User talk:DeCausa/Archive 6

Publication date for translations

What an interesting question which made me re-look at this edit. I would have thought date of first publication, rather than the date of translation is most relevant as it gives the context for the work. I would have thought that readers might be surprised with medieval text published in 2014 as a new book would appear. I looked at Template:Cite book which, although it specifies how to represent the English version of foreign language titles, doesn't specify anything about dates of translation. Wikipedia:Citing sources#Reprints of older publications talks about the use of a parameter |origyear= which may be the way to go - there is also a mention in the next para about translations. I may try using this (for the first time) on Bath curse tablets if I get time. It may be an issue to raise at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style for expert opinion. — Rod ^talk 19:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I've used |origyear= . What do you think?— Rod ^talk 19:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes! That seems like a good solution. DeCausa (talk) 20:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Irony

No, I actually wasn't being sarcastic or ironic at all, I find the loss of an editor with 186,000 edits on the board, a majority to mainspace, shocking. Be sure to present that link as evidence if this mess ends up at ArbCom. Carrite (talk) 14:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Muhammad Ali of Egypt

This issue was mentioned on my talk page. I see that FPS has given Biar122 a DS alert. I've added that to the IP's talk page with a statement that the IP is Biar122 (clearly). I am not taking part in the discussion as I want to stay uninvolved. I note there are 3 editors reverting him. Did you see that the IP has responded to a 2013 discussion on the talk page? Dougweller (talk) 06:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I've posted a reply to KB on his talk and to the user on the article talk page. DeCausa (talk) 09:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

—== you have mistaken ==

here you undid my revision by writing "doesn't make sense". You were totally wrong, it makes sense, like here. You undid my revision only because i am a new user. However even i was wrong because it is not a madhab (but it made sense), and i discussed it in the talk page. You should not undo new users and ip's contributions, because it is ip biting. Thanks. Salafisalafis (talk) 21:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

"is a maddhab movement" doesn't make sense. (A) a maddhab isn't a movement it's a school of thought or jurisprudence (B) it's not a word in the English language, and shouldn't be used without a translation or at a minimum a wikilink. DeCausa (talk) 21:47, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

You are still talking like an ignorant, and you have not understood anything yet. 1* regardind this stupid comment "it's not a word in the English language, and shouldn't be used without a translation or at a minimum a wikilink."as here there is written "madhab" even if it is not an english language 2* regardind this "is a maddhab movement", only here you are right, i forgot to remove "movement", but i think you could do so But finally i understood that salafi is not really a madhab (although several people think it is). I did not it again because my mistake was, for example, "Cristiano Ronaldo dos Santos Aveiro, OIH (Portuguese pronunciation: [kɾɨʃtiˈɐnu ʁuˈnaɫdu]; born 5 February 1985), known as Cristiano Ronaldo, is a Portuguese singer" but actually he is a footballer. I hope you understood. Thank you. Salafisalafis (talk) 20:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

No I understand what you've written. It doesn't make sense. DeCausa (talk) 20:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

RfD discussion of Islamic State

• Because you have participated in the move discussion at Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, you are being notified of the RfD discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 September 7#Islamic State. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

IAC

There is a discussion on article's talk page. Duffycharles (talk) 11:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Islam

Why are you reverting my sourced contents? I know that some people might not condone it, but Wikipedia has to be neutral and offer all facts.--Helpwoks (talk) 22:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

When you come off your block, take it to the article talk page. DeCausa (talk) 15:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

'Kingdom of England' page: Flag issue

Hi,

Thank you for your message. Just to let you know I made my last edit to the 'Kingdom of England' page when, inadvertently, I wasn't logged in and therefore hadn't seen your notification. I wasn't ignoring your correspondence.

When I have time I will present arguments on the talk page; I hope to get this corrected. However, Rob984's initial edit ignored the concerns and evidence of other contributors, was purely based on the users own speculation, and ignored sourced content on related pages concerning the history of the flag of England. (Anyway, I realise you may have no inherent interest in the dispute).

Best wishes, Brunanburh (talk) 01:02, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

You should have self-reverted. I see Rob has reverted your IP edit. If you want to avoid being blocked I suggest you keep it to the Talk page now. DeCausa (talk) 09:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello DeCausa:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – JudeccaXIII (talk) 02:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Message

Hello, DeCausa. You have new messages at JudeccaXIII's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Pakistani pilot

Hi. Do you think that your recent undo concerning a Pakistani pilot, is according to Wikipedia rules?

- Please bear in mind that the source is clearly not a wp:rs Ykantor (talk) 18:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Did you read and understand my edit summary? I don't think you did. It can't be according to that site, because that site just republishes preexisting material. It was not first published on that site. If you doubt that it is an RS, your edit which I reverted makes no sense. If it is not an RS, then the "according to" is not the answer. On tge face of it, it appears to be a convincing account. What's the issue? I think generally you should stop making edits that are just about making a "point" and concentrate on informing people neutrally. You're obviously very emotionally invested in Israel-related topics. I recommend you edit areas where you are not so emotiinally involved and come back to this after you have edited articles where you "do not care". That's why I edit this article: I really don't have strong views about the Arab-Israeli conflict. It puts me in a good frame (= NPOV) of mind when I come to articles I do care about. DeCausa (talk) 19:06, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

-A In your edit summary, it is assumed the me (or other readers) are familiar with this internet site and know that it is a reliable source. There should not be such an assumption and the reader should be presented with a wp:rs based text. Otherwise, we should adapt the wp:biased suggestion to use in-text attribution. Even if "Al Arabia" published this story, does it mean that it is true? I am not sure. I always try to use respectable wp:rs, especially since this is a contentious article.

- This point has nothing to do with being pro or against Israel. There were Israeli aircraft that were shot down by Arab pilots, so what does it matter whether it was a Pakistani or Jordanian pilot that shot the Israeli aircraft?

-B Concerning yours : "You're obviously very emotionally invested in Israel-related topics". I am an Israeli, living in Israel, and it clearly written in my user page. Still, in my opinion I am neutral and accept that Israel wrong doing should be exposed. But this article is heavily biased against Israel, so each neutral editor should modify and balance it. The problem is mainly the false Arab claim that Israel wanted this war in order to conquer more territories from the neighboring Arab state. Since the facts are clearly contradicting this view, the pro Arab editors are deleting / minimizing such facts. I searched for and used Arab sources and Shlaim (who is usually somehow against Israel) but it does not impress those editors. All historians or encyclopedias includes those facts (to my knowledge), but Wikipedia is different. Why? Ykantor (talk) 19:56, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Nowhere in the article does it say that Israel wanted the war to conquer more territories. I repeat, you should edit articles that have nothing to do with this or anything else you care about, and come back to this article in a few months after doing that. DeCausa (talk) 20:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

-I will appreciate it if you refer to point A, B (see above)

- I have not said that the Arab claim is in the article.

- It does not make sense to accept this biased article and stop editing it, while there is no explanation why undisputed facts are censored out, although supported by (probably all) respected historians. Ykantor (talk) 20:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

OK:

A- It's a binary choice: either it comes out because it is not RS or it stays in because it is RS. The edit you made is not within policy because you are making it on the ground it is not RS but leaving it in the article nevertheless. I have no idea why you think it is not RS because you have not explained that. I see no reason to doubt it is RS. Is it because you are prejudiced against any Arab source?

B- this article isn't heavily biased against Israel. You see imagined bias in it. I've pointed out to you that the article does not say that Israel wanted the war to conquer more territories, and in response you said that you have not claimed that it is. Yet, I pointed it out because you said "But this article is heavily biased against Israel, so each neutral editor should modify and balance it. The problem is mainly the false Arab claim that Israel wanted this war in order to conquer more territories from the neighboring Arab state. Since the facts are clearly contradicting this view, the pro Arab editors are deleting / minimizing such facts". So, you did claim it, and I refuted that claim and now you say you never claimed it.

Finally, you call this article "controversial". No it isn't. If you are Arab or Israeli, may be it is controversial. But if you are not (like me) it is not controversial at all. This is what you don't seem to understand. You are completely blinkered by the desire to prove your point. Those of us who are truly neutral have no point to prove and it's not the least bit controversial. This us why you should not edit this or similar articles and instead go and work on the Aztecs or Magna carta. DeCausa (talk) 22:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

- Yours: "It's a binary choice" . No, it is not a binary choice, as said previously: Otherwise, we should adapt the wp:biased suggestion to use in-text attribution.

- Yours: "I have no idea why you think it is not RS" . We should obey the rules. WP:WPNOTRS : "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources". WP:PSTS: "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an even". Hence this source is not a secondary source. It might be a Thirtiary source but that does not matter. Moreover, even if it is proven to be sourced from "Al Arabia", I am not sure that it is a wp:rs. Isn't it better to try to use respectable historians as sources?

- yours: the article does not say that Israel wanted the war to conquer more territories. Let's make it simple. This is the Arab claim, and it does not matter whether it is written in the article. I write it as a background to the problem of a biased article, but if do not like it, just ignore it. The matter is that the article is biased, and not the background for this bias.

-C yours:this article isn't heavily biased against Israel. You see imagined bias in it. Let us watch it:

• The article hides and minimizes Nasser steps that raised the tension and later forced Israel into a war.
• The article, ignores Israel very moderate reactions, the Israeli efforts to avoid the war with Egypt (mainly because of U.S heavy pressure), the repeated warning to Jordan to avoid entering the war (even after Jordan already attackd Israel).
• Instead of presenting a proper background, the article misleads the casual reader to understand that that the war happened as a contuation of some hardly related events, and anyway, Israel attacked first. ( so Israel is to be blamed.)

- How come, that the Six day War article is hiding undisputed facts, while (probably all) other historians and encyclopedias versions include the facts? Ykantor (talk) 06:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid this exchange is a waste of time per WP:IDHT. You're typing words but you're not answering me. DeCausa (talk) 06:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

- I have tried to fully reply. What is the question that I supposedly have not answered?

- Will you please refer to point C, and especially the last question: How come, that the Six day War article is hiding undisputed facts, while (probably all) other historians and encyclopedias versions include the facts? Ykantor (talk) 11:24, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Although you claim to be neutral, you are not explaining why you prefer that the Six day war article should stay inaccurate and vague. I am not talking about conclusions or interpretation but on undisputed and important facts, that are included in other books' and encyclopedias' articles about the war. The result is that this article has no proper lead section unlike other Wikipedia war articles ( including featured articles), which is not a good sign. Ykantor (talk) 14:28, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:United Kingdom

I opened up a discussion re your reversion here [1]. I'd welcome your involvement too. Thanks, Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Mussolini's death

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Mussolini's death. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Benito Mussolini#Death. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Benito Mussolini#Death – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Qxukhgiels (talk) 00:41, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I have one possible concern - there seems to be a great reliance on one particular source. Be prepared in case others raise this later. Peridon (talk) 11:13, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of that - and working to find others that are as useful. This is the most detailed account in English I've found, most of the others are in Italian. Most other English accounts are briefer but I think I can substitute some of the citations with those. Thabnks. DeCausa (talk) 11:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Italian sources can be used. It's never a good idea to exclusively use things written in Foreign, but if they are valid sources, they're OK in with the English ones. Peridon (talk) 11:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• I was actually just coming here to ask if you'd be open to renaming the article "Death of Benito Mussolini", in line with other similar articles. Kurtis ^(talk) 19:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, there's already a move request on the article talk page which looks like it will be a WP:SNOW in favour of that article title. So it doesn't really matter what I think. DeCausa (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh... I see. Guess I should have checked that beforehand, but I was tired when I posted here, so I didn't get around to it. :/ Kurtis ^(talk) 00:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

How is a lunar chart for August 26, 1978 "just plain wrong"?

96.234.125.29 (talk) 23:18, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Read the Talk page archives and you'll find out. DeCausa (talk) 23:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Your denials explain nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.234.125.29 (talk) 23:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

My above response doesn't contain a denial of anything. I just directed yiu to where you will find the answer to the qyestion you posed, if you take the trouble to read the relevant threads where this was previously discussed extensively. DeCausa (talk) 23:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

All you said in your comments on the JP I section of Prophecy of the Popes page is that you categorically reject any and all sources about the moon's phase on August 26, 1978 because they aren't "on point". That's not an argument or a reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.234.125.29 (talk) 03:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

No, I didn't say anything like that.DeCausa (talk) 07:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Death of Benito Mussolini, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Capuchin. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 22 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Six-Day War page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Precious

precision in fairness
Thank you, London lawyer who started here with talk and clarification, for quality articles such as Bath curse tablets and Controversies relating to the Six-Day War, for rewriting Saudi Arabia and Chuj people, for a clear user page, precision in fairness, noticing irony, and "no one should be surprised that we end up with the atmosphere we have", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

That was a surprise! Thank you very much. DeCausa (talk) 10:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Nice: surprise vs. no one should be surprised ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Death of Benito Mussolini

The DYK project (nominate) 23:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Great work at Death of Benito Mussolini! It is one of the best articles that I've seen on the Main Page. Congratulations and keep up the good work. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 03:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

@ComputerJA: Thanks very much, that's very kind. DeCausa (talk) 11:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

ComputerJA beat me to the punch and gave you a barnstar first. Excellent work. Thanks --Alberto Fernández Fernández (talk) 12:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Alberto Fernández Fernández! And thanks also for your clean-up work on the article. DeCausa (talk) 15:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Decausa

I researched and added the new table in "Mughal emperors", you just reverted, please explain me. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Virtualmatrix333 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Two problems with your additions: (1) The article is entitled Mughal Emperors, the last of whom was Bahadur Shah Zafar. You have extended it to his subsequent descendants who you say were "Later Chief Representatives of Mughal Dynasty". They were not Mughal Emperors and are outside the scope of the article. (2) You have cited no sources so you have provided no evidence that these individuals were recognised by the GOI. Please read WP:V. DeCausa (talk) 23:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

These are definitely chief representatives therefore I created a new table, you will need to explore the website which I mentioned, I also saw the reference of this website in some other wiki articles. I will like to see that how you add all this information in the wikipedia, later on I can connect the keywords to relevant wiki article but rephrasing is something I can not do. ThanksVirtualmatrix333 (talk) 01:04, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, the article is about the Mughal Emperors, so it doesn't matter whether they are "chief reprsentatives". That's not what the article is about. Secondly, when you say "you will need to explore the website which I mentioned". What website? You didn't provide any citations. If you mean the website whose copyright you violated (http://www.royalark.net/) to create your three articles, you cannot use that website on Wikipedia. It is a self-published source and doesn't comply with our requirements: please read WP:RS for more details. DeCausa (talk) 12:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Mughal emperors and their ancestors

Hi Decausa, I don't think I've had the pleasure before. Further to the above message, would you have a look at 3 articles created by Virtualmatrix333 (talk · contribs), all are copy-pasted directly from http://www.royalark.net/India4/delhi21.htm and you might be in a much better position than I to determine if they can be stubbed. Best, Sam ^Sing! 23:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

@Sam Sailor: Hi. No, I don't think they're worth stubbing: I don't think there's any notability there other than being descendants of the last Mughal emperor: WP:NOTINHERITED would apply. It would need quite a bit of research to see if anything worthwhile can be said about them - the only thing the descendants are known for is drifting into obscurity! I see that two of the articles have already been deleted for the blatant COPYVIO and I've added a speedy tag to the third. DeCausa (talk) 12:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)