User talk:Afasmit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Mellie Uyldert[edit]

Thank you so much for your contributions to this page. I can't seem to find links to any of her work. Are you aware of any places to buy or online concordances?

Thanks again :)

Mammynuns (talk) 19:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment![edit]

Since you've done some work on fire articles, would love you to comment on this discussion about what qualifies as a current wildfire if you have a moment. --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Transfermarkt[edit]

Since most of its content is user-generated, Transfermarkt is not a reliable source. Please stop citing the website in articles. Thank you. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Medieval Italian composers[edit]

Thank you very much for your edits today. They pleased me a lot. What I'm not sure about is if a composer worked in one country his whole life but was born in another, should he be listed under both categories? My sense is yes, but I know others disagree. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 18:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Section blanking of International titles[edit]

Afasmit You might be interested to read Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels, the discussion on International titles. You reverted one of the sections blanked by an editor who did this to all the articles on novels by Agatha Christie without discussion first. Now the topic is being discussed. I reverted one of these, too, but will not revert them all unless there is more support to do so, after the topic is aired properly. You reverted for the article The Secret of Chimneys with a concise statement of your view, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Secret_of_Chimneys&curid=542507&action=history . I am sure your views will improve the discussion. --Prairieplant (talk) 21:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Dutch close-mid vowels before /r/[edit]

Hello. I see that you've been reinserting [ɪː, ʏː, ʊː] in Dutch IPA transcriptions. This creates a discrepancy between them and Help:IPA for Dutch (which they all link to), which is unacceptable. Each transcription that links to Help:IPA for Dutch must use the same transcription system that is shown there, otherwise we might as well don't have that IPA guide at all.

To see why it's not necessary to use the symbols [ɪː, ʏː, ʊː], see this discussion.

If you disagree with our current transcription system, please challenge it on Help:IPA for Dutch, but don't use another system until there's a consensus to change the guide. Peter238 (talk) 14:26, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

No idea which edit you're talking about. Is it one several thousand edits ago? If I did use any of these transcriptions for a Dutch word, that must have been by mistake as they look and sound non-native to me as a Dutchman. They also don't occur in the Dutch phonology tables that I doggedly follow. Perhaps your bot caught me undoing a large deletion (like a vandalism) that contained a transcription like this. Afasmit (talk) 08:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Maiorana wording[edit]

Hello User:Afasmit, can you take a look at the Maiorana surname article when you've got a minute, and, if necessary reword some of what's written, add/remove links and categories to make it sound more proper. It's a small job, but it would be a great help, thanks. --Emperorofthedaleks (talk) 04:41, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

It looks like you've eliminated a well-sourced well-written entry and replaced it with an unsourced and unlikely conjecture. I've restored the sensible version upon your request and added some more people. Afasmit (talk) 06:32, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
No, I meant could you reword the Anglo-Saxon version to fit Wikipedia with information based from this source ([1]). You can add related names and how it comes from Cheshire if you want. Maybe model it on Grant (name) article, which is very well written. --Emperorofthedaleks (talk) 11:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Bruma[edit]

Haha thanks, my bad. Didn't look at the spelling. Martin sv 85 (talk) 06:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Places of birth/death in lede sentence[edit]

Hi Afasmit, first of all thanks for working on the articles of academics, including some of the articles I created. Before you manage to add much more material I quickly wanted to advise you that according to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies places of birth/death should not be added to the section within the lede brackets, but rather to the main body of text. See WP:BIRTHPLACE for more. Happy editing! Crispulop (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Crispulop, I think this style aspect is a classical example of a guideline rather than a rule. It has been discussed extensively and I agree with this interpretation by two editors. If there is an info box or a description of the birth or death in the main text, I leave those places out of the lede. If not, I put them in there. The person building this article can use the new information in any style they want, although stubs reading something like
Zbygniew Prlwytzkovski (1902-1989) was a Dutch scientist.
Prlwytzkovski was born in 1902 in Rommeldam. He was a fictional person after whom the fictional element Prlwytzium is named. He died in Rommeldam in 1989.
always strike me as unnecessarily clumsy. Afasmit (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Anthony Colve[edit]

Hello!

My name is Artyom Anikin, and I am currently researching the life of Anthony Colve. I've recently written an article about his biography that will be published in the coming days in the academic journal, New York History, and it has a lot of information that is missing from your recent update of his page. I find it great that you have taken the time to update it as much as you have, and I hope that my article can help fill in the rest of the story. There are some interesting contradictions. You cite a source I did not see previously, the records of fort Sint Anna, which list him as living till 1695, while my research turned up a copy of his gravestone that listed his death as occurring in 1693. I'd like to talk to you about this if you are interested and I invite you to contact me. My article will hopefully be of great help to yours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artyomanikin (talkcontribs) 20:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Information icon

Hello! I have recently started a new WikiProject and am trying to recruit new members. The project, WikiProject Wildfire, focuses on articles that relate to wildfires. There is a lot of work that needs to be done. From updating templates, to classifying and improving articles. Any level of commitment is welcome! If you care to just add some input on the founding of the new project, awesome. If you would like to take an active role in editing articles, that is awesome as well! Knowledge of wildfires is NOT a prerequisite for joining the project. In fact, it would be great to have some members of the project who are NOT fire-buffs. That way we make sure that articles aren't just written by and for people in the fire community. If this is something you have any interest in, I would love to have you join the project! Please feel free to join the discussion or leave me a message on my talk page. (Note that you are receiving this message from me because I saw you made multiple edits on a wildfire related page, specifically List of Washington wildfires. Not just spamming you at random.) Hope you have a great day! Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Reverting AmE-biased phonemes in English phonology[edit]

Hi, I noticed you reverted an edit I made that corrected the phonemes of words with ⟨ong⟩ in them. The letter ⟨o⟩, in a closed syllable with the absence of a lengthening vowel, represents the /ɒ/ phoneme. It may make an [ɑː] sound or an [ɔː] sound in different contexts in AmE due to the lot-cloth split and the cot-caught merger, but it's not correct to say that it represents the phonemes /ɑː/ or /ɔː/. If you feel that that needs to be shown on that page, then it should be put in [] brackets to show that it's a narrow transcription. --Clorox (talk) 06:21, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Hello. I decided to talk to two admins, you and another person on the same subject. I asked about the KTFF 50th Anniversary Cup your version is very good, even the version in Persian.

But I note that the French version Coupe du 50e anniversaire de la KTFF of that problem, I would like to understand why? There are 14 reliable sources in 2 sources (Article 1 and 8) are two books that talks about a tournament on the 50 years of the federation and the other book on the team, 2 works speak of the competition.

The seventh source shows Yucel Hatay, known for writing several books on "Cyprus Turkish Football Association", "football in North Cyprus" and the "Northern Cyprus national football team".

The arguments given by those who are against this article, leaves desired. They say Sourcing very poor, anecdotal ....

Yet there were competitions around the world or there was a single edition that is on Wikipedia, sometimes with no sources. I admit to having trouble understanding for the latter. The two books are definitely the best sources.

Cordially. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E34:EE0E:ABD0:F48F:1CC6:E35A:1ABD (talk) 17:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm not an admin. Wouldn't want to be one either ;-) Afasmit (talk) 17:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Okay, it does not matter your opinion is just as important.

Knowing that the items are 100% reliable. I like to have your opinion, you keep the article in French, yes or no ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E34:EE0E:ABD0:F48F:1CC6:E35A:1ABD (talk) 18:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but no, I have not contributed to this topic in any language. Afasmit (talk) 20:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Afasmit. 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)

Bric Ghinivert[edit]

Thanks for fixing the prominence, I was too confident in Pkb! --Pampuco (talk) 17:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

National Records in speed skating[edit]

Hi Afasmit. Thank you for construcive edits! Just let me say, that permanent comparison of national results to world bests is not helpful. For all who are interested in: WRs are shown in its own article. Regards.Montell 74 (talk) 21:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Montell. I do think that the comparison with the world records are helpful, as it puts the national record in context with the current "state of the arts". In the Finnish case it shows that the male sprinters are amongst the best in the world, while, say, the female long distance skaters are not. Afasmit (talk) 21:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
To be among the bests depends on a lot of points. F.e. equipment, sponsorship and advancement by government. It makes no sense to compare each athlete to world leaders in it's discipline. What is the benefit to compare a sprinter of Guam with Bolt? Montell 74 (talk) 21:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Finnish sprinters and long distance skaters are operating under the same conditions. Perhaps the Finnish skating organization pushes the sprinting more these days, while women are under-sponsored; no idea, but the difference is information. More importantly, the individual records are pretty much meaningless to anyone not familiar with the top times. Just about everyone happens to know that 10 seconds flat for the 100 m dash is required to be in the top echelon and Guam's own Philam Garcia with his 10.66 s personal and national record may not be a challenger for Olympic gold, but few will know that 34.23 s on the 500 m in speed skating is pretty darn amazing for anyone, no matter where you come from. (By the way, it amazes me how many national record pages there are. You'd imagine some countries would run out of participants. Indeed, none of the ca 10,000 Palau women may have attempted pole-vaulting yet and none of the 5000 Nauru men may have yet bothered to speedwalk 20 let alone 50 km;-)
A real drawback may be that the world-records need to be updated on all these pages. We could link the times to the respective record progression pages, with the added benefit that one could see that, for example, Pekka Koskela's 1000 m time was actually a world record until March 2009. Afasmit (talk) 01:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
To update these pages all the time after a new WR is really unfortunate. Look at the history of these pages and you will see to whom it may concern. Maybe you ask more editors f.e. of the Netherlands speed skating records article... Á link to WR progression is the more better way. Regards.Montell 74 (talk) 12:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello Afasmit. I think your last changes doubles the progression you can find on the speed skating world records' article. Isn't your intention to point out, that some of the national records was once a world record? So please see my changes at finnish records. Wouldn't that be more helpful?Montell 74 (talk) 07:39, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Godfrid Storms[edit]

Thanks for adding the additional information and infobox to the Godfrid Storms page! Just curious where you were able to the the additional information (dates of birth/death, spouse, etc.)? When I created the page I was unable to find much on him other than various publications. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 01:29, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Yep, I should have attached a reference. Here is a very brief obituary, in Dutch, with all the information added. I reached it via his birth place (Sittard) mentioned in his dissertation (which also of course mentioned his PhD supervisor). For some reason it appears on a website with newspaper clippings about Ameland. He may have had a vacation cabin there. Afasmit (talk) 01:41, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Afasmit! I've added it as a reference. Definitely an obscure source, but provides a lot of good information. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Afasmit. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Stockley, Jason[edit]

Hi. What is meant by that [2]? Who is that? Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:42, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

That was an accident. Pasted in the previous name I added the default sort to. Afasmit (talk) 17:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Research on Elo initial ratings[edit]

Hi Afasmit,

Considering what will follow is clearly orginal research, I'm posting it here rather than on the World football Elo ratings talk page.

I've performed some testing in applying the Elo ratings backwards all over the database, starting with current ratings as on December 2017 and getting back to the first international game in 1872. The result wasn't really what I was expecting, since Scotland ended on that original game with 2406 points and England with 2275 points! Here is a table comparing the initial ratings calculated this way with the actual ratings used on eloratings.net:

http://www.international-football.net/test-elo-backwards

So, as you can see, it's not conclusive. This being said, I wanted to test it a bit scientifically. First thing, I wanted to check whether initial ratings used by Kirill do have an impact on the first games. For this, I've simply generated a script which would calculate the average variation of points in the earliest games and compare it with the average variation of points in the latest games. This can be checked on this page which calculates those average. Be careful as it hasn't been optimized so the page is a bit long to load:

http://www.international-football.net/test-16?nb_games=10

According to this page, 13.11 points exchanged on average during the 10 earliest games of each team, compared to 12.03 during the 10 latest games of each team. There is a slight difference, but the gap is not that big.

In order to know whether the ratings I've calculated backwards would reduce the gap, I've created this other page which use them as initial value and simulate the outcome. You can simulate up to the 7,500 first international games, leading us to 1967 (my host server screams when we try more). I've calculated again the average variation of points that would give for the 10 earliest games of each team. And here is the result:

http://www.international-football.net/test-17?total_games=7500&nb_games=10

According to this, 11.04 points would be exchanged on average during the 10 earliest games of each team in using those values. So it does have a positive impact in reducing the gap during earlier games. This being said, it also stretches the results of Elo ratings. England, the leader on August 11th 1967 has now 2212 points (instead of 2018 points) and Montserrat, at the bottom, has now 599 points (instead of 794 points).

Overall, I would say that the experience was pretty fun, but largely inconclusive. It's a bit weird to have such a high rating for Scotland during the very first game against England in 1872, and the whole Elo scale is messed up with a lot more teams exceeding 2000 points than it is currently the case. Probably a more reasonable adjustment would perform better results. Cheers, Metropolitan (talk) 04:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Metropolitan.
Sorry for the slow response. I've taken (had to take) a month of sabbatical from wikipedia.
I'm sure you've seen the overhauled football elo ratings website. The numbers have changed a lot. Perhaps Kyril, or whoever is managing the site now, has been reading our discussion, as almost all the differences are due to a different starting rating for 165 of the 238 countries you list. They still don't write on the "about" page how this initial rating is calculated, and they (unfortunately) still start at multiple of hundreds, but overall it appears to be an improvement. It's interesting to compare it to your calculated initial numbers:
Ignoring the 14 (or 17 if you count Kurdistan, Somaliland, and the Chagos Islands) teams that have played fewer then 20 matches, 51 country ratings previously agreed (differed by less than 51 points). Now 95 do. Another 3 are 51 or 52 points different. 110 initial country ratings are now closer to your calculations, 70 stayed the same, and 44 became more different. So, whatever new method they applied is closer to your calculations and my gut feeling;-) For these 224 countries, the average (absolute) difference between your calculations and theirs was 131 and now is 92 points. Your average initial rating was 1361.6, theirs was 1357.1 and now is 1359.0. Not much of a difference, but the spread has become much wider, both for the initial as the current numbers: your SD for the initials is ±375, theirs was just ±250 and now is ±313. I believe most better teams have gone up in current ratings, while most weaker teams have gone down. Because of this and since most matches played are intracontinental, African, Asian and Oceanic countries generally sank in ratings, while European and South American countries rose. Changes in the half-century and decade average ranking show that best; I'm almost ready wit an update for those.
Amongst the initial ratings that differ more from yours than before are four countries with conflicting histories: at the website the Republic of Ireland rather than Northern Ireland continues from the Irish team that started in 1882. It has relatively little impact on current and historical ratings (In 1921 Northern Ireland starts with 1600, Ireland has 1526 at that point), but the initial ratings are impacted. Likewise, the website continues Vietnam from South Vietnam instead of North Vietnam. The others don't have such explanation. As an example of a country with likely too high an initial rating I had used Bolivia: the website changed the initial from 1500 to 1300 while your calculation had it start (surprisingly) at 1546. So, the website's change feels better to me. Others aren't so obvious. Some examples of initials that now differ more from your calculations than before are: Norway (you 1671, old 1600, new 1400!), Guyana (1262, 1200->1500), Grenada (1327, 1300->1500), South Africa (1751, 1700->1900), Mongolia (647, 800->900), Dominica (1086, 1200->1300), Romania (1818, 1700->1600), East Germany (1723, 1600->1500), Turkey (1744, 1600->1500), Bulgaria (1672, 1500->1400), Switzerland (1812, 1600->1500!), and Chile (1777, 1500->1400!). Some others didn't change even when you had much different initials (e.g. Philippines (1005, 1300->1300) and Wales (1922, 1500->1500). It's good that the British teams didn't go as extreme as yours; e.g. Scotland's 2406 points would have been silly (they raised it from 1800 to 2000).
It really would be interesting to know what method they used; since you are quite invested in it, perhaps you can compel them to add it to the website. Cheers, Afasmit (talk) 23:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi Afasmit,
Last month I sent a message to Kirill through eloratings.net contact form to inform him about your observations on initial ratings, so that's indeed probably related. I'm glad to see this has lead to an improvement on earlier ratings. I advise you to do the same if you want more informations about how new initial ratings have been determined.
Thanks for having pointed out the addition of Kurdistan, the Chagos Islands and Somaliland. I've just noticed Western Sahara has been added as well.
Recently I've focused my efforts in presenting Elo ratings in their competitions contexts. It's still not finished yet, but I've added results of 1,500 international tournaments, with the Elo ratings of their champions, runners-up, third-place and fourth place teams. Here's a preview if you're interested:
http://www.international-football.net/competitions
Unfortunately, this shows the previous Elo ratings calculations. I'll need to process to yet another full database update. Last one was rather tedious to achieve so I'll try to find out a more efficient method to do it. Anyway, you're the first person I'm talking about this so don't hesitate to give me your feedback on this new section about competitions. Tell me if you have any ideas about what would be interesting to be displayed. Metropolitan (talk) 11:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
The full database update has been done. All ratings from Eloratings.net as on January 13th, 2018 are now available on the website:
http://www.international-football.net/elo-ratings-table
Metropolitan (talk) 04:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Rivers of Europe[edit]

I strongly disagree with your massive changes in the article Rivers of Europe. You have removed substantial content without any explanation, so would you mind explaining yourself on the talk page there. Kostja (talk) 09:30, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I did leave an explanation and invitation for comments on the discussion page. I've replied to your concerns there as well. Afasmit (talk) 01:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)