This is an archive of past discussions about User:A455bcd9. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi, I'm not a sockpuppet of BillWikiAsk. Bill is this person and I am this person. Bill is the founder of Wikiask.org. You can see him as an admin on the Wikiask's Telegram channel and on Wikiask.org (together with @Onel5969: and @Doncram:). Bill and I are two different people. Bill launched Wikiask and got in touch with the Wikimedia Foundation and several Wikipedians. I was interested in the project and decided to help Bill. Here's my Wikiask account. As I initially believed in Wikiask's vision, I reached out to various Wikipedians using the internal emailing system. I especially contacted those who proposed similar projects in the past, such as Wikiask and Wikianswers, to see whether we could work together. Many answered and were happy to chat. Bill and I especially had calls with @AdamSobieski, SebastienDery, Sj, Pharos, and Aaharoni-WMF: who can testify that we are two different people. I also contacted Reference Desk regulars as both projects had similarities (Q&A) and to get their feedback (and as suggested by User:SteveBaker, an early user of Wikiask). Anyway, I stopped emailing people after a few days when I got enough answers (and before the block). This week (on Wed 12th to be precise), I told Bill that I didn't want to get involved in Wikiask anymore because I didn't believe in the project anymore, so Bill removed me from the list of admins on October 13th. I should add that Bill and I live in London and that I invited Bill in my coworking space a few days (I'm happy to provide the location of this coworking space to admins privately so that they can check this claim) so we probably appear to share the same IP address for some edits (otherwise, I make most of my edits from my home, which is where I'm currently writing this message). I was open about my (short...) involvement in Wikiask and our location in London in a message on my talk page. I have thousands of edits on various Wikimedia projects, since 2007 (without any problem so far...), and I was working on an FAR when I saw "Something went wrong You have been blocked from editing." So I'm just shocked. I'm not a suckpuppet of Bill. I did send emails to Wikipedians to ask for feedback on what I thought was an interesting project (since then, I've changed my mind...). If this was forbidden, I didn't know and apologize for doing so. tl;dr: I kindly ask to be unblocked because the block was not and is not necessary: Bill and I are different people, I'm not involved in Wikiask anymore, I stopped emailing people before the block and I won't email anyone anymore anyway (feel free to keep "email disabled", as long as I can contribute again...). I deeply regret my involvement in Wikiask. If I had known that participating in Wikiask would have led to this ban I would never have done it. Cheers, A455bcd9 (talk) 22:27, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Accept reason:
Your email + your explanation here explains the collisions between you and Bill seen in the CU data. Further, you seem to get why the emails were spam. I will unblock you based on this and your past work. Please note, if you spam people in the future you will probably not get unblocked. --GuerilleroParlez Moi18:57, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
Comment from Doncram. I was pinged above. I am a longtime Wikipedia editor (mostly on historic sites articles) and had no connection to "A" here or to Bill of WikiAsk until a few days ago. I am here to corroborate much of the above statement by A455bcd9#top, who has apparently been a Wikipedia editor since 2009, see their first edit. I was indeed recently contacted by a person with name starting "A", inviting me to look into the WikiAsk project and ask if I would be willing to talk with Bill, which I agreed to, and I did talk on phone with Bill yesterday. "A" was clear in their email that they were not Bill. I don't think "A" did anything wrong by using their Wikipedia account to send emails to me and others, they were perfectly nice and clear, and I certainly had the option to answer or not, and it seemed/seems to be to have been a helpful thing ("here's something u might be interested in, and would u be willing to answer some questions?"). "A", I do not believe there is anything being perceived wrong about that by anyone, and certainly not by me.
I haven't yet looked at the "sockpuppet investigation", but I can speculate about what might have seemed not kosher, if someone was concerned. Which is partly that the email I received on the first contact to me, i believe via the "Email this user" link on my Userpage, showed some WikiAsk connection. The person writing the email gave their name as "A"-something, and it also included what looks to me like an auto-added sig with "bill@wikiask.org". Like maybe the person with Wikipedia account A455bcd9 was logged in at a wikiask.org address, or had changed the email address on this A4555bcd9 or whatever Wikpedia account to be an email address at wikiask.org, or something like that? The email shows as having come from "Wikipedia <wiki@wikimedia.org>" which I suppose is what all messages via the "Email this user" show. And when I replied my email was sent to "A"-something else at outlook.com. There's another possible discrepancy which I will comment about after I go to the Sockpuppet investigation page. However, so far from what I know, everything said above seems legit. However i think it is still possible there is some other confusion on behalf of the person behind A455bcd9. But I don't see anything nefarious.
Further, I have reviewed the sockpuppet investigation and looked up what "sockpuppetry" and "meatpuppetry" mean, and it seems to me that neither applies. I see the investigation includes commentary about "mass emailing" being a problem, but no mention of how many emails were sent, and while I can imagine that truly mass emails would be a problem, there is no definition or prohibition about mass emailing in the sockpuppet and meatpuppet policies. The relevant part of what is stated in the "investigation" by GeneralNotability is that:
Checks were run here following complaints about BillWikiAsk mass-emailing users about a non-Wikipedia-related topic (WikiAsk). These checks confirmed that mass emailing was occurring, and that A455bcd9 and Hemantruparel were both also sending lots of emails and are technically Likely. Both of the latter also have messages in their talk page histories that suggest that they were emailing about WikiAsk as well. Shipisomani is unrelated from a technical perspective, but they are definitely sending emails en masse and a copy of the email indicates that they're also emailing about WikiAsk, so they're at least a meatpuppet....
I do not see that there is any violation of Sockpuppetry, as there is no discussion anywhere AFAIK where multiple non-independent accounts were speaking as if they were independent. And the Meatpuppetry policy mentions nothing about emailing, it is about multiple users being encouraged outside Wikipedia to work in concert in a Wikipedia discussion or proceeding, as if they were independent, which has not happened. Apparently multiple editors were encouraged outside, to send emails, and they did, but that is not a "crime" if they are in fact different persons and did each choose independently to do so. I wouldn't mind even if they were coordinated in terms of contacting non-overlapping lists of wikipedians, in fact I would prefer that.
The other potential discrepancy, that I mentioned above, is that the email I received has indication that it came from user:Analog292, which is NOT blocked, and which only edited during 2014-2017(?), and appears to be a different Wikipedia account from this blocked account A455bcd9. I am confused, is the person behind A455bcd9 the same person as behind Analog292? I am here because I perceived the ping to me as coming from, I guess, Analog292, because that was the person who contacted me, and then this A-account knows about me either because they are the same as Analog292, or because they saw my creating an account and making an edit at Wikiask (and apparently also being made an admin there). I wasn't aware there could have been two Wikipedia editors with name "A"-something having emailed about WikiAsk. FYI, I see at User_talk:Analog292#Your_e-mail there are comments from several Wikipedians in response to their having received emails. One person, User:Jeff G. asked pointedly "How many people have you emailed?" and so I think it is likely that they and/or others complained centrally somewhere. I now have basic question, did A455bcd9 also send emails about WikiAsk? I guess so, because at User_talk:A455bcd9#Wikiask there is a response from an editor that had been emailed. Well, if it is a "crime" to have emailed about WikiAsk, then User:Analog292 (shows as red, so no userpage, but it is an account, has User talk:Analog292, not named in the Sockpuppet investigation) is also guilty. However, again I see no violation of either Sockpuppet or Meatpuppet policies. I will comment also at the sockpuppet investigation but I note that is already marked "closed".
Bottom-line, though, I support removal of block on A455bcd9 and I do not support blocking of Analog292 although they did also send emails. --Doncram (talk) 00:32, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Doncram, so here's how things look to me. Checkusers received a complaint about BillWikiAsk (talk+·tag·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log·CA·CheckUser(log) ·investigate·cuwiki) sending mass unsolicited emails about WikiAsk, a topic not related to Wikipedia. A checkuser investigation found that they were indeed mass-mailing, and they were blocked for abuse of the email feature (that is to say, spamming). A check on their IP address revealed that they shared that address with A455bcd9, who was also engaged in mass-emailing (by my count, they have sent something like 60 emails over the past month, and that many emails on a non-Wikipedia topic falls squarely into "spam" territory as far as I am concerned). From context, their emails appear to also have been about WikiAsk. Based on the shared IP, same device, and same mass-mailing behavior, I concluded that the two of them were either the same person or actively collaborating, and because BillWikiAsk was blocked for the same behavior, a block of A455bcd9 was appropriate. Further checks indicated that Hemantruparel (talk+·tag·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log·CA·CheckUser(log) ·investigate·cuwiki) also shared the same IP range and device, and they were blocked as well. I was separately informed of Shipisomani (talk+·tag·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log·CA·CheckUser(log) ·investigate·cuwiki) sending mass emails about WikiAsk, and while they were technically distinct, again, same mass-emailing about WikiAsk. And now we have Analog292 (talk+·tag·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log·CA·CheckUser(log) ·investigate·cuwiki), who I have also blocked for spamming (over 120 emails sent in the past two weeks!). I further note that the last three accounts haven't edited in a long time (Hemantruparel made a few token userpage edits earlier this month after not editing since 2017, Shipisomani hasn't edited in two years, and Analog292 in five years), and yet suddenly they're all hard at work emailing people, which is incredibly suspicious in my book (though I don't see clear evidence to suggest that these accounts are compromised). This is past "eager people asking for collaborators" and well into "mass spamming". GeneralNotability (talk) 00:53, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
I did comment at the sockpuppet investigation and User:GeneralNotability, besides responding here, also responded there (thanks!) in this series of edits in one big diff. I think it clarified things, that indeed there has been, arguably "spam" at least by several accounts, in likely violation of Wikipedia's "terms of use", while I continue to assert there that such is not violation of either sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry policies as those are explicitly defined. I mention there that I think A455bcd9 should possibly be unblocked because:
1. they have indeed apologized above regarding possibly having violated something by "mass emailing" (about which I agree it is/was difficult for any editor to know is wrong as "spam", or what amount of emailing might amount to spam, as such is nowhere exactly defined AFAIK, as I comment in that big diff).
2. they have expressed regret above about being involved with WikiAsk at all, and have resigned/quit from participation there, and
3. they have made appropriate promises re the future
I commented in the diff that they have edited for a long time with at least some good contributions, though I have not attempted an overall evaluation of all their contributions to compare vs. any disruption caused by this episode, and I have not much further tried to evaluate plausibility of everything they say here. But, the main evidence which led them to be blocked is that WikiBillAsk and they have both edited from the same I.P. address, but that is explained by A455bcd9 apparently running a coworking office in London (which is open workspace for persons to come use on a single or multiple occasions) where WikiBillAsk apparently came and edited also. That seems to me to be a sufficient explanation, and I believe that A455bcd9 has met burden of differentiating themself from that other account. --Doncram (talk) 02:55, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks @Doncram for taking my defense. My first edit was even earlier: I started in 2007 (on the French Wikipedia) and I've been continuously active since then, including working one full year on a GA and then featured article here recently (I also promoted GAs and FAs on the French Wikipedia btw).
I did send about 60 emails (I forgot the exact number, I trust what @GeneralNotability wrote) to people who I thought may be interested in Wikiask (again, mostly proposers of similar proposals in the past and RD regulars). And I believed back then (I've since changed my mind and that's part of the reason why I resigned from the project) that Wikiask was aligned with Wikipedia's mission to share knowledge (and that it could one day fall under the umbrella of the Wikimedia Foundation, as Wikivoyage did). If sending 60 emails for such a project qualifies as spam: I didn't know, and I deeply apologize. I will never do it again (and you can keep the "email disabled" to ensure this). I stopped emailing people before this ban, by myself. And I stopped contributing to Wikiask, while I continued my regular (and I believe constructive) edits on Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects (including in the map workshop, where other users are waiting for my feedback...).
I'm not Analog292 either. If Bill is bypassing restrictions to create multiple accounts (and I believe he does) and keeps sending emails related to Wikiask: this is not my fault. I don't want to be banned for the wrongdoings of others (here, of Bill).
I've been contributing to Wikimedia projects for more than half of my life now. It's important to me. So please consider my request. Please let me know if you have any questions, I'm happy to provide as much detail as possible to lift my ban (for other accounts: that's their problem, not mine). A455bcd9 (talk) 07:13, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
As @Doncram said: "I agree it is/was difficult for any editor to know is wrong as "spam", or what amount of emailing might amount to spam, as such is nowhere exactly defined AFAIK, as I comment in that big diff" => Indeed, Wikipedia allows you to send up to 20 emails per day and then tells you to wait a bit. So I thought that I was well within that limit with the emails I sent (about 60 over a few days, then I stopped), especially as the project was (or at least I thought...) aligned with Wikipedia's mission. A455bcd9 (talk) 10:26, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
@Doncram: Thanks for the mention. I, too, got spammed by thisuser:Analog292 about WikiAsk. I had not yet begun to complain about it because I did not know for sure that the email message I had received was technically spam until I had read about it here, so I just asked a pointed question. I wonder how A455bcd9 learned about WikiAsk and why they resigned from it. I also wonder how A455bcd9 allowed users like Bill to share IP access in that coworking office without XFF headers and strong terms & conditions. — JeffG. ツ10:23, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi @Jeff G.. Bill reached out to me on LinkedIn about Wikiask. (please note that besides LinkedIn, I also wrote on Wikipedia on my blog here and there) I was initially excited about the project and about the idea to leverage the wiki model to build something better than Quora (that I used to love, but it's becoming quite bad nowadays...). If successful, I thought that Wikiask could be transferred under the umbrella of the Wikimedia Foundation (as Wikivoyage did).
I helped Bill for a few days (contributed to Wikiask, setup calls with the Wikimedia Foundation, chatted with Wikipedians to gather feedback, etc.) but I gradually realized that I wasn't aligned with Wikiask's vision. In particular, Wikiask initially had a NC ND license, I insisted to change it (together with other users such as @Aaharoni-WMF) to a simple CC BY-SA. Bill eventually accepted to do so (after a call we had with @Sj and @Pharos) but he still wanted Wikiask to be a for-profit organization, with ads on the website at some point. That's when I resigned.
I don't understand your last question regarding "XFF headers and strong terms & conditions". Bill moved to London a few weeks ago and didn't have internet at his (temporary) place so I just offered him to work for a few days in the same coworking space where I was. We both used the same wifi there (as everyone else). A few days from this place and 1 or 2 days from this one. That's it... A455bcd9 (talk) 10:39, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Regarding the timeline, I made my first edit on Wikiask on Sept 30th. Initially excited, I then had concerns about Wikiask's vision that gradually grew and reached their peak after our call with Adam, Sj, and Pharos on Oct 11th. I formally resigned and Bill removed me from the list of admins on Oct 13th. If my 15 years of constructive contribution to Wikipedia are erased by these 15 days of initial enthusiasm for a new Wikipedia-like project, I would be heartbroken :( A455bcd9 (talk) 11:17, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
This block doesn't make any sense. I can understand why there was suspicion for a moment, but the user is clearly not a sockpuppet, just shared a co-working space on one occasion. I can confirm I was on a call very recently with those mentioned, who are all indeed very real and individual human beings. Pharos (talk) 15:46, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Let us pause to appreciate the wiki-nature of having an lta process troll confusing the unblock process, and remaining unblocked 😅.
Spamming is obviously a problem, and I see @BillWikiAsk: has listed socks he used on his userpage. Beyond that there are clearly a community barnraising a new project and perhaps being overenthusiastic about it, which is not socking. One-time spam by an active editor is not a great reason to block w/o warning
Hear hear on all points. I see LTA="long term abuse". I did just now comment further at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BillWikiAsk and I ask any person reviewing this block read the full discussion there. But that investigation was marked "closed" before I started commenting there, and the fact is that A455bcd9 was blocked, so this thread is where discussion should continue.
One further point here: A455bcd9 is currently blocked from sending emails and offers above that they could stay blocked as a goodwill gesture I guess, but I think that taking up that offer should not be done. Having email access is a part of allowing sensible occasional communications that further the Wikipedia project's goals, and I don't think there's any reason to continue to restrict A455bcd9's access to that if/when they are unblocked. --Doncram (talk) 23:50, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Wunny1011 has since been blocked indefinitely for vandalism. I too support unblocking Antoine, but with the cautions that: sharing one's Internet access means sharing one's responsibility for what is done with that Internet access; and introspection should be exercised when one hits limits (like per-day email sending limits). — JeffG. ツ11:49, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Languages of Germany, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Middle German.
Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hello,
You've recently moved this page without any discussion on the talk page or elsewhere. This is clearly a controversial move, as it has already been moved between those two titles before following move requests.
I chose to be bold. I think the move is fine and wasn't controversial. I won't revert. If you're unhappy with the move, feel free to start a discussion. Cheers, A455bcd9 (talk) 08:48, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Ah indeed! I didn't know there was such a debate before (didn't check before moving the page). Still, I think the current title is better. If you disagree, feel free to start a discussion. A455bcd9 (talk) 08:54, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Ignore M.Bitton
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I'm sorry that M.Bitton is giving you a hard time. They were difficult in the original discussions around map reliability as well. The editor has a solid history of productive work, but some of their engagements seem to have the form of trolling. I don't know what to make of what's going on, but you're not being unreasonable. In your shoes, I'd be inclined to ignore them & let the issue drop. Pathawi (talk) 18:00, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Haha thanks for your support @Pathawi. I'm sure M.Bitton is a nice person who just wants to improve things. But we all have different ways of expressing ourselves ;) Anyway, what do you think about using the new map on Dhofari Arabic? (M.Bitton and I disagree on this point but I thought it would be good to have another point of view). A455bcd9 (talk) 18:03, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
I support using it—like I've said, I think we have some ongoing conversations to resolve about the map, but I don't think the problems are enough to make it unusable at present. That said, while you're clearly not edit-warring, given that there's a dispute what should probably happen is that a conversation should begin over at Dhofari Arabic's Talk page. Pathawi (talk) 18:07, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments2 people in discussion
An article you recently created, FedNow, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969TT me19:55, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
@Onel5969 OK, I didn't understand anything with this draft thing and I create a new article instead... Sorry for that. Let me know if that's okay, if not, please feel free to move to the draft space. Cheers, A455bcd9 (talk) 20:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments3 people in discussion
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Dhofari Arabic. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
@CorbieVreccan: I'm sorry but English isn't my native language. Do you consider "I feel sorry for you." insulting? I meant it as "I can't help you", probably in the same way that you've just wrote "If you can't figure it out I can't help you." (and I didn't feel insulted by your message :) ) Or is "I feel sorry for you." more insulting than "I can't help you"? A455bcd9 (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Sámi
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, I'm CorbieVreccan. I noticed that you recently removed content from Sámi without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Discussion at Wikipedia talk:No original research has not concluded. Blanking maps from all these articles, and merely marking all the maps as WP:OR, is premature and lacking consensus. - CorbieVreccan☊☼22:16, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi @CorbieVreccan: the map is WP:OR and I included in my edit summary: "WP:OR". The discussion hasn't concluded, but does it need to? (I didn't have to start this discussion, and after starting it I realized that the answer was clear as WP:OR and WP:V refer to "all material") I don't understand your reasoning: any contributor can remove original research if they think it should be removed: no? A455bcd9 (talk) 22:20, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Editors are disagreeing with you about what is and is not OR, and how the policy should be interpreted. They are taking the time to discuss it, yet you just keep repeating yourself. You like invoking AGF, but it does not look to me like you are giving them the same. - CorbieVreccan☊☼22:41, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Who is disagreeing with me? Here are all people who answered in the discussion:
Masem: "User-made maps definitely should include one or more sources where the information used to create the map was pulled from"
Blueboar: "Isn’t this covered by WP:OI?"
Zero0000: "It would be ok to write that map makers should (not must, so as to not immediately disqualify many existing maps) record the reliable sources for their map."
S Marshall: only addressed WP:SYNTH, not WP:V
North8000: "If something looks questionable from an accuracy standpoint it should be challengeable / removable from the article. This has more of a relation to wp:ver but by necessity a less strict application of it for images ."
Ramos1990: "I think there needs to be citations provided when they are used on wikipedia otherwise anyone with a good graphics design capability can make any map and make it look professional, while being deceptive to readers."
M.Bitton: "WP:V and WP:NOR are complex policy pages"
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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.
And unfortunately, in many cases I either cannot find a source or don't have time and add a tag {{imagefact}}. But I hope I, or someone else, will have time to add them later.
Please also note that I only do that on unreviewed featured articles from 2004 to 2009 that should have references for all images. I find this process useful to avoid these articles being delisted. I'm happy to hear your views: do you have any advice on what I should do differently?
Hi, there is no need to tag diagrams which serve to illustrate text which is fully supported by citations. Also, the list of unreviewed FAs has a column to indicate if a review is needed. Introduction to viruses and Phagocyte are both marked as satisfactory. Indeed, Introduction to viruses recently appeared again on the Main Page as TFA. Tagging is really annoying when tags are liberally scattered throughout articles. If you think and image requires a separate citation for verification please raise the issue on the article's Talk Page.Graham Beards (talk) 15:55, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Sources should be cited in the Help:File description page, because images can be used on other articles,
WP:V and WP:OR apply to user-made images. For instance, the text next to File:NeutrophilerAktion.svg, although sourced, doesn't allow someone to verify the illustration.
Old featured articles need 3 "Satisfactory" tags to be moved out of the unreviewed list.
WP:V (bold mine): applies to "any of the information within Wikipedia articles". "This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources." "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable."
WP:OR (bold mine): "All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source." "The prohibition against original research means that all material added to articles must be verifiable in a reliable, published source, even if not already verified via an inline citation."
WP:IMAGEPOL: "User-made images can also include the recreation of graphs, charts, drawings, and maps directly from available data, as long as the user-created format does not mimic the exact style of the original work. [...] In such cases, it is required to include verification of the source(s) of the original data when uploading such images."
MOS:IMAGES (bold mine): "Each image has a corresponding description page, which documents the image's source, author and copyright status; descriptive (who, what, when, where, why) information; and technical (equipment, software, etc.) data useful to readers and later editors. [...] Reliable sources, if any, may be listed on the image's description page. Generally, Wikipedia assumes in good faith that image creators are correctly identifying the contents of photographs they have taken. If such sources are available, it is helpful to provide them. This is particularly important for technical drawings, as someone may want to verify that the image is accurate."
Help:File description page: "If you downloaded the file from somewhere else, you should give details of source, author, etc. If you made the file based on other sources, you should cite them. See Wikipedia:Cite your sources. What pre-existing sources (free images, photos, etc.) were used as inputs?"
WP:RS: "Like text, media must be produced by a reliable source and be properly cited."
WP:CITE: "For an image or other media file, details of its origin and copyright status should appear on its file page."
For WP:FA: according to these 2007 and 2022 discussions, the sourcing requirement for user-mage images "is already covered by 1(c)" (WP:FACR, 1(c): "well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;").
The {{imagefact}} template was created 2007 by @Grenavitar for articles (and especially FAs) "where user created maps, tables, graphs, diagrams, etc. do not provide verifiable sources like they should"
So based on the above, I concluded that WP:V and WP:OR apply to user-mage images, especially on featured articles. If you disagree, feel free to join the discussion on WP:OR.
I see no consensus emerging from that discussion so far. The above is WP:LAWYERING and you are "weaponizing policies, guidelines, noticeboards and other Wikipedia systems with the goal of deprecating an editor rather than of resolving a problem". You are clearly on some sort of campaign, which in my view is damaging the project. Your tagging sprees are evidence of this. If you question the accuracy/verifiability of an image please raise the issue of the Talk Page, particularly with Featured Articles. I will add citations now, where I think they might help our readers. The list of unreviewed FAs we discussed above is just that - a list. It is one I have made use of and have contributed to but it is not based on policies. I have no idea where this "three satisfactories rule" came from. Lastly, your use of "cheers" comes across as arrogance and I ask you not to use it in our discussions.Graham Beards (talk) 09:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
I didn't know "cheers" was considered arrogant. It's the most common term used by people to end messages and emails where I live (UK). And wikt:cheers confirms this: "(chiefly Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, South Africa, informal) goodbye, especially as a sign-off in an email or after writing a comment." I use it as I would use "Best" or "Regards". Is that use incorrect? (I'm not a native speaker) If it's incorrect, I apologize.
"I see no consensus emerging from that discussion so far.": isn't this edit ("The answers") the conclusion?
Thanks for adding citations yourself, I'll add them to Commons as well.
Per Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020: "Once three experienced FA reviewers have opined that an article is satisfactory, it will be moved to the "Kept or FAR not needed" section."
A455bcd9, you link to a discussion where you are warned "You probably weren't going to do this at all, and it's probably quite needless for me to say it, but long experience of Wikipedia is forcing me to type this out: proceed slowly and don't begin a map-related campaign or crusade of any kind." In my experience, editors making mass edits that have no direct benefit to the project and have no clear consensus usually end up being ex-editors. I suggest you stop. There may well be a lot of images on Wikipedia that fail when held to the highest standards. What do you think is the chance of someone fixing the sourcing on an image uploaded to Commons 14 years ago like File:Morocco bald ibis map-01.png? All you have achieved is cluttering up Wikipedia with tags and annoying editors.
If you care about sourcing for images, then be the person who adds sources. Tagging where you expect others to do the fix, where there really is an endless supply of images you could tag, and which might result in someone later removing a perfectly correct tagged image, is harmful to the project. -- Colin°Talk09:59, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Yes. I've just looked at the tag template and where it has been added. There were only about 150 uses and every single one of them I clicked on were added by you recently. A455bcd9, you were warned not to do this, and two editors have asked you to stop, and you continue. Your tagging of File:Penicillium labeled cropped.jpg is as ridiculous as if someone had tagged an image of a person with labels for head/feet/arms as needing a reference, or a picture of a tree with labels for trunk, branches and leaves as needing a reference. It is clear you don't understand when an image needs sources or even how those sources might corroborate the image labels.
A455bcd9, I want to make it very clear to you that if you do not stop right now, I will go to AN/I and ask an admin to stop you, either with a block or a topic ban. -- Colin°Talk13:32, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
I think that labeling "conida" on File:Penicillium labeled cropped.jpg isn't as obvious as labeling an arm on an image of a human being. That being said, I've reverted my edit. (I kept the new legend though, I think it's more readable, please let me know if you disagree.)
"It is clear you don't understand when an image needs sources": these are my 4 most recent edits asking for sources on images: do you think they are okay? Or is that still an issue?
(I should add that I made the above edits before your warning @Colin. I take your warning seriously and I want to know whether that kind of edit is okay according to you.) A455bcd9 (talk) 13:54, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
I think adding a comment to the talk page is a much more editor-friendly way of requesting improvement. You could do that and not use the tag. Tags on the live page come across as aggressive and insistent (with the threat perhaps that the image must be fixed or else perhaps it would be deleted at a later point). If editors respond to the talk page request, then then great. It is possible an editor may be able to respond that they have visually checked the diagram and in their knowledgeable opinion it is fine, without actually being able to provide the citations your tag would have insisted on. If nobody can help, then nobody has a wikipage defaced or cluttered.
I've a long since left school and not knowledgeable about these topics. Maybe my analogy was too everyday. How about a picture of a motherboard where someone labelled the CPU, memory bank, PCI slots, battery. Absolutely anyone familiar with modern PCs would recognise those with ease. Whereas someone who'd never opened a PC wouldn't have the first clue and perhaps react like you in thinking this was something that needs a reference for each and every label. If you were unsure about such an image, a talk page request could result in a computer engineer confirming its accuracy. If you had just put a tag on, someone could perhaps have technically satisfied your request by citing the paper manual that came with their motherboard, which wouldn't help you or our readers in the slightest, as they don't have that motherboard to confirm it. Or satisfied a map request by citing a book in their library that was published in 1975 and is long out of print.
At the end of the day, very very few of our readers will examine the sources or use them and many of our sources are paywalled or link to expensive books. I think if you routinely challenge these self-made images without actually being able to identify faults with them, it comes across as a bad faith attack. On the other hand, many of our readers are knowledgeable about the subjects, and will complain if an image is actually incorrect. This is I think a better way of slowly improving and fixing our images than mass tagging. -- Colin°Talk14:24, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to write a detailed answer @Colin. I actually thought that for a single image, a tag would be easier and less "aggressive and insistent", but I your reasoning makes a lot of sense, I understand. I'll follow that process from now on (although I may add tags if images have obvious flaws).
(Regarding the motherboard analogy, I don't know, however, please note that I only added these tags on featured articles that are bound to higher standards.) A455bcd9 (talk) 15:04, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
I was hoping we had found a solution, but I just checked your contribs and saw this edit, adding a tag to a map of bats. There's no edit summary and no talk page comment to explain what you think is wrong. The original image appears to have been based on the sources in the Wiki page, which cites books and journal articles. Then added to by Ucucha, who seems to have written much of the article. Why are you still tagging? Do you think some random reader is going to come along and see your tag and go add some sources? Why don't you post a friendly message to Ucucha, who is still editing here, to see if they still have the textbooks and papers they used to create the article and image. Or leave an article talk page comment that pings Ucacha. -- Colin°Talk14:51, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
I've made dozens (if not hundreds) of edits on Wikipedia and Commons since we last talked and I probably only added the tag once: in that edit. I added a tag {datasource missing} on Commons and a comment that the map doesn't match with the IUCN's map. (The map's description also says "some localities appear to be slightly off their true locations": I thought that was enough to justify a reference). It's true that I forgot to add a message on the talk page (I first reformatted it and then forgot...): done. A455bcd9 (talk) 15:01, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Well you were unlucky it was the first one I clicked. I'm not sure your comment on Commons is clear to any reader, who might think all that description text was added by one person. There are tags on Commons for marking an image as being incorrect or disputed, though I don't know their exact names, and they might be better for you to give details. -- Colin°Talk15:18, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) A455bcd9 I suggest you take the advice offered there "proceed slowly and don't begin a map-related campaign or crusade of any kind." I would add, use the Talk Pages and stop tagging. Most of my diagrams are little more than sketches that illustrate the verifiable text. Your acting like a disruptive kid at the back of the class. Graham Beards (talk) 10:02, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
@Graham Beards: When the only issue I see is an unsourced image, I only tag the image. When I identify more issues, I start a discussion on the talk page (example). I'll start discussions more often then, thanks for the advice.
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I have nominated Nafanan language for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog FarmTalk17:20, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Caught by an open proxy block but this host or IP is not an open proxy: it's a co-working space. When I try to edit my user page it says "This user is currently blocked." even though the latest block log entry shows I'm not blocked. On other pages I see "This IP address has been blocked from editing Wikipedia." a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 11:29, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
In order to look into this, we need to know the IP address involved. If you do not want to post it publicly, you may use WP:UTRS to provide it privately. 331dot (talk) 13:48, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Featured article review for George F. Kennan
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I have nominated George F. Kennan for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:20, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
January 2023
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Please don't 'update' speakers without more recent data
Latest comment: 1 year ago16 comments3 people in discussion
Hi. I noticed at Ndo language that you 'updated' the figure of 100,000 speakers from 1991 to 'undated'. But we do have a date, and knowing that the figure is 30 years old will help readers understand how much it could have changed in the meantime. — kwami (talk) 19:53, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
No problem. It's fine to update to Eth.25 when there's been no change in the data, as that lets people know it's up-to-date as of Ethn.25, but when there's no date for the citation, we've gone back to find the oldest edition of Ethn. with that figure to give ppl some idea of how old the data is. — kwami (talk) 20:58, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Oh, if you tag the infobox as 'cn', it loses the tracking category for uncited figures. I've asked on the talk page how best to automate this. — kwami (talk) 22:03, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Also, 'date' should be the date of the data, not of Ethnologue. E.g. for Albanian, you gave a date of 2022, but much of it is actually from 2012. — kwami (talk) 09:29, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Estimate for lmi has been "12,000 (1993 SIL)" since E15 at least
Estimate for mdj has been "620,000" [no date] since E15 at least
So we have a total of 632,000 since E15 at least. I don't understand why we keep "662,000", especially given that a comment says "1985 date for 650k Mangbetu proper is opaque in e14 and lost in later editions". I suggest reverting back.
I asked Ethnologue to give more details about undated estimates, e.g.:
Koroshi: you'll have to ask E why they removed the year. Could be they realized it was an error, but who knows.
Yevanic: in 2016 someone added "There are less than 10 speakers (2011)" as part of the quotation, which obviously fails. Someone later changed the number to 50. I just deleted it.
Wannu: yeah, that's probably best.
Mangbetu: I don't know why they changed from 650k to 620k, but we at least have a date for the 650k. I suppose we could change it to 620k [no date] and cite e15. Don't know which is better without knowing their sources.
Ethn. has been going over their data; one of the things they've improved is their arithmetic, which had been grotesque. But they've also been going over a lot of their sources. They don't have a large staff, though. — kwami (talk) 10:48, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes, they improved a lot. But it's a super small team indeed. Are you part of their contributor program? I also asked them to join The Wikipedia Library so that all active contributors have access to Ethnologue. They didn't know about it and are considering joining the initiative. Would be good if more contributors request it as well. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 10:58, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Regarding Albanian @Kwamikagami: one of the sources used (Klein et al.) only says "the number of native Albanian speakers could reach as high as 7.5 million": I don't think it's good enough. Ethnologue's figures are mostly (largest numbers):
1,840,000 in Serbia (2021), including 1,830,000 in Kosovo (2021 World Factbook)
1,570,000 in Albania (2012 UNSD) [als]
1,200,000 in Albania (2012 UNSD)
532,000 in North Macedonia (2018)
243,000 in Germany (2020 census)
So I think it's better and overall more recent than the remaining source (Rusakov 2017).
I used to update when a new edition of Ethn came out, but gave that up with e18. Took too much time with a new edition every year. Unless you're planning on it, I don't think anyone's done a full update since. Ethn's improved rather substantially since then, but it's still often better to go with more-primary sources. — kwami (talk) 11:58, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
A455bcd9, you're doing an absolutely excellent job updating all the population numbers sourced to Ethnologue. This is a massive task and I'm really glad you're doing it. However, articles will sometimes have population figures based on other sources. Some of these will be less reliable than Ethnologue, others will be better than it: which one to go with needs deciding on a case-by-case basis. Please don't overwrite everything with the figures from Ethnologue: despite the improvements in recent years, they still have entries with information that is either outdated or of unclear provenance. – Uanfala (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. I think 80% of my edits were updates of figures already citing Ethnologue (e.g., updating from e18 to e25). I'd say 10% were non reliable sources (such as a blog post or a commercial website to learn languages). The other 10% I had to use my best judgment and as you say, decide on a case-by-case basis. I may have been wrong sometimes: feel free to revert and ping me in that case. I apologize for any mistakes I may have made.
Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments2 people in discussion
You should probably wait a day or two for the new edition to stabilize before ref'ing e26. Currently there is no population data, so we can't use it as a ref for populations. — kwami (talk) 12:50, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Kwamikagami, there must be an issue on your computer. There's all the data on mine. I can provide screenshots if needed, but I see no reason to do so when the problem obviously comes from your side. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 12:52, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
I answered on my talk. The table was my bad -- sign in had changed, and it wasn't listed in the TOC. Levantine Arabic now has data, but the other two still don't. — kwami (talk) 13:04, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Barnstar!
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The Working Man's Barnstar
Thank you for always responding to my requests for image editing at FAC! Despite having nothing to offer you in return, you always perform such laborious tasks with a kind and gentle heart. If there's ever anything you need me to do, let me know and I'll try my best. Cheers, Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:28, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion
The Reviewers Award
By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this award in recognition of the thorough, detailed and actionable reviews you have carried out at FAC. This work is very much appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:36, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You have recently made edits related to climate change. This is a standard message to inform you that climate change is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. jps (talk) 12:55, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Help for finding the population range of speakers for different languages
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello so I recently joined ethnologue and I started the free subscription starter pack which includes population ranges but I don't know where to find it on the ethnologue website. Where do you find the population estimate of different languages by speakers on the Ethnologue website?. I would appreciate it if you helped me with that thanks. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 16:01, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Cookiemonster1618, You have the free plan that doesn't include these figures. You need to join the contributor program to access them. It may take a few days for Ethnologue to approve your application and I think that you first need to contribute a bit to get approved (I forgot the process, feel free to email them or to contact them using the online chat plugin). a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 16:08, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Ethnologue figures
Latest comment: 1 year ago9 comments2 people in discussion
Hello can you give me figures for the following groups I would appreciate it.
Bilen ethnic group and language new edition.
Number of Nobiin speakers in Sudan.
Number of Nara speakers in Eritrea new edition.
Number of Kenzi language speakers in Egypt new edition.
Thank you so much but can you give me the reference number for Bilen language and Nara ethnic group and just to verify what is the total number of Beja speakers for all 3 countries I just want to make sure the number is right. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 12:25, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
I copied EVERYTHING there was about population. There's nothing else. I assume that these numbers are for the speakers of the aforementioned languages but it could well be for the ethnic population, Ethnologue is often unclear on this point. I know northing about these languages so I cannot help further unfortunately. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 12:27, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Can you give me recent number of speakers of Air Tamajeq, Tawellemmet, Tamahaq, Tamashek, Western Bedawi Egyptian Arabic and Eastern Egyptian Bedawi Arabic thank you so much. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 17:35, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Actually never mind i have full access Ethnologue accepted my application sorry but thank you so much for showing me the contributor program on Ethnologue. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 16:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello Antoine. I noticed the source you cited on Van Province and wanted to inform you that Justin McCarthy (American historian) is a notorious genocide denier and history falsifier, which is why he isn't considered a reliable source. The Patriarch census he is citing was forged to appear that the Armenian population was much smaller than it actually was, and is now only cited by other genocide deniers. Another manipulative tactic often used is combining the Turkish, Kurdish, Islamic Armenians, and smaller Islamic minorities into just "Muslim" to make the Armenians appear as a minority when they were the majority in Van. This is an automatic red flag for any source that does this. Notice how Syriac Christians and Nestorians are not combined with Armenians into a Christian population, while the 313,000 Muslims include Armenians who were not being counted as part of the Armenian population. - Kevo327 (talk) 21:07, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi,
Ah damned, sorry... Thanks for your message.
I copied this paragraph from Van vilayet. Feel free to revert both.
I didn't like the fact that the page Van Province only gave figures about the Van sancak, which I think is more aligned with the Van District (today split into İpekyolu and Tuşba districts). As in the above discussion, that's the issue with the border changes. Today's Van province seems closer to the Van vilayet and if we want to give population figures there then it should be the vilayet figures, not the sancak. And from a reliable source of course... a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 21:22, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Hey, I appreciate the recent edits you made to several settlements in Turkey. One question I have is that if you could find a source that confirms there was an Armenian community specifically in the town of Beşiri. The source you added doesn't make it clear that the settlements that Armenians inhabited within the administrative division of the same name also included the aforementioned town. And it would be pretty helpful if you could check the previous edits you made to articles such as Sason, which were similarly homonymous with regions and administrative divisions and so may need additional sources to justify the specific categorization of the town as previously having housed an Armenian community if the source doesn't explicitly mention that. Aintabli (talk) 17:05, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Merhaba,
I don't know unfortunately. We had a similar discussion here and there. That's why I try to specify that the figures were for the kaza. When the source mentions the town population specifically, I try to add it as well. The borders and names and we don't have pages for kaza so I think that the information is best located in the city article. And in the few articles where there was already population data (mostly localities in Mardin, Şanlıurfa, and Diyarbakır) this was the practice. What do you think? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 17:16, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
We can include that information in the town's article for the moment. But if we want to be precise, it could better fit Beşiri District. It can also easily be moved to relevant articles for the Ottoman administrative divisions, when they get created. In fact, there are some articles for the sanjaks of the Ottoman Empire, which are made up of kazas, but there are only a handful of such pages; not all sanjaks have an article. I am planning to work on that in the future. My main concern was in terms of the category, because we normally categorize settlements and not districts (in this case that page is also not for the district), so I am thinking of removing the category "Former Armenian communities in Turkey". Would that be okay? It's a pity that the source only mentions the villages by quantity and does not give a list of place names, but I am confident that we will be able to find a source that refers to at least some of those villages by name so that we can add them to the aforementioned category. Aintabli (talk) 19:23, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure it would better fit in Beşiri District: the borders changed so much. I don't know in the case of Beşiri specifically but when I check localities mentioned in one "kaza" they're often in two or even three different modern districts. Sometimes in different provinces (I have in mind Batman vs Diyarbakır but I may be mistaken, I did so many of them...). Yes, pages for sanjaks and kaza would be good. But even if we had pages about kaza I think the information should be still mentioned in the city page. Indeed, the administrative borders are an abstract construction, moving over time. The city is a more constant reality. If I say "There were X Armenians in the district/kaza/province/whatever Y": it's based on the borders delimited by the stroke of a pen of some bureaucrat of that time. If I say "There were X Armenians in the city of Y and the surrounding villages" everyone understand what it means, and it's independent from the political power of that time. Another issue is that, at least for Christian denominations, many sources mention the number of believers by diocese (or equivalent) and they may not (and often do not) match with the political entities of the time.
Regarding the category: I trust you. Some villages in the Beşiri District have pages in Armenian, for instance:
They cite population figures from "«Հայաստանի և հարակից շրջանների տեղանունների բառարան», հտ 1, էջ 543". I speak 0 Armenian but I found this page (543) here. There's indeed our "Bazbut'" on the right. But then we'd need an Armenian speaker to confirm that it is written what the Armenian Wikipedia says (we can see "20" for the century probably and "20" for the number of houses I guess but who knows...). Or we blindly trust the Armenian Wikipedia and translate + add the same source. I wouldn't do that at scale but we can do it for one.
Anyway, as I said in the other discussion, the most important is to have the data somewhere here.
Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments2 people in discussion
When do you plan to visit Turkey? You should know that Akdoğan Lake is generally beautiful in spring and summer seasons. When you go, don't forget to take pictures and upload them to Commons. If you have a question, you can ask. Vartolu3566 (talk) 19:39, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Let me give you some information. You can drink the water of the lake. You can camp around the lake. Unlike bears in the Black Sea region, bears in the Akdoğan lake region are not aggressive. But still try not to be intrated when you see the bears. Bears feed in the middle of two lakes between 5 and 8 in the morning. Vartolu3566 (talk) 21:02, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Do not enter more than 4 meters of lakes by the beach. The small lake consists of a pit and attracts people like a magnet. After 8 am, the bears retreat to their nests and are rare in the forest. You can walk in the forests by the lake with peace of mind. It is not dangerous Vartolu3566 (talk) 21:11, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks for your contributions to Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it has no sources.
Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.
Sorry, I did not notice you were still editing the article. Please feel free to move it to the mainspace once you are done writing FuzzyMagma (talk) 21:44, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Phuzion was:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
Hello, A455bcd9!
Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Phuzion (talk) 01:36, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Warning about edit warring on Zviad Gamsakhurdia page
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
@A455bcd9: Hello, you have reverted my edit and it seems like you have previously also reverted similar edits on Zviad Gamsakhurdia page, which might indicate that you might be engaged in edit war. Please note that edit warring is prohibited on Wikipedia. Please refrain from reverting edits for more than 3 or more times in 24 hours and discuss issues which you don't agree with on relevant Talk page. Here is a general template:
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Cutoc (talk) 08:40, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Because it's obviously unfinished, that's why. There's no introduction. There are no categories. There's only one reference. And don't say "What the fuck?" to me. Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 11:13, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments2 people in discussion
I am confused by the claim you made about Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. I have read the book cited and find no reference to bisexuality. Would you mind clearing this up? ― TaltosKieronTalk19:16, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi,
Here's the quote:
“Women, for Mustafa, were a means of satisfying masculine appetites, little more; nor, in his zest for experience, would he be inhibited from passing adventures with young boys, if the opportunity offered and the mood, in this bisexual fin-de-siècle Ottoman age, came upon him.” (Patrick Balfour, Lord Kinross [homosexual himself])
It's apparently mentioned by a third biographer, Irgan Orga, who worked under Atatürk but I cannot find the exact page. I ordered the book from the British Library and I'll add this if I can confirm the quote and pages: [Orga, Irfan; Orga, Margarete (1962). Atatürk. M. Joseph. He had never really loved a woman. He was used to the camaraderie of the mess, the craze for handsome young men] a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:27, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Huh. There may be multiple versions of the book? I can find similar phrases about using women but never a reference to "young boys" or a "bisexual fin-de-siècle Ottoman age." What edition is yours. Mine is an ebooks with the ISBN: 9781780224442.
Hi, thanks a lot, it's great: congrats! I would move it to the mainspace.
A few comments:
"History" shouldn't be under "Levantine Arabic" but in a first-level dedicated section because it describes the linguistic history of the region.
Same for "Media": describing the use of languages in Lebanese media.
I would start with diglossia and code-switching to explain the general linguistic context
In general, I would not order by languages but by usage. (For instance, reading the document I don't know: which language is used in parliamentary debates? is French used in official institutions? etc.) Then, only after a general explanation I would go, if needed, language by language to explain the specificities of this language in Lebanon.
I would also like to see:
Mentions of immigrant languages and dialects:
Other Levantine dialects (e.g., Palestinian Arabic in refugee camps?) and Arabic varieties (Egyptian Arabic mentioned by Ethnologue?)
Ethiopian languages, Filipino, etc. among maids for instance
Arabic dialects in Lebanon: are there local differences? For instance Levantine Arabic says: A minority of features are perceived as typically associated with one group. For example, in Beirut, the exponent تاع tēʕ is only used by Muslims and never by Christians who use تبع tabaʕ.[73] Contrary to others, Druze and Alawite dialects retained the phoneme /q/.[24] MSA influences Sunni dialects more.
Other minorities, especially when they have a historical importance:
Kurds
Turkish (have they switched to Arabic?)
Circassians
Asyrians
Does usage vary along ethno-religious lines? I think that historically French was for instance more prevalent among non-Muslims. (could add this to a general "Usage" section for instance).
What about the use of the Greek language?
Is the local French different? We don't have a Levantine French article but there are a few sources about this:
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Nope. Not a joke. You said and I quote, "And it's from Twitter..." which gives the indication that the author of the Tweet, BNO News, is not a reliable source of information. You have no evidence to say it isn't a reliable source of information and no discussion has taken place to deprecate it. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)21:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
@WeatherWriter It's a joke because you've been reverted yourself by a highly experienced contributor (rightly so). And yes, a tweet of a video is a PRIMARY source. Not a reliable SECONDARY source. And a tweet isn't as good as a detailed article. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 21:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
And just to be clear: I don't know who did this attack. It may well be the Hamas. But for now different RS give different explanations so it's still "disputed". Until there's a consensus (hopefully soon). a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 21:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) That isn't how I see it. I edit mostly in the weather-event articles and there is almost never a "primary source". The moment it is published by RS or someone else not the creator, it is a secondary source. If you say it is a primary source, you are directly saying BNO News made the video, which is false information. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)21:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
@WeatherWriter Read WP:SECONDARY: "A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources."
A tweet of a video that just says "appears to" doesn't provide much reflection and thoughts.
And again, there are other RS saying otherwise so it's still "disputed", until a consensus emerge.
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Zviad Gamsakhurdia. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks for your contributions to Diana Janse. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources.
I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Hi @TimothyBlue, thanks for your message. It's true that I should have sought dispute resolution instead of reverting the other user. I apologize for this.
I agree with you, and know you're dealing problem editing, but I had to include you in the ANI :( I think they will see what is going on, but I would highlight the NOTHERE problems. The PA above alone should merit a block or topic ban review. Sorry for the template. // Timothy :: talk09:54, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
I would, even if it doesn't change anything there will be easily found diffs to refer to during the next ANI (and with their edit history, there is every reason to believe there will be another ANI). Greetings from Los Angeles, // Timothy :: talk08:57, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Likely. Both of the latter also have messages in their talk page histories that suggest that they were emailing about WikiAsk as well. Shipisomani is unrelated from a technical perspective, but they are definitely sending emails en masse and a copy of the email indicates that they're also emailing about WikiAsk, so they're at least a meatpuppet....
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Dhofari Arabic. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Hello, I'm CorbieVreccan. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Wikipedia talk:No original research that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Stop insulting editors:[1] - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 22:29, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Template:Contains Levantine characters has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:07, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
You have recently made edits related to climate change. This is a standard message to inform you that climate change is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. jps (talk) 12:55, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Cutoc (talk) 18:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
