|This user is currently experiencing significant stress that may affect their ability to work on Wikipedia. This user may choose to work in quieter areas and avoid complicated tasks or areas prone to conflict. They may also respond to talk page or email messages more slowly than usual, and your patience is greatly appreciated. Thank you.|
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cantabrian (Asturleonese from Cantabria), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Heifer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
This week's article for improvement (week 50, 2018)Edit
This week's article for improvement (week 51, 2018)Edit
Culture of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands moved to draftspaceEdit
An article you recently created, Culture of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "
Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Boleyn (talk) 10:57, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
This week's article for improvement (week 52, 2018)Edit
The Signpost: 24 December 2018Edit
- From the editors: Where to draw the line in reporting?
- News and notes: Some wishes do come true
- In the media: Political hijinks
- Discussion report: A new record low for RfA
- WikiProject report: Articlegenesis
- Arbitration report: Year ends with one active case
- Traffic report: Queen dethroned by U.S. presidents
- Gallery: Sun and moon, water and stone
- Blog: News from the WMF
- Humour: I believe in Bigfoot
- Essay: Requests for medication
- From the archives: Compromised admin accounts – again
This week's article for improvement (week 1, 2018)Edit
Nomination of Cannabis in Vatican City for deletionEdit
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cannabis in Vatican City is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cannabis in Vatican City 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. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 20:19, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
This week's article for improvement (week 2, 2019)Edit
Hi, I don't think Charlemagne is a fair comparison. The Netherlands did exist in the years 1940-1945. It was certainly occupied and governed by a "Reichskommissar", 'de facto', as you put it, but he was still more like a deputy or governor on behalf of Germany. It was a temporary arrangement, which the Germans never came to finalise (problably planning to incorporate the Netherlands into Germany entirely). There were a Dutch government and a royal family in exile, also. Do you know relevant historical works or biographies that use the same terminology to indicate someones country of birth? Tekstman (talk) 20:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Tekstman: Hello and thank you for your thoughtful message here! I admit that my comparison was a little too hasty and unfair, and indeed I should have offered something more contemptorary. In fact, I was thinking over it a while.
- For me, I see this as a matter of NPOV. There are many, millions of people in fact, who today see certain states as illegitimate. For example, there have been more than a few readers and editors who don't like an article stating someone was born or died in Palestine, or South Ossetia, or Taiwan, or autonomous Kurdistan and such places like that instead of alternate claims as to what those lands are. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but according to my knowledge Wikipedia always states the de facto administration/government that man was born in without stating what it "should" be. Just telling the facts as they are.
- To give an extreme example, some more partisan-thinkers see the entire existence of the Soviet Union as illegal communist occupation of Russia and neighboring nations. Are their claims any less than the Dutch in exile? Should Gorbachev be just listed as being born in simply "Russia" or in fact the Russian SSR? or what about Americans who were born in the Confederate States, which was never recognized? I know you likely see this article as an exception, but this logic is very easy to abuse. The fact is that van Eijk was born under German administration of your homeland, and the infobox should reflect this for NPOV. I would like to know your thoughts on this.--~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk) 21:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- I certainly see your point, and I also strive to an NPOV stating of the facts. Your examples form a wide array (seccessions, claims from other countries, occupations, annexations), but the Soviet Union is a nice example. It occupied and subsequently annexed several former independent countries. I believe you can speak of 'born in the Soviet-Union' from the moment these countries were formally annexed, not during their occupation before that.
Then, as I argued before, the country of birth is really the country (or dependent/overseas territory) in which a person is born, not the government or the ruler.
Further, as I already mentioned, I think we should investigate authorative sources from outside Wikipedia. The Brittanica for instance: . It just states "Netherlands". My final and a little less important argument is that I have searched for other articles in Wikipedia of Dutch people born during the German occupation and I did not find one of them that did not state 'Netherlands" as country of birth. To name just a few: Erica Terpstra, Rutger Hauer, Willem van Hanegem and Wim T. Schippers. Tekstman (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Tekstman: Well it's funny you actually you reminded me of something related to this. I remember that the article for Saint Adalbert once gave his birth and death places as just Poland and Germany or something, which doesn't make sense in the 10th century AD. I refined those locations to the actual kingdoms he would be born in and die under at those dates given. I've done the same with mostly other medieval figures, as is my interest, as well as some more contemporary men. As far as I can recall no one has really raised an issue over it or called for sourcing on such locations outside of cases where the place/time is actually unknown or unclear. Infobox locations seem to have always been(in normal circumstances) an "ipso facto" sort of situation - it doesn't need to be sourced that Carl Størmer was born in the union of Sweden-Norway, it's just clear from history itself which can be easily found on timeline map sites like http://geacron.com/home-en/?sid=GeaCron420218 (which I highly recommend by the way, very useful).
- As for the other article which don't list the birthplaces as the Reichskommissariat, well, I'll cite a guideline someone used for me recently: Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. I think the tone of it is rude and I'm sorry for that, but it does have a good point that other pages lacking something is not an excuse for a related case to be like it. I think those pages should be changed too and clarified. The truth is most editors don't have a weird interest like me in lucidity and precision in locations and history in infoboxes like me, haha. Few people would care that French colonist de Brazza was born in the Papal States and not just Italy, but I clarified it and it's been a solid addition to the article.
- My point is that for hundreds of articles, in service of providing as much necessary information as I can and NPOV, I have clarified what actual government they were born or died under. I think there was only one incident where someone protested because it wasn't certain, but most editors don't seem to care about these things like I do or just don't know. I hope that you understand that my mission is just to provide an educational and neutral observation of reality for public benefit. I would be more than happy to help you with any problems you have and I enjoyed explaining some of my reasoning to you.--~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk) 22:31, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, I do not oppose correcting anachronistic country or territory names at all. So, your work on Saint Adalbert and De Brazza etc. is well appreciated. However, I am a little disappointed you did not challenge my arguments at all, except the least important one: no other examples in Wikipedia. Which was, by the way, a comment on your remark "Yes you're right, which is what we use". This is not what "we" use, that was my point. At the very least, I proved that the consensus is on my side. But please consider my other arguments and respond to them, if you like. Tekstman (talk) 11:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
What about now?Edit
You see why I had added the president? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Venezuelan_presidential_crisis
This week's article for improvement (week 3, 2019)Edit
This week's article for improvement (week 4, 2019)Edit
This week's article for improvement (week 5, 2019)Edit
The Signpost: 31 January 2019Edit
- Op-ed: Random Rewards Rejected
- News and notes: WMF staff turntable continues to spin; Endowment gets more cash; RfA continues to be a pit of steely knives
- In the media: The Signpost's investigative story recognized, Wikipedia turns 18 and gets a birthday gift from Google, and more editors are recognized
- Discussion report: The future of the reference desk
- Featured content: Don't miss your great opportunity
- Arbitration report: An admin under the microscope
- Traffic report: Death, royals and superheroes
- Technology report: When broken is easily fixed
- News from the WMF: News from WMF
- Recent research: Ad revenue from reused Wikipedia articles; are Wikipedia researchers asking the right questions?
- Essay: How
- Humour: Village pump
- From the archives: An editorial board that includes you
This week's article for improvement (week 6, 2019)Edit
Desert Desert listed at Redirects for discussionEdit
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Desert Desert. Since you had some involvement with the Desert Desert redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. MB 02:56, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
This week's article for improvement (week 7, 2019)Edit
This week's article for improvement (week 8, 2019)Edit
It's common practice to pipe link Germany to terms such as "West Germany", "East Germany", "Nazi Germany" which are all no serious names for a country. In addition: what does "Nazi Germany" mean for someone born in 1938? - Sorry to add to your stress. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:28, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
In your edit summary you say "de facto locations" - I hear a stress on "locations". I usually just give a place name with a link. Anybody interested enough can find the political situation at the time of birth then. "East Germany" is no location. (What it is I don't know, - look on the article talk for my name, supporting a serious name.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
This week's article for improvement (week 9, 2019)Edit
The Signpost: 28 February 2019Edit
- From the editors: Help wanted (still)
- News and notes: Front-page issues for the community
- Discussion report: Talking about talk pages
- Featured content: Conquest, War, Famine, Death, and more!
- Arbitration report: A quiet month for Arbitration Committee
- Traffic report: Binge-watching
- Technology report: Tool labs casters-up
- Gallery: Signed with pride
- From the archives: New group aims to promote Wiki-Love
- Humour: Pesky Pronouns
This week's article for improvement (week 10, 2019)Edit
This week's article for improvement (week 11, 2019)Edit
This week's article for improvement (week 12, 2019)Edit
This week's article for improvement (week 13, 2019)Edit
The Signpost: 31 March 2019Edit
- From the editors: Getting serious about humor
- News and notes: Blackouts fail to stop EU Copyright Directive
- In the media: Women's history month
- Discussion report: Portal debates continue, Prespa agreement aftermath, WMF seeks a rebranding
- Featured content: Out of this world
- Arbitration report: The Tides of March at ARBCOM
- Traffic report: Exultations and tribulations
- Technology report: New section suggestions and sitewide styles
- News from the WMF: The WMF's take on the new EU Copyright Directive
- Recent research: Barnstar-like awards increase new editor retention
- From the archives: Esperanza organization disbanded after deletion discussion
- Humour: The Epistolary of Arthur 37
- Op-Ed: Pro and Con: Has gun violence been improperly excluded from gun articles?
- In focus: The Wikipedia SourceWatch
- Special report: Wiki Loves (50 Years of) Pride
- Community view: Wikipedia's response to the New Zealand mosque shootings
This week's article for improvement (week 14, 2019)Edit
This week's article for improvement (week 15, 2019)Edit
This week's article for improvement (week 16, 2019)Edit
This week's article for improvement (week 18, 2019)Edit
The Signpost: 30 April 2019Edit
- News and notes: An Action Packed April
- In the media: Is Wikipedia just another social media site?
- Discussion report: English Wikipedia community's conclusions on talk pages
- Featured content: Anguish, accolades, animals, and art
- Arbitration report: An Active Arbitration Committee
- Traffic report: Mötley Crüe, Notre-Dame, a black hole, and Bonnie and Clyde
- Technology report: A new special page, and other news
- Gallery: Notre-Dame de Paris burns
- News from the WMF: Can machine learning uncover Wikipedia’s missing “citation needed” tags?
- Recent research: Female scholars underrepresented; whitepaper on Wikidata and libraries; undo patterns reveal editor hierarchy
- From the archives: Portals revisited