Eurominuteman

Welcome!

Hello, Eurominuteman, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Dreadstar † 17:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Byrne

You seem to think very highly of Byrne's work, and have a strong focus on including it. Are you involved with Byrne at all? It's a bit unusual to so focus on a single source in an article, we have a concerns over the article contents being from a neutral point of view, as well as being aware of any concerns over notability, Wikipedia:Spam andadvertising. Just how notable is Byrne, we don't don't want to violate WP:UNDUE. We must also be cautious over copyright violations. Dreadstar † 17:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I just fortunately found Byrnes' article by using a search engine. I was able to relate to the gravity of the issue. By the way, I have included the next up-to-date source that cites Byrne, and follows up with the translation liability, risk, and quality issues:

Tim Martin, Directorate-General for Translation (European Commission) "Managing risks and resources: a down-to-earth view of revision" JoSTrans, The Journal of Specialised Translation, Issue 08 - July 2007

I have also visited enough law classes to know about the background of product liability and the reverse burden-of-proof, which also tangents this issue. And I am a cross-cultural TQM and quality management trainer since 1994. I have trained over 500 participants from many sectors. So, I well know how people play games to avoid this issue. Even Tim Martin mentions this behavior among freelance transators.

Tim Martin, "Revision and EN 15038: A major asset of the new standard — which has not been without its critics among freelance translators — is its emphasis on clear definitions."

Tim Martin goes on to cite Byrne: "Byrne nonetheless goes on to conclude that “…it would be unrealistic to interpret this lack of cases as proof that translators do not make mistakes or that the issue of translator liability is not something with which we should concern ourselves. […] ..the implications of substandard translations must be treated seriously.” (Byrne 2007: 2)."

"That seems to me a very sane and sanguine conclusion to draw. Perhaps the lack of litigation reflects translator skill and reviser acumen, but perhaps too it is just luck and lack of customer expertise. Either way, we should retain a healthy fear of translation errors in texts with a serious legal, political or commercial dimension — which account for most of what’s translated where I work and must surely account for a large chunk of most corporate and freelance workloads."

These people display normal psychological resistance against change, that is all. I haven't seen any arguments hitting the central issue, namely the legal ruling from 1990. As translators, they are preoccupied with translator thinking with single words and spellings, and not legal thinking.

Why don't you just drill down your over-inflated caution. Where are potential copyright violations? I don't see any. Eurominuteman 19:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

My "over-inflated caution", as you put it, is due to the content you have continued to add that seems to be directly lifted from Byrne's work. Frankly, my concern is plagiarism. Please assume good faith.

I assume you're talking about the editors who are disputing your changes and additions to the article when you accuse "these people" of displaying psychological resistance against change. I think you'll find their concerns are deeper than that, and that your speculation and continual comments about the other editors will not help advance your position. And you must understand that this is a general encylopedia, not a law text on the legal ramifications of the subject...especially when viewed from what is apparently a narrow viewpoint of one author on the subject. The bottom line of all of this, is "how's it working for you"?

I'm happy to see you discussing on the talk page instead of editwarring..I applaud your approach! If you're not getting anywhere with your discussions, read through Wikipedia:Resolving disputes for suggestions on the best means of handling these types of situations. I'm only trying to help. Dreadstar † 18:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Where are conclusive arguments about the core issue, the 1990 ruling? This judge and his ruling based on "duty of care" are the central risk issue, not Byrne. As long as this ruling is not overturned, the discussion will be like rowing in circles. As long as the 1990 ruling is not overturned things are working well for me. The 1990 ruling and its liability and impact implications need to be included into the encyclopedia. Two well-positioned authors have published this viewpoint in expert magazines. By the way, I have some other sources here too. I don't need to waste my gun powder too early. But in the final, the 1990 ruling is the strongest fact-found status.

A continued retention of this legally-based, risk-based, and quality-based issue is just not professional. Named citations are not copyright violations or plagiarism. Eurominuteman 20:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

May I add, after inspecting the Byrne and Tillmann sources, there are no indications of copyright limitations in any of the website pages throughout the whole structure of the website. Your concerns are undue. Eurominuteman 21:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

You should present your sources instead of keeping them in 'reserve' on concerns of "wasting gunpowder too early". That's not the right way to handle disputes. Concnerns about copyright, plagerism and the integrity of Wikipedia are never undue. You are obviously sticking by your guns, so I'll leave you to it. Dreadstar † 19:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

In this case mentioned, your concerns are validly undue. You can easily look for yourself. I have presented the strongest fact-found status, namely the 1990 ruling about "duty of care" and "purpose and use of the translation". No more is needed. No one has even used the term "translator duties" yet. This is as if the devil was avoiding holy water, to make a pun of it.

Translator duties are factual, and are legal, risk, and quality requirements. A breach of translator duties can have serious impacts for the translator and the client, and also others. This is backed by case studies. I think I have validly presented enough material. The reverse burden-of-proof of the other authors has failed since weeks. It is time to stop arguing about facts, and get these facts into the article. That the core purpose of Wikipedia. Eurominuteman 22:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

You and I are talking about completely different things. I think this is the same problem you are encountering with the other editors...one of translation and understanding...if you'll pardon the pun. Dreadstar † 20:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

You have a lack of a holistic view. The Translation article is connected to the term Translator is a fashion that does not allow differentiation. Anything that fits to Translator must be forwarded into Translation. If you want the purist view of Translation without liabilities you need the opportunity to publish Translator and Liabities. This is not possible. And it is also questionable if the purist view of Translation can tolerate a lack of holism. (Translation AND Liability AND Duty) is a valid Boolean description of what I am saying. This meta-list also delivers clustered subcategories. So now you have a flavor of my gunpowder. But yes, I prefer to keep my gunpowder dry. The name says it Euro-"minuteman", if I may pun again. Eurominuteman 22:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

You see, that's what I meant...you're still talking about your view of what the content should be, I'm talking about how to source and implement that content in a manner that meets Wikipedia policy. This includes not only proper sources but proper dispute resolution processes. You're talking content, and I'm talking process. My view is very holistic from the perspective in which I am communicating. You are not picking up what I'm putting down. Dreadstar † 21:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

You say process, I say actionism, like running in circles. Self-purpose. All you have to do is get back to the core issue, the 1990 ruling. then you can stop processing around. Naturally, first comes what, then comes how. What else? How before What makes no sense... except for actionism. The contributions are not up-to-date and conclusive, serious updating is needed. Eurominuteman 23:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 14:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

Here at wikipedia, we don't tollerate legal threats, so I have blocked you account indefinately due to this. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, how can I protect my rights if I am continuously being insulted.

Just look at the list of insults within the deletions from Nihil_novi directed at me.

And also those discussed with others within his discussions.

And look at my attempts to draw the people into the discussion.

And look at my significant conclusive sources in comparison.

Any lawyer can make a notice about unreasonable behavior if personal rights are breached.

Wiki has a duty to protect my rights and block mobbing.

This includes mobbing within the same German article with this person.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer_Diskussion:Margit_Brause#Translation_quality_standards

This not reasonable behavior any more. I have been delivering valid content. Eurominuteman 15 Sept 20:25

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Eurominuteman (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

My reasons are summarized at the bottom of the discussion of Translation as Itskoolman. I deliver valid, up-to-date, and conclusive content, which is vandalized by others. These vandals then use mobbing tactics to mislead me and to fake me into Wiki rules that I was not aware of as a Wiki beginner (just look at the insults in the edit list of Translation, and their own side discussions). I state the matter to be handled in a repeated fashion, and point out to their reverse burden-of-proof. Yet they want to avoid this duty, and continue to delete my validated contributions. They also delete parts where citations are needed in order to avoid the making and following-up a discussion consensus.

There is no reason to block me if I focus onto to the article matter and formulate a complaint about the lack of discussion and formulate a complaint about undue non-updating of obsolete article matter (backed by 1990 legal court litigation).

I apply for full unblocking of editing rights, I will keep to stating the matter. A 1990 legal ruling has backed this anyway. So I have no reason to sweat about things. Just look at the discussion under Translation. I expect your support to guide the others to a consensus, instead of helping them to use tricks to avoid discussion contributions.

I may also add that it was advised by Wiki to change to another name (Itskoolman) within this block information as I had read: "You are encouraged to create a new account and contribute to Wikipedia under an appropriate username.".

What is going on here? Valid facts do not count, recommendations are turned around, people who impersonalize are protected, discussions are avoided, clever fake actions of experienced users can be used against beginners, no prior administrator warnings, the article is not updated - this is all out-of-proportion and a breach of Wikis 5 pillar principles.

I repeat, it was advised by Wiki to change the name in the previous block information as I had read: "You are encouraged to create a new account and contribute to Wikipedia under an appropriate username.

Furthermore, I have no legal actions pending. You are overstretching the meaning of what was stated. I can point out and raise a red flag to impersonalizations at any time as a escalated complaint(as a behavior description). If I make an immediate legal threat, I will escalate a notice that an unacceptable level has been reached, and make a declaration of discontinuance with the consequence of legal litigations, yet priorly under consultation with Wiki. If discontinuance is not rendered at this escalation level, legal actions MAY be considered.

This escalation level has not been implemented. On the contrary, you have a legal duty to protect me against impersonalizations and mobbing/bullying in a FIRST escalation step, and not to protect these people.

I complain against your overstretched blocking action, and the misleading information to register to another name, which lead to another block. Both of your blocking actions are out-of-proportion and do not comply with Wiki's 5 pillar principles.

Decline reason:

I can not find where you have withdrawn your legal threats here and here. It is unclear whether or not you intend legal action here, please make it clear."— Navou ^banter 05:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Eurominuteman (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I did not make a legal threat to take back. I escalated a behavior description for you as Wikipedia to act on. If I make a concrete legal threat, I step through other escalation procedures, which I have described above and which I have not implemented. The level of escalation is very clear, namely behavior description. This is not undue. You have a primary duty to act on this behavior description. You are overstretching your evaluation, as if I had made a committing pending legal threat. This is not the case. Please unblock me, and do your duties under Wiki's 5 pillar principles to stop vandals that do not discuss and avoid to make substantial contributions, but choose to factually impersonalize. --Eurominuteman 06:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Suggesting that someone is heading toward being sued for tort if he continues is a legal threat, and is unacceptable. We can't tolerate people threatening to do real world actions, for it is a way to intimidate the people disagreeing with you. I support this block. -- lucasbfr ^talk 06:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I may point out that these people may disagree, but they also have the reverse burden-of-proof to validate their position, if they are requested to do so. They are not doing this. They choose to reverse and delete validated contributions, and choose to align their behavior compass into the direction of impersonalization. This is not supported by Wiki's 5 pillar principles. --Eurominuteman 08:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

All right, it's very simple: Do you consider taking any legal action against any Wikipedia editor or against the organisation that runs Wikipedia? Yes or no, please. Sandstein 11:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I am not considering... I never made this statement of willingness. I established that the people are engaged in risky behavior. This is a statistical statement based on empirical raw data.

If I see you walking across a busy road without looking left or right, and I called to you about the risk. This cannot be bent to be my threatening you. If I say, I will kick your ass if you cross that busy road, this would be a threat. --Eurominuteman 11:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Hallo Sandstein, ich merke, dass Sie Deutsch sprechen. Ich bin bei der deutschen Version dieses Artikels ebenfalls gesperrt. Die Symptome sind ähnlich. Ich bringe die validen Beiträge und andere weigeren sich an der Diskussion teilzunehmen. Die nehmen sogar Kontakt mit den englishen Vandalen auf, um sich abzuspechen, anstatt inhaltliche Beiträge innerhalb der Diskussion zu bringen. Ich bitte dies ebenfalls in Ihrer Abwägung einfliessen zu lassen. --Eurominuteman 13:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

One last time: You will only be unblocked if you clearly state that you will not take legal action against anyone. Making allusions about the legal risk of some behaviour is as good as a threat for our purposes. Whatever some unspecified editors might have done on the German Wikipedia does not matter here. This is about you and your legal threat on this Wikipedia. Sandstein 13:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I repeat. I made no legal threat, and I am not considering such. This complies exactly with what you are requiring. No legal actions are planned or pending. Please inform me of what measures to take, if such an escalation case arises. --Eurominuteman 14:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Talking about risks also includes talking about opportunities. Are you trying to bend this aspect of risk into your definition of threat? --Eurominuteman 15:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I am sure you guys are interested in the following:

• A Risk Management Standard is available to download for free in fifteen languages. (Published by IRM, AIRMIC and ALARM).
• Risk management in SMEs many tools for free in four languages.

--Eurominuteman 15:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Translation Regrets

Dear Eurominuteman. I think it is a shame that the translation page has become such a battleground. I want to talk about it reasonably and rationally. One of the main sources of our problem is communication. I have to admit that your English is not always as clear as it could be.

Perfection is not required - Wiki's pillar point no. 5 --Eurominuteman 14:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I know that must be frustrating to you, but it is also sometimes difficult for me (and others) to find your principal points. If you don't understand something that I have written, please ask me to explain. We are all translators here, we should be able to overcome linguistic differences. I also want to point out the important fact that wikipedia works by consensus. You can't be right on wikipedia unless others believe you. In order to get new content to stay in an article, you have to convince other editors of its validity. At the present time, you have not convinced the other editors of the translation page (me included) that your additions belong there. Repeatedly adding the same content is not an accepted form of argumentation. All it does is increase animosity.

Status quo material facts are not in need of consensus. There is no need to quarrel about facts, actually. These are not opinions. --Eurominuteman 13:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It also seems to me that when I have engaged with your ideas, you have not listened to my point of view, and have occasionally been quite dismissive. In an environment where consensus is required, this kind of behavior does not endear others to you. Additionally, you have sought not only to add content, but to add it in such a way that makes the other content secondary to your ideas.

Yes indeed, that is the factual base of the 1990 legal ruling. Final cause overrules efficient cause. WHAT you do, overrules HOW you do it. Ask Aristotle.

"All further investigations of causality will consist of imposing the favorite hierarchies on the order causes, such as final > efficient> material > formal."

I have validated this too. --Eurominuteman 13:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

You have to realize that much of what was on the translation page before you sought to change it was the result of a lot of people's hard work. They were quite naturally offended that you didn't see validity in what they had done. I have honestly tried to follow your logic and to look at your sources. I have learned many things in the process, but I still don't agree with your vision for the translation article. I also have found looking at your sources occasionally frustrating. Many of them simply lead to a "clusty" search. Perhaps this is an honest mistake on your part, but search results themselves are not evidence. I would appreciate a calm answer to this note.

You are implying scattered hits. Clustered means rendering the hit-list to pre-evaluated categories so you don't have to do the work manually. Thus enabling you to focus on frequently occuring sub-sets right away. The hitlist must be evaluated from a content view to uncover the evidence, naturally. This is information and knowledge work. Things do not end at the mechanical query work. --Eurominuteman 13:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to act in good faith.maxsch 04:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The smaller part of the translators are focussed on literary translations. The most of us are faced with business and technical translations with factually other domain requirements. The 1990 legal ruling, the EN/IEC Guide 73, ISO 9001:2000, EN-15038:2006 are status quo facts. All you have to do to is embrace these material facts. It does not really matter if you agree to them. These things exist because consensus was attained at another expert level, then they were officially published. They are to be treated as given material facts with legal impacts. At this point you must align your strategy to this status quo.

They affect the reality of non-literary translators, other professionals, native speakers, and expatriates, who work on the greater part of non-literary translation volumes. There is no need to hide these liability facts, as they indeed affect also literary translations. These facts are opportunities for translation improvement and enhancement, and not risks as some of you apparently perceive.

It is simplying lagging, full of gaps, and over-inflated behavior just to play and imply the purist literary and artistic side of translations as fully complete. Dr. Jody Brynes' video contribution also does not support this limited notion. I do not have to be measured against literary and artistic expectations. I translate engineering, business, and law texts very well since decades. Literary and artistic expectations are not expected and required. Not even Wiki's 5 pillar principles goes with this argument.

My part of the burden-of-proof is very clear. Where is your part of the reverse burden-of-proof? Please deliver some valid backup information that supports your disagreeing position. Promoting your personal preferences is not what Wiki is about.

Purely downplaying, reverting, disagreeing, denying, and trying to falsify these presented facts with all the tricks in the book is not enough and not convincing without effective reverse burden-of-proof on your part. This has been missing the whole time.

If you think you can formulate the core content better, with more artistic fashion and understanding, then do it. I will not erase better linguistic form. Yet, the structure, and the core content and message presented cannot be erased. It is clearly valid, up-to-date, and conclusive (from Aristotle to Byrne so to say).

At the moment, mostly structure and expert citations have been added. This is not my speech. I only relay this form at this point. So, not all translators support your overinflated purist-like literary and artistic viewpoint. These new contributions are indisputable in this reduced form. I am fairly convinced that Wiki administrators will protect this minimum change of structure and core content. I see no justifications presented to erase it. It is up to you guys to deliver some scientific and deductive beef, not just personal preferences and spell-checking contributions.

By the way, I am only waiting for Part 3 of an up-to-date German lawyer's contribution (Werkvertrag vrs Dienstvertrag), which I will add to the legal requirements parts presented. Sandstein is a bilingual Wiki administrator, who can check if I do it right. So, I have more beef coming, gentlemen. I just found a new up-to-date source in German from BDÜ: Juristische Fallstricke beim Übersetzen und Dolmetschen MDÜ 03/2007

--Eurominuteman 05:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Your additions to Translation are atrociously unreadable, and is filled with copyright violation. Consensus on the talk page is that your edits are unconstructive. Thats it. There is no reverse burden of proof, that isn't how wikipedia works. Man It's So Loud In Here 15:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Perfection is not required - Wiki's pillar point no. 5. Mostly structure and expert citations have been added. None of the websites published has copyright protection. Take a look. Sorry, your statements are not backed by proof. Your information level has become obsolete and is not up to date. You must validate your publication level, which I have. Wiki wants this validated level. "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL."

You would need to go to the authors of the articles if you think something is not constructive, then explain why. At the moment your generalized statements do not falsify, without more beef on your part. --Eurominuteman 16:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Man It's So Loud In Here: Why do you continuously abuse Twingle TW scripts to reinstall an obsolete and non-up-to-date article status? The integrity of Wiki could be threatened by continuous reversal to an outdated contribution level. --Eurominuteman 16:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I came to you with serious concerns stated in reasonable terms and you do nothing but repeat the same old angry statements. You need to build consensus. You are being a bully, and it will not get you anywhere. Articles published in the Journal of Specialized Translation are copyrighted. Their website does not need to have "copyright protection" to publish copyrighted material. You saying that an article is obsolete does not make it so. Search results are not evidence. The 1990 legal ruling is not about translation. Your "proof" is unconvincing. I agree with user:man it's so loud in here, consensus is that your edits are generally unconstructive. If you would like to try to make them constructive, I can work with you, but you need to tone down your angry rhetoric. Up until now, no other editors have agreed with content you added, doesn't that tell you something. If you do have valid points they are not getting through. maxsch 16:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Copyright law internationally requires a (C) sign, with year, and publisher. None of the website pages has one. Check it out. Why is it unconvincing? I am asking questions to be answered. The tone is right. "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable". My contributions are verifiable. Millions have made mistakes in the past. Are you implying the authors of the Journal of Specialized Translations are publishing unconvincing and non-evident matter? How do you know this information? Can you prove it? Just claiming generalizations is not verifiable. I think the real reason for your avoidance of answers is, you are simply not verifiable. --Eurominuteman 17:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no need for personal attacks. I am arguing that the article in JoStrans is not pertinent. There have been no cases ever (Byrne admits this) of translators held liable for tort or any type of damages resulting from poor translation. Byrne's argument is that such liability is possible. Whether it is true or not, it is not wikiworthy. maxsch 17:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is you make claims without any backings. Why? The princple "duty of care" is the statutory law term, and "purpose and use" was developed within the ruling. How do you conclude all of your relevations, spell out your sources? You claim you are verifiable. "Wikiworthy" is something that just popped into your mind. Its a nice pun. So get the verifiable things on the table. Claiming falsifications without any verifiable backing has no value here. Why are you making a big secret about your verifiable sources? You need to give me a chance to falsify them too. --Eurominuteman 17:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

One could perhaps leave a brief mention of potential liability in the "Translation-quality standards" article, but I agree with maxsch that the JoStrans article is not pertinent to a general article on translation. Jbhood 17:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The Translation article is over-inflated with literary and artistic focus, even though only 5% of the translated volume is literary. The Translation article is also directed to the 95% of other translators too. Translation liability, translation risk, and translation quality are built upon each other. This build must be presented within the Translation article in a systems fashion, then it can be detailed into other articles. This building structure is necessary within Translation. You may not all agree about the content, but you cannot deny that Translation is the structural platform for detail issues, which should not be over-inflated with literary things. We have a structure question, and a content question to answer. --Eurominuteman 17:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I am using the same sources as you are. Byrne's article may be interesting, but it contains no information that belongs in the wikipedia article. Why? Because it is speculative. This 1990 ruling that you refer to also does not belong in the wikipedia article. Why? Because it is not about translation, it is about information service provision. Its only connection to translation is in Byrne's speculations. Risk management, again, not a false statement, in fact not a statement at all. It is just two words. If you are arguing that risk management strategies are applicable to translation service providers, maybe that belongs in the article on risk management instead of the article on translation. That is because the translation article is not about translation service providers. Do you see what I mean? maxsch 18:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Translation is governed by principles. These are efficient cause ones, and the final cause ones. The efficient cause ones are not the sole principles that are in application for a translation. The court only made this clear because it faced a liability case, in case of liability there is no speculation any more. Speculation was in the pre-1990 era. You cannot structurally outrule valid principles, just because you are not acquainted to them. If facing the liabilities, you wish you would have. This is the place to pick up the first step awareness. Keeping people in ignorance is what threatens Wiki's integrity. --Eurominuteman 18:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Which part of this statement do you not understand? "This 1990 ruling that you refer to also does not belong in the wikipedia article. Why? Because it is not about translation, it is about information service provision. Its only connection to translation is in Byrne's speculations." maxsch 18:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It was about a ruling on liability risks, in the course that final cause principles where missing. Those people were liable, who were in lack of presenting final cause argumentation, and thought they could rely on efficient cause argumentation. This was a legal illusion, thus a liability risk. You guys want to unduly promote a non-liability and non-risk illusion if the readers stay clean and pure as you define purity. --Eurominuteman 18:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

But it was not about translation!!! maxsch 18:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It was about the sole use of efficient cause and the lack of final cause. The same legal mistake as you are promoting. You are trying to put legal "duty of care" outside the duties of translation. This is a legal mistake and illusion. --Eurominuteman 18:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no case law connecting translation with any type of liability. Therefore, translation is outside the legal framework you are describing. My source for this is none other than the infamous Jody Byrne. You are trying to apply abstract legal principles that have nothing to do with translation. The bottom line is that risk of liability does not belong in an article about translation, because although such risk has been posited, it has never, ever been demonstrated. maxsch 20:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you verify that translation is a safe haven? haha. What a bullshit. Nobody is outside the legal framework. If liability in court occurs, you must stand in front of a court and deliver response.

Even one of my translations was in front of a court 2 years ago because my client did not get money from his client, so I had to demonstrate my "duty of care" within the service chain. I could because, as an trained German economist and US business administrator, my Standard Form Contract is based on Final Cause and I had my processes aligned to the quality standard DIN 2345. My client got his money. I was dragged by the lawyer into the litigation because he wanted to reserve the opportunity to perform litigation against me if his client did not win the case. We won the case because I was positioned to respond legally with regard to my translation. I have a concrete German case about this, then I read about it from Byrne.

You guys are in an illusion. "duty of care" is a preemptive legal duty. Be glad that Byrne gave you a wakeup call. It is time to wake up gentlemen. There is no safe haven. You spread false statements and you can not verify that translations are in a safe haven. --Eurominuteman 05:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Wake up Call

Apparently the ignorance prevails that Translation is outside of any legal litigation and is positioned in some kind of safe haven. This is false and you cannot prove it. You are trying to bend the statements of various verified sources I have delivered to create a false impression without delivering reverse verification. This is a dangerous ignorance. The Translation article is a bullshit Wiki source if you think you can omit "duty of care" and "negligence" and their ramifications to keep this ignorance going. You purists are just not updated. It is time to wake up. You are endangering the integrity of a Wiki article by spreading this nonsense without verification.

Wiki administrators have the duty to demand that verification of such flat false statements is made and that revertion attempts to a non-verified status is protected.

The newest German Translator Magazine from BDÜ has a full edition about legal translation issues. It sells like hot buns in Germany. I am buying one too. Look at the archive list of MDÜ. 3/2007 Recht in der Übersetzungspraxis. The bilingual Wiki administrator Sandstein is called to clarify this point.

1. Please deliver some verification about these false statements you are spreading.

2. Please explain how you are going to display your willingness to comply with the legal "duty of care".

--Eurominuteman 05:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Purpose and Use of the Translation Article

The purpose is to offer an overview platform to navigate into detail questions without structurally biasing issues. It is used by all domains of translations and translators, because the term translator is also technically forwarded into this main platform. It is not the purpose of the Translation article to over-inflate and bias a certain domain of translation, namely the literary focus. --Eurominuteman 18:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to write an article about technical translation and technical translators. There is more in the translation article about literary translation because there is more historical scholarship about literary translation. However, the section entitled literary translation does not in any way purport to be more important than technical translation. But think of it this way, the wikipedia article on painting has a lot more about artistic painting than about house painting. I would certainly think that many more gallons of paint are used in house painting than in the production of art. Is that a similar bias? maxsch 18:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

"Duty of care" applies to all translation domains. There is no legal differentiation. You want to hold and create such an illusion.

All translation domains are touched by final cause principles in front of a court. The risk effectively exists, so you need risk management and quality management to remedy things and display your willingness for "duty of care". How are you going to display your willingness to comply with "duty of care". You effectively don't want to. That is the problem. That is not very wise...--Eurominuteman 18:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The article is titled Translation, not Issues for Professional Translators to Consider. Also, speak english please. maxsch has much more patience and has done a commendable job in trying to reason with you. I, on the other hand, am reasonably sure that you will not listen to reason but I will try. You should go to Wikibooks, and write a textbook teaching future and current professional translators about the inherent risks involved. Wikipedia is not the place for it though. Man It's So Loud In Here 19:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I prefer taking bets that a judge will crack on you all in front of a court. I think Jody Bryne wrote his article in good faith, more than you guys, besides I see the German articles emerging too now, parallel. Your article structure is a legal mistake and an illusion of old purist days. Not up-to-date as Wiki requires.--Eurominuteman 19:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

So how are you going to display your willingness to comply with "duty of care"? Artistic and literary excuses and "yes, buts" don't count in front of a court, I am afraid. --Eurominuteman 19:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

a judge will crack on you all in front of a court - Are we back to legal threats? Also: what do you have against TW? Finally, what do you mean by willingness to comply with "duty of care" (please give your answer in english)? Man It's So Loud In Here 19:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I was figuratively talking about taking bets if enlightenment does not prevail. There was never a legal threat. Pointing out to potential risks and correlating such to opportunities, this fits together in my risk management mind. Threat is in your mind set. This has nothing to do with me.

TW must be used wisely as I have read. And abuse is apparently a no-no, as I further gather. So, why do you need it? What's your purpose?

"Duty of care" is a legal duty as the term implies. Yet, implementation of the duty requires the will to do so, thus willingness is required. Now comes the question: How are you going to display your willingness to comply with your "duty of care"? The legal requirement does exist... By performing an artistically and colorfully sung rain dance does not appear to be appropriate or even effective to me.

--Eurominuteman 20:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

"Duty of care" is not a legal duty by itself. There must be something that requires care and some agreement in which one party agrees to perform an act. Your use of the term here is hollow and careless. maxsch 20:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Bullshit. This is a false legal statement and you cannot verify it. That "something" is the translation naturally. Translation is the object. Even if a third party has damages, a lawyer will find a way to get to you. Even Byrne describes this case, if no direct contractual relationship exists. Read about duty of care. "In tort law, a duty of care is a legal obligation imposed on an individual requiring that they exercise a reasonable standard of care while performing any acts that could foreseeably harm others. For an action in negligence, there must be an identified duty of care in law." You are ignorant about your legal translation duties. That is why it should put into the Translation article. --Eurominuteman 05:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The copyright side issue

Greetings. I'm an uninvolved admin. All materials are copyrighted as soon as they are published, whether they include a © symbol or not. This applies to websites as much as anything else. This is true both in the U.S. (per U.S. Copyright law) and the EU (per the Berne treaty). Please do not add sentences that you copied and pasted from copyrighted sources.

In addition, please work with other users on talk pages to build consensus, rather than revert-warring. Being continuously uncivil and engaging in repeated revert wars can get you blocked. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

My information does not conform with you about the requirement to indicate the (C) sign etc. But I will deliver some verifable sources. I have no need to hide these sources. I am asking for verifiable sources from the other party. I have produced verifiable sources for my information contributions. Nobody can make claims without having a reverse burden-of-proof to present the validations. This is my maturity level in this discussion. --Eurominuteman 17:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Here it is. A US lawyer writes. The copyright format must publically indicated in order to indicate its effectiveness. I found it in 5 minutes. "Learn from this experience and in the future, put your name in a prominent place on all your work, with the copyright symbol, date, and "all rights reserved" statement. That puts everyone on notice that your creation can't be borrowed unless they pay for the privilege."

"Joan E. Lisante is an attorney and freelance writer who lives in the Washington, DC, area. She writes consumer-related legal features for The Washington Post, the Plain Dealer, the Spokane Spokesman-Review and the Toledo Blade (Ohio). She is also a contributing editor to LawStreet.comand ConsumerAffairs.com."

Copyright Basics: How to Create Your Work and Keep It, Too

--Eurominuteman 18:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Translation. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Dreadstar † 18:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked again

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Eurominuteman (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am not disrupting the article. I am updating and improving the article with verified content. Look at the Wake up Call in this discussion. These people are endangering the integrity of the Translation article by not providing verification of their generalizations, and by making flat false statements and by making flat false conclusions. They are bending the structure and the content of the article in an undue and un-proportional manner by refusing to deliver verified content. Not even one single link from several parties since the beginning of this dispute weeks ago. They are trying to circumvent their duty to deliver verified content and fake consensus around an obsolete information status. I have delivered verified content. It is false to claim that the verified sources are not relevant for the article. UK and and now emerging German sources prove that this conclusion is false. Look at the Translation article discussion too. This article needs protection against such rogue reality bending.

Decline reason:

You have not worked with other editors, you have not attempted good-faith dispute resolution, you have been uncivil and yes, disruptive. Your unblock request gives no assurances that you intend to learn policy and guidelines here - in fact, you make it clear that you are on a mission to "fix" the article to your notion of "the right version" - in other words, you intend to continue to edit war and disrupt until you get your way. In short, you have given no reason whatsoever why we should consider unblocking you. — KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• Even if you are right, it is not an excuse for edit-warring and repeatedly reverting to your favourite version of the article. - Mike Rosoft 09:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Eurominuteman (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

What about the others? Are they blocked too? If you block me, then the administrator needs to block them too. This is no excuse not to block the others, who displayed the same amount of behavior. I use verified, valid, conclusive, and up-to-date sources displaying facts, not favorite sources (1990 court ruling, EN/IEC Guide 73, IS0 9001:2001, EN-15038:2006). Facts are not disruptive as you imply. I am not presenting opinions, which may be disputable. Court rulings and international standards are not disputable. You are overstretching and abusing the term Disruption. The use of court rulings and international standards is not specified to allow the use of disruption as reasoning. On the contrary, the repeated use of fake falsifications without delivering valid verification is disruptive. The other parties are favoring an obsolete version because of personal preferences, and therefore do not provide genuine verification for their fake falsification attempts. It is very simple... if they could/would genuinely verify their statements there would no problem. They avoid this step since weeks. Not one single link of verification is provided. There is enough raw data proof of this throughout all of the discussions. An administrator is committed to protect verified content under Wiki's 5 pillar principles in order to guarantee the integrity of Wiki's articles. These are higher-ranking principles that overrule procedural principles like here indicated as reasoning. This reasoning is implemented unproportionally in comparison with Wiki's 5 pillar principles. This administrator is abusing his privileges by blocking un-proportionally. This administrator protects fake falsifications instead of moderating the step to attain the missing genuine verifications. This administrator is painting a scapegoat un-proportionally. The administrator is protecting an obsolete version against pressing facts. This is all in breach of Wiki's overruling 5 pillar principles.

Decline reason:

You are missing the point. We do not tolerate edit wars here. Your block is valid because you have been edit warring. Please read WP:3RR. If you believe other people are edit-warring, please report them. This is not an excuse for you to engage in the same behaviour. — Yamla 13:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

(Edit conflict): Decline. Your request amounts to "but I am right and the others are wrong". This assertion, and your blanket reference to WP:5P, do not constitute sufficient grounds for your unblock. You have failed to show how, specifically, your block violates our blocking policy. Sandstein 13:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Eurominuteman (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

1. I know you do not tolerate edit-wars, yet this only applies within the contraints of Wiki's 5 constitutional (pillar) principles as aligning principles. The mechanical click counting approach as procedural approach does not overrule Wiki's 5 pillar principles. This is how I can measure if the administrator's mind-set abuses his implementation privileges.

The administrator must observe that these 5 constitutional (pillar) principles are not breached in first order (final cause), if he wants to implement procedural measures in second order (efficient cause). It is not the other way around.

This constitutes sufficient grounds to place a complaint, of how the administrator's mind-set approach is skewed. I again refer to the above descriptions of how Wiki's 5 pillar principles are currently being breached by the other party in this context, and the follow-up duty breach of the administrator under Wiki's 5 pillar principles, which is still gapping open as incident and is not remedied.

2. I am not talking about right or wrong. You are putting words into my mouth. These are not the categories to describe the situation properly. I am talking about verified facts. I don't need to war about verified facts. I don't really do this actually. I don't know other people who do it either.

I embrace facts. This is where the difference emerges, about who is really edit warring. It is the people who have trouble embracing verified facts. Most people don't have this trouble.

The administrator is aligning his privileges in a false direction in a mechanical fashion, and sub-ranks Wiki's 5 pillar principles. The administrator does not have this authority. Please forward my complaint about this to higher peer levels.

These other parties are warring and are using the "yes, buts" without presenting verification for their position, instead of embracing the facts. I deliver verified factual content (1990 court ruling, EN/IEC Guide 73, IS0 9001:2001, EN-15038:2006).

3. If I look at the detail specification list that defines the term Disruption, I do not see that "verified facts" are in any way a reason to declare "Disruption" on my part. On the contrary, verified facts are the core purpose of Wikipedia's encyclopedic integrity. The administrator is performing unproportional upside-down assessments, he is over-stretching and randomly abusing the term Disruption, and is thus downgrading the integrity of Wikipedia within this mix-up.

4. How can I report an editing-war if I am blocked? I will report it.

So, please unblock me, and do your core duties in the proper direction and fashion. And stop the fact and reality bending. This incident is completely out-of-proportion.

Decline reason:

You are both making no sense and abusing the unblock tag after unblock was declined by five or so admins. Talk page protected.— Sandstein 21:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.