Jump to content

User talk:3family6/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

DYK for Scottish art in the nineteenth century

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Crabcore

Hello 3family6. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Crabcore".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Crabcore}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 22:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Nam Bac

Hello,

Your addition of an info box to the above is a nicely done and welcome one. Indeed, I am afraid to meddle with it for fear of spoiling it. However, one belligerent force has been forgotten: the Royal Lao Air Force. Could you be so kind as to dub it in?

Georgejdorner (talk) 20:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I used Royal Lao Armed Forces to represent both the army and the air force, but per your request I specified the forces involved.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Dan Smith (American musician)

Information icon Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Listener (musician) a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Dan Smith (American musician). This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen. Thank you. 118.22.178.161 (talk) 01:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this has to do with me - I don't remember doing this copy-paste. You redirected the Dan Smith article to the Listener band article without any explanation as to why. The Dan Smith article does have some of the same content as the Listener band article, but that's merely because the Dan Smith article is summarizing what is in the Listener article. That kind of overlap is okay. I didn't create any of the major content in those articles anyway, so I don't know why you are bringing this to me.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 December 2014

VisualEditor newsletter—December 2014

Screenshot showing how to add or remove columns from a table

Did you know?

Basic table editing is now available in VisualEditor. You can add and remove rows and columns from existing tables at the click of a button.

The user guide has more information about how to use VisualEditor.

Since the last newsletter, the Editing Team has fixed many bugs and worked on table editing and performance. Their weekly status reports are posted on Mediawiki.org. Upcoming plans are posted at the VisualEditor roadmap.

VisualEditor was deployed to several hundred remaining wikis as an opt-in beta feature at the end of November, except for most Wiktionaries (which depend heavily upon templates) and all Wikisources (which await integration with ProofreadPage).

Recent improvements

Basic support for editing tables is available. You can insert new tables, add and remove rows and columns, set or remove a caption for a table, and merge cells together. To change the contents of a cell, double-click inside it. More features will be added in the coming months. In addition, VisualEditor now ignores broken, invalid rowspan and colspan elements, instead of trying to repair them.

You can now use find and replace in VisualEditor, reachable through the tool menu or by pressing ⌃ Ctrl+F or ⌘ Cmd+F.

You can now create and edit simple <blockquote> paragraphs for quoting and indenting content. This changes a "Paragraph" into a "Block quote".

Some new keyboard sequences can be used to format content. At the start of the line, typing "*  " will make the line a bullet list; "1.  " or "# " will make it a numbered list; "==" will make it a section heading; ": " will make it a blockquote. If you didn't mean to use these tools, you can press undo to undo the formatting change. There are also two other keyboard sequences: "[[" for opening the link tool, and "{{" for opening the template tool, to help experienced editors. The existing standard keyboard shortcuts, like ⌃ Ctrl+K to open the link editor, still work.

If you add a category that has been redirected, then VisualEditor now adds its target. Categories without description pages show up as red.

You can again create and edit galleries as wikitext code.

Looking ahead

VisualEditor will replace the existing design with a new theme designed by the User Experience group. The new theme will be visible for desktop systems at MediaWiki.org in late December and at other sites early January. (You can see a developer preview of the old "Apex" theme and the new "MediaWiki" one which will replace it.)

The Editing team plans to add auto-fill features for citations in January. Planned changes to the media search dialog will make choosing between possible images easier.

Help

If you would like to help with translations of this newsletter, please subscribe to the Translators mailing list or contact us directly, so that we can notify you when the next issue is ready. Subscribe or unsubscribe at Meta.

Thank you! WhatamIdoing (WMF) (talk) 23:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion regarding Template:Rating

Hi! I noticed from the template's talk page history that you seemed like an involved editor there who may have an opinion on a discussion going on at WP:ALBUMS about rendering ratings. Would you care to weigh in here? Dan56 (talk) 06:54, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I've already commented, but thanks anyway for the invite.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 06:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2014

DYK for Lorde

Harrias talk 00:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Blakumen

Harrias talk 12:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

GA Cup - Round 4 (Semi-Finals)

WikiProject Good Articles's 2014-15 GA Cup - Round 4

Happy New Year! We hope that all of our GA Cup competitors had an enjoyable and safe holiday season.

Monday saw the end of Round 3. Eight contestants moved forward to Round 4—the top two contestants from each of Round 3's three pools and the top two participants of all remaining users. It was an exciting competition, especially towards the end. Round 3's highest scorer was Jaguar, Round 2's wildcard, with an impressive 305 points, the highest score in the GA Cup thus far. Pool B was the closest race; J_Milburn and Cwmhiraeth switched places a few times in the final hours of the competition, although J Milburn edged out Cwmhiraeth by just 9 points. Pool A was, by far, the most competitive; four out of five moved onto Round 4, and its competitors earned a cumulative 935 points and reviewed 59 articles. Ritchie333, who came in second overall with 255 points, reviewed the most articles (17). Peacemaker67 and Wizardman earned the two wildcard slots, with 184 and 154 points, respectively. Congrats to all!

114 articles were reviewed this round, as compared to 110 in Round 2 and 117 in Round 1. The key to success in Round 3, like in Round 2, was reviewing articles with the longest nomination dates; everyone who moved forward reviewed articles from the pink nomination box (20 points) or reviewed articles that had languished in the queue for over 5 months (18 points). Many of these articles had languished because their nominators had left Wikipedia and had little chance of passing to GA, so our competitors provided a great service by helping remove them from the queue. Also as in Round 2, The Boat Race articles proved to be popular review choices, with 10% of all the articles reviewed in December. We appreciate the competitors' continued enthusiasm, even during the busy holiday season. At least one competitor even reviewed articles while preparing for a holiday meal!

For Round 4, participants have been randomly put in 2 pools of 4 contestants each. The top two in each pool will progress to the finals, as well as the top participant (5th place) of all remaining users. The semi-finals will start on January 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on January 29 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 4 and the pools can be found here.

We received some excellent feedback about how to improve the GA Cup in the future, including the definition of "quickfails" and the use of pools, which we'll seriously consider as we move forward. As a result of this feedback and the experience we've gained, there will be some changes to the rules come next years GA Cup.

Good luck to all our semi-finalists! It is the judges' hope that every competitor in the GA Cup continue to have fun and be enthusiastic about reviewing and passing articles to GA!

Cheers from Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan.

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 December 2014

Instead of a cheque...

The Running Man Barnstar
Thank you for all you have done to help me with the Boat Race articles. Tonight we hit a landmark, over 50% of the race articles are now Good or Featured Articles, which is a monumental achievement considering that none of the articles even existed eight months ago. Thanks again. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome! Glad I could take part.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Szczytt

Hello, I am very glad that you will be reviewing this article. Best regards, Kmicic (talk) 14:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 January 2015

Industrial Revolution

Thank you for your thorough review of this article. I believe I will be able to address most of the issues you uncovered; however, because of a project I have taken on recently it will take me some time. Hopefully others can help also.Phmoreno (talk) 13:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

That's fine. I just wanted a response, so I know what's up. Good luck on your project!--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Ole Børud

The DYK project (nominate) 16:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ole Børud, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Death (band). 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) 08:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 January 2015

German occupation of Belgium during World War I

Hi 3family6 - thank you very much for taking on the review of Brabant Revolution and dealing with it so efficiently! I just wondered, if I can possibly ask, whether you might be willing to take on the GA review of another Belgian history article I've had nominated for some time. Unfortunately I'm going to have to take a wikibreak of several months from next month or so (real life calling unfortunately) so I am really hoping to have all my GA nominations wrapped up by then if at all possible! Anyway, let me know if you're willing to give it a quick look. All the best & thanks again, —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. I have quite a list of nominations to review, but I can adjust. I'm a contestant in the GA Cup, so I certainly don't mind more nominations to review.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi 3family6 - many thanks indeed for your excellent review! I've just got one more, if you possibly have a moment, Hubert Pierlot (on a similar theme) but I can certainly understand if you've had enough of Belgian history for one lifetime! All the best, —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
No, that's fine, I'll take it on. It might take several days, though. At least my grad applications are done, so I've got more time.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
As for Belgian history, I don't know much about it other than what I got in Western Civ 101, so I love doing these reviews. I've done far more GARs for medieval Norse-Gaelic and Hungarian rulers, so three Belgian articles won't bother me.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
That's funny, I'm in a similar position myself. Unfortunately exams still call too, so (hopefully) I'll be able to resist the temptation to return to Wiki for a bit. Hopefully I'll stop myself nominating any GAs any time soon anyway! Many thanks for taking it on - I've taken the liberty of awarding you a barnstar for your trouble too! Best of luck with the cup. —Brigade Piron (talk) 21:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Reviewer Barnstar
For real diligence in reviewing obscure GAs on Belgian history without any complaint and being a pleasure to work with on them! All the very best, —Brigade Piron (talk) 20:58, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you!--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Béla III of Hungary

Thank you for your review. Have a nice month. :) Borsoka (talk) 04:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Wikify's August Newsletter



Your Wikification Newsletter – Volume I, Issue IV, October 2011


To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.


Ichthus: January 2012


ICHTHUS

January 2012
Ichthus is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions and subscriptions contact the Newsroom

Invitation to the April Wikification Drive

Invite

Reasons why you should join WikiProject Christianity:

  1. Obtain answers to your questions about Christianity on the noticeboard (watch)
  2. Work side by side with friendly and welcoming editors who are passionate about Christianity
  3. Free subscription to our informative newsletter
  4. Explore Christianity in depth with one of our 30 specialty groups
  5. Get recognition for your hard work and valuable contributions
  6. Find out how to get your article promoted Featured class at the Peer Review Department
  7. Choose from a collection of over 55,000 articles to improve

talkback

Hello, 3family6. You have new messages at Talk:List of Christian hip hop and rap artists.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

February 2013 Wikification Drive

Hi there! I thought you might be interested in WikiProject Wikify's February Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive. We'll be trying to reduce the backlog size by over 500 articles and we need your help! Hard-working participants in the drive will receive awards for their contributions. If you have a spare moment, please join and wikify an article or tell your friends. Thanks!

Vanilla Ice is not a Nu Metal artist

Vanilla Ice is a rapper it says so on his wikipedia page and whoever made the references saying he was nu-metal are stupid.

A page you started (Tunnel Rats (music group)) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Tunnel Rats (music group), 3family6!

Wikipedia editor HotHat just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Great work on Tunnel Rats.

To reply, leave a comment on HotHat's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

The Signpost: 21 January 2015

Ladislaus III of Hungary

The child king joined his grandfather, Béla III. Thank you for it. Borsoka (talk) 19:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

A Barnstar for your help

The Special Barnstar
I think it's more than deserving for what you've done and yet the least I can do. I wanted to walk away from Wikipedia for a few years while my own life takes over, but I was waiting for those articles to be reviewed and (hopefully) pass, as they were. So cheers for reviewing the three of them because it concludes my work, and for others there are more alternative music articles that have been written to a good level, hopefully inspiring others. Keep doing what you're doing, peace. Jonjonjohny (talk) 17:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, and good luck with your plans, on and off-Wiki!--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 January 2015

GA Cup - The Finals

WikiProject Good Articles's 2014-15 GA Cup - Round 5/Final

GA Cup competitors and observers: Get ready, we're about to move into the finals of the inaugural GA Cup! Not nearly as important as another competition taking place this weekend, but significant none the less. No deflated footballs here, though!

Thursday saw the end of Round 4. Out of the 8 contestants in the semi-finals, 5 have moved to the finals. The semi-finals continued to be very competitive. The highest scorer overall was Ritchie333 from Pool B, with an impressive 488 points and a total of 36 articles reviewed, the most of any competitor; close behind was Jaguar (last round's wildcard), with 477 points and 29 reviews. At times, the competition between them was a real horse-race, and exciting for the judges to witness. Both Ritchie333 and Jaguar have moved onto the finals. In Pool A, Good888 with 294 points, and Wizardman with 179 also won slots in the final. 3family6 with 285 points, won the wildcard slot. We also had one withdrawal, due to outside-of-Wikipedia priorities. Congrats to all!

Although there were just 8 competitors, more reviews were conducted this round than in any other round—148, which demonstrates the commitment and enthusiasm of our participants. The most successful competitors, like in all previous rounds, reviewed articles that languished in the queue at GAC for at least five months (worth 18 points). The Boat Race articles were popular review choices again, with almost 20% of the articles reviewed this month.

In other news, we received another report from GA statistics page maintainer User:AmericanLemming. See here [1] for his take on the effect the GA Cup has had on Good Article reviews. He believes that we've made a real difference. AmericanLemming says: "As you can see, ...the GA Cup has done wonders when it comes to getting the oldest nominations reviewed much sooner thanks to the system whereby you get the most points for reviewing the oldest articles." Everyone involved with this competition, especially the competitors, should be very proud of what we've been able to accomplish!

The Final will start on February 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on February 26 at 23:59:59 UTC with a winner being crowned. Information about the Final can be found here.

Good luck to all our finalists!

Cheers from Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan.

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

VisualEditor News 2015—#1

Since the last newsletter, the Editing Team has fixed many bugs and worked on VisualEditor's appearance, the coming Citoid reference service, and support for languages with complex input requirements. Status reports are posted on Mediawiki.org. Upcoming plans are posted at the VisualEditor roadmap.

The Wikimedia Foundation has named its top priorities for this quarter (January to March). The first priority is making VisualEditor ready for deployment by default to all new users and logged-out users at the remaining large Wikipedias. You can help identify these requirements. There will be weekly triage meetings which will be open to volunteers beginning Wednesday, 11 February 2015 at 12:00 (noon) PST (20:00 UTC). Tell Vice President of Engineering Damon Sicore, Product Manager James Forrester and other team members which bugs and features are most important to you. The decisions made at these meetings will determine what work is necessary for this quarter's goal of making VisualEditor ready for deployment to new users. The presence of volunteers who enjoy contributing MediaWiki code is particularly appreciated. Information about how to join the meeting will be posted at mw:Talk:VisualEditor/Portal shortly before the meeting begins. 

Due to some breaking changes in MobileFrontend and VisualEditor, VisualEditor was not working correctly on the mobile site for a couple of days in early January. The teams apologize for the problem.

Recent improvements

The new design for VisualEditor aligns with MediaWiki's Front-End Standards as led by the Design team. Several new versions of the OOjs UI library have also been released, and these also affect the appearance of VisualEditor and other MediaWiki software extensions. Most changes were minor, like changing the text size and the amount of white space in some windows. Buttons are consistently color-coded to indicate whether the action:

  • starts a new task, like opening the ⧼visualeditor-toolbar-savedialog⧽ dialog:  blue ,
  • takes a constructive action, like inserting a citation:  green ,
  • might remove or lose your work, like removing a link:  red , or
  • is neutral, like opening a link in a new browser window:  gray.

The TemplateData editor has been completely re-written to use a different design (T67815) based on the same OOjs UI system as VisualEditor (T73746). This change fixed a couple of existing bugs (T73077 and T73078) and improved usability.

Search and replace in long documents is now faster. It does not highlight every occurrence if there are more than 100 on-screen at once (T78234).

Editors at the Hebrew and Russian Wikipedias requested the ability to use VisualEditor in the "Article Incubator" or drafts namespace (T86688, T87027). If your community would like VisualEditor enabled on another namespace on your wiki, then you can file a request in Phabricator. Please include a link to a community discussion about the requested change.

Looking ahead

The Editing team will soon add auto-fill features for citations. The Citoid service takes a URL or DOI for a reliable source, and returns a pre-filled, pre-formatted bibliographic citation. After creating it, you will be able to change or add information to the citation, in the same way that you edit any other pre-existing citation in VisualEditor. Support for ISBNs, PMIDs, and other identifiers is planned. Later, editors will be able to contribute to the Citoid service's definitions for each website, to improve precision and reduce the need for manual corrections.

We will need editors to help test the new design of the special character inserter, especially if you speak Welsh, Breton, or another language that uses diacritics or special characters extensively. The new version should be available for testing next week. Please contact User:Whatamidoing (WMF) if you would like to be notified when the new version is available. After the special character tool is completed, VisualEditor will be deployed to all users at Phase 5 Wikipedias. This will affect about 50 mid-size and smaller Wikipedias, including Afrikaans, Azerbaijani, Breton, Kyrgyz, Macedonian, Mongolian, Tatar, and Welsh. The date for this change has not been determined.

Let's work together

Subscribe or unsubscribe at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Newsletter. Translations are available through Meta. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) 20:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Turkic dynasties and countries, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Turkic. 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) 09:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Turkic khanates

I think User:Uniquark9‎ does have a point regarding the definition of Turkic khanates. How about adding something like "This list does not include non-Turkic khanates that later became Turkicized" in the beginning of the List of Turkic dynasties and countries article, and then follow this rule in it? Or maybe try to add a separate section somewhere to specifically list Turkicized khanates? Obviously Turkic khanates and Turkicized khanates are not exactly the same thing. --Evecurid (talk) 02:39, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The list right now states "The following is an incomplete list of historical dynasties which had Turkic origins or the country they ruled were Turkic-speaking. The list also includes modern countries with significant Turkic populations or with an official Turkic language." And the listing of Golden Horde states "Majority of the population were Turkic peoples.[19]" So the list does include "non-Turkic khanates that became Turkicized," Uniquark9 is just trying to change the scope of the list without establishing consensus. The Golden Horde listing mentions that it is listed because of the majority population, so I really don't think much more elaboration is in order, although I think the notice should mention that it was established as a Mongolian khanate.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
As I was unable to find a discussion for this dispute in any of the related talk pages, I had to leave it in your talk page. I saw you just started a new thread in Talk:List of Turkic dynasties and countries, which is definitely a good thing. --Evecurid (talk) 03:51, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for initiating this. I do want these disputes to resolve.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

hi

thanks so much for your edits and your willingness to solve it:)Turkic_ Warrior 22:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 February 2015

hi

i am not nationalist, I have not done anything. i am on your side and i do not trust wikipedia, the Mongols agree not even whit refernser on for example naimans, khereid, golden horde etc.:@ Mehmeett21 16:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Richard III FAC

Hi 3family6, it's been a while since you last commented on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Exhumation of Richard III of England/archive1 - are you happy with the current state of the article? I think I've tackled all of the issues that you raised. Prioryman (talk) 22:31, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

GA Cup Feedback Form

WikiProject Good Articles's 2014-15 GA Cup - Feedback

Greetings, all! 4 months ago the GA Cup began and now as it comes to a close, it's time to start thinking about the next competition! Below is a link to a Google Form with several questions. We want to here from you what you thought about the GA Cup. Just over half of the questions are required while the others are optional. If you don't want to answer one of the optional questions, feel free to skip it.

Your responses will only be visible to the three judges.

Thank-you to all particpants for making the first GA Cup a success and we hope to see you all come out again for the next competition!

2014-15 GA Cup Feedback Form

Cheers from Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan.

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit war

I know you are trying to stop the edit war in List of Turkic dynasties and countries, but I think you have been involved in the edit war yourself as well. I believe it would be better for you to be calm down a little and become uninvolved in the war itself for a while too. In the mean time, it would probably be a good idea to try to solve the problem by other means, for example by referring to relevant Wikipedia policy for resolving such edit wars. As you might have noticed User:Damotclese had left a message in the article talk page recently. Do you by any chance know if it is an official policy of Wikipedia? Also are there any other Wikipedia policies applicable to current situation? Thanks. --Evecurid (talk) 22:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean about if it is official policy. The comment that Damotclese left was their comment, nothing more, nothing less. Their mention about how entries should be based on reliable sources is referring to Wikipedia policy. Their comment about languages is not referring to any specific policy or guideline.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
What I meant in my previous comment is that I would like to know any relevant Wikipedia policies for resolving edit wars in such situation, and it may also be a better idea for you to resolve such situation by directly referring to Wikipedia policies (and by linking to the policy page at the same time). Obviously I know the comment that Damotclese left was their comment, but what I wanted to know is that if it is an actual Wikipedia policy that the actual edits should mostly depend on the existence of suitable references and the scholars who wrote them, rather than the knowledge of the editors about the subject. Sorry I might not have explained things well in my previous message. --Evecurid (talk) 05:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
That's fine, thanks for clarifying. The policy is verifiability, which states "Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." The content guideline associated with this policy is WP:RS, which helps editors understand the consensus on how to use, and what counts as, reliable sources here on the English language Wikipedia.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. The basic idea for WP:RS is straightforward, and I think it is not the real issue in our particular case (I am referring to the edit war). But how about more complicated situations, such as when there is a source saying so, but other editors are sure that is in fact not the case, or editors are sure that the info in one source is better than the other source? Compared with the basic idea of WP:RS, these are more relevant to our situations. That is why I mentioned that I would like to know any *relevant* Wikipedia (sub)-policies for resolving edit wars in our particular case. Hope you can get what I mean. --Evecurid (talk) 05:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
In the case of disputes, Wikipedia policy is that editors should develop a consensus, which is what we are now attempting to do on the talk page. There is an essay which, though not a policy or guideline, helps explain how the process works. When you get sources that disagree or conflict with one another, Wikipedia's policy on neutrality holds that all major views be presented. This is also something that consensus can help flesh out - which sources do we consider authoritative? For what? And why? I agree with you that I need to step back myself in editing the article, since I'm getting caught up in the edit war.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 06:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Genghis Khan

FYI, I've opened a sock puppet investigation re Uniquark9. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 14:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I lost my cool a bit last night and got carried away with this editor and their stubbornness, so thank you for intervening here.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


Read your source. the Lane's book: It stated clearly the whole thing is a conjecture, not only the place. Tell your professor it seems he/she has wrong info. https://books.google.com/books?id=d2SWstj6j3AC&lpg=PP1&dq=Genghis%20Khan%20and%20Mongol%20Rule%20%20By%20George%20Lane&pg=PA23#v=onepage&q=Genghis%20Khan%20and%20Mongol%20Rule%20%20By%20George%20Lane&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uniquark9 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Uniquark9, though we've gotten along badly, and your activities are frequently disruptive, you do good research, and have a better working knowledge in this area than I do. There's still a lot of work to be done on the Genghis Khan and other Mongol-related articles, so I hope that we can both deal with this in a better way, and be more productive editors.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Historical sources: The Secret History of Mongols, Altan Tobchi, Rashid Ad-din's Compendium of Chronicles and ]]Yuan Shi]]. The Secret History and Altan Tobchi have vey similar contents and Compendium of Chronicles was written by a persian historian during the Ilkhanate. Yuan shi is considered less reliable because it was written during the Ming dynasty by chinese historians and "it has been criticised by imperial Chinese scholars for its lack of quality and numerous errors, attributed to the haste with which it was compiled."(excerpt from its page) Except these few sources there is no other historical record. I really want to read the original proposal by Ratchnevsky, unfortunately nothing is found. Also theory is a very strong word, suggestion/hypothesis is more appropriate. I guess you couldn't find any other source which has not quoted or mentioned Ratchnevsky's suggestion on this case. So the rule is "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources". Ratchnevsky's claim can be be considered as a exceptional source? Probably not. So i am wondering if it's even worth mentioning?Uniquark9 (talk) 05:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Forgot to mention Plano Carpini and William of Rubruck.Uniquark9 (talk) 06:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The Secret History of the Mongols is a literary work, not a historical record, but since it's the only source for most of the early events in Chinggis Khan's life, we have to use it, though with some discretion (for instance, the talking head scene is probably not something to be mentioned as a real historical event). But yes, having taken a class in Mongol History, those sources you mentioned are the only one's we have to work with. I want to read the scholarship by Ratchnevsky as well. But his claim is not exceptional, since many historians apparently lend some credence to it. Whether you think that they should or not doesn't matter for Wikipedia, since Wikipedia merely summarizes the opinions found in reliable sources, and doesn't publish original research.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for your review! I've taken your advice and started an FAC to obtain closer scrutiny. Shii (tock) 18:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 February 2015

New History Warfare Vol. 3: To See More Light

Hi there. thanks for taking the GA review on for New History Warfare Vol. 3: To See More Light - I've been waiting a while, so I appreciate it. Just one thing to note, though: I'm going away for a few days and will likely have no internet access between Monday 9 and Friday 13 of February - I hope this isn't going to harm the article's chances of promotion, since I'll not be able to edit it during that period. I'll definitely be back from Saturday 14 February though, and I'll give it my full attention. Any queries, let me know. Thanks again! — sparklism hey! 12:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

No, that's fine, thanks for letting me know, Sparklism. I'll focus on other articles in the mean time.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Just letting you know: I'm back online. Ready when you are. Cheers! :) — sparklism hey! 15:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
OK!--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:56, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Wow! That was painless - many thanks!! :) — sparklism hey! 17:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:3family6/Archive_10&oldid=1136401741"