User talk:Uanfala

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

Template:AfC draft editintro[edit]

I noticed you marked Template:AfC draft editintro as historical, but it seems to be in use by the Article Wizard. Am I missing something, or was that a mistake? KSFT (t|c) 07:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I was told by Primefac at Template talk:AfC draft editintro#Misleading text, and there's a comment at Wikipedia talk:Article wizard#Are instructions up to date with respect to the visual editor? that points out the reason it appears not to be used. In light of all that, I'll remove the "historical" template, but the text really neeeds updating. – Uanfala (talk) 10:03, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

JBH at RFA[edit]

I, too, was bothered by the point you raised: indeed I had brought it up at JBH's talk page, but didn't see your post till now. It's a little worse than you think; aside from the four editors sanctioned in that case, three others involved in related conflicts have all !voted "oppose". Before this RFA, those seven editors had all of 8 !votes between them. I find this suspicious, to say the least, but unfortunately not surprising (posting this here for WP:BEANS reasons). I don't know that there's anything to be done about it, except for pointing it out if this goes to a crat-chat (which I intend to do). Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 11:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't know what can be done other than to draw attention to the fact. If there's anything that shows how suspicious all of this is, that's probably the difference between the likelihood that any single one of those ten editors would vote "oppose" (precisely 50%, as two of the ten are currently blocked) and the likelihood that a random active wikipedian would vote, which is at least two orders of magnitude lower. This whole situation is making me wonder whether in future RfAs (and in any community desysop procedure that might ever exist), it won't make sense to require !voters to disclose any conflicts they have had with the nominee. – Uanfala (talk) 11:54, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Indeed. A lot of similar stuff happened in my RFA, but at least I was an ARBIPA regular, and was expecting it. What we have here is someone who genuinely tried to help out at ANI and then described his experience at AE get dinged for it... Vanamonde (talk) 14:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

6 August, 2018[edit]

Hi Uanfala ! Please review my Draft:Chotok Waterfalls. I had submitted it a week ago. A user said, "It has no better sources." I added better and I cannot add more sources because there are no other sources on Google or Bing about it. You can also search about Chotok Waterfalls on Google and Bing, you will also see there are some sources about it. I want to create it because there are a few articles of Waterfalls of Pakistan on Wikipedia. So, Please accept it. Thank You.

PakEditor (talk) 02:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

  • I've moved the draft into mainspace: the waterfalls are probably notable. – Uanfala (talk) 19:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Invisible character[edit]

Those redirects to Etruscan language etc. were a really good idea! I can't guess which character you used, and I'd like to know so that I could try the same test in another context ... Andrew Dalby 17:21, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

The invisible character I used was a zero-width joiner. The identity of the character doesn't really matter: the goal is to get pageviews that come (almost) entirely form the dab page, so any redirect will do as long as it's one that readers are very unlikely to stumble upon by themselves. Something that helps is the addition of {{R unprintworthy}} at the bottom of the redirect: it ensures that the redirect will be dispreferred in the search box drop-down suggestions. – Uanfala (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Moch) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating Moch, Uanfala!

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

Don't forget to fix incoming links post-move, per WP:USURPTITLE.

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

Learn more about page curation.

--Animalparty! (talk) 18:29, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

  • I check incoming links to try and suss out any meanings that might not be listed on the dab page, and I do fix links if the topic area is tricky. The links to Moch, however, are trivial, so I've left it to those who are more keen than me on fixing dablinks. The WP:DPL project isn't, as far as I'm aware, short of eager volunteers. – Uanfala (talk) 18:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
In this case, it can reasonably be inferred that all incoming links were intended for the previous target, i.e. Moch, Chuuk, or at the very least, that they weren't referring to any of the person's now populating Moch. I'll go ahead and do the hard work. Thanks. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:40, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Willow Tree[edit]

There should be no links to disambiguation pages, so now that you made Willow Tree a dab page, would you please follow up and fix all the incoming links? (DisamAssist, Dabfix and Dabsolver are helpful.) Thanks. — Gorthian (talk) 02:10, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Fixing dablinks is one of the lowest-priority tasks to do with dab pages, and one that sees no shortage of volunteers. There are some relevant additional considerations in the thread immediately above. – Uanfala (talk) 10:16, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Descent (word)[edit]

Hello, Uanfala. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Descent (word), for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

  1. edit the page
  2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
  3. save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Nick Moyes (talk) 14:07, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

As explained in the creation edit summary, this was an experiment to gauge how many readers click on the wiktionary link at the dab page Descent (3 of the 80 people who viewed the dab every day followed that link). The experiment is over, so I've had that G7-ed. – Uanfala (talk) 09:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Mankri) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating Mankri, Uanfala!

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

This has had significant changes.

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

Learn more about page curation.

Boleyn (talk) 15:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean, Boleyn? – Uanfala (talk) 15:42, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
You are edit warring, knowing full well it doesn't meet guidelines. Calm down, and work on it - that's 3 reverts now. Work on it in draftspace first. This is why, despite you having editing so long, you are still not autopatrolled. Boleyn (talk) 16:13, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
So, I'm edit-warring and you're not? Alright, but if you're unhappy with an article, and your draftification has been objected to, instead of repeatedly moving it to draft space, you should take it to WP:AFD. Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 16:19, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Why are you continuing to stalk my edits and edit warring, going beyond WP:3RR and ignoring the opinions of me and another editor? What are you gaining from this bullying behaviour? Boleyn (talk) 13:30, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Please, I'm not stalking your edits and there's no need to take disagreements personally. You must be referring to Willi Kimmritz: I think we've already talked about this at some length on your talk page. I'm not sure what I can say other to emphasise again that you're free to draftify whatever new article you choose, but once this has been objected to, you're not expected to keep moving it to the draftspace; you can take it to WP:AFD if you feel that notabiltiy is an issue. I'm not sure where I've gone beyond 3RR. – Uanfala (talk) 14:01, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Mankri for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mankri 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/Mankri until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 notice from the top of the article. Boleyn (talk) 19:56, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Hazara, Pakistan[edit]

Yes so difficult. For instance, what does " lyricist writer who wrote in more than twenty outstanding films both in India and Pakistan" mean? Did he write screenplays? Poems that were recited in films? Songs that were performed in films? And I don't know how I could have fixed "Due to this high literacy rate Hazara division produce greats son and daughters to the Pakistan and they contribute in the growth and development of Pakistan"... Drmies (talk) 00:31, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

You don't seem to be asking a question here, so I'm not sure I should be trying to answer, but no, I don't think it's very difficult to throw away a couple of rubbish sentences and reword the one that is left behind. At least not significantly more so than hitting the undo button. – Uanfala (talk) 00:43, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
You may think that, but cleaning up other people's mess isn't necessarily fun. Drmies (talk) 03:06, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I am in the same boat as Drmies. I don't mind if other kind souls come and improve it and, in particular, the original editor themselves. But it is better to strike when it is hot than to leave the bad content there potentially indefinitely. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 10:31, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

minor english polishing[edit]


line 3 'their' can be substituted with a better word.

Yours truly, II Allan Core — Preceding unsigned comment added by II Allan Core (talkcontribs) 09:05, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

@II Allan Core: I'm not sure I get what you're referring to. Is that my userpage? What better word would you suggest? Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 09:45, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Moving "Madi language"[edit]

I'm sorry I didn't contact you about this while it was happening - my direct involvement with this language has passed, but I still wanted to contact you and resolve this issue.

Currently, Madi language is a disambiguation page which links to the following three languages: Gira, Jamamadi, and Ma'di. The reason this is a problem for me is that "Jamamadí" is not a synonym for Madí, or even a dominating or prestige dialect of the same. The speaking population of the Jarawara and Banawa dialects combined outnumbers that of Jamamadí, and multiglossia is rare or nonexistent. The current situation is tantamount to labelling English as "American" (albeit on a much smaller scale, of course). The same goes for documentation - although the language is indeed obscure as a whole, nonetheless Jarawara is by far the best-documented, which skews perception much more than bare population does. For this reason the article discusses Jarawara almost exclusively, which is doubtless confusing in an article titled "Jamamadí".

Meanwhile, the two articles that compete with it for "Madi" both have useful titles which are not themselves "Madi". The Gira language does have an alternate name (obviously), and one that's apparently interchangeable - I don't know much about the language itself, but the precedent set by the article and its ISO identifier (grg) would imply this. In contrast to Madí, practically no documentation exists for this language and I find it extremely unlikely that anyone is going to have a problem using an alternate name. Meanwhile, Ma'di - which admittedly has five hundred times more speakers than both other languages combined, and good documentation - has a completely distinct name (hence the apostrophe, which has phonemic meaning here), one which again is not going to cause much of a problem for anyone motivated enough to search for it.

That's why, from my perspective, it would be both useful and harmless to have "Madi" direct simply to Jamamadi language, with of course a disambiguation warning linking to Gira and Ma'di. The current arrangement is based on a misconception and perpetuates it, while simultaneously being inconvenient for everybody. My solution might be inconvenient for somebody, maybe - and of course I'm not forgetting that this is all extremely esoteric - but, I think, less inconvenient overall and actually accurate.

Let me know what you think. Kielbasa1 (talk) 16:47, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Hmmm... is your ultimate aim to rename Jamamadí language to Madi language? Wouldn't it be better in that case to have it at Madí language (with the acute accent), which is the form of the name you've used in the article? That way all the three languages will have distinct titles and Madi language could remain a disambiguation page - and the term is ambiguous: it is a common alternative spelling of the Sudanic language (see the bibliography at glottolog) and apparently attested for the Papuan one. Or do you believe that the Arawakan language is the primary topic for "Madi", because the diacritics aren't sufficient as a distinguishing title? But then the same reasoning would also apply to "Ma'di", woudln't it? – Uanfala (talk) 21:14, 20 September 2018 (UTC)