|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any threads with no replies in 30 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
Invitation to a research surveyEdit
Hello Dbachmann, I am Qi Wu, a computer science MS student at the University of Minnesota - Twin Cities. Currently, we are working on a project studying the main article and sub article relationship in a purpose of better serving the Wikipedia article structure. It would be appreciated if you could take 4-5 minutes to finish the survey questions. Thanks in advance! We will not collect any of your personally information.
Thank you for your time to participate this survey. Your response is important for us!
Nomination of Hard and soft for deletionEdit
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hard and soft until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:53, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
20346 AD listed at Redirects for discussionEdit
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 20346 AD. Since you had some involvement with the 20346 AD redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:42, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Do you have time to review an article?Edit
Hello, we are the archivists at Lombard Odier in Geneva and wanted to improve the article relating to the bank, which is quite sub-par. We proposed a new version on the talk page, and the editor who replied to us kindly suggested we see with people from the Wikiproject Switzerland, where your user name is listed (we since also made a first round of improvements and fixed some formatting issues): here is the new draft.
Unfortunately, the project's talk page has seen little activity over the past few weeks (someone has made minor edits and confirmed it was fine on her end), and I'd like to come back to the editor with a strong consensus on the Project Switzerland side.
To be clear, the very same text has been posted in other languages (French, Spanish, German, and Italian), with editors there helpfully pitching in/editing afterwards (German also implements gesichtete Versionen, so this text had to be reviewed by someone before appearing publicly). We're entirely fine with the article living its own life and being edited by anyone, we understand it and actually like the idea that people can research and improve content (we are big readers too!).
So if you have time, would you mind having a look and telling me if you see anyhing of concern, changes to be done, or if you think the new text is ready to go live here as well?
- Thanks for your support! The initial reviewer still requests that we give a full quote for each and every single reference, which seems a bit vexatory (there is a hundred of them, and he doesn't even speak French or German, so I wonder why he would ask for these). He however indicated that others are free to implement the changes: would that be ok with you? Hello at LO (talk) 06:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Hallo, DBachmann, du hast seinerzeit den englischen Artikel zu Hans Vintler angelegt. Ich habe heute einen deutschen erstellt und gerade im englischen drei, wie ich meine, Fehler korrigiert. Du kannst ja mal gucken. Viele Grüße, --Coyote III (talk) 19:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Please help against racism and investigate in this caseEdit
On the article Ainu people and on Jomon people. I included important information about the origin and theories. The recent studies I includes support a Australo-Melanesian (Papua-Melanesian) connection/relation. Racist user derekhistorian tries to hide this and deletes all completely. Wikipedia must not accept racism and must mention all theories. The Nature journal and other official citations get deleted by him and he promote Asian and white supremacy claims. Please have a look on the citations and please try to correct these articles. I can link all the important studies:
-  apparently rolled back as part of a sock block.
- Sock puppetry is of course bannable, and I do not know the history of this. However, the edit in question on its own appears to be not only innocuous, but in fact an improvement, citing a scientific study rather than a political activist group in the matter of a scientific question. After reviewing whether this accurately reflects the content of the paper cited I would consider restoring this. --dab (𒁳) 12:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- The paper suggests that the Jomon people (not the Ainu) can be grouped with "Australo-Papuan".
- We documented a continuation of the “first layer” AMH in southern China on the basis of hunter-gatherer sites that were dated between ca. 14 kya and 5 kya [...] From those hunter-gatherer sites, diagnostic features of skeletal remains included the presence of dolichocephalic calvaria, large zygomatic bones, remarkably prominent glabellae and superciliary arches, concave nasal roots, and low and wide faces. Notably, ancient Japanese Jomon hunter-gatherers belonged to this same grouping.
- As such, the diff cited above is a perfectly adequate addition in an article on the Jomon. It isn't clear that it is on topic for the Ainu.
- This particular study is about craniometry on ancient remains, not on living Ainu people.
- Since I have met with ideological madness that considers the field of anthropology or population genetics itself as "racist", sadly not just in inexperienced drive-by editing but in long-term "Wikipedians in good standing", I am somewhat concerned that "administrative procedure" is being used to selectively clamp down on "research I do not like". Therefore, good care should be taken that somebody who goes after this sock puppet also includes brief mention of this study at an appropriate place as a show of good faith that this is indeed about sock puppetry, not censorship.
- --dab (𒁳) 13:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)