Jump to content

User talk:Rentier

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by S.tollyfield (talk | contribs) at 04:46, 11 July 2017. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello Rentier, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  SoothingR 14:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Robert Fettiplace, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Transduction (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) 09:53, 7 March 2016 (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.

Raymond Ogden (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Elasticity
Tim Pedley (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Graft
William Stanley Peart (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Medical Research Council

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jean-Paul Vincent, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages University of Louvain and Fruit fly (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) 10:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some information

The nominator Xtremedood has actually removed lots of data from several articles claiming it does not say what is written in the source, when it does. Just like how he claimed "Muhammad Prophet and Statesman" does not state what I said it does. What do you propose I do? If I revert him do you think wikipedia will be on my side? I feel its basically censorship --Misconceptions2 (talk) 01:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please let me know a few examples? If it is as clear-cut as in the case of Muhammad Prophet and Statesman, then I believe you can revert the changes. I will revert them as well. But make sure to observe WP:3RR or other restrictions, if applied. Rentier (talk) 11:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When the tribe heard of this, they fled. Muhammad captured 500 of their camels from the raid, and distributed it between his fighters. He also kept a fifth of the spoils"

Neither the webcitation.org link nor Sealed Nectar p. 204 (I downloaded this version) seem to be related to Al Kudr Invasion. What am I missing? Rentier (talk) 00:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I gave wrong source from that page. It is: Mubarakpuri, The Sealed Nectar, p. 147. (online) . On the page it has 147 and 204, i copied and pasted wrong.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 09:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I believe Xtremedood was within his right to remove the passage, because the source was not uniquely identified: it would be hard to locate the passage without knowing which edition of the book you were using (we should not have to trust webcitation.org). However, since the passage you want to cite is indeed in the book, all you have to do is to clearly indicate which edition of the book are you using. Since the reference was contested, I suggest making it super clear, like this:
Safiur Rahman Mubarakpuri. "ALKUDR INVASION". The Sealed Nectar. p. 107. ISBN 5872528906. He stayed there for three days, took their 500 camels as booty and distributed them to the fighters after he had set aside the usual one-fifth
{{cite book|isbn=5872528906|title=The Sealed Nectar|author=[[Safiur Rahman Mubarakpuri]]|page=107|chapter-url=https://books.google.pl/books?id=2q4KAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA107&lpg=PA107&dq="He+stayed+there+for+three+days,+took+their+500+camels+as+booty"|chapter=ALKUDR INVASION|quote=He stayed there for three days, took their 500 camels as booty and distributed them to the fighters after he had set aside the usual one-fifth}}
Rentier (talk) 13:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have added back te removed data with reference. Lets see if he tries to remove it this time. Will you help if he does remove? --Misconceptions2 (talk) 16:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Quotes" of primary sources removed claiming WP do not allow primary sources
I restored part of it. I am afraid the section "Other primary sources" featuring a long passage from Ibn Sa'd must go, because it constitutes original research. Rentier (talk) 13:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Quotes" removed again
I did not check, but I suspect the removal of the passage starting with "To deceive the enemy .." can be restored after fixing the reference. I would be inclined to keep some of "primary sources" section except of the quote from Ibn Kathirs, which is OR. Rentier (talk) 13:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Quotes" removed again
Same as above, Wikipedia should not quote a 14th century scholar without justification from other sources. I believe some of the section should stay, but quotes should not constitute close to half of the whole section. Better to just reference the sources. Rentier (talk) 13:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to the Persian Muslim scholar Muḥammad ibn Khāvandshāh, the purpose of this raid was to plunder Abu Sufyan's caravan and that some companions of Muhammad stayed behind as if they didn't ,they would need to fight because they believed plunder was the objective and not war against the Quraysh"
It seems to me that the versions of Invasion of Waddan and Patrol of Buwat made by Xtremedood represent a pretty narrow point of view. But they are well sourced. On the other hand, your version of Patrol of Buwat was primarily based on the work of medieval scholars, which I doubt can be considered reliable secondary sources. Can you find better sources? Rentier (talk) 13:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I dont need to because it seems you already found loads (the ones you put on talk page). Thanks --Misconceptions2 (talk) 16:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Both invasion and patrol seem to be supported by sources. Which one is more common in the literature? That should be the basis of deciding which one to use in the article. Perhaps (also referred to as ....) should be added. Rentier (talk) 13:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Misconceptions2: After some research, I am not sure if Patrol is justified at all. Let us see how Xtremedood responds. Rentier (talk) 16:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • User box removed:
The point of contention seems to be the level of personal involvement on the part of Muhammad. Without digging deeper, I could not justify your version. Can you make the attribution clearer or find new sources? Of course there was no need to remove the entire infobox. Rentier (talk) 13:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you --Misconceptions2 (talk) 13:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected mi mistake. Have you taken a long at the source. What do you think?--Misconceptions2 (talk) 10:50, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added my comments above. --Rentier (talk) 13:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I have been accused of misattributing primary sources. can you look into it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Expedition_of_Hamza_ibn_%27Abdul-Muttalib#Reply I admit the al-Waqidi source quote was an error on my part. But I do not think the "Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Hisham Sirat Rasul Allah, p. 95" source was a misattirbutation. What is your opinion. Is the quote from "Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Hisham Sirat Rasul Allah, p. 95" related to the caravan raids (Expedition of Hamza ibn 'Abdul-Muttalib is the FIRST caravan raid). Does it fit in that article? --Misconceptions2 (talk) 03:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Hisham Sirat Rasul Allah, p. 95" may not have been a misattribution, but it was original research. You need a reliable secondary source explicitly linking the quote to the event. Medieval texts hardly count as such. Remember that on Wikipedia you are not allowed to make even straightforward inferences that are not supported by secondary sources. --Rentier (talk) 11:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of primary sources

Article in question: Batn Rabigh Caravan Raid

On above article I quoted Sahih al-Bukhari, 5:57:74 . This primary source EXPLICITLY mentions Sa'd was the first to shoot an arrow for Islam,

The secondary sources in Batn Rabigh Caravan Raid also EXPLICITLY mentions Sa'd was the first to shoot an arrow for Islam.

I have been accused of violating WP:SYNTHESIS. What is your opinion, is this synthesis? --Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To me, the quote appears to nicely illustrate the article. I do not see WP:SYNTH here, unless one interprets the rule very broadly. I suggest that you ask here for more opinions. --Rentier (talk) 02:26, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Clayton Taylor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hamiltonian (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) 09:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FRS: code & wikidata?

Hello Rentier, thanks for publishing your list of living fellows at User:Rentier/FRS, it is very useful.

I was wondering if you would be able to make any of the code available that generates it? It would be great to co-ordinate your work with some of the efforts of Magnus Manske with Mix and match which includes deceased and living fellows. For example, wikidata needs populating with data, especially the [1] (fellows of the royal society property) which directly references to the biographies on the website that you have also used.

I also noticed that User:Rentier/FRS contains a few False positives and false negatives with some ambiguous links as well, for example:

...etc

Duncan.Hull (talk) 20:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Duncan, thank you for your interest. I am glad to hear you found the list useful!
I will be happy to release the code. I will put it on GitHub and let you know.
The Mix & match tool looks interesting. I will look into it.
Please do not spend too much time identifying false positives/negatives, since it should be able possible to eliminate almost all of them automatically by cross-checking the list with the Fellows category (and/or the list on Mix & match!). I just didn’t focus on that yet, because the current list is good enough for my present purpose (to identify articles that need creation).
Rentier (talk) 09:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Duncan.Hull: You can find the code here. Sorry about the lack of comments / poor readability. When I wrote it, I did not expect anybody would see it! Rentier (talk) 13:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Bring back my article --Sagbortio (talk) 20:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Everill

I have removed the PROD tag on Jon Everill. Once any editor has removed PROD, even the article creator, it cannot be restored, even if the removal was in bad faith. If you wish to further pursue deletion of that article, please use WP:Articles for deletion. Thanks. Safiel (talk) 17:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Safiel: No problem. I will nominate it for deletion. I am aware of policy, just the user deleted the "concern" parameter and not the entire PROD template. I was not sure if that counted as removal of the tag. Rentier (talk) 17:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Rentier. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of expeditions of Muhammad

Looking at the history of this article, it seems that you were in support of the full version of the article. I have brought up this issue again. Talk:List of expeditions of Muhammad#Consensus version. Capitals00 (talk) 00:51, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noticeboard notifications

If you report a user at WP:COIN, they must be notified, in order that they know and can respond. The procedure for doing so is listed in red text at the top of the page. - Bri (talk) 23:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip! I should have noticed that. Rentier (talk) 23:51, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your Cleanup Project

Hi

I don't understand what you are doing at your cleanup project. Can you tell me? Plum3600 (talk) 16:32, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Plum3600: Hi, I am analysing the Wikipedia database dumps in an attempt to find various ways to improve the encyclopedia. As part of this effort, hopefully just a beginning, I identified ~150 issues caused by unclosed tags, such as this. WikiProject Check Wikipedia does something similar and more (on a much bigger scale), however my plans lead in a different direction. Rentier (talk) 17:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New page reviewer granted

Hello Rentier. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

  • URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
  • Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
  • You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
  • Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
  • Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:19, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:CheckUser

Don't post that kind of material. It violates policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:43, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: The policy makes an exception with regards to posting links to "public advertisements to recruit paid Wikipedia editors", which is why I did it, having been made aware of this exception by another editor a few days ago. But this is the crux of my question - is there a process to report and investigate abuses like this? The case I posted is one of several that I'm aware of. Rentier (talk) 15:58, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At least for the present I don't accept that "exception", which was added out of process and has caused a tremendous amount of consternation and endless discussion that I don't have the patience to track. The answer to your question is you have no proof of socking, let alone conclusive proof. If you want to have a user sanctioned for undisclosed paid editing, you'd have to do it in a different forum, and regardless of what you think, I'd be very careful about what you post and what you link to, or you may find yourself in trouble, regardless of your intentions.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:10, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the user in question has already been blocked as part of another investigation, so much for the lack of proof. It is confusing to me that you refer to a policy and refuse to accept a part of it in the next sentence. I do accept, however, that the exception is to be interpreted narrowly, for the time being. Rentier (talk) 13:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rentier can you send me details regarding this case aswell. Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recognition for helping us sort NPP

What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
For your efforts to help us sort unreviewed pages (here, here, and here). This approach has been tried at similarly-backlogged AfC because getting subject matter experts to help with new articles is a great way to incentivize editing on thankless tasks in a targeted manner. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A bit late, but I'd like to second this! DrStrauss talk 15:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
For the keyword list of unpatrolled articles. This is a far more important development than you perhaps realise. All we need to do now is get the Reviewers to use it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:23, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was heading over here to give you kudos too. If you and Kudpung check my patrol logs, you'll see how quickly I was able to go through Catholic bishops stuck in the backlog. This is an area that I'm much more familiar with than most patrollers and they all tend to meet WP: N. Giving patrollers the ability to target articles they are familiar with is amazing, especially if they can target articles that are likely to be notable. You deserve much more than a barnstar for this! TonyBallioni (talk) 02:22, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Chris troutman, Kudpung, TonyBallioni Thank you for your kind words! Rentier (talk) 12:17, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Post to WP:COIN

I have removed your post to WP:COIN and suppressed it so that only oversighters have the ability to see it. I see the exception you are using but I think it completely contradicts the outing policy as it allows us to tie a Wikipedia ID to an offsite name. I have sent an email to the Oversight list explaining what I have done and why. I would appreciate it if you would not post that kind of information again until we get some kind of resolution to this, as it will be a vicious circle. You post it, I removed it and suppress it. ~ GB fan 20:28, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GB fan: Thank you for your message. I have no problem with that, given that the accounts I had an issue with (and more) have been exposed in the SPI case. I appreciate the tension between the outing policy and the need to protect the encyclopedia from promotional content. It is my opinion that the outing policy was never meant to protect paid editors in this way. I will not post any more such links until this is clarified. Rentier (talk) 20:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of comments. I would have run the check based on the evidence you presented at the SPI without the links. Also, the accounts were not "exposed" as there's nothing in the SPI that outs anyone. They were blocked as being the same person. That's it.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:14, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's good to know for the future that the in-wiki evidence would have been sufficient. I see what you mean. Rentier (talk) 22:01, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would personally say however that posting was nonetheless appropriate, because these attacks on the principles of WP should be publicly available when it does not involve a named individual. DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Rentier can you send me the links that you used? Interested in taking a look at the issue in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:37, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Based on comments I received at the mailing list I have reverted my suppression. I apologize for the removal and suppression, I was wrong. ~ GB fan 08:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good job

I just wanted to drop a quick note to say I've noticed the work you're doing at WP:COIN and it is appreciated. Hang on through the initial turbulence of learning an arcane rule system and I think you'll do fine. This is right at the bleeding edge of some really tough debates going on in our community over what our values are and how they should be expressed. If you haven't seen it before, I'd invite you to peruse my essay What's wrong with undisclosed paid editing and of course provide feedback if you feel inclined to so do. - Bri (talk) 22:16, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Bri. I have in fact read the essay before (though it didn't register to me that you were the author), and I think it's a very good overview of the subject. Rentier (talk) 19:30, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Josephine Gillan

I have a message to say that you have reviewed this page. I cannot however see any change or comment. Can you tell me what this means?LawTech6 04:46, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rentier&oldid=790031630"