HaileJones

Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello HaileJones! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I am happy to be the first person to welcome you to English Wikipedia! I have prepared this welcome message to help you with your continued adventure here, check them out or visit the new contributors' help page! Happy Editing! Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC) Getting Started: Tutorials and Training Click on "show" to the right to expand We have some interactive tutorials and trainings you may want to try: Wikipedia Tutorial Wikipedia Training The Wikipedia Adventure game And some regular articles you can just read: How to edit a page How to start a new article How to upload an image and add it to an article Be bold in editing Frequently Asked Questions Getting Help: How and Where to Ask a Question? Click on "show" to the right to expand There are numerous ways you can ask for help. You can ask me on my talk page. You can copy and place {{helpme}} with your accompanying question on the bottom of your talk page and someone else will show up shortly to answer your questions here. You can try one of the specialized fora listed at the "Where to ask a question" page. If you prefer live chat, try #wikipedia-en-help IRC chat room. Click here to get connected through your browser! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date On a final note, you may want to try the new (beta) VisualEditor, check out our weekly newspaper, the Wikipedia Signpost, and join a WikiProject of interest to you. WikiProjects gather editors interested in certain topic areas, providing them with information, tools and a place to discuss the topic in question. Based on your recent edits I think you may be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyediting. For a list of all WikiProjects, see here. Joining a WikiProject makes the Wikipedia experience much richer! Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi HaileJones! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, What makes a piece of Media notable enough to put in an "In other media" section, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 04:23, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Fantano edits

His divorce hasn't been covered in reliable sources, so it shouldn't be mentioned in the article. An offhand mention in an old source isn't enough-- given his (ex) wife is a non-public figure, the information is best left out; see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Public_figure. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 04:37, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

His divorce has not yet been covered, but his marriage was mentioned by a reliable source. I can find several more mentioning her if you need me to. I consider a man's marriage to be the most important part of the personal life section, far more than eating habits. The fact that he was married can be conclusively proved and is relevant to his personal life. I deliberately did not mention Boxley by name, but most Wikipedia pages do name the spouse if a name is provided.

Is your objection to the source? I am not talking about divorce, just marriage. HaileJones (talk) 17:24, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

A primary source (court document) indicates he was divorced, and it hasn't been reported in a secondary reliable source, although old reliable sources indicate he was married at one point. The wording I removed made it sound like he was still married, but we know that's not true because of the primary source. His wife isn't a public figure and his marriage has only gotten passing coverage. We've had a recurring issue regarding articles on lower-level BLPs having personal tangential information about them (family stuff generally) that becomes outdated/untrue, but no reliable source reports on it. The solution in my opinion is just to remove information that information and instead document what reliable sources directly talk about. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:40, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Mind if you kindly stop promoting false Chinese territorial claims on Wikipedia?

What you are doing has consequences on what millions of people perceive as true historical fact.

Yes, the treaty is a real thing, but the notion that parts of modern day Kazakhstan like Almaty was under Chinese rule is nonsense. Chinese rule in eastern Kazakhstan was never ever mentioned by old Chinese sources. These are all made up claims by the CCP(ruling party of modern China).

Back in the 18th to 19th centuries, borders in central Asia were mostly fluid. This means that they can't be accurately represented as solid lines.

No way Almaty was a part of China. How can a bunch of Manchus can have jurisdiction over a city 5,000 km away? This claim is clearly nonsense. PurpleRequiem (talk) 07:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

It was my understanding that the Qing conquered territory that formerly belonged to the Dzungars ie modern Almaty and held it for a century. I provided a non Chinese source - and every map I have seen of the period puts the border at lake Balkash. Do you have a source that backs up your statement? HaileJones (talk) 08:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

All of those sources were made up. Nomads didn't have a bureaucracy like China or Europeans. There simply weren't any records that mentioned that Qing north-western borders ended at lake Balkhash.

When the Dzungars were defeated by the Qing, the Kazakhs regained control of their lost territory.

Those maps are wrong as they are based on the false fact provided by the source, we all trust - Wikipedia. Which is why I strongly advocate for you to stop undoing the edits I have made.

Nomadic entities never have solid and clearly defined borders like Prussia or Britain. The shape of the territory they have jurisdiction over can be roughly mapped. I can't provide you any source because there simply isn't. Qing China only controlled prominent cities like Illi or Urumqi. Almaty was NEVER a part of Xinjiang province. PurpleRequiem (talk) 11:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

From what I've read the Qing were able to exert fairly effective control over nomadic peoples through their banner system. Even the Dzungar nomads were beginning to create a centralized state before the Quianlong emperor subjugated/exterminated them. I recommend the book China Marches West by Peter C. Perdue. I concede that there was a great deal of local autonomy and fluidity on the frontier, but from what I've read I believe that the preeminent power east of Balkash (until Yaqub Beg) was China.

If you can provide a reliable source that supports you on this issue, I'm happy to back down on it. Otherwise I'll have to stick to what the sources we have say. The source I provided predates Wikipedia by decades. HaileJones (talk) 16:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

source, source is all you puny westerners want. I'll keep undoing your edits.

As for the source, I'm not a shut in geek like you who sits around the whole day. Click the link, and there is an answer posted by one of the forum moderators. He explains how the fact that Qing China never actually controlled region near Almaty. And I think that answer contains the sources.

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/i-advocate-game-designers-of-victoria-3-to-review-the-your-map-because-the-territory-of-qing-dynasty-is-inaccurate.1477013/ PurpleRequiem (talk) 01:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Also keep in mind your sources aren't necessarily true. Can you just drop the whole Qing Chinese claim? It's not a well backed up claim either. The whole lake Balkhash thing is very blurry and not crystal clear of who exactly owned it. PurpleRequiem (talk) 02:05, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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) 00:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)