Balder, and the blocking of the name at the Dutch wikipedia.--Lolox76 (talk) 02:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The proper behaviour on wikipedia is to "assume good faith". You should not lightly accuse other editors of vandalism, and I have thought it best to remove names from your comment above. Be careful not to make any other such allegations here. If you have any comments to make about the Dutch wikipedia, you can make them there. This is the Latin Vicipaedia, and the only proper use of this disputatio is to discuss improvements to our page Arthurus Balder. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:45, 3 Augusti 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image problem has been solved. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Artur_Balder_Directs.jpg --Lolox76 (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added the image; anyone who understands the infobox might adjust the size and add a caption. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:45, 3 Augusti 2011 (UTC)[reply]