User talk:Uanfala/Archive 5

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Archive 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	This's for Sheikhgal.Well-written:) Winged BladesGodric 06:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks!. – Uanfala (talk) 00:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Pranvera

Hi Uanfala, I would like to ask you for help with adding a text about Pranvera Hyseni. Yesterday I added a code Pranvera Hyseni and made an empty site, but I saw that you deleted my edition. I am new member of wiki (usually work with polish articles about astronomy) I have a text about Pranvera ready for publishing, and I will be appreciate for your opinion about her biogram. Pran was awarded several months ago by International Astronomical Union (asteroid 45687 was named after her). Cheers Michal my e-mail: komeciarz[at]gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michal.Kusiak (talk • contribs) 18:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Michal.Kusiak, you're very welcome to create an article about Pranvera Hyseni, provided you're convinced that she meets the inclusion criteria (either WP:GNG or WP:NPEOPLE). Once the artice has been written (but generally not before), you can add an entry about her at Pranvera: given name articles should generally only contain entries for people who already have articles on wikipedia (or there is significant content about them within another article). To be fair, there is a mention of her on the list of minor planets, but I personally don't see that as sufficient (you could ask for an alternative opinion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy). On a side note, the article Pranvera is of borderline notability itself, so if someone nominates it for deletion it's likely it won't survive. – Uanfala (talk) 01:12, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Pinging Herostratus who added this entry in the first place and who is likely to have a different opinion. – Uanfala (talk) 01:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't really. I added the entry because I thought it is possible that she will have an article made someday and might be notable enough (I don't really know and haven't really studied her).

While it's OK to have entries for people without articles if they will likely have an article eventually, I think it best in this case to wait until the article is created before adding it back in, since she seems borderline at best. I don't have an opinion on whether she deserves an article or not. Herostratus (talk) 02:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation in Nihali language

Hello Uanfala,
You have made multiple reverts to attempts to correct the dab at Nihali language. I understand that you have provided a rationale for it in one of the edit summaries. It would be better if you could disambiguate it to a term that does not put it in the dab list once again, or in case you haven't been able to figure out the exact secret and hybrid languages, I would suggest dropping the wikilink altogether. Thanks, MT Train^Discuss 13:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

The link to secret language should probably go to either Argot or Cant (language) (both are listed in the dab page), but I don't think deciding on one could be done without digging back through the sources. I don't see the point of unlinking: we do have encyclopedic content on the topic and we should link to it. I don't see anything particularly troubling of that linking passing, for the time being, through the dab page: any reader will know that it's one of these two articles that is intended in this context (and not, say, cryptography, as the two previous dabfix attempts had bizarrely assumed). Ditto for hybrid language. – Uanfala (talk) 13:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Spreads

Sorry for the slow reply, it's been a hectic week.

I've been meaning to overhaul the article for the past month; it's missing a section on how a spread is used to generate a real number (the so called "dressed spreads". I think this will add in the missing "context"; once I have done this (probably tonight or some night this evening) I think the article should be ready. I'll PM you once this is done. J.f.appleby (talk) 10:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Adding an interlinear template to another project

Hi, I have limited experience with editing on wikipedia. I want to make the interlinear template work on the Tok Pisin wikipedia. I was hoping I could just copy code from one template page to another but it seems a bit more subtle than that. I am going through the documentation but things remain unclear. Like how can I see the actual code of the template and not just the template/doc when I click edit? Any help would be appreciated. Kavonjon (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, most of the time copying the code of a template should work (provided that all the (meta)templates used by that template are available on the destination wiki and work as expected). The complication is that some templates, including {{interlinear}}, are only wrappers for a module, so the module will need to be copied across as well. In this case, the module is currently found at Module:Sandbox/Uanfala/glt (there's a link in the little blue box floating in the upper right corner of the template's doc page). I've just copied the whole thing across (templates, module and the the necessary metamodules), so now on the Tok Pisin Wikipedia tpi:Templet:Interlinear should work just as here. Feel free to rename it to something more suitable.

When using that template either on the Tok Pisin Wikipedia or here, please bear in mind that it's sort of an alpha version: it's been tested for a bit and seems to work fine, but it's likely there'll be bugs and it's also possible that some aspects of its behaviour might change before the "final" version. I don't know if it's a good idea to publicise it yet, but people are welcome to use and feedback from that will be helpful. So let me know if there are any problems or if you come across anything that seems odd. Cheers! – Uanfala (talk) 01:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Joshua Claybourn for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Joshua Claybourn 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/Joshua Claybourn (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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.

Notifying you about the discussion, since you have made significant contributions to articles related to this subject. --IndyNotes (talk) 04:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I've never had any involvement with this article or with anything else in the broader topic area. – Uanfala (talk) 12:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Other editors talk

Please remove that bracket. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:17, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh I see it's not a bracket. But frankly it's not helpful. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:20, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

It's that. Though I agree it's a bit too blunt and unlikely to be appreciated. – Uanfala (talk) 00:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Trouted

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: a trivial typo or misspelling on your user page:

get so annoyed that they loose their temper.

"Loose" should be "lose".

I hope I'm not misusing the trout. This should really be a Swedish fish. Thnidu (talk) 01:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

This is precisely what the trout is for! And that's one word I seem to never be able to spell properly. At least I didn't do it in article text this time (everything I do in mainspace has at least one silly typo per paragraph, despite all the proofreading), and I didn't omit any function words or word endings (as I always seem to do when writing discussion posts here: it's as if there's some process of pidginisation that operates on my speech as it makes its way to the keyboard).

Anyway, I think this ping didn't work: this is one of most unintuitive features of the system (and I wasn't aware of it until someone pointed it out to me), but for it to work, a ping needs to appear on a newly added line that has a new signature, see WP:ECHO. – Uanfala (talk) 01:26, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

15 February,2018

Hello Friend!!! I am a wikipedian editor from Pakistan.A user Yamaguchi has removed some information and pictures from the article of Lulusar Lake, Sangla Hill and Malam Jabba related to Pakistan.Please re-add this information and pictures to the articles.I shall be very thankful to you for this. User:Shoaib74444 (talk) 15 February, 2018 —Preceding undated comment added 13:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Shoaib74444, you're free to revert any edits you disagree with: this is generally acceptable if you briefly explain in the edit summary why you're reverting and as long as you don't revert more than once per article per day. If your edit is then reverted it's usually a good practice to try discussing with the editor who's reverted you (see WP:BRD).

There's one thing you can do that will likely stop people from removing your content and that will also increase the quality of that content: cite sources. You're probably already aware of Wikipedia:Verifiability, this is one of the core principles of wikipedia: we do not write based on our first-hand experience. When you add a piece of information to an article, an important question to ask yourself is "Where do I know that from?". Even if you know it from your general knowledge, you're generally expected to go and find some source (a book, a reliable website, a news report etc.) where this information is given explicitly.

Another thing is that sometimes you stray very close to WP:NOTTRAVEL territory. Wikipedia articles should give encyclopedic information about the places, and not the kind of descriptions that are used in travelbooks. You should avoid calling places "scenic", "beautiful" and the like. We shouldn't be telling our readers how they can get to a certain lake or informing them that its waters reflect the mountain peaks – again, this is not encyclopedic information. Some of this, however, might be appropriate at wikipedia's sister project https://en.wikiwoyage.org. – Uanfala (talk) 00:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

16 February,2018

So, How can I verified??? User:Shoaib74444 (talk) 16 February, 2018

See Help:Referencing for beginners. It will also be useful to read WP:RS and WP:OR. – Uanfala (talk) 02:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

re-assessment

Dear Uanfala, Thank you very much the re-assessment. I realized that we used the so-called internal link 'Gold Medal' in the text. I am sorry, I added this link again, just before reading your notice. I wonder whether this link brings anything new to the article. In fact, we were asked to add a photo of the Medal to the galery of scientific medals. This task was solved only partially. A limited number of photos of high-value Gold Medals is available. This is why we appended the photo into the Gold Medal galery. I hope that there exist a technical possibility to use such a link, or, you rather suggest to delete this link due to some regulations/restrictions we are not aware. Thank you very much for suggesting reading instructions. We intend to add some details and make final touches; even small modifications require a lot of time and consultations. Then we will be ready to apply for next step assessment. I would appreciate your suggestion regarding this link. Thank you again and take care, NYT2017 (talk) 17:59, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

It's that link, right? The main problem with it is that it's inside a reference. You know, when you see a blue super-scripted number, you expect that to point you to a citation that supports the preceding text, no? It's misleading to use refs for linking to related content. The place for such links is at the end of the article, in the familiar "See also" or "Exernal links" sections. However, I'm not sure the link in question is useful here: it points to the wikimedia commons category for gold medals, which contains over a hundred images, and only two of them appear to be related to the Zener Prize. One of those images is already used in the article, and the other is what appears like a worse-quality photo of the same object. You could include that image directly within the article, but is it really needed? Anyway, I'm not sure I completely understand the intention behind linking there in the first place. Is there anything I'm missing? – Uanfala (talk) 02:57, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Chib

Please can you source this. And note that we also have Chibber and that Grierson is dubious as a source. I have no idea if there is an equivalence between Chib and Chibber because, as per consensus, I don't even bother looking at Raj claims for Wikipedia purposes nowadays. I do hope this isn't another Thathal incident. - Sitush (talk) 01:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Linguistic Survey of India, vol. 8, pt. 1, the section on Chibhali. There was a mention somewhere else as well (about the Chib(h?)s being widely scattered and speaking different languages, and about Chibhal being named after them), but I'm not sure where exactly that was: probably in the same volume, but in one of the more general sections. – Uanfala (talk) 01:46, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

So, speculative bollocks, basically? Regardless, please add it to the article. - Sitush (talk) 01:52, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not in the business of writing about ethnic groups. And even if I were, I don't think I would go around adding content based on the random mentions I come across. Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 02:01, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

So, basically, you have removed the PROD on the basis of sod all? I foresee a trip to ANI before much longer because, believe me, there are a lot of people who have concerns. - Sitush (talk) 02:06, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

If people have concerns with my editing, I encourage them to voice them. – Uanfala (talk) 02:18, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Sitush, Uanfala is a good editor. As for Chibs, it is indeed true that they are a Rajput clan who were once the dominant group of Chibhal (present day Mirpur District). I will find a source or two and add them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:12, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• Uanfala is a problematic editor who sometimes does good things. - Sitush (talk) 18:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Sitush, attacking Uanfala over something as petty as this does nothing except reflect negatively on yourself. Unafala has found a source that they feel makes the article suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia, and you feel otherwise. That in no way makes Uanfala a "problematic" editor. On the contrary, not being able to drop the stick you have with Uanfala may be considered problematic by a neutral third party. You would find it much more productive to make your case at WP:AFD, which I find surprising that you haven't done yet. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, Tavix, if you'd not already noticed, I announced a few days ago that I had big connectivity problems and indeed had to stop contributing entirely for a couple of days. I come back and see that Kautilya3 says they can source it, so let them. (They haven't yet.) - Sitush (talk) 18:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Eg: I've just found them gaming the system at Dras and Wagoora. Much more of this and they know what will happen. It is disruptive editing and they are well aware of the sanctions regimes in place for these topic areas. for the avoidance of doubt, I'm going to ignore WP:DTTR and post them again here - I never thought I would have to do this but see little choice. - Sitush (talk) 18:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Sitush, calling Uanfala's edits "gaming the system" may be a bit much. You obviously have a disagreement with them, but it is a lot better to explain why you disagree with them instead of sending out personal attacks and vague threats. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Really? Shows how much clue you have. No personal attacks, plenty of gaming. Other admins have seen it, too, and the "threats" are not vague but rather very specific notifications of something that they really should already know. You're the one not helping here because you are actually over-ruling arbcom. - Sitush (talk) 19:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

You're still not listening to me. Kindly explain why you feel Uanfala's edits are "gaming the system". Saying that it is doesn't make it so. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

No, I am listening to you. You are just not listening to me: you asked me to explain to Uanfala. It has already been done at Talk:Dras, an article to which I link above. - Sitush (talk) 19:07, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• Well, this appears to have been resolved now, so I hope I'll be forgiven if I "picked a nit" a bit off-topic? I'm not sure I see the contradiction between the DS alerts and WP:DTTR ("Don't template the regulars"). I'm not familiar with how the system is supposed to work, but my impression so far has been that that the DS templates are almost exclusively used by the regulars to template each other. Whenever I've seen a regular template another regular with that template, the templated regular would then immediately template the templater in return. I hope I'm not violating templating etiquette by not templating back? – Uanfala (talk) 01:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, DS alerts are alerts rather than warnings. So, I don't think DTTR applies to them.

Coming back to the issue(s),

• I can see plenty of sources for Chib Rajputs, but there is not enough detail in any of them. Page 47 of this magazine article is the best I can come up with.
• On the matter of INDICSCRIPTS, I think there have always been diverging views about their merits and demerits. So, some understanding from both the sides would be useful. Uanfala is right that the policy or whatever we call it only dealt with lead sections and infoboxes. So, putting them outside these sections is not prohibited. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:29, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I know there is nothing of significance concerning Chib from where I am and there never has been. I was happy to wait for you, Kautilya3, because you don't run around trying to game things but Uanfala just wastes an awful lot of time with their actions, of which the Chib and Thathal articles are two recent examples. It is bloody annoying and unnecessaru because they do not actually come up with sources, just theories.

I agree that the scripts thing doesn't extend to the body but gaming is POINT-y and anyone with half a brain knows that is what Uanfala is doing, It will likely end badly because there are as many as three sanctions regimes covering such behaviour and, well, historically the Wikipedia community seems not to have liked contrarians who engage in such behaviour. Especially ones who infer vague racist motives etc, as Uanfala did at Talk:Dras. - Sitush (talk) 08:47, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

infer vague racist motives?? Where did you see that? – Uanfala (talk) 13:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

About the article Vasantrao Ghatge

Hello, Uanfala, Have you approved my article? Is it public now?

Poojak92 (talk) 11:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it is public now. However, given the previous discussions, it's likely someone might nominate it for deletion soon. Also, the article doesn't yet show up on a google search: there's usually a waiting period (of a few months, I think?) for new articles. – Uanfala (talk) 14:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Uanfala ! Yes, it does not show up on google search due to lack of search engine optimization activities. Once again, thank you very much. I hope it remains in the space.

Poojak92 (talk) 11:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions and community caste sanctions alerts

The Wikipedia community has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor who is active on any page about social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties, related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or a topic ban. The discussion leading to the imposition of these sanctions can be read here. Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups.

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sitush (talk • contribs)

Merger discussion for Bayesian

An article that you have been involved in editing—Bayesian—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

duplicate discussion

• Your reverted edits have created a duplicate discussion, one for Northern Indic as a redirect page (which is now defunct) and another one for Northern Indic as a disambiguation page (which is still ongoing). Please view: "talk:Northern Indic" and "Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 February 25#Northern Indic." Nicole Sharp (talk) 19:07, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Well, RfD is the place to discuss what to do with a redirect. There's no point moving the discussion somewhere else the moment someone says something other than "delete" or "keep". The whole point of RfD is to invite further opinions and to reach a decision after a week has elapsed. What you did was remove that discussion and copy it to a talk page where no-one will come to participate; this is tantamount to closing it yourself (that's why I linked to WP:INVOLVED). – Uanfala (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I would agree, except any discussion on whether to keep or delete the redirect page is irrelevant, because the redirect page no longer exists (it is now a disambiguation page). That is why I archived the discussion to the talkpage instead, so that a new discussion can begin on whether to keep or delete the disambiguation page (which is very different in nature from the discussion to keep or delete a redirect page). As @Elmidae: pointed out, keeping the article as a "hybrid" redirect/disambiguation page is very confusing (especially since the new disambiguation page has already been indexed in Wikidata under the multiple senses). As the original creator of the redirect page, I agree with you that there are multiple uses of this term, which is why I upgraded the page to a disambiguation page instead to encompass the multiple senses. Since the redirect page no longer exists, if you feel that the disambiguation page should be deleted, then that discussion would not be appropriate on the "redirects for discussion" page (since it is not a redirect that is being discussed, but rather a disambiguation). I don't know if there is a "disambiguations for discussion" page, which is why I just moved it to the talkpage instead. Either way, having two identical active discussions on two separate pages is bad, since anyone can edit at any time to either discussion, which can create confusion. The discussion should ideally only take place on one page, with any other pages relevant to the discussion having redirects to the current active page for the discussion. Nicole Sharp (talk) 23:31, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
    • You're free to remove the duplicate discussion that you've created. I appreciate your general observations, but that's not how deletion discussions work. There are good reasons for that (I've already hinted at some), but if you would like to change the existing workflows, feel free to make a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion. – Uanfala (talk) 23:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Moscow Paveletskaya railway station

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Moscow Paveletskaya railway station. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Pahari link at Bratla - intentional link to dab page

Although I am happy that you have disambiguated the Pahari link at Bratla, your comment on the edit, piping via a ..(disambiguation) redirect is only for *intentional* links to dab pages (see WP:INTDAB) suggests that our understanding WP:INTDAB differs. I was intending to link to the dab page, so followed the INTDAB guideline Correct: There are many places named [[Springfield (disambiguation)|Springfield]] and I did this hoping that one day somebody would know the actual language spoken there. And happily you did! Batternut (talk) 14:41, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Intentional dablinks are links where the dab page is the intended target. This is most commonly used for linking from within hatnotes and such, or when the ambiguity of the linked term is in focus. At Bratla on the other hand, the link ought to go to one or another article, but it was simply not known which one is the correct one; the dablink is simply a contingency, a temporary state of affairs until the intended target is discovered, and so is not "intentional" in the sense of INTDAB. If you want to flag up such a link, you can use {{dn}}. This could potentially attract the attention of a well-informed passer-by who will be able to fix it, but it will also end up on WP:DPL's reports list (as will any other link to a dab page that is not piped via the redirect ending in "(disambiguation)"). These reports are well monitored (people just love fixing links to dab pages), so someone or other will attempt to fix it. It is extremely unlikely that they will have subject knowledge. – Uanfala (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I see your point. I also get the feeling that, currently, you are hesitant to attract the attention of the disambiguation fixing team; in which case perhaps using the ... (disambiguation) redirect might have a use? Batternut (talk) 23:33, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I prefer using the .. (name) one, mostly because some editors object to using .. (disambiguation) redirects for things that are not strictly speaking disambiguation pages. The attention of the dabfixing team will not be attracted as long as the page is not a disambiguation page (i.e. it doesn't have the {{dab}} template and it isn't placed in a disambiguation category). – Uanfala (talk) 23:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Your edit on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Ankz8.com

Can you explain why the edit on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Ankz8.com is necessary? It looks so random. Why not remove the whole part, instead of leaving it in parts?--Auric talk 12:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, half the edit was good, half the edit was bad. I fixed it. Primefac (talk) 12:54, 2 March 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Thanks, Primefac. Apologies, Auric, if my edit left the html comment apparently in the wrong place. However, the code at the end is not random at all: it provides the bottom end of the box that surrounds the closed discussion. Its removal doesn't seem to make a visible difference on the individual discussion page, but when this page is transcluded onto WP:MFD, then the box extends all the way down to the end, collapsing out of view all previous transcluded discussions. – Uanfala (talk)

Thanks for sorting that out. --Auric talk 19:10, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I am enjoying your user page

Reading User:Pages is something that I do when I feel that I need a break from editing wikipedia. My therapist does not feel that this is a good strategy but I can’t help myself. Two things that I found to be particularly meaningful were, “editing by users who aren't always aware of the limitations of their competence.” and we’ll maybe get to the other later. Maybe not. Some time ago I discovered a study that graphed how much people know about a subject and correspondingly, how much they thought they knew about it and it totally supported the old adage, “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.” Unfortunately the wikipedia article Dunning–Kruger effect does not include the graph, but you might like to work this link into the discussion on your user page. There is an interesting (?) discussion of the graphs here https://graphpaperdiaries.com/2017/08/20/the-real-dunning-kruger-graph/ however I suggest that you use the graph that is not really what the study says because . … it is more humorous. Also this is somewhat synchronistic because the study was conducted about grammar, what got me here. My Point 2 will have to wait, I have used up more than enough of your space & time. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 18:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah, my user page. You've probably figured out that I mostly edit there to vent the occasional, and inevitable, frustrations. But that bit was indeed in reference to the Dunning-Kruger effect. There appears to be quite a body of literature on the topic, so it's probably way more complex and nuanced than I perceive it to be – I've only read the original paper, but there the authors make an observation that I think is very relevant for wikipedia. People don't overestimate their ability in areas in which it's pretty obvious they don't have any skills: like drawing or quantum physics. The overestimation happens in areas where general schooling and previous social experience have given people some sort of background. That's why the areas tested in the study were – if I remember correctly – humour, English usage and logical thinking. So, the Dunning-Kruger effect, if such a thing exists, should be observable on wikipedia for the more accessible topics, like current affairs, history or languages. – Uanfala (talk) 18:17, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	A solution as elegant as it can be:) ~ Winged BladesGodric 09:03, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure none of the participants in that discussion would see it that way. But really, to a random passer by like me, it does look like a small number of editing disagreements spawn an enormous amount of litigation at AE. – Uanfala (talk) 01:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Trouted 2

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: YOUR REASON HERE Kizznyc (talk) 02:20, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I did provide referees I just hyperlinked in the words itself. I'm familiar with referencing and citation but it's a pain.

Unfortunately you've ruined everything about Dakhini. Waste of my life. I can see my culture is long dead and people like you want to bury it.

This is India and Dakhini and it's kings and works were destroyed by Mughals.

Some of what I wrote is passed down for generations. I got the info from my grandparents and elders. How am I to reference it?

As for legend section I had referenced it in very first paragraph of Wikipedia page.

All is just dust and gold.

And please you've also made an error. It's not a dialect of urdu. Later on it's clearly written it's a language I'm itself. Also why would the film industry not use urdu an instead put dakhini as the language?

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/Dollywood-films-get-Dakhini-stamp/articleshow/53715692.cms

You have to understand dakhini was a very evolved culture and language and entire India has taken its roots from it. What happens then is that Dakhini suffers. I cannot reference folk word of mouth.

You give me a solution. After what happened with the nizam due to bias of being Muslim same as Pakistan, the operation polo, a holocaust by Hitler like sardar Patel how can sources last under vicious government? They had to purge them because of they didn't they be held accountable for their sins. So they justified their sins on false basis. A good example is division of Andhra and telangana.

Also I'd like to know how to change wiki page name. There is one called Hyderabadi urdu it's just Hyderabadi or Hyderabadi dakhini.

DAKHINI CANNOT BE A DIALECT OF URDU IT IS OTHER WAY AROUND.

You have ruined hours of work i did.

I agree with what you did with legend but not the rest. Also move the all is dust an gold link under legend.

To be honest I felt legacy should have just been this link

https://devkipande.wordpress.com/tag/dakhini/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kizznyc (talk • contribs) 02:20, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Kizznyc, your work is still visible in the article's history. The last revision of the page that contained the entirety of the content you've contributed is over there.

As for the title of the article, changing it is likely to be controversial, so I suggest starting a formal discussion, see WP:RM#CM for how to do it. It might be a good idea to have a look at the naming conventions for languages beforehand.

Now about the more fundamental points. Wikipedia is really not the place for communicating first-hand knowledge. Wikipedia's articles should summarise the information available in the most reliable published sources. The two policies of verifiability and no original research are absolutely fundamental to the project. Your personal knowledge is of course quite important: for example, it can help you in judging the reliability of different sources. But it can't be used as a source in itself.

As for https://devkipande.wordpress.com/tag/dakhini, it can't be used here, at the very least because blogs aren't reliable sources. Furthermore, this blog post contains a poetic, fictionalised account of the history of the language, and such literary texts – though of course very welcome elsewhere in the world – has no place in an encyclopedia.

I would recommend having a look at WP:FRINGE as well. – Uanfala (talk) 03:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Trouted 3

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: YOUR REASON HERE Kizznyc (talk) 06:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I am unable to revert changes back to how I had it. If i can do that I can make the necessary edits.

As for what you call a blog. At the end of the article there is a link stating that it's sourced from a magazine.

Apart from this, I cannot go through pain on retyping or copy pasting everything again. I'll provide the necessary citations.

Could you revert the changes so I may provide.

Also you need to make some changes in accordance to the film industry link provided.

From that, we can infer Dakhini is not a dialect, otherwise it would have been stated so in the title. So Hyderabadi Urdu page title changing procedure is complicated?

Anyhow if you would kindly revert back to my version(I am not getting that option) and give me a day so I can add the references but don't expect references for facts which I source from Wikipedia itself.

Also I had linked a word 'form' with a website that shows Dakhini dialect but you've removed that.

I cannot go through the process of copy pasting as I don't have computer this is condition of India going to paid cyber cafe to edit is thus hard if people like you revert it my money goes waste.

Using a phone I'm messaging you requesting you revert back to my edit so I can make the necessary changes and provide references.

The last revision of the page that has all your contributions is over there. It can also be found in the article's history. For help in navigating the history of an article, see Help:Page history.

For help in editing from a mobile device, you might try following some of the links on Help:Mobile access. I don't know how useful they will be. – Uanfala (talk) 00:52, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Trouted 4

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: YOUR REASON HERE Kizznyc (talk) 07:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to trout again I don't know how else to talk!

So I believe this video below sums it up.

Since you have undid my hard sweaty work I can expect you to watch it atleast.

https://vimeo.com/204308959

And please tell me that I can reference this. Also can you guide me on what is acceptable to cite and what isn't since you might do this edits on me again. And sadly, after Operation Polo nearly nothing has remained of this culture.

People didn't want it. It reminds them of the pain. The holocaust on Hyderabad State.

They would much rather hide behind a foreign Urdu than embrace Dakhini. I urge you not to disgrace it as Urdu. It's very clear that Urdu came from Dakhini Wikipedia itself says so the same page scroll down.

Do you see a blue [edit] link to the right of the section heading? Clicking on it will enable you to post a comment without having to trout. If there isn't one, you can click here to reply in this thread.

For guidance on what sources are considered reliable, see WP:RS. For matters of language history, documentary films are not reliable sources. – Uanfala (talk) 00:58, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Trouted 5

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: YOUR REASON HERE Kizznyc (talk) 08:12, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

http://knowtheculture.com/language-telangana-used-speak-write/

So I speak 13 languages. Of which three are mother tongues. Generally most are able to speak atleast the three.

See the link. In the same Paragraph it says dialect Urdu and then it says Dakhini language.

Dakhini is the language of the old Hindustan and from it all the modern languages are birthed. It's like having Dakhini parents whose offsprings set out to see the world and settle as Americans, Europeans and so on. Like how Americans are made up of. But the diversity it's all indegenous. Americans are the opposite.

I urge you to revert the changes, as I'm unable to. It's hard to find proper Dakhini sources. There is always Urdu, Hindi and many other languages that show up. What am I to do?

A good public library will be a good place to look for sources. If searching online, you could start with google scholar. – Uanfala (talk) 01:04, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Your view?

Hi, sorry to trouble you. Did you see the request for your view at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Swedish language/archive2? Your suggestions would be much appreciated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:04, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Will have a look, hopefully by tomorrow. – Uanfala (talk) 20:53, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Dakhini

Hi there. So your last edit removed a fact that most consider Dakhini as a slang of Urdu.

This misconception exists.

Please revert back perhaps after some research if necessary Kizznyc (talk) 11:09, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

http://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/hyderabad/2017/apr/11/gifting-back-the-city-its-dakhini-1592193--1.html

As you might know recently hyderabad/Telengana passed bill for official status of Urdu as state language alongside Telugu.

Thus the misconception is clear Kizznyc (talk) 11:10, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

The Morris of Wikipedia like you mention. Thus isn't Wikipedia a valid source for reference? It might be out of the box but surely it does apply? Kizznyc (talk) 11:12, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello. So I've been on a fact finding mission. In any case I see repition if exact same sentences can you please sort as I don't have a computer access Kizznyc (talk) 15:34, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Restoring unsourced content

Hello Uanfala. Please revert your recent edit to the Shaheed Benazirabad District article [1], as you are restoring unsourced material. If you believe that the information is accurate you are welcome to provide relevant sources at your convenience. You are welcome to contact me should you have any further questions. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

There's a bit of rubbish on that page and I'm more than happy for you to remove it, but you've also removed as "unsourced" huge chunks of text that are not unsourced: the sentence on the administrative history is sourced to the census report, while the section on archaeology is based to Cusin's book. A lot of the removed text indeed doesn't cite sources, but most of it looks harmless enough and easily sourceable. Some if it doesn't really need to be sourced at all: like the statement about the place being located on the left bank of the Indus.

If there's content that you have any particular grounds to believe to be dubious, feel free to remove it (if it really is dubious) or to place a {{cn}} tag after it. Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 21:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Your revert

I have no objection with your revert but just would like to inform you that I was under impression that this edit was made a sock farm using different IP addresses who mainly target articles related to Punjab for their political propaganda please see their previous attempt. Thank you GSS (talk|c|em) 04:10, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

That's the same as Zeshan Mahmood, right? – Uanfala (talk) 06:55, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Not sure about the above but it sound like someone from Peeta Singh group. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:18, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Unlinking

Hi Uanfala... I re-reverted your reverts. While WP:DDD isn't a guideline, it's a fairly good rule of thumb. Is there a specific guideline/policy I'm not aware of? As per WP:REDLINK, having a redlink is fine in an article, at which point it wouldn't point to the dab, but to the uncreated article, which I think where your comment about notability would come in handy. Am I missing something? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:14, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

It's this, right? There isn't enough in the context to identify the bank and it's not safe to assume it's not among the ones listed in the dab page simply because none of them are headquartered in the subject's country: banks can have branches in several countries and people can move to work in countries other than their own. True, a dablink isn't very helpful here (but neither does it do harm), but unlinking is simply sweeping the problem under the carpet. I'd leave things as they are: a {{dn}}-tagged dablink is likely to attract the attention of editors with the time and willingness to investigate further. – Uanfala (talk) 12:28, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

It's not just that one, I think there was one other you reverted for the same reason. Regarding this one, if you look at the articles of the banks on the dab page, none have branches in Nigeria, and it is unclear if he ever worked outside his country. When I initially unlinked, I thought that the one in Zimbabwe might be the one, but it only has branches in Zimbabwe. Found the other link, this one. Which when I did that, clearly nothing on the dab page could possibly be related. I see that you've add Durga as an alternate name on the dab page now, why not simply link to Durga, rather than point to the dab page where the only possibility is this new link you've added? Thanks. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:55, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

These aren't safe assumptions: the fact that the wikipedia articles don't mention branches in Nigeria doesn't meant there aren't (or haven't been) any, and if it's unclear whether the person has lived abroad it doesn't follow that it's clear he hasn't. In any case, unlinking would be the best action only if we have found out which bank it is and we reckon it's not notable. As for the second example, it again has to do with not jumping to conclusions. Shyamala is a pretty common Sanskrit epithet that could have been applied to various mythological characters, and there aren't grounds for assuming that the intended referent is the one that happens to be currently listed on the dab page. – Uanfala (talk) 13:15, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

That's what I thought, but wasn't sure. Thanks. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

re:Jatki

Hi Uanfala. This is only to be understood in that "Saraiki" is a recent term, so the modern reader wishing to be referred to historical lexicons or publications in the language will have to be dealing with several different named dialects, none of which are synonymous but whose speakers now use a common name. Gherkinmad (talk) 21:39, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes.... but I'm not sure how that relates to the layout of Jatki, which is what I reckon prompted your message. – Uanfala (talk) 08:55, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Trouted

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Stop revert editing; as you did on Ergative–absolutive language. This is an older paragraph that was vandalized and taken down. Please do not remove content from Wikipedia. Wasylkowski (talk) 14:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

It's this, right? First of all, this was unsourced, and it's a fundamental principle of wikipedia that content should be based on sources, see WP:V. But then, for statements that certain languages are "bizarrely objective" or "based on intuition and perception", the source would need to be a really good one, see WP:RS. – Uanfala (talk) 14:27, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Defunct writing systems

I had already started a cfr on "Writing systems Defuncted" to "Obsolete writing systems". That user seems very problematic at this point. We should consolidate discussion on the cfd page. Thanks. —DIYeditor (talk) 15:49, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I've missed that bit in the category's history: Debresser had replaced the notice with a request for speedy renaming, which is what I saw. Anyway, thanks for the heads up. – Uanfala (talk) 23:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Check It

Hello Uanfala! I have created a draft-article name Draft:Sajikot Waterfall. I had submitted it for review.Please check it. If there is any mistake, correct it or inform me.Thanks--PakEditor (talk) 15:02, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for creating it, I've moved it to the article namespace. This is a good little stub, the only thing I could say is that you might want to avoid the kind of language common in tourist brochures that doesn't sound encyclopedic. – Uanfala (talk) 10:21, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Trouted

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: YOUR REASON HERE RichardBond (talk) 01:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Swat Konstantin is the upper valley and has a distinct identity, due to Geographic, historic, ethnic and linguistic difference. It has a self government movement and the province as a whole has recognized this and has accepted probable eventual local self government.RichardBond (talk) 01:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah, yes, thank you! – Uanfala (talk) 09:55, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Could you ...

.. take a look at this editor. --regentspark (comment) 19:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Their edits from 2013 show a typical Saraiki ethnonationalist POV (the edits appear to have all bee reverted long ago). Their recent activities don't raise any flags so far: this addition to Languages of Pakistan is mostly a copy of the lede of Saraiki language. This is annoying but they're certainly not the first here: almost the whole of that article is clobbered together from material copied from the individual language articles.

But yeah, I'd appreciate it if you keep me posted of anything suspicious you come across: in this area, content with strong ethnonationalist POV tends to crop up in unexpected places. – Uanfala (talk) 20:27, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Sure. It wasn't clear to me whether or not their edits were kosher. Let me know if they veer into "take action" territory.--regentspark (comment) 20:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Template:Iranian languages

This one is just another WP:NOTHERE. Look at the other edit by him.[2] Just made two edits and both of them are similar to Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Tirgil34. --Wario-Man (talk) 19:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't acquainted with the regular socks operating in this area. And yeah, an editor who starts off like that is unlikely to end up well. – Uanfala (talk) 19:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

It's an old story on English WP. Started since 2006 and has become a non-stop abuse case since 2012. If you edit language and history related articles/templates, you may see more stuff like that in the future. Regards. --Wario-Man (talk) 19:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Dorset (disambiguation)

Thanks for fixing my error on Dorset (disambiguation). I should have noticed the red link when I added Dorset Council (disambiguation) Leschnei (talk) 22:40, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I think I'll go read a book - it's clearly not my day for Wikipedia. Leschnei (talk) 22:40, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, come on, everybody makes mistakes (I've already lost count of how many of my edit have had "ooops" as an edit summary). And these two errors are minor: redlinked {{R to dab}} redirects easily get spotted and corrected, and a duplicate entry on a dab page hurts no-one. – Uanfala (talk) 22:53, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Ceira) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Ceira, Uanfala!

Wikipedia editor Power~enwiki just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

This appears to also be a given name (i.e. [3]); while no persons of this name have Wikipedia entries, is it worth noting this?

To reply, leave a comment on Power~enwiki's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I generally don't mind adding dab entries for topics on which we have no content anywhere ("X is a town in Y district" is a perfectly informative dab entry even in the absence of any links – though some/most of the people who edit dab pages disagree), but I wouldn't go as far as to do that for something of such borderline encyclopedicity as personal names. Ceira looks like it may be one of the many spelling variants of Ciara, Keira, Kiera (and probably more, why do we even have so many articles about the same topic?), but I wouldn't make such a statement within article text (because OR). But some of these spellings are similar enough to "Ceira" to warrant uncontroversial inclusion in that dab's "see also": but I'll leave that to other people: my head's already hurting from all these Celtic spellings. – Uanfala (talk) 22:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree that Celtic spellings make my head hurt. I've added Ciara (given name) to the "See also" and am going to call it good. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:49, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

June 2018

Your recent editing history at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Bbb23 (talk) 14:24, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Bbb23, thanks for the nice reminder, but see User talk:JzG#Consensus and the status quo ante, I really thought I had referred to that in my edit summary. – Uanfala (talk) 14:34, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Too many people reverting you for you to insist. It's particularly problematic because it's a policy page. It never pays to get too invested in whether you're right or not once you're challenged. In any event, hopefully it will be resolved soon enough. Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:42, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

And along the same vein as your edit warring to policy you seem to be making up policy on the fly. Where the heck did you get the idea no one can remove a "promising draft" template after investigating and debunking the tag? [4] Don't start going around reverting me on draft after draft. FYI User:Bbb23 Legacypac (talk) 16:28, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I thought you were aware of that: one of the results of the last RfC was: Editors should not remove this tag unless they placed it themselves or the page creator placed it.. And sorry, but reverting a single edit of yours is not following you around on draft after draft. – Uanfala (talk) 17:50, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I just came here to post the same edit warring notice. Consider yourself warned by one more editor. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Anyone else want to post a warning here? – Uanfala (talk) 17:50, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I did not say you were following me around I said "don't start." If the result of the last RFC included any suggestion that a "promising draft" can not be removed by an editor who has investigated the tag and found it incorrectly or inappropriately placed that needs to be overturned immediately. Legacypac (talk) 18:12, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to put forward a formal proposal to that effect. – Uanfala (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Draft:Ruytchi Souzouki

Hello Uanfala. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Draft:Ruytchi Souzouki, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: G13 does not apply as not enough time has elapsed. Thank you. Alexf^(talk) 21:02, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 21:03, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Cyrillization of Japanese

Thanks for restoring this page. It is only a stub; I made it because the existing article only described the Polivanov system, and someone objected to having this title on such a page. But it seemed wrong that the link in the template for (various) cyrillisations should go to "Polivanov system". I don't really know much about this subject (I am just a Russian beginner), but I will try to help. Imaginatorium (talk) 15:04, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, thank you for creating it in the first place. If it were entirely up to me, the two pages would be merged, with the Polivanov system becoming a section in the more general article. But I know absolutely nothing about the topic, so I'm going to stay out of it. – Uanfala (talk) 20:50, 26 June 2018 (UTC)