User talk:N0n3up/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
The Signpost: 15 June 2016
- News and notes: Clarifications on status and compensation of outgoing executive directors Sue Gardner and Lila Tretikov
- Special report: Wikiversity Journal—A new user group
- Featured content: From the crème de la crème
- In the media: Biography disputes; Craig Newmark donation; PR editing
- Traffic report: Another one with sports; Knockout, brief candle
Merge on Aircraft Catapult
I am contacting you today for your input on a proposed merger on Aircraft catapult. You can check the discussion here. Thanks for your assistance. Reb1981 (talk) 22:29, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
The Signpost: 04 July 2016
- News and notes: Board unanimously appoints Katherine Maher as new WMF executive director; Wikimedia lawsuits in France and Germany
- Op-ed: Two policies in conflict?
- In the media: Terrorism database cites Wikipedia as a source
- Featured content: Triple fun of featured content
- Traffic report: Goalposts; Oy vexit
The Signpost: 18 August 2016
- News and notes: Focus on India—WikiConference produces new apps; state government adopts free licenses
- Special report: Engaging diverse communities to profile women of Antarctica
- In the media: The ugly, the bad, the playful, and the promising
- Featured content: Simply the best ... from the last two weeks
- Traffic report: Olympic views
- Technology report: User script report (January–July 2016, part 2)
- Arbitration report: The Michael Hardy case
Judaism article
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Debresser (talk) 19:06, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I saw your reply. The reason I am not replying to it, is because it is obvious our opinions vary on this subject, and I hope other editors will express their opinions as well. Perhaps we should post a link to the talkpage section on WT:JUDAISM? Debresser (talk) 14:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
The Signpost: 06 September 2016
- Special report: Olympics readership depended on language
- WikiProject report: Watching Wikipedia
- Featured content: Entertainment, sport, and something else in-between
- Traffic report: From Phelps to Bolt to Reddit
- Technology report: Wikimedia mobile sites now don't load images if the user doesn't see them
- Recent research: Ethics of machine-created articles and fighting vandalism
The Signpost: 29 September 2016
- News and notes: Wikipedia Education Program case study published; and a longtime Wikimedian has made his final edit
- In the media: Wikipedia in the news
- Featured content: Three weeks in the land of featured content
- Arbitration report: Arbcom looking for new checkusers and oversight appointees while another case opens
- Traffic report: From Gene Wilder to JonBenét
- Technology report: Category sorting and template parameters
The Signpost: 14 October 2016
- News and notes: Fundraising, flora and fauna
- Discussion report: Cultivating leadership: Wikimedia Foundation seeks input
- Technology report: Upcoming tech projects for 2017
- Featured content: Variety is the spice of life
- Traffic report: Debates and escapes
- Recent research: A 2011 study resurfaces in a media report
The Signpost: 4 November 2016
- In the media: Washington Post continues in-depth Wikipedia coverage
- Wikicup: WikiCup winners
- Discussion report: What's on your tech wishlist for the coming year?
- Technology report: New guideline for technical collaboration; citation templates now flag open access content
- Featured content: Cream of the crop
- Traffic report: Un-presidential politics
- Arbitration report: Recapping October's activities
How things going?
I saw that little drama recently. Some people just can't move past things. I'm glad you learned from it. If you need any advise on anything just drop a line. I been busy policing a few I just haven't had a lot of time recently working on projects. Reb1981 (talk) 21:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks Reb1981. Yes, apparently JuanRiley is one heck of a headache. He recently falsely accused me of stalking his edits right after coming out of a block for personal attacks, when had done the thing he accused me of a while ago, creeping edits on articles right after I edited them. Let alone the fact that he keeps spouting nonsense about me in his talk page and throws a fit everytime someone reverts him or doesn't agree with him. Well enough about me, tell me how you've been? (N0n3up (talk) 03:33, 7 November 2016 (UTC))
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, N0n3up. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
The Signpost: 4 November 2016
- News and notes: Arbitration Committee elections commence
- Featured content: Featured mix
- Special report: Taking stock of the Good Article backlog
- Traffic report: President-elect Trump
Order of Allies
I see you involve a dispute about allied order in page Allies of World War II. Actually the original allied order is USSR first. The link of the original version is [1].This is the same order in original version of main article world war II which is [2].This order is based on many discussions about World War II. One of the discussion is [3]. The country list of World War II has been removed from main page World War II based on the consensus of Talk:World War II/Archive 51#Request for comment: WWII infobox. The order in Allies of World War II was changed by E-960 [4] without discussion in that time. Then this order is insisted by E-960, Calidum and some other users. This is how the current order comes from. I see another discussion about this order after that Talk:Allies of World War II/Archive 9#POV/NPOV but did not change the current order. Basically, I guess no one will continue the discussion about order dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.12.4.237 (talk) 17:11, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
The Signpost: 22 December 2016
- Year in review: Looking back on 2016
- News and notes: Strategic planning update; English ArbCom election results
- Special report: German ArbCom implodes
- Featured content: The Christmas edition
- Technology report: Labs improvements impact 2016 Tool Labs survey results
- Traffic report: Post-election traffic blues
- Recent research: One study and several abstracts
Hi
Regarding the "religion in Carthage" article: linking Persian Achaemenid Empire as one block is a little awkward to me, and I think popping the Persian out of the link (Persian Achaemenid Empire) or transposing it (Achaemenid Persian Empire) would flow a little better. That's all, it's nothing that warrants putting your foot down and delivering demands. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- 165.234.252.11 This is what you were supposed to do as soon as you were reverted, engage in discussion instead of edit-warring. I wasn't "putting my foot down and delivering demands" but simply wanted to verify you were a serious editor and not a vandal. Sadly IP's often get marginalized as petty vandals, that's why I advised you to get an account so you wouldn't get mistaken as a vandal and be taken more seriously. You can revert back to your version if you want, now that I know your good intentions. Cheers. (N0n3up (talk) 03:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC))
The Signpost: 17 January 2017
- From the editor: Next steps for the Signpost
- News and notes: Surge in RFA promotions—a sign of lasting change?
- In the media: Year-end roundups, Wikipedia's 16th birthday, and more
- Featured content: One year ends, and another begins
- Arbitration report: Concluding 2016 and covering 2017's first two cases
- Traffic report: Out with the old, in with the new
- Technology report: Tech present, past, and future
The Signpost: 6 February 2017
- Arbitration report: WMF Legal and ArbCom weigh in on tension between disclosure requirements and user privacy
- WikiProject report: For the birds!
- Technology report: Better PDFs, backup plans, and birthday wishes
- Traffic report: Cool It Now
- Featured content: Three weeks dominated by articles
Feedback request
Hey I am contacting you today for some feedback on a simple discussion on Talkpage of Mid-Atlantic accent, since you have prior experience with the article. Reb1981 (talk) 23:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
The Signpost: 27 February 2017
- From the editors: Results from our poll on subscription and delivery, and a new RSS feed
- Recent research: Special issue: Wikipedia in education
- Technology report: Responsive content on desktop; Offline content in Android app
- In the media: The Daily Mail does not run Wikipedia
- Gallery: A Met montage
- Special report: Peer review – a history and call for reviewers
- Op-ed: Wikipedia has cancer
- Featured content: The dominance of articles continues
- Traffic report: Love, football, and politics
97.123.120.226
Did you notice something oddly farmiliar with his edit and way it was worded? Who does it remind you of? I know who it reminds me of check this out. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JuanRiley -- Reb1981 (talk) 01:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
The Signpost: 9 June 2017
- From the editors: Signpost status: On reserve power, help wanted!
- News and notes: Global Elections
- Arbitration report: Cases closed in the Pacific and with Magioladitis
- Featured content: Three months in the land of the featured
- In the media: Did Wikipedia just assume Garfield's gender?
- Recent research: Wikipedia bot wars capture the imagination of the popular press
- Technology report: Tech news catch-up
- Traffic report: Film on Top: Sampling the weekly top 10
The Signpost: 23 June 2017
- News and notes: Departments reorganized at Wikimedia Foundation, and a month without new RfAs (so far)
- In the media: Kalanick's nipples; Episode #138 of Drama on the Hill
- Op-ed: Facto Post: a fresh take
- Featured content: Will there ever be a break? The slew of featured content continues
- Traffic report: Wonder Woman beats Batman, The Mummy, Darth Vader and the Earth
- Technology report: Improved search, and WMF data scientist tells all
Pisco
Regarding your edit, which I acknowledge to be one minor link in the very long chain of the never-ending struggle over whether Peru or Chile is considered the supreme producer of pisco, I notice that the lead section says that Chile produces about three times as much pisco as Peru. If most of the world's pisco is from Chile, wouldn't it be reasonable to list Chile first when we talk about where it is produced? —BarrelProof (talk) 01:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- The reason being is that the fact that Chile produces more Pisco than Peru doesn't make it more entitled to the drink being "more" Chilean. The previous status quo was first arranged with Peru and Chile in that order, and one thing which should have been obvious in the page is the tension between Peru and Chile and their claim to being the original owners of the Pisco. Up to this point, I simply revert what I see as a biased edit. Although I'll look up the sources to ensure a better perspective. Up to this point, both Peru and Chile are equally entitled to the pisco. (N0n3up (talk) 21:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC))
The Signpost: 15 July 2017
- News and notes: French chapter woes, new affiliates and more WMF team changes
- Featured content: Spectacular animals, Pine Trees screens, and more
- In the media: Concern about access and fairness, Foundation expenditures, and relationship to real-world politics and commerce
- Recent research: The chilling effect of surveillance on Wikipedia readers
- Gallery: A mix of patterns
- Humour: The Infobox Game
- Traffic report: Film, television and Internet phenomena reign with some room left over for America's birthday
- Technology report: New features in development; more breaking changes for scripts
- Wikicup: 2017 WikiCup round 3 wrap-up
The Signpost: 5 August 2017
- Recent research: Wikipedia can increase local tourism by +9%; predicting article quality with deep learning; recent behavior predicts quality
- WikiProject report: Comic relief
- In the media: Wikipedia used to judge death penalty, arms smuggling, Indonesian governance, and HOTTEST celebrity
- Traffic report: Swedish countess tops the list
- Featured content: Everywhere in the lead
- Technology report: Introducing TechCom
- Humour: WWASOHs and ETCSSs
The Signpost: 6 September 2017
- From the editors: What happened at Wikimania?
- News and notes: Basselpedia; WMF Board of Trustees appointments
- Featured content: Warfighters and their tools or trees and butterflies
- Traffic report: A fortnight of conflicts
- Special report: Biomedical content, and some thoughts on its future
- Recent research: Discussion summarization; Twitter bots tracking government edits; extracting trivia from Wikipedia
- WikiProject report: WikiProject YouTube
- Technology report: Latest tech news
- Wikicup: 2017 WikiCup round 4 wrap-up
- Humour: Bots
The Signpost: 25 September 2017
- News and notes: Chapter updates; ACTRIAL
- Humour: Chickenz
- Recent research: Wikipedia articles vs. concepts; Wikipedia usage in Europe
- Technology report: Flow restarted; Wikidata connection notifications
- Gallery: Chicken mania
- Traffic report: Fights and frights
- Featured content: Flying high
The Signpost: 23 October 2017
- News and notes: Money! WMF fundraising, Wikimedia strategy, WMF new office!
- Featured content: Don, Marcel, Emily, Jessica and other notables
- Humour: Guys named Ralph
- In the media: Facebook and poetry
- Special report: Working with GLAMs in the UK
- Traffic report: Death, disaster, and entertainment
Sockpuppet Searcher0
I think so too. What a troublesome character this JournalmanManila/Theseeker2016/Jasper0070/Cleaner880/Parashurama007/Xcalliber and possibly Searcher0 is. His/her zombie sockpuppets keep coming backǃ His/her persistence on creating new block-evading accounts must be rewarded by another SPI. Thank you for your initiative to take care this problem. While you at it, I also suspected the recently created account (25th August 2017) of Hunter05 as another sockpuppet. In his edit in Kingdom of Tondo he seems to be another sockpuppet of JournalmanManila. — Gunkarta talk 05:24, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- The sources are valid based on books I guess you just either not famillar to the Rulles of WP:Deletion policy and WP:Source, or you just promoting a slow-burn conflict of interest based on what you view or what your friends think So its a right thing that will revert this and if we take this further im ready because it is the right thing .(Searcher0 (talk) 05:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC))
- The problem is a possible sockpuppetry Searcher0. I think although you might be a new user, you might be familiar about this; wikipedia encourages a single account for single user, and multiple accounts are generally not allowed. Once an account proven as a sockpuppet, his/her accountability and credibility went out of the window, and wikipedia community just can not trust a sockpuppet. And there is a suspicion that you are another sockpuppet of JournalmanManila. If one editor wish to keep editing wikipedia, he/she must resolves the problem of its first/initial account, and not creating a new account(s) as a block-evading effort. — Gunkarta talk 05:50, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Gunkarta i don't know what is on your mind or what is you thinking about me but i just working based in that academic source i never add statements more than it just what the books say's you can confirm it so no mater where this mater taken up i'm ready because it is clear an academic books and sources that's all what i can say (Searcher0 (talk))
- Hello N0n3up, heads-upǃ in case you did not notice, Searcher0 has just reported you in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents in Editing based Conflict of interest. This might be the right time to pursue SPI. — Gunkarta talk 06:13, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- i don't like edit wars and i think fighting an editor NOT going to be good, so Let the admin settle Nothing will loose if we find out that i made a edit with non-academic books , and SPI is not a tool for a slow-burn Conflicts of interest , and im not afraid of what will happened next because i can prove that sources which i mentioned so good day! PS: Becareful, im watching you ! (Searcher0 (talk) 06:32, 27 August 2017 (UTC))
- @Gunkarta Should I use the checkuser? (N0n3up (talk) 17:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC))
- @N0n3up I think you should ask for Checkuser. I used the SPI like I did to Cleaner880 and Parashurama007. If this Searcher0 and Hunter05 are another sockpuppet of/with JournalmanManila/Theseeker2016/Jasper0070/Cleaner880/Parashurama007/Xcalliber, we're dealing with pathological persistent chronic case of block evading sockpuppetry. An ultimate solution is needed, maybe even by taking this case as far up as ArbCom? — Gunkarta talk 19:55, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- Also, Searcher0, if you don't like edit wars, then why do you edit war and refuse to use the talk page? (N0n3up (talk) 17:22, 27 August 2017 (UTC))
- @Gunkarta Should I use the checkuser? (N0n3up (talk) 17:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC))
- i don't like edit wars and i think fighting an editor NOT going to be good, so Let the admin settle Nothing will loose if we find out that i made a edit with non-academic books , and SPI is not a tool for a slow-burn Conflicts of interest , and im not afraid of what will happened next because i can prove that sources which i mentioned so good day! PS: Becareful, im watching you ! (Searcher0 (talk) 06:32, 27 August 2017 (UTC))
Seems you have problem with JournalmanManila. But, I think he resurrected again with another newly made sockpuppet account; Dashcam and Xpose09. Reporting those account to SPI its not enough to prevent any persistent sockpuppet evasion made by JournalmanManila ever. -114.124.151.236 (talk) 03:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
@N0n3up:, Hi N0n3up, regarding your message in my talkpage, yes. I shared your concern too. Im also believe JournalmanManila sockpuppetry is back again, this time as User:Dashcam and possibly also User:Xpose09. Actually I started to be suspicious to Dashcam after he continued the work of blocked Hunter05 in List of artifacts in Philippine history in this extensive edits here. The most common behavior of blocked sockpuppet is to return to the "crimescene" to finish or continue the unfinished business (edit/work) of his past sockmaster/sockpuppets. I'm also found some of IP addresses that might be also operated by the same person; 175.158.201.49 that you have encountered edited in Chopsticks here. Also 122.54.197.173 that support Dashcam's vote to keep the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of artifacts in Philippine history here. I do not know how to deal with this scale of persistent sockpuppetry other than SPI — the way that we both has done before repeatedly. I learned that you have contacted User:Berean Hunter to asked for his opinion on this, that's good. I believe he has more authority and knowledge to deal with this kind of problem. You have my support to stop this sockpuppetry. Thank you for your efforts. — Gunkarta talk 05:58, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- I think you miss this one 49.149.97.134. More harder measures must be taken because making a new account in Wikipedia is terribly easy, even you just need several hours for making hundreds Wikipedia account. (I'm sorry, do you know about this account: Minesweep0) -114.124.203.206 (talk) 11:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you 114.124.203.206, I'll see to it immediately. Also, let me know if there is any more sockpuppets. (N0n3up (talk) 03:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC))
My instincts tell me to be wary of User:Keroscene777, whose range of interests and unwillingness to explain edits match this sockpuppetry. But that user hasn't shown the same/signatur bad grammar, so I can't be sure. (But maybe that's why he isn't explaining edits?) Anyway. Possibly worth watching. - Alternativity (talk) 16:24, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
- Then again, my instincts may be wrong. The user's refusal to meaningfully describe his/her edits leaves many many questions. :s -Alternativity (talk) 16:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
I have strong suspicion that user:Pricedelink is user:JournalManManila again. And I continue to have a bad feeling about user:keroscene777,but I'm less sure there. Both have a predilection for unexplained edits and an overglossy presentation of Filipino culture and/or history. Alternativity (talk) 15:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
- I have spotted several his sockpuppet account also; here are: user:Pricedelink, user: Skyrim9, 122.54.197.173, 49.150.227.202, 122.54.119.100, and 49.146.9.171 -114.124.211.185 (talk) 13:42, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
The Signpost: 24 November 2017
- News and notes: Cons, cons, cons
- Arbitration report: Administrator desysoped; How to deal with crosswiki issues; Mister Wiki case likely
- Technology report: Searching and surveying
- Interview: A featured article centurion
- WikiProject report: Recommendations for WikiProjects
- In the media: Open knowledge platform as a media institution
- Traffic report: Strange and inappropriate
- Featured content: We will remember them
- Recent research: Who wrote this? New dataset on the provenance of Wikipedia text
ANI Experiences survey
Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.
The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:
If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.
Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, N0n3up. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Sourcing of Philippine section
I see that you had been removing the Philippine sections in Ramayana which is revised by the members already, i don't understand why you like to remove the Philippine part these following references FRANCISCO, JUAN R. (1989). "The Indigenization of the Rama Story in the Philippines". Philippine Studies. 37 (1): 101–111. doi:10.2307/42633135.
{Cite journal| last=Francisco|first=Juan R.|date=|title=Maharadia Lawana|url=http://www.asj.upd.edu.ph/mediabox/archive/ASJ-07-02-1969/franciso-maharadia%20lawana.pdf%7Cjournal=%7Cvolume=%7Cpages=%7Cvia=}}
these sources where written by the Indiologists from University of the Philippines that means its authentic, or as if you don't honor their works these are even passed in standards of the WP:SOURCES (you can check the qualifications of WP:SOURCES for more information). i am trying to be nice here, and i believe in the examining sentences per cited references and not based on the personal opinions i hope you understand this and i know that you understand what i said.(Skyrim9 (talk) 12:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC))
The Signpost: 18 December 2017
- Special report: Women in Red World Contest wrap-up
- Featured content: Featured content to finish 2017
- In the media: Stolen seagulls, public domain primates and more
- Arbitration report: Last case of 2017: Mister Wiki editors
- Gallery: Wiki loving
- Recent research: French medical articles have "high rate of veracity"
- Technology report: Your wish lists and more Wikimedia tech
- Traffic report: Notable heroes and bad guys
The Signpost: 16 January 2018
- News and notes: Communication is key
- In the media: The Paris Review, British Crown and British Media
- Featured content: History, gaming and multifarious topics
- Interview: Interview with Ser Amantio di Nicolao, the top contributor to English Wikipedia by edit count
- Technology report: Dedicated Wikidata database servers
- Arbitration report: Mister Wiki is first arbitration committee decision of 2018
- Traffic report: The best and worst of 2017
Unexplained revert
Just curious; what is this unexplained revert supposed to mean?[5] - LouisAragon (talk) 23:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
- LouisAragon It means that if someone disagrees with you, you take it to talk per WP:BOLD. Even though I agree you changing "Indian subcontinent" to "South Asia", you threw me off deleting the "Middle East" and adding "Bangladesh" in the infobox without explaining why. (N0n3up (talk) 00:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC))
- "Bangladesh" had been on the page as far back as 18 November 2017.[6] On 9 December 2017, a random IP changed "Bangladesh" into "Iran"[7]. Then, for whatever reason, instead of restoring the orginal version, prior to the IP disruption, you simply changed "Iran" into "Middle East" on 23 December 2017 and added "Middle East" to the lede.[8]-[9]
- LouisAragon It means that if someone disagrees with you, you take it to talk per WP:BOLD. Even though I agree you changing "Indian subcontinent" to "South Asia", you threw me off deleting the "Middle East" and adding "Bangladesh" in the infobox without explaining why. (N0n3up (talk) 00:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC))
- I simply restored the original status quo prior to the IP disruption and your erroneous edit (WP:GF). Oddly enough, today, on 17 January 2017, you surprisingly restored the version that contained the IP disruption.[10]
- - LouisAragon (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- LouisAragon The reason I changed Iran to Middle east was to five a broaden the possible presence of Naan, Iran does make a significant percent of the middle east (if you exclude Egypt which it's sometimes considered part of the Middle East), and places like Iraq, eastern Syria and southeastern Turkey have a variation of this bread. I didn't know about the IP until you told me. (N0n3up (talk) 00:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC))
- LouisAragon I just re-added Bangladesh [11]. (N0n3up (talk) 00:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC))
- The thing is, the article is about a specific product called "naan" which is eaten in the Subcontinent. In the Middle East "naan/nan" is just the general word for "bread" and doesn't carry any specific significance (i.e. "nanê loş / nan-e lavash"; Kurdish and Persian respectively for Lavash bread).
The current revision of the lede/infobox is therefore mixing two things up. I propose restoring the original infobox/lede, removing "Middle East". - LouisAragon (talk) 00:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)- Yep, I noticed! - LouisAragon (talk) 00:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- You might suggest that the term naan is used in the Middle East as a term for bread and in South Asia as a type of bread, yet the vocabulary and region suggests a connection. In India, naan is a flatbread, and most of the Middle East uses flat bread, not to mention the historic connections between India and Middle East, thus possibly having similar origins or connections. (N0n3up (talk) 00:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC))
- Perhaps, but thats WP:OR. - LouisAragon (talk) 01:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- You might suggest that the term naan is used in the Middle East as a term for bread and in South Asia as a type of bread, yet the vocabulary and region suggests a connection. In India, naan is a flatbread, and most of the Middle East uses flat bread, not to mention the historic connections between India and Middle East, thus possibly having similar origins or connections. (N0n3up (talk) 00:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC))
- Yep, I noticed! - LouisAragon (talk) 00:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- The thing is, the article is about a specific product called "naan" which is eaten in the Subcontinent. In the Middle East "naan/nan" is just the general word for "bread" and doesn't carry any specific significance (i.e. "nanê loş / nan-e lavash"; Kurdish and Persian respectively for Lavash bread).
The Signpost: 5 February 2018
- Featured content: Wars, sieges, disasters and everything black possible
- Traffic report: TV, death, sports, and doodles
- Special report: Cochrane–Wikipedia Initiative
- Arbitration report: New cases requested for inter-editor hostility and other collaboration issues
- In the media: Solving crime; editing out violence allegations
- Humour: You really are in Wonderland
The Signpost: 20 February 2018
- News and notes: The future is Swedish with a lack of administrators
- Recent research: Politically diverse editors write better articles; Reddit and Stack Overflow benefit from Wikipedia but don't give back
- Arbitration report: Arbitration committee prepares to examine two new cases
- Traffic report: Addicted to sports and pain
- Featured content: Entertainment, sports and history
- Technology report: Paragraph-based edit conflict screen; broken thanks
First Barbary War
I wasn't being biased. If you say you know the topic and the result was Swedish/American victory then I respect that. But your revert put the result back to Libyan victory which does not reflect your edit summary. Accordingly I am reverting back the other way - misleading edit summary. SlightSmile 00:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
- Slightsmile You are right! But the reason I'm reverting you is because you're not being honest. Instead of reverting the IP by simply clicking the revert button, you placed "American victory" which is not the original version either until you decided to do so. So I'm reverting your un-original version of your so-called revert of an un-original edit of an IP. I will be more than happy when you edit back the original version of "Swedish-American victory", not "American victory". Until you do so, I will revert your edit if it keeps spelling "American victory" because that's not the original version. (N0n3up (talk) 04:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC))
- I see now that the previous versions say Swedish-American victory. I had gone back to yet earlier versions where it says American victory and reasonably assumed that was the original version. You're too quick with the accusations my friend. If you try having a more positive attitude here you might not be feeling so much of the burnout that you complain about on your user page. SlightSmile 18:26, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
- Slightsmile Perhaps. (N0n3up (talk) 01:06, 24 February 2018 (UTC))
- I see now that the previous versions say Swedish-American victory. I had gone back to yet earlier versions where it says American victory and reasonably assumed that was the original version. You're too quick with the accusations my friend. If you try having a more positive attitude here you might not be feeling so much of the burnout that you complain about on your user page. SlightSmile 18:26, 23 February 2018 (UTC)