User talk:Rybec/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Ongoing armed conflicts map

Can you please update the map to include Armenia and Azerbaijan in yellow as well as Egypt shaded in red? Egypt is now in major conflicts (>1000 deaths) and the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict was included in the list, both per talk. Also, thank you for reverting to the original version. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I've coloured Armenia and Azerbaijan, but left Egypt as it was because the claim in Islamist unrests in Egypt (2013–present) of 1,300 killed is not supported by the sources given there. I found and which give lesser figures (less than 1,000). I posted to that article's talk page about it [1]. —rybec 13:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Casualties of the overall crisis would still definitely exceed 1000 deaths because the death toll from August 2013 Cairo sit-ins dispersal alone ranges between 600-900 killed. You can check the casualties section at the bottom of the Islamist unrest article for more information. And add those to the 800+ and 300+ of the Egyptian Revolution of 2011 and the following military transition period respectively along with many more clashes that occurred in Egypt, including the 500+ killed in the Sinai insurgency. That's what was agreed on in the talk page. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you; I hadn't looked at Islamist_unrests_in_Egypt_(2013–present)#Casualties. The dark red is supposed to be for where at least 1,000 people per year have been killed, but 2011 and 2013 are different years. —rybec 14:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, there were lots of casualties in 2012 as well (maybe not 1000+ though), but i think Greyshark09 would have a better opinion than mine on this issue. Because if so, it should be relocated to the minor conflicts list and kept in orange like you said. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 07:25, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Last year there were more than 1,000 casualties, so it should be red. If until the end of this year there would be less than 1,000 (i hope so), then it would become a minor conflict. Now it is a major conflict.GreyShark (dibra) 17:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

How to write Simple English articles listed at Redirects for discussion


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect How to write Simple English articles. Since you had some involvement with the How to write Simple English articles redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. TheChampionMan1234 23:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of 2013 Irkutsk Antonov An-12 crash for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2013 Irkutsk Antonov An-12 crash is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Irkutsk Antonov An-12 crash (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Petebutt (talk) 13:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


Is the first-edit-perfectly-formatted-recreation-of-a-morning277-article sufficient evidence for SPI?

-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews

Hello Rybec. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.

The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.

If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)

If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.

Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

       Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Just to let you know -- Missing Wikipedians

You have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)