User talk:Perspicacite

Archive

• Archive of previous comments (????-September 2007)

Comments

Redirect

if you wish to discuss the Harare/Salisbury redirect issue, please contact me on my talk page, or the Harare discussion page.Sennen goroshi 17:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Perspicacite, Salisbury UK is an ancient city that still goes by that name, and when people are searching wikipedia it is much more likely they are looking for that one rather than the old capital of Zimbabwe. That is the reason for the redirect. Wizzy…☎ 08:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Perspicacite, I have been reading up on the Salisbury/Harare issue and to be honest no one uses the Salisbury name for Harare any more as Harare is now the more common and official name. I have to agree with Wizzy that people searching for Salisbury are more likely to want Salisbury UK than Harare and I think that a link a the top of the Salisbury UK page to Harare should be included. Sorry, I know that this is your express intention but to be fair Salisbury UK is where the redirect should go. Mangwanani 16:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

PMOI

I've tried to get protection before, but the level of vandalism is not high enough. It's frustrating that it's the same people posting the same POV. If it keeps up, I might try getting at least one editor blocked. Dchall1 21:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit Warring on MDC

We ave settled our deferences with Fys on the MDC,My problem was that he was removing sourced material,which is against the pillars of Wiki.But you should see the development I have made on the MDC article and other Zimbabweanand South African articles in general.Africa Festival —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 16:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Demographic Analysis

It does not make sense to redirect Demographic Analysis to Demography. The methods of Demographic Analysis are used in a wide range of fields: education, historical comparative research, the study of firms, turnover and population ecology. The methods warrant their own discussion, as well as a review of the contemporary application of the methods to a variety of social scientific questions. Please do not issue redirects to pages without discussion first. Thanks. --Htw3 18:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Hi-- I believe Dr. Clark offers a high quality introduction to the methods in question: http://faculty.washington.edu/samclark/Soc433/. Of course, many of the methods developed to answer questions of human population dynamics have been applied to other fields. Notably, firms, organizations, institutions, institutional forms; as well as turnover retention within organizations; and social networks all benefit from methods developed originally in demography. Finally, demographic analysis is not the same thing as the field of demography. Most graduate courses in demography are topically focused and the methods are applied well beyond those topics. --Htw3 02:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Gibson Sibanda

Hi.

I noticed that you have been helping me assess the Zimbabwe-related articles. Thanks. However, I just noticed one article Gibson Sibanda as being rated B class. This article is no where near B class, in fact it is only just outside of stub class. I hope this is the only article that has been assessed incorrectly...

If you are unsure please refer to the assessment page.

It still has a stub template on it and I am weary of even making it a start class article as it is so short.

Just thought I would draw your attention to this matter.

Mangwanani 16:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• There's nowhere near enough information for it to be a B class. Even if the topic is a fairly small one it is still the amount of content that sets it up as the certain class. If you aren't sure what to rate them as then just put the {{WPZW}} template on and I shall rate it as i work my way through the unassessed articles. Thanks for your continued help.Mangwanani 17:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Rudy Giuliani controversies additions

Excellant work!!

You'd probably appreciate watching Kevin Keating's documentary on his mayoralty, Giuliani Time. Dogru144 00:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Cess

Although UrbanDIctionary barely qualifies as a "reliable source" per WP:RS, remember that these are guidelines first and foremost. WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR are the relevant policies that apply to this issue, and the edit and sourcing that had been put in for the slang definition of Cess fall within the limits stipulated in both of these policies. In particular, my caveat is that UrbanDictionary is one of the few organizations dedicated to documenting vernacular phrases, idioms and other slang terms that have yet to be adopted by the mainstream population. When an article is edited and a definition of this type added, UrbanDictionary should be considered a reliable source. --CespiT 15:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Guan Shengdi

Just a friendly heads up on Guan Shengdi. I removed your speedy tag, as this seems to be for real. A gsearch for "Guan Sheng di" (with a space in the last word) gives several sources that look (to my unexpert eye) to be legit. Is there something else going on with this subject that I'm not seeing that would lead to a need for deletion?--Fabrictramp 22:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

WPRhodesia

Hi. I have started a sub-WikiProject for Rhodesian articles. May be easier to have one department working on Rhodesian articles and another on Zimbabwean. Time will tell... When working through Zimbabwe articles if you come across an article that is relevant to Rhodesia please change the assessment box so that it reads {{WPZW|Rhodesia=yes}} and therefore listed as an article for the new Rhodesian WikiProject.

Mangwanani 16:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Human rights in Eritrea

In this page you have made numerous POV edits without discussion. Please discuss, and do not introduce POV into the article. Also, do not remove PoV labels. --Merhawie 01:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Hadith

I did not warn you for vandalism. Rather, I asked you to use the talk page as you reverted many good faith edits. As for Aterkmani, he was exhibiting the same behaviour as he did on Post which I consider vandalism. --NeilN 06:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Re Aterkmani. Then we disagree. That's fine. --NeilN 06:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Bad Faith Assumption?

Did you really just accuse me of vandalism? In my haste, perhaps I thought the obit was already attached to the article, because it was listed on the recent deaths page, but here it is, although the date was wrong, he was indeed dead, so it's hardly vandalism. I think you might want to review WP:AGF. Cheers, CP 21:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Zimbabwe GA

Hi. I was wondering if you would like to have a quick look at the Zimbabwe article. I have been doing a lot of work on it based on the comments given after the last GA review. It read:

“ This article does not meet the current Good Article criteria, and will not be listed at the present time. Most obvious is the recent edit warring, as well as the current page protection, which expires on 10/2/2007. So it fails the stability criteria.

There are also some significant organizational issues with the article. The lead section, and history look very good, and could be used as a model for other sections. There are zero references in the 'human rights' section under government, which should be addressed. The 'geography' section is a bit heavy on photos and images, with little text. Plus, the section ends with just a listing of districts, with no description of their interrelationships.

The economy section actually looks pretty good.

The 'demographics' section is too long, and contains much unrelated information. Remove 'and ethnicity' from the title of the section, as that should be implied by demographics anyway. The section should cover information about the population and demographic statistics only. The education information should be included in its own separate section, and it should be written as prose, too, not just a list of schools. The many subsection headers in this section are very confusing, and should eliminated. Things like language, religion, and ethnic groups, are part of demographics, but don't necessarily need their own subsection headers (unless that particular subsection is very long).

The culture section is very short, and has some very short subsections. This could be expanded. It is also pretty much devoid of reference citations, which is another issue with the GA criteria.

Move the large template out of the 'see also' section and put it at the bottom of the article, which is where such templates should go. They almost never look good in the middle of the article like this one is. The 'see also' section should just contain a brief list of articles of similar topics to the current topic, and wikilinks that are already used earlier in the text should generally not be listed in the section either.

There seems to be quite a few external links. It might be advisable to go through them and eliminate a few. Take a look at WP:EL for guidelines on this.

Editors might want to see some other articles on nations, such as Brazil and United States, for a possible model of what a good article should look like. Other useful resources include WP:MOS, WP:LEAD, and WP:CITE. Good luck! Dr. Cash 02:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

”

I am of the opinion that as a team we have met all these points bar one - the one about moving the Topics of Zimbabwe out of the See Also section. I have not done this as Russia, Germany, South Africa, United Kingdom and other countries have this box in the See Also section.

Before I put the article forward again for GA review I would appreciate your thoughts on the matter. Thanks. Mangwanani 21:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)