Desde la Torre
|
Hello Desde la Torre,
It seems to me that an article you worked on, Islamic Texts Society, may be copied from http://www.fonsvitae.com/OtherPublishers/IslamicTextsSociety/tabid/178/Default.aspx. It's entirely possible that I made a mistake, but I wanted to let you know because Wikipedia is strict about copying from other sites.
It's important that you edit the article and rewrite it in your own words, unless you're absolutely certain nothing in it is copied. If you're not sure how to fix the problem or have any questions, there are people at the help desk who are happy to assist you.
Thank you for helping build a free encyclopedia! MadmanBot (talk) 11:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
The article Islamic Texts Society has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- no indication of notability. No independent WP:reliable sources. Largely copy/paste of companies own about page so is a WP:COPYVIO
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. noq (talk) 12:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 22 edit
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Parliamentary Christian Fellowship, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Macquarie (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:28, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Sulayman al-Mahri edit
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.
A tag has been placed on Sulayman al-Mahri requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://muslimnews24.com/sulaiman-al-mahri-a-renowned-arab-navigator/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "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 deleted 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. S Philbrick(Talk) 12:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- Hello, Desde la Torre,
- Is there are reason why you cut the Sulaiman Al Mahri article down into a redirect? It was later deleted by mistake when your article was deleted and it turned into a broken redirect. Please do not do this again. Liz Read! Talk! 20:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Liz, I am truly sorry for the mess I made. I meant to correct several issues in the article, starting by the use of the transliteration in the article title. But I was working in a hurry and just forgot to check the right procedure to move the article as I meant—something I had done right in the past. Thanks for your note. I'll go back to work on that article within some days, making sure I check the manual first! Desde la Torre (talk) 22:41, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
January 2023 edit
Hello, I'm Doug Weller. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, List of oldest continuously inhabited cities, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Sources doesn't say that was the date it became a city. Doug Weller talk 13:32, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks Doug. I think you may agree that Lisbon should be on the list, especially since several Wikipedia pages claim that it is one of the oldest cities in Western Europe. I did notice the source problem, and tried to find something better but I did not have the time. Why don't you reinstate it with a template to "get a better source" or somehing, as other cities in the table? Desde la Torre (talk) 13:41, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- Because once unsourced material is removed policy says you can't remove it. The list is still a mess. Old Cairo doesn't belong there but Cairo does. Chania is wrong. There are 81 citation needed tags that need fixing. Adding more claims that need sourcing is not just against policy, it's a really bad idea and doesn't help our readers. Sadly we get a lot of nationalist editors, editors who don't understand what "continuously” means,etc. Doug Weller talk 14:42, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- I will do as you suggest, to include a good citation and re-add it. I will also bring the date forward by a few centuries, which makes finding a reference a lot easier. Desde la Torre (talk) 15:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- Actually, it was not difficult at all this time to find a reference for earlier archaeological evidence. Thus the date I've used tallies better with the antiquity claims in other WP articles. Desde la Torre (talk) 15:27, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- Archaeological evidence (seashell waste) of a human settlement does not prove that: a) a city existed at the time and b) that is has been continuously inhabited since. M.Bitton (talk) 15:32, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- Hello M.Bitton. I'm no nationalist. I'm not Portuguese. I'm not an archaeologist. I'm also not trying to make up information. I've cited what surely must count as a "reliable source" (Bloomsbury publication, based on the 1997 Oxford World Biographical Series, vol. 199). Please go ahead and question the validity of my source, put a note or something, but don't undo my edit. As I mentioned above, what I am trying to address is the ridiculous situation that Lisbon is absent from the list, while Évora and many other cities are there. Let's jointly address that, and by all means feel free to select a date and criteria of continuous habitation that are supported by a better source. Cheers. Desde la Torre (talk) 15:42, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- Where does your reliable source say “continuously occupied”? Doug Weller talk 15:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- Not just "continuously inhabited", but "continuously inhabited as a city", otherwise this list would include most of the modern African cities with dates that would make the others look ridiculous. M.Bitton (talk) 16:03, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- Definitely! Doug Weller talk 16:06, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- Considering its length this may be the worst sourced article on Wikipedia. Doug Weller talk 16:10, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- Definitely! Doug Weller talk 16:06, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- I agree the whole article it's terribly sourced. Just please don't take it on Lisbon guys!
- "Continuously inhabited as a city" is a fair point. I would have appreciated it if instead of undoing the addition, which is reasonable, you would have objected to the date in the first place.
- Now, I suppose "continuously inhabited as a city" means from Roman times.
- Here is this source:
- The Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Sites,
- “According to Strabo, in 138 B.C. the consul Decimus Junius Brutus fortified the city.”
- Unless there are objections, I will proceed with that later.
- Thanks. Desde la Torre (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- Continuously inhabited as a city means just that. The new source that you're proposing doesn't support the claim. Please, stop suggesting that we have a thing against Lisbon. As you know, the whole article is in need of a serious clean-up (which will take a long time to do) and you are encouraged to help delete anything that doesn't belong there, but in the meantime, all we can do is stop others from adding more nonsense to it. M.Bitton (talk) 16:47, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not really suggesting any bad intention from your end. I apologise if I gave that impression.
- I would just be grateful for the editorial benefit of doubt, in this vein: “In the case of a good faith edit, a reversion is appropriate when the reverter believes that the edit makes the article clearly worse and there is no element of the edit that is an improvement.” Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary#Good reasons to revert
- I believe my adding the Lisbon line to the list improves the article and it is far from nonsense. The question to discuss is the date and its criteria.
- See also Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary#Alternatives to reverting
- Back to the question then. This is from M. Jack's book (pp.10-11), “following excavations for the building of the metro in the Praça de Figueira in 2000. A vast cemetery was uncovered underneath the square, with numerous epigraphic inscriptions on the stonework. During excavations pieces of Roman ceramic plate were dug up with other more ancient fossils, indicating continuous inhabitance of the Baixa area since earliest times.”
- It does not say "as a city", though. We have however the Princeton source above and this, for example, to account for the status of Roman city since 138BC.
- Perhaps we can give on the list 138BC and add a note with refs to both sources? There is a sufficient general caveat about dates at the top of the article, and as you've remarked, many other entries are simply unsourced. Desde la Torre (talk) 17:46, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- I tried to tell you. Doug Weller talk 17:09, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- Continuously inhabited as a city means just that. The new source that you're proposing doesn't support the claim. Please, stop suggesting that we have a thing against Lisbon. As you know, the whole article is in need of a serious clean-up (which will take a long time to do) and you are encouraged to help delete anything that doesn't belong there, but in the meantime, all we can do is stop others from adding more nonsense to it. M.Bitton (talk) 16:47, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- Not just "continuously inhabited", but "continuously inhabited as a city", otherwise this list would include most of the modern African cities with dates that would make the others look ridiculous. M.Bitton (talk) 16:03, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- Where does your reliable source say “continuously occupied”? Doug Weller talk 15:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- Hello M.Bitton. I'm no nationalist. I'm not Portuguese. I'm not an archaeologist. I'm also not trying to make up information. I've cited what surely must count as a "reliable source" (Bloomsbury publication, based on the 1997 Oxford World Biographical Series, vol. 199). Please go ahead and question the validity of my source, put a note or something, but don't undo my edit. As I mentioned above, what I am trying to address is the ridiculous situation that Lisbon is absent from the list, while Évora and many other cities are there. Let's jointly address that, and by all means feel free to select a date and criteria of continuous habitation that are supported by a better source. Cheers. Desde la Torre (talk) 15:42, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- Archaeological evidence (seashell waste) of a human settlement does not prove that: a) a city existed at the time and b) that is has been continuously inhabited since. M.Bitton (talk) 15:32, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- Actually, it was not difficult at all this time to find a reference for earlier archaeological evidence. Thus the date I've used tallies better with the antiquity claims in other WP articles. Desde la Torre (talk) 15:27, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- I will do as you suggest, to include a good citation and re-add it. I will also bring the date forward by a few centuries, which makes finding a reference a lot easier. Desde la Torre (talk) 15:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- Because once unsourced material is removed policy says you can't remove it. The list is still a mess. Old Cairo doesn't belong there but Cairo does. Chania is wrong. There are 81 citation needed tags that need fixing. Adding more claims that need sourcing is not just against policy, it's a really bad idea and doesn't help our readers. Sadly we get a lot of nationalist editors, editors who don't understand what "continuously” means,etc. Doug Weller talk 14:42, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message edit
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)