User talk:Hurmata

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Hello Hurmata! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Button sig2.png or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Khoikhoi 06:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines

The Community
Things to do




Hello, Hurmata! I see your edits all over the place and wanted to thank you for your contributions, especially in the area of African languages and linguistics. I also thought you might be interested in the Africa-related regional notice board; and probably in WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias (and its linguistic department WP:LPOV) too.

Happy editing, and see you around, — mark 08:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Please check Talk:Arabic influence on the Spanish language‎[edit]

Not much more to add. Have a nice day Drmaik 06:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


  • Hello Hurmata. Do you need help with something? --KFP (talk | contribs) 00:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
The e-mail address you have set for your Wikipedia account is not shown to other users. Also, if you uncheck the "enable e-mail from other users" box in your preferences, other people will not be able to send you mail using Wikipedia's "E-mail this user" function. I think you can safely nominate the article for deletion while logged in. However, if you still want to do it while not logged in, let me know. --KFP (talk | contribs) 01:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Mauldin[edit]

You might want to review your reasons for nominating this article for deletion, since the fact that he's sent you spam is neither here nor there in terms of whether he should have an article on Wikipedia. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I've responded on my Talk page, which is probably the best place to keep this discussion since it's already quite long. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

History of Portugal[edit]

Hi. Discussion is mostly the best way to resolve disagreements over editing. In this case it may be difficult to get in contact with the editor in question as he/she is editing anonymously, but Talk:History of Portugal is a good place to post concerns (as you already did). An alternative place is the IP's talk page at User talk: but messages left there may be received by someone else than the intended recipient. I also encourage you to be bold in improving the article and fixing errors there. Cheers, --KFP (talk | contribs) 16:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Help Me 1[edit]

Do you have a question? Real96 06:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, this is Hurmata. At Governorates_of_Egypt, the text that's supposed to follow (append to) the table instead wraps around it, to its left. What markup language will achieve the desired effect? Hurmata 07:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC) P.S. Do we carry out this exchange on my talk page or yours? Hurmata 07:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Fixed formatting on the page. And, I would generally respond here, but at the moment, I was busy with other items. Real96 07:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

RE:unfair use of VP[edit]

What I saw in VP was an edit with many new internal links many of which made no sense or gave a red link. I did warn the user by using a level one warning, telling them to stop and use the sandbox for testing. Feel free to contact me on my talkpage if you would like me to elaborate further. --ROASTYTOAST 21:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

bill ayers[edit]

I had a long discussion with Wikidemo about that edit. It was extremely watered down from its original form, it was sourced and it was informative. First it tells the reader what ayers is doing presently. It then says what the organization represents, I am surprised by the way that you find the word leftist non-neutral. I know there are some of you who don’t believe in “labels” and think being called a liberal is a dirty word but that exists in your own mind. The Nolan chart is a tool recognized in political science and certain philoisphies do fall under a “label”. The woods fund is a leftist organization, so it believes in things advocated by the liberals, like ending the war in iraq or having socialized medicare, debatable issues, and regardless of what side of the aisle you are in, it is not slanderous to have the ideology of liberalism associated with a persons biography. Your watered down version even takes away what the organization stands for, william ayers I believe would be proud of his beliefs and for you to suggest they are slanderous to a persons biography truly puzzles me.

The obama mention serves the purpose of promoting the prestige of the woods fund. To say who a person worked with, especially prominent people is also not slanderous or part of attack politics. My information was sourced, and the article I used had some truly slanderous things on obama which was not put in this article.

Please stop with this over protection of obama and the charge of non-neutrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


Hi, I agree with your change to the IPA here [1], but agile doesn't rhyme with Tintagel to British ears! DuncanHill (talk) 02:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


Hello Hurmata. Thanks for your improvements at cladistics. I'm just not sure about hyphen changes in general. That could be one of the things like British versus American spelling where the first mover's choice ought to be left undisturbed. (Otherwise there is some risk of silly revert wars; not here, of course, but elsewhere). I'm curious if you can justify any of these particular changes from the language of WP:MOS#Hyphens. Arbitrarily-deep seems OK to me, though you could also write it as two words. EdJohnston (talk) 02:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


I've put up my summary of The Theory of Communicative Action. I don't know how well it will survive ... Thanks for suggesting it! Szczels (talk) 20:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit Summaries[edit]

If you check my edit contributions you'll see that 99.5% of them have good descriptions. For that particular edit I simply hit Enter too early by mistake. The correct reason would have been per WP:EL. --NeilN talkcontribs 13:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


Hay, why did you change this page? The last was better than this new version. PawJaw (talk) 10:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Help Me 2[edit]

Hello, you used the {{helpme}} tag. How may I help you? When you've asked your question, please put the tag back so we know to check back. Alternatively, you can join the #wikipedia-en-help IRC channel to get real-time help. (Click here for instant access.)

Help 3[edit]

Hello, you used the {{helpme}} tag. How may I help you? When you've asked your question, please put the tag back so we know to check back. Alternatively, you can join the #wikipedia-en-help IRC channel to get real-time help. (Click here for instant access.) Please quit using the {{helpme}} template unless you actually have a question. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters(Broken clamshellsOtter chirps) 00:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

About proofreader tag[edit]

{{helpme}} Note: please do not ask me to communicate with you by chat. I do not have access to chat.

MY PROBLEM IS THIS: Proofreader tags for German to English and French to English that I posted to my user page just hours ago have been automatically deleted. Could you direct me to the pages that would explain this? Thank you.

If you don't have chat, go here, select under the server thing , and enter the channel #wikipedia-en-help. That'll give you instant chat, no software needed. BoL (Talk) 04:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Were these posted to your user page? I don't see any edits to your user page since April 14[2]. Is it possible you previewed these changes and forgot to save them? (I've done it before) I can't imagine any reason someone would delete proofreader tags. Stardust8212 04:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I see no deleted edits, nothing to indicate that those templates were removed by someone else. I would guess that it's just a matter of not having clicked "Save page". Just go ahead and re-add them if you wish. Also, I've fixed the layout of your Babel box so that there isn't that annoying "{{User " bit in there. To add additional Proofreader templates, just place them immediately after the first Proofreader, without any vertical bars or other symbols. Huntster (t@c) 09:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the grammar and spelling[edit]

Hi Hurmata! Thanks for fixing the grammar and spelling in Template:Tmbox/doc. You gave me a good laugh with your edit comment:

"Past tense of "lead" was misspelled. Since ca. 2000 I have noticed that this mistake (inspired by "read") has become endemic in the USA."

I wrote that documentation. English is only my second language since I live in Sweden, Europe. :))

--David Göthberg (talk) 22:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

What or who were you laughing at? If you were laughing at young Americans -- college graduates even -- who aren't learning all they should, then your laughter was justified. If you were laughing at me, well, my comment and the fact of your foreignness are logically compatible. In fact, there's a strong possibility that you made your mistake out of reasonable emulation of texts written by young Americans. Hurmata (talk) 02:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Nah, I just found it funny that your comment sounded like you thought I live in the US. And I don't think it was a case of "emulation", rather just that I as a non-native writer of English have lots of problems with English spelling since the same sounds can be spelled in so many different ways in English.
Anyway, the important part of the message is that it was good that you corrected the text.
--David Göthberg (talk) 04:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


The Kant article is a mess. If you need immediate help with his philosophy I highly recommend that you get a copy, somehow, of Gottfried Martin's Kant's Metaphysics and Theory of Science. It was originally written in German, so you have a double shot at finding a copy. It's out of print, unfortunately. Sometimes the best things get ignored. P0M (talk) 00:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Charlie Crist[edit]

I have rolled back all of your edits because you are not wikifying the references, you are making them totally useless. To wikify them, use the {{cite web}} or {{cite news}} templates, not a simple publication/date format. Using the templates preserves links, the name of the article, the publication in which it appeared, the date it appeared, the author of the article, and the date it was retrieved (which can sometimes assist in locating a cached version should the link stop working). I have no problems with your editorial changes (I agree with most of them), but breaking links is not helpful. Horologium (talk) 21:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

As an administrator, you have a greater responsibility than ordinary Wikipedians to acknowledge the actual deeds of those you are taking to task and to explain yourself fully. Your message to me is unfair to me. In saying "you are not wikifying the references, you are making them totally useless", you overstate your case and at the same time there appears to be some confusion in your use of words like "not" and "Wikify". In your next assertions, you show obliviousness to what I did, you do not genuinely make a case for the templates, PLUS you make a false complaint that I'm "breaking links". (I made links that work, but any rational person would interpret your complaint as saying the opposite.) This all makes me pessimistic about trying to discuss anything with you, but I must try.
I would suggest you distinguish between "the references" as a grouping versus as individual items. I am by definition Wikifying the body of citations when I apply an established Wikipedia treatment to them (in this case, WP:CITE). You being an administrator, your failure to acknowledge this is disconcerting. Your dissatisfaction was really with what I did with *individual* citations.
You did not acknowledge that the citations as I found them were a formatting hodgepodge, and you also were oblivious to the fact that my edits all do contain title, date, publication. You being an administrator, I find these faulty complaints all the more disconcerting. Most of the citations *didn't use* either of the two templates before I did my revisions; regardless of the use of templates, there was inconsistency with newspaper article citations as to including the reporter's name. By paradoxically accusing me of "breaking links" despite my having maintained links, you create confusion. I tested most of the links in my edits and in each case where a link wasn't already reported as dead, the link still took me to the article. You are so unfair.
You utterly fail to explain what the advantages of the two templates are. From your wording, you seem not to realize that all the information that can be contained in the templates can be provided without them. You also fail to address why a reporter's name should be stated, in the face of the reality that it is usually of no relevance in a *news report* citation. One gives an author's name for a book or an essay; or (often but not necessarily) for a *signed, opinion* piece if the source is a newspaper or magazine piece. Hurmata (talk) 02:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I apologize (profusely). Your decision to use separate notes and references section, which is perfectly acceptable, but not the usual format when dealing with non-technical subjects, resulted in my inappropriate reaction. I looked at the notes, and saw nothing but the publication and the date, with no references to article titles, authors, or weblinks. (They are in the references section, where they belong.) I was wrong, and I will strike the comments I left on the talk page of the article and apologize there as well. As I said, consistency is a good thing, and in this case, consistently applying a standard different from that with which I am familiar resulting in me making a fool of myself. Horologium (talk) 03:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. :) After I posted, I realized that I myself had flown off the handle. This incident is helping me dedicate myself to learning the vast array of Wikipedia techniques, which will hopefully lead to me functioning more smoothly as a Wikipedian. I have already started learning various Wiki consensus building procedures. E.g. in the Crist article, I issued an RfC about reporting "gay rumors". I'm becoming a believer in these kinds of procedures. And thanks in advance for "listening" to another lengthy comment. In the future, I will remind myself to communicate my reasons for things even more than I already do. Often I put "See Talk page" in my edit summaries and I put a comment, that's my practice when the edit looks to be contentious or when it touches on a complex topic. But now in addition I will train myself to discuss edits *before* I perform them. This will be arduous for me. ;)
It dawned on me what you might have been getting at -- as it turns out you were -- that there were no links *in the note list*. This led to it dawning on me that maybe you hadn't noticed the reference list. I never thought of this while composing the reply partly because your presentation was terse -- and partly because my mind was fogged with ire. The second lesson for me from this exchange has come out of your response, which shows readiness to meet people half way (which is an experience life rarely grants me, online or in person). It is the reinforcement that yes, it often does pay to try to open discussion with the person that has rubbed me the wrong way, instead of activating a grievance process. If there is any contributing fault on my part, that discussion is the best way to start to realize it.
I think I was emboldened to do my revisions by the inconsistency of the formatting. WP:CITE says words to the effect that, since citation formatting can be contentious, before altering a citation style in an article, it's best to seek consensus. In weeks to come, I am going to try to master the ideology of citation -- i.e., become proficient in comparing the merits of rival styles. The power of hyperlinking may yet convince me to put links in *both* note lists and reference lists. Hurmata (talk) 06:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Greetings from Mexico, kamerad[edit]

Hello there in USA. Excuse me for bothering, but I have one question for you. I'm translating (or at least, trying) the article Russian-Circassian War, and I'm close to finish it, but I have one problem: in this part specificly (Russian-Circassian War#The beginning of the end), there is one part where it says "In 1840 alone, the Russian estimate for artillery cartridge expenditure was 11,344, and for musket cartridges 1,206,575". All that is fine and I can understand the means of that quote, but what I don't know is what was that expenditure; it was in rubles, pesos, dollars, or what. Because not even in the reference quoted, it is specified what currency talks about.

Thanks, in advance, and see you later.--Ahabvader (talk) 02:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't say either. To change the subject, let me share with you my concern that the article is of low quality, mostly because it was badly researched and sourced. Indeed, this week I plan to revise it substantially, having done research to rectify the flaws. I have already expressed some of my objections on the article talk page, and if you study the article history for the last ten days or so (since it was chosen a Featured Article), you will see I have made big revisions already. Please hold off on posting your translation until I have made my revisions. Not only do I intend to improve the historical accuracy and bibliography support of the text, but I intend to propose the article be broken up and renamed. Much of it belongs in an existing article, "Caucasian War", and the remainder could be rewritten as an article whose theme is the mass expulsion of the Circassian and Abkhazian nations in the 1860s. If you yourself wish to contribute to changing the English Wikipedia article, I think that would be nice. Hurmata (talk) 22:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately kid (I'm 36), I am from Mexico (born in Uruapán, Michoacán and currently living on the state of Chihuahua, near the Sierra Tarahumara) and where I live it's very hard to get books of any kind, so one of the ways to get information it's online. I mean, there's information in local libraries, but it's not enough to someone like myself, who likes to read books of any matter, especially on ancient wars. For that reason I don't know nothing (I was going to say something else, you know) about that subject (the Caucausus area). That's why I want to know more about it. But also, I don't know german, russian or turquish or any other language than some bad spanish and just a little english. Just one more thing: ¿hablas español, camarada, como dices en tu pagina de usuario?
See you later, man.--Ahabvader (talk) 00:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
About the dictionaries, let me tell you Hurmata, that I really enjoy to read articles in many other languages, and I'm seriously thinking about to start to translate more wikipedia material in other languages to spanish, so when I read some article, I usually use two or three dictionaries; for english-spanish, usually I use the dictionary called Freedictionary, it's very good (at least to me), you just seek an english word, and you get all the information about that word, and also the traslation to spanish, french, german and italian; and this one on yahoo education, very good too, but just english-spanish, spanish-english. For russian, I use this one, just copy the word or a small text and translate it. Its good for russian-english, but it's not much from russian to spanish. For french, the only one I use is this one (claims that works for full websites, but I haven't tried). I hope you find useful any of these translators. Nos vemos, compa. ---Ahabvader (talk) 00:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Closing MedCab case[edit]

I have closed Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-08-13 Jacques Vergès. This is a fresh dispute, only hours old. Please attempt to discuss your concerns on the article talk page and allow some time for a full discussion to take place before pursuing further dispute resolution steps. If you cannot reach an agreement after making a good faith effort to the discuss the issue, then mediation may be a good option to pursue. If you simply wish to solicit uninvolved opinions to help settle the disagreement, asking for a third opinion or raising the reliable sourcing questions at the reliable sources noticeboard may be helpful. Be well! Vassyana (talk) 20:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Help 4[edit]

{{helpme}} I need an administrator. Whoever answers this, please do not bring up chat because I do not have access to chat through my Internet connection. Thank you. Hurmata (talk) 07:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, if there is nothing I can help you with, try using this template {{Adminhelp}} to alert the attention of an administrator, regards —— RyanLupin(talk) 08:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


What is it you need admin help with? Kevin (talk) 10:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

At Evan Bayh, two users persist in a bizarre insertion: they use a citation falsely, in support of text that in fact does not appear in the cited article. It's even worse, the cited article says the opposite of what they are inserting. I have spelled out how this is so on the article talk page, in the 20:52 24 August 2008. Here's what I would like see an administrator do: (1) block these two users from inserting text with a false citation (a citation that doesn't say what they attribute to it); (2) block people from writing that there were reports of Obama choosing Bayh as running mate -- I know of no "reliable sources" that made this claim; (3) block people from claiming that to report that bumper stickers saying "Obama - Bayh" were printed Friday 22 August equates to reporting that Obama chose Bayh as running mate. Thank you. (PS: let me explain the sequence of the edit war. User Brewcrewer is the one who started this faulty edit. At 3:32 24 August, I undid him, he reverted. Then user Slipperyweasel reverted Brewcrewer and Brewcrewer struck back. I reverted Brewcrewer a second time. Then Slipperyweasel announced he hadn't meant to revert Brewcrewer, and proceeded to revert me.) Hurmata (talk) 10:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I have had a look, and so far as your interpretation of that statement and the source, I agree with you. I won't be blocking anyone just though, as no-one has yet stepped over the line. I'll keep watching what happens with interest. Kevin (talk) 11:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Evan Bayh[edit]

Sorry, I originally deleted that section and brewcrewer had a fit, as seen in my talk. Edit the article as you see fit. Joe (talk) 20:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Glenn Carter[edit]

Excellent, thanks for that. Much bolder than I'd been and rightly so imo - Carter is clearly known internationally for his public Raelian involvement and the article should reflect that. Sassf (talk) 08:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

That's very interesting! I googled Drama League "Most Outstanding Performance in a Musical Award" and note that there are only 5 hits, all of which relate to GC publicity material. And "Glenn Carter" "Most Outstanding Performance in a Musical Award" produces basically the same results. It does seem that perhaps the GC official page is at the very least mistaken as to the name of the award and to the awarding body... Sassf (talk) 10:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Al-Azhar University[edit]

Hi Hurmata;

Please check Al-Azhar University talk page then post your comment.« PuTTYSchOOL 08:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

RfC on Weathermen, Ayers, Dohrm, Obama, and "terrorism"[edit]

Please note that I have created an RfC to discuss the matter of whether, how, and where we should use and cover the designation "terrorist" describe the Weathermen and their former leaders. It is located here: Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC. The intent is to decide as a content matter (and not as a behavioral issue regarding the editors involved) how to deal with this question. I am notifying you because you appear to have participated in or commented about this issue before. Feel free to participate. Thank you. Wikidemon (talk) 20:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion requested about terrorism and the Weatherman organization[edit]

Hi! A while back, you participated in a discussion on the Talk:Bill Ayers page about that subject and terrorism. Please take a look at the discussion at Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC. Your opinion there would be welcome. -- Noroton (talk) 00:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


Well done. One mystery cleared up. AAO is citable. I think it is reasonable to add "administrative officer" per your enquiry, and address any (unlikely) challenge to this. Ty 01:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Please you can help the article Fritz Muliar? Thanks[edit]

Good morning to you, please you could give a hand of help to the article of Muliar? Considering that you are better than me in German, then so I make him translate in Yiddish considering that he is Jewish. Can you do me this favor? I thank you in advance.--Lodewijk Vadacchino (talk) 11:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

p.s. Greetings from Campora San Giovanni!

Thank you for expressing such confidence in my ability. I regret to say I cannot make sense of your statement, "I make him translate in Yiddish". The English of the article is already excellent. When I can, I will study it closely to see how it might be improved, including reading the German version. Hurmata (talk) 18:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Please take another look at Weatherman/Terrorism RfC[edit]

This is a message sent to a number of editors, and following WP:CANVASS requirements: Please take another look at Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC and consider new information added near the top of the article and several new proposals at the bottom. If you haven't looked at the RfC in some time, you may find reason in the new information and new proposals to rethink the matter. -- Noroton (talk) 02:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


This matter about that church is in the news. So far, all info available is that the FBI has raided the place for monetary and sexual misconduct, that children have been allegedly molested. The local media and national media, the AP and/or UPI has been all over this matter. Powerzilla (talk) 23:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

So what's your point? Hurmata (talk) 17:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Work on Julie MacDonald article[edit]

For your extensive work changing the Julie MacDonald article from a lengthy rant into a crisp article, I gratefully award you the much deserved

Editors Barnstar.png The Editor's Barnstar
message Preston McConkie (talkcontribs) 01:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Preston, You have made my week with this commendation of my judg(e)ment in editing. Moreover, now that I have learned about your accomplishments as a professional journalist and as a Wikipedia copy editor from your user talk page, I feel doubly honored because your opinion really counts. Hurmata (talk) 05:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:RUSSIA roll call and your input required[edit]

Privet. You are receiving this message as you were listed on the membership list of WP:RUSSIA at Wikipedia:WikiProject Russia/Members. Recent times has seen minimal activity within WikiProject Russia, and there is an attempt to re-invigorate the project and have it become more organised into a fully-fledge functioning project, with the aim of increasing the quality of Russia-related articles across English wikipedia.

As we don't know which listed members are active within the project and Russia-related article, all listed members are receiving this message, and are requested to re-affirm their active status on Russia-related article by re-adding their username to Wikipedia:WikiProject Russia/Members by adding:


to the membership list. You may also like to place {{User Russian Project}} on your userpage, as this will also place you in Category:WikiProject Russia members.

There is also an active proposal on the creation of a single WP:RUSSIA project. The proposal can be viewed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Russia#Proposal_for_overhaul_and_creation_of_a_single_WP:RUSSIA_project, and your comments and suggestions are welcomed and encouraged at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Russia/Proposal.

We all look forward to your continued support of WP:RUSSIA and any comments you may have on the proposal. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 04:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


Russian–Circassian War has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Cynicism and Mysticism[edit]

Your comments on the discussion page of the article on Ship of Fools were far from being helpful. It would appear you are more interested in sanitising language than evoloving understanding...

Proper Spanish[edit]

On 2 Dec 2008 you renamed the entry on Gilberto Bosques Saldivar by adding the acute accent to the mother's surname. In an apparent attempt at sophistication, you wrote your edit summary in Spanish. Unfortunately, you misspelled *acento* in an English influenced way. ¿BongQueen, maybe? It is a phenomenon often seen among PC thinking white Americans to give themselves an 'A' for effort: flourishing scraps of Spanish they don't really know the proper use of -- like holding a pretty, exotic scarf to themselves and making a twirl in front of friends.

Moreover, you did not follow a WP guideline by first proposing a "move" (renaming) on the Talk page. Or at least until very recently, it was a WP guideline to not do moves peremptorily unless you are quite sure they are not controversial (e.g., to correct an undisputed misspelling). You misjudged in considering this move beyond controversy. Even worse is that such a guideline disregard done by so experienced a Wikipedian as yourself. At the same time, your notion has substantial merit. I would have welcomed the invitation to discuss the perplexity I have felt for some months when it comes to what to do with original diacritics. Hurmata (talk) 07:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

"White Americans"? ROFL. I am neither white nor American. All of these are pretty irrelevant, anyway, since you are talking about an edit summary, not a main article space, right? So what does it matter if I made a misspelling, or two - this is not a spelling contest. It would have been more persuasive if you rather told me that I shouldn't use Spanish language on English Wikipedia, which I would agree. (By the way, I did notice some Americans and Brits do use short Spanish phrases/words like "gracias" or "de nada" to appear cool, but does it bother you...? I will rather be flattered if foreigners use my native language to appear cool or sexy.)
And yes, I did think it was beyond controversy not to omit accents, since my article Sandra Ávila Beltrán has been moved for the reason, and so were Hugo Chávez, Omar Chávez, and countless other articles. Could you point me to a naming convention guideline page regarding the use of accent? Thanks. --BorgQueen (talk) 08:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Back so soon from your break! Anyway, let's follow the usual WP practice of conducting a discussion between two WPans entirely where it started; then no cutting and pasting will be necessary. On my talk page, you asked me, "Could you point me to a naming convention guideline page regarding the use of accent? Thanks." My point was that *that* was *my* question exactly. What you ought to have done when you wanted to rename the article is to go to the article's talk page and create an entry announcing your wish and soliciting comment. Among other things, this would have increased the chances that somebody knowledgeable would have advised us whether a guideline exists. Hurmata (talk) 22:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Copying and pasting the message one is replying to is fine; many established editors do so. Actually what you told me was that I should not have moved the page, since you believed it was not beyond controversy. You didn't ask me any "question". And I asked the question because I assumed you are certain that your claim is backed up by our guideline, and now I realize you are not. You really should have done some research before complaining. Hugo Chávez is a high-traffic BLP watched by many Spanish-speaking editors; If anything is wrong with its naming it would have been corrected ages ago. --BorgQueen (talk) 03:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Kirsten Gillibrand[edit]

Hello. Are you citing WP:NOTNEWS for this edit? Not only do I not see how it applies to this case; you might note that the information was put back in with ten minutes only now it's not cited and not written within the WP:MoS. This will be all moot in a few hours of course. Thoughts? —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 12:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

"Moot in a few hours" — that's a clue as to why the material was inappropriate. Hurmata (talk) 04:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I disagree on its having been inappropriate, there is no guideline or rule that says rapidly developing events can not be included in articles. The statement I had included merely said that The New York Times had said that she would be appointed later that day. I think that it would be fair to say that even if someone else had been appointed, the fact that the "paper of record" had made that statement about the article's subject would have warranted its inclusion. The removal of my factual, properly cited, and properly formatted statement resulted in much more effort by editors having to remove the many "crystal ball" edits that were subsequently put into the article. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 03:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
WP:NOTABILITY and WP:NOT#JOURNALISM. Your plea about citing a reliable source is ignorant: the Reliable Source policy does not mean merely being reported by a reliable source qualifies information for inclusion in WP. Hurmata (talk) 04:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure you meant "mistaken" rather than "ignorant" because I'm sure you did not mean to be insulting. Moving on... WP:NOTE applies to articles' subjects, not to their contents. WP:NOT#JOURNALISM is a summary/re-statement of WP:NOR which quite obviously doesn't apply to a cited, verifiable statement of the New York Times. As for my rationale, I think you may have misunderstood it, so I will rephrase it in more neutral terminology. A major news paper made a statement about an incipient significant career change for a notable person who has an article. Now, even if that newspaper story winds up having been mistaken, the fact that the statement was made still belongs in the person's article because the statement is itself a major event in the person's life. By the way, I hope you're enjoying our discussion as much as I am! Have a great day and happy editing! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 06:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Help with AFD dispute[edit]

{{helpme}} Fellow editors are grossly violating the procedure for AFD (nominating an article for deletion). They removed the AFD tag I placed within less than 24 hours and they declared consensus based on two or three editors. Please advise me on how best to place back the AFD and to call an administrator in to set these editors straight. The article is United States Senate special election in New York, 2010. Thank you. Hurmata (talk) 05:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd call them "grossly violating" procedure, although there were a couple of irregularities. I've reverted the non-admin closure and reopened the deletion discussion, but I doubt it will change the outcome--not one person has yet supported deletion, so this is probably prolonging the inevitable. Jclemens (talk) 06:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

My AFD tag keeps getting removed. Twice in three days[edit]

{{helpme}} Please restore the AFD tag at United States Senate special election in New York, 2010. Immediately preceding entry for some history. Also, please advise me on how I can apply to have these editors disciplined.Thank you.Hurmata (talk) 23:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The AfD was closed, the removal of the tag was not inappropriate. neuro(talk) 23:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Please see AfD referenced at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Senate special election in New York, 2010. Regards. --Chasingsol(talk) 23:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it was closed as keep. neuro(talk) 23:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
In cases where consensus is obvious, deletion discussions are often closed early. This is nothing abnormal. neuro(talk) 08:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

April 2009[edit]

Information.svg Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Charles Manson. Talk page discussions such as the one you posted here and edit summaries such as this one are entirely inappropriate. Please acquaint yourself with basic ettiquette principles such as WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and the concept of discussing the content, not the contributor. Your posting was entirely inappropriate and unacceptable. LaVidaLoca (talk) 10:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Award of a Barnstar[edit]

Barnstar of Diligence.png The Barnstar of Diligence
The Barnstar of Diligence is hereby awarded for extraordinary wisdom shown as a real wikipedian in arguing for the RS based accurate statement that Purandaradasa is the founder of Carnatic Music. By a long term wikipedia reader but Not a Editor75.62.179.195

talk) 23:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


Just a quick thank you for your work on the Kazan article. I've been keeping an eye on it for some 2-3 years, and I used to flinch at its prose on a regular basis. You've done a great job clarifying and correcting the article; now I can continue to improve it without getting as bogged down in its broken mechanics. Avram (talk) 08:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Winter War[edit]

You opposed Winter War -article FA-status. The nomination page is now closed, so I cannot answer you in the nomination page. If I understand correctly you have multiple reasons, why the page should not be the Featured Article:

  • "The presentations of the Soviet military concerns and of the negotiations are superficial and minimal." The Winter War article is now 120kb long. I have written the Soviet motives in the article Background of the Winter War. Have you read it?
  • "There is a totally misleading insinuation—cleverly just an insinuation—that the USSR actually wanted to reacquire all of Finland." Yes, "all" has been confirmed from latest Moscow Archives (open late 1980s and early 1990s) in military planning and command level. However, we do not know why Stalin stopped the invasion in that point, but it was probably due the Franco-British invasion. Or do you have other information?
  • "No use is made of the book, Anthony F. Upton, 1974, Finland, 1939-1940." Moscow Archieves opened in late 1980s and they opened a whole new level of studies. Now we know much more of Soviet intentions, plannings and operations. So, that it is why this book (and lots and lots of other books) before that era is not used.
  • There were also some grammar and Wikipedia manual style issues. It would be great help if you have a spare time to correct these - I have corrected lots of these issues along the FA candidandy (see for example [3]). And, as you can see English is not my native so extra hands are always needed. Peltimikko (talk) 08:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Dominican Republic[edit]

You sir/madam are a jerk. I was looking forward to chucking much of that content myself, and now you've fiendisly robbed me of that satisfaction. To heck with you!

However, some content you removed was added by good editors with whom I was relatively close, so I didn't really have the heart to remove as much of it as was, in fact, necessary. So thanks for liberating me from having to make those decisions.

I'll get to work this weekend on replacing those Fact tags you left all over the place with sources—I knew this day of reckoning would come.

Hurmata, you're an artist. Muchísimas gracias. Feliz año casi nuevo. Y hasta luego. SamEV (talk) 02:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Winter War reassement + finishing notes[edit]

I was wondering how long are you going to reassess the Winter War article? Can I help in some way? Other issue: you have done a great job editing notes, but do you have a moment to finish the job? Peltimikko (talk) 11:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Theoretical Linguistics[edit]

Hello, I am trying to bring WP:WikiProject Theoretical Linguistics back to semi-active status. Toward that end, I have moved all members who have not posted to the project page in the past six months to a section, "Inactive members." If you wish to be active in the project, I hope you will move your name back to the section, "Members." You may also remove your name if you are no longer interested in the project. Thanks, and happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 17:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Malicious edit of a biography[edit]

Pictogram resolved.svg
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, please place a new {{help me}} request on this page followed by your questions, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page.
You have not left a question. By the title of this section I assume you have come across a BLP that has been vandalized. When that happens you just revert and warn, until they stop or they get blocked. You should try to avoid getting caught in an edit war though as that may lead to you being blocked. Mr. R00t Talk 04:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Talkback (July 2011)[edit]

I didn't use the template, but I've also left messages. I do not appreciate your uncivil attacks against myself and other editors on the page. Further, I've debunked your effort to debunk the South Sudan Constitution. CycloneGU (talk) 06:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Epilog. I launched a Request for Comment (RfC) to deal with the disagreement alluded to by CycloneGU. The response was fairly copious and in the end the opinion originally held by him/her and several others was agreed to be in error. Hurmata (talk) 13:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Unacceptable personal attacks made on editor on Kosovo article[edit]

Please show some common courtesy and basic politeness to other users and not call another editor a "dumbass", it is Wikipedia policy to maintain a calm, rational debate, personal attacks are banned on Wikipedia and if regularly done, result in the user making those attacks being banned from Wikipedia. If there is a problem, rationally address it. I will report you for personal attacks if you persist in such attacks.--R-41 (talk) 20:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

My rational address of the bad editing is presented in a conspicuous manner by my creation of a section in Talk:Kosovo#Aubrey_Herbert.2C_alias_Audrey_Hebert. Examination of R-41's discussion page reveals that he/she has repeatedly had articles he created marked for speedy deletion because they promote "non-notable neologisms" or because they duplicate existing articles. As for the material I deleted, R-41 ignores it. The offending editor grossly distorted a person's name (making it difficult to research), inserted propagandistic, chauvinistic, irrelevant material, omitted crucial polemical context (namely, about the person being quoted). The offending edit was a partisan statement, and such material coarsens Wikipedia and renders individual articles unreliable. Its bad faith was blatant. Unfortunately, it was not removed for over two years, until I removed it. (Incidentally, the offending editor quit editing Wikipedia one year and ten months ago.) R-41 seems to specialize in articles on highly polarized international debates like the Balkans and the Arab-Israeli conflict. Perhaps he/she can assist in the academic cleanup of such articles, following the example I've set. Hurmata (talk) 06:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Are you attempting to attack my character through your examination of my discussion page for what you call "non-notable neologisms"?--R-41 (talk) 02:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Are you trying to pretend that other editors did not beat me to it in invoking the official critique of "non-notable neologism" against your edits? Now that you make these critiques available to Wikipedians, are you posturing to take offense at a Wikipedian for citing them? Do you make a habit of interpreting attacks on your edits as attacks on your character? Hurmata (talk) 02:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
What do my edits on other issues have anything to do with the issue of personal attacks that I addressed to you? My edits and discussion page have nothing to do with the issue at hand, there is no reason to bring them up. The issue at hand is an immediate one, the personal attack you made against another user. You insulted another user by calling them a "dumbass". You had no need to do that and it is a blatant violation of Wikipedia policy.--R-41 (talk) 03:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

October 2011[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Selena. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 13:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Your claim that I "attacked other editors" is grossly wrong. Your self interest in this matter is obvious from the Talk page: you were the main proponent of the Featured Article cause. Your confusion of attacks on the writing with attacks on the writers matches the undereducated nature of the writing. I don't know how much of the writing is your work, but undoubtedly a good portion. Your objection amounts to an attempt at censorship of allegations that writing of any WP article might be lousy. The point needs to be emphasized that this article in fact represents about the worst quality in Wikipedia articles. That is a point I am about to elaborate on in Talk:Selena. Hurmata (talk) 13:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Saying that the article was written "by teenagers who are learning composition. Ignorance of set phrases; staccato arrangement of information (awkward like the walk of a toddler); etc" is formally an attack. A talk page of an article is to discuss any improvements, if any, to other editors who might not see them, not to make accusations about who wrote the article and how badly written it is. Yes, I did re-wrote the article because the previous version was not broad in its coverage and did not inform the major aspects of the subject (Selena). Therefore, with the help of numerous books, magazine articles, documentaries, etc, I was able to expand the article 10x larger. However, I don't want to argue with you, I rather would like to work with you. You seem to know better grammar/prose then me. I'll admit that, even though I am a native English speaker, my English is not that good. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 13:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
While the comment you said in the talk page can be considered a personal attack, I totally agree with you on how the article quality is not of featured article standards, the sourcing is kinda bad (magazine gossip articles are not a reliable source) and some of the information needs a total rewrite, and other information need to be removed. Secret account 16:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
@Secret, I already tried partnering with you, you didn't respond and brushed it off, yet you continue to just sit back and talk about how the article is unreliable. If there is an error, then fix it. Just complaining about it is not going to help anyone. Before I expanded the article that's all I did was complain. But then I got WP:BOLD and expanded it and dealing with light-weight criticism. But since everyone wants to just complain, nothing well be done, BTW no one is perfect. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 18:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

To AJona1992 (and partly to Secret Account too). "Is formally an attack". The use of "formally" sounds sophisticated. But formally, my comments are NOT personal attacks (by the way, AJona, you misquoted me, but that aside, by your very user name you insinuate you were born in 1992, which would make you an adolescent the last year, two years). You're just searching for grounds to claim a violation of policies. Not only are vehement attacks on the quality of editors' contributions allowed, they HAVE to be allowed. You do not get specific, therefore your complaint is irresponsible. (1) You fail to cite a passage that allegedly is a personal attack, and you fail to identify who it is that's being attacked. (2) You fail to deny any of the objections to your contributions. For example, you do not deny ignorance of common cliches; you do not deny neglecting subjective comments. Subjective comments need to be sourced, to be tagged as needing sources, or to be deleted. I know you didn't write most of this stuff, but in a period of apparently years, you also didn't weed out other editors' work that was foolish or irresponsible.
I notice you play around extensively with your user name. You switch between your official fictitious name and a nickname of the fictitious name, and you have put a lot of effort into mixing colors within the nickname. This reminds me of another editor who was even more diligent in disregarding Wikipedia policies while quick to allege being insulted. Namely, he kept trying to write that a public figure is gay despite the person's denials and despite that there is no published evidence the person is gay. The claim this subject is gay is nothing but a rumor spread by gay America (it may well be true, but it's just a rumor). Huge violation of Biography of Living Persons rules. This editor, and others, spent weeks trying to take shelter under the Reliable Source policy. Anyway, this was another editor who ostentatiously played around with their user name and complained when people called them out on stuff. Hurmata (talk) 22:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 23:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Selena 14 October 2011[edit]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Selena. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. I understand you're frustrations on this article, but why can't you just state the issues instead of insulting editors? The FA version of the article is, no doubt in my mind, an extremely good well-written article. However, the article had lack the major aspects of the subject and was not broad in its coverage. Yes its true the article went through a FAR but I was determined to expand the article. The article is just as lengthy as Beyoncé Knowles, Mariah Carey and its lead is the same size as FA article Michael Jackson. You're only argument that is valid is the prose. Instead of complaining about it, fix it. I already had asked for permission to expand the article (if you had looked in the talk page) and you could see that the community agreed with my additions. This is the last time I will warn you. If you continue to insult others, I'll asked an admin to step in. Thanks Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 14:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

This reply to AJona1992^Selena 4 ever^ is sort of a postscript. Above, he proclaims, "fix it". His record is that when people fix things in Selena, he reverts their work wholesale. He's done it to me at least twice in the last week. Hurmata (talk) 06:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
To other editors: please be advised that the above complaint by AJona (alias Jonayo ^Selena 4 ever^) is nothing more than a cut and paste of a reply on the Talk page of Selena. Anyone else wanting to put me on notice would have put here, "please read my warning on the article Talk page". The fact that you duplicated that statement here on my personal page is yet another piece of evidence of your incorrect ways of responding to criticism. (You will probably misreport that criticism as a "personal attack".) I will reply to AJona's accusations there, Talk:Selena#Why_the_Featured_Article_status_should_be_questioned._Fall_2011. Hurmata (talk) 09:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Jona asked me to oversee Talk:Selena. Since I think I can see his side of things, mind telling me yours? Thanks, m.o.p 07:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Cagey messages are unhelpful (like this one from m.o.p.). "Oversee a Talk page". "Think I can see someone's side of things". What you probably ought to do is edit the article and/or participate in the discussion at the Talk page. And, with the massive amount of remarks I've already made, what do you still not know? I am going to head over to Talk:Selena to see if you are making your presence felt there. Hurmata (talk) 22:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
I guess I'll rephrase the question - mind telling me what you feel needs to be done to improve your editing experience and help relations with Jona? Thanks, m.o.p 14:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Mind disclosing your interest in the dispute? Hurmata (talk) 06:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to ease tension between you two. That's why I'm asking your side. m.o.p 23:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Two issues in reply to Master of Puppets, self abbreviated "m.o.p." (Examine that user name logo: colored faint gray and it's an acronym that's set in lower case. Cloak and dagger.)
(1) As M.O.P. stated, his reason for communicating with me is that AJona1992^Selena 4 ever^ solicited him to. As a matter of fact, M.O.P. is an administrator of Wikipedia, even though he DOES NOT DISCLOSE this fact in his overtures. As a matter of fact he conceals his authority status even at his user pages. One must go out of one's way to find it out, therefore "concealment" is an accurate description. On his user page, if you open the bar labeled WP, then Master of Puppets reveals himself to be an administrator. Or if you go to his talk page and start reading, eventually you'll discover announcements he has made that entail he is an authority figure. But in addressing me, he has concealed his status, three times in two days.
M.O.P. did not approach me saying:

"Hello, I am an administrator at Wikipedia. The reason I am writing you is that I am investigating a complaint lodged against you by User AJona1992^Selena 4 ever^. And in fact, the reason I am the one doing this investigation is that AJona1992^Selena 4 ever^ personally asked me to (he didn't just ask for administrator help and I'm the one who responded). In fact, he and I know each other because just three weeks ago I ruled in his favor in a dispute he had with another editor. My action was to temporarily ban the other editor, and, hey, just last week AJona1992 rewarded me for that "help" AND for my "fighting vandalism" by bestowing the "Civility" barnstar on me. (Of course, in punishing somebody else for violating civility, my own action had nothing to do with civility or incivility, and vandalizing articles is something other than "incivility", so the barnstar was unjustified. But: I didn't award it to myself!) Oh — plus, not even three weeks ago, I collaborated with AJona1992 again involving the same article. Anyway, I don't think my chummy relationship with the plaintiff impairs my objectivity if I undertake to investigate his subsequent complaints, oh no."

An administrator investigating a complaint while refusing to disclose he is an administrator. Once this conduct alone is discovered, all it does is "inflame tension" between him and the accused.
(2) Another thing M.O.P. did that I object to is that he predeemed or predefined what my priorities are, namely, "improving my editing experience" and "improving my relationship with another editor". He did not ask me what my specific concerns about a particular article are. (What he asked was, "what's on your mind?") This implants a reasonable fear that for me to succeed in impressing upon him what my concerns are, I would have to nag him: "no, no, th-i-i-s is what I care about", as well as a reasonable fear that he might not care to listen. And I don't want my readers to be oblivious to the fact that by the choice of concerns he predeemed that I have, our administrator called M.O.P. is insinuating that my priorities toward the Selena article have to do with my emotions. You could say he's trying to puppetize. This administrator also did not acknowledge my initial reply, "with the massive amount of remarks I've already made, what do you still not know?"
Consequently, as Wikipedia has other administrators besides Master of Puppets (M.O.P), I insist on dealing with one of them. Hurmata (talk) 06:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Your over-analysis is appreciated. There's no policy-based reason for me to disclose that I'm an administrator (even though I'm hardly hiding it), just as there's no policy-based reason stopping me from telling you that your over-analysis of the situation isn't leading things anywhere. Please note that drawing connections and claiming bias does not work well here - all I've done is ask you a simple question. Unless you're a soothsayer, please don't tell me how I'll be biased in future proceedings.
So, let's try this again. There's a dispute. I've offered to help settle a perceived difference in opinion. I could pore through the pages you've written on the Selena talk page, and I have, but I'd like to give you a chance to explain things directly. Friendly advice: take my offer at face value and, if you're not happy afterwards, we'll see if I can dig up someone else to help. Cheers, m.o.p 17:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

You're recent edits[edit]

Hey there, there's currently a discussion about updating/expanding the article. Please partake in it as one of you're recent edits you made to the article was criticized and it would be best if you can join in this discussion for consensus. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 14:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Confusion w/ journalist[edit]

   I reverted your last edit on Tom Robbins; see Talk:Tom Robbins#Confusion w/ journalist for details.
--Jerzyt 00:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Sinking of the RMS Titanic[edit]

Hello Hurmata. You deleted a painting of the sinking of the Titanic. This article has passed through the GA process, and then the FA process, both with the painting on display in the article. It will be Wikipedia's Featured Article in three days - Sunday 15 April, the 100th anniversary of the sinking. I restored the image to the article. If you believe the painting is inappropriate please raise the matter for discussion on the Talk page. Many thanks. Dolphin (t) 23:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

On the one hand, Dolphin51 is correct on the immediate issue, in that I mistook the stern for the bow. On the other hand, 13 edits I went on to make in just the ensuing few hours reveal that the article has not been all that well checked. I never even read this article before today! Especially impactful to me are that where book X quoted author Y as quoting witness Z, a previous editor attributed the ultimate quote to Y (Herman Finck) instead of Z (James Orrell); and the three fold failure to use the perfect auxiliary 'have' where it's obviously required. Hurmata (talk) 02:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Well done! You obviously have an aptitude for proof-reading articles. These skills are always in short supply in reviewing articles that have been nominated for Good Article. Have a look at WP:GAN. If you see an article (or more than one) on a topic with which you have some familiarity feel free to carry out the GA review. Guidance material is available at WP:GAN. Dolphin (t) 13:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library![edit]

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!
Hi Hurmata! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Multilingual editors are welcome! (But being multilingual is not a requirement.) Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 22:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Heather Raffo and ancestry[edit]

Hi! I added comments here: Talk:Heather Raffo

I found a Chaldean paper saying she's Chaldean but I think we should find more before concluding one way or the other WhisperToMe (talk) 13:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Language-population update project[edit]

Hi. The 18th edition of Ethnologue just came out, and if we divide up our language articles among us, it won't take long to update them. I would appreciate it if you could help out, even if it's just a few articles (5,000 articles is a lot for just me), but I won't be insulted if you delete this request.

A largely complete list of articles to be updated is at Category:Language articles citing Ethnologue 17. The priority articles are in Category:Language articles with old Ethnologue 17 speaker data. These are the 10% that have population figures at least 25 years old.

Probably 90% of the time, Ethnologue has not changed their figures between the 17th and 18th editions, so all we need to do is change "e17" to "e18" in the reference (ref) field of the language info box. That will change the citation for the artcle to the current edition. Please put the data in the proper fields, or the info box will flag it as needing editorial review. The other relevant fields are "speakers" (the number of native speakers in all countries), "date" (the date of the reference or census that Ethnologue uses, not the date of Ethnologue!), and sometimes "speakers2". Our convention has been to enter e.g. "1990 census" when a census is used, as other data can be much older than the publication date. Sometimes a citation elsewhere in the article depends on the e17 entry, in which case you will need to change "name=e17" to "name=e18" in the reference tag (assuming the 18th edition still supports the cited claim).

Remember, we want the *total* number of native speakers, which is often not the first figure given by Ethnologue. Sometimes the data is too incompatible to add together (e.g. a figure from the 1950s for one country, and a figure from 2006 for another), in which case it should be presented that way. That's one use for the "speakers2" field. If you're not sure, just ask, or skip that article.

Data should not be displayed with more than two, or at most three, significant figures. Sometimes it should be rounded off to just one significant figure, e.g. when some of the component data used by Ethnologue has been approximated with one figure (200,000, 3 million, etc.) and the other data has greater precision. For example, a figure of 200,000 for one country and 4,230 for another is really just 200,000 in total, as the 4,230 is within the margin of rounding off in the 200,000. If you want to retain the spurious precision of the number in Ethnologue, you might want to use the {{sigfig}} template. (First parameter in this template is for the data, second is for the number of figures to round it off to.)

Dates will often need to be a range of all the country data in the Ethnologue article. When entering the date range, I often ignore dates from countries that have only a few percent of the population, as often 10% or so of the population isn't even separately listed by Ethnologue and so is undated anyway.

If Ethnologue does not provide a date for the bulk of the population, just enter "no date" in the date field. But if the population figure is undated, and hasn't changed between the 17th & 18th editions of Ethnologue, please leave the ref field set to "e17", and maybe add a comment to keep it so that other editors don't change it. In cases like this, the edition of Ethnologue that the data first appeared in may be our only indication of how old it is. We still cite the 14th edition in a couple dozen articles, so our readers can see that the data is getting old.

The articles in the categories linked above are over 90% of the job. There are probably also articles that do not currently cite Ethnologue, but which we might want to update with the 18th edition. I'll need to generate another category to capture those, probably after most of the Ethnologue 17 citations are taken care of.

Jump in at the WP:LANG talk page if you have any comments or concerns. Thanks for any help you can give!

kwami (talk) 02:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)