It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these [[User:DPL bot|opt-out instructions]]. Thanks, [[User:DPL bot|DPL bot]] ([[User talk:DPL bot|talk]]) 11:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these [[User:DPL bot|opt-out instructions]]. Thanks, [[User:DPL bot|DPL bot]] ([[User talk:DPL bot|talk]]) 11:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
== Shi De Yang editing ==
Hey! thanks for correcting that :P some...guy deleted almost all the contribution I made to the biography of Shi De Yang...I'll try to upload everything again :S if you can could you advise the editing?
:)
Revision as of 00:58, 17 July 2013
This user's email on Toolbox menu (also icon top right hand side) is activated. /Useful
I am sorry I cannot help you, since I do not have any basic knowledge about Nôm characters. To be frankly, according to some information I have, it is extremely difficult to learn Nôm characters, even harder to learn Hán characters, and somebody claims that people have to master the Hán before learning the Nôm (ironically, isn't it ?).
Any text in Chữ Nôm, unless we're talking about a few individual glyphs or very short passages, has to encompass chữ Nho (Hán). Truyện Kiều, or as a matter of fact any of the truyện Nôm (Phan Trần, Nhị độ mai, Thạch Sanh...) although written in Nôm, also includes a large number of chữ Nho since Vietnamese has incorporated a substantial of Sino-derived vocabulary. If we're speaking purely about linguistics/syntax then you're correct it is a Nôm text. If we consider the morphemic elements then it is Hán-Nôm. Taking the 1st lục-bát couplet that start the tale as an example, you will see:
𤾓 (Nôm: trăm) 𢆥 (Nôm: năm) 𥪞 (Nôm: trong) 𡎝 (Hán: quỹ, read as Nôm: cõi) 𠊛 (Nôm: người) 些 (Hán: ta, but used for Nôm phonemic value)
So even this Nôm text, chữ Nho cannot be excluded as morphemes. However if we read the entire couplet, syntactically it is purely Vietnamese (ie Nôm) because non-Vietnamese speakers, even if they are extremely well-versed in classical Chinese cannot understand it at all! Not a single iota! I hope all of this makes sense w/o adding to the confusion. If you want a simplistic answer, then yes, Truyện Kiều is a Nôm text. Duyet-pho (talk) 06:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
AFD comments on Churches.
You've stated that the two churches in question have been covered in books. When I have googled them I see one book only, would you mind providing me the books you are talking about so I can review the sources? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
First of all, I wonder do you have any Vietnamese blood in you? Like 1 Viet parent or grandparent or something? Why do you have such an immense interest in Vietnam? Have you been to Vietnam? If not then, one day if you ever come to Vietnam in the summer at Ho Chi Minh city (I currently live in a different country than Vietnam but I do come back every summer to visit), I will make sure to invite you to my house and show you around. Anyway I remember there was a big argument about whether or not Vietnamese words need accent. I can show you a great example how missing an accent can lead to great confusing. You can initiate the discussion again and I hope all the names should have the accents on. That's the sign with respect to write someone name correctly in their native language. Most Vietnamese would agree with me.
OK, let say the word "ma" with no accent. With accents, it can be 5 different words that have very distinct meanings. ma, má, mạ, mả, mà and mã, this one doesn't mean anything if it stands alone. So if there is no accent then how can you ever separate all those words into different articles? The no accent word is useful when it became a disambiguation page then from there you can look for the correct word with correspond accent. Regard!Pendragon5 (talk) 22:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey man. No, the drama hasn't subsided unfortunately - some people never give up. Regardless, I will do what I can. I have been to Bahrain many times and have friends there. It's a small island and while I don't know it's music scene now, it isn't difficult to learn. There are so few Bahrainis that they really do either know each other or have ways of knowing each other. I will check there, in addition to Arabic Wikipedia if need be and get back to those concerned on the talk page for that dude. MezzoMezzo (talk) 20:19, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is the Fundillo Loco press and for "Torito", couldn't find in the archive of the local newspaper beacuse the song was the official song of theCarnival of Barranquilla.
User:Frysun has changed the title of the Seoul Metropolitan Subway article once again to call it a "railway", ignoring previous consensus and this should be reverted back. We're in the process of gaining consensus again (for which it already existed) and it would be helpful if you can join the discussion. Thank you. Camins (talk) 18:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your archives
I think you need to correct your archive box: [[/Archive 2012|2013]] should be [[/Archive 2013|2013]]; and I guess [[/Archive 2012|2014]] should be [[/Archive 2014|2014]] (red link). Sorry for bothering you. ------21:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey man, I'm pretty sure I found a clear candidate for AfD while Wikisurfing this morning. I stumbled upon YaNabi.com and cut out a lot of material which has been unsourced for about four years. Other stuff was sourced with the actual website itself though improperly, and then there was a citation for the BBC because the site's comments were mentioned in one sentence; the citation was for a blanket copy paste from the BBC article. The only remaining source is Alexa, which I didn't remove because I'm not sure if it's RS or not.
I noticed the tags said that the article's creator may be close to the subject, so I checked the history and found it was created by User:Shabiha, whom you might remember from the previous "drama." I'm not sure how to handle this, but it seems like a clear issue of WP:ADVERT; I ran a search and all I could find on this site were quotes from Wordpress blogs. Given that the author also uploaded the picture from one of the websites youth meetings, I have the strong feeling that this is just an attempt at promoting the site; it seems to have no notability, and if you check the talk page you'll see that others were bringing that up about three years ago. Should I go ahead with it, or could you go ahead and nominate it, or is there another way to handle this? MezzoMezzo (talk) 14:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, how are you doing? Well it has two Google Book refs which I added, it would seem likely that it must have therefore got a couple of mentions in the Arabic press? Is the link dead? Then is there any story about where it moved/why it closed. Given the systematic bias problems of en.wp towards Arabic/Islamic subjects, I would have said a move upwards to a wider umbrella title Islamic online forums would have been more useful to en.wp than simply delete. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you prefer I raise it with User:Shabiha as more neutral I'd do that. But would you mind doing an Arabic ref search first, it' be easier for you. Btw, re those 3 Bahraini musicians, can you take a guess at the correct Arabic spelling and we can at least (bracket) their names. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing to be found in Arabic; YaNabi is an English website but it's users all 90% Pakistani and 10% British; it's based off an Islamic movement specific to Pakistani culture. The movement itself, Barelvi, has a rather short article on Arabic Wikipedia but I can guarantee that Arabs have never heard of the site. Re: the Bahrainis, I need to bust out the Arabic keyboard. I'm going to go to 7-11 and then come back in a few minutes and see what I can find. MezzoMezzo (talk) 15:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, perhaps there is something in another language; the two sources you provided now also seem to merely mention the site in passing. It establishes that the site exists, though I would argue that it still doesn't establish notability if that's all we can find. MezzoMezzo (talk) 16:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Arab music
Regarding the red links, Salem el'Allan appears to be Salem Al-Allan who doesn't appear to be much reported on in English aside from this. Al-'Amiri might refer to Abdul Aziz al-Amiri but he was Sudani, not Bahraini. I couldn't find anything on Ahmad Bou Tabanja, which is a really common name - every third male person in Bahrain is named Ahmed. For al-Amiri by the way, there isn't much other than Youtube videos and some stuff on forums. Hs name is also really, really common so if you search in English I don't think you'll ever find what you need. At least in the case of the first and third person, though, they seem to be real and were famous at least in the region. What else did you need to know about them specifically? MezzoMezzo (talk) 16:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi In ictu oculi, I just saw that you've created an article about Louise Youtie! That's been on my to-do list for a while. I wonder, are you a papyrologist? davidiad{ t }11:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have been trying to figure In ictu out for long... to no avail. He knows so many things, about so many subjects, in so much detail, it is impossible to box him into a single category. Pretty interesting fellow really... History2007 (talk) 16:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, same here. I even tried to ask him a question on email, but got no reply. In any case, I figured out he knows so much about so many things I know nothing about, that I just gave up figuring it out a while ago already... All the stuff that goes through here, whenever I can understand even a little fraction of it, is still pretty interesting though. I wish him health and happiness, so he can continue doing his stuff here. warshytalk16:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I regret that I am not in a position to "brush up" on my French in any real sense. Other than a few obscenities, which I really hope aren't included in the articles in question, and some food-related terms, which I can't imagine being relevant to the articles in question, I actually know little if any. Are there any particular problems you've seen with them? If yes, please feel free to indicate them, either on my talk page or through e-mail, if you prefer, and I can at least try to find what I can in the recent English language sources, including those on the subscription databanks I have available. John Carter (talk) 18:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Sure, I'm happy to go along with a 'Keep', however my reasoning would be that a good part of VK/KB's notability is due to his coverage by the Indian press/media which, it has to be said, is usually of a critical nature. His other main appearances seem to be in tabloid/gossip columns as a faddish 'guru' to various Bollywood stars. To your point, I would suggest that most main Indian news outlets meet relevant BLP criteria (in particular, both The Hindu and The Statesman are heavyweight publications that began publishing over 100 years ago). If any action had been taken regarding any particular article, they would have published apologies/retractions etc. There is no indication in their archives of any such action. MatthewTStone (talk) 06:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding edits marked BLPPRIMARY and BLPREMOVE
Thank you for coming in as a 3rd editor into this article Kalki Bhagavan. Regarding the edit on death of 2 inmates. I had marked this edit [[1]] as WP:BLPPRIMARYWP:BLPREMOVE and removed it. Noticed you undid my edit
The issues with the original entry are:
The editor MathewTStone failed to include key information that police record mention that the 2 people had died due to traffic accident. The editor MatheTStone only mention that "In 2010, two inmates of Kalki Bhagavan's ashram were found dead in suspicious circumstances, and local villagers staged an agitation" . Based on the editor MathewTStone track record, it seems the intent was only to attack and cause harm to the subject of this article. Also, "Asian Tribune" is an online newspaper and only aggregated this story. There are no primary source for this article.
When I restored Matthew's edit I added the link to the newspaper article, and expressly added the section clarifying a motorcycle accident. I do not see a BLP issue with that source, story, or the way it is now in the text. However I will add the Talk page of this BLP to my watchlist and any further comments on the Talk page there I will see. Best wishes. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not found in the primary source "Deccan Chronicle" nor found in any other Indian newspaper. It is most probably a case of wrong reporting by "Asian Tribune"(an online newspaper not even based in Asia :-D ). With your entry on WP, we will be giving credibility to a wrong story. Request removal. If need to include, request include authentic valid sources. Thanks Prodigyhk (talk) 12:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@In: My Telugu is very very basic. Just useful to find directions when lost :) I can help you with Tamil translation if that is something you like help on. Prodigyhk (talk) 12:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How on earth do you manage to cover such a huge range of subjects, not to mention languages?
Look up Mikelangelo and the Black Sea Gentlemen on the web - they remind me of you. PiCo (talk) 08:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, sorry for not replying to your questions on my talk page, but I have been away from Wikipedia since 9 March, and only logged on for the first time this morning. Although I have been associated with SOAS since 1983, and still occasionally visit the library, I haven't been on the staff there since 1998 so I'm afraid that I can't answer the questions about SEA studies or Vietnamese at SOAS. BabelStone (talk) 16:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
António Luís Gomes
He was dean at the University of Coimbra, and worked as a minister for the First Republic. He was one of the most critical individuals of the monarchy during and after the British ultimatum. He was the first president of the AAC, and was a law student. There are many awards and conventions at the UC named after him, as well as in Porto. I can't find much online, but you ought to check this [2] or the Portuguese language article. Tibullus(talk)13:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, In ictu oculi. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Thanks and a request
Thanks for your Barnstar to me on 15th March 2013. Actually I am currently looking for some copy edit support in recent fresh article legal awareness. Any contributory support to the article is welcome.
Hello. I've seen that did you put some references to the article that I published about the Lalo Rios actor. The references listed appear to have more information about this actor that the that I've been able to get in internet (he emigrated with his parents to the two years ...). I think it might be interesting to incorporate new information in the article, in order to give a better insight into his biography. More information you do can provide if you want. Thank you.--Isinbill (talk) 12:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An IP nominated Faraaz Kazi for deletion, but the template links to the deletion discussion for some Bauhaus song. Not making this up. As an aside I actually feel Kazi is notable given somesources, if barely making it past the mark. But I'm not sure how to engage in discussion because I didn't nominate it and I suspect that the IP who did might not know how to do so properly. How should I approach this? MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, then do we just leave the AfD template there until an admin removes it? Technically we're not supposed to remove it until the discussion is completed, but in this case I don't think the discussion will even take place. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads-up. My position on this hasn't really changed: I think that WP:SET is a unilateral attempt to introduce systemic bias into Wikipedia. By hiding behind algorithmic results, it purports to deliver objectivity, while encoding the designer's own biases in the code which is used. The constant references to Lech Walesa and Facundo Arguello (however spelled) show that it is a vehicle for the continuing culture-wars of the anti-diacritics mob. LittleBenW has on several occasions declined to engage in any discussion which allows for the possibility that his preferred search terms introduce systemic bias. I regard his addition of this POV-pushing template into WP:IRS as (yet another) violation of his topic ban on diacritics.
And for absolute clarity: I still consider that it is insane to claim that a source in a subject's native language (written or approved by the subject, often) is intrinsically less reliable than one written in the language of this Wikipedia, and of LittleBenW. If the Icelandic PM does not spell her own patronymic with two 'd's, nor should we. LittleBenW's absurd crusade seeks to institutionalise the reverse position.
I don't know what should be done; I feel like I've spent long enough at WP:ANI on this topic already, but if another case is opened there, I'm happy to weigh in. Please let me know your thoughts on this subject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi hi. I was just looking over the discussion at Talk:San Francisco burrito, where consensus appears to be favoring Mission burrito. You came in early and supported "Mission-style" before people had started to talk about just plain "Mission," but from your comments, it seemed like you might be in favor of either change. If the initial proposal had been a move to Mission burrito, would you have supported? --BDD (talk) 21:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (File:Leon Russell A Song for You.jpeg)
Thanks for uploading File:Leon Russell A Song for You.jpeg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
GE peer review for FAC
Greetings. I'm going to tag the Gospel of the Ebionites article for a second peer review in about a week. I have the names of a few editors with the technical expertise to prepare articles for FAC. Unfortunately, no one I contacted knows any reviewers with the necessary technical skills and also a familiarity with the religion category. Can you come up with a short list of independent editors we might contact to evaluate the content? They should be outside the usual circle of editors we run into because this is supposed to be an external review. Of course, once the tag is placed anyone can participate. Ignocrates (talk) 03:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing, would you be willing to help out in the final stages of getting the Gospel of the Hebrews article ready for first peer review? I am a few weeks away from completing all the remaining sections, but I thought this would be an opportune time to ask you. PiCo has offered to help out with the final editing, but I need your expertise to help with the content. I thought between the three of us we could do an internal review to polish it up for GAC. I already have external editors willing to volunteer to do the peer review and GAC. Let me know. Thanks. Ignocrates (talk) 04:04, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello In ictu oculi. About your recent request at WP:RM/TR. While I can certainly move these articles for you, in the last four cases the target names were unoccupied. If I'm not mistaken that means you could move them yourself. Unless you just want a second person to confirm that the move is OK? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I signalled my edit as 'BOLD' purely because I view almost any edit to a MOS page as bold, even if (as in my case) it is to try and clarify something which is already there. Your articles are not "illegal", they simply do not meet MOS 100% - but, unfortunately, not many articles do! GiantSnowman09:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you remove it then it will make things less clear, how is that improving the encyclopedia? Consensus at a MOS talk page can hardly be considered LOCALCONSENSUS, and I'm not sure why you have brought sports articles into it? Is this just a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT? GiantSnowman09:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Traditional encyclopedic style is all well and good - and I'm speaking as someone who had to write traditional encyclopedic biographical entries as part of my University course - but this is not a traditional encyclopedia, and there are therefore going to be differences. I am unsure when WP:OPENPARA was first introduced, you'll have to trawl through the history, but I am certain it has been there a number of years, and no doubt added with good reason and due to consensus. There was a recent discussion at WT:MOSBIO (which we both contributed to), which finished with no consensus to remove it, and in fact plenty of support for it. Therefore it should remain. Finally, MOSBIO is intended to apply to all biographies, regardless of whether they are athletes or classical musicians or anything else. Please abide by it, even if you don't like it. GiantSnowman10:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I said " I am unsure when WP:OPENPARA was first introduced, you'll have to trawl through the history, but I am certain it has been there a number of years, and no doubt added with good reason and due to consensus." However, there has been no mention of including places of birth/death since at leastJanuary 2008. GiantSnowman10:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But there is a rule against places now, so that's what you should abide by. You want to know when OPENPARA was introduced? Look through the history, I don't have time/reason to do so myself. My January 2008 is a list of what should be included - as place is not mentioned, it is extremely logical to say that place should not be included. Ignorance of the MOS is no excuse for flouting it once you have been informed, and just because many other editors are not aware does not mean you should continue to edit in that manner. GiantSnowman10:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, you need to start a RFC is you want to change long-established MOS. No idea where your figure of 20-30% of bios that follow your 'correct' format comes from, but it could be 99% and it wouldn't make a single bit of difference. The format of those articles are wrong,l and the format of your articles is wrong. GiantSnowman14:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Further - my edit did not change the MOS, it simply made it clearer. You also won't find a single featured biography that uses your method. GiantSnowman14:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IIO, I know you're upset right now, concerning the MOS-in-question. But, that's no reason for this post, at my talkpage. I like to think you're better then that. GoodDay (talk) 15:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone chances on this above, Mark L. Knapp, Anita L. Vangelisti Interpersonal communication and human relationships 2005 Page 280 might be a good place to start. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You wouldn't happen to know how notes are added? I mean, those that look like [Nb 1]. I'm not referring to ordinary < ref > references. I can't find any examples right now.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hey man, I could use some advice regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hindu Taliban (3rd nomination). The nominator along with some who support the deletion and some who oppose it are now getting into some back and forth exchanges on the discussion with those who hold an opposing view. Now, one of the commenters dropped an F-bomb casually. I don't really care about the outcome, I voted for keep but I won't lose sleep if it's deleted, but what concerns me is that I can see this discussion becoming unfruitful and uncivil really fast. Considering that this is the article's third nomination - the first two basically ended with keep because those arguing for deletion had some funny business going on and then no consensus for similar bickering - I worry that there might not be a consensus again, which not only would mean everyone wasted their time but it could go to a fourth nomination (which could still boil down into an argument rather than discussion). What do you think ought to be done? Is there a way I can request an admin to try and moderate and tone down the discussion a bit? The back and forth arguing especially seems likely to lead to a no consensus ending again. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, my main issue isn't the outcome. What I'm concerned about is the nature of the discussion; I can see it ending with no consensus again. Although I would still vote for keep, I think delete would still be better than another no consensus vote. Do you think the arguing (especially the cussing) warrants higher attention, or should things just be left to run their course? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Henry Martyn Clak
Hi friend,
Hello, In ictu oculi. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Henry Martyn Clark. It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hi Friend, you know with your kind help I had placed an article Henry Martyn Clark. Now I received a message, that [3]. Will "they" delete this important article? Regards.
Hi friend, Somebody has come with the message "file:Henry Martyn Clark.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.250.103 (talk)" ; if they delete the Picture from the article will loose its beauty. Please help stop them. The person died in 1916, the website says, freely download ... Regards.ڈاکٹر محمد علی (talk) 02:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hello, In ictu oculi. You have new messages at Talk:Your Body#Requested move. Message added 15:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
According to this disambiguation page, there is an Arabic article for the father (here) which is oddly not included as a link on his English page. There does not appear to be an Arabic article for the son, per the red link on the disambig page. This isn't surprising, as there are few editors on Arabic Wikipedia - in my own experience - who take interest in Shi'ism, unfortunately. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, many thanks for looking, the possible lack of Shiite material occured to me when I couldn't find it. I noted that the article on the father was pretty brief too - but I thought it was Wikidata-ed? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I thought that Wiki-data-ing is automatic, though perhaps it takes some time. In general, you will find more material on Shi'ite-related subjects on Farsi Wikipedia (not really surprising). MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sophia Turkiewicz film director, of Once My Mother
Thank you for helping me. It's the first time I have used Wikipedia and I am struggling to understand how it all works. I will persist however- such a fabulous invention.
Cheers,
GR — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.234.209 (talk) 01:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will take a look, but may take a day or two. Which gap was it trying to fill? The Rahner source you have used is actually the source I would have used - perhaps the best one one could find. That would be good to know beforehand. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 08:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The scope of the use of the term has certainly changed over time. As usual the term came to use first, then everyone and his brother claimed ownership of it. As Stockmeier said, it originally referred to the expansion up to 313, the edict, etc. And then there were the "great church councils" of course. Then both east and west claimed it, as usual. I added the ref to Irvin and Sunquist whose chapter "Great Church Emerges" refers to Origen etc. and traces the concept. I will try to add some more from that within the next week little by little, but please feel free to expand after Origen's use, etc. History2007 (talk) 18:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, I added material from a few sources, expanded on Irenaeus, the expansion during the great Church epoch, etc. I think that clarifies the origins, growth path etc. Let me know if anything more is needed. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 18:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see you participated in the move request for this page. I would like to bring your attention to a comment that was left on that page because it brings to light some information which I didn't even notice right away, and was about to support the move until I noticed it. Tiggerjay (talk) 01:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cantonese transliteration
Titles in Cantonese transliteration should not resemble pinyin. "touhou zigei" looks like a pinyin to me, so avoid that. A transliteration of Cantonese must look and sound great. --George Ho (talk) 04:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I tend to agree, but I obviously supported the proposal. Perhaps you could find an uninvolved admin to formally "close" it (like an RFC). I also don't see any particular harm in being WP:BOLD (it can always be reverted, after all) but it's up to you. I'd go for it and explain in your ES that it had been discussed (in some detail) on the talk page. That way, people know where to look if they have any concerns. Stalwart11103:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Dear friend, Can you help me locate an Official British Govt. Gazette/Notification reference, to the effect that Nawab Sir Sahibzada Abdul Qayyum (1864-1937) (India - North West Frontier Province now Pakistan) was awarded KNIGHTHOODKCSI ? He is always addressed as 'Sir A Q' [Member Durand Commission, Chief Minister NWFP (1937) Founder of Islamia College Peshawar, a Political Agent.....etc. [just to help you locate him....] shall be thankful. Regards. --ڈاکٹر محمد علی (talk) 03:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Understanding check
Barry Morrow has no sources, but he won an Academy Award. So...does this pass notability for film people? Winning the award is obviously a notable thing, but does it support notability for an article forever if that's all they're known for? MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:07, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bonjour. J'ai trouvé un document de référence qui présente les différentes options qui traversent la recherche : Petri Luomanen, « Nazarenes » in Antti Marjanen et Petri Luomanen, A Companion to Second-Century Christian « Heretics », éd. Brill, 2005, pp. 279-314 extraits en ligne.
Cela accrédite tout à fait le manque de neutralité de l'article en termes wikipédiens. Maintenant, par quel bout reprendre cela, c'est une autre paire de manche... User:Mogador (talk) 11:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Saudações, but the actual article is a copy of the Latin spelling and pronunciation section and also, some articles suit better when inserted into their parent articles, see WP:CFORK. If the section grows beyond the article scope then it should be separated, try expanding the section then separate it. Eduemoni↑talk↓15:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please help
Dear In ictu Oculi, could you please check the talk page of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robby_Robinson_(bodybuilder) and help to achieve fairness in materials put on article about Robby Robinson? I would like to hear your opinion if you also support that within a couple of days an article about a famous bodybuilding legend turned out into an article about a ... I do not even have words. All the previous contributions were deleted, not only those from me, and new ones are presented so misleading that people who know Mr Robinson and his life and achievements will never believe this is an article about him. Thak you. RRWM (talk) 00:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear [In ictu Oculi], I would like to apply for your help concerning Robinson's article once again:
1) Users Brocach and BarrelProof have recently deleted the REMI-Award for Robinson's DVD Built and inserted wrong information about his book - deletion of REMI after humiliating editing humiliation attempt on REMI
- can these people really make decisions that an official prize that even also has a page on Wiki that this living person was awarded is not worth mentioning in wikipedia?
- can they make parallel humiliating comments about every entrance from person's biography, that are visible for all the readers of the article?
I mean, REMI was not a small award, it is given to films, and BUILT is just a DVD, but special, like a TV film - on one side. But even if it is about small achievements of Robinson from school, is it allowed to parallel write humiliating comments? Who is allowed to decide what is importrant in the biography of living person?
2) my latest contribution to Robinson`s article was also deleted, see my contribuition about creation of Robinson's memoirs deleted by BarrelProof
- Are materials from autobiographies/ memoirs and blog/ articles of living persons allowed to be used for wiki-article?
- do you also find, the citation of the review on Robinson's book from nomination committee of Writers' Digest has pure "promotional character"?
3) Comments of editors Brocach and now BarrelProof not only on Robinson's Talk page but also in summary lines to their "contributions"
- is it allowed that the editors of the article permanently publicly insult and try to humiliate the living person, the subject of the article?
- are they allowed to continue to work on the article?
All their discussions are publically open in internet, and they act as official representatives of Wikipedia. Since I am new here, I do not know, if here is any observing institution helping to avoid that wikipedia articles look like ground school kids dirty chat and do not directly descriminate and insult people, at least those that are the subject of the wiki-article?
4) could it be a kind of sabotage from Robinson's haters to force the managers of Robinson to apply to close the article?
Is it possible to avoid it?
5) What should I do with the direct insult towards my wiki-user from Brocach that the BarrelProof tried to hide by irreversible removal, see this
direct insult
I hope very much, you will be able to bring some clearance in this subject, since I can see you are a very experienced wikipedian, with many contributions to very many biographies and always correct actions on Robinson`s article.
Thank you very much RRWM (talk) 21:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wish to note that I did not delete comments here by other editors, which seem to have been (temporarily) lost due to some sort of server glitch. Brocach (talk) 01:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
RESTORED COMMENTS:
Please allow me to interject here. There are several complaints above, and I'm not sure this is the right place to discuss each of them in detail. However, I would like to clarify that I have no animosity toward Mr Robinson, nor to RRWM. On the contrary, I think Mr Robinson is a remarkable and inspiring man, and I commend his accomplishments – especially his exceptionally long career which endures to the present time. Much of the contention around the article has not, in my opinion, been about Mr Robinson's merits. Rather, they are a matter of establishing what Wikipedia calls "reliable sources", "notability", "verifiability", and "neutral point of view". —BarrelProof (talk) 22:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the comment above saying "the direct insult ... that the BarrelProof tried to hide" – yes, I removed those two sentences written by Brocach. The reason I did that was that I thought those sentences were not appropriate and should be deleted from the record. In addition to making that edit, I emailed Brocach and two admins to explain why I thought those sentences should be deleted. (You can see that reflected in my edit summary, in the phrase "Brocach and Andrewa, please check your email".) I did not do that out of hostility toward RRWM – just the opposite is the case. I did that because I thought RRWM should be treated better. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The reason there is open discussion on Talk:Frédéric Vitoux (tennis) is because you have twice reverted the closer of the RM's removal of your content which was overwhelming rejected in the RM, not to mention earlier RfC. It is not "harassment" to ask you to stop adding material which so many editors have asked you not to add. Likewise there is open discussion on Talk:Stephane Grenier because you have added the same material there. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which other country has 22 national languages, 100 major languages and thousands of languages? a) I as a Bengali add Bengali script, a Hindi editor comes, adds Hindi script, a Tamil editor comes, sees his language is missing and adds his languages.. it goes on and finally it becomes a long list of Indic scripts? b) secondly most of the Indian languages need font support and most of the Wikipedia readers don't have those font installed. For these reasons, mainly for reason a, we don't add Indic script in Indian articles and encourage to add IPA. --Tito Dutta (contact) 06:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Most bios are clearly only 1 of 22 languages; A Malayalam BLP has a Malayalam name etc. Adding a Tamil name would be daft. The major Indian languages (the state-ones) are all now standard in Windows. They all display even on my old laptop. Anyway, I've left a comment on WP India. I see something like a 12-6 majority in the RfC so will respect it, but it seems bonkers. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Those are my reasons. They have better reason. Discussion on Indic scripts are always going on in India noticeboard, here is another on going on currently Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Indic_scripts_in_lead (I don't follow those carefully, just follow their consensus, and actually I told the same point at the time of main discussion, we should include *only* subject's own language (Bengali for Bengali etc). But, actually I understand this, you understand this, but, not general readers, specially the IPS. And often articles turn like this Ghanada#Books. This is a huge problem, there are many articles where you have more words in Indian languages than English! So, I now agree with their consensus too) Better IPA than Indic script) --Tito Dutta (contact) 07:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
I'm not finding anything independent on Imam Ahmad Raza Academy. The article was created by Shabiha, who was recently found to be a sock account anyway. So I doubt we'll get any more on Yanabi.com. I'm still not convinced either, as the two sources there only prove that the site exists but not that it's notable. Obviously giving my lack of understanding of deletion policy in the past, I'd still like to know your take on all this. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're so clever. Since my talk page is blocked, you would write down message in the talk page of the article that I usually edit to get my attention. That source says that some burial customs had existed in Vietnam since 3200 to 3700 BC. It emerged amid the time of the Hung Vuong so I bet we should add some details about it to the Hong Bang Dynasty article, by adding a sub-section naming "Burial customs". Furthermore, if you had time, I would like you to create article about Tây Vu Vương, a descendant of An Duong Vuong who led a fail uprising in 111 BC against the Han invasion (I had given some sources in the timeline article, also you can find more details in the book "The Birth of Vietnam"). Cheer. ༆ (talk) 22:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well I thought I'd offer you some encouragement after your experience. However that your Talk page is locked is entirely your own fault. Without either written evidence from the admin User:EyeSerene, or alternatively a demonstration to User:King of Hearts that you understand his point, then your page will probably be locked permanently... if that is your choice.
It's ok, that is partially what I like. Don't know why but I want my talk page to remain either blank or sealed. In the future, if you like to send me a message, you could send it to the talk page of some of my sub-user pages. As for Tây Vu Vương, I remember some sources say that, when the Han army invaded Nam Viet, they conquered Guangdong and Guangxi; Tây Vu Vương led the uprising in former Au Lac (northern Vietnam) but was betrayed by his follower and defeated by the Han. So his uprising occurred before the Han domination. When I asked you to create Tay Vu Vuong article, I forgot to mention Khoa Đẩu, which is evidently an ancient Vietnamese writing that existed from the Hong Bang Period until the Trung Sisters [4]. ༆ (talk) 06:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well even if you like it, if you please don't mind me offering a personal opinion, it seems like cutting off the nose to spite the face. The fact is admin User:EyeSerene is no longer active, so unless you make at least a minimal effort to communicate with User:King of Hearts you are labelling yourself "Sockpuppet" permanently, you might as well have a signature that says [User talk:༆-sockpuppeter, ignore me!]]. It doesn't show respect to other editors, including to me. I appeal to you to make an effort to repair the situation.
Thank for your advice, but no, I continue to insist my talk page to be sealed. Check out the edit histories of "First Chinese domination of Vietnam" and "Timeline of Vietnamese history", I had a almost no-ending cycle clash with a IP who use multiple address namely 113... and 123.... As you can see, those 2 IP are one person as I can tell. They take advantage of using multiple address to AVOID 3-revert rule and also wrote in my talk with some disdain words. I like to ask that person if there is a reason he/she doesnt like to open an account. That's why I just let my talk page to be locked to prevent that Ip again. ༆ (talk) 07:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well there's a simple way of (a) preventing IPs from messing with Timeline of Vietnamese history, (b) preventing IPs leaving disdaining messages on your own talk page. What you're doing doesn't prevent IPs from messing with Timeline of Vietnamese history. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reference page needed
Some years ago, you inserted at Christian mortalism a reference to ‘Williams, Petersen, & Pater (eds.), ‘The contentious triangle: church, state, and university: a festschrift in in Honor of Professor George Huntston Williams’, Sixteenth Century Essays and Studies, volume 2, p. (1999)’. Could you fill in the page number, please? Leandrogfcdutra (talk) 16:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Following the talk on the Roza Bal page, the story about the 59th one etc. I started to look more into a few things. Do you have any idea who Richard Hartwick may be? There is a statement on the back cover of the book that:
"Dr. Richard Hartwick, Huffington Post 'Epic in scope, a controversial work, well researched and densely packed with brilliant new discoveries"
But a search on Huffington Post does not succeed, and all over the web a search for Richard Hartwick and Olsson does not show anything except the Rozabal website. Is there a misspelling somehow? The only independent review I could find is by "Geetika Kaw Kher" from the Amity University, and it is just .... It will show under a search for "BOOK REVIEW: Jesus in Kashmir". I had no idea it had that many errors... History2007 (talk) 21:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The name finds no such person. It could have been some individual posting on a Huffington Blog? Anyway its not in the wp article :) In ictu oculi (talk) 23:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have voted for an alternative instead of "support" or "oppose". You may change your vote to an alternative if possible. --George Ho (talk) 17:28, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Chilcotin items
Thanks for the responses on Shuswap, Lillooet and Thompson, Tshilqot'in is even more compelling. It also relates to an older April 23 CfD, still unclosed, at Category:Chilcotin (region), which should either become Category:Chilcotin (like Category:Cariboo or Category:Okanagan which are for other similarly-named BC regions, vs what would happen if the main-article "rule" for category names were applied to Category:Tsilhqot'in...Category:People from the Chilcotin people is not a happy outcome especially if there was (and I think there is) Category:People from the Chilcotin or Category:People from the Chilcotin region. It's not just indigenous authenticity that's behind the practicality of the endonyms and why they were chosen, it was to make the distinction in the first place between the common meaning of the region vs the common meaning of the people. "Chilcotin" means "people of the red ochre river" and so "Chilcotin people" is redundant (with all Athapaskan names, the "-tin" ending or its cognates means "people" just as the -emc/-mc/-mx and others mean "people" in the various Salishan languages. -tin is the same as Dene in meaning.Skookum1 (talk) 03:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
thanks, I just launched another RM on Talk:Kutenai people on the same grounds, though CANENGL is not exclusive there, as those people are also in Montana and Idaho and elsewhere (though predominantly in Canada, not sure of the population comparison). Once again, the COMMONNAME rationale was bogus, as you will see. I notified User:Billposer about Carrier people vs its former title Dakelh before starting that one; he's the senior linguist at the Yinka Dene Language Institute and one of the foremost modern scholars on the Dakelh and Wet'su-we'ten and other northern groups; that's bit of a different situation as Carrier is in wide use but so is Dakelh, but once again it impacts an endonym-based category Category:Dakelh and is an issue of "what white people called these people" vs "what they call themselves".Skookum1 (talk) 03:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[outdent] Re your comment on the Ktunaxa/Kutenai one, the only one of these I'm aware of there having been an RM for was Skwxwu7mesh->Squamish people and I'm not sure he was involved in the discussion; one of the reasons used was "because User:OldManRivers" isn't around anymore" (that's a paraphrase, not a quote; OMR is the leading Skxwu7mesh internet person, and the main language teacher for his people's language revival).Skookum1 (talk) 04:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kindly response. As far as 'Comments about' the book of Ahmad, probably none, But corroborative references to the same/similar Idea (Arabic being the mother Language and the Divine Language); YES. I will record them all and include in the article. Will that suffice ? Regards.
Just a reminder that if you put the DEFAULTSORT code on a page, you need to actually specify a default sort key: {{DEFAULTSORT}} by itself will do nothing except throw up errors.
On a biographical article, the default sort key should be the subject's name with surname/family name in the most significant position, e.g. {{DEFAULTSORT:Petrini, Giuseppe}}. (Also note the use of a colon, not the | symbol used in templates; DEFAULTSORT, despite looking similar, is not a template but a magic word.) — Paul A (talk) 01:36, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the proper place to merge them into is Quest for the historical Jesus where the early 20th century, Bultmann etc. are discussed. I will touch up the merge target, it will be a much easier merge discussion. If you don't agree, just change it back please. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 06:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am really sorry, I had totally forgotten that we had talked about that Pandora's box before. But please do accept my apologies if I can not do more on it now that I realized what it is. Perhaps sometime in 2027 (or maybe 2025) those issues will settle down. Until then there is just life that can go into it with no end. There are too few people who will ever get involved in that topic and in fact perhaps even fewer who will read what there is carefully. So I see that type of topic as the border of sanity in Wikipedia. So please do accept my apologies. History2007 (talk) 19:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I noticed you removed the copy edit tag I put on Yuki Kato (geisha), and I was wondering why. There are many mistakes in the Japanese that seem to have been caused by OCR mistakes or typing mistakes (even the kanji for her name was wrong). Citations also don't show good format for italics for titles, etc. I tried to start correcting some of the Japanese mistakes, but there were so many I wanted to tag it for help from others. Unless you can fix these all yourself, I suggest reinserting the tag so that others can help fix the problems. Michitaro (talk) 01:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is very general (wasn't there some talk of getting rid of it?). But I did specify some of the things that needed fixing. Michitaro (talk) 13:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, you did, and no there isn't a better one. I really can't be fussed to correct the OCR errors, would be more likely to just delete the refs, so by all means restore the tag, sorry I removed it. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for May 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hello, In ictu oculi. You have new messages at Talk:Racha (film). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
You have already derailed the discussion by mentioning Racha which was not a topic of the discussion! Anyway, it happens. there are more messages there! In addition, see if you can give some advices to that editor like writing edit summaries etc! --Tito Dutta (contact) 00:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't a deliberate derail merely even-handedness, seems to me the issue is on both sides, though I haven't looked closely enough to say "six of one, half a dozen of the other." I hope this isn't a Telangana vs Coastal Andhra issue (again). In ictu oculi (talk) 00:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support and response concerning my Chromatics article. I'm new here, as you see. I would be grateful if you wanted to look over the article I'm preparing; it's in my sandbox at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rdb112/sandbox. I do have several questions you may be able to help with.
I'm not sure if I should be writing to you by posting on YOUR talk page, or by editing your comments on mine. But I'm going to try sending this via your page first.
As a writer, I'm used to finishing an article before publication, but it appears that's not the way it's done here. For example, I have some pictures which I'd like to add to the Chromatics article, but it seems I'm not allowed to upload those until the article is created. I can do that; it's just an observation.
Of the article titles suggested by those who responded, I like Chromatics_(graphics) the best so far. Anyone who's looking for that company will know that they were not a general-purpose computer manufacturer, but a graphics computer manufacturer. But I don't see how to specify a title for the article. Is this done in the editor with markup tags, or is there a step in publishing the article during which I choose the title?
I may be able to locate a few more references, but I'd be interested to know if you feel this article is complete enough for publication. That would allow me to move forward with the pictures, and possibly the renaming/disambiguation tasks of the name Chromatics. Any other suggestions will be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Rdb112 (talk) 11:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rade Jovanović (composer)
Just a reminder: When you promote a article out of the AfC space you're also supposed to check for any Categories that need to be re-enabled. I adjusted the categories for you on Rade Jovanović (composer) but please be careful in the future. Hasteur (talk) 12:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Notifying members of WP Albania of discussion about the placenames in Kosovo/Serbia?
I noticed that you notified members of WP Albania of the discussion about the placenames in Serbia/Kosovo and I am concerned that it may result with influencing the outcome of a discussion towards one side of a debate. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all your help. I've moved the page to Chromatics (graphics) and will continue with pictures and disambiguation work soon. Regards, Rdb112 (talk) 17:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello IIO. I am not soliciting you to vote in the move at Talk:Bazjaš monastery#Move?, but didn't I hear you say you speak one of the local languages? This move discussion was sitting in the backlog, and I thought I might close it. There is almost a tie between supporters and opponents. An oppose argument that may carry special weight (in my mind) is that of No Such User. In the local language, people might not be saying 'Studenica Monastery' but 'the monastery at Studenica'. In the latter case we probably don't want to capitalize monastery. That is, it may not considered a proper name in the local language. It may be known officially as the "Monastery of St. X" and just happens to be in Studenica. Can you see any such distinction? The link he cites for Studenica in the local language is this one. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-existent project banners
Hi in ictu oculi. :) I see that you've been tagging a load of talk pages with WikiProject banners. Thanks for your hard work - I can see that it's a pretty thankless task. I noticed that some of the project tags that you tried to add don't actually exist, though, like the Winter sports project here, and WikiProject Presbyterianism here. These end up listed in Wikipedia:Database reports/Broken WikiProject templates, so although I don't want to take anything away from the work you're doing, if you get the names wrong it does create cleanup work for others. How are you tagging these - is it all manual, or are you using some kind of automation? It strikes me that these errors could be reduced or eliminated through some scripting magic. Best — Mr. Stradivarius♪ talk ♪01:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, there's no automation involved, when it's a project I don't know I Google Wikiproject rough topic. Occasionally that leads to redlinked templates, but I habitually do a page reload to check the template works. Those redlinks look like I was interrupted or project tagging two open pages at the same time. As you know there are a lot of inconsistencies in the format of WikiProject templates, and whether or not redirects and alternative template tags work. Some of them, regular annoyances, could be fixed by {WP Projectname} being created as a redirect to {WikiProject Projectname}, but I've forgotten how to create such a template redirect. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:14, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here's 2 classic examples just now {WP Honduras} doesn't exist? Why? when normally LatAm countries all have that template format, or {WikiProject Indigenous peoples of Australia} doesn't create {WikiProject Australia|Indigenous=yes} ... suspect that's technically more difficult to redirect and preempt redlinks? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:10, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Template redirects work just like any other redirects, so you can just go ahead and create those. I did Template:WP Honduras just now. If you want to add parameters, though, it is more difficult. For making {{WikiProject Indigenous peoples of Australia}} equal {{WikiProject Australia|Indigenous=yes}} you need some template coding knowledge, and although most templates like this would be simple, it could be complicated if the target template is a big one like {{WikiProject United States}}. It might be a good idea to leave a message on the project talk page for those cases. Also, a trick I often use is typing "Template:WikiProject Topic area" into the Wikipedia search bar, which only comes up with templates or template redirects that exist on the project. Try it and see if it works for you. — Mr. Stradivarius♪ talk ♪03:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
not sure why you sided with that IP...plus you were wrong about "3RR" anyway...
hello. What gives exactly? It's that IP address that is "near 3RR" and reverted a good and accurate edit FIRST. And actually you're wrong anyway. It's NOT "3RR" at all...because the revert was OVER A WEEK AGO. Nothing at all "within 24 hours". But aside from that, why side with him at all anyway? It doesn't matter that the article name is "Mosaic Covenant". That's not the point. What is the point is that "Mosaic Law Covenant" is ALSO standard and correct way of saying it. Stop violating WP policy by undoing VALID AND CORRECT MODIFICATIONS AND EDITS. You will be reverted right now, sir...because you did wrong in what you did. You stated something that isn't even true...cuz in this case, there's NO "3RR" issue. Check the dates more carefully. Also, again, the actual issue is that correct and valid modifications are NOT to be reverted by anyone, at all. "Mosaic Law Covenant" is accurate and standard too. So why undo that? You offered no real reason. You were out of line in what you did. Gabby Merger (talk) 00:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brave People (film) 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.
Hello, In ictu oculi. You have new messages at Talk:Mahanagar#Requested_move. Message added 19:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi In ictu oculi. I have, despite your (entirely valid) point on the talkpage, deleted Nara Lokesh; after reading through it, it struck me as pretty unsalvagable. You're right that an article on the subject is necessary, but frankly, it needs to be written from scratch by someone who doesn't have a soapbox to stand on; I wondered whether you might be willing to create it? If you want to do so, I'd be happy to provide the references from the deleted page to facilitate the process. Cheers, Yunshui雲水10:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Yunshui, I think you're right frankly, the note I left on the talk page was pretty half-hearted. Will give it a thought and get back to you. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work on the new version of the page. Here, for what they're worth, are the sources that were previously in the article: [5][6][7][8][9][10]. I haven't checked or vetted these, so I don't know how much use they'll be, but if you can glean some additional information from them, be my guest. Yunshui雲水08:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey In ictu oculi, do you have an opinion to offer here? The conversation needs some input from seasoned editors, from the Tennis project and elsewhere. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 15:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:OWN this is not "your article" though I do sympathize that having actually contributed an article to en.wp you want to keep it, but there is 6-1 agreement that this is a WP:FORK of Talk:Chu Nom with a title that is WP:OR and a merge should be implemented now, this weekend. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have later made comments that relate to the proposal. I have posted Google results in addition to Youtube. You can read through and make your own decisions. --George Ho (talk) 05:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do, but I must admit I'm not as clear in this area as Neelix and DickLyon and you might better ask them. To me it looks like there appears to be consensus for some tightening and clarification on WP:DAB to prevent future conflicting "primary album" MOS pages, with the exact details of the wording to be fixed at WT:DAB. As regards that wording, maybe it needs some caveat that when a second subject is a very unlikely hit, or not a real name (an English translation of a foreign name Kiss (band) vs Kiss (South Korean band)) exceptions may be allowed if local talk page consensus is established. It's only 2-3 editors with local consensus at a whole-project who set up new guidelines like the (now deleted) "primary album" that it becomes a nuisance. We don't have "primary (footballer)" and so on for a good reason. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have some rather elementary questions. Notice this phrase: "..parenthetical disambiguation should render titles unambiguous and that, consequently, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC should only apply to titles that do not employ parenthetical disambiguation." So is this saying that Orange (film) should not take you to a page like Orange? Since I'm not up on the nuances, I get only an intuitive feeling for what is being complained about. Hopefully my intuition isn't simply wrong. The people supporting this proposal don't seem to be against WP:DDAB or WP:INCDAB. I see an objection to Kiss (band) but that name is not a redirect and it is *not* ambiguous. Are they objecting to the parentheses being used in the name? Is that considered to be an example of 'parenthetical disambiguation?' EdJohnston (talk) 03:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I read it, the opposite, i.e. Orange (film) would be considered an insufficient redirect and should redirect to Orange as a dab listing Orange (2010 Telugu film) and Orange (2012 film) since WP:NCF already agreed with the strengthening of dab. As I understand it films football plants etc etc were already in line with Neelix' RfC, only albums (deliberately) and songs and bands (casually) had headed off towards having primary album, primary song, primary band. That's how I read it, at least I think that's what its saying... In ictu oculi (talk) 03:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for notifying me of this discussion, Ed. We believed that the proposed guideline had seven-editor consensus and not solely two or three as In ictu oculi suggests above. The purpose of this guideline is to prevent there being articles with titles that employ parenthetical disambiguators that do not serve the purpose of disambiguation (ie. even with the parenthetical disambiguator, the title can refer to multiple articles). The "common-sense exceptions" are exactly the cases this guideline is intended to address. Already, most articles that employ parenthetical disambiguation disambiguate fully (ie. the disambiguators serve their purpose). It is only in the cases where one of the articles is much more popular than the others that partially disambiguated titles tend to be used in practice, such as in the case of Tommy (film) and Tommy (1931 film) or Exodus (band) and Exodus (Polish band); the 1975 film and the American band are more popular than the 1931 film and the Polish band. In this way, editors have unofficially adopted the concept of a "second-tier" primary target as "common-sense exceptions" to the already generally accepted idea that disambiguators should disambiguate. The purpose of this guideline is to get rid of these "second-tier" primary targets (ie. move Tommy (film) to Tommy (1975 film) and move Exodus (band) to Exodus (American band). Please note that the less-absolute suggestion that In ictu oculi suggests would not not be worth making into a guideline because it would never be usable; it is only in cases where one instance of a thing is really popular that anyone advocates a "second-tier" primary target, and that is exactly the case to which In ictu oculi suggests that the guideline should not apply. Neelix (talk) 12:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Neelix is actually correct, I undercounted when I said two or three, it evidently has more, including myself. As I said, it might have been better to ask Neelix. The above all sounds accurate. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ed, were you asking because you were considering closing the discussion as an uninvolved administrator? I don't know what happened to the WP:AN close request; it doesn't appear to be there anymore. Neelix (talk) 14:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The original closure request that was left on AN by User:Born2cycle timed out and was archived. Someone advised posting in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure, but I don't believe anyone has done that yet. That is a separate board with a 40-day timeout. I was thinking of closing the discussion but got discouraged since I don't understand partial disambiguation. Perhaps someone can offer links to past discussions that are relevant, and I will read them? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank for your encourage words, but I do NOT appreciate when you requested for my talk page to be unblocked. You'd went against my will. Last time, I already insist that I would prefer to leave my talk page to be permanently blocked and only admin can edit. Yes, my removal of warning is wrong, that means the IP who used multiples addresses to avoid 3RR rule is also wrong, that means some racist users who only target Vietnamese diacritics but not European ones are also wrong, that means some users who moved pages counter Rm results are worse than me, that means the users who massive moved pages without discussions are also worse than me.
You're one of the most intimate users that I have encounter in WP. I NEVER get tired of talking with you. Cheer. ༆ (talk) 01:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I clearly said to the admin I wasn't requesting action, but knowing wp norms in this matter I could expect she would unlock. So yes, I'm sorry, I apologise, and I knew you wouldn't appreciate, and I also know you wanted it locked, but as I said you can request page protection from IP abuse, this is a better way - that locks the IP who is hounding you, but allows colleagues to Talk. User Talk pages need to be open to other responsible users and to admins. They serve an important purpose on en.wp. My very highest regard again for your contributions. Please consider the wellbeing of the WP Vietnam project overall on this, the IP abuse can be dealt with in a better way. Take care. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're great. I can't reimburse all of your words. Furthermore, please continue to persuade admin to revert all the undiscussed page moves recently by certain someone. I want all to be reverted without any discussion. Cheer. ༆ (talk) 18:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Odjila logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 09:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for June 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
I nominated some articles for deletion about a week ago, and they recently got relisted. Still, nobody is even taking interest at all. Do you know of any ways other than relisting to generate discussion for AfDs? And other than canvassing, obviously. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies that this discussion slipped my mind. However. I have no specialist knowledge about Vietnamese typography, so I couldn't have contributed much.
I see that Trịnh Kiểm is one of many article titles that Kauffner removed the diacritics from. Is there consensus that this was wrong? (and can you supply a link to document the consensus?) If so, I'll request moves back to the original name as and when I come across them. Colonies Chris (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ed, it was here (attempt to total results). The results were somewhat compromised by the loaded phrasing of the question, and whether to count votes canvassed, whether the result would have been 23:10 in favour of treating Vietnamese like other Latin alphabets, or in fact 23:16 in favour counting all irrespective of canvass issues, but either way, the majority was in favour of the way WP VN's article corpus was titled in July 2011 prior to circa 1,400~1,600 undiscussed moves. Some of those articles of course were created pre-2005~06 and therefore prior the overall adoption of more-than-ASCII fonts across wikipedia, so some had in fact been originally created at ASCII titles, just as many Polish and Czech ones were pre-2005~06, and moved without RM, as seems to have uncontroversial back then, per my understanding, but confirmed by veteran editor Minh Nguyễn here. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for June 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Thanks for replying to this.
My only aim here was to neutralize the term, and I’m mindful that the perfect is the enemy of the good. I’m aware the terms I’ve chosen may not be academically sound, but for a dab page to work, the terms have to be somewhat related, so the article titles themselves won’t do. And I looked for at least three of them so TWODABS wouldn’t be an issue. If the current terms are no good at all, and you know of any others that would fit the bill then I’m open to suggestion; but are you OK in principle with the change of use? Moonraker12 (talk) 23:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another undiscussed RM by a certain editor, and the confusions of a CfR now still unresolved.
Please see most recent comments at the [Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_May_3#Sto:lo_categories|Sto:lo CfR]], which remains unresolved now six weeks since it began. And note the other two unresolved CfRs from the same date, and that I moved Nuxalk with an accent to Nuxalk people to try to resolve that CfR to Category:Nuxalk from the accented version, though I would prefer it simply be at Nuxalk, and that all the "FOO people" ("[endonym] people") speedies should all be reverted not just because undicussed, but also because they are culturally inappropriate; some were anglicized, like Secwepemc/Shuswap people, but I did not propose RMs on them...e.g. Dakelh is now Carrier people, again by a speedy without RM....and guess by who? That category, for now, is still Category:Dakelh and Category:Dakelh people is for "People who are Dakelh" and has, so far, not been speeedied to match the un-RMd-but-speedied main article title....as has been the case with the also unresolvedSkwxwu7mesh/Squamish people CfR, though that one was indeed RMd...but the choice of the endonyms, as explained before, goes back to the creation of these articles by informed authors, not by people running amuck with a a guideline in their hand and changing things willy-nilly without regard to the facts on the ground, or why those names were the way they were. Somebody needs a spanking......and the endonym-named articles and templates should be, as Obi Wan in at least one of the CfRs or RMs now closed, "locked" or with a special template noting they should not be changed again. I'm the "informed" editor on these subjects, alongside a few others from BC, and interloping by people who only know their guidelines and what the common terms are for THEM, is a big problem; I've had no "bites" on my attempts to start a guideline discussion about these matters, and am kinda exhausted about it all......and know my writing energies and information/knowledge are maybe spent elsewhere; and I know others feel the same way, and dread the inevitable MOS-type debates towards those guidelines; informed editors are fewer and fewer in number......it seems clear why. I don't want to be an admin and obviously don't have the fake-humble tongue needed to get approval, but is there any way I myself can jump past redirects caused by such speedies and fix these matters without having to go to war in a CfR or RM to get what is correct and viable, without having to explain things over and over again to 5-20 different people? And then hope for a wise admin capable of wading past the verbiage and "getting the point" and doing the right thing? Seems like a bulk RM is needed, to, to fix the "FOO people" changes which someone - Obi Wan - said "we" use....who is "we"??? Certainly not me....Skookum1 (talk) 18:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I have been busy away from wikipedia for a while, I think about a month and a half, developing a list of those reference sources which have been regarded by the American Library Association as the best reference sources of the year, among other things, in preparation for maybe starting some sort of effort to draft guidelines for religion, politics, philosophy, and other sorts of "beliefs"/"ideas". I have noticed that the article above is currently being considered for FA status. I haven't specifically checked it against those sources which have been regarded as the best reference sources by the ALA, sources like the Anchor Bible Dictionary, but I do have some concerns regarding the matter. One, I note that the Anchor Bible Dictionary in its article on the Gospel of the Ebionites specifically indicates that the tense of the extant quotations is not consistent, and that source states that there may well be some reason, on that basis, to question whether the document as it survives is actually one document, rather than one stand-alone source. I was wondering why you, who are at least one of the more reliable and reasonable editors on matters of early Christianity/Christian Bible, seem not to have been very heavily involved in this matter. John Carter (talk) 19:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good to hear from you. In all fairness I was asked re GA status, and I also looked at the ABD - though didn't note that particular point. I was just absent on that topic I suppose. Also meant not keeping an eye on other articles, and not noticing for example the WP:FRINGE returning on Gospel of Matthew. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One of the things I tried to do during my recent self imposed break was try to get together some basic ideas which might be useful in drafting guidelines for "beliefs" of all sorts. Unfortunately, I also knew that if I kept coming back here at all during that time, I would basically never actually get to the point of finishing getting together ideas for guidelines. I hope, by basically the end of this week, to get together some people to discuss such possible guidelines. And I very definitely believe that fringe beliefs, including beliefs of non-notable or barely notable religious groups, will certainly be one of the major points of discussion. I can also try to get together some ideas regarding that particular article, which with any luck I can present by Thursday or so in the FAC discussion. John Carter (talk) 20:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gospel of the Ebionites FAC
In ictu oculi, as nominator of the GEbi article for GAN review, if you have any suggestions for ways to further improve the article, please leave your detailed comments at FAC and I will attempt to address them. Otherwise, I would appreciate your statement of support to move this thing over the finish line. Thank you. Ignocrates (talk) 09:03, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you left a preliminary comment at FAC. Thanks for taking the time to reread the article and comment. This nomination has been hanging out there for 7 weeks as of today and needs a bit of a push. Ignocrates (talk) 12:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article was promoted to FA today. I wasn't sure if you were planning to return with more comments. If so, please leave them on the article talk page and I will address them anyway. Congratulations! Even though you were a minor contributor in terms of number of edits, they were not at all minor in terms of quality. Ignocrates (talk) 16:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks
Hi In ictu oculi, I don't think you and I have ever interacted before, but I wanted to say thanks to you for the explanation you gave on Ymblanter's talk page to that user who wants to, quite simply, destroy value in all our Russian articles. Your analysis matches what me and others have already explained to him and other users at the WP Russia talk page. I hope they've understood it now, because as I've seen that you know, it's ridiculous to reduce the value of our articles for the benefit of nobody. Azylber (talk) 22:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for June 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sean Anthony (American entertainer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page B5 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
That was a bit disappointing - it seems like you are !voting to make an example out of me... And then also worrying about things B2C said. My close has nothing to do with yogurt and i dont agree with that essay. I hope you'll consider reading the RM and rereading my close, perhaps on second reading you may see my logic? Cheers, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Obiwankenobi, sorry old chap, yes I thought it was clear, but I've added what I hope is crystal clarification - If you look at B2C own supervote close over 4:2 on reverting undiscussed move at Leipzig Hauptbahnhof you can see why you don't need that kind of support. It's unfortunate because of all the non-admin closes recently yours is about the only one with no problem. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
hi thanks for the clarification. I don't follow B2C so I wasnt aware there were controversial non admin closes. Otoh, Nathan Johnson, a non admin, has been closing things recently, and when disputed at ANI it was closed as 'admins aren't better closers than non-admins' more or less. All that said, your comment still comes off as a sort of quid pro quo - I'll endorse, but only if ... So it still reads as an overturn. If I may be a bold, perhaps you could reword the very first sentence to read endorse close, but reject yogurt rule and use of this close as a precedent or something similar. Otherwise, your main !vote still looks like overturn (which perhaps it is, but I thought you were saying on merits it's an endorse. Anyway, cheers as always. How goes the diacritics debate? I stepped away from that a while back... --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Will do, (done), that says what I think so no problem. Diacritics? Other than Vietnamese of course... for whatever reason, white man's diacritics were accepted with Talk:Dominik Halmoši, occasional disruptive embers fizzle now and then. Thanks for asking though. I see bigger problems, intractable problems, with religious fringe editing; handful of diligent project editors vs dozens of fringe SPAs. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sometimes the deeper you look under the covers, the scarier this place looks. I am heartened, however, to read the article on Israel/Palestine conflict. This is (obviously) one of the most edited/warred articles in the history of mankind, and the mess behind the scenes (which I've only recently looked at) is unbelievable. But the output for the reader is, in my view, a rather neutral and decent summary of the main themes. So sometimes its better to not know about how the sausage is made. Thanks for making the change. For a long time I've decided I didn't want/need an admin bit, but after the vicious attacks over on the other page vs judgement-by-its-merits, it's making me reconsider...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is something up?
Hi, I hate to see it but you've taken issue to several of my !votes recently--is there something that you've picked up on that I should be fixing? Is something the matter? Red Slash09:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry User:Red Slash but yes, there have been four or five which have been among the worst, in the sense of random, I've seen on the last 2 years at WP:RM. It's good that you ask though. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Chinese surnames
I've seen your input around, and usually we largely agree on things (or at least I usually respect your input!) so I was surprised by your take here. Would you not support a merge of all variations to simply Li (surname) for the benefit of people who do not have expert knowledge of written Chinese? --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rob, I've seen you around and mutual. A shame your interests don't extend to Vietnam. Yes, maybe if we were starting from scratch, but the problem is these names aren't really all Li. They've converged on Li in pinyin, but pinyin is even today only a point in time and geography. What would be useful is a decent more-than-disamb page giving the four or five main Li-pinyin names and summarizing the main differences, which is what a non-specialist wants to know. Which is what you're proposing in fact as an umbrella. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm coming from the perspective of the casual reader who doesn't know the difference in the first place. They know there's a Chinese surname "Li" and they want to read about it. Where would they go? "Li (surname)" seems the only choice. Yes, umbrella article if you will, but it needs to cover all possibilities. I don't think it would warrant breakout articles for the individual origins. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but breakouts can't be avoided and that's what the {main|pipeline} template is for, otherwise we'd have no separate articles for any of the "100" names. A couple of these converged at Li names are highly notable, separately. We will still need name titles that have the glyphs, I can't see any way around that. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, we really can't use glyphs. They mean nothing to the vast majority of English-language readers, are not on a keyboard, and it's against policy. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why do the vast majority of English-language users need to look at a detailed sub-article about a Chinese name in the first place? And why would they be so [insert adjective of choice] at something being there for the benefit of other users? I've never seen anyone cause a scene at a Chinese takeaway because the left hand side of the menu has Chinese. The point is we don't just write articles for people who know nothing - this is an encyclopaedia. I have asked on the RM Talk page if anyone knows of any book on Chinese names which doesn't use Chinese characters to distinguish names where pinyin can't? If someone knows an English book on Chinese names that doesn't use characters, fine, but in 20 years I've never seen one. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with it in the text of the article, but how will anyone find it on a keyboard when searching for the article? More importantly, how will they know which article they are looking for? But this is all the more reason not to have separate articles. Policy says that article titles should be transliterated, and this is what we should do. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like I need to explain why I didn't just BRD the disruptive move: that avenue was closed because all Chinese characters got blacklisted in the page title. It didn't used to be this way :( _dk (talk) 08:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just butt in here and say you ought to mention that at the painfully large discussion, if you haven't already. Going back to not being a talk page stalker now. — TORTOISEWRATH02:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer not to unnecessarily fan the flames either way. You can mention this fact there if you feel the need to. _dk (talk) 04:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since you commented on the move request, I have added page views as evidence of the lack of the page being the primary topic. I'm assuming that you haven't watchlisted that page, so I invite you to take another look. Schwede6602:28, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello In ictu oculi. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Dragan Milonić, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not blatantly vandalism or a hoax. Thank you. — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk17:43, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello In ictu oculi, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I deleted Kiki jebacina, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided. The speedy deletion criteria are extremely narrow and specific, and the process is more effective if the correct criterion is used. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. wL<speak·check>01:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
li people, lisu people has surname Li, so need the part of Li people in Li surname page, surly old chinese getsurname tribe name, i think a li people's link look like not bad, your think a bad that link? sorry, i think that link need.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmotbmot (talk • contribs) 06:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Feng, etc
Per policy, we should not be including Chinese characters in our article titles. You know this, as we are currently embroiled in a long debate about it, and I don't think it's helpful to exacerbate the issue by introducing new, barely notable stubs with inappropriate disambiguation while the discussion is still underway. It's not dissimilar to the conduct of our friend. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Sorry, not coming up with anything. Ran all the variables, but only found another soldier, H.N. Penrice, military engineer. Possibly his father or brother. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you friend. You added "Major John Penrice". I wonder if he were a military man? for the kind of classical work he produced. Be well. --Drali1954 (talk) 06:20, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
hmmm. I think I have found the right Penrice !! -- "A major in the Norfolk Artillery, Penrice exhibited calotypes and waxed-paper architectural and landscape views in the 1854 and 1855 Photographic Society exhibitions in London and in the 1855 London Photographic Institution exhibition. His work after that was in collodion. A complex character, Penrice eventually became a justice of the peace in Norfolk. In 1844, on the death of his father, he sent twenty-five major paintings from Wilton House, the family home near Yarmouth in Norfolk, to Messrs. Christie and Manson. Some of these are in the National Gallery, London, and The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. In 1861 he published The Valley of the Nile, a series of one hundred stereoscopic views taken in Egypt and Nubia. Although Penrice’s photographs are now virtually unknown, his 1873 Dictionary and Glossary of the Kor-ân was such a substantial piece of scholarship that an edition of it is still in print. Roger Taylor & Larry J. Schaaf Impressed by Light: British Photographs from Paper Negatives, 1840-1860 (Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 2007) This biography is courtesy and copyright of the Metropolitan Museum of Art and is included here with permission. Date last updated: 4 Nov 2012. " [12] Will you confirm it? Drali1954 (talk) 06:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It has become very clear that there is an active dispute between just the two of us, besides that at the RM. I don't think it's going to resolve itself, and at this point I'd like to very strongly suggest that you agree to seek a third opinion. The mindless bickering that we're both spewing at one another at this point is useless. — TORTOISEWRATH17:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, no problem. Yes Ê#Vietnamese presents a level of complexity, which perhaps partly explains why the RfC was only 23-16 majority. I'm just alerting you that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Vietnamese) is not an adopted Wikipedia:Naming conventions, it is not even a draft proposal -- though there's no way you or any other User could know this with the tag removed. Thanks again for your edits. :) In ictu oculi (talk) 00:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hello, In ictu oculi. You have new messages at Ezhiki's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello In ictu oculi. Thank you for adding a source to Barak Feldman. I can't read Hebrew, but based Google Translate it looks like that is a search engine result for dance lessons given by an instructor named Feldman. If you read Hebrew, maybe you could copy the sources from the Hebrew-language page into the English page? Happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 05:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did read [13] and I don't buy it either. For some parts, it mention that we use some similar spelling such as those in media articles. This logical idea is NOT worthy enough. Because according to that logic, it is also applicable to many other Latin-alphabet languages. Such as the case here, you can see it, the sources EXCLUSIVELY spell it as "Moraca" and NOT "Morača" such as in Wikipedia. You should mention this on your comments against future diacritic removals. Now we see clear and clear. Except for anglicized words, we write other words without diacritics because that is convenience in typing. But here on Wikipedia we generally keep diacritics for non-anglicized words. Our stance will not change. ༆ (talk) 00:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for July 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Good question. WP:CANVASSING does allow "The talk page of one or more articles, WikiProjects, or other Wikipedia collaborations directly related to the topic under discussion." so leaving a note there with a clear edit summary as the locus of previous discussion would immediately catch those who watchlisted it. But that may be none. As far as directly notifying - there have been 3 geo RMs (which are the 3 at Talk:Cà Mau), and a 4th on the capitalization of Province at Talk:An Giang Province, provided there's no picking and choosing, that all 4 RMs (which will have some duplicate participants anyway) are notified it can't be seen as picking and choosing. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was earlier onboard with having a translation in the title, but @Mythsearcher: makes a good point, which is that many of these modern meanings may be more accidents of language than origin stories. Teasing that out can be done in article, but placing in the title gives it an air of authority which is in some cases misplaced.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:24, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I saw. True, the modern meaning is often untenable in surname context, but the Baijiaxing usually gives at least one or two disambiguator-suitable readings - just needs a bit of care in picking them, still better than nothing I think. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You may have misunderstood the point I was making - which was that you can have a clickable-title that is chock full of stuff, even if the actual title itself is sparse. Thus,
I've seen those arguments, but the fact is that the Baijiaxing does offer up "plum" type disambiguators on most names, many Chinese (apart from their own family name) won't know the true historical derivation of the other 500+ names, so a bit of liberty can be used. Even the name which now means "concubine" can be fixed.
I'm more interested to know if anyone in your view has offered a cogent reason as to how anyone is "helped" by deleting 李 from Lǐ (surname 李 plum) and having only Lǐ (surname __ plum). I have asked that question several times of the editors most against the 李 in Lǐ (surname 李 plum) and haven't noticed a cogent User-helpfulness based reason. Maybe I'm missing it, have you? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:01, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
no, I haven't seen anything convincing on that front. Esp since the articles themselves will always be littered with Chinese characters, we're hardly saving the user any pain and suffering by just eliminating it in the title. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am really against having a strange translation in the title which is not related, and pretty much just as uninformative as the Chinese character. So the only thing that helps is the Chinese character itself that gives a good imagery guide to readers. Which is being against in the WP:UE talk page just because it is against policy, and I think it is just WP:BURO since none of the people against the Chinese character gives better solution and only "its against the rules" type of comment and equally unhelpful options. I just really hate the "consensus" armour they are putting up with the WP:IDONTWANNACHANGE attitude. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk15:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'd say even for the Chinese natives, most people can't understand any of the English-descriptions. For the more common ones, I'd say actually the pretty common 5, 陳李張黃何 are already all kinda hard to understand with just the English-description, with the exception of 黃, which will mostly be translated as "yellow" with little disambiguation. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk16:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
GHeb peer review
I could use your advice and counsel in peer review. Specifically, see Talk:Gospel of the Hebrews#Peer review and the question I asked about how to handle the saying attributed to Cyril of Jerusalem and the resulting claims about the pre-existence and incarnation of Jesus that depend on that saying. Please leave an opinion there. Also, if you could contribute to a peer review of the article that would be a big help. Thank you. Ignocrates (talk) 04:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, if you have any further suggestions for improving the GEbi article, please add them to the talk page of that article. An independent WP:3O review of the sources was just completed. Weigh in there too if you think anything was missed. The goal is to make sure this article can pass a rigorous review in FAR. Ignocrates (talk) 04:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hey! thanks for correcting that :P some...guy deleted almost all the contribution I made to the biography of Shi De Yang...I'll try to upload everything again :S if you can could you advise the editing?
Not done. Archive 2013 still links to Archive 2012. -- -- -- 20:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Leon Russell A Song for You.jpeg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Crown and Anchor may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave my operator a message on his talk page. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
a) I as a Bengali add Bengali script, a Hindi editor comes, adds Hindi script, a Tamil editor comes, sees his language is missing and adds his languages.. it goes on and finally it becomes a long list of Indic scripts? b) secondly most of the Indian languages need font support and most of the Wikipedia readers don't have those font installed. For these reasons, mainly for reason a, we don't add Indic script in Indian articles and encourage to add IPA. --Tito Dutta (contact) 06:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Odjila logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Deadmaus#Requested_move_3_.28to_.22Joel_Zimmerman.22.29. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)Template:Z48
){kind=link}
){kind=link}