User talk:AsianGeographer/2013-01-07
Welcome AsianGeographer!
| Some pages of helpful information to get you started: | Some common sense Do's and Don'ts:
|
| If you need further help, you can: | or even: |
Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page, and someone will try to help.
There are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:
|
|
Remember to always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the 
button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to this (your talk) page, and a timestamp.
To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can create your own private sandbox for use any time. Perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put
{{My sandbox}} on your user page. By the way, seeing as you haven't created a user page yet, simply click here to start it.Sincerely, - MrX 01:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
AsianGeographer, you are invited to the Teahouse
[edit]
|
Hi AsianGeographer! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |
Help
[edit] | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Please see Category talk:Subdistricts of Indonesia for the problem. AsianGeographer (talk) 12:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- But there is already for Districts of Indonesia that is properly populated. Mukim are defined as subdistricts, and thus this category is corerectly populated as well (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- I only see Category:Districts of Indonesia - deleted by Fastily. AsianGeographer (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- There indeed seems to be some confusion about "districts" and "sub-districts". I have raised the issue at WT:WikiProject Indonesia#Districts and subdistricts. If the category is to be renamed, WP:Categories for discussion is the place to go, but I'd first ask for a wider consensus on the proper name. Huon (talk) 00:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you. AsianGeographer (talk) 11:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- There indeed seems to be some confusion about "districts" and "sub-districts". I have raised the issue at WT:WikiProject Indonesia#Districts and subdistricts. If the category is to be renamed, WP:Categories for discussion is the place to go, but I'd first ask for a wider consensus on the proper name. Huon (talk) 00:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Bali
[edit]Please stop your unilateral split of the Bali article until a consensus has been reached. thank you --Merbabu (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- What consensus? I just fixed the article, which is a province article. AsianGeographer (talk) 23:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- Exactly, what consensus? Wikipedia works on consensus. You do not have one as is obvious from Talk:Bali. "Fixed" is only your opinion. Please undertake the conversation at Talk:Bali so it's all at a centralised place for all to seen. thanks --Merbabu (talk) 23:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think the problem here is that, as a rule on English Wikipedia, we do not create separate articles for the administrative entity and the geographical entity, but instead deal with them together in the same article. The differences can be explained within the article. This avoids duplication and the problem of having two articles saying much the same thing, which leads to a tendancy for editors to update one, but not the other. That results in the encyclopedia becoming unreliable, and untrusted. There will be special circumstances where an article becomes so large that it is necessary to split off a section, or where there is a clear need to differentiate between the administrative and geographic entities (Taiwan is a good example, as the country includes two provinces, Taiwan Province and Fujian Province), but generally it is pretty easy to accomodate both in the same article. The general thing to bear in mind is, "where would the average reader expect to find the article?" In the case of Bali, I think the overwhelming majority of readers would expect to find the article on both the province and the island at Bali. Skinsmoke (talk) 00:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- I would expect to find the province article at Bali Province or Bali (province). I read a lot of other Asian articles. They are (except for the Philippines) well named. And the province you find at "Whatever Province". Taiwan Island does not redirect to Taiwan Province or the other way around. That is independent of Taiwan (country). The Fujian Province has nothing to to with Taiwan Province nor Taiwan Island. It is very easy to have aspects from physical geography on Bali Island and the rest somewhere else. AsianGeographer (talk) 00:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think you've just answered your own point. The average reader has not read a lot of other Asian articles. They just want to find something about Bali. They probably have an idea it's an island (though many of them won't even know that), but most won't have a clue that it's a province. They simply know that it's somewhere people go on holiday (some may even know it's in Indonesia, but not as many as you think). They probably have a vague recollection that a lot of people were killed in a bombing there. Consequently, you are not an average reader (for a start, you're editing Wikipedia, which the average reader does not do). Having entered Bali into the Search box, the average reader does not want to go through a disambiguation page to find the article, if it can possibly be avoided, nor do they want to have to go ferreting around to find a separate article about the geography (or the politics, or the economy, or the history). They just want it all there, on the one page. Skinsmoke (talk) 01:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- I know people that prefer a disambiguation instead of a surprise page. And for search box users: they would see Bali Island and Bali Province - very easy to select the island. AsianGeographer (talk) 01:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think you've just answered your own point. The average reader has not read a lot of other Asian articles. They just want to find something about Bali. They probably have an idea it's an island (though many of them won't even know that), but most won't have a clue that it's a province. They simply know that it's somewhere people go on holiday (some may even know it's in Indonesia, but not as many as you think). They probably have a vague recollection that a lot of people were killed in a bombing there. Consequently, you are not an average reader (for a start, you're editing Wikipedia, which the average reader does not do). Having entered Bali into the Search box, the average reader does not want to go through a disambiguation page to find the article, if it can possibly be avoided, nor do they want to have to go ferreting around to find a separate article about the geography (or the politics, or the economy, or the history). They just want it all there, on the one page. Skinsmoke (talk) 01:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- I would expect to find the province article at Bali Province or Bali (province). I read a lot of other Asian articles. They are (except for the Philippines) well named. And the province you find at "Whatever Province". Taiwan Island does not redirect to Taiwan Province or the other way around. That is independent of Taiwan (country). The Fujian Province has nothing to to with Taiwan Province nor Taiwan Island. It is very easy to have aspects from physical geography on Bali Island and the rest somewhere else. AsianGeographer (talk) 00:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think the problem here is that, as a rule on English Wikipedia, we do not create separate articles for the administrative entity and the geographical entity, but instead deal with them together in the same article. The differences can be explained within the article. This avoids duplication and the problem of having two articles saying much the same thing, which leads to a tendancy for editors to update one, but not the other. That results in the encyclopedia becoming unreliable, and untrusted. There will be special circumstances where an article becomes so large that it is necessary to split off a section, or where there is a clear need to differentiate between the administrative and geographic entities (Taiwan is a good example, as the country includes two provinces, Taiwan Province and Fujian Province), but generally it is pretty easy to accomodate both in the same article. The general thing to bear in mind is, "where would the average reader expect to find the article?" In the case of Bali, I think the overwhelming majority of readers would expect to find the article on both the province and the island at Bali. Skinsmoke (talk) 00:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- Exactly, what consensus? Wikipedia works on consensus. You do not have one as is obvious from Talk:Bali. "Fixed" is only your opinion. Please undertake the conversation at Talk:Bali so it's all at a centralised place for all to seen. thanks --Merbabu (talk) 23:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Recent edits
[edit]Hi, when you wander into Indonesian topic areas you are likely to meet a few of us who have been around for quite a few years trying to make the Indonesian subject topics clear for the reader....
One serious issue with all of the administrative nomenclature of the locations and populated places are that there are native speakers and government departments who have diverging means of identifying some locations, while you have tourist guide books and outsiders who have alternative usages. As a result any one place might have names that have variants.
When I lived in Indonesia, one of my research locations was Solo in Central Java. It also happened to be known as Surakarta. I lived in Yogyakarta, but it is regularly found in the old spelling as Jogjakarta and Djogjakarta. What the problem for wikipedian editors then is to make sure that all these variants are known - not to stress over which name might be correct or create new articles for each variant - but to have them as redirects or mentioned in the lead paragraph.
Just because some countries in asia have had articles created about places with names that comply with a way of looking at things does not make an established policy - it just happens to be the usage. Content for the reader of wikipedia is far more important than titles - it is in the end very easy to create redirect pages with correct names - but as I have pointed out for Indonesia, there is no such thing as a single correct title - and really in the end trying to tidy up place names is missing the point really in the end.
Hope you enjoy your time on Wikipedia, and also, try not to stress or try to make a WP:POINT too quickly - too many times people have tried to re-invent the wheel here. Don't give up in the face of old codgers like self trying to point out how the place works - it all works out in the end SatuSuro 01:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- I am not re-inventing the wheel. I am using the wheel used outside Indonesia and the Philippines. I see no reason why the provinces are named so ambiguously. The regencies are all fine. They are clearly identified. The same could be done with the provinces. AsianGeographer (talk) 01:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Help Bengkulu
[edit] | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Where can I get input for the move request at Talk:Bengkulu#Requested_move - other than the people from the Indonesia project talk page. I have the impression they do not represent the general audience. I would like input from editors that work globally. AsianGeographer (talk) 01:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- Most editors if they are not sure of an area, go to the related project. To suggest that we do not have any sense of representing the general audience or editors with global experience suggest that you simply havent looked at our scope of editing. SatuSuro 02:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- Well, you didn't bring up much reasoning at Talk:Bengkulu#Requested_move. You are not engaging in the discussion after having left a "oppose" vote. AsianGeographer (talk) 02:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- It is hard to keep up with you - clearly to date you have done some very good work around the place - however when getting some responses you dont like, and which might not fit into your way of viewing reasoning, neatness and so on, you have to be oh so careful in the roads you take - there might be people who want to help you, but hold back on viewing the current range of discussions - in the very old days of wikipedia the more astute would have led you to Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass with a suggestion that the see alsos in that page are worth reading SatuSuro 02:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- You are only criticizing my behavior but not discussing the issue. This is not helpful. I prefer you comment on the relevant article talk pages and not on my user page. AsianGeographer (talk) 02:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- You are new user - you have been given various hints, and you consider that not helpful? It is not so much your behaviour but your way of negotiating your way around problems and issues. You dont want comment or hints, if you want to stay around and be a productive member of the community you have to cope with unsolicited items on your talk page and live and cope with that. It is simple as that. The issue appears to be your wanting to get the Indonesian project to have article titles in a particular format. Titles are mere addenda to the content. SatuSuro 02:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- Again you talk about me instead of the topic. AsianGeographer (talk) 02:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- You are new user - you have been given various hints, and you consider that not helpful? It is not so much your behaviour but your way of negotiating your way around problems and issues. You dont want comment or hints, if you want to stay around and be a productive member of the community you have to cope with unsolicited items on your talk page and live and cope with that. It is simple as that. The issue appears to be your wanting to get the Indonesian project to have article titles in a particular format. Titles are mere addenda to the content. SatuSuro 02:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- You are only criticizing my behavior but not discussing the issue. This is not helpful. I prefer you comment on the relevant article talk pages and not on my user page. AsianGeographer (talk) 02:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- It is hard to keep up with you - clearly to date you have done some very good work around the place - however when getting some responses you dont like, and which might not fit into your way of viewing reasoning, neatness and so on, you have to be oh so careful in the roads you take - there might be people who want to help you, but hold back on viewing the current range of discussions - in the very old days of wikipedia the more astute would have led you to Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass with a suggestion that the see alsos in that page are worth reading SatuSuro 02:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
You can add a short, neutral notice about the requested move to the village pump, with a link to the relevant talk page. That will be seen by a wider audience than just the WikiProject members. You could also request comments via WP:Requests for comment, a part of Wikipedia's dispute resolution process; basically, you would add the {{rfc}} template (with an appropriate topic parameter, see WP:RFC for a list of parameters) to a dedicated "RfC" section on the talk page and pose a short, neutral question. That, however, would be redundant to the move discussion and might be seen as an attempt at forum shopping; I don't think it's appropriate in this case. The village pump seems a more appropriate way of attracting wider attention. Huon (talk) 03:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
The article Jambi Sultanate has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- no references
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Merbabu (talk) 02:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Central Papua Province
[edit]
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Central Papua Province requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. SatuSuro 03:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Removing Speedy at Central Papua Province
[edit]Hi AsianGeographer, you recently removed a deletion tag from Central Papua Province. Because Wikipedia policy does not allow the creator of the page to remove speedy deletion tags, an automated program has replaced the tag. Although the deletion proposal may be incorrect, removing the tag is not the correct way for you to contest the deletion, even if you are more experienced than the nominator. Instead, please use the talk page to explain why the page should not be deleted. Remember to be patient, there is no harm in waiting for another experienced user to review the deletion and judge what the right course of action is. As you are involved, and therefore potentially biased, you should refrain from doing this yourself. Thank you, - SDPatrolBot (talk) 03:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- My advice is twofold: take a break to learn about the policies and conventions of wikipedia. And, try to work with people - particularly those with more experience than you. You're not the lone ranger. --Merbabu (talk) 03:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Context
[edit]No attempt to add a WP:RS to verify WP:N or when or why or how - you do not remove deletion tags - SatuSuro 03:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- ??? ... Go to the relevant article if you have a problem with new content, or if you don't understand context. Use the article talk page and ask if you have limited knowledge. Then point me there. I will help you then. But stop mobbing! AsianGeographer (talk) 03:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- You do not understand. You have created stubs with no WP:RS and WP:N, which therefore makes a new stub potentially deletable - this is not attacking or mobbing - you are simply being asked, civilly with WP:AGF to comply with basic stub creation policy that is universal on wikipedia. SatuSuro 03:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- I understand very well. If you would have had good will, you could have cured any formal error as easy as me. But you have no good will. You want to attack me, wherever you can. And command me around. Most of your contributions are on my talk page, do you have nothing else to do?AsianGeographer (talk) 03:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- You do not understand. You have created stubs with no WP:RS and WP:N, which therefore makes a new stub potentially deletable - this is not attacking or mobbing - you are simply being asked, civilly with WP:AGF to comply with basic stub creation policy that is universal on wikipedia. SatuSuro 03:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Help - attacks by two users
[edit]Please help me to get rid of the attacks by Merbabu and SatuSuro. The nominate valid new articles for deletion, moves articles to improper titles ... and all without discussion. AsianGeographer (talk) 03:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- Just out of interest, if the articles are as valid as you claim them to be, then why worry about the speedy deletion request which, if the article is up to shape, will be denied? In any case, you shouldn't remove speedy deletion tags from the pages you have created. You can comment on the pages talk as to why the article should remain, and the admin who checks the article will factor that into the request. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 03:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- The problem is, that these users know that the articles are valid. They know a lot about Indonesia. So they can verify it easily, using news sources or whatever. It said "no context" - this is wrong as a deletion reason, since there was context, that's why I removed the tag.
- Do you want new contributors or not? AsianGeographer (talk) 03:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- If they have put an incorrect speedy deletion tag on, then it will be removed, the user who placed it informed that it was wrong and your article left untouched. And of course new contributors are wanted. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 03:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- I have the impression they want to mob me. The speedy tag was absolutely incorrect. Context was very clear. AsianGeographer (talk) 03:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- If it is incorrect then you have nothing to worry about. SatuSuro had a point about the speedy deletion templates, however brusquely it seems to have been made and all Merbabu has done is try to advise you. I cannot see any attacks going on. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 03:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- Not worry? An admin may make an error and delete it. If I would not have been logged in, I may have had no chance to defend and it would have gone. What a unnecessary extra work for all. And the advises of Merbabu are patronizing, intimidating. And he does not only advise, but also proposed valid content for deletion. Instead of fixing the formal issue. If he would have liked to advice, he could have done it in that case, where I missed to provide a source. But he didn't. He used the deletion nomination instead. AsianGeographer (talk) 03:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- If it is incorrect then you have nothing to worry about. SatuSuro had a point about the speedy deletion templates, however brusquely it seems to have been made and all Merbabu has done is try to advise you. I cannot see any attacks going on. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 03:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- I have the impression they want to mob me. The speedy tag was absolutely incorrect. Context was very clear. AsianGeographer (talk) 03:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- If they have put an incorrect speedy deletion tag on, then it will be removed, the user who placed it informed that it was wrong and your article left untouched. And of course new contributors are wanted. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 03:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
My personal take on the matter is that you wait until the deletion nomination has run its course. If it is deleted, then let me know and I can ask the deleting admin to put it in your user space for you. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 04:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- They will probably survive. But that is not the main problem. The problem are the attacks. I doubt these two users will stop. AsianGeographer (talk) 04:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- Have you tried taking a deep breath and discussing it with them? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 04:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- I want it to be stopped. I want to contribute content. I defended myself wherever I could, but they keep on attacking my contributions as if there was nothing else to do. AsianGeographer (talk) 04:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- So... have you tried to talk to them? Yes or no? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 04:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "tried"? I did talk to them, e.g. on this user page, but also in other places. See Talk:Central Papua Province#Contention against speedy deletion - no sign of apologies for using the wrong template, instead Merbabu sides with the other on attacking me. "Provide reliable references for new articles. It's not that hard. Problem solved." - that was not the issue, the tag was "no context"-speedy deletion. They do incorrect things and don't say "sorry my mistake" or something like that. AsianGeographer (talk) 04:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- Then I will create an ANI request and we can see what that turns out. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 04:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- Is there no action below the level of admins? I would like to solve it on a lower level. Is there something like mediation? AsianGeographer (talk) 04:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- Then I will create an ANI request and we can see what that turns out. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 04:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "tried"? I did talk to them, e.g. on this user page, but also in other places. See Talk:Central Papua Province#Contention against speedy deletion - no sign of apologies for using the wrong template, instead Merbabu sides with the other on attacking me. "Provide reliable references for new articles. It's not that hard. Problem solved." - that was not the issue, the tag was "no context"-speedy deletion. They do incorrect things and don't say "sorry my mistake" or something like that. AsianGeographer (talk) 04:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- So... have you tried to talk to them? Yes or no? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 04:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- I want it to be stopped. I want to contribute content. I defended myself wherever I could, but they keep on attacking my contributions as if there was nothing else to do. AsianGeographer (talk) 04:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- Have you tried taking a deep breath and discussing it with them? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 04:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Not for disputes such as this I'm afraid --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 04:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- OK, I will collect evidence, but that may take time. I maybe just add new things, if I find them. I don't like to spend so much time on digging in old stuff. AsianGeographer (talk) 05:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Evidence collection
[edit]I will collect evidence here.
- Central Papua Province - speedy deletion tag "no context", despite the existence of context, see history, talk, and also
- Defamation by SatuSuro
- ..
- Defamation by Merbabu
AsianGeographer (talk) 05:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
How to create ANI report
[edit]- Do you know how to create an ANI report? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 05:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- Not yet. But I will collect facts first. I want to be well prepared and give them a chance to understand the problem. AsianGeographer (talk) 05:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- This page is always helpful: WP:BOOMERANG --Merbabu (talk) 05:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- and, all the ANI instructions are here: WP:ANI. --Merbabu (talk) 05:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- Do you know how to create an ANI report? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 05:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, well I'm going to hit the hay for the night. If you do create an ANI report, don't forget to inform me, Merbabu and SatuSuro. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 05:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help. I will do so. AsianGeographer (talk) 05:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, well I'm going to hit the hay for the night. If you do create an ANI report, don't forget to inform me, Merbabu and SatuSuro. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 05:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
In preparing your ANI, please consider Boomerang. Why do you constantly revert this without explanation. I realise English is not your first language, but you would be well-advised to consider the English improvements of those who do. Also, your reverts of my changes to the Bali article. What's next? --Merbabu (talk) 06:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- OK, I am happy you talk with me. I will at first address the regnecy at Talk:Supiori Regency. AsianGeographer (talk) 06:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Nomination of Proposed provinces of Indonesia for deletion
[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Proposed provinces of Indonesia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proposed provinces of Indonesia until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.
Help - attack by a third user
[edit] | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
January 2013
[edit]
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Please note that we have to establish consensus, especially on far-reaching items. Reverts such as this are not helpful. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Help 20130106
[edit]I created an article Southeast Sumatra Province (which is a proposed province to be split from North Sumatra Province(!yes north)). Then someones moved it without discussion. I reverted, explaining why, and create an article Southeast Sumatra. Now an admin comes attacking me on my user page, I would have been in an edit war (he didn't go to the user who started the "edit war"). He also deleted the latter article. And then he moved the first article. And he asks me to discuss - but he himself is discussing nothing. AsianGeographer (talk) 09:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
The user deleted an article to move a page and then he adds "hidden" texts after this and another move, to prevent moves. ([3] [4]) AsianGeographer (talk) 09:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- When an administrator, or an experienced editor, warns you that you are approaching a blockable set of circumstances, that is not an attack. What is occurring is that said administrator or editor is attempting to prevent your being blocked or your edits from being reverted. Tiderolls 22:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- That it is not an attack is your opinion. But for what shall I be blocked, where did I violate a policy? AsianGeographer (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
- That it is not an attack is fact; it is in support of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. You were warned for constantly reverting changes to articles you had written, without discussion, after you were told about the existing consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
- I made a procedural mistake at Talk:Supiori Regency, I am sorry for that. I forgot that I changed the longer standing version. But that was not pointed out to me. I am sorry for this error. If I have been blocked for that, it is fine for me. If you block a user, please point out why. AsianGeographer (talk) 23:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
- That it is not an attack is fact; it is in support of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. You were warned for constantly reverting changes to articles you had written, without discussion, after you were told about the existing consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
- That it is not an attack is your opinion. But for what shall I be blocked, where did I violate a policy? AsianGeographer (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Help - block by unknown user
[edit] | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)For what am I blocked? This is unfair. Other users start edit wars and when I revert, I get blocked. And for actually which edit am I blocked? AsianGeographer (talk) 09:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- AG and other administrators: please note that I've started a discussion about this user (not the block) at WP:ANI#AsianGeographer. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- You wonder why I know how to use "HotCat" - I didn't know that it was named so, but you can just press the +/- next to the category names. You wonder why I know what is "rv"? Mmmh - seen at other places? Apart from that, I got some training for how to use Wikipedia. And I am on vacation, so I spend the time in the town and some time on the computer. I have free access to internet at the place where I stay, so I am happy to try out contributing. If vacations are over I will make less contributions - if it is a concern I edit so much. But does it mean Wikipedia does not want help? AsianGeographer (talk) 10:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- Are you truly confused with regard to your block? Read WP:Edit warring and WP:Consensus. If you need further clarification, leave a message here. I will watchlist this page. Tiderolls 22:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- The problem is that it was not said which edits the block referred to. There was never a proof shown to me that I violated any rule. I now found out myself, that I made a procedural mistake. But please, next time, make more clear what actually is violated and where exactly the violation occurred. I am sorry for my error. AsianGeographer (talk) 23:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 6
[edit]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.
- Governor of Bencoolen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added links pointing to Robert Hay and Roger Carter
- Jambi Sultanate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Kingdom of Siam
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)