- 1 Hockey & Rw mcfarland
- 2 Help Merging a Page
- 3 Help with a page you commented on please
- 4 Disambiguation link notification for March 20
- 5 Sorry
- 6 Apologies
- 7 A9 declined
- 8 Kyls Burtland Article - nominated for deletion
- 9 Draft:WhatCulture Pro Wrestling
- 10 Reoraganizing the WCPW draft
- 11 List of vidoes
- 12 Good warning
- 13 Kane Barry and the Apocryphal Doctor Adventures
- 14 New To The Wiki Community
- 15 Fascism
- 16 Dumb or not...
- 17 Nazism "incorrect information"?
- 18 Thank you for notifying about Talk Page on Antifa (United States)
- 19 Formal mediation has been requested
- 20 Request for mediation rejected
- 21 Reverts on Antifa (United_States)
Hockey & Rw mcfarland
- I added a bunch more of these to AFD if you want to comment on them. Some might be worth keeping. Not pushing you one way or the other, just inviting you to input. --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Help Merging a Page
There are two identical pages, Bihari Hindi and Bihari hindi, I am wondering if it is possible to either delete the latter or merge it with the former. Which would be the best option, and how can I do this? Abdulrahimb (talk) 06:57, 27 January 2017 (UTC) 27 Jan. 2016 01h56 Abudlrahimborges
- This has been like this for a long time. The correct name is "Bihari Hindi". The good news is that the articles were almost identical so there was not much work to do merging them and I have done it. It did not require a formal merge discussion as there was so little difference that it seemed uncontroversial. All I did was to copy anything in the "Bihari hindi" article that was missing from "Bihari Hindi". It was just once sentence, a few other words and some minor formatting differences. Having done that "Bihari hindi" became a true duplicate so I changed it into a redirect. There is now only one article which will be found under both names. It isn't a good article but it includes the best of both the articles and gives everybody a chance to start making it better.
- Since you are interested in this subject maybe you can help with a couple of things:
- There is an old message on Talk:Bihari Hindi saying that it is not a true language. I am not sure whether this objection is valid. Maybe you can help answer this? If it is not a true language then what is it instead? A dialect? If you are not sure then don't worry. I tagged the article as needing expert help so maybe somebody else will help.
- The article is unreferenced. If you know of any reliable reference material then maybe you can add some references and make sure that the content is in agreement with them.
- --DanielRigal (talk) 00:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
As a background, the majority of the residents of Bihar speak languages from a continuum of langauges classified as a subsection of "Hindustani" languages under the heading of "Bihari", such as Bhojpuri. There are also speakers of other langauges in Bihar, including Hindi, and Hindi is spoken by many more as a second language. The article in question refers to the form of Hindi spoken in as a regional form in Bihar. One could draw the parallel between say "Catalan Spanish" (the Spanish spoken by people in Catalonia) versus the actual Catalan language, which is a distinct language but closely related. So in this case, Bihari Hindi is like Catalan Spanish, and a poster would come along and say "why is there an article about Catalan Spanish, people in Catalonia speak Catalan, people in Galicia speak Galician, Spanish is its own langauge and you wouldn't have articles about regional varieties of Spanish". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdulrahimb (talk • contribs) 02:56, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
The above mentioned statement is an opinion which seems to be based on ideas that the article does not contain. The unsigned, unregistered poster basically claims that any page discussing a regional form of a language is obsolete, and that if this page exists then local dialects or registers of Hindi native to other parts of India would be needed or allowed. He begins by stating the fact "no such language as Bihari Hindi exists", while the actual article does not refer to Bihari Hindi as a language or even a dialect, he then statesthat the majority of people in Bihar speak Bihari languages (Eastern Indo-Aryan). The rest of his argument is to describe how Hindi is spoken in a number of regions and that Wikipedia wouldn't be giving regional varieties of a common language their own page or description. In fact, Wikipedia does, just as there are articles about Québec French, New England English, Caribbean Spanish. He is essentially trying to falsely project a common debate on Wikipedia, that of language versus dialect, onto a page that makes no claim about the linguistic nature of Bihari Hindi, i.e. the Hindi spoken in Bihar: the article refers to Bihari Hindi as a "form", no more, no less. This is a political theme in India, and actually in many countries, where a prestige language standard is held in the highest regard and so when someone even recognizes local or regional differences, it is seen as either an insult to the language itself or to the regional speakers (either «Hey! Stop trying to act like we aren't all united by one language» or «Hey! Stop trying to say that we don't speak correct/proper like everybody else!). To reiterate, the article does not even name Bihari Hindi as language or even dialect, it is referred to as a "form" of Hindi.
The article should not be a point of contention, no language exists without a standard and a variety of regional speech forms, I think that is pretty much a foundational point of linguistics. The article does not state that Bihari Hindi is a language or even a register of Hindi, it simply describes some of the local particularities of Hindi speech in Bihar and Jhaarkhand. I don't think that we need much proof that language spoken by nearly 400 million people as a mother-language, across an area of millions of square kilometres, has regional varieties. User:Abdulrahimb 28 January 2017
Help with a page you commented on please
I left a response to the comment you left on my talk page. It would be great if I could get more guidance on getting the page I created reinstated.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited David Ibiyeomie, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sugar daddy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
I recently apologized to you on SPI, because I had the good fortune of knowing Patar, who talked me down. I meant the apology. Tooth's recent comments on the Haste talk page, however, make it so very obvious that you and s/he aint the same people because tooth seems to contradict rational thought.
- OK. I wasn't aware that we was the performer and not just somebody they were trying to inherit notability from spuriously. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Kyls Burtland Article - nominated for deletion
Hey Daniel, just letting you know I left a response query over on the page where you put your deletion nomination for my article. I hope that was the right thing to do. Looking forward to finding out if I get a reprieve! Kind regards, Kyls — Preceding unsigned comment added by HeavenlyAntennas (talk • contribs) 12:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- The best place to discuss it is at the deletion discussion itself. That way everybody can get involved.
- Anyway, here is one very important thing. I have removed your phone and email which you posted. That is a very bad idea. You want to keep that stuff secret if you don't want random people bothering you. If people want to send you an email they can use the link on your userpage which will let them send an email without knowing your address. They will only know your address if you choose to reply by email. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Draft:WhatCulture Pro Wrestling
Listen, I am of fan not only of WCPW but from all, but really really fan of is WWE, but as you can see I know it will be hard to the draft to be accpeted but with help from experinced users like you would be a big deal and then we could make this article usefull,dign of beloging into wikipedia, you know my objective is to expand the professional wrestling world, but thanks for the advice, what asking is if could help on it to be accepted?
- The most important thing is to remember that you can only work with reliable sources. If there is anything that fits the bill of WP:RS then those are your only building blocks. If you can build something that satisfies WP:N from that then you have succeeded. If you can't then that doesn't necessarily mean that you are doing it wrong. There may just not be enough if the right type of bricks for anybody to be able to do it. My fear is that WCPW is like this. That is why I do not recommend to bust a gut trying something that may well not be possible. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:33, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Reoraganizing the WCPW draft
Thanks for the advice and listen there already is a WhatCulture wiki but what I really want so badly is to make wikipedia great in professional wrestling including WCPW, but with deleting and all those things what is suppose to think that it's ok when not?
But alright if you tell that my article needs to be rewritten completely, so could you help on editing the article?
Also, what can I first do to make it acceptable in Wikipedia expect the reliable sources?
Meanwhile also where can I find reliable sources about WCPW?
List of vidoes
What is the point of having a list of vidoes on Wikipedia? After all, it seems unencyclopedic to me. More in line with fandom than an encyclopedia. Articles about tv shows have a point on notability. Vidoes, on the other hand, don't seem to deserve a seperate article. Why aren't videos, episodes, and characters imply part of rhwir respective tv show article? 2600:1:F18E:779D:603E:D9C:3AA0:8A77 (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Normally I think that they should be in the main article. For a genuinely major TV show, if there are a lot of videos releases, then a separate article might be OK so long as it is well referenced. It is a bit like band discographies. If a band has released a few records then that goes in the main article but a really major band with a lot of record releases can have a separate discography article. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Kane Barry and the Apocryphal Doctor Adventures
- Ta. He is already on final warning so I've reported it here: Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:24, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
New To The Wiki Community
I am new to Wikipedia and would like to update the Studio71 page. You recently reverted my edits that state which social platforms the company does business on as well as Studio71's recent partnership with TF1 and Mediaset. Why are you reverting those changes? They are not promotional and give more insight into the company. Any advice for a new person in the Wiki Community? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 00:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- Look. You need to stop treating us like fools. We know that Studio 71 has been trying to write spam into its article for a very long time, sometimes even from its own registered IP address, as well as trying to remove anything it finds unhelpful it its image, which is what you did here. Pretending to be new to Wikipedia is not going to fool anybody. This campaign needs to stop! Abusing the resources of an educational charity (which is what Wikipedia is) to get free advertising is no way to build a brand reputation. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- How is adding the Social Platforms that the company works on and the TF1/ MediaSet partnership promotional? These edits provide valid insight into the company'. Can you explain why you reversed this edit please? Also, deleting the Our Mine Hack was not me. I agree that the Our Mine Hack should remain on the page as it provides additional insight to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 18:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
See a consensus where? The source chosen by previous editors says nothing to the effect of what was initially posted and was directly quoted by the edit I made. This is a sourcing and paraphrasing issue, not a consensus issue. --[[User:Rocckker13| —Preceding undated comment added 00:49, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
- Two points:
- Talk:Fascism is over here. Please suggest your preferred wording there, say why you think it is better and then see what people say. I do not intend to discuss it here as this is not just between me and you. It is something for everybody concerned with the article to discuss.
- In my view, the ongoing attempts to censor Fascism's long accepted location on the far right of the political spectrum are flat-out unacceptable attempts to abuse Wikipedia for political propaganda. This needs to stop! Whether this is an attempt to whitewash fascism from association with the far right or an attempt to whitewash the far right of association with fascism it is just plan falsehood. Except when done by the genuinely confused and clueless, this is intentionally disruptive behaviour and will be reverted as vandalism if it continues. It may be that the section you edited can be improved but I see absolutely zero prospect of the reference to fascism being on the far right being removed from it anymore than than we are about to start pretending that Stalin wasn't left wing or that the Pope isn't Catholic.
- --DanielRigal (talk) 01:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
- Didn't see the talk page or know of its necessity, I have made a post there and articulated my thoughts on the sentence. This is not about propaganda or politics, there is no "long accepted location within the far right of the political spectrum." Beyond the fact that the sources chosen to back up that claim on the page refute it from their very first pages, it has become a strange talking point that has no basis in academic literature. To quote the primary source directly: "Fascism was founded during World War I by Italian national syndicalists who combined left-wing and right-wing political views." and "Fascism opposes multiple ideologies: conservatism, liberalism, and two major forms of socialism — communism and social democracy." If this source is incorrect then it needs to be removed, and if it is correct than it needs to be reflected properly.:--Rocckker13 (talk) 01:13, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Dumb or not...
|Incoherent and pointless|
|The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.|
Doesn't matter, even individuals don't, but how could someone be an adjective but not subscribe to the ideology? Do they need to admit to it? A woman was killed by his rabid cult, and you're wondering whether a referenced and researched politics fits the definition at all? 220.127.116.11 (talk) 23:42, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Nazism "incorrect information"?
|I think this is over now.|
|The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.|
Explain how Nazism is a "far-right" ideology when its literally called National Socialism? How is a socialist ideology considered far-right? Do you really believe these sources you have in this article are being honest? [qub/x q;o++a] ++ 23:56, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for notifying about Talk Page on Antifa (United States)
I have noticed your post on my Talk Page and took it into great consideration,
I have posted a kind of civil rebuttal, a lengthy one too, on the Antifa (United States) talk page. I hope we can reach a compromise!
Formal mediation has been requested
- I see this as venue shopping and a blatant abuse of process. My first thought is to ask for a boomerang on this but I will see how the other parties respond before I do anything. While it is almost beneath my dignity to be engaging with mediation on basic, settled, historical facts but I have to hold my responsibility to human civilisation higher than my own dignity. If I must engage in this then I will but I hope that it will not be accepted as a valid request for mediation. OTOH, it may be that the other parties feel it is an opportunity to take the revisionists to school, in that case I will probably simply be more of a spectator in this. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Request for mediation rejected
Reverts on Antifa (United_States)
I don't see why you felt the need to revert to restore a contested change. Do you not follow BRD? I ask you to remember that there is no deadline. What is the pressing need to include your changes before we've established consensus? AlexEng(TALK) 20:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- There was already an interim consensus on this at the time I did it. Since then that consensus has strengthened and I'm afraid that nobody seems to support your viewpoint so far. Your changes have been reverted by three different people. You are welcome to keep discussing. In fact, I'd recommend having another go at explaining your argument because I genuinely do not understand the definition of "organisation" you are using. In the meantime lets leave the contested edit out of the article. I appreciate that you do not see it this way but I genuinely believe that it is seriously misleading and that Wikipedia is harmed by its inclusion. Leaving those categories out, given that other categories covering Anarchism and Anti-fascism are included, seems to offer no risk of confusion or harm. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- An "interim consensus"? That means you and the original editor who made the change – in the space of one hour, I might add. Two people does not make a consensus, interim or otherwise. My changes have been reverted by one person: you. Nobody else has reverted me. By now I'm sure there has to be some sort of misunderstanding, or we are operating in two different realities. The contested edit is the one that you reverted back into the article. I'd be happy to go into further detail about the content of the change on the article talk page, but I'm still kind of bewildered by your actions... AlexEng(TALK) 23:38, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- You have been reverted by three different people. That does not mean that you are guaranteed to be wrong but it is a pretty good indication that you are either wrong or expressing yourself in a way that is being widely misunderstood. Either way, best to leave the contentious edit out during the discussion. Unfortunately the discussion has come entirely off the rails now, which is not your fault, but hopefully we can get back on topic and answer this. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- I have tried to get things back on topic. I'm not sure how well it will work. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:06, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- I just checked the diff in more detail and you are partly correct. It wasn't your edits that were being reverted in every case when the categories were removed by the various people. In at least one case I was confused because some of your other edits were immediately prior to the removal. I should have checked more carefully and I should have addressed my comment to the categories themselves not to your personal edits. I should have used the word "you" a lot less above. I am happy to acknowledge and apologise for that. The point I should have made is that the categories have been removed by several people and disagreed with by several others on the Talk page. The one place where I do still think that it is worthwhile to put you on the spot just a little is that you have not really explained your idea of something legitimately being called an organisation, despite seeming to lack any of the main distinguishing characteristics of an actual organisation, in a way that I can understand. (And I'm sorry if you feel that I am mischaracterising it in that description. This is not me being wilfully obtuse. I genuinely do not understand your claim well enough to describe it accurately.) If you think that you can explain it better then I'd encourage you to try again as it seems to have attracted almost no coherent support so far and no other defence of the organisation categories has been offered. I think this would help as it seems that the discussion on the Talk page risks getting so sidetracked that we might never get a clear answer to this. If you like, we could try restarting it as an RfC. That might force the discussion to be more focused and the RfC tag might bring in some new people to avoid it just being the same few people driving eachother crazy. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)