User talk:ActivelyDisinterested

Aliasing (factorial experiments)

In addition to editing my additions to Factorial experiments, you had also made some corrections on my proposed article Aliasing (factorial experiments), and I'm writing for two reasons. First, I may again have inadvertently overwritten your corrections in this case, and I hope you would be kind enough to check this and let me know, as you did previously.

Second, another editor took it upon themself to re-order the sections of my Aliasing (factorial experiments) article over my objection. I requested that they undo the changes but perhaps tag the article in some way so that I could seek other opinion. They haven't done so, and in fact the article now appears to be published, even though I have not finished responding to other editorial comments. (I don't know who pressed the button to give the article final approval, but I'm assuming it's the same editor.) So, several questions:

I can certainly undo the changes myself, but I also think that this editor needs to be, ah, mentored. They describe themself as a teenager and "mathematics enthusiast". Shall I give you their ID here, or is there a less-public way to do that?

I also would like advice on whether to leave the article public at this point and continue to work on it that way. (Again, I don't know who controls this decision.)

Finally, is there a way to determine a small set of editors (perhaps just one) with whom I can work on this article? This is my first Wikipedia article (I have previously merely modified existing ones), and I'm not sure how things work. I'm used to writing a book and academic papers, and this is a very different experience.

Thank you. I hope you are not really disinterested.:) Johsebb (talk) 14:52, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Johsebb. Aliasing (factorial experiments) looks fine for no target errors. You started the article in main space, so it was published the moment you posted the first edit. Articles belong to Wikipedia and can be edited by any editor, no one editor has any ownership of it. If you want to create articles without other editors interfering you need to create them as a WP:DRAFT and move to main space once you are ready. You can move the article yourself, I doubt any editor will complain as it's just been started (doing this for an established article isn't suggested).

When editting articles the best way to resolve differences is by discussion, I suggest reading WP:BRD. The basics are Bold, Revert, Discuss. So in this case if you believe their Bold edit is wrong you can Revert it, but should then open a Discuss with the editor (just drop on their talk page as to why you reverted their edit). If they revert you revert trying talking with them, edit warring over reverts is not a good idea.

If you are looking for advice on the article I would suggest WP:WikiProject Mathematics, which is a group of editors interested in mathematics and has a talk page where you can post questions. Academic's can have a hard time starting on Wikipedia, it has many characteristics that may seem familiar but the way Wikipedia does them can be confusing. There is an essay that may be useful WP:EXPERT.

If you ever have any questions just ask someone, most editors genuinely only want to be helpful. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:34, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you -- this is extremely helpful. There must have been a choice that I missed in creating the article where I would have kept it as a draft -- I thought that was the default.

Is there any problem with reverting the unwanted changes before moving my article to draft? That is my inclination. Johsebb (talk) 17:51, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe so, but you could also move to draft and then revert the changes. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Aliasing (factorial experiments) moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Aliasing (factorial experiments). Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because Needs editorial assistance from WikiProject Mathematics. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Johsebb (talk) 18:58, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

New message from NotReallySoroka

Hello, ActivelyDisinterested. You have new messages at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard.
Message added 03:57, 13 April 2023 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Not·Really·Soroka 03:57, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Procedural notification

Hi, I and others have proposed additional options at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RfC_on_a_procedural_community_desysop. You may wish to review your position in that RfC. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Request

Hey @ActivelyDisinterested, do you think you would be able to format the citations again like you did at Boethius and John Hart Ely? The article in question is Patricia Wald, I intend to work on it in the coming months. GuardianH (talk) 21:51, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Of course, never a problem. I'll drop a notice on the talk page tonight, and as long as no-one objects I'll get started on Sunday. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:04, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

You're a saint! Thanks. GuardianH (talk) 01:33, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Higgins

Hi, thank you for the message. I see Burrows was listed in Further Reading but it is moved to the Bibliography now. Is this ok? Cheers. LowSelfEstidle (talk) 18:53, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

The cite is Borrows, not Burrows. Sorry I usually spot those, but I missed that one. I've corrected the refs to match the cite. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:56, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Kings and Generals as a source

Hi, I see you've removed references to several Kings and Generals documentaries in several articles, saying it is Not a reliable source. Why do you think so? Cheer, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:42, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Why would you consider it a reliable source? I watch a few YouTube history channels, and have watched KaGs in the past, but I wouldn't consider any of them a reliable source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:59, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Because they are a team of historians, consult specialised historians when needed, always base themselves on multiple scholarly sources for historical events, situations or developments, have a strong commitment to accuracy and fact-checking rather than giving hot takes, or repeating old urban legends (which they frequently debunk), indicate when the primary sources are conflicting and (re)construct multiple possibilities if it is unclear what happened historically, strive for nuance and impartiality, have editorial oversight, can make corrections for mistakes, etc. In other words, I would say that per WP:SOURCE, Kings and Generals documentaries are reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:45, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I couldn't find any of that anywhere do you have a sources I could look into? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:35, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

• Andi Stix, Frank Hrbek, Walking Through History: Constitution & the New Government, Westward, and Civil War (2023) Taylor & Francis. A standard work for the education of U.S. students, and Kings and Generals is one of the recommended YouTube educational channels that can teach students about history.
• Martin Nikolov, Is YouTube History an Effective tool for Teaching History to Secondary Schoolers? (2022). Tilburg University. A bachelor thesis comparing the educational value of 5 popular YouTube channels, with K&G as the most popular one. Nikolov wrote: In the field of accuracy Kings and Generals make sure to research their videos by having the writers of each piece be also the ones who research it, as shown by them often answering questions in the video comments. In case of the artwork, the content creators present the art team with historical information so that they are able to make it in the most accurate manner possible. This can be confirmed by comparing it to depictions of clothing, armour and other in encyclopaedias and academic papers. (...)

Furthermore, it is important to mention the fact that Kings and Generals attempt to portray both sides in cases of wars. This may take place in a single video or by making several videos on the same topic from different points of view. An example for the latter would be their series on the first crusade, in which they give the western, Muslim and Byzantine sides of the conflict with their respective accents in the same manner and detail. (...) When a contradiction in sources is apparent, they specifically state all alternative interpretations while stating which is which in an attempt to give viewers all possible sides and allow them to weigh the elements for themselves. They also motivate their own chosen version of events with an explanation to why. (...)

Stemming from the previous point about accuracy, arises K&G’s biggest problem – their lack of sourcing. This is especially visible in cases where they compare contradicting sourcing or cite a researcher as these are usually the only moments when viewers get the opportunity to know where the information comes from. Besides them, there are no in-video sources provided in the form of annotations or pop-ups, and no sources in the video descriptions. (...) One other case where sources can be discovered are when their research team go into a video’s comments to answer questions or to give additional information or corrections to the video itself. (..)

This is in line with my experience of K&G. They don't always say where they got their information from, but when they do and you look it up, it's accurate. If you compare what they say without mentioning their sources to a reputable source, it's usually also very accurate (with some mistakes here and there, of course). I've never caught them making a big error. I only sometimes find them basing themselves on otherwise reliable sources that may not have faithfully translated the primary sources into English. Like, Urban's Letter to His Supporters in Bologna, September 1096 First Crusade in Bologna was quoted as saying : Nor should young married men rashly set out on the journey without the consent of their spouses. This is evidently quoted from University of Pennsylvania emeritus professor Edward Peters (scholar), The First Crusade: "The Chronicle of Fulcher of Chartres" and Other Source Materials (1998) [1971] I knew that the words "consent" and "spouses" would probably be an anachronism that wouldn't be used in 11th-century Latin, so I checked the original source, which is actually on Latin Wikisource, s:la:Epistolae_et_privilegia_(Urbanus_II)/5 ("CCX"), and it said: Juvenibus etiam conjugatis providendum est ne temere tantum iter sine conniventia uxorum suarum aggrediantur. Being the Wikipedian-historian that I am, I went to create s:Translation:Pope Urban II's letter to Bologna to make it more accurate just for this sentence alone, which I translated as: Care must also be taken for young married men not to rashly embark on such a journey while turning a blind eye to their wives. "Wives" rather than "spouses", "not turning a blind eye to" rather than "without the consent of". That means: women didn't get a say, husbands didn't need their "consent" (approval, permission) to go on Crusade, they just need to arrange that they be looked after if they went on Crusade anyway.

That's it. All these years, this is one of the biggest errors I managed to find in all of Kings and Generals documentaries. And it's not even directly their fault, they trusted a translation of an emeritus professor of history who we find so important that we've dedicated a BLP to him: Edward Peters (scholar). It's only because I know Latin and have specialised so much in the term "consent" that I happened to spot this error. That K&G should better indicate their sources is something Nikolov and I agree on, but that the content itself is reliable, accurate, NPOV, educational, etc. is not really in doubt. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:59, 13 May 2023 (UTC)