User talk:A455bcd9

Controversial move of Judeo-Arabic dialects -> Judeo-Arabic languages

Hello,

You've recently moved this page without any discussion on the talk page or elsewhere. This is clearly a controversial move, as it has already been moved between those two titles before following move requests.

Please revert and open a discussion. High surv (talk) 08:46, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi @High surv,

I chose to be bold. I think the move is fine and wasn't controversial. I won't revert. If you're unhappy with the move, feel free to start a discussion. Cheers, A455bcd9 (talk) 08:48, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi @A455bcd9. The page has already been moved from Judeo-Arabic languages to Judeo-Arabic dialects. There's discussion and a requested move right there on the talk page. Of course it's controversial. High surv (talk) 08:51, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Ah indeed! I didn't know there was such a debate before (didn't check before moving the page). Still, I think the current title is better. If you disagree, feel free to start a discussion. A455bcd9 (talk) 08:54, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

November 2022

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Dhofari Arabic. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. M.Bitton (talk) 17:56, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi @M.Bitton,

Thanks for your message. I reverted your edit once, is that edit warring? If so, I'm sorry! Cheers, A455bcd9 (talk) 17:59, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I'm CorbieVreccan. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Wikipedia talk:No original research that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Stop insulting editors:[1] - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:29, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

@CorbieVreccan: Hi again, could you please tell me what is insulting in my message to M.Bitton? Please also note that M.Bitton and I value each other (Although we may have disagreement 😅). Cheers, A455bcd9 (talk) 22:38, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Look at the diff. If you can't figure it out I can't help you. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:40, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

@CorbieVreccan: I'm sorry but English isn't my native language. Do you consider "I feel sorry for you." insulting? I meant it as "I can't help you", probably in the same way that you've just wrote "If you can't figure it out I can't help you." (and I didn't feel insulted by your message :) ) Or is "I feel sorry for you." more insulting than "I can't help you"? A455bcd9 (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Sámi

Hello, I'm CorbieVreccan. I noticed that you recently removed content from Sámi without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Discussion at Wikipedia talk:No original research has not concluded. Blanking maps from all these articles, and merely marking all the maps as WP:OR, is premature and lacking consensus. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:16, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi @CorbieVreccan: the map is WP:OR and I included in my edit summary: "WP:OR". The discussion hasn't concluded, but does it need to? (I didn't have to start this discussion, and after starting it I realized that the answer was clear as WP:OR and WP:V refer to "all material") I don't understand your reasoning: any contributor can remove original research if they think it should be removed: no? A455bcd9 (talk) 22:20, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Editors are disagreeing with you about what is and is not OR, and how the policy should be interpreted. They are taking the time to discuss it, yet you just keep repeating yourself. You like invoking AGF, but it does not look to me like you are giving them the same. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:41, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Who is disagreeing with me? Here are all people who answered in the discussion:

• Masem: "User-made maps definitely should include one or more sources where the information used to create the map was pulled from"
• Blueboar: "Isn’t this covered by WP:OI?"
• Zero0000: "It would be ok to write that map makers should (not must, so as to not immediately disqualify many existing maps) record the reliable sources for their map."
• S Marshall: only addressed WP:SYNTH, not WP:V
• North8000: "If something looks questionable from an accuracy standpoint it should be challengeable / removable from the article. This has more of a relation to wp:ver but by necessity a less strict application of it for images ."
• Ramos1990: "I think there needs to be citations provided when they are used on wikipedia otherwise anyone with a good graphics design capability can make any map and make it look professional, while being deceptive to readers."
• M.Bitton: "WP:V and WP:NOR are complex policy pages"

For me, that's a consensus that images should cite references. No? A455bcd9 (talk) 22:49, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Ignore M.Bitton

I'm sorry that M.Bitton is giving you a hard time. They were difficult in the original discussions around map reliability as well. The editor has a solid history of productive work, but some of their engagements seem to have the form of trolling. I don't know what to make of what's going on, but you're not being unreasonable. In your shoes, I'd be inclined to ignore them & let the issue drop. Pathawi (talk) 18:00, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Haha thanks for your support @Pathawi. I'm sure M.Bitton is a nice person who just wants to improve things. But we all have different ways of expressing ourselves ;) Anyway, what do you think about using the new map on Dhofari Arabic? (M.Bitton and I disagree on this point but I thought it would be good to have another point of view). A455bcd9 (talk) 18:03, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I support using it—like I've said, I think we have some ongoing conversations to resolve about the map, but I don't think the problems are enough to make it unusable at present. That said, while you're clearly not edit-warring, given that there's a dispute what should probably happen is that a conversation should begin over at Dhofari Arabic's Talk page. Pathawi (talk) 18:07, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Good point, see here @Pathawi. Best, A455bcd9 (talk) 18:11, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

FedNow moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, FedNow, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:55, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Onel5969, thanks for your message. However, I don't understand, this draft isn't "my draft" at all. Best, A455bcd9 (talk) 19:59, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Because there already existed a prior, more developed draft. Please feel free to work on that draft and get it into shape so that it passes WP:GNG and WP:VERIFY. Thanks. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:01, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@Onel5969 OK, I didn't understand anything with this draft thing and I create a new article instead... Sorry for that. Let me know if that's okay, if not, please feel free to move to the draft space. Cheers, A455bcd9 (talk) 20:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

No, that's fine. The prior article you created simply didn't have enough sourcing to pass WP:GNG. Take care. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:40, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

All good, thanks! A455bcd9 (talk) 20:40, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Why not do something useful

Why not look up image references, rather than placing 'needed' 'flags'? Urselius (talk) 18:14, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Urselius,

Thanks for your kind message.

I'm trying to find sources and sometimes:

• I find sources that differ from the map: Commons:File talk:Ptolemaic-Empire-300BC.jpeg,
• The map seems outdated: Commons:File talk:Lemur catta range map.svg,
• I fix incomplete or erroneous references,
• After tagging unreferenced images on Wikipedia, a contributor mentions the source and I add them to Commons,
• The map's author adds the source and improves the image at the same time,
• I find the source by myself and add it to Commons,
• No one else can find sources: Talk:George_V#British_Empire_1921.png, or
• The map was wrong and a new one is requested (before => after).

And unfortunately, in many cases I either cannot find a source or don't have time and add a tag {{imagefact}}. But I hope I, or someone else, will have time to add them later.

Please also note that I only do that on unreviewed featured articles from 2004 to 2009 that should have references for all images. I find this process useful to avoid these articles being delisted. I'm happy to hear your views: do you have any advice on what I should do differently?

Cheers, A455bcd9 (talk) 20:02, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi, there is no need to tag diagrams which serve to illustrate text which is fully supported by citations. Also, the list of unreviewed FAs has a column to indicate if a review is needed. Introduction to viruses and Phagocyte are both marked as satisfactory. Indeed, Introduction to viruses recently appeared again on the Main Page as TFA. Tagging is really annoying when tags are liberally scattered throughout articles. If you think and image requires a separate citation for verification please raise the issue on the article's Talk Page.Graham Beards (talk) 15:55, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Graham Beards,

Thanks for your message. I'd say:

1. Sources should be cited in the Help:File description page, because images can be used on other articles,
2. WP:V and WP:OR apply to user-made images. For instance, the text next to File:NeutrophilerAktion.svg, although sourced, doesn't allow someone to verify the illustration.
3. Old featured articles need 3 "Satisfactory" tags to be moved out of the unreviewed list.

That's why I added {{Imagefact}} tags. It's exactly its purpose: "# to request that the image follows Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Citing sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources."

So, either we add back these tags, or we find sources for these images.

What do you suggest? A455bcd9 (talk) 17:30, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Where does it say that WP:V and WP:OR applies to user-mage images? Graham Beards (talk) 19:08, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

May I suggest you read this conversation. User_talk:Colin#User_contributed_images. Graham Beards (talk) 21:16, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Graham Beards,

Regarding this edit, I'm so so sorry, I was careless. Thanks for spotting my mistake and reverting my edit.

You asked: "Where does it say that WP:V and WP:OR applies to user-mage images?". My understanding:

1. WP:V and WP:OR are core content policies
2. WP:V (bold mine): applies to "any of the information within Wikipedia articles". "This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources." "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable."
3. WP:OR (bold mine): "All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source." "The prohibition against original research means that all material added to articles must be verifiable in a reliable, published source, even if not already verified via an inline citation."
4. WP:IMAGEPOL: "User-made images can also include the recreation of graphs, charts, drawings, and maps directly from available data, as long as the user-created format does not mimic the exact style of the original work. [...] In such cases, it is required to include verification of the source(s) of the original data when uploading such images."
5. MOS:IMAGES (bold mine): "Each image has a corresponding description page, which documents the image's source, author and copyright status; descriptive (who, what, when, where, why) information; and technical (equipment, software, etc.) data useful to readers and later editors. [...] Reliable sources, if any, may be listed on the image's description page. Generally, Wikipedia assumes in good faith that image creators are correctly identifying the contents of photographs they have taken. If such sources are available, it is helpful to provide them. This is particularly important for technical drawings, as someone may want to verify that the image is accurate."
6. Help:File description page: "If you downloaded the file from somewhere else, you should give details of source, author, etc. If you made the file based on other sources, you should cite them. See Wikipedia:Cite your sources. What pre-existing sources (free images, photos, etc.) were used as inputs?"
7. WP:RS: "Like text, media must be produced by a reliable source and be properly cited."
8. WP:CITE: "For an image or other media file, details of its origin and copyright status should appear on its file page."
9. According to these 2007 and 2022 discussions, the sourcing requirement for user-mage images "is already covered by 1(c)" (WP:FACR, 1(c): "well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;").
10. The {{imagefact}} template was created 2007 by @Grenavitar for articles (and especially FAs) "where user created maps, tables, graphs, diagrams, etc. do not provide verifiable sources like they should"
11. "Datasource missing" on Commons has the same purpose
12. On a related subject (user-made maps, not diagrams) see the Wikipedia:Using maps and similar sources in Wikipedia articles essay and the upcoming RfC to make it a policy
13. I asked the question here and the conclusion/consensus was the following: "1) Yes, WP:V and WP:OR are core content policies that apply to everything displayed on a rendered mainspace Wikipedia page."

So based on the above, I concluded that WP:V and WP:OR apply to user-mage images, especially on featured articles. If you disagree, feel free to join the discussion on WP:OR.

Cheers, A455bcd9 (talk) 08:59, 9 December 2022 (UTC)