User talk:Juxlos/Archives/2020/March

Active discussions

Majapahit

Hello, I've recently saw that you were undo-ing the edits I made on the Majapahit page because I used a 140 years old source. There are several arguments that I would like to bring out :

1. The source (Notes on the Malay Archipelago and Malacca Compiled from Chinese Sources) is also cited in another part of the article, yet it is not being undone.

2. There are other sources that are roughly from the same time period being cited, in which the sources are similar with the book i am referencing in the way that they are translating literatures from older time period.

3. I think the usage of such old reference is justified here because it is a huge compilation and translation of many Chinese chronicles from the time period and as such not many authors can do the same, and thus not publishing a newer, more recent version of compilation. The compilation provided an outsider insight of Majapahit's culture and claims of territory that would be otherwise unknown or disputed because of how little the amount of native Javanese written records about Majapahit are available.

The edits are mainly to clear some notions such as the status of Majapahit's vassals in Malay Peninsula and Sumatra after they were mentioned in Negarakertagama around 1365. The Notes on the Malay Archipelago and Malacca Compiled from Chinese Sources provided many informations divided by time periods such as from the Yuan or Ming dynasty and some other literatures like Yingya Shenglan around 1416 so that we could take conclusion about the status of the lands they were writing during that time period, such as whether they were under Javanese / Majapahit supremacy or not.

I would like to know more the reason of the undo-ing edits and furthermore I hope we can come into a better understanding to provide a more accurate information in the article.

Best wishes. Anarma (talk) 17:11, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Said source is a translation of a Chinese account - and they're not to be presented as a fact, rather at best they should be quoted as is (e.g. "Chinese sources stated that [...]"). Additionally, entire sections of the removed text is uncited. Juxlos (talk) 17:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
On the removed section, it is not only the uncited ones that were removed, but it is indeed the undo-ing of all my edits, including the cited ones other than the Chinese translation (Tome Pires' Suma Oriental), some minor grammar fixes and paragraph restructuring. And about the source, I agree on the part where it is should not presented as a fact. However, I still would like to present the information I gathered from the source in the article, as I consider it valuable and have some kind of basis. Do I have to put the statement of "Chinese source stated [...]" or something similar on top of the usual citation to be able to do so ? Anarma (talk) 11:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Try to do so, yes. Juxlos (talk) 11:12, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Wonderful, thank you.Anarma (talk) 11:29, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

WikiCup 2020 March newsletter

And so ends the first round of the competition. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2, with 57 contestants qualifying. We have abolished the groups this year, so to qualify for Round 3 you will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two contestants.

Our top scorers in Round 1 were:

  •   Epicgenius, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with a featured article, five good articles and an assortment of other submissions, specialising on buildings and locations in New York, for a total of 895 points.
  •   Gog the Mild came next with 464 points, from a featured article, two good articles and a number of reviews, the main theme being naval warfare.
  •   Raymie was in third place with 419 points, garnered from one good article and an impressive 34 DYKs on radio and TV stations in the United States.
  •   Harrias came next at 414, with a featured article and three good articles, an English civil war battle specialist.
  •   CaptainEek was in fifth place with 405 points, mostly garnered from bringing Cactus wren to featured article status.
  • The top ten contestants at the end of Round 1 all scored over 200 points; they also included   L293D,   Kingsif,   Enwebb,   Lee Vilenski and   CAPTAIN MEDUSA. Seven of the top ten contestants in Round 1 are new to the WikiCup.

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. In Round 1 there were four featured articles, one featured list and two featured pictures, as well as around two hundred DYKs and twenty-seven ITNs. Between them, contestants completed 127 good article reviews, nearly a hundred more than the 43 good articles they claimed for, thus making a substantial dent in the review backlog. Contestants also claimed for 40 featured article / featured list reviews, and most even remembered to mention their WikiCup participation in their reviews (a requirement).

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Some contestants made claims before the new submissions pages were set up, and they will need to resubmit them. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Silas Papare

  Hello! Your submission of Silas Papare at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 20:40, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Please see new note on your DYK nomination. Yoninah (talk) 21:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

WikiCup newsletter correction

There was an error in the WikiCup 2020 March newsletter;   L293D should not have been included in the list of top ten scorers in Round 1 (they led the list last year), instead,   Dunkleosteus77 should have been included, having garnered 334 points from five good articles on animals, living or extinct, and various reviews. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Criticism of Joko Widodo

Hi Juxlos, FYI: Parallel to the AfD and its uncertain result, I have started to decrapify the article Criticism of Joko Widodo. Most of it can be scrapped per WP:SOAPBOX, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Wonder if anything will be left after scrutinous deconstruction :) –Austronesier (talk) 12:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like AfD with extra steps but okay. Juxlos (talk) 14:32, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Unless stuck in a content dispute, I feel kinda obliged to remove unverified or unencyclopedic content out from WP whereever I see it, for the benefit of our readers. Both bold edits and AfD serve this purpose. Scrutinizing the content will also help to dig up the full scope of the policy violations by the page creator. After all, it is a clear case of WP:NOTHERE; the more material we have to prove it, the better.
Btw, I would bet on it that it's a blocked sock, just look how they started gaming the system by doing minimal edits just to get autoconfirmed status[1]. That's not newbie behavior. Any ideas who could be the sockmaster? –Austronesier (talk) 15:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
No clue, I've not exactly been following POV editors. Juxlos (talk) 16:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Category:2019-20 coronavirus quarantines

Hello, Juxlos,

I just wanted to post a notice that this category you created has been tagged for speedy deletion under CSD C1, as an empty category. "Speedy" is relative for CSD C1 as the category will only be deleted if it is empty 7 days from today. If it has contents, the tag will be removed. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Socio-economic impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic#Split proposed

What's your thinking on this at this point? -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:19, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Financial impact should still be separated even with all the short-term crash articles - finance goes beyond the stock market after all. Juxlos (talk) 11:12, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
@Juxlos: Really? The stock market, the bond market, and the oil markets are all interrelated. It seems like a waste to keep duplicative articles. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 15:29, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

WAM 2019 Postcard: All postcards are postponed due to the postal system shut down

Dear all participants and organizers,

Since the outbreak of COVID-19, all the postcards are postponed due to the shut down of the postal system all over the world. Hope all the postcards can arrive as soon as the postal system return and please take good care.

Best regards,

Wikipedia Asian Month International Team 2020.03

Return to the user page of "Juxlos/Archives/2020/March".