87.139.69.2

I did not miss your point. About Hochkirch, you say:

• No pages link here: as far as I know, there is no rule that says pages have to be linked in order to exist. Check the link "Orphan pages" on any Wiki. You have loads of articles.
• Page is a stub: it's also a stub of similar importance in the biggest Wikipedia: English. Why not request it's deletion there too? Because it's the English one (amen)? Stubs existe there and everywhere too. This article is no exception. Rules exist in some wikis regarding stubs but those are not necessarily followed by others and should not be single-handedly enforced by outsiders.
• Nobody who knows about this subject speaks Volapük: I wonder how you know that. Many of the Volapük speakers are Germans. Anyway, you can find always subjects of which speakers of some language don't know much about. That's why there are references and sources. You don't have to live there to write about it.
• People that speak Volapük can read it in another language: old matter of discussion. This is not the place for it. Take that discussion to Meta for example, and don't forget to mention Sorbian, Alsatian, Zealandic, etc........
• What's the point of writing this article when there are others more important?: I believe what to write about is a matter of personal preference of one and each contributor. If so far no one felt like writing about (let's suppose) Buda, it's because no one felt interested in writing about it. It's still no reason to delete articles other people had more interest in creating.

Given the above, I find no substance in your specific request for the article you tagged for deletion (Hochkirch). 3 of the 5 reasons you provide aim at the "minority" of this Wikipedia. Deletion of stubs is not a rule applicable here at this point. Either way, I'd like to welcome you to contribute as you can, preferrably in a constructive way. Thanks, Malafaya 14:28, 2008 yanul 15id (UTC)

I'm the person who created this stub, and I agree with Malafaya. Proposing an article for deletion just because it is a stub and nothing links there is not an acceptable reason in any Wikipedia I've been to. (I recently placed the LA-template -- for deletion -- in a few similar stubs in de.wp -- 3-sentence stubs to which nothing linked and which nobody seemed to be interested in improving -- only to have my edits reverted and a message from a sysop placed on my talk page telling me not to do that unless I had a better reason.) --Smeira 14:37, 2008 yanul 15id (UTC)

• 3 of the 5 reasons aim at the „minority“ of this Wikipedia: As I said I'm mainly talking about the minority of the subject. Including pictures and such does not help making the subject more relevant.
• Why not delete the English stub: No problem, delete it. It could be recreated in no time if anyone wants to write something usefull about the subject.
• People that speak Volapük can read it in another language: I have the same opinion about the two Sorbian Wikipedias. In my opinion it would be better if those people help to improve the German and English articles instead of writing their own. However, there is a big difference (besides the native speakers): The number of speakers is about 10 000 times larger than for Volapük.
• What's the point of writing this article when there are others more important: I wonder why you are talking about „people“ if the article was created by a bot? However, I think it would be nice to have an article about Saxän where all the 22 districts are mentioned and another one about the district of Bautzen (which is missing at the moment) where all the 30 municipalities are mentioned. What I do not understand is: Who should ever improve the stubs of all the 13 000 municipalities? Do you know what „Gießkannenprinzip“ means? Of course you are editing Hochkirch at the moment because I pointed you at it. But when will you improve the 12 999 other articles?
• Contribute in a constructive way: That's what I'm trying to do at the moment. If an article had a bad quality for a long time, it's sometimes better to delete it. For me that's an importand part of quality assurance.
• Nobody who knows about this subject speaks Volapük: This is easy. Because there are only ~30 people who speak Volapük, we could ask them if they are interested in the subject and who wants to write an usefull article.
• There is no rule that says pages have to be linked: This leads me to another question: What are the rules here in the Volapük Wikipedia?

--87.139.69.2 15:54, 2008 yanul 15id (UTC)

First of all let me greet you for your comments. It's sometimes hard to talk about these subjects with some people... but you seem to be a cool person.

Regarding the minor languages, it's a goal of WMF to have well-represented Wikipedias in as many languages as possible (they mention over 6,500). Of course it's almost impossible to achieve that. This to say that all languages are legitimate, even if there are only 2 speakers worldwide. So, WMF encourages Wikipedias in any language (Lower Sorbian has recently been approved). Deleting the English stub? I'm not in favour of that but if you are, I think you should propose it although I doubt seriously you won't be taken for a vandal. I'm currently improving Hochkirch at it seems to have some importance for you. As for Saxän and Bautzen, we can also work on them. Putting a template about German states or disttricts is also not that hard. Slowly articles will be improved. Wikipedia has no deadlines, has it? ;). About rules, there is a proposal and discussion about what articles are supposed to be speedily deleted at Vükiped:Kafetar#Mo.C3.BCkab. After we get a consensus, this will be made available in a more appropriate page. Thanks for your comments, Malafaya 16:41, 2008 yanul 15id (UTC)

I don't care about languages. I have no problem with articles like vo:Johann Martin Schleyer or vo:Konstanz. What I care about is the village Hochkirch.

I talked with the mayor of Hochkirch and some other members of the municipal council. I asked them: whenever somebody wanted to know something about Hochkirch, which languages were involved? The answers included German (of course), Czech, Polish, Russian, Sorbian (hsb and dsb), English and even Swiss German and Dutch (Dutch tourists are riding ski in the mountains near Hochkirch). But nobody in the past 100 years ever requested information about the village in Volapük (believe me, they would remember).

Of course, in theory it may be possible that on some day one of the ~30 Volapük speakers in the world want to know something about Hochkirch, finds nothing than a stub and starts translating the German article. And after that he continues with the 12 999 other stubs of German municipalities. Do the math. I think it's a quite fair estimation to say: this will never happen in the next 100 years. So why not simply drop these stubs and start with some main topics like countries or federal states? --87.139.69.2 12:03, 2008 yanul 16id (UTC)

Dear 87.139.69.2, what you say is indeed interesting. I think it stems from a vision of Wikipedia that is simply different from what I understand it to be. You seem to think that a certain topic only deserves an article if someone in the given community is potentially interested in it. [I was not talking about a "community". What I asked was: Who in the world will ever read an article about Hochkirch written in Volapük?] So if nobody in the Sorbian Wikipedias wants to know about a Brazilian politician, there should never be an article on one there. Before continuing, let me recommend this text, found at Meta: m:Providing information when there is little or none, by GerardM, a member of the WMF Language Committee: it better reflects my views on what a Wikipedia ought to be.

• Basically: any encyclopedic topic is worthy of an article in any Wikipedia in any language. An article on Hochkirch is OK in the German, English, French, Sorbian, Esperanto, Volapük, Hawaiian, Maori, Quechua, Aymara, or Navajo Wikipedia, simply because it is a relevant topic for an encyclopedia (inhabited settlements). [I was not talking about "relevance". As above: Who will ever read the article?] If no single speaker of the language knows the place first-hand and cannot write on it, translating what s/he might find in another source (another Wikipedia, a paper encyclopedia, or any other reference work) is quite OK. A certain Wikipedia community may decide that they are only interested in local topics -- it's their right to do so, there's nothing wrong with that. [I used the "local topic" as an example only. If nobody will ever read an article about whatever topic, what sense does it make to create one in the first place?] But they may also decide otherwise, and this is also OK. If the mayor of Hochkirch would be surprised to know there's some information on this town available in Volapük [You may be surprised that he don't care about at all.], that doesn't make this information "bad" or "in need of deletion". It is still correct information. [How do you know? There is not a single reference in the article. How should other people decide if it's "correct information" if only ~30 people in the world are able to read the language? The only solution for such people is to delete the potentially wrong and dangerous information as I'm trying to do.] In other words: if a community decides they want all kinds of information, even things that are not "locally relevant", there's nothing wrong with that. It just increases the amount of information available in that language.
• Another thing: which topics should come first? [I'm talking about "top-down", what you do is "bottom-up". I know the difference. Do you know it too?] You ask: why not countries, federal states, etc? Well, countries and federal states are already here; you can look them up (e.g. Fransän, Lamerikän, Brasilän, Yapän...). We're also dealing with the List of articles that every Wikipedia should have, proposed at Meta: 106 of these have already been translated (as you can see by inspecting the category: Klad:Yegeds vipabik).
• But... there is no necessary order for anyone to write anything in a Wikipedia. If I (the author of all those stubs) think German Gemeinde are worthy of my attention, then I do them. If I wanted to work on something else, I'd work on something else. [I'm not interested in what you are doing as an user. I'm talking to you because you are an administrator.] There's no pressure, no deadline, no obligatory order in which information should be made available. Every Wikipedian sets his/her prioprities, in accordance with what the community wants. [What does the Volapük community want? Translating everything ever written into a language nobody is able to read except for ~30 people on the world? For what reason? Why not writing a dictionary instead?]
• But... it was written by bots, not by humans! Here, I fundamentally differ. Bots can't do anything by themselves. It's humans who use bots to create articles, it's humans who design the articles that bots create -- and they are designed to be readable to humans, not to other bots. So the person responsible for these stubs is not my bot -- it is me, Smeira. I wrote them, translating information from the German Wikipedia, because I wanted to. It's always people; bots can't do anything without people. [Don't talk to me like I'm stupid, please. I know what a bot is and how it works. That doesn't change anything. A bot-generated stub is still a bot-generated stub.]
• And the 'minority' of this Wikipedia? This is, I think, another mistaken idea about what Wikipedia is. If Volapük only has 20-30 speakers (note it could have more: like all constructed languages, it can attract other people to become speakers [A mission of Wikipedia is to "attract other people to become speakers of a constructed language"? Are you sure?] -- that's how it got those 20-30, after all; it's not limited to them), this doesn't mean its Wikipedia has to have few articles. If there is a way to produce articles with correct, relevant and readable information [What do you mean by "readable"? There is no text to read.], then it can be used, and there's nothing bad in that. It's not like a local supermarket, that only has products local people want to buy: anything that can be put here and is correctly written and has accurate information of the kind that a comprehensive Encyclopedia would have is welcome! There probably are some articles in any encyclopedia that, by accident, nobody ever looked at; that doesn't mean they shouldn't be there. If they can be there (i.e. if they cost next to nothing and if they don't take the place of other, more important articles), then they should be. This is obviously so for Wikipedias (because wiki is not paper); no article ever damages or prevents other articles from existing. [It does because nobody will be able to find an usefull article in an ocean of useless stubs.] Do you see the point? [I asked the same question first.] These stubs do no harm, [I said the opposite before.] cost almost nothing, [They cost my time.] and add some information. [Add information to what?] There's no reason to remove them. [There are reasons. What do you thing I was talking about? You decided to ignore the reasons. That's a difference.]
• I support the idea that Wikipedia should make the largest possible amount of information available to the largest possible number of people in whatever language they chose to see it. If people prefer to contribute to the Sorbian, or Volapük, or Esperanto, or Hawaiian, or Navajo Wikipedia instead of the German, English or French Wikipedias, it's their decision, and nobody has the right to tell them they should be working on another Wikipedia. It's all voluntary work anyway; in all Wikipedias, we do it because we like it, not because of the high salaries :-)... These stubs are making a lot of information available in Volapük that had never, ever before been available in that language. [For what reason? Probability says, they will "never, ever" be read.] That's a good step forward. [Forward to what?] Since it costs next to nothing (which is the reason why WMF wants to cover the whole 6500 languages, not only the current 300-something), this doesn't harm anyone. [At the moment, it harms all people that are stuck in such discussions as I am.]
• So, to summarize: there are few Volapukists, but since it costs almost nothing and there are people willing to do the job for free (me, for example), it's OK to have lots of information in it. Using bots, as long as the resulting articles are readable, accurate, and relevant (like human settlements), is not a problem, but a solution. [A solution for what problem?] Improving the articles can happen and maybe will (by bot, for instance: that's how it was done in the Dutch, Russian and Portuguese Wikipedians, among others); but even if it doesn't happen, the stubs are still providing some information that had never before been available in this language. [As above: For what reason?] As they are, they already are a tiny, but positive, contribution. So I really don't see a problem here; I only see different visions of what Wikipedia is about. (Have a look at the discussions at m:Meta:Proposal for Policy on overuse of bots in Wikipedias, where various viewpoints are presented.)

Now, I hope I have made my position clearer to you. Thanks for the interest in all this! It's good to be able to discuss this topic, which I find really interesting! --Smeira 12:53, 2008 yanul 16id (UTC)

You wrote a lot. I found it easier to put my questions in brackets (see above) instead of repeating what you wrote. --87.139.69.2 17:52, 2008 yanul 16id (UTC)

There is a lot to say. There are several threads in this topic that need to be unwoven, hence the long answers. Also presuppositions need to be discussed, problems of logics, goals, etc. Now, let me give you answers to your comments:

1. (your most frequent question:) Who in the world will ever read an article about Hochkirch written in Volapük?

ANSWER: Somebody who learned the language and wanted to know about Hochkirch. Who will ever read about the Dutch city of Assen in Latin? (yet: la:Assen). Or about galaxies? (yet: la:Galaxias). Or about quantum mechanics? (yet: la:Mechanica quantica). Answer: someone who wants to. And what if nobody ever does? Well, there are lots of pages in all Wikipedias that probably nobody will ever need, or want, to read. Should they be deleted because of that? I don't think so. Because: (a) there is always the off chance that someone will; (b) because there are people who are willing to write up the articles and make the information available in that language, and (c) because it costs the WMF next to nothing, and gives them good publicity ("information in any language you may care to wish"). Yes, maybe the short answer is: it's not a question of "who wants to read it", but actually a question of: "is it encyclopedic information, and is there someone who wants to write it up"? I see the ultimate goal of Wikipedia as: providing all good information about all topics in all languages. Not: in languages with speakers who may be interested in this topic; but in all languages. As long as someone will write it up, and as long as it costs next to nothing, what is the problem?

2. How do you know if the information is correct? There are no sources.

ANSWER: in the case of Hochkirch, as in the case of all other stubs on German Gemeinde: the source is the German Wikipedia. This of course needs to be indicated in the articles -- it's one of the things I want to add to all the articles (a bot can add that, of course) as soon as I have enough time to concentrate on this. (Or perhaps Malafaya will -- I have to ask him.) I most definitely disagree that the best is to delete "potentially dangerous" information: it's better to ask that the sources be mentioned. (NB: I've already found mistakes in other Wiki's -- there are several articles with wrong claims in, for example, the German Wikipedia in my area of expertise (native languages of the Amazon region in South America); my attitude to them is not: delete the article! it has wrong information! it's dangerous! (why?), but: I think this or that is wrong (and here are published sources to confirm that). It's always better to correct the information than to delete the article.

3. Do you know the difference between top-down and bottom-up?

ANSWER: Yes, of course. Why? Both are good ways to get to an end. (In my own specialty -- historical linguistics -- bottom-up and top-down are standard approaches that are complementary to each other, though some linguists will specialize in one or the other.)

4. What does the Volapük community want? Translating everything ever written into a language nobody is able to read except for ~30 people on the world? For what reason? Why not writing a dictionary instead?

ANSWER: Well, for starters, a dictionary already exists (last edition from the 1930's); and a Wiktionary project is already ongoing (see http://vo.wiktionary.org ). The goal of every Wikipedia project is an open question, of course, depending on the resources of the community; I don't think translating everything would be feasible. But translating a lot may be feasible, and as long as the topics are OK (encyclopedic, accurate, readable), this is a good goal. Why? Well, for the same reason as any other project: because we think it should be available also in this language. Again, if it costs next to nothing and there are people willing to do the work, what is the problem?

Many of your comments seem to stem from the idea that Wikipedias should only be "immediately useful": i.e. only in languages in which there's a good chance that someone will need the information. I, and many other people in other Wikipedias, disagree, and I suggest again Gerard's text m:providing information when there is little or none as an example of what the ideals of the WMF are. Or else, why would there be projects in dead languages like Latin or Old English or Ancient Greek, or in dialectal languages like Zeews, or Plattdeutsch, or Napulitanu? Answer: because making all information available in all languages is in itself a worthy goal. This doesn't mean on the number of speakers -- the "immediate usefulness". This is simply an ideal.

4. Don't talk to me like I'm stupid, please. I know what a bot is and how it works. That doesn't change anything. A bot-generated stub is still a bot-generated stub.

ANSWER: First of all, I don't know what you know or don't know; I don't want to offend you, I just simply don't know you, just like you don't know me and don't know what I know or don't know.

On bot-stubs: a bot-stub is a stub. I don't see any reason to judge it differently from any other stubs (e.g. with the criteria of m:good stub, etc.). If they're readable, accurate and relevant (like, for instance, inhabited settlements), they're OK. If you think that being created with a bot makes them inherently bad, then you must provide reasons -- it isn't at all obvious that, for example, vo:Streator, despite being bot-created, is worse than the manually created de:Streator. If you don't provide reasons, your opinion tends to look like simple prejudice.

5. What do you mean by "readable"? There is no text to read.

ANSWER: Of course there is -- three to five sentences. It's not a "big" text, but the information given -- basic statistical data + coordinates and a location map -- doesn't need any more. If what you're looking for is well-written, beautiful prose, you can find articles like that too (e.g. vo:Matemat, vo:Arie de Jong, vo:Rumän...), but not the city stubs. Note that the absence of a longer text doesn't make these stubs useless: they give basic information, and therefore have only a basic standard text.

6. A mission of Wikipedia is to "attract other people to become speakers of a constructed language"? Are you sure?

ANSWER: No, not "a mission"; "a consequence". Are you misreading me? Where did I say this was Wikipedia's mission!? Now, "a consequence": yes. Wikipedias tend to have this effect on smaller language communities: a speaker of a Dutch dialect once commented in a discussion that the existence of a Wikipedia in his language had had a good effect on the community of speakers (it gives them "more pride", if you will). Even if this is not "Wikipedia's mission", I'm sure Wikipedia doesn't mind that a bit: it actually is good PR :-)...

But anyway, you really misread me: at that point in the text, I wasn't even talking about Wikipedia as a means of motivating people; I merely said that Volapük, like all conlangs, relies on "outsiders" who want to learn it; and if some more people want to learn it, then the number you mentioned -- ~30 -- increases. That's a different point.

7. [N]obody will be able to find an usefull article in an ocean of useless stubs

ANSWER: What? They can't simply search for it? If they want to read about mathematics, they search for "matemat" and they find it... as long as there's a good search engine, there's no way a user could not find the topic s/he wants -- as long as there is a page with that title.

But I think you meant something else; something more like: if I wanted to see which are the 'good articles' here, how can I find them? Well, like in other Wikipedias, a good first choice is to explore the thematic links in the Main Page (the little icons with the names of the various fields of knowledge). Another way is to look in the list of long pages: the longest articles tend to be the good ones. You can also look for a category of "good" or "featured" articles: here there are only three (as you can see in the good articles category), since this category was created not long ago, and many good articles haven't had time to be judged yet; but as time goes by this category should increase.

8. They [= the stubs] cost my time. Also: At the moment, it harms all people that are stuck in such discussions as I am.

ANSWER: Well, you don't have to spend time on them if you don't want. If you "lose" your time here, or if it "harms" you to discuss the goal of this project here, it is, after all, your choice. It's not the fault of the stubs... and it's not my fault either.

9. Add information to what?; also: Forward to what? For what reason? Probability says, they will "never, ever" be read; also: A solution to what problem?; also: also: As I said above: For what reason?

ANSWER: To the amount of information available in Volapük. As in the goal I stated: to provide all good information in all languages. If you think Volapük is not a good or big-enough language... then we go back to point 4 above: when making information available in a given language costs so little and there are people willing to do it, then there is no problem in doing it. Same rationale for small languages like Hawaiian, dialects like Zeeuws, dead languages like Latin or Old English, constructed languages like Esperanto, Interlingua or Novial. If you think that making all information available in all languages is in itself not a worthy ideal... OK, don't do it then. I think it is, and other people here (Malafaya, HannesM, Hillgentleman, LadyInGrey, Manie...) also do. If you don't want to do it, you can go elsewhere to pursue other goals, and we'll stay here and pursue this one.

10. There are reasons. What do you thing I was talking about? You decided to ignore the reasons. That's a difference.

ANSWER: I didn't ignore your reasons; I responded to them: I have given arguments for thinking that your reasons are not good. Now, if you want, you can try to discuss the arguments I provide, or add new arguments of your own. Just look through this list: I have not ignored any important arguments that you have mentioned; I have simply presented counterarguments that you now need to address if you want the discussion to go further.

I hope I have succeeded in making my reasons clearer. I think there is a philosophical difference between us (about 'what Wikipedia is for'). This is not bad in itself, but note: this is a true difference, not just an attempt at irritating you. Why would I want to offend or irritate you? I simply think I am right -- vo.wp is not a bad thing --, and I give here the reasons why I think so; and I do this only because you came in and asked. Maybe you think my reasons are wrong; you can then try to say why, and use good counterarguments. Maybe you think it's a waste of time discussing this topic; then you can go do something else. I won't force you to answer, and I won't feel bad if you think you have better things to do then answer me. Just writing this down was already a good exercise in expressing my opinions. Thanks :-) --Smeira 23:31, 2008 yanul 17id (UTC)

Ich finde es wirklich schade, dass sich die Diskussionen zu diesem Thema derart im Kreis drehen. Ich denke, ich weiß jetzt auch, warum das so ist: Ich (und so weit ich die endlosen Diskussionen überblicken konnte auch die meisten anderen Kritiker) sage, dass alle genannten Argumente in ihrer Gesamtheit so schwer wiegen, dass sie eine Reaktion oder zumindest eine Diskussion erforderlich machen. Du reagierst darauf, indem du jedes Argument für sich genommen wiederlegst und das dann als Beweis dafür nutzt, dass es nichts zu diskutieren gäbe. So wird kein konstruktiver Konsens entstehen können.

Ich halte es gerade bei einer so "kleinen" Sprache für sinnvoll und wichtig, strenge Qualitätskriterien aufzustellen, die über das momentan praktizierte "wenn es in irgend einer anderen Wikipedia existiert, darf es auch hier existieren, egal wie kurz es ist" hinaus gehen. Wenn ihr auf Dauer beweisen wollt, dass ihr in der Lage seit, eine qualitativ hochwertige Enzyklopädie aufzubauen, dann tut das bitte konsequent und versucht, die große Kunst des Weglassens in eure Arbeit einfließen zu lassen. --87.139.69.2 16:04, 2008 yanul 31id (UTC)

Ich finde ebenfalls schade, dass die Diskussionen im Kreis drehen, ich sehe es aber nicht als mein Schuld. Du stellst Fragen, ich gebe Antworten: wie kann das schlecht sein? Du sagst, die genannaten Argumenten in ihrer Gesamtheit so schwer wiegen, dass sie eine Reaktion oder Diskussion erforderlich machen; ich bin einverstanden: darum reagiere und diskutiere ich. Was ist das Problem, wenn ich jedes Argument für sich genommen wiederlege? Ist dieses Argumentieren nicht genau die Basis einer Diskussion? Wie kann man anders sehen, welche Gründe es gibt, um anders zu denken? Ist die Kritik nicht ein unentbehrlicher Teil aller Diskussionen? Muss man nicht zeigen, dass es echte Probleme gibt, ehe man Lösungen vorschlägt? Was nennst du hier "konstruktiver Konsens", und wie underscheidet er sich von: "entweder bist du mit mir einverstanden oder hast du kein Recht"?

Ich habe im Prinzip nichts gegen deine Ideen über Qualitätskriterien für "kleine" Sprachen: sie sind jedoch nicht die einzigen, oder selbst die besten, die es gibt. Nochmals schlage ich dir vor, Gerards Text: m:providing information when there is little or none gut durchzulesen, und auch gut darüber nachzudenken, ob es für "kleine Sprachen" oder "kleine Wiki-Gemeinschaften" überhaupt möglich, oder zumindest immer wünschenswert, ist, das, was du "eine qualitativ hochwertige Enzyklopädie" nennst, zu schaffen. Es gibt andere Möglichkeiten, die im Prinzip auch gut sind, wie ich hier auf dieser Seite hoffentlich gut genug erklärt habe, und es gibt andere Menschen, die so denken; das ist auch einfach zu sehen auf der Diskussionsseiten. Hast du z.B. die Argumente auf der Seite m:Meta:Proposal for Policy on overuse of bots in Wikipedias gelesen? Wie reagierst du auf die Ideen und Meinungen von Menschen soals Millosh, Purodha oder GerardM?

Um zusammenzufassen: ich glaube, die Mission der Wikipädie besteht darin, Informationen in allen Sprachen zugänglich zu machen. Für Wikipädien mit grossen Beiträgergemeinschaften kann das auch zu "qualitativ hochwertigen Enzyklopädien" führen; für Wikipädien mit (sehr) kleinen Beiträgergemeinschaften ist das aber nicht der Fall, und sie müssen entweder für immer klein (100-1000 Seiten) bleiben, oder dann etwas anderes tun. Die Entscheidung gehört jedem Projekt: andere Projekten haben nicht das Recht, ein beliebiges Projekt zu Entscheidungen zu zwingen, die sie nicht wollen. Vorschläge und Ratschläge sind aber immer gut, wenn möglich mit guten Argumenten, Gründen, Beispielen usw. --Smeira 16:31, 2008 yanul 31id (UTC)