User:Jeronimo
I'm a computer science student from the Netherlands.
My contributions to Wikipedia, which form a welcome distraction from work:
- Sport. I've restructured the lists of sports on this site (though the introduction is still not to my liking), and have added to several pages of individual sports, such as biathlon and speed skating. I've also worked on the Olympic Games page, though there's a lot of work left there. I also write small biographies of athletes, such as Paavo Nurmi or Georg Hackl.
- I often add to topics about or related to the Netherlands, my home country.
- I like to start small articles about geographical topics, usually cities or regions. They're usually not much more than a starter, but it's better than merely "X is a (city/region/rivier) in country Y".
I usually prefer to split articles that get lenghty into sections and subsections. Although this may make it not as good prose to read, I often find it much easier to find certain information, and that's what an encyclopedia is about IMO.
Below is some talk from other Wikipedians:
Hey another sporting wikipedian. Cool. Liked your articles on Nurmi, van Langen et al. Interesting choices, as well.
What, another computer science student! Just kidding. Wanted to say that I like your contributions to Olympic sports articles. Also wanted to apologize for not not welcoming you to the 'pedia sooner (I must have fell asleep at my desk or something when you first popped up on the 'Recent Changes' page). Welcome to wikipedia! --maveric149 (Yes, I am a confessed wikipediholic)
Hello! re: your note on my talk page on Olympic template: have at it! I like the idea of a WikiProject. RjLesch Follow-up: I went ahead and created WikiProject Sports Olympics. - rjl
DEAR Jheijmans:
AS THE AUTHOR OF THE MATERIAL YOU REMOVED FROM THE BASKETBALL ARTICLE, I MUST SAY I THINK THE ARTICLE IS MUCH WEAKER IN ITS CHANGED FORM.
I'M NOT AN EXPERT ON NPOV, BUT SURELY IT DOESN'T REQUIRE SUCH A BLOODLESS FEEL AS THE ARTICLE NOW HAS IN ITS REVISED FORM.
AS FOR BEING TOO "AMERICAN" IN ITS BIAS, WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT? THE GAME WAS INVENTED IN AMERICA, AND ITS CULTURE IS LARGELY AMERICAN. IF YOU WANT TO ADD FOREIGN MATERIAL ABOUT BASKETBALL TO THE ARTICLE, FINE. I'M SURE IT WOULD BE A USEFUL ADDITION.
BUT ISN'T IT BETTER TO TREAT BIAS BY ADDING MATERIAL, SO AS TO ROUND OUT THE PICTURE, AND RESPECT THE HARD WORK OF OTHERS?
TO DELETE SO MUCH... I'M NOT AT ALL CONVINCED YOU'VE DONE THE RIGHT THING.
MY APOLOGIES IF THIS OFFENDS YOU. I DON'T MEAN TO HURT YOUR FEELINGS -- JUST TRYING TO CONVEY MINE.
SINCERELY YOURS ANDREW SZANTON
Andrew, I must say that I sincerely doubted when rewriting the article, and I have placed the parts I removed in the Talk page of basketball. The article certainly wasn't bad, but I felt it lacked a little structure, and had some sentences that needed replacing - but I was unable to do so. While the anecdotes about tobacco burns and hatpins are nice, I doubt if they belong to an encyclopedia - if they do, the rest of the article could use some as well, they stand out a little.
I don't know anybody who compares basketball with jazz (except for the Utah team), so it sounded very odd to me.
And some of the US 'biased' (perhaps focus is a better word) parts could be put back in with a little addition. For example: In the US, the game is often called "the city game". This makes it easier for non-Americans to read it.
If you're not convinced about my changes - feel free to change it back ("be bold in updating pages"). Alternatively, we could try to work out something that suits us both, probably giving rise to a better solution.
DEAR Jheijmans:
I'm pleased by your gracious tone and sensible suggestions. I had worked hard on my article and had the usual author's pride. Plus, I'm passionate about basketball. So I got touchy about what you did.
But I recognize this is a collective project so... I have to give up some control over what I write.
The point about basketball being like jazz seems to be right, and is not an original insight of mine. Michael Novak, in his well-regarded book, "The Joy of Sports" makes the point, and many others probably have too.
Let's try to work out something that satisfies us both, okay?
Thanks again for your civil response.
Andrew
Different sources give different numbers of participants, see: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=1896+athens+olympics+245 http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=1896+athens+olympics+311 I don't understand the discrepancy. The official olympics site gives your figure (245). I'll try and see where the other 66 go... -- GWO