User talk:Number 57

; Archives
	Archive 1 (Dec 2006–Nov 2007); Archive 2 (Nov 2007–Jul 2008); Archive 3 (Jul 2008–Jun 2009); Archive 4 (Jun 2008–Jul 2012); Archive 5 (Jul 2012–);

Click here to leave a new message.

Plarium page

Hallo again. I saved my article into sandbox, please check it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Musiyaka/sandbox Musiyaka Musiyaka (talk) 10:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Musiyaka/sandbox - Ok, thanks for your help. Lets try again. I removed all of the "bad words". Musiyaka (talk) 15:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I left a message for you, please check my sandbox.Musiyaka (talk) 15:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Issues with your archive

This page lists Archive 5 as having no end date.
Archive 1 is missing link to Archive 4
Archive 5 is missing link to Archive 2
Archive 5 is formatted to use a window width of approximately 5,000 pixels; my screen is 1,920 pixels and displays less than half the window width. Wikipedia pages in general do not have fixed widths. —Anomalocaris (talk) 23:20, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page 5 doesn't have an end date because it is to present.
(2 and 3) That's how the archive navigator works. It doesn't display more than four links in the bar. I suggest you complain at {{aan}} if you don't like how it works.
That's because an inexperienced editor wrote a comment with a space in front of it, so the window has been expanded to fit the width of that column. I've been editing since 2005; I don't need telling about page widths.

Out of interest, why are you bothered? Number 5 7 23:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's odd that Archives 2, 3, and 4 aren't missing links, but Archives 1 and 5 are. Anyway, if it were my talk page, I would remove the leading space so that the page could be read without horizontal scrolling. That is all.—Anomalocaris (talk) 06:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Costa Rican general election, 2014, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Integration Party (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editor keeps putting Qumran in Israel

Hi Number 57. Ihutchesson keeps putting Category:Archaeological sites in Israel on Qumran. He thinks only including a West Bank-category would be POV. This is not how it works. West Bank is occupied and a part of the Palestinian territories. Adding POV would not making it NPOV. As you know, we can't say places in there or in the Golan Heights are in Israel. This is why we have categories such as Category:Archaeological sites on the Golan Heights, Category:Visitor attractions in Israeli-occupied territories and Category:Archaeological sites in Jerusalem. I've explained this to him and also pointed to this case and this, where it was clear that this was a POV issue and it was resolved, but he does not accept it and thinks it's my POV and that this could be arbitrated if I do not accept it. Category:Archaeological sites in the West Bank is fine. That is the accurate location. We can't start over everytime someone thinks it's fine to say places there are in Israel. That's a waste of time. Please give your comments on this. --IRISZOOM (talk) 18:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now that you've made the unnecessary decision to assert one over the other and can go on your merry way never to be seen in the article again, who is going to keep reverting to your preferred form of PC? I have specifically not entered into the politics on this complaint. The category "Archaeological sites in the West Bank" is not capable of distinguishing between, say, Jericho (administered by Palestine) and Qumran (administered by Israel), a distinction that Israeli visitors to the article are well aware of, as are many other visitors. This means that those who are offended by the preposition "in" with regard to the de facto control of Israel come to the page and assert their right to be imprecise. What I have to do now is ignore the inevitable slow futile edit war that your action has opened the article back up to. -- I.Hutchesson ► 19:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing stops you from saying who controls it, as you have done now in the lead. --IRISZOOM (talk) 21:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You, IRISZOOM, have shown you do not understand the problem, so you should get the idea that your comment is not necessarily relevant. -- I.Hutchesson ► 14:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you call "problem" and that is why I said to you that the info about control is in the text and nothing more is needed. Using incorrect categories is not the right way. --IRISZOOM (talk) 07:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plarium

Hello! I`m still waiting for your opinion about Plarium page. Please, check it. Musiyaka (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I dont understand. Suspicious about what? Games exist, they really so popular, you can google it or just look at fan pages on Facebook. In article I gave a link on app data, where you can see DAU and MAU of the games. In my sandbox you left only 1 sentence from whole article. Why? I gave all the links, I rewrite an article and leave only facts, please check my sandbox one more time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Musiyaka/sandbox I really dont understand why this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_Insight is acceptable and my - suspicious. Musiyaka (talk) 09:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TB

Hello, Number 57. You have new messages at RA0808's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

RA0808 ^talk _contribs 03:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mizrachi (political party)

Hello Number57 :) I'm working on germanspoken Wikipedia at articles about Israels historian parliaments, groups, persons and so on. To modify the de:HaMisrachi-article I read your article Mizrachi (political party). The link at Knesset site isn't so powerful like yours. Can you give me the lecture for this article? Excuse my bad english and with best regards. --Markus S. (talk) 14:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you know the template:MKlink look at the germanspoken template. This have more functions ;) Perhaps you can change the template with further functions? --Markus S. (talk) 22:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Number 57. You have new messages at RA0808's talk page.
Message added 22:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

RA0808 ^talk _contribs 22:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stonham Aspal and other villages in Suffolk

I am supervising the University of Portsmouth students who are working on the articles for Stonham Aspal, Stansfield and various other villages in Suffolk, and elsewhere. For each of those two, you have twice deleted material they have added, and I am unclear why: it was factually accurate, and backed up by correct references. Labelling a big deletion of factually accurate material simply as "fixes" seems uninformative, and this is the first time in the running of this course that I have not been able to explain to students why their work had been edited -- it is usually quite obvious.

I note that you were responsible for the original creation of the articles, but they have clearly remained stubs, completely untouched by human hand for well over a year; we do check this before using articles in this course. The way this course operates has been discussed extensively with Wikipedians including Toni Sant, the Wikimedia UK education coordinator; and I presented our work at the EduWiki conference in Cardiff last October. Sawley, North Yorkshire, is a good example of "before" and "after" for one of the villages/parishes we worked on last year. We are both showing students how to get started as Wikipedians and slowly plugging gaps in Wikipedia's coverage of English parishes.

Please explain why you seem to be systematically removing material as the students add it. Humphrey.Southall (talk) 15:05, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey 57, I have to say it does appear that some of the referenced material (albeit some of trivia) has been removed without any kind of explanation. Some of the Suffolk village articles could use a bit of polishing! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've used talk-page templates to label the Stonham Aspal and Stansfield articles as targets of educational assignments. 57, I appreciate your work cleaning up articles but in these cases, and in the interest of not biting the newbies, I think it would be a good idea to respond to these good-faith edits with feedback to the user concerned or on the article Talk page rather than a revert with an uninformative edit summary. Educating the user about how to write good WP articles is a more long-term solution than undoing their work yourself. Best wishes, MartinPoulter (talk) 15:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys. I spotted this happening as numerous Suffolk village articles that I have on my watchlist started having edits made to them. The majority were positive changes, such as updating the population, but in some cases the information being added was rather pointless. Taking Stonham Aspal as an example, the user in question updated the population and also added the text "In 1870-1872, Stonham Aspal was described as: "A parish, with a village, in Bosmere district, Suffolk; 4½ miles NE of Needham-Market r. station." " Personally, I do not see the point in this information - it adds nothing to the article, particularly when the introduction already states that it is "a village and civil parish in the Mid Suffolk district of Suffolk in eastern England. Located around five miles east of Stowmarket..." So I deleted it, but left the new population figure (and also added to the infobox). Similar stuff was added to other village articles, and I also removed it with descriptive edit summaries, so I apologise for not doing so in this one case.

I did guess this was some kind of project, and left some friendly comments and advice at User talk:BusbyG on 5 February. However, given the fact that I got no response from the comment, and due to the amount of edits that appeared to be one-offs, I didn't think it would be particularly useful to try and leave messages for any other editors, as it looked like the accounts were only being used once. Hope that clarifies things. Number 5 7 18:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, and thanks for replying. I have now set up a course page, here: Education_Program:University_of_Portsmouth/Applied_Human_Geography_(Spring_2014). Adding banners to all the article Talk pages and then adding each student and their article to the course page is quite time consuming with 52 students on the course, but I have now tagged all 19 Suffolk articles that students are working on. We will add the parishes in other counties once we have figured out how to add my assistant as an additional instructor (documentation of all this is not good).

I would ask you to be a little tolerant, for now. They are just starting out with editing articles, and at this stage the focus is on how to edit the article, with some standard and easily accessible sources used partly as exercises: none of it is going to be wrong, but it will not always be that exciting, especially as these stub articles are often for very small villages. We have three staff monitoring them, and are regularly checking what they are doing (the course page we have just set up is entirely for the benefit of other Wikipedians such as yourself, and there is vastly more documentation for the course in the university's Moodle-based Virtual Learning Environment which unfortunately we cannot provide public access to because of university policy).

Please give students a chance to develop their articles. They are under instruction to have complete articles ready for open review by the end of March, and then to finalise them by April 28th. There are bound to be a handful which at that point are best returned to how they were before, but most people who have looked at the overall results from the course have been fairly impressed. Because I have now looked through all the Suffolk articles, I can see that on some of them you have given useful feedback, including the BusbyG one, for which many thanks (and I am about to say something to them all about looking at Talk pages and responding). However, the two students I mentioned had quite a bit of material removed without any feedback at all, and are a bit distressed (I had one of them in my office this afternoon). I had to tell all the students working on Suffolk to suspend their work, but I hope I can tell them to start again (last week was our reading week, and the one I saw said he had spent it researching material which he wants to add -- judge him when he is done).

Thanks.

Humphrey.Southall (talk) 20:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith: Please retract

Hi, Please refrain from making statements that do not assume good faith. I ask that you visit my user talk page, and retract the comment that suggests spite was involved as a show of good faith on your part, and an understanding that accusing me of making that edit out of spite is not a comment on the edit I made but on me as an editor. --LauraHale (talk) 20:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]