Benutzer Diskussion:Gidonb
Thank you for visiting my talk page! For a faster response, feel free also to write me in German or English at my discussion page at the English language Wikipedia. Sorry, my response will usually be in English. Tschuess, Gidonb 01:03, 12. Dez 2005 (CET)
Hello, nice, thats other people look to this person. I thing, for german Wikipedia is she importend, but your list with componsed part ist no much interessting, when they dont play in germany or better know in germany. Then enough 3-4 parts, when you they know, the famoused in israel or the classic world. Thanks. Also look Liste israelischer Komponisten klassischer Musik. Sry, much people there ar very unknown, an the list root only from one born, there [1]. When we are delete red famous albanians, than also red links from persons with 1-2 parts of classic music, or?-OS- 23:31, 12. Apr. 2007 (CEST)
- Hello OS, thank you for dropping me a note after my edits to the article on Chaya Arbel. I am not sure that I understand you correctly. Can you rewrite your message in German? I will probably answer in English once more. Best regards, Gidonb
- Entschuldigung, mein Pidgin-Englisch ist offenbar geschrieben noch schwerer zu verstehen als gesprochen. Hier mein Text in Deutsch:
- Hallo, es ist schön, da auch andere Menschen nach dieser Person suchen. Ich denke, sie ist für das deutsche Wikipedia wichtig, aber die Liste mit den von ihr komponierten Stücken ist nicht sehr interessant, da ihre Stücke in Deutschland nicht gespielt werden oder weit verbreitet/bekannt sind. Dann genügen 3-4 Stücke, und wenn Du diese kennst, die in Israel am bekanntesten 3-4 bzw. der Welt der klassischen Musik. Danke. Bitte schau Dir die Liste israelischer Komponisten klassischer Musik an. Entschuldigung, viele der Personen dort sind ziemlich unbekannt, und die Einträge entstammen alle einer Quelle (dem IMI). Wenn wir im deutschen Wikipedia bekannte Albaner (red = red link = no theme) löschen, dann auch rote Links von Personen mit 1-2 komponierten Werken der klassischen Music, oder?-OS- 00:04, 15. Mai 2007 (CEST)
- Hello again OS. Thank you writing your comments in German and sorry I did not understand you the first time. Chaya Arbel is a female German-born Israeli composer who is definitely interesting to German readers. I do not know how you decided that her pieces are not played in Germany. I would be hesitant to make a value judgment between different pieces. The list of compositions I created contains all the published works of Arbel, which is an objective criterion. The situation of the list is comparable. I saw the link through which you decided that some composers composed only 1-2 pieces. Unfortunately (and fortunately for these composers), this assessment is based on a list of one publisher and even then on one category of publications. The composers list passes quality control through the voluntary edits of IMI employees (IMI is a not for profit organization that promotes Israeli music) in the English language version, as well as my edits and synchronization between the different wikipedias. Best regards, Gidonb 18:20, 1. Jul. 2007 (CEST)
Hello Gidonb, i see that you regularly add the actual surveys from the Peil.nl/Maurice de Hond polling institute. First thank you for this. But can you also add surveys from other institutes, like TNS NIPO, De Stemming and Ipsos, please? We usually do this here in all articles about elections f.e. for the reason of completeness. Best Regards, --Be11 (Diskussion) 21:30, 18. Feb. 2016 (CET)
- Hello ? Will i get an answer? --Be11 (Diskussion) 21:49, 22. Feb. 2016 (CET)
- It is not so common to get requests for more contributions, especially at de.wiki, where I contribute so little, so I had to think this over a bit. I think that the current situation where I add the Peil survey every one or two weeks, then others diversify, works fine. I see no problem. I basically I add Peil on en.wiki, then check if it was added here. Gidonb (Diskussion) 13:15, 25. Feb. 2016 (CET)
- Yes, and this behavior is wrong. Just compare the results of Peil and Ipsos. Peil says, that PVV is about 15 seats stronger while Ipsos predict only 4-5 seats distance from the VVD to the PVV. I think the surveys from Ipsos f.e. are more exact than the one from Peil. But that's not so relevant here. It makes a lot of needless work for other editors. I think the reader of wikipedia has a right to get information from a broader base of sources (with surveys from more polling institutes), regardless of the fact that it looks like that we prefer the Peil insitute on the wikipedia and this shouldn't be so (especially for the case when others forget to add surveys from other polling institutes). I hope you understand me, --Be11 (Diskussion) 21:06, 25. Feb. 2016 (CET)
- As I said before, there is absolutely no problem with you adding other opinion polls to the article. These are welcome contributions! Yet, as your main concern with the Dutch polls is the support for one single party, I would be hesitant to pass value judgement on likewise welcome contributions by others, here and in your edit summaries. Better do much and talk little, than the opposite. Gidonb (Diskussion) 20:37, 27. Feb. 2016 (CET)
- Hello, i have one please to you. Can you also update the seat composition graphics on the right side while you update the Peil survey? I have already done it for the survey from 6th march now, but can you do this the next time? I do it also always when i update the opinion polls from other institutes (don't think i want to save some work from my side ;)) Furthermore i will add opinion polls from the other institutes except of Peil (that's you job ;)) from now. Thank you, --Be11 (Diskussion) 18:28, 12. Mär. 2016 (CET)
- As I said before, there is absolutely no problem with you adding other opinion polls to the article. These are welcome contributions! Yet, as your main concern with the Dutch polls is the support for one single party, I would be hesitant to pass value judgement on likewise welcome contributions by others, here and in your edit summaries. Better do much and talk little, than the opposite. Gidonb (Diskussion) 20:37, 27. Feb. 2016 (CET)
- Yes, and this behavior is wrong. Just compare the results of Peil and Ipsos. Peil says, that PVV is about 15 seats stronger while Ipsos predict only 4-5 seats distance from the VVD to the PVV. I think the surveys from Ipsos f.e. are more exact than the one from Peil. But that's not so relevant here. It makes a lot of needless work for other editors. I think the reader of wikipedia has a right to get information from a broader base of sources (with surveys from more polling institutes), regardless of the fact that it looks like that we prefer the Peil insitute on the wikipedia and this shouldn't be so (especially for the case when others forget to add surveys from other polling institutes). I hope you understand me, --Be11 (Diskussion) 21:06, 25. Feb. 2016 (CET)
- It is not so common to get requests for more contributions, especially at de.wiki, where I contribute so little, so I had to think this over a bit. I think that the current situation where I add the Peil survey every one or two weeks, then others diversify, works fine. I see no problem. I basically I add Peil on en.wiki, then check if it was added here. Gidonb (Diskussion) 13:15, 25. Feb. 2016 (CET)
Now for your other claim was that Peil is less exact than Ipsos. To the extent possible, let's examine the quality. For each survey company I'll use the latest results. I'll concentrate on the three largest parties after the previous elections. List 1 and 2 were engaged in an apparent runoff during the last elections. List 1 and 3 could likewise be engaged in a runoff if new elections were to occur soon.
| Poll | Date | VVD | PvdA | PVV |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Peil | 08.05 | 23 | 8 | 37 |
| Ipsos | 14.04 | 28 | 13 | 28 |
| TNS NIPO | 01.04 | 25 | 10 | 35 |
| Stemming | 29.03 | 24 | 10 | 35 |
| I&O | 14.03 | 27 | 19 | 25 |
For VVD, we should consider 23-25 low and 27-28 high. For PvdA we may consider 8-10 low and 13-19 high. For PVV we should consider 25-28 low and 35-37 high. If so, we obtain the following:
| Poll | VVD | PvdA | PVV |
|---|---|---|---|
| Low |
|
|
|
| High |
|
|
|
From here that Peil is slightly more normative than Ipsos, as its predictions fall into the same categories with most pollsters. This does not, however, automatically mean that it is more likely to predict the results correctly.
Yet there is another important dimension to quality and that is frequency. Peil beats all other survey houses in frequency, most of them even by quite a bit. Since the direction of change is similar across polling houses and it is mostly their basic pool that differs, the more frequent polls of Peil allow one to follow trends closer.
Now if logic and quality would prevail on Wikipedia this would mean that the graph would be used for Peil but, apparently, you decided that you own this article and should come to this talk page to divide editing tasks and litter it with rude and immature remarks. I have been around WP too long to fight over such matters or re-enter all numbers of that graph every time you change it, so logic and quality does not always prevail.
The bottom line is that if you want more quality – you need to seek it. If you prefer to continue clowning around – be my guest! Gidonb (Diskussion) 04:05, 9. Mai 2016 (CEST)
Hallo Gidonb!
Die von dir angelegte Seite ASWH wurde zum Löschen vorgeschlagen. Gemäß den Löschregeln wird über die Löschung mindestens sieben Tage diskutiert und danach entschieden.
Du bist herzlich eingeladen, dich an der Löschdiskussion zu beteiligen. Wenn du möchtest, dass der Artikel behalten wird, kannst du dort die Argumente, die für eine Löschung sprechen, entkräften, indem du dich beispielsweise zur enzyklopädischen Relevanz des Artikels äußerst. Du kannst auch während der Löschdiskussion Artikelverbesserungen vornehmen, die die Relevanz besser erkennen lassen und die Mindestqualität sichern.
Da bei Wikipedia jeder Löschanträge stellen darf, sind manche Löschanträge auch offensichtlich unbegründet; solche Anträge kannst du ignorieren.
Vielleicht fühlst du dich durch den Löschantrag vor den Kopf gestoßen, weil durch den Antrag die Arbeit, die du in den Artikel gesteckt hast, nicht gewürdigt wird. Sei tapfer und bleibe dennoch freundlich. Der andere meint es vermutlich auch gut.
Grüße, Xqbot (Diskussion) 11:49, 3. Nov. 2020 (CET) (Diese Nachricht wurde automatisch durch einen Bot erstellt. Wenn du zukünftig von diesem Bot nicht mehr über Löschanträge informiert werden möchtest, trag dich hier ein.)
- Das ist so kein Artikel. Bitte übersetz' die Einzelnachwiese udn bau den Artikel aus. Im englischen Wikipedia-Artikel gibt es genug infos. --Kurator71 (D) 15:42, 3. Nov. 2020 (CET)
- Kurator71, I wrote most of the English-language article. Just copied some references. You are very welcome to translate. I understand a lot of German (feel free to continue writing in German!) but do not speak it very well. Gidonb (Diskussion) 15:47, 3. Nov. 2020 (CET)
- Das ist nicht Sinn der Sache. Wenn Du den Artikel geschrieben hast, sollte es dir ein Leichtes sein. Ich kann das nicht übersetzen, weil ich kein Niederländisch kann. --Kurator71 (D) 15:51, 3. Nov. 2020 (CET)
- Kurator71 Forget the Dutch. The better article is, as you mentioned, in English. The Dutch-language Wikipedia is not known for quality. Just run the English through Google Translate and correct the German. I would do the refernces by your editing example just now. Gidonb (Diskussion) 15:53, 3. Nov. 2020 (CET)
- Ähm, die Einzelnachweise sind aber Niederländisch! Und nein, man kann Artikel nicht einfach per Google Translate schicken, da kommt nur Unsinn raus. Genau das ist ja das Problem. --Kurator71 (D) 16:03, 3. Nov. 2020 (CET)
- Kurator71, one can always edit after machine translation. It doesn't need to be perfect on the spot. Anyway, I have expanded the article. Gidonb (Diskussion) 21:20, 3. Nov. 2020 (CET)
- Das ist teilweise vollkommen unverständliches Deutsch. Ich habe versucht das zu verbessern, aber die Sätze sind unverständlich. Bitte nie wieder einen Artikel per Maschienenübersetung einstellen. --Kurator71 (D) 11:41, 4. Nov. 2020 (CET)
- P.S: Bitte auch keine englischen Vorlagen benutzen. --Kurator71 (D) 11:42, 4. Nov. 2020 (CET)
- Das ist teilweise vollkommen unverständliches Deutsch. Ich habe versucht das zu verbessern, aber die Sätze sind unverständlich. Bitte nie wieder einen Artikel per Maschienenübersetung einstellen. --Kurator71 (D) 11:41, 4. Nov. 2020 (CET)
- Kurator71, one can always edit after machine translation. It doesn't need to be perfect on the spot. Anyway, I have expanded the article. Gidonb (Diskussion) 21:20, 3. Nov. 2020 (CET)
- Ähm, die Einzelnachweise sind aber Niederländisch! Und nein, man kann Artikel nicht einfach per Google Translate schicken, da kommt nur Unsinn raus. Genau das ist ja das Problem. --Kurator71 (D) 16:03, 3. Nov. 2020 (CET)
- Kurator71 Forget the Dutch. The better article is, as you mentioned, in English. The Dutch-language Wikipedia is not known for quality. Just run the English through Google Translate and correct the German. I would do the refernces by your editing example just now. Gidonb (Diskussion) 15:53, 3. Nov. 2020 (CET)
- Das ist nicht Sinn der Sache. Wenn Du den Artikel geschrieben hast, sollte es dir ein Leichtes sein. Ich kann das nicht übersetzen, weil ich kein Niederländisch kann. --Kurator71 (D) 15:51, 3. Nov. 2020 (CET)
- Kurator71, I wrote most of the English-language article. Just copied some references. You are very welcome to translate. I understand a lot of German (feel free to continue writing in German!) but do not speak it very well. Gidonb (Diskussion) 15:47, 3. Nov. 2020 (CET)