It is very important that you read the procedures that have to be taken in order to move an article.
I already fixed the movement of Governorate of the Río de la Plata, which you only copied and pasted the hole article into a new one instead of moving it.
There are a lot of reasons not to do that, mainly the impossibility of following the article's history.
If the article you need to move to already exists, contact an Administrator to delete it. (You can contact me).
Thanks, but Wikipedia:Move says there should be a "Move" tab on the page, and while there are no images to direct attention to the proper part of the page, I'm pretty sure that regardless there just isn't one on my browser yet. Maybe it'll show up later. -LlywelynII (talk) 03:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A consensus hasn't been reached on the matter; I suggest you start a discussion in the relevant talk page and await the decision pending on your requested move. You cannot achieve things in Wikipedia by bullying or edit-warring. BTW, maté and yerba-maté refer to the plant, while mate is an article strictly about the beverage. Rsazevedomsg10:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only one bullying and edit-warring here is you. Maté refers to the drink as well in English, which is not pronounced the same as in Spanish. Please see all the English-language sources at Talk:Yerba maté. -LlywelynII (talk) 10:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge proposal
Please see WT:Only_make_links_that_are_relevant_to_the_context#Break 1 for the current discussion. I'm letting everyone know who has a comment on the relevant talk pages. Obviously, we're not going to push anything through without a full discussion of every issue, including whether to merge at all. My sense is that there's wide agreement on all the big points, but the devil is in the details. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cannon class destroyer escort
I noticed your work on this article. Those transfers need to be cited, and the proper way to present ship names is to italicize them ({{USS}} helps out with that). -MBK00404:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I appreciate your commitment to Wiki-wide regularity, I was just quickly correcting for in-article regularity. The transfers are already documented on Wiki, and none of the other transfers are documented on that page; so that request seems rather specious. Further discussion at your talk page. -LlywelynII (talk) 04:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2009
2009
Nubian Kings
Hello LlywelynII, on the German wiki you asked for updating the English list of Makurian rulers. However, the German list contains all Nubian rulers. The English list is just the list of the kings of Makuria, so I am not sure whether this makes sense. best wishes -- Udimu (talk) 13:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cathedrals
I read your edit summary that said that it was "important to note early that in English the term is often aapplied to a large church." and the removal of my word "mistakenly", replacing it with "by analogy".
I find this problematic, particularly in the article that is not about architecture but about function. When a large church is referred to as a cathedral, it is almost always done erroneously, and it doesn't really happen all that often.
Within England a big church is not often mistakenly called a cathedral by anyone who knows anything about churches, because of all the thousands of parish churches in England there are few that could possibly be mistaken for cathedrals. It is a characteristic of English ecclesiastical architecture that the cathedrals tend to be enormous and that parish churches are very much smaller and simpler, so that the one could hardly be mistaken for the other, unless through ignorance. The only exceptions to this are the remaining handful of intact but non-cathedral abbey churches, of which one, Westminster Abbey, served for a time as a cathedral.
The error occurs primarily with English speakers referring to buildings in Europe that are well-known and are mistakenly thought of as cathedrals, in particular St Mark's Venice (often mistakenly called St Mark's Cathedral) and St Peter's Basilica, which people (not surprisingly) presume is the pope's cathedral. In the case of St Mark's, the tourist might well ask "Well, if it isn't the cathedral, where is the cathedral of Venice, then?" It is characteristic of Italy that the major pilgrimages/tourist churches are not cathedrals. It is not simply the size that fools English speaking tourists into thinking these churches are cathedrals. It is also their apparent status.
One of the few examples that I can think of where there is clearly an analogous (rather than an erroneous) calling of a church a cathedral is at Tideswell where the church is proudly called "the Cathedral of the Peak" and has been given the name not in error but deliberately on account of the beauty of its architecture. This sort of use of the term is uncommon, which is why Tideswell comes immediately to mind.
That's a lot of words to get around the point that you're ignoring the other meaning listed directly below that. I get your point, but it's a disservice to other readers to impose it on them at the expense of their understanding of how the language is actually used. -LlywelynII (talk) 12:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about bias. In the article about architecture, your edit remains. Whatismore, as the writer of that article, I am perfectly well aware that there is little to distinguish some very large churches from cathedrals. For that reason a number of those "cathedral type" buildings are included in the article, with an explanation to that effect. Their exact function is not particularly important within that context.
However, in the article which is most specifically about the function of a cathedral, it is hardly appropriate to inform the public that an erroneous use of the word is an equally valid use, regardless of how frequently that error may be made by people that don't understand the difference. This is an encyclopedia. Amandajm (talk) 13:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't an erroneous use. It's passed into common, accepted usage. Furthermore, even if it were erroneous, note should be taken of it. Honestly, I'm not involved enough to fight about it all night. I've brought your POV to your attention; you don't acknowledge it; meh. -LlywelynII (talk) 13:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't imagine why you are being so rude, accusing me of POV-pushing. The erroneous calling of a large church a "cathedral" is dealt with, a little further down the introduction, or haven't you read that far?
In common speech people often call a locomotive a "steam train". Any railway buff will immediately correct them and say that the thing at the front is a locomotive, and the "train" is what it pulls. The uninformed will continue to call it a "train".
I am quite interested to know what churches, other than those I have cited, are commonly referred to as "cathedral". You tell me that it's in common parlance. But I am left wondering where. A few interesting specific instances, like Ulm Minster have been discussed. - Amandajm (talk) 13:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where did this nonsense about the "primary reference" being "a large grand church" (or some such) come from? The primary reference in everything I have checked out, including Websters, which you have cited, gives its correct meaning first.
The correct meaning of the word has never been replaced, and has never ceased to be the meaning that is in most prevalent use. People who concern themselves with churches and cathedrals every day of the week probably account for far more usages of the word, than the average English speaker, who uses the word very occasionally, and then wrongly. I might use the word in spoken or written English fifty times a week, correctly. How often do you use it?
You have made it clear, on my page, that this is really about your POV. You are somehow (inexplicably, to me) offended by the Catholic (and C of E apparently) use of the term in an episcopal sense and would prefer to see it (is bowderlised the right word here?) watered down in some way to a very general meaning. Why?
Why don't you go to the disambig page and leave an additional meaning of "large grand church". Not as the primary meaning, because that would not be appropriate in light of what the dictionaries say.
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of James E.B. Austin, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/AA/fau8.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 04:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate your thoughts on something I think you have had some involvement in. There seems to be some confusion about the translations that define the distinction between Captain General of the Church and Gonfalonier of the Church. There are a number of referenced sources (usually translations of original Italian to English) that seem to describe both posts as Commander of the Papal Army. On this basis I tried to fill in some gaps at Gonfalonier of the Church which could be obviously filled using the varying translations (there are corresponding gaps in the list into which variously described Commanders fit).
I noticed, though, that Taddeo Barberini is already listed as a Captain General of the Church. Most evidence suggests his appointment was purely nepotistic (thanks to his uncle) and that there was little consideration of military leadership talent. His only real ‘military’ endeavour was the Wars of Castro and the use of the term ‘Wars’ is generous – more accurately neighbourhood spats between families. Given that his role was almost certainly ceremonial, and given the seeming uncertainty over the English translation, is it not more likely he held the ceremonial role rather than the military one? Are you aware of anyone being appointed to both?
I'm not sure others would think it particularly important but I think it would be nice to have as close to a complete list of each as possible.
Hi there! Just wanted to let you know that if you are experiencing problems with the stress marks in the Russian words, it means a problem with the fonts support on your side. I have restored the marks where they belong—per previous consensus, they should only be removed where an IPA transcription is present. In other cases, where the stress marks are introduced properly, they do not create problems in compliant browsers. Hope this helps. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 27, 2010; 14:02 (UTC)
[Reply on Ezhiki's talk page.]
Hi, Llewelyn. I did not provide a link because I honestly don't recall where the discussion took place—last time total removal of the stress marks was seriously considered was, if I am not mistaken, in 2006, if not before that. You are probably going to be better off starting a new thread; just remember that browser support for stress marks in 2006 was much more abysmal than it it now, and the consensus was still to retain them (it was worded something to the effect of "technology will catch up with proper support, as long as we use proper standards to implement the stress mark"). The Russian stress mark is Unicode symbol 769.
What's more, the problems you are experiencing are problems on your side, not on Wikipedia's side. I can't tell whether you have a browser problem, or a font problem, or something else entirely, but for majority of readers these stress marks display correctly. For example, out of six different computing platforms I myself am using, only IE on my smartphone has trouble with rendering the stress marks (and it just shows a blank square instead; nothing like the problem you are describing). All in all, I'd recommend you check for bugs on your side first; perhaps post a message at WP:VPT to see if this problem came up before. As for the way Wikipedia chose to display those stress marks, I am pretty confident there is nothing wrong with it. I am not well-versed in how Unicode works myself, but I've seen quite a few outside opinions, often in relation to bug reports similar to yours. Once again, you'd be better off seeking an expert opinion. In this case, I am merely a keeper of the previous consensus :) Hope this helps. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 27, 2010; 17:49 (UTC)
P.S. I'm also not sure what you mean by "Russian browser". The computer I am currently using is issued by my US employer and it is overall pretty horrible at supporting Cyrillic, yet even in IE6 I can see the stress marks just fine.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 27, 2010; 17:56 (UTC)
[Again.]
I get your point, too, but one can make an equal argument than a non-negligible population of English language users exists who are unable to see Russian at all, stress marks or no stress marks. Same can be said about any other language utilizing a non-Latin script. Heck, on the computer I am currently on I can't read Dravidian scripts, such as Tamil, and loading the Tamil Wikipedia crashes my browser. Yet it doesn't mean we should rid en_wiki of Tamil spellings or close the Tamil Wikipedia altogether.
Also, the argument about the stress marks being "non-standard orthography" is simply false. They are rarely used, that much is true, but they are quite standard and are actually supposed to be used in certain cases, such as when one need to distinguish between identically spelled but differently stressed words, or to hint at the correct pronunciation of an obscure word, or in dictionaries and encyclopedias. It it were truly non-standard, then we wouldn't expect Unicode to support it, yet a separate symbol for the stress mark exists. And if by "non-standard" you mean that it is not used in the English reference works, then including Russian in the first place would be non-standard, too. Same goes for pretty much any diacritics other than relatively common acute and grave accent marks. Once you say it's OK for the English Wikipedia to include spellings in languages other than English (which is a de facto situation), you are automatically accepting that the rules governing the spellings in those languages automatically apply, too.
The overall philosophy of Wikipedia is not to make sure everything works on everyone's computer—which is a laudable goal, but, unfortunately, impossible to reach. The best thing we can do is to avail ourselves of the existing standards to implement features. With this approach, if a user has a non-standard browser or lacks support, studying applicable standards would be a starting point to remedy that situation. If you have problems with stress marks displaying correctly, start with the Unicode support for your browser. Ditto for my Tamil problem—I'm sure if a proper font is installed or something, I'd be able to see the text just fine. But ridding the encyclopedia from a useful feature just because some people might have a problem with it is not a solution, and abandoning standards in favor of non-standard solutions (like a plain-text stress mark you proposed) is worse yet. Sure, that'll fix the problem for you, but what about those who rely on us to follow the proper standards?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 28, 2010; 13:54 (UTC)
I'd ask you to please reconsider your rejection of mediation here. Alinor certainly isn't the only editor who is pushing this issue. Please see the archives here: Talk:List_of_sovereign_states/Discussion_of_criteria/Archive_1, and all subsequent pages up to 6, of the extensive discussion we've had on this issue. We've been discussing this for over a year now, and have yet to find a compromise. Mediation is a good way for us to focus our discussion on finding a solution.
As you can see on the current setup of the list, we can't agree on whether "widely recognized" includes states like Palestine and Kosovo or not. Currently they are listed with the widely unrecognized states, so clearly not everyone agrees with your definition of "widely recognized" as "more recognition than a rebel client state". Palestine is recognized by a majority of states and still listed with the widely unrecognized states. This is why we need a more precise definition. I'd ask you to please allow the mediation to go forward so we can discuss these issues in a structured way. Of course, you are welcome to contribute to the process and help us find a compromise! Thanks. TDL (talk) 17:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks for reconsidering! Hopefully we can get this thing going and find a solution.
Also, why does your signature link to another user's talk page? If this is a previous account or something, it's a good idea to put a notice on both user's pages that stats that they are both owned by the same person. Otherwise someone might accuse you of sock puppetry. See WP:SOCK#NOTIFY. TDL (talk) 20:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah OK...no problems. I wasn't trying to accuse you of anything improper, I was just confused when I followed the link in your signature and found a stale account. TDL (talk) 20:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The initial MEDCAB mediator got busy and a second mediator is willing to take the case, but we need to re-state our acceptance/decline. Please see the discussion here and indicate whether you consent to mediation or not. Please, even if you don't expect to participate (because of lack of time or other reason) - state your acceptance/non-acceptance of the mediation process - so that we don't have to wait for unaccounted for users. Thanks. Alinor (talk) 18:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but not recent ones. If you didn't already, I'll edit it out and make a note on the talk page. If you can find any official source, that would be great, although obviously it's an informal practice and the banks use the three-letter codes. — LlywelynII01:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Just to let you know, you have been pushing your Point of View on the Republic of Macedonia page. You have overriden by reverts twice, and keep in mind that any further edits of the sort may constitute a violation of Wikipedia's 3 revert rule which could get you blocked. The changes you are making to the article are incorrect. The "Republic of Macedonia" is not for domestic use, and "FYROM" is most certainly not for "international" use. The term FYROM is a UN provisional designation, and the Republic of Macedonia is not obliged to call itself FYROM. I suggest before making such edits again you read the Interim Accord in its entirety. If you are stil interested in making the change, please discuss it on the article's talk page first. Thanks --Philly boy92 (talk) 14:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See the talk:Republic of Macedonia page. You were reverting so quickly between my edits, they didn't even appear on the conflict page. Plus, of course, you're wrong: 20 years is neither provisional nor temporary and they are obliged to be called that by international organizations. — LlywelynII14:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please both of you keep in mind that edits affecting the "Macedonia" naming issues are subject to an Arbcom-imposed "one revert rule", so please cease reverting. On the merits of the issue, describing "former Yugoslav..." as the state's "official name for international purposes" is in fact wrong, because the state itself doesn't use that term for itself, not even in those international contexts were other parties refer to it in that way. Fut.Perf.☼15:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Other parties referring to it that way = international use. Feel free to rephrase to suit your terminology, but it's an official international designation of long standing. As for the reverts, again, they were unintented, but thanks for the heads up. — LlywelynII16:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I took that from Nagykanizsa which seemed to have the correct names for the other sanjaks. If you have a source that disagrees or Valpovo is the normal form in modern Turkish, there's no need not to correct it. — LlywelynII04:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that should be added by people who have them. In the meantime, WP:DISRUPT applies unless you have a good reason to think it's incorrect. [Naturally, if you do, simply correct it.] — LlywelynII04:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, haven't been able to find it. Sometimes Ottoman Turkish would be transcribed arbitrarily, so it could be Zane or Sane but I don't see anything that looks that way. As for the Kanije Eyalet being under the Crimean Khan, it looks like the map on the Crimean Khan page is simply bad and the Ottomans held a sliver of the coast free and clear (that being the eyalet). That was pieced together from websites as I was looking for Zane, though, so no WP:SOURCE. — LlywelynII15:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Turkish is shorter, Ottoman Turkish is shorter, and Ottoman is shorter. It's like saying "English language" instead of English. Was being light-hearted and sorry if I caused any offense, but it's poor English language to add language after the name of language. — LlywelynII14:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By way of comparison with your 394, "Ottoman Turkish" produces 38000 results. So please do stop using it. [NB. I do know the Ottomans' language employed many Arabic and Persian terms and the effort to increase its native Turkish content was political. That said, it was still a species of (albeit literary) Turkish.] — LlywelynII14:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, there's a template (lang-ota) and a consensus to use templates for lede translations. If you have serious evidence to present about not calling the language of the Ottomans "Turkish," you should present it over there. Then all the uses of the (lang-ota) template will automatically shift. But you shouldn't push POV over the normal English. — LlywelynII14:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You counted also "Ottoman Turkish Army", "Ottoman Turkish authorities", " Ottoman Turkish reform", "Ottoman Turkish art", "Ottoman Turkish music", "Ottoman Turkish architecture" etc.... Takabeg (talk) 14:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment them out and you'll still have vastly more than you get for "Ottoman language" as a phrase unto itself. Using the awkward "Ottoman Turkish language" is a false dichotomy that still shows it's nearly as common as what you're claiming is standard. It just isn't how English language works, except possibly among Russian language expats. — LlywelynII15:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You could also try building your consensus by trying to move Ottoman Turkish language. I'd oppose (if we're not going to call it Ottoman Turkish, we should call it Ottoman; the "language" is simply superfluous for anything except disambiguating the namespace) and the searches seem to be against you, but in the meantime really should still use the template. — LlywelynII15:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
a. What did I move? b. Given the policies and numbers above, it's really you pushing POV. The only thing I can recall doing was including information from another page that wasn't sourced. You edited that, and it's fine. Really not sure what your problem is. — LlywelynII15:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
aaaaa I'm sorry. I confused you with this user :)) But I don't have any POV. Because I only transfer information from sources. You don't edit without showing sources. In this situation, other users can think you edit by your own POV. Regards. Takabeg (talk) 15:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. The point I was making at Talk:Adrianople Eyalet was that the current nomenclature is actually ORneologisms. The Englishcommon name is simply "Province of X" (although in Van's case we'd obviously need to use (Ottoman Empire) to distinguish the page).
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on River Odysses requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. AviationExpert✈ (talk) 18:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you were trying to use the Turkish pages, they're unclear stubs. We really need something (English is better, Turkish is workable) saying that they are different people, who just happen to be very very similarly named, very similarly ranked statesmen at very similar times. — LlywelynII14:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioned the Turkish pages already, but will double check to make sure no one added better, sourced info explaining the difference. [Edit: Nope.] — LlywelynII15:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Belarus 'twas User:FinnishDriver on 17 Jan. Part of their attempts to redesign country articles the way they wanted. European articles are a mess. Anyway, I came here Llywelyn to ask where all these sections are linked from? Can you include that in the hidden notes? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Both usages can be considered pov. Do you know about WP:ERA? As Yellow Emperor started with BC and I see no consensus to change it, I've not reverted you on that. Hopefully just a minor point and thanks for the edits there. Dougweller (talk) 04:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although given wp:englishwp:commonname – and, yknow, the whole issue of what BCE is dating its "Common Era" from – protecting BCE is always the Wrong Version, yeah, I know and abide by wp:era.
Hi LlywelynII, I see that you added the sentence "Shanghai fell to the Taiping Rebellion in 1851 but was recovered by the Qing in February 1853" to Shanghai#History. As far as I know Shanghai never fell to the Taiping, and I couldn't find it in the source you provided, or other sources about the Taiping Rebellion. Are you sure about this? Zanhe (talk) 18:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not and, with respect, if you didn't find it in the source, you weren't looking. The cite included the page number.
Granted, it's an old source and he might have confused/conflated it with the Small Swords esp. given that they apparently proclaimed their affiliation to the Taipings. But if you can find out whether it was The Taipings or Rebels who Affiliated Themselves with the Taiping Cause, feel free to clarify with a cite. The page should certainly mention the Small Swords (it doesn't right now) and whether they held the city (the Chinese city was the city) alone or as Taiping ally/proxy. — LlywelynII00:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Qgis ?
Are you in a map making week / month right now ? I'm not (and quite busy), but I may give you indications for the QGIS cropping issue. Yug(talk)12:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I could just run it through Photoshop before putting it in QGIS. I just figured there had to be some easier way I was just missing somehow. — LlywelynII13:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nationalism and ethnocentrism
Equating Sinocentrism with Chinese nationalism is factually wrong. Chinese nationalism is called Chinese nationalism, and is located at Chinese nationalism. Sinocentrism =/= Chinese nationalism, and refers specifically to Han Chinese ethnocentrism, and is used in that sense in most English sources on the subject. Western sources don't distinguish between "Han chauvinism" and Sinocentrism, and having two articles on the same topic is redundant. Let's continue the discussion on the talk page.--Ross Monroe (talk) 06:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My work at List of township-level divisions of ____ comes entirely from ZH-wiki, which, as you point out, is not 100% correct in this regard. As tedious translating and disambiguating may already be, confirming at XZQH, which has many holes, or local gov't pages is unbelievably time-consuming. If you could (even occasionally) verify the entries, the strength of this partnership will be undeniable. GotRTalk23:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That was fast. If I notice anything, I'll point it out, sure. And thanks for your hard work slugging through over there. — LlywelynII23:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please note WP:NC-ZH for Place names, which closely mirrors ZH-wiki's practise; the current guideline is that township-level divisions are disambiguated by the prefecture-level city (if part of a district) and by the county-level city or county otherwise, never by the province. You are however of course free to ask that this guideline be changed (at WT:NC-ZH), and I have no particular preference for neither the status quo nor a change. GotRTalk01:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean. Names are disambiguated from homonyms regardless of their level. Are you saying that the township-level pages should not mention what province they're in (which is insane)? or that province pages should not list every township (which is sensible, but has nothing to do with my edits as far as I know)? — LlywelynII12:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, the conventions concern only article titles, and currently state that township-level divisions are to be disambiguated at the prefecture- or county-level. GotRTalk15:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, you should bring this up at WT:NC-ZH if you feel the guideline needs to be changed. I feel there are pros and cons to both a simplification of DAB-ing and the current guideline. GotRTalk03:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Inasmuch as no one has changed the links I created to something less helpful, I don't really care and I certainly have no interest in going through and revising previous entries by hand: someone should script up a bot, but I can't. Nonetheless, fine, in the interest of civic discourse, I'll post something and get the hidebound to defend their current policy. Cheers. — LlywelynII04:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is it really that important? The current policy is nonsensical and goes against the standard in any number of other countries, but it's no skin off my nose since it concerns pages maybe a few dozen people will see before the heat death of the universe. I only reply here to make the page banner disappear.
In any case, if you have a question here, you may freely copy the answer to that discussion for other interested participants. — LlywelynII19:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Chinese names in English
Hi LlywelynnII! I took notice of this edit. I am reverting it immediately. Keeping the entire section in the Chinese name article is necessary and vital.
You said "needless editorializing & japan bashing, without adding any information not contained elsewhere in the article"
That is an incorrect summary of the section.
1. There is no information elsewhere in the article that states that names from the Mainland switched to Hanyu Pinyin after normalization, and the information about Chinese names in Western publications is not present elsewhere in the article.
If you try to point to unsourced information elsewhere in the article, that does not count. Information on Wikipedia needs to be sourced.
2. The comparison of Chinese names to Japanese names was made in a reliable source, so it is in our interest to post this comparison in the article about Chinese names.
3. The characterization of the section as "Japanese bashing" is highly inaccurate. The woman's quote represents a "reliable source" interpretation that needs to be included.
The Chinese names in English section is the equivalent of this section in the article about Japanese names.
It's badly written, sourced, POVy, and needless. I'll delete it again later. But thanks for the heads up! =)
More seriously, I'm working on going through the list of common Chinese surnames article — sourcing it with actual comprehensive surveys instead of the partial ones from before, and including data about Taiwan, America, and Canada — so I took a break in the middle of redoing the Chinese name, given name, and surname articles (the surname one is particularly awful). If I deleted a section without having already included better, more sourced, and more comprehensive discussion elsewhere in the article, it may have been a mistake or ahead of schedule. Apologies. — LlywelynII13:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1. How is it "POVy"? How is it "badly written"?
Firstly, remember that opinions do belong in Wikipedia articles. Opinions that do not come from reliable sources aren't included, but opinions that are printed from reliable sources are included. If somebody writes in a book that "it was one of the ironies of the late twentieth century that Japan remained stranded in the formal devices underlining its historical quest for equality with the West, while China set its own terms, in language as in big-power politics", we include that opinion in the article. It is not "POVy" to include an opinion attributed to someone.
One thing is that I strictly stick to what's in the sources, and that's how it should be. WP:V makes it clear that it's a core principle to only include what's sourced. If you want to make the section better written, you should find more sources that discuss the matter in further detail.
2. In any event, the topic of "Chinese names in English" is worthy of having its own section. The way names are used in English should be addressed by the article.
3. If you "delete it again later" I will go to a talk page of the China WikiProject and ask the userbase their thoughts on the matter (that is unless you want it discussed by them right now) - There was a previous discussion you might want to read, where a user believed that the section content was inaccurate, but he had not read it closely enough: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_China/Archive_19#Chinese_names_in_English
First off, you're the one pushing for opinion; I'm the one who was gunning for encyclopedic content.
Second, your second point was partially right: opinions recorded in reliable sources are sometimes perfectly appropriate. Of course, it was also partially wrong: sometimes opinions are needless POV regardless of sourcing. Getting the Godwinning out of the way early, the Mein Kampf's theories on Jews are perfectly appropriate for an article on antisemitism or Hitler, not so appropriate for an article on, say, Jews. I'm sure your intentions are good, but one encyclopedic fact is that Japanese and Chinese names typically have different orderings in English; another is that the Japanese ordering became much more common under the American military occupation following WWII; but claims that this distinction involved some superior Chinese resistence to imperialism is needlessly POVy, even ignoring the way the 19th and early 20th centuries make the point demonstrably false. (Or to be charitable, too contentious and POVy for inclusion on a tangentially related article instead of, e.g., on one specifically interested in name order.)
Potentially there should be a section on Chinese names in English beyond the material already covered in other sections like romanization. But like I said, I haven't looked at that material in a few days and am in the middle of something else. I'll look at it again in a few days, be sure to include any relevantsourced material somewhere, and if you're feeling particularly ownery or unpersuaded by my masterful arguments, when we hit WP:3RR we'll take it up with the community and higher-ups.
And again, absolutely apologies if I blanked any encyclopedic content without having included the other edits maintaining them in other sections. I'll look over it again in a few days. — LlywelynII03:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
About "First off, you're the one pushing for opinion; I'm the one who was gunning for encyclopedic content." - My argument is that I am, in fact, pushing for the inclusion of an encyclopedic, noteworthy, significant opinion, which is "gunning for encyclopedic content" - I argue that trying to delete it is removing an encyclopedic opinion, which is the opposite of "gunning for encyclopedic content" - Hopefully you now understand my point of view.
Now, you say "sometimes opinions are needless POV regardless of sourcing" - That depends on their prevalence, related to the subject at hand. Wikipedia:NPOV#Due_and_undue_weight covers it. Problem is, it's the only opinion we know of related to the subject. We can't say it's undue, because there is no other opinion more prevalent than Terry's! You use Mein Kampf as an example of an opinion which cannot be taken at face value. The problem is that Mein Kampf has been analyzed by many sources, and its views on Jewish people has been demonstrated as false. There are many other sources which have higher quality/more prevalent opinions than Mein Kampf in relation to Jewish people. Therefore taking Mein Kampf at face value would be violating UNDUE. Edith Terry's opinion has not received the analysis, dissection, and negative reception that Hitler's has. And I have not yet found any other analysis/interpretations of the differences between Chinese and Japanese names. It stands alone. It's the only opinion about the comparison of Japanese names to Chinese names that has been recorded in reliable sources that we know of.
" but one encyclopedic fact is that Japanese and Chinese names typically have different orderings in English" - Yes - that comparison is part of the section.
"another is that the Japanese ordering became much more common under the American military occupation following WWII" - Is there a source saying this?
"but claims that this distinction involved some superior Chinese resistence to imperialism is needlessly POVy" - I do not believe that is what Terry is saying. The quote says, exactly "it was one of the ironies of the late twentieth century that Japan remained stranded in the formal devices underlining its historical quest for equality with the West, while China set its own terms, in language as in big-power politics." - While she argued that China had dealt with the west "on its own terms" while Japan didn't, she isn't saying that China has an innate resistance to imperialism that makes it superior.
"even ignoring the way the 19th and early 20th centuries make the point demonstrably false. (Or to be charitable, too contentious and POVy for inclusion on a tangentially related article instead of, e.g., on one specifically interested in name order.)" - How is this the case? In which ways?
I decided to hit Google books and see if I can find any more opinions and facts related to the contrasting of Japanese and Chinese names. (If I can source the bit about prevalence of western order of Japanese names increasing after WWII, that would be a bonus)
Lu, David John. Japan: A Documentary History, Volume 1. M.E. Sharpe, 1997. xv. ISBN1563249073, 9781563249075 - No opinions or new facts, just a note on what order the author chooses
"Except for some contemporaries who put their personal names before their family names (as I do), Chinese and Japanese names are given in the Chinese order, that is, with the family name first. Chinese and Japanese scholars are not consistent in using the various names of Chinese writers. Here the private names of philosophers, rather than their courtesy or literary names, are used, except in the cases of Lu Hsiang-shan and Wang Yang-ming, who are generally known in China, Japan, and the West by their honorific names." - Information added to Chinese_name#Alternative_names, Lu Jiuyuan, and Wang Yangming
Beasley, William G. The Rise of Modern Japan, 3rd Edition (January 2000). Palgrave Macmillan, June 27, 2000. xi. Retrieved from Google Books on April 1, 2012. 0312233736, 9780312233730. -- First edition is dated London May 1989, from the Acknowledgements section on Page viii.
Gives preferences used in book, in terms of name order and Japanese romanization system. It also says "Chinese words and names are romanized according to the Wade-Giles system, which is more often to be found in books relevant to Japanese history. Alternatives to the Pinyin system, now becoming standard for references to contemporary China, are given in the index." - Information added to Chinese_name#Chinese_names_in_EnglishWhisperToMe (talk) 06:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously you missed the three or four times I already said I'd get back to this later.
In the meantime, save your arguments in text file somewhere for later use and post article source material like this on its talk page. =D — LlywelynII07:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be happy to move it to a new talk page later. But, I don't see a problem in posting stuff now, knowing that you'll get to it later :) - I knew you would get to things later, but I decided to respond now, knowing my content will still be up when you return WhisperToMe (talk) 07:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thai versus Chinese names
You have pointed out deficiencies in Thai name, and I hope that your chosen name reflects that you have the chops to straighten me out — mine merely reflects that I have a sense of humor, and don't take myself too seriously.--Pawyilee (talk) 07:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"With respect to," as a phrase, hints as to different kinds.
WRT Thai Chinese, your having spotted a deficiency re a surname by a Thai family of Chinese extraction, extracted from Sanskrit for "Does Good Routinely," led me to invite you to spot any I may have added in my recent changes to that, and Thai name, as well.
WRT The Last Leader, my interest is in the Last Leader of the Vientiane kingdom, a rump state of Lan Xang, who led the Laotian Rebellion of 1826-1829, and met much the same fate. If there is a category for failed heroes of failed kingdoms, then they belong in it.
Hello LlywelynII. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.
Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.
Hello LlywelynII, I noticed you are active in creating Greenland related articles. I am wondering if you have access to a publication about Greenland I would like to obtain. I am, from time to time, working on creating lists of Lepidoptera species by country. A lot are done (see my sandbox User:Ruigeroeland/Sandbox3 if you are interested). To make a list for Greenland, I am looking for access to a publication from "Meddelelser om Grønland". I thought you might be able to get your hands on it for me? I would only need the names of the species (including the species authority):
"The Lepidoptera of Greenland", Wolff, N.L., Meddelelser om Grønland. 159 : 11, C.A.Reitzels Forlag, Copenhagen. 1964. 74 pp plus b/w 21 plates, distribution maps to all species.
I'm sorry. Shanghai's English-language library is very limited; I've been doing all of my work with internet-available sources, so I'm afraid I can't help. My suggestion (fwiw) is to look around for a wikiproject:scholarship or something, a community of people with access to LEXUS/NEXUS & the scholarship databases & American university libraries. They might be able to rustle something up for you. — LlywelynII11:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, thanks for the info. I already made a request at the "Resource request" project, but nobody seems to have access to it over there either. I might try the Danish wikipedia if all else fails. Cheers and thanks again! Ruigeroeland (talk) 11:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lutai
I wonder whether your creation is the same place as the town of Lutai (芦台镇) in Ninghe County, modern-day Tianjin? GotRTalk04:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am posting this notice here to advise that on the talk page of an article to which you have made substantial edits I have asked a question concerning the validity of the article. The question has been there for some time but received no replies so I am giving my question wider distribution by notifying selected editors who have been involved with the article and giving them an opportunity to respond. Please do not reply here on your talk page or on my talk page but on the talk page of the article where other editors can easily see your comments so that hopefully we can have a constructive debate. The article is List of English monarchs. Thank you. Cottonshirtτ07:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that you responded to this, but your response does not answer the question. On the article's talk page I have asked you to please put aside your incorrect assumptions, review the question, and then try to answer the question that was actually asked. Thank you. Cottonshirtτ16:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I found Cocomes which is new and was sourced to Lewis Spence, not an RS. Searching for sources I found that Cocomes has more than Cocom, esp when you look at Google scholar. I sources Cocomes with one reliable sources, and redirected your article. Then I thought - rather late - that maybe I should have discussed this with you first. Apologies.
I was really only interested in finding better sources than Spence for articles - didn't plan to do this, sorry! Dougweller (talk) 16:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged FEDIMA for deletion, because it seems to be an promotion, rather than an encyclopedia article.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
No question, but reread the article. It's a stub, sure, since I'm not in the field; but it's unambiguously an encyclopedia article about a notable organization and not a promotion. This is not an article about a "garage company": it's about a trade union for an entire sector of the European economy. Chill. — LlywelynII11:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted only those portions of your edits that explicitly changed era styling from BCE/CE to BC/AD. I do not believe you are justified under WP:ERA in making this change at this time. Please see my comments at the talk page. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PS: There is a whole big question as to exactly what the correct Hebrew behind "yasher koach" (definitely with an r) is. It's something that's become a little sloppy through Yiddishization. But I'll take the compliment anyway. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello LlywelynII, I've recently returned from a long break and I noticed some of your improvements to several Welsh history-related articles. They are certainly to the good, at Maelgwn Gwynedd and Merfyn Frych, for example.
I support your efforts to improve/correct anything I once wrote, but also please don't be too hasty in some conclusions as to the origins of their current state, which is a result of multiple editors and the contentions of several years ago, in addition to any shortcomings that I may have introduced. Your comments on Maelgwn's name apply to an article prior to my involvement, and I later added Rhys' etymology because I couldn't stand the same "popular" etymology about which you complain (I'm not Welsh-speaking, and in the absence of anyone else's correction of the text, I picked a respected individual who was); the literary "misinformation" and "record" sections were in reaction to then-common efforts to present traditions as historical facts. Your improved "focus" at Merfyn Frych certainly improved my update of that article, but I was not the origin of much that you changed.
Maps are useful if referenced with the same rigor as article text (eg, a map of Roman-era civitates rather than a list), though they also seem to give weight of authority when that should not be the case; and they can be misued (the OR map I removed from Cunedda was stolen from my workspace without my knowledge or permission; I've since erased it from wikipedia, so that cannot happen again). Esthetics vary (this map of Gwynedd is crowded and needs improvement, else it can be erased, in my own opinion).
Again, you recent efforts are a great improvement, and most welcome to see! For myself, please assume that if I wrote it, it bears improvement and should probably be shortened with better focus. That applies to maps as well as article text, and your critique and criticism and complaint will be well received. Best Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 21:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I find your edits and points so generally well taken, I'm still not sure I understand. Did you came here in response to this? I was addressing an overstatement on the other editor's part and clarifying (I assume) yours. I just phrased it the way I did for parallelism's sake. Or was there something else?
Anyway, thanks for the kind words and constructive approach. Let's raid the Welsh Wikiproject sometime and give each other barnstars before they notice. — LlywelynII21:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that I tried to instantly absorb all that had changed since I semi-retired, then saw that that stolen map had actually been inserted into an article, and quick-skimmed some of the talk pages without taking time to digest ... looking at what I wrote, it does sound weirdly defensive. Maybe I can start over ...
Mostly I wanted to say that it's good to see your well-written and well-referenced material, and I'll be glad to have knowledgeable eyes lurking about. Agreed on raiding the wikiproject! And if I see a copy of that new TCE history of Britain lying about, I'll swipe that, too ... I see that you already have a copy. Looking forward to crossing paths in the future! Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 23:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You deleted a statement on this page which was supported by a source. You shouldn't do that; if you disagree with what it says, open a discussion on the talk page. Or find a source that agrees with your point of view and re-write it as controversial. But your opinion on the matter, by itself, carries no weight. Moonraker12 (talk) 16:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Horsepucky. It's not controversial; it's patently false and thus unreliable.
Hi LlywelynII, some of your recent edits have included changing the names of Welsh princes to “son of” from “ap” e.g. Bleddyn ap Cynfyn, Llywelyn ap Seisyl etc. All the sources I've read refer to them by their Welsh name. These changes are a major departure from the accepted precedent on Wikipedia and should be discussed at a central point to gain consensus before embarking on wholesale changes. Please take this somewhere like Wikiproject Wales for discussion before making any similar changes. Many thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 13:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They're not a "departure from accepted precedent"–the English commonname is X ap Y and that's exactly what the article name should be and where it should stay. However, formatting "X son of Y (Welsh: X ap Y)"
(b) looks better than "X ap Y (English:...)" as though it weren't the English name and
(c) keeps people from thinking "ap Y" is some kind of surname.
If you're paying attention to these pages, you obviously have seen people formatting the {{persondata}} to read things like "Farfog, Triffyn" and "Ap Llywelyn, Gruffydd". This gets things across very easily and cleanly.
In any case, despite the schoolmarmish tone, you're quite kind (stopping by & not just reverting the edits) and obviously a force for good around here and nice to meet you. Your Welsh articles seem to be more the current stuff, but if you're into the history as well, kindly look over/add more to Synod of Chester or some of the kings I've been adding in to have something to link to from the Annales Cambria Wikisource.
Well, that was an hour out my life, but proposal is up. Since you seem to disapprove, it's ok if you want to sit out the conversation; but thought you'd be cheered I got the ball rolling like you asked. — LlywelynII15:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi LlywelynII, nice to meet you too. I enjoyed your Synod of Chester. I'm sure I've seen that story about Augustine before (possibly here), though I couldn't find it in John Davies' A History of Wales. Davies says (p 61) that Bede says Aethelfrith ordered the slaughter of 1,200 monks at Bangor-Is-Coed, because they fought against them wth prayers, which met with Bede's approval (p 76). Nice! Sorry you dislike my tone. I find feeling quite difficult to convey here. I mean no ill-will towards you. Nevertheless, whether "X son of Y (Welsh: X ap Y)" looks better than "X ap Y (English:...)" is irrelevant. We should go with the sources, and the sources use “ap”. Thank you for posting your proposal. I look forward to the response. Best, Daicaregos (talk) 15:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, this afternoon I noticed you copied my Buellt material from my userspace to the mainspace. I certainly don't mind it being used, but copy-pasting broke the edit history necessary for attribution. It also would have been nice to know you were using it, as I would have liked to submit it to WP:DYK. At any rate I merged the histories and added a bit; in the future just please let folks know if you're using userspace material. Thanks, --Cúchullaint/c20:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies if userspace material is not covered under Wiki's relevant licenses and, more to the point, if you were keeping it hidden for personal reasons til it was well-polished.
For myself, I was building a Buallt article regardless, found it via Google, and made the obviously inappropriate assumption that Wiki material is always intended for public consumption and that you'd rather I employed your words than my own lesser ones. But I will definitely post a message to its talk page and, again, apologies. — LlywelynII21:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certainly happy to see it in the mainspace; I'd more or less forgotten about it for over 3 years. All material is covered by the licenses, but preserving the edit history is necessary for attribution. It's also nice to let folks know when you're copying their material to the mainspace. At any rate, it's fixed now, no harm done. I'm sure we'll cross paths again.--Cúchullaint/c21:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo, It appears that you moved the page previously at this title to Owain ap Hywel Dda, and then created the dab page at this title. There are a lot of incoming links which were intended for the moved page and now lead to a dab page: it is your responsibility to fix them, as is explained on the message you got on screen when you made the Move. Please fix them. Thanks. PamD23:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, when you create a disambiguation page, please add a disambiguation template {{dab}} or {{hndis}} (human name disambiguation), rather than adding Category:Disambiguation pages. Various bots expect to see a template to recognise dab pages, and it adds a useful message to the bottom of the article. See WP:MOSDAB for more about dab pages. Thanks. PamD23:12, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I did fix most of them (as a courtesy, not a responsibility – my edits were constructive & it's a collaborative project). You're welcome to get the rest (Mostly a long line of 'ruler in X year' links that can handle the dab page just fine). Cheers. — LlywelynII09:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As for overly-picky issues related to which template or if any template should be added, again, knock yourself out. I only added a template at all because another user was moronically calling the dab pages {{name-stub}} and I was attempting to preëmpt him. But I will try to keep the MOS guidelines in mind in the future, thanks. — LlywelynII10:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure the other side felt they were overstated and off-point, but thanks for the kind words. My apologies that they're so used to the way it was written when they were growing up that they ignored the perfectly valid sources and points you had already given them. — LlywelynII08:23, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, of course it did (or at least was described that way by the annals). Did I not include references? or you were just pointing out that we should polish it up for a DidYouKnow? — LlywelynII23:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that should be Caerleon Upon Usk (not Chester), held under the auspices of St David's (Moni Judeorum being ultimately from the Irish form for Hen Meneu = St David's), and likely in preparation for (or somehow conflated with) the 2nd Augustinian meeting at Augustine's Oak. Several articles go into some detail (not all details and characterizations of which I buy), such as at Gregorian mission and Augustine of Canterbury.
btw, as to the massacre ... it's a good thing that those British Christians were so unChristianlike, else it would be a story of a Northumbrian (Bede) justifying the massacre of defenseless Christians by pagan Northumbrians by placing words in the mouth of someone who had died a century earlier ... how often do Christian sources really justify the massacre of Christians by pagans? Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 02:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The sources I saw place it at Chester, not Caerleon upon Usk; it would be under the auspices of St Davids anywhere in Cambria given St David himself was supposedly there and they theoretically raised it as their archdiocese at the synod; different 2ndary sources make it identical w/Bede's council or prep for it: the primary ones are simply unclear. You wouldn't use an "of" in that grammatical construction.
But just like any other article: go find reliable sources for positions like the one you personally have re:Bede's lack of objectivity and knock yourself out, provided you don't unduly ignore the narrative of the primary and secondary sources already provided but simply put it into the best context. — LlywelynII07:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I was just checking (didn't go through your sources at the time, but did notice that you were providing them in enough detail to check things out ... always a good sign!). Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The move discussion was closed without alerting editors at the relevant Wikiprojects to join in. It has long been the consensus at WP:THEATRE and WP:MUSICALS to spell the word "theatre", in part because theatre professionals prefer this spelling throughout the English-speaking world, and because this spelling it is not wrong anywhere, while "theater" is wrong in many places,such as the UK. BTW, I am an American from New York City. Note that nearly all of the Broadway theatres are called "X Theatre". I have re-opened the discussion on the talk page to see if we can get a wider consensus on this issue. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are one of several people that have tried to change it from "international spelling" to "British" spelling. Please join the discussion on the talk page [1] so a proper consensus can be formed. DreamFocus14:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hasmonean dynasty
Please notice that your edits at Hasmonean dynasty regarding WP:ERA might not come in line with the Wikipedia policy on WP:NPOV. While the standard you used is implementing Christian symbols (AD, BC); it is a common practice implement secular symbolism (BCE and CE) for non-Christian articles in order not to offend the readers of another culture/religion. Hasmonean dynasty is obviously a Jewish history article, hence it would better be using non-Christian standard (BCE, CE). WP:ERA policy states you should use the same standard throughout the article, but the standard form to be decided by editors, hence i think it should be returned to BCE, CE form.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion is duly noted but that consensus should be built at the article's talk page, not mine. The article's format was chosen by the authors; hence my edit to restore/standardize it. Cf. WP:ERA if you missed that the first time. — LlywelynII21:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nice of you to bring it by. Personally, I didn't think nearly enough of the vague and unsourced Earth Mother bit had been dealt with (one way or another), so I just reworked it. If you see anything I wrongfully left out and have sources for it, add it back in. — LlywelynII19:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After correcting several articles which confused the Diones, I got hit with a DPL bot notice. I know I can ignore it, but still I wonder whether we should move Dione (mythology) to Dione (Titaness) and use Dione (mythology) for discussion of all the mythological Diones (though there isn't much to write about the other three of them). What do you think? SamEV (talk) 15:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I went with capitalization, since the Titanides (as are their male counterparts the Titans) are a specific group, so that "Titaness" and "Titanides" are proper, collective names. (See for example dictionary.com.) SamEV (talk) 19:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Invitation to Join the Eastern Mountain Coal Fields Task Force
Hey, I saw your edits to the Indian Hills article. I have scans of the ancient articles I used still, I don't think I can link to them in the article for copyright reasons, but here is the the scan of the article for the stuff about the leaflets and people's objections. The attitude might not make a lot of sense nowadays, I was trying to just copy it into the Wikipedia article and not apply any editorializing. It might be useful if you want to work on the article more.
Indian Hills was kind of a clear illustration of the suburbs vs. Louisville culture clash of the mid-20th century, not wanting bus lines into Indian Hills meant keeping out the riff raff, or something like that. --Runame (talk) 02:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to clean up the style and reorder the structure to make the section flow better, but I don't think I added any editorializing disparaging the local's resistance to Louisville Metro. If I inadvertently phrased things in a POV manner, feel free to patch it up. "Battles with Louisville" seemed to me the tersest way to express the tone of what was going on (Louisville isn't so positively considered that that phrasing makes I.H. sound bad, is it?). It's quite possible the "something like that" involved race but, unless that's in your sources, let it alone: it's perfectly plausible they just didn't like the poor or their corrupt government on its own merits. Certainly all of their fears about the expense of urban sewer connection turned out to be justified.
What I'd like to see with Indian Hills has nothing to do with that. I'd like the Secretary of State or the local government clear up whether Cherokee and the other cities were fully absorbed or not. The Land Office still lists them as active cities. In general, we could use some sources that address the origins of Louisville suburb place names like Strathmoor, since Rennick & the Ky Encyclopedia don't mention most of them. Within Louisville Metro, Heritage Creek, Kentucky, is a mess: Google thinks it exists where it obviously doesn't & Bing thinks it doesn't exist where it might.
Another oddity is Keene, Kentucky, which isn't being dealt with by the 2010 census even though smaller 'cities' still are. Was it disincorporated and again the Land Office is out of date? No idea. — LlywelynII03:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I didn't put anything on race in the actual article, the sources just aren't there for it... even if well, it was the 1950s and 1960s, an all-white suburb... but yeah without sources it can't go in the article. My main concern is having the Wikipedia article just summarize what's in the old newspaper articles, with no content changed... people can draw their own conclusions. I don't really know anything about the Secretary of State issue... I am sure the other cities are now legally a part of Indian Hills, as they are all taxed and regulated by Indian Hills and no governments exist for the other cities. I assume the secretary of state just doesn't have a very accurate database. --Runame (talk) 12:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Chinese Cuisine
Hi LlywelynII --
I very much agree with the recent edits you've made at Chinese Cuisine, and hope you keep them up. The article has a long way to go, and, as I am not surprised to see, you are taking it in the right direction.
One minor point: we should keep the list of Further Reading, for reasons that I've explained on the Talk Page there. Basically, it's "half a loaf is better than none." And besides, it's in line with WP:FURTHER and WIKIPEDIA:Further Reading.
Thanks for the kind words, for which I'll hold off on a protracted edit war. ;) As I pointed out, in this case, half a loaf is worse than none since it (a) gives the appearance of a well-researched article instead of the website-based mess that actually exists; (b) is completely unexplained and uncurated, giving the appearance that these tomes are well-known authorities when that may be very far from the case; (c) is therefore liable to stealth bloat and advertising; (d) does not remove any content from the reader since it was still available on the talk page.
I have no especial quarrel with WP:futher provided it's labelled as a "Further Reading" section and not a bibliography or references one; but I would request that you reconsider the length and dubious quality of the books involved on this particular page. If you can't give at least a short gloss on each entry explaining the reason for its inclusion, my opinion is there's really no helpful service being provided that couldn't be better dealt with by surfing Google Books or Amazon recommendations. — LlywelynII12:22, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yangtze River
It's always good to see some solid content creation on Wikipedia. From patrolling recent changes, sometimes it seems like three-quarters of the edits are vandalism, bot edits, or updates of football goals scored. Have you stumbled across Listen to Wikipedia? (Link:[2]) If only all the editors of Wikipedia could focus on harmonious content creation rather than petty disputes. Altamel (talk) 03:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is Mary better described as 'Judean' or 'Judean-born'?
On 8 July 2013, in Three Secrets of Fátima, you changed my wording 'Palestine-born Mary' to 'Judean Mary', with the explanation 'Miriam mother of Josh was from Hasmonean Judea, not "Palestine"'. I don't have a problem with getting rid of 'Palestine-born', and it's an irrelevant triviality that I think she was born in Herodian Judea rather than Hasmonean Judea, since that doesn't change the text of the article. However for much of her life she can arguably be more accurately described as Galilean, since the Tetrarchy of Galilee ceased to be part of Judea after Herod's death. So it seems to me that 'Judean-born' might well be better than 'Judean'. However, I don't think it's worth risking getting into a row over the matter. So I've decided to simply bring the matter to your attention, and let you make the change if you think it's a good idea, and to forget about it if you don't. Tlhslobus (talk) 02:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Galilean is fine, although (as you're well aware) Mary was born well before the end of Herod's rule so its status after his death is beside the point. The larger point is that at the time the entire vague area was Judea and (as you're well aware) Palestine was used by the Romans and in modern discourse specifically to disassociate the area with the Jews Mary and her family were very much a part of.
As far as Judean v. Judean-born: Judean. It's shorter, clearer, and just as accurate. It's not as if she left Judea to became famous for her work in Gaul or India. If we were going to be POINTy over nationalities, she was "Roman" but calling her that would make the article less accurate and helpful, not more. — LlywelynII02:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough regarding 'Judean' v 'Judean-born'.
But I very much regret feeling somewhat obliged to say, if only for the record, that I take exception to the second of your '(as you are well aware)' comments, which, doubtless unintentionally, seems (and/or could be interpreted or misinterpreted) to be vaguely hinting that I must be something like some sort of anti-semite, or enemy of Israel, or supporter of terrorism, or whatever, seemingly just because I used the term Palestine to refer to an area which, to the best of my rather limited knowledge, has been known as Palestine for most of the past 2000 years.
Jeez, the NSA thing in really messing with people if they feel their Wikipedia handles are going to come back to haunt them.
In any case, having assumed in WP:GOODFAITH that you aren't in middle school and know anything whatsoever about the subject under discussion, I am perfectly comfortable in stating that you are well aware that "Palestine" has political implications. (That knowledge is, in fact, the very reason for your former text wall above.) Those implications are (historically) anti-semitic and (as stated) inappropriately pointy for discussing Mary mother of Jesus in an article about Christianity, all the more so because the polity and area was clearly known as Judea at the time. If you were unaware of that, I gave you links to peruse above; if you felt they were wrong, you could have discussed that here or at those pages.
Your off-topic ad hom and attempted rationalization actually make you seem more anti-semitic than the original edit. No reason (other than the over-reäction) to assume you are, so I'll suggest you take a moment sometime to read WP:Don't shoot yourself in the foot.
Hi. I saw your edits (Languages of Italy and Italian Dialects) and I agree with you. There is too much confusion among these two articles. As you suggest, Italian dialects should include all the idioms that are spoken in Italy and that are closely related to and not officially recognised (Venetian, Sicilian, Neapolitan...). In fact these languages are deeply influenced by Italian and today they are not so different . While the Language of Italy should include only those languages recognised (Sardinian, German ...). But in order to do it we have to start a deep edit of the article Languages of Italy because there are a lot of languages not recognised and part of the Italian dialect indeed. --Walter J. Rotelmayer (talk) 11:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thanks for the support. I was just stopping through, but couldn't just let it alone. Good luck fighting the good fight against whatever local patriots created that mess in the first place. =) — LlywelynII11:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tattoo fad among rich
Hi Llywelyn, I happened on some checkable refs for the improbable statement that the rich 'n' royal had tattoos in the late 19th c. Must have been something to do with the Naughty Nineties. Have added the refs and removed the 'dubious sources' tag.RLamb (talk) 07:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As long as it's sourced, peachy, but the article I saw was very much overstating the case that tattooing was looked on as a privilege of the rich and powerful. They may have slummed it up, but that didn't get rid of the overall association with Asians, sailors, &c.
Hi LlywelynII, please don't convert another user's comments into an RM as you did at Talk:Baekdu Mountain. This is not an acceptable reason for reformatting others' comments, and may be considered disruptive. It also throws a wrench into the RM process; in this case, it made it look like the request had been open for a month (and thus was ready for a close). In the future, it's fine to start an RM in an existing section if you want to work off of their comments, but the request needs to go at the bottom of the section, signed by you. In many ways, it's preferable to start a new section, in which you can still refer to previous comments on the talk page. Understand? --BDD (talk) 20:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not. It's what he meant to do but was ignorant of the process for. That is in no way disruptive and (in fact) is covered by the REFORMAT policy you linked to. The admin can clearly see what was going on, since I explained it in my comment. If the admins are really on autopilot and would close the discussion after only two comments, feel free to weigh in or helpfully edit my edit. Cheers — LlywelynII00:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not to anyone's benefit to put a new RM straight into the backlog. And in fact, it's not unusual for RMs to have low participation, so two comments wouldn't necessarily be a red flag. Just don't do it again. --BDD (talk) 03:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Been here for years and first time it's come up. It's obviously what the guy wanted but, if it confuses the admins that much, I'll be sure to claim it as my own with the new date. — LlywelynII14:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kosciuszko
Hi LlywelynII, Just wanted to say thanks for your contribution on the Kosciuszko page in the Memorials and tributes section, however you apparently forgot to add the citation. As the article is currently undergoing an FA review, and unless someone can source this information, the edit will no doubt be reverted in short order. If you could, would you please provide the source? Regards. -- Gwillhickers05:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up, but I've always found it obnoxious when people demand repetition of cites provided on the the linked pages. That said, I think the stub on Thaddeus of Warsaw is still unsourced, so I'll see what I can do to fix that. — LlywelynII06:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Russell
Hi there. I see you reverted my edit to Russell, Kentucky.
I know you were trying to be helpful, and I'm not trying to seem like a know-it-all, but hatnotes really mess up an article unless they're necessary (and this one isn't). I'll add a note to the talk page, instead of just revert your edit.
Already handled the talk page and will add the Louisville neighborhood. They are quite similar, particularly the county, and your edit – while well intentioned – is (yes) in violation of the policy you're citing. There are numerous cities in Kentucky that added or dropped -ville from their original names, and these are similar enough to mention while we're dabbing the county. — LlywelynII04:43, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As per [3], I was wondering what you meant and to whom you were referring specifically (if you were in fact specifically referring to anyone or any group in particular) with your comment that there is nothing wrong with showing how others are uncivilised. (I don't have the words verbatim in front of me but that is the gist of it.) I agree with the sentiment in theory, but it's not clear to me what you meant.
Also your spelling of Llywelyn is curious; it's not the most commonly spelled/orthodox version of the Welsh name (i.e. Llewellyn, Llewelyn) but how Irish author/writer Morgan Llywelyn spells her own surname, although what name she was born under is anyone's guess. Yours, Quis separabit?15:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on myriad. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Stop edit warring at the IPA help page or I will ask to have you blocked for disruption. These examples have been there for years and reviewed by many people. If you think they're wrong, take it to talk. As for checking with the OED, I verified with the OED before reverting you, so you might want to check it yourself. You might not distinguish between words like hire and higher, mare and mayor, but many people do, and we have a general audience, not just you. — kwami (talk) 08:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does. The two-syllable OED pronunciation. Perhaps you should read the pronunciation key there so that you understand dictionary conventions (also used by Webster's, BTW). Or compare loir to see what the diff is: If there's a stress mark, it's two syllables. No stress mark, one syllable, even if stressed. — kwami (talk) 08:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article titles for Chinese kings
Hi LlywelynII, please do not rename articles for Chinese kings without discussion. The situation for Chinese kings is very different from other countries, due to complications with personal name versus posthumous name. -Zanhe (talk) 01:22, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. It's not different at all and there are WP:MOS guidelines on ruler's names. If you want to take it up with them, cool, but the Chinese pages shouldn't have a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS where we needlessly add titles. The only issues are the occasional homophony, which are properly dabbed; the issues where state rulers and imperial dynasts have the same name, which would need sorting out, granted; and the era-named kings, which are properly called the X Emperor.
If there is an existing discussion somewhere, cool, point it out; but otherwise the current page names are unhelpful; they're against policy; and I'm just fixing them. I tried doing that for individual pages, but then editors were confused about "but the other ones look like X"... so if it's just inertia, I'll go ahead and do the work.
For what it's worth, I've already fixed at least two bad names in the Shang and Zhou dynasties.
EDIT: Also, I'm just fixing the formatting on the standard names. Obviously, I'll steer a wide berth around the ones that are actually contentious and well-established like Qin Shi Huang, & al. (Mho is Shi Huangdi/Qin Shi Huangdi is at the wrong place but there's long and very careful arguments about why it's there.) or at places where the common usage is clear like at Liu Bei instead of Zhaolie of Shu Han. The current situation elsewhere is just sloppy. There weren't even redirects, e.g., from Wu of Han to Emperor Wu of Han before I started doing this. — LlywelynII01:28, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Zanhe. The name of Chinese monarchs are inseparably connected to their titles. You cannot referred to Emperor Wu with the name of Wu without his title. You can referred to him as Liu Che without his title. It is Han Emperor Wu or Emperor Wu or Emperor Wu of Han NEVER Wu of Han.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, I don't think you know what you're talking about. You should never refer to the Hongwu Emperor as "Hongwu" but after introducing "Emperor Wu", people drop the title all the time and there is no problem with doing so. His existing article does so repeatedly.
On the other hand, it is Chinglish to refer him as the "Han Emperor Wu" in the manner of Han Wudi.
[added during Kave's comment below: If we're going to switch over to using the Chinese names completely, I can understand that. But this is just a question of formatting the English names and the MOS is pretty clear on how we should treat royal names. Thinking about it, even the Zhou states don't matter too much since the emperors will generally be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.] — LlywelynII01:51, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'll have to go to work soon, so you'll probably be doing that before I can. I'm not exactly sure how reverting a move works, but make sure to leave redirects from the correct namespaces in any case if either of you start in on that.
The redirects are needful even everyone else is going to agree they prefer the wordier titles.
EDIT: Also, I'm not sure if you're paying attention to the arguments I'm putting forward, but the page you sent me to starts out with a giant banner saying : "This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear." I'm not sure it means what you think it does. — LlywelynII01:57, 29 November 2013 (UTC)EDIT[reply]
In my opinion the consensus would not change even if the page was active. Also you say "after introducing "Emperor Wu", people drop the title all the time and there is no problem with doing so. His existing article does so repeatedly. " Have you read Emperor Wu's article or the Hongwu Emperor's article? Nearly every single sentence (I haven't read their entire article so there might be minor reference to Wu or Hongwu without Emperor next to them) calls him Emperor Wu this or Emperor Wu that and with the Hongwu Emperor it is "the" Hongwu Emperor this or the Hongwu Emperor that.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:24, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You should read the article. That was my point. It does appear simply as Wu and there's nothing wrong with that.
The names of Chinese sovereigns are far more complicated than European ones, with personal names, posthumous names, temple names, etc., while European rulers just use their personal names. That's why Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) specifically makes exceptions for Chinese and related East Asian royalties. Conventionally, posthumous and temple names are almost always accompanied by the title (king or emperor), while personal names are usually not (same as European royalties). Otherwise there's no way to tell if a king's name is his personal name or posthumous/temple name. In any case, it's almost always a bad idea to start moving hundreds of articles without obtaining consensus first. -Zanhe (talk) 04:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're wonderfully friendly and respectful, which is rare and thanks for that. At the same time, yes, I do understand what I'm talking about and there's no more reason to have Emperor Wu of Han than to have King Charles II of England. It's unnecessary in a way that (e.g.) Hongwu of Ming is entirely incorrect.
If we're switching to Chinese names and moving to Han Wudi, that's fine, but the current pages are simply badly formatted English, per the way we handle nobility everywhere else on the project. — LlywelynII07:49, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Llywelyn, there is no problem with having the redirects. But in the future, please make the redirects directly (eg. create Wu of Han as a redirect) and not move the article itself unless the consensus to do so has been reached. An undiscussed large-scale move of several dozens of articles can be considered disruptive, especially when it contravenes existing conventions (even if they had been marked historical). _dk (talk) 02:18, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the consensus is well-established. See WP:SOVEREIGN. It simply hasn't been observed for Chinese articles. Emperors known by their era names are distinct: they must be addressed as the X Emperor as shorthand for the actual "emperor who ruled during the X years of Chinese history". Emperors known by their posthumous and temple names are no different from European regnal or papal names and there's no obvious reason why they've been left badly formatted when Charles II of England, e.g., is given without the "King".
Since there is some pushback from editors above (albeit apparently owing in part to a misunderstanding about how Chinese titles work in English), I've stopped for now but the current situation is still a (bad) WP:LOCALCONSENSUS issue in violation of outstanding Wiki-wide policy. — LlywelynII07:45, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it has a separate section for dealing with them and announces there are other policies, owing to irregularities. Since the section linked above is moot and no longer active, the rest of the page is actually controlling. [Like I said above: you've got to treat the era-named ones differently, but (unless we're going to get overly morbid about when it's appropriate to use temple and posthumous names) the rest simply function as regnal names and there's no good reason to have them in the page titles when we don't do that for any other similar figure.] All the same, I have suspended by edits given the feedback here showing that they're appreciably contentious (albeit correct) ;).
EDIT: Also, there's WP:ENGLISH WP:COMMONNAME, but that just concerns which name we use for which dynasty, not the way we format their titles. And also there's WP:CONSENSUS which controls Qin Shi Huang &c. and is what's going on right now. — LlywelynII05:46, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Memorials / Official Communications
Hi LlywelynII --
Just saw your excellent work on Memorial to the throne, which has both important content and well chosen references. But there is considerable overlap with Official Communications of the Chinese Empire -- in fact some of the same sources and the same topics. How would you feel about merging the two? At least the Official Communications article could be the main article, since it is more general, with sections marked "see also." I'd be happy to have you make the revisions and decide which topics go where, though I would also be happy to do the shuffling around my self. Cheers and thanks in any case. ch (talk) 16:36, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An article that you have been involved in editing, List of saints by pope, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Jayarathina (talk) 17:03, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Compatriots Rebellion?
Hi LlywelynII, I've never heard of this term being used to describe the rebellion that deposed King Li of Zhou. Could you point me to reliable sources that use this term? Thanks, -Zanhe (talk) 09:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't ever heard about it before but I saw it in another article and then found a few sites like this. Look around, though. If it's completely nonstandard in English, there's no problem with removing it even if it is infrequently used within China. — LlywelynII10:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the use of foreign language footnotes
Since using Chinese footnotes is not fine, why does the Chinese Wikipedia allow so many articles with English footnotes? There are many Chinese Wikipedia users who do not understand English or did not have proper English education.
Does sound like a problem. [Sort of: I'm pretty sure it's standard within China to leave Roman-letter names and titles in the original and not to phonetically transcribe every occurance within scholarly articles. That is completely not the case with (mostly) nonphonetic and (otherwise) incomprehensible characters for consumption in English. In any case,] Take it up with them. — LlywelynII08:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it didn't come across clearly enough in the other discussion, lemme say it here. The big thing is thank you for helping out. Some article is better than no article; some footnotes are better than no footnotes; and you could always just write the articles and let other people do the translations or replace your footnotes with something else. Keep on keeping on and don't let the bastards get you down.
But (A), yeah, that's the policy; (B), it's a pretty good one as they go; and (C), if you are hanging around and working on more Chinese articles, it does help ease the load if you just include the translations as you go. (Personally, I don't always include full sections of text; but I do translate the names of the sources so people at least know where to start looking, especially if the English name is distinct and has its own article: 山海经 [Classic of Mountains and Seas].)
I understand the reason you moved the article title; however, we present the name not as how the book title appears on the jacket - which would be the publisher's house style, but according to MOS:CT, which is the Wikipedia house style. SilkTork✔Tea time09:36, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
shrug* The rule about not needing to follow their style is always a judgment call but, if you feel strongly about it and no one else wants to go digging around for other sources that support the capital F, sure, man. Knock yourself out. — LlywelynII10:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ERA
I've seen a number of editors make your mistake. WP:ERA says "Do not change the established era style in an article unless there are reasons specific to its content." Now we can debate about what established means, but it doesn't mean the first mention. That would leave us in the ludicrous situation where the first edit to an article 10 years ago is BC, the 2nd edit is BCE, and then after it's been stable all that time someone comes along and reverts to BC. Or vice versa. Dougweller (talk) 16:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, you're making the mistake (or at least, I strongly disagree with the reading of the policy you suggest.)
The entire purpose is to avoid needless edit warring, but basing it on "stable use" (a) encourages stealth editing of uncommonly-visited pages in the hope of establishing a 'new normal' and (b) active disrupting of any page in the hopes of challenging the 'old normal'. I get that you apparently prefer BCE/CE, but just take up the issue on that particular page's talk page, if there was a good reason for the edits away from the originally-established use. The example you give isn't ludicrous, except for the idea that any prominent BCE-using page wouldn't have been reverted numerous times over the course of ten years. (And of course, in reality, the normal situation is an uncommonly-visited page that was BC for two years, BCE for three years, and mixed for five.)
In the specific case I imagine you're discussing, there might be a good reason: two guys did talk about it on the talk page. But it was only two, 7 years ago, and the page's normal use seems to have been BC in the time since (at the very least, all I did was bring the infobox in line with the running text).
Moreover, those two had fairly bad logic: there's nothing "more Chinese" about either system; both are external impositions. We're not going to use the Taiwanese era system for the articles and, while the Chinese term for AD translates as "Common Era", it's completely standard for the Chinese to translate that as BC/AD in practice. That's because implicit in the editors' argument is the idea that AD represents WP:BIAS and not WP:ENGLISH; if it were accurate, the only appropriate time to use AD would be in articles about Church councils and policy would reflect that. It doesn't because they were wrong to be so reflexively oikophobic.
In the meantime, in general use, bright lines work much better and, if there are involved editors, there will be pushback as here. This is a better way both in theory and in practice: it's much easier to check the first use than to try to work out every dating edit of a decade-old page trying to count how many months it bore either use. Go with the first one and then if there are reasons for moving away from that, discuss them. — LlywelynII22:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
However, there is no 'bright line' in WP:ERA. I wish that it was more explicit. Are you really arguing that, for instance, a 10 year old article that was BCE for the first 6 months and then changed to BC where it remained until today can be changed back to BCE? Dougweller (talk) 10:34, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the proprietor of Wikipedia, so I don't see what you plan to get out of your hypotheticals. (I could easily give you one you'd agree with—a little-monitored page on an obscure rabbi could certainly and sensibly be changed over if people felt strongly enough—but does that actually change your mind?) You prefer to read "established" in a rather unhelpful way, which is your choice, and I'll disagree with that where I see it in action and it isn't supported by any other rationale or consensus (which will probably be never).
It's pretty uncommon to change anyone's mind on the internet, but I laid out my reasoning above. If you want to stick with yours and wade through the edit history of Yu the Great to count how many months it's spent as one, the other, or both so we can figure out whether you think it should be BC or BCE, be my guest. Short of that, whatever number of recent weeks or months you think counts as "established" will be far more capricious and conducive to continuous unhelpful editing aimed at setting a new normal. Better (mho) to just read "established" as precisely what it does mean and request some consensus prior to any change. — LlywelynII17:08, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I'm not sure what we are disagreeing about. My mind gets changed by other editor's arguments fairly often, but until I know what you mean by 'established' I'm in a quandry. And this has turned out more argumentative than I expected it to. Dougweller (talk) 17:07, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that was certainly odd. Anything in particular about the {{Infobox Chinese}} template that left it open to that? or it just came from simple vandalism of one of the underlying template pieces? — LlywelynII17:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned before, you very seriously need to review WP:BROKE. I applaud your desire to fix actual problems. Leaving a red link for all of these pages because you feel pangs of OCD is not an actual improvement.
If you very much dislike the present situation, you can create a stub article for Second Lincoln Administration that includes the presently-linked template. You don't need to bother other editors to do so, and (while the notices are very kind of you and huzzah) it would take less time to make that stub than coming here and asking me to do it for you. Best of luck, — LlywelynII05:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Requested move 29 January 2014 - Unification of Hispaniola into Haiti be renamed and moved to Unification of Hispaniola
Hello there fellow scholar/editor,
There is a talk page on this subject and since you have an interest in the discussion I would love to hear your views on it as well. I've responded with my viewpoints against the potential move as you will soon see why. I thank you for your time. Savvyjack23 (talk) 18:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Stub tags
I see that you created several pages back in October where you did the stub tags wrong, such as this one. Just to clarify:
Stub tags go all the way at the end of the page, after the other categories.
The first letter of a stub tag should be capitalized if the first word in the tag name is one which is always capitalized, such as Kentucky, but not otherwise.
As to your second, Wiki's markup automatically capitalizes the first letter regardless and I can't imagine how it makes any difference.
As to your general approach, it's Wiki. If something's wrong (or even "wrong"), fix it yourself. If you're trying to cajole other people into doing your work for you, work on your phrasing. WP:YACATCHMOREFLIESWITHHONEY. Cheers. — LlywelynII16:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As to the first, the link is: WP:STUB#How to mark an article as a stub. As to the second, I'm not trying to get other users to do my work; I'm trying to get them to do it right wen they do it themselves anyway. And while it may not matter fir the software, it looksbetter to human eyes when they look at the wiki-code. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu06:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Llywelynll. I have a DYK in preparation, which will reference the First Opium War and I'd rather that there wasn't a merger tag on that page given it's potential exposure on the main page. Do you mind if I go ahead and carry out the merge? Best, ► Philg88 ◄talk09:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Elaeis guineensis
I'm glad you made that edit to Elaeis guineensis correcting the factual information. I just wonder what a "generic name" for an area is. I've never heard "generic" applied to the name of a geographical area. CorinneSD (talk) 22:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.
As to your query, I sadly can't write to William Safire but I think the usage fits, as it would for using "Sudan" to describe the general prairie south of the Sahara rather than the Islamic republic now using that name. In any case, the usage is linked through for any confused; if you think of more felicitous phrasing, feel free to emend it. — LlywelynII12:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your beautifully written reply. I'm going to see if I can find a synonym for "generic" that would be appropriate. If I don't find one, I'll leave it as it is. CorinneSD (talk) 19:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the article, created by you, there is a link to a disambiguation page, probably by accident. You may be interested to read the talkpage in fixing the mistake. Thanks Piguy101 (talk) 00:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bulgars originate from Togarmah, there are many fading errors over the centuries. Ongar was fading or mistyped or mistranslated as ohguz.
The word GAR means tribe. Bul-gar, Un-gar, Ma-gar (used with Hungarian accent as Ma-gyar).
further mistranslations were Aldi-gar written in some sources as Altsek, Aldzi-gar, Aldjigher and so on.
If you read the history of Great Old Bulgaria and the First Bulgarian Empire you would make direct connection for the hegemony of the Bulgars in Europe. John of Nikiu says there are descendants of the Huns which makes sense, considering where the Hourse was first found of earth. Tyurk was wrongly adopted termin from Communist Russia derived from Kotrak the son of Kubrat and the one who establishev Volga Bulgaria. The termin Kotrak was mispelled Kokturk,but this is evidence that Great old Bulgaria holds legitimacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.33.211.25 (talk) 07:34, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for coming by and I'm sure most of that made sense in the original language (presumably Bulgarian), but I can't really follow most of what you're trying to say. If you have sources for better reconstruction of the historical names of these illiterate nomad polities, just add them to the pages. — LlywelynII02:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:KNBrugsenilogo.jpg
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:KNBrugsenilogo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Ego White Tray (talk) 23:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain LlywelynII moved page Liu Dan to Liu Dan (basketball player): not PRIMARYTOPIC to me? I see a basketball player mentioned in four templates and 29 articles (now links to disambiguation pages). I see a red linked prince, linked three times (including the dab page) and I see an actor with a different name. S I really don't understand why the basketball player is not the primary topic here. The Bannertalk10:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To start with, the actor doesn't have a different name: the actor has the exact same name. Second, the fact that the Chinese dynast doesn't have a page up yet does not make him less notable than a random stub on a basketball player that isn't even thorough enough to have her Chinese name (or even more than a single sentence, iirc). I would have fixed the links if I had seen them, though: you're right that we shouldn't leave it hanging on a disambiguation page. I must have accidentally looked at the double redirect only option when I didn't see any incoming links at all.
Yep. Vanilla Google pulls up a page full of references to a Chinese artist and the Google Books page is artist, artist, prince, artist, prince, prince, random bank worker, random prisoner, artist, prince. The basketball player is a footnote, albeit one that someone bothered to link a bunch. I'll fix them. — LlywelynII10:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have mentioned the actor as "Lau Dan" not "Liu Dan". The Chinese spelling of his name is not relevant for the English-language WP. And at present, the basketball player is the most linked topic. The just found model does not even have her own article... The Bannertalk11:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A) Kindly comment to the appropriate comment.
B) I mentioned no such thing. You claimed the names are different, when in fact they are literally and exactly the same. There is no such thing as a Chinese "spelling" and the Mandarin(/pinyin) spelling is relevant when it shows up in English, which it does even for Cantonese stars.
C) Mostly, though, go review WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. It has nothing whatsoever to do with fanboys who have covered their topic extensively here and most-linked carries no weight whatsoever (although, again, apologies that I missed them and didn't already straighten them out prior to the move: am in the process now). The sports figure is not the PRIMARYTOPIC for that name in the English language, there is no standout replacement, so that's where the dab page goes. — LlywelynII11:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dianxin
Hi there. I noticed a recent edit of yours which translated "dim sum"/"dianxin" as an "a la carte item". I am assuming that you derived this translation from dian, the verb, which can mean "to order, as from a menu". This is not the correct etymology for "dianxin" - if followed literally, this etymology would yield the literal translation "to order, as from the menu, a heart", which is not what the phrase means. The phrase means literally "to touch lightly on the heart", which refers to its role to lightly line one's belly, without filling it up. "Snack" is a more apt translation than "a la carte item". --62.189.73.197 (talk) 12:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, you are incorrect in almost every particular. I have never edited dim sum and have not recently edited anything about it; I presume you're talking about something related to Chinese cuisine, which I have edited but my edits left untouched the idea that it literally derived from "touch your heart". That is completely true. It is completely untrue (albeit common Chinglish) that "snack" is an appropriate translation of English dim sum. I assume your use of a URL name and failure to link the article in question was a deliberate attempt to hide your mistaken edits. Sorry it didn't work out for you. — LlywelynII12:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
點心 defies any kind of useful translation. Railing at the anonymous meanderer was entertaining but failed to satisfy. You both need a little something to tickle your fancy, i.e. 點心, "fancy ticklers" laced with congenial banter weaving through the deafening din. sirlanz16:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CIVIL
Hi there. Please be civil. Labelling other people's edits as "terrible" or "Chinglish", as you have done on Xiaolongbao, is not helpful. If you have content-related issues, please discuss on the talk page before mass reverting again. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:48, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there. I have not been back to the xiaolongbao article since the discussion above and do not care enough to engage your substantive arguments beyond what I have already said. I am posting here simply to add a general reminder to be WP:CIVIL in your activities on Wikipedia - and in life. Your posts make strange assumptions. The post on my talk page, for example, seems to assume that I am a Chinese English teacher or speak Chinglish, or somesuch. I am not. I learned to speak English in an English-speaking country and I learned to speak Chinese in China, and I speak both at a native or bilingual level, so quite apart from civility, you are in no position to challenge my grasp of either language based on what I have seen of your grasp of the two languages. Taking a different approach in your social interactions both on Wikipedia and in life generally will no doubt make you a more likeable person. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe there is an effort to change Zheng He's biography and remove the fact he left Islam and converted to Buddhism and died a Buddhist. This is a blatant change of historical facts for an agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TeeveezAlBundi (talk • contribs) 11:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why you're posting this here, but it's certainly not a blatant change and your sources don't seem particularly reliable. Afaik, he couldn't possibly have been a devout and strict Muslim or Buddhist, inasmuch as he sacrificed to and honored various local gods, but he was in a political position where you go along to get along. You can try to get by with your current sources on his page, but I'd certainly remove them if I noticed them. — LlywelynII15:14, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed my mind on this as far as mainland China is concerned. While I think the official usage reflects the longstanding usage in English language reference tools, it is clear that the Chinese government is using "Dragon Boat Festival" primarily and "Duanwu" or "Duan Wu" secondarily in English language sources. The most convincing source for me was the 2011 UNESCO report submitted by the Chinese government, where "Dragon Boat" is used throughout.
The same is true of Taiwan. My only reservation is for Hong Kong, where the official name is Tuen Ng Festival. As a result, I do not feel sufficiently convinced to vote for a move to Dragon Boat Festival, but I probably will not vote against it.
I am posting these thoughts on your talk page because you posted on my talk page, but I feel my thoughts are not sufficiently crystallised for the article talk page just yet. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've tagged it all
All the redirects have been tagged for the rubbish bin. I hope you're quite happy about that. We can both have our own little essays, isolated in far corners of Wikipedia. That seems amenable to me. We wouldn't want mine or your PoV corrupting these sacred halls, now would we? RGloucester — ☎04:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
LlywelynII, you promoted two hooks today, but ran into trouble. Your edit summaries said "since template seems hinky", but that's not correct; the templates were fine, but you didn't take the right steps for the promotions.
The instructions for the steps required to approve nominations are at T:TDYK#How to promote an accepted hook; basically, you neglected to add the "subst:" before the "DYKsubpage" template name, which causes a number of changes that close the template. You also added your name in the "2" parameter, which is not necessary: the template substitution automatically takes care of that. Another problem is that you didn't not copy the DYKmake templates from the nomination template to the prep page from the Pettakere cave nomination (there were four); instead, you created your own single DYKmake in prep, and it was formatted incorrectly. (You had two users in a single DYKmake, which is not allowed, instead of duplicating the four DYKmake templates that were in the nomination.) I have cleaned up the promoted template so it's formatted correctly (basically, I went back to before the promotion and redid the proper promotion steps, subsequently replacing your sig over mine).
Finally, you may have noticed that one of the two promotions you did, Template:Did you know nominations/Evolution of snake venom, has been reversed. Although there is no specific rule against it, reviewers are strongly discouraged from promoting nominations they've reviewed, and especially if they proposed one of the hooks—there's an element of conflict of interest involved, and also the basic idea of getting another, independent set of eyes to cast their eye over things. Most of us take this as an effective prohibition, even with years of experience. As someone who is new to promoting nominations to prep, and who missed the fact that the ALT3 hook wasn't really reviewed but just liked, I'd advise promoting only nominations that you haven't reviewed or proposed a hook for. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't edit my comments. I chose to draw attention to this here because I wanted further input from the DYK community. My first comment describes the background and the second my opinion. Although I can now see that it veers off topic, so I've collapsed those. The template is understandably a wall of text and most people (including myself) are not going to touch it with a barge pole. Fuebaey (talk) 03:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies that I gave offense. All I did was keep your comments on the same conversation level: it's not as if you were replying to yourself, although that's what you were are still making it look like. It's well within policy to fix formatting, layout, and sectioning errors. You're welcome to ignore that and I won't restore the improvements, but it's quite probable I or others will perform similar edits in the future and you should understand where we're coming from and not take offense. As to the substance of your post, I'd never edit the content but this is the wrong forum for some of them and shopping those aroundjust to get more eyes isn't the way to go. It's probably a better idea all around to just leave them in the proper place and use a RFC, user links, or comments to active editors' talk pages to get people to notice something you think is important. — LlywelynII12:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you were trying to do, but I don't think it was necessary. Nor do I believe that my reply (above) was terribly aggressive. I hope you don't mind but I've moved this here because I think you're going off topic on a post that I've already settled. If you would like a further explanation - I had intended to reply to Template:Did you know nominations/Italian cruisers but was put off by the argument that had fermented since I last replied. The text was initially written on the template before I copied it to the talk page, which is why my off topic proposals were mistakenly left there. If you go through the intial dispute, you may notice I called for a second opinion. When it became apparent that it wasn't going anywhere I made the choice to post it where I did. I don't see asking for a rule clarification on a talk page to be "forum shopping". Fuebaey (talk) 17:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@topicality: With respect, you went off topic in your original post and in the discussion of offense (if you didn't want me to post a response to it). Given the nature of your complaint, I wasn't going to move it but it's fine that it got shunted to my talk page. You shouldn't, however, have moved the topical part of the discussion along with it.
@offense: Keeping a single poster's comments at a single level isn't "necessary" but it's certainly helpful. It's much better practice to just leave a blank line between your posts unless you're actually replying to yourself in some sense. You weren't. That said, obviously your post wasn't aggressive at all nor did I take it as such. If the rules cite was a little much, it's a side effect of that DYK's having produced such agita from Parsec, as above. If you're posting very often to DYK and make a habit out of adding comment levels randomly, I'll almost certainly reformat them again at some point, so it's better to let you know where such edits are coming from.
@placement: This actually should be part of the conversation on the DYK talk page, if the initial comments are still there. (No, there wasn't anything off at all about the rule clarification. That wasn't what I was talking about: there were aspects of your post focused solely on the particular DYK that you said you included just to get some more eyeballs. That's not evil, but it's not helpful, as noted above.) — LlywelynII20:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure what you want me to say really. I've explained my actions and I sincerely apologise if I have offended you here. Unfortunately, I cannot help it if you continue misconstrue my intentions. I think it's best if one of us walks away from this so I'm now going to refrain from replying here. Good day. Fuebaey (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello LlywelynII, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I deleted Renzhong Emperor of the Song, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided. The speedy deletion criteria are extremely narrow and specific, and the process is more effective if the correct criterion is used. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. NW(Talk)19:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
March of the Volunteers & Liu Liangmo
Much admiration for your work on March of the Volunteers! It's now a weighty and interesting article. Are you planning an article on Liu Liangmo? I see you redlinked here and at Xi'an Incident. I have some references on Liu which I'd be glad to share or, if you're not planning to do one, maybe I'd start at least a stub. Cheers in any case. ch (talk) 07:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the kind words! Eh... seems like he had an interesting life, but that's probably a good reason not to: I'd get started and end up losing my free time for the next two days. I just noticed that "March of the Volunteers" was missing its "the"... then that the dates contradicted themselves... then...
Anyway, let me know if you've got some outside sourcing pinning down exactly when Liu started his programme or whether it was exactly the same as the Commies' pilot chorus. Liu Ching-chih is obviously following the Party line with his treatment of the history of the mass singing movement and seems to be marginalizing Liu for having been a Christian; at the same time, the Robeson sources might be overstating his case out of monolingual ignorance or the desire to improve his stature and all of the period sources might have been trying to play up a Christian's involvement precisely in order to downplay the Party members.
PSHere's an article with a 1941 photo of him I found. (It may not be out of copyright and eligible for the commons but might be able to upload it here at Wikipedia or just put it in an external links section.)
PPS I know I've made Talk:March of the Volunteers a bit of a mess but, if you agree (or disagree) that the title should be treated similarly to "The Star-Spangled Banner" and "La Marseillaise", add a comment to the #Name section over there for when someone tallies those votes.
PPPS If you work on Chinese pages, kindly do me a favor and avoid {{zh}} in favor of {{Chinese}} (or anything else, really). It's terrible they're still treating pinyin like a separate language, but they are. Here's the Chinese for his name according to Rob Chi: (Chinese: t劉良模,s刘良模,pLiúLiángmó) — LlywelynII07:34, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Amen to the prudent reluctance to start another new article! I have one of those "someday" files on Liu from references that overlap with other projects I am working on in my non-Wikipedia existence. Maybe the best compromise is to do a short write-up as a stub, just to give you and others a target and to turn the red links to black.
As to the "the" question, I assume (maybe you have already done it) you know that you can/should still add DEFAULTSORT:March of the Volunteers template (enclosed in {{}}).
Also, thanks for the heads-up on the zh/Chinese distinction, which I admit I don't entirely follow. In fact, from the reactions of my students, who are representative targets of these articles, we use too many Hanzi paraphernalia in leads & should probably move them to info boxes. Cheers. ch (talk) 17:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: I've started a draft article on Liu, which I will transfer to my userspace in a few days for you to critique (or maybe put into mainspace if it develops well enough). Cheers. ch (talk) 19:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rochester Cathedral
I've tried to clarify the reason for describing the south transept with the Lady Chapel. In particular taking the description of the original altar in the decorated arch in the eastern wall away from the transept and into the modern Lady Chapel is misleading to a visitor or student. If you're not happy with this feel free to revert or recast the sections, you're senior to me and I will accept your judgement. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 23:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Recruitment for Wikipedian Interview
Hello LlywelynII,
We’d like to invite you to participate in a study that aims to explore how WikiProject members coordinate activities of distributed group members to complete project goals. We are specifically seeking to talk to people who have been active in at least one WikiProject in their time in Wikipedia. Compensation will be provided to each participant in the form of a $10 Amazon gift card.
The purpose of this study is to better understanding the coordination practices of Wikipedians active within WikiProjects, and to explore the potential for tool-mediated coordination to improve those practices. Interviews will be semi-structured, and should last between 45-60 minutes. If you decide to participate, we will schedule an appointment for the online chat session. During the appointment you will be asked some basic questions about your experience interacting in WikiProjects, how that process has worked for you in the past and what ideas you might have to improve the future.
You must be over 18 years old, speak English, and you must currently be or have been at one time an active member of a WikiProject. The interview can be conducted over an audio chatting channel such as Skype or Google Hangouts, or via an instant messaging client. If you have questions about the research or are interested in participating, please contact Michael Gilbert at (206) 354-3741 or by email at mdg@uw.edu.
We cannot guarantee the confidentiality of information sent by email.
I've found a source which talks about the church at Llandyfan:
The present church, built in 1864-5, was designed by R K Penson, the architect of Newton House, Llandeilo the home of the Dynevor family and Llandyfeisant church in the grounds of the Dynevor estate. Penson also designed a battery of lime kilns at Llandybie in an ornate ecclesiastical fashion as well as churches throughout Wales and the Grosvenor Hotel Chester. The building was funded by Lady Dynevor and Mrs Du Buisson of Glynhir.
Hi. I see you immediately reverted my undo of your edit. Perhaps you'd like to notice that all i did was put back material that you had previously removed, leading to loss of information and a broken paragraph (broken in the middle of a wlink, no less) in a Featured Article. Is that really what you intended? Cheers, LindsayHello04:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the image being moved and the formatting being undone and didn't see where my Chinese internet connection had eaten the part of the page below. Thanks for the catch. I'll redo the intended improvement to the caption treatment. — LlywelynII04:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted your unhelpful removal of more direct redirects for those letters. If you don't understand something, ask or leave it alone. Certainly don't leave hatnotes in the wrong parts of pages when you go about removing detail from other people's work. — LlywelynII11:33, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then explain please, why you think that searching, for example, for the normal capital epsilon should redirect to the section about the lunate epsilon. Iago21215:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I was notified that you annotated my map of the Roman Empire ca. 400 AD regarding the British provinces. Admittedly Britain was one of the hardest areas to find good sources for, so if you would be kind enough to share your information, I'd correct it rather than simply have it heavily annotated ;). Constantine ✍ 10:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Odd to get a note about it, but you're welcome. Do remember not to get into fights over it, but yes I think that BCE/CE dating is an affectation that does nothing to change the semantic content of using the Christian Era. Non-Christian people still understand where it came from and calling it by another name isn't any more inclusive, just patronizing.
On this edit you blanked most of the Nanyue article (I've restored it all, I think). I assume this was just a careless accident. Please be more careful in the future. White Whirlwind 咨 07:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, sorry about that. If you notice it happening on Chinese pages, try to be a little patient (at first, anyway): it seems to be a glitch I keep getting because the internet here pretends to have loaded the whole page but cuts off the bottom of the text. I'll definitely try to avoid it as I go, but I can't imagine I'm the only one experiencing it. — LlywelynII13:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Someone should at least thank you for drawing attention to the fraudulent work of Charles Bertram. The degree to which outright fraud, myth, romance and nationalism have become embedded in Scottish history is a fascinating subject which I've been investigating over the last three or four years. Defenders of the status quo have deleted my supportive comment on Wiki's Scottish History talk page. You may however find my own investigation and deconstruction of the supposed history of the Scots Language, posted on my own Wiki page, to be of some small interest. You may also find the personal attacks by M Lunker, evidenced on the talk page, to be astonishingly virulent. Cassandra Cassandrathesceptic (talk) 08:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Odd. No one should be deleting your messages from a talk page, particularly not in order to remove opposition to their pet ideas. Might be worth taking to the admins, if you have the time. — LlywelynII13:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Llywelyn, if you are interested in Cassandra's activities I can give you chapter and verse (some of the more recent are discussed in my attempts at engagement on their talk page) and they are almost entirely concerned with sifting through article talk pages to coatrack their pet POVs in general forum-type posts, over several years now and largely from multiple IPs rather than their much more recent and still occasional user account. Their contribution to Talk:History of Scotland is a case in point, having nothing genuinely to do with the thread it has been attached to. As I understand it, there is no dispute in the thread that Bertram's work was fraudulent and there is no assertion that his aim was to advance a Scottish nationalist agenda, Cassandra's evident general sphere of interest, so the post irrelevant there and not pertinently supportive of either side in the debate. If I'm correct the thread instead regards whether Bertram's work be covered in the article. Incidentally I feel insufficiently knowledgeable on the debate to have a view either way, so my intervention indicates support for neither case, solely a WP:NOTFORUM removal. As I have stated to Cassandra, the quote from Mitchison that they added is fair enough in itself but clearly shoe-horned in as part of their sustained agenda, somewhat partially represented and says nothing about the Bertram discussion. Matters are different when my tackling of forum posts regard opposing (arguably nationalist) viewpoints to theirs however, as the support at the tail end of this thread attests. All the best. Mutt Lunker (talk) 02:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, neither here nor there for me. If you had a good reason for your removal, that's something to bring up but it's also pretty common to become overzealous once an editor takes a dislike to someone. — LlywelynII06:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cassandra's front or long sustained inability to appreciate what a talk page is for, whichever it is, is bemusing but there's nothing personal I assure you; not on my part at least. Their posts are overwhelmingly of a forum nature but not exclusively so. Any WP:NOTFORUM reverts have been after the post has been checked and if a post does for once address improvements to the content of the article and no agenda is evident, I don't touch it, zealously or otherwise. Such posts are distinctly in the minority and an agenda has sometimes transpired in later posts but there are a few. E.g. I'm not fully across the thread but this recent edit appears legit. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cut-and-paste moves
They're not OK, please stop doing them. When there is a consensus that Annuity (finance theory) is the primary topic, then an admin will move the dab page (via the move function and not by cutting-and-pasting) to Annuity (disambiguation). When you make cut-and-paste moves like this you are breaking the attribution and effectively violating the copyright of everyone who has contributed to the dab page since Jan 2006. Jenks24 (talk) 12:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I meant this talk page. The current situation already violates the copyright of all the people who contributed to 50k of text before 2006. For now, we can redirect to the primary topic; put the dab where the dab belongs; and the admins can sort the histories out once the move is complete. If you do object to the primary topic of Annuity being the Annuity article, do kindly go explain that at the move request. — LlywelynII12:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
There's no reason, even in mid-2015, to think that all important historical resources or sources will be found online, as electronic resources. I think you should question the article, but show where you think the article needs further scholarly citation: {{citation}}: Empty citation (help). MaynardClark (talk) 05:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary: I think you're not paying attention to context. There is absolutely every reason to think that if a figure such as Hannibal—one of the most famous figures in world history—were universally described a certain way in the original Punic mentions of his name, that Google Scholar or some online text would mention it somewhere. Utterly none do and that is prima facie evidence of WP:FRINGE/WP:UNDUE if not simple error. (Looking at the archived discussion, it seems to be the later. A lazy editor seems to have generalized from statements about generic Punic practice without bothering to find any examples that it was ever generally applied to Hannibal himself.) All the same, I took it to the talk page and didn't remove the entire section yet, pending someone checking what that offline source actually does say. (Given how fringe it is and how misguided the original editor was, however, it's probably time to just remove the entire section to the talk page pending some editor going to find the offline German volume being cited here.) — LlywelynII05:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please search Baalbek for "convert:" to see four {{convert}} errors. The problem is that "ton" is ambiguous—the cure is to use LT (long ton = 2240 pounds) or ST (short ton = 2000 pounds). It is also possible to use shton (short ton), and some others seen here. The system is very weird as each of these default to "t" for the output which is a metric ton (1000 kg). Using "sp=us" has no effect on these units. Possibly converting to kg would be more helpful; examples:
The term is ambiguous and shouldn't've been used. I'm happy to have drawn attention to that fact. Now someone needs to go and find out what the sources were talking about. — LlywelynII23:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The page I write
If you like editing grammar, consider contributing to the page I write, Chinese Legalism. I'll be hard pressed to get anyone to go over it. But it is an evolving article. I could also use a new "part of a series on..." template, to put it's figures in, if you know how to make one.
Thanks, but I'll just add my 2 cents in when someone else gets sniped at. I just had one detail to add to that page, sourced it, and made my case. It'd be a 3rr issue for me to keep pushing it, but it certainly didn't need even a single reversion. What's bizarre (/completely in character) is that he has a little shrine set up on his user page about our need to service the readers. It was a point so confusing he even acknowledged he didn't understand what other sources were saying; I clarified it for him; and it got 3rr'd. xD
I'm not canvassing, but if it's a page that's close to your heart, you can try to find some way to get the info onto the page if BI didn't. — LlywelynII10:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
why WP Holland
Please do not create a template labelled {{WPHOLLAND}} or similar (unless you refer to the specific region within the mainland Netherlands) referring to Netherlands related articles. It is about as offensive as putting a Wikiproject England tag on Wikiproject UK related topics like Cardiff. Arnoutf (talk) 20:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More to the point, {{WPENGLAND}}exists. If there is no project devoted specifically to "Holland proper", then there should be a redirect linking to the project's actual name. (Just as, in the absence of a{{WPWALES}}, it should link to the extant and next-best {{WPENGLAND}}) The namespace should not be empty. — LlywelynII02:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your source states the following: " 1. a. The name of a province of the Northern Netherlands, formerly a county or ‘graafschap’ (comitatus) of the German Empire" How exactly does that support what you say? Arnoutf (talk) 16:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So the subordinate clause trumps the main clause in dictionaries. Good to know. And by the way you may have seen that I have changed all usages of Wikiproject Holland type templates into Wikiproject Netherlands templates so readers will not notice. At best these templates are POV forks, at worst they will cause a mess if a Holland province is ever created. So they should not be used in my view. Either they should be deleted, or a message should be given to that effect. But of course bluntly reverting stuff without any discussion trumps the main clause in Oxford. Arnoutf (talk) 16:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you know how dictionaries work. The definitions are all simultaneously true; further, that ain't a subordinate clause; semicolons create completely parallel constructions. Disingenuousness isn't really a way to win any arguments. Meanwhile, pending the creation of a WPHOLLAND, those namespaces should point where people want to go, so kindly stop the edit warring on the topic. Yes, if you want to emend the uses of those redirects, you're more than welcome to type the extra letters. It all displays the same to our readers. — LlywelynII17:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To avoid the extra letters I long ago created the {{WPNL}} template - which also correctly redirects; and is even shorter. My problem is that the WPHolland (variant); due to its ambiguous dictionary defionition (simultaneous true as you say) creates a potential pov fork, and that should be avoided, even if some editors (talk page is not article space) may sometimes see an irrelevant message. I think our analysis of the situation (broad use of the term Holland) is not that different, but that our views on which of two imperfect solutions should be chosen differs here. Can we at least agree on that. Arnoutf (talk) 17:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is a discussion over at the talk page about the move you performed and subsequent DAB page. From a quick overview it seems that the author, while not very popular is the only on-wiki article that uses that as a COMMONNAME. The pope clearly is not since the Peter of Spain (pope) redirects to his common name, and Petrus Ferrandi Hispanus is clearly his CN, while Peter of Spain may also be an alias. As such, my recommendation on this is to restore the author as the PRIMARY TOPIC and then use WP:TWODABS to direct people to their the pope or Ferrandi... Your thoughts?Tiggerjay (talk) 15:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your improvements to the nomination Template:Did you know nominations/Bei Bei. I see that you also pinged L.tak to come and sign off on it. That is the third time they have been asked to do that - twice on their talk page. They are not away from Wikipedia - they are actively editing - but they just haven't responded to requests to complete the review. If they don't respond this time either, would you be willing to take on the "reviewer" role and sign off on the article? I think you have already done a more thorough review than they did in any case. Thanks! --MelanieN (talk) 15:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You might actually like {{sc2}} better than {{SC}}, since it's closer to the conventional book style of small-capping acronyms. This template has been under-utilized (wasn't being linked-to from the others). — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 03:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When creating disambiguation pages, fix all resulting mis-directed links.
Before moving an article to a qualified name (in order to create a disambiguation page at the base name, to move an existing disambiguation page to that name, or to redirect that name to a disambiguation page), click on What links here to find all of the incoming links. Repair all of those incoming links to use the new article name.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. MbahGondrong (talk) 22:21, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Back in September 2014 you made this edit, along with similar edits to a number of other pages. FYI there is a more appropriate template which fills in more fields and places the page into an appropriate maintenance template. It is called {{Cite EB9}} -- PBS (talk) 19:16, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A) That entire "attribution" template is a lousy kludge that encourages shitty editing and worse articles. The actual cited sections should be referenced directly. You should also remove it when you see it, as articles accumulate more and more edits and grow farther and farther from their origin as cuts-and-pastes of the EB articles. (The original rationale for that template: it is a minor improvement over a footnote to every single line, though footnoting each paragraph is probably a better idea.)
B) In that article, the cited section is already being directly cited and the "attribution" is utterly superfluous. You're welcome to expand the "Chisholm 1911" formatting of the cite if you like, though, or to emend it so that it refers to a proper bibliography entry like the example at Bagatelle. — LlywelynII08:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your two points:
A I use Earwig's Copyvio Detector to help me sort out what needs an EB1911 inline citaton. I use short citations in the form of {{sfn|Chisholm|1911|p=number}} (unless of course there is a named author for the EB1911 article in which case I use that author's surname.
B Even if the article is directly cited, attribution must be included if the text is copied from a PD source such as EB1911. This is to stop accusations of plagiarism, and is required by the WP:PLAGIARISM guideline. Whether the attribution is added inline or in the references section is as I said a matter of choice and practicality (with large articles with many pages are probably better dealt with using short citations) and also meeting the limitations imposed by WP:CITEVAR.
Further:
I had already put the attribution back (see this edit at 21:42, 22 April 2016 ), to support the short citation that already existed in the article, and was no longer supported when you removed the attribution back in August 2014. Why have you now repeated the edit you made back in 2014 and left the short citations unsupported? Please revert your most recent edit to that page.
Attribution is required to meet the requirements of the section WP:FREECOPYING in theplagiarism guideline. Whether you include short inline citations to a long citation in a references section, as for example is done in Jan Gruter; or using the "inline=1" parameter option that exists in the {{EB1911}} and many other similar templates is a matter of choice (see for example Aleksander Wielopolski). But removing an attribution from a References section is not the way to go, unless:
or text in the Wikipedia article is supported with other citations and the it no longer contains any copied text.
The reason why about 6,000 articles (see EB1911 category no parameter) contain a general attribution without inline citations, is because most of them were imported into Wikipdia in the early days before the push from 2006 onwards to start to include inline citations. Some editors, such as DavidBrooks spend a lot of time working through this backlog adding inline citations, to bring them up to the standard used today. -- PBS (talk) 09:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And in the normal course of events I'd get to this one when I'm about 177 years old. To explain, there has been evolution. Back in the early 2000s when thousands of EB1911 articles were siphoned into WP, the old {{1911}} template was used merely as an acknowledgment. Then in the late 2000's when plagiarism was a concern, a general {{EB1911}} reference was intended as an explicit defense. If the article was still substantially unaltered, there was a fashion to add Attribution (btw, was your objection to the attribution itself, or just to the Attribution sub-head?). Now we have moved to verifiability, and many of the articles have been or may later be incrementally changed, we have to insert footnotes inline, which requires laborious verification and is still underway. Earwig's thing works great for highlighting the verbatim text when comparing against WS; it even works well enough with the unverified OCR text in Page space.
For the inline citations, PBS prefers {{sfn}}, but I prefer <ref>{{unblock reviewed|decline=This account isn't blocked, per your own statement.
|1=1... because I find it easier to navigate. In particular, in a stub like the article under discussion, which only takes up one screen, clicking on the "Chisholm 1911" just reloads the article, which makes me think it is referencing itself (the intention is to bring the citation itself into view). David Brooks (talk) 15:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Adding the bold Attribution: was a Wikipedia editor compromise between those who think that adding text from reliable sources such as EB1911 is acceptable and those who think it is plagiarism/laziness and that all text in Wikipedia articles ought to be hand crafted as summaries of reliable sources. You can measure the correspondence on this subject by the metre starting in June 2008 with Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism/Archive 1#Incorporating other free content into Wikipedia is not plagiarism. The placing of the attribution notices in a highly visible way meant that it could not be the case that Wikipedia editors were passing off other peoples writing as their own (hence it could not be plagiarism). -- PBS (talk) 16:33, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Llewelyn, this edit removed the referent from the Chisholm 1911 sfn, so that footnote is now meaningless (refers to nothing). PBS's style was the version you changed; my style would be to add <ref>{{EB1911|inline=1|wstitle=Ávila, Gil Gonzalez de |volume=3 |page=64}}</ref> at the end of the (only) paragraph instead of the sfn. It should be reverted to one of the two styles, but I have to log off in a few moments and I'll leave it at that for now. David Brooks (talk) 01:02, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey
The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.
You messed up a ref and I'm not sure what you were trying for. It's the first ref in the references section and it's obvious which one. Bgwhite (talk) 07:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Boleyn: Because I've got Boleyn's talkpage on my watchlist I was curious about the post she immediately deleted, so rummaged around and found Eliza Stewart (ship). I've added to it a bit ... and complicated matters by finding that there were two ships of the name, I leave it to you to sort that lot out. But I've now created a solid little stub for William Clark (artist), the Scottish marine painter who painted the (other?) ES ship. And thus have probably now not got time to go out and shop for a new pair of tights to wear to today's funeral of neighbour as planned, so will be wearing winter-weight hosiery during a heatwave ... but that's how Wikipedia editing goes! PamD09:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Crime in Zambia for deletion, because it's too short to identify the subject of the article.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
No idea what you're talking about, but it looks like a reference to the Jewish Encyclopedia, which would have been written around that time. You can check on Google: there are some online editions. — LlywelynII01:01, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Ok. You're just blind. There's a clear entry on the Jewish Encyclopedia in the bibliography just below the part you were looking at. I patched the hyperlink, though, so it'll be more obvious for future readers. Thanks for bringing it to my attention, since I'm sure that if you were confused there were others as well. — LlywelynII13:16, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, LlywelynII. 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.
I'm sorry for repeating myself and making the discussion heated. I should have waited for other editors to come by, as you said. I will not make any more comments, and I will let someone else review the nomination. Gulumeemee (talk) 04:03, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. You weren't very heated and I do understand where you're coming from but WP:IAR is precisely part of Wikipedia's bedrock in order to avoid situations like this where decent info might get tossed out on procedural grounds. We're not the police and it's better to be transparent and informative than to be overly cautious. Misinformation should be removed but potential mistakes can be noted with {{fact}} or {{dubious}} and left for people to fix down the line. With biographies of living peopleyou are absolutely right that we can't even be a little lax, since giving people leeway there might impact lives and start lawsuits. With obscure foreign temples, it's better to be informative even if it's not a scholarly source. There's no journal that mentions the fun moving parts on the ship models at the sea museum in the Ningbo Mazu Temple but there's a mom whose son enjoyed them a lot, as noted on her blog. Is a blog a bulletproof source? Of course not. Is she lying about the things she photographed and documented on her blog? Of course not. Should it be included? Absolutely in this case, though blogs are worthless in other situations.
You added a message to the archived template for this nomination accusing me of mucking up the hook. I do not like your nasty comments because in fact I promoted the exact hook as originally nominated by you and you have, with this edit removed that hook. Please explain. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:38, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On further inspection, I see that I moved the hook to Prep3, but made no changes to it, and it was later moved to Prep4 by another editor. So not only have you falsified the evidence but you have also accused the wrong person. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:05, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what you're on about but the hook was fine when I left it and I have no clue what you consider "falsified". I did thank you for your work (sincerely: I know you aren't paid to deal with messes like this) and, if some other editor whose trail I didn't pick up was responsible for the changes, (a)of course sorry for any unpleasant feelings and (b) you need to watch their work or replace them. It's one thing to edit a little or even to add the unhelpful link. It's quite another to turn a perfectly accurate hook into a false one and to mangle its grammar. They don't really know what they're doing. — LlywelynII06:15, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't a question. I even linked it: the hook was fine when I left it and before it was promoted. You claim you didn't muck it up and I have absolutely no reason to doubt you. You're generally a fine guy, even if you're pissed at me now.
Whoever did mangle the hook (which has absolutely nothing to do with my cutting it to paste it into the emergency fix-the-front-page template) is still someone to keep an eye on. They think they are improving hooks by misspelling things and wrecking their grammar and presumably will continue to do so in the future until major mistakes like this are pointed out to them.
You can keep being angry at me for my straightforward mistake that I already apologized for but improving the project moving forward involves fixing that other editor, not bitching at me some more (...though you're welcome to if it cheers you up. Like I said, honest mistake, but you're obviously still in a bad mood over it.). — LlywelynII08:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well actually you have said it yourself, you "cut" the hook to paste it into your front page comment whereas you should have copied it. I thought you has removed it on purpose to make my actions seem more heinous. Let's forget it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather not forget it to the point you have someone incompetent involved with placing material on the front page. I never claimed anyone blanked the hook (though I apparently did by accident); they adjusted it in such a way as to make it grammatically and factually incorrect for no reason apart from their own poor understanding of the material and the English language.
My blanking apparently made this unclear but the promoted hook was ... that, since it honors a notionally illegal cult, suburban Shanghai's Tianfei Palace is officially classified as a museum? which someone turned into ... that since it honors a nationally illegal cult, suburban Shanghai's Tianfei Palace is officially classified as a museum? siphoning off about 4,000 views through a link that shouldn't be there and turning it into an untrue statement. Mazuism is notionally illegal but the Commies provide workarounds. "Nationally illegal" is not even an English expression: this hook is literally the third result for it on vanilla Google. We should find them and address the problem before moving on.
Again, though, sorry to have caused you needless agita by not knowing multiple admins are involved with adjusting the hooks, which caused me to make the complaint personal and to the wrong guy. I tried to follow the trail myself but couldn't make heads or tails of where to find the hook's edit history at T:DYK/Q. — LlywelynII21:38, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, it wasYoninah. Odd since they claim to be a professional editor and usually have pretty decent English chops. Must've been having a bad day. Still annoyed this needless edit siphoned off 4000 views. Yon, you're normally a force for good, but this was a big miss. Do be more careful. — LlywelynII21:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The matter has been discussed at the DYK discussion page. Neither Yoninah nor I are admins, we're just editors trying to help out to keep the DYK project running. Since most reviews of nominations are done as QPQs, they are not necessarily done to the highest standard, and often the hook is not ideally worded even when the hook facts have been well checked. So hooks frequently need to be adjusted when in prep, and your hook lost out on this occasion. You also need to make allowances for the fact that American and British usage is sometimes different. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Late to this: I missed the changes, sorry. I appreciate your work around DYK, Cwmhiraeth and Yoninah, but can you perhaps reduce your load by not making changes that are unhelpful? In this case: not changing a spelling to nonsense, and not linking where a link was intentionally avoided? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, those were my thoughts so thanks for the note but I was obviously over-reacting in the moment. Cwm was completely innocent and I'm sure it was an honest mistake on Yon's part. They're both very active and very helpful and mistakes like this are uncommon, as far as I've seen. At the same time, yeah, he needs to bone up on his commas and, I'd say, moving forward never add in new links since they just hobble the hooks... but there's probably a better place to have that discussion than the bottom of this talk page. =) — LlywelynII13:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The German Wikipedia has an easy solution for the latter: only one link, the one to the article in question. No noms of multiple articles, no distraction by other topics. It works once you get used to it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
LlywelynII, there hasn't been a peep from the nominator on this review; they last edited the article over a month ago on December 16, and haven't edited Wikipedia since December 26. Perhaps it's time to close the nomination? Please let me know what your plans are. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a subsection it is to make it very clear that the text is copied from another source, the line is in bold not a section header.
Your opinion is not the opinion of many editors who contributed to the talk page of Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism or the guidance given in Wikipedia:Plagiarism. Many editors do not agree with copying text from a PD source, the compromise reached over this issue was to highlight such text with explicit attribution. If you do not think it necessary then please raise the issue on Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism-- PBS (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's peachy you have your own understanding of what they've said but even if a LOCALCONSENSUS has formed it doesn't actually trump the actual core policies. Now, that said, it'd probably help if you reread your own cite which explicitly says that other appropriate forms of attribution (such as inclusion in the page's bibliography) are fine and your malformatted templates (I can't count the number of pages I've seen where well-meaning editors have attributed articles personally to Hugh Chisholm because of EB’s shitty default template) are not required. — LlywelynII12:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just dropping a personal note here so you know about this. You need to review someone else's DYK nomination and then report which nomination you reviewed. I would encourage you to do this as soon as you can, so this hook can be passed. Regards, epicgenius (talk) 00:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
LlywelynII, it's been 19 days and you still haven't addressed the issue you said you would. Can you please give this your attention very soon? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
no article about William Matthew O'Neil on Wikipedia
I enjoyed reading the Nundinae article – I think the points I raised are very minor and you'll be able to easily sort them out. I'll keep a close eye on the nomination to try and respond quickly. I use HarvErrors all the time to help me when I create articles (I also use shortened footnotes on new articles) but I find HarvErrors intrusive when I'm I'm just reading other people's articles for pleasure. Best wishes. Thincat (talk) 09:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, LlywelynII. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).
Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.
If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Swarm♠03:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please take a look at Zhangzhou because after a series of edit that you made that extended the article in November last year several long citations carry the same parameters in ref={harvid}. This means it is not clear to which long citations some of the short citations refer. -- PBS (talk) 13:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ritenbenk
Hi LlywelynII, it's been a few years, but where did you find the information that Ritenbenk was on Appat Island in Uummannaq Fjord? On this map you see that Ritenbenk (Agpat) was almost 80 miles further south, on a tiny island (possibly in modern spelling also called Appat Island, immediately west off much larger Alluttoq Island). The coordinates in the article also would place it there. Possibly, the error arose from two islands both called Appat. In this case, the article Appat Island also needs to be corrected. BTW, Ritenbenk used to be a municipality until 1950, and then became part of Jakobshavn. I have started to work on the original sixty-so municipalities of Greenland that existed before 18 Nov 1950, when 16 new municipalities were created in West Greeland (if interested read here. Greetings from the de-WP,--Ratzer (talk) 06:51, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For your stellar improvement of the article Dog days, please accept this hijacked and repurposed “TimeStar”. After your efforts this article is now well-sourced, well-illustrated, and a pleasure to read, including beautifully lain out bilingual quotations. Thank you! and have a pleasant summer ;-) groupuscule (talk) 18:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. I certainly did not mean to be rude or combative. As you will have seen, I did replace the link with a more appropriate one to the Office of Works immediately afterwards. Paul W (talk) 17:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Review DYK red-billed quelea
Thank you very much for reviewing the quelea article. I did not know about the copyvio detector, very useful. Some of the indicated word groups will be easy to paraphrase. In some others however, the result would be convoluted, or are the result of links to existing wiki pages. One phrase indicated as copyvio is "The red-billed quelea (Quelea quelea) ...", which is in fact the way almost any species article begins, and I think it would be strange to have to change it, or "the cardinal quelea Q. cardinalis", where it would be odd to not give the common name followed by the scientific name at the first mentioning of a species. Another example where I would suggest giving dispensation would be for other names that consist of several words, such as "southern Democratic Republic of Congo" and "the Lake Chad basin". I've made many changes and hope these suffice. Regards, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 15:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome and absolutely right: the lead should start the same way and I'm not about to bother you over that. Ditto obvious expressions like those you gave: although it really is easy enough to come up with "the southern areas of the Democratic Republic of Congo", "the Democratic Republic of Congo's southern reaches", "the Lake Chad watershed", "the drainage basin of Lake Chad", &c., all of those are wordier and may not fit the sentence. It was the other stuff that could be easily rephrased that should be, particularly full sentences where the verb is easy enough to change.
Again, thanks for creating such an interesting article on such a major part of our world most people don't know about. — LlywelynII22:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite welcome and the story overall is interesting, but it was very hard to find information on the man himself. If you have anything in any language, go ahead and add it to the article's talk page and I'll see if I can add it some time. — LlywelynII07:59, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Robert McClenon (talk) 14:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi LlywelynII. Sorry about the revert - I thought it was an infrasound add. However, having looked at the Schumann resonances page, I can see that's not necessarily the case, and they may be audible. I don't suppose you have an article that specifically mentions the Schumann resonances and the Hum? Cheers, Bromley86 (talk) 23:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
New Page Reviewing
Hello, LlywelynII.
I've seen you editing recently and you seem knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)09:20, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, LlywelynII. 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.
I don't see the problem as long as it still displays but thank you for providing a clear solution to the "problem". I'll adjust the code and stop using it going forward. — LlywelynII04:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi LlywelynII, thanks for your new articles in ancient Chinese history! One thing I noticed is that you kept appending the xing surname such as Ji and Ying to the names of noble men. Please note that in the Zhou dynasty the xing surname was only used by women: Li Ji, Huai Ying, Mu Ji, Wen Jiang, etc. Men only used the shi surname, such as Hu Yan, Zhao Cui, etc. And rulers usually did not use surnames at all (officially the name of their state is their shi surname), similar to modern European royalty. So Chong'er, Prince Chong'er, or (rarely) Jin Chong'er is correct. But Ji Chong'er would be akin to calling Queen Elizabeth "Elizabeth Windsor". Cheers, -Zanhe (talk) 18:16, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please don't add your own gloss to personal names without an RS. That's not even done for modern names (we don't interpret Deng Xiaoping as "little flat" or Xi Jinping as "near flat"), and it's even more treacherous for ancient names, when the same words could have vastly different meanings from their modern usage. You wouldn't gloss Hu Mao 狐毛 as "fox fur", would you? -Zanhe (talk) 20:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's very interesting but (as with your earlier misunderstanding of raw Google results) you seem misinformed or in need of some editing elsewhere. Our sourced article on Chinese surnames—linked at your own edit—disagrees with what you wrote above, stating that the men carried the surnames as well; every article linked to a royal figure includes their xing; and I am not remotely the only one to call the guy 'Ji Chong'er'. (We just discussed the problems with Google searches, but fwiw it's more common than 'Prince Chong'er'.) You may very well be right about the usage ('Prince Chong'er' is more common at Google Scholar) and I think you mean well (I appreciate your articles on Chinese figures as well) but you need to tidy that surname article up, with better sourcing about how you think the usage worked, rather than just re-editing my pages without sourcing to reflect what you think is appropriate, lest we start having WP:HOUND issues.
Courtesy and posthumous names are always meaningful and that meaning should be noted on the page, rather than continuing the misunderstanding that they were proper names. (You're right I should find sourcing. I hadn't added it yet, but it's in Nienhauser Jr's translation of Sima Qian.) There is certainly an argument that, e.g., "Duke Mu" is the much more common English name for the guy but it's so substantively wrong that I do think we should push back and highlight the posthumous and descriptive nature of that title (not name) more strongly. That's a discussion for WP:MOS-ZH, though, and not my talk page.
"Ji Chong'er" is wrong. It does get lots of google page results (so does "Elizabeth Windsor"), but very few google books results. Please read some scholarly works like Endymion Wilkinson's Chinese History: A New Manual: "Although they had clan names (xing), they were not normally referred to by these ... Note that Zhou Gong's clan name (xing) was never incorporated in his name (so never Zhou Ji Dan gong or Zhou gong Ji Dan). It was only centuries later, when clan names (xing) and lineage names (shi) had long since become combined ... that people very occasionally anachronistically referred to him as Ji Dan. Unlike elite men, elite women were normally referred to by their clan name (xing)." (pp. 114-5, unfortunately not on Google books). -Zanhe (talk) 01:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, "Duke Mu" is wrong, if conventional. "Ji Chong'er" isn't wrong; it's just anachronistic in the same way referencing the Emperor Kaitian Xingdao Zhaoji Liji Dasheng Zhishen Renwen Yiwu Junde Chenggong Gāo of the Ming as the "Hongwu Emperor" or "Zhu Yuanzheng" isn't wrong but is anachronistic. The error Wilkinson has an issue with (Zhou Ji Dan Gong) isn't something that I'm doing. And, again, my talk page isn't the place to put your references and corrections and usage guidelines. Chinese surname is. — LlywelynII01:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Hongwu Emperor" or "Zhu Yuanzheng" is not anachronistic. One is the emperor's reign name, the other his personal name. How is Duke Mu wrong? Posthumous names are descriptive, but in Chinese adjectives and nouns are often used interchangeably. On the other hand, names like "Ji Dan" or "Ji Chong'er" are anachronistic and wrong. They're never seen in the copious ancient works or bronze inscriptions and they are avoided by most scholars, especially when the correct version is readily available and more concise (e.g. Chong'er). This has nothing to do with my personal preference, but it's about academic integrity. Wilkinson is only one of the many scholars who insist on this; there are many others such as Yang Kuan in his History of the Western Zhou, Zheng Qiao in his Tongzhi (which is cited by Wilkinson in his book), etc. -Zanhe (talk) 02:02, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you seem to be confusing "wrong" and "anachronistic", misreading what Wilkinson actually said, and gleefully importing modern naming conventions anachronistically into Ming names while disparaging doing so for the Zhou despite knowing that some academic sources already indulge in it... but all of that is neither here nor there. Take your sources and go correct the Chinese surname and any affiliated pages, so we can improve the quality of the project. My talk page isn't the place for further discussion on the point. — LlywelynII03:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ulrich Theobald is pretty good in general, but his website is not a peer-reviewed publication and does make mistakes (I've seen quite a few over the years), such as misreading Juancheng 鄄城 as Zhencheng. 鄄 Juan and 甄 Zhen are similar characters that are easily confused. -Zanhe (talk) 01:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's great. You still can't just change the text without changing the reference, pretending that it supports your reading. At bare minimum, you'd need to change the text and add a {{fact}} tag, at which point your edit would probably get reverted. WP:RS is a thing. (And again I don't think you mean ill or are even wrong about your reading. It's just this particular way you just did this particular thing that you should be better about.) — LlywelynII01:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Being an RS does not mean it's infallible. And in this case, the source in question is self-published, even if by a generally knowledgeable person. Demonstrably wrong info needs to be corrected (or at least omitted). -Zanhe (talk) 03:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're still missing the point. It's not that I'm convinced he's right or that you shouldn't correct mistakes. You absolutely should. You cannot, however, leave the previous source as the article's source for your correction. Given that it is sourced (however fallibly), you should further ideally provide a source for your correction, if you want other editors to accept it as correct. — LlywelynII03:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I just saw
this and this. After all these years of editing Wikipedia, I was kind of expecting you to be a bit more mature and receptive to well-meaning criticisms. I've reviewed about 300 DYK nominations, and you're the first person to suggest that I need to improve my reviewing ability. But that's fine, your request is granted and I'll stay away from your nominations. -Zanhe (talk) 00:20, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I didn't get a chance to reply to your note here before the nomination was promoted and closed. That's a very interesting read! I actually toured much of Shanxi last year, but passed by Jiexiu without visiting Mount Mian. Wish I had read the article before! BTW, if you're planning to write about other sites in Shanxi, let me know as I may have photos that I can upload. Anyways, I'll leave for my Christmas break soon, so Happy Holidays! -Zanhe (talk) 00:30, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On 23 December 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mount Mian, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that temples on Mount Mian in Shanxi, China, observe an annual Cold Food Festival? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mount Mian. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Mount Mian), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
As one of Wikipedia's most experienced editors,
Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)22:14, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, first and most importantly, thank you (or y'all) for taking the time and effort to cleanup and expand Wikipedia's coverage of China. We have stellar stuff on Shanghai and 1989 but interest usually tapers off pretty quickly: Simple Wikipedia has a better National Day article than we do over here and, like you noticed, coverage of districts and smaller towns is almost nonexistent. I'm kinda busy on my own slowly working down the list of AAAAA tourist attractions to see where I should go next (Mt Mian, e.g., has almost no English language coverage but seems like it'll be gorgeous come summer), but if you just wanted general advice?
Well, 1st, it's always better to have a placeholder page than nothing.
2nd, it's better to use {{chinese}} infoboxes instead of the {{zh}} template since it has better formatting, more room, and keeps the lead sentence clean. You can use Pin1yin1 to get the tonal pinyin and traditional/simplified forms and this page to add the Wade-Giles forms that you see in older English scholarship.
3rd, use the {{linktext}} template to connect the Chinese characters to more info at Wiktionary. If you don't mind learning their formatting, you can make entries for the city names themselves (like {{linktext|上海}}: 上海). It's ok if you don't want to bother. In that case, just use pipes to link each character separately (like {{linktext|上|海}}: 上海). Curious people can still learn more about what each character looks like, sounded like in Old Chinese, etc.
4th, if you use the infobox, don't also include the Chinese text in the lead sentence (WP:MOS-ZH).
5th, the Chinese system doesn't really fit English, especially the different levels of "city". I think it's more natural to say X District is part of Y, but X County is in Y Prefecture when Y is a "prefecture-level city"; or A is in B County when B is a "county-level city". That's just my own personal opinion, though, and not something that's official policy anywhere.
6th, it's nice but not necessary to create redirects (#REDIRECT [[X]]) from alternative names.
7th, it looks like you're responsible for the citations on the Hubei townships page. I get what you're trying to do and it might even be appropriate on the townships' individual pages, but it really is an eyesore on the list page. You don't really need the quotes and translations that just repeat the Chinese and pinyin you just listed. As soon as the pages exist, you don't really need the references at all, though yeah it's better to have them while most of the content still consists of red links.
Thank you for your support and your criticism! Having this kind of feedback will make my edits stronger, so I really thank you for it.
Concerning points two and four, I love having the Chinese & pinyin in the lead, but I also love the Chinese sidebox. Shanghai, Guangzhou, Hong Kong, and Hu Jintao all have a little Chinese in the lead but then also at the same time have a Chinese box. I recognize that doing it this way may be seen as a duplication of existing material. I see the style manual says you should only do one or the other. I for my part am just going to avoid changing the status quo on any page I edit concerning adding or deleting Chinese in the lead and/or the Chinese box. It's not really the area I am interested in editing anyway.
Concerning point 3, I will link the individual characters if there is no wikitionary article. I will take it under consideration; right now I am not that interested in adding new wikitionary articles, just shoring up the existing articles. I am interested in character construction/liushu/zaozifa and have made edits there on that front.
Concerning point 5, I will try to go by your standard on 'part of' and 'is in'. I really don't know how it should be written. If you would be willing to do a specific edit or two of this type and link me to it, it would be helpful for me to get the jist of how I should write. I ask this because I want to slowly move towards making high quality edits that use the experience of people who have been doing this for a while.
Concerning point 6, I will try to do one redirect a day. Here's one I just did for today using the Wade Giles romanization: Wu-ch‘ang
Concerning point 7, I hope to create well-sourced, well-cited lists of the component divisions of the districts and counties of Wuhan and maybe even Hubei. I invite you to edit some of the citations I have done in the way you see fit as an example so I can mimick your way. I also hope to clearly understand the difference between what would be the appropriate citation method on the list page, and what would be appropriate citation method on on the district/county page.
@Lead/infobox: I do know what you mean. Eg, Shanghai has it but Beijing doesn't. It's just better if you're creating pages to do it right to keep the work down from the people who care about style guides, etc.
@Wiktionary: Absolutely, creating entries there is above and beyond. It is still helpful to link the individual characters if you can.
@Phrasing: Like I said, it's just what I think is clear in English since Chinese "cities" really cover both an urban core and its surrounding jurisdiction, including counties and other cities with no connection to the urban core. You can always say something like
It's just about keeping the phrasing sensible for English readers, who won't grok how a town can be part of a city inside a city inside a city, none of which are connected with each other. That is, though, a personal thing I do with articles I create and isn't something I've pushed for adding to the style guide.
@Redirects: That's great, although I think the standard is to just use straight apostrophes ⟨'⟩ in the article titles even though it's nicer to use the actual reverse curled quotes ⟨‘⟩ in Wade part of the infoboxes. I'm pretty sure Google just treats them the same, and more people will be typing the straight kind into the search box here. It's best to have both, of course. — LlywelynII04:48, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nanjing ENGVAR
Your accusation that I am changing ENGVAR ("converting the article to British English, against policy, ignoring the original spellings") at Nanjing, when the single edit that I ever made was this, prior to reverting your somewhat bold engvar edits, does not strike me as calml and reasonable as recommended by the Wikipedia:Civility policy. Batternut (talk) 22:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't an accusation. It's an accurate description of your no doubt good-faith edits. You should pay attention to all the actual policy you are ignoring, though. — LlywelynII23:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have made precisely 3 edits to Nanjing. One entirely unrelated metro population figure, and two reverts of your bold edits. The article is not marked as US engvar, it appears that you are trying to impose it without much discussion. I fear that WP:ANI beckons. Batternut (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was using policy to standardize the article, yes. If there's a reason to standardize it the other way, address that without the personal attacks. — LlywelynII23:16, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your "So you're converting the article to British English, against policy, ignoring the original spellings" was the first personal attack. which was totally and absolutely unjustifiable!! But listen, I am sure we both want the best for the article. Yes I see the spellings mess that it had. I'm just saying the choice of engvar should be discussed fully before making that change. I just reckon you jumped into action a tad quickly, that is all. Batternut (talk) 23:44, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By way of advance notice, hoping to avoid the eventuality, my ANI complaint will be worded along the lines of:
I recently sent you an invitation to join NPP, but you also might be the right candidate for another related project, AfC, which is also extremely backlogged. Would you please consider becoming an Articles for Creation reviewer? Articles for Creation reviewers help new users learn the ropes of creating their first articles, and identify whether topics are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Reviewing drafts doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia inclusion policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After requesting to be added to the project, reviewing is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the reviewing instructions before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)01:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads-up, and I see now that CoE's nomination was submitted on the first and just got processed faster. I'd thought it was based on promotion, but I see now what you mean. Sorry for the trouble. — LlywelynII12:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When you have a minute to answer, though, that makes me curious. I usually haven't bothered with the GA process, but the WikiCup had me curious about polishing up some of the things I had already done. Given that they're already mostly written, though, they wouldn't qualify even if I shepherded them through the GA process now? — LlywelynII02:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you just nominated them as they are now for GAN, they wouldn't qualify, but if you looked at them critically and found some extra information to add or various improvements to make before nominating them, they could. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's the problem: I already tried to make them as well as I could for the most part, so if there's anything major to add I didn't see it. But you're saying that doing the process now and addressing the reviewers' concerns isn't enough to qualify. Thank you: very glad to know that now at the outset before I started anything with, eg, François Noël or House of the Huangcheng Chancellor; I'll just do it with things I work on going forward. — LlywelynII07:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not particularly, no. It's not well publicized in English, and people might encounter it under any of those numerous names via the mess that is Chinese romanization. Cf. Lake Tai's redirects, even though its name is only one character long. I didn't even get into the obviously erroneous translations like "Huang Qi Hai Lake", even though those show up too. There are sources for every data point in the article; Baidu Baike just isn't a RS worth noting except as an external link. You're welcome to improve the sourcing for the article if you can find anything; if you doubt the existence of the lake, follow the GPS links; if you doubt its importance, (a)reread WP:BIAS and (b)go back and follow the links in the History section, which have references on the other end. There's actually going to be a lot more redirects once I'm able to get my VPN to work and I can finish translating the historical names for the lake from its Baidu Baike article; Lake Huangqi has only been its name for the last two centuries or so and it's been important to China for two millennia plus. If you want to edit in all of the alternative names to a persondata style template or port it all to Wikidata, that's fine too but the redirects would need to be made in any case.
Now, all that said and even though you were wrong in this case about this concern, thank you for being one of the people watching over the project. Keep up the good work; it's appreciated. — LlywelynII09:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atooi (disambiguation) 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. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wainui Falls
Hey mate, thanks for your comments on the Wainui Falls DYK and your useful comments. You mentioned GA at the time, and following some cleanup and expansion I have nominated the article for GA. As you are already familiar with the subject, I wonder if you would be interested in performing a review? The article itself is quite short, but it represents all of the published knowledge about the subject (see the talk page for a full canvassing of available sources, including offline sources that I checked out of the library). If you aren't interested, no worries. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)00:57, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On 3 March 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Yanmen Commandery, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in the mid-3rd centuryBC, the governor of Zhao's Yanmen Commandery lured 100,000 nomad horsemen over the Great Wall before defeating them? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Yanmen Commandery. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Yanmen Commandery), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
On 10 April 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Dai Commandery, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Dai Prefecture and County carried on the name of a "barbarian" kingdom and Qin commandery, despite being in a completely different part of China? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Dai Commandery), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
On 10 April 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Dai Prefecture, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Dai Prefecture and County carried on the name of a "barbarian" kingdom and Qin commandery, despite being in a completely different part of China? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Dai Prefecture), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
I have been editing articles on the history of Spain and Latin America only since 2014. I saw your comment about the need to re-title the WP article Enlightenment in Spain to "Bourbon Spain." I entirely agree. I left a comment on the article talk page. I think the section on the intellectual Enlightenment in Spain should stay, but the Spanish Bourbon dynastic history should be re-titled "Bourbon Spain."Amuseclio (talk) 00:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)Amuseclio[reply]
I saw you did a lot of good work for Dai County. Just wanted to mention that I started an article for the Guangwu section of the Great Wall which is in the adjacent county to the west: Shanyin County. I thought you might have come across some of the history of the section while writing about Dai County. Also it is interesting to note that the present day villages of New Guangwu and Old Guangwu are located in Shanyin County. I've also created a disambiguation page for Guangwu to try to clear up any confusion about the many places named Guangwu present and past. Muzzleflash (talk) 18:18, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, LlywelynII. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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.
Hi LlywelynII. Thank you for your edit at Battle of Ganja (1826).[5] While its true that Tsitsianov ordered for the ban on the usage of the original name "Ganja" after the 1804 conquest, it seems to have been only accepted by the Russian administration at the time, for not a single modern WP:RS source refers to the 1826 clash as the "Battle of Elisabethpol". At least, I wasn't able to find anything. Perhaps you were more successful? Also... Ganja was garrisoned by the Iranian forces at the time of the 1826 battle. This is well-sourced within the article. So your addition "Elisabethpol, Russia" at the "location" parameter was not a correct one (either). Best, - LouisAragon (talk) 12:45, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
... but none of that is important. I didn't move the article or replace the main name in the text, only provided alternative names that might appear in historical sources. Just such a reference to a Battle of Elisabethpol in the 19th-century Britannicas is precisely why I made the edits in the first place. The names are so different that they need to be included somewhere so that people trying to understand old sources can find the battle at all. — LlywelynII17:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also somewhat concerned about the edit you made at this article, Battle of Ganja (1804).[6] Ganja was renamed Elisabethpol by the Russian administration after its conquest in 1804, not during, not before. You also added Armenian language to the lede; why exactly? Thanks, - LouisAragon (talk) 12:50, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Without spending too much time looking for exactly what was on my mind, its large Armenian community would justify the addition. Again, there was probably some reference to the Armenian name in the sources I was looking at which wasn't previously mentioned by the article.
Thanks for your concern and comments, but we should err on the side of inclusion and service to our readers, including those trying to understand outdated sources and references. It's only w/r/t to the page name itself that we need to fight over the One True Name. That said, if you really feel those names (or others you come across in similar articles) are providing UNDUE attention, the solution isn't removal but shunting them to (i)a #Name section, (ii)a footnote, possibly using {{efn}} and {{noteslist}} instead of ref tags, or (iii)a mention in the list of synonyms in the Wikidata entry (you can get to that by hitting the #Wikidata item button to the left or the #Edit links button in the list of foreign-language articles). — LlywelynII17:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if it struck you as elaborate. Nine messages with many valid points but the risk of deleted content seemed to deserve some attention. It might not be lede-worthy, though obviously I thought it was when I couldn't find it at first. I was just offering other options to removal, so others can find it when they look. In any case, happy Year of the Pig and thanks for the heads-up. — LlywelynII18:37, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I just had 3 more messages from you and two edit conflicts trying to respond. Kindly do try to use fewer quick edits to your comments on people's talk pages. They get notified and have to restart their typing after each one. Cheers. — LlywelynII18:37, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I was going in good faith from all the dab headers that were distinguishing it from "Western Range", "Western Ranges", etc. which would be unnecessary if people didn't occasionally refer to the Tasmanian range that way. Seems like they should have at some point and easy enough to Google...
PS: For what it's worth, it's better form and helps keep conversations clearer if you reply to yourself at the same level as before, rather than skipping over two levels. — LlywelynII03:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
from the material that I have reviewed and also from living there I have never seen the usage you are suggesting. To have a hat note with an unused term seems like an invention rather than reflecting current mainland australia usage or local western tasmanian usage. JarrahTree03:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I just gave you two and you can Google plenty more yourself. It's not an unused term or "invention", even if it might not be common enough to deserve a spot in the opening paragraph.
On the other hand, the page should have a hatnote to Western Range not because the Tasmanian range is commonly called that but because the other mountains at western range might occasionally be referenced as a western coastal range (particularly, from what I saw, the Canadian and Californian coastal ranges). Hatnotes are to help people who might be looking for something else, not for people who are already where they need to be. — LlywelynII04:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't and don't be so ridiculous and objectionable in the future, lest you end up with some form of editing ban. That said, my apologies for the simple mistake that happened while I was fixing the page's broken syntax. — LlywelynII00:45, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On 5 April 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Cape Fugui, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Cape Fugui, the northernmost point on Taiwan, includes a beach with ventifacts? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Cape Fugui. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Cape Fugui), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Hi, LlywellynII. I'm sorry I didn't notice, before requesting a move back of Magnae Carvetiorum to Magnis (Carvoran), that you were the editor who originally moved these two pages. Perhaps you would still say that those are the "actual names". In case you would, I've withdrawn the move request and we can discuss it. Until now no one has favoured the move at Talk:Magnae Carvetiorum ... but not so very many have disputed it either. I guess that is where it could be discussed. Andrew Dalby20:02, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While this is available...
Tonight is only the 2nd moment since late April that Wikipedia has been available in China without a VPN. Apologies but, as long as Wikimedia blanket-bans VPNs without allowance for signed-in editors, it's very likely that I won't be able to respond to any problems or requests in the near future. — LlywelynII16:06, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In this article you provided the citation "Jakobielski, S. A Chronology of the Bishops of Faras." Can you point to this? Or give more details? Thanks, Srnec (talk) 22:49, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I noticed that you edited Bomilcar (2nd century BC) to put "BC" in small caps (BC). I've reverted this, because MOS:SMALLCAPS says: "Some uses of small caps that are common in the house styles of particular publishers are not used on Wikipedia; the most common are for Roman numerals (use XIV, not XIV) and for acronyms for eras (use BCE, AD, etc., not BCE, AD)." Sandstein 10:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, thanks for your work. I wish to mention that reversions and revisions done by you to Churchill Falls have reintroduced and/or introduced the following problems:
WP:OVERSECTION on Legacy section, containing a single short unreferenced statement.
Information in the history section about the "controlled release" is in the wrong section. The reference is to news from last month. It should be moved and combined with the info in the lead.
The section header "Names" is unconventional. "Etymology" or "Toponymy" are often used, or indeed the information is combined with the history section.
You're welcome. You might want to reread the policies, as (inter alia) OVERLINK explicitly allows a single link is not always preferable even without dragging WP:IAR and WP:READER into it; there's only one link per section and it's not expected that all the readers of the history section will be heading to the etym one or interested in CTRL+Fing other occurrences. It's not the kind of spammy linking that policy exists to nix. Similarly OVERSECTION doesn't support you at all. There's a need for a separate section for that content (it's not etymological or historical information about the falls; legacy is a common section name; it's an important point about the surrounding community; etc.), and policy is fine with that. Similarly NOTBROKEN has nothing whatsoever to do with the links you're discussing; it's about redirects versus direct links. Name is not unconventional (see, inter alia, China) and is preferable per WP:TERSE, as well as accessibility. TERSE is also a reason to pipe Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, although granted that's more validly debatable than the rest.
On 22 August 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Samuel van der Putte, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that after traveling through India, Tibet, and the Qing Empire for more than 20 years, 18th-century Dutch explorer Samuel van der Putte ordered his notes and journals to be burned rather than accept their misuse? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Samuel van der Putte. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Samuel van der Putte), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Passenger line 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. Rathfelder (talk) 20:09, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello LlywelynII. It has been around a month-and-a-half since you nominated the article for DYK, and have thus far been unable to respond to a review by another editor. Please respond to the concerns raised; as the nomination has been ongoing for so long, if a reply is not forthcoming, the nomination may have to be marked for closure as stale. Thank you and happy editing. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew01:07, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On 21 October 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Qarhan Playa, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Dabusun Lake(pictured) is the largest remaining lake in China's Qarhan Playa, which 30,000 years ago held a single lake spreading over at least 25,000 km2 (9,700 sq mi)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Qarhan Playa. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Qarhan Playa), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
On 21 October 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Dabusun Lake, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Dabusun Lake(pictured) is the largest remaining lake in China's Qarhan Playa, which 30,000 years ago held a single lake spreading over at least 25,000 km2 (9,700 sq mi)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dabusun Lake. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Dabusun Lake), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Dear Llywelynll, if you are interested, please review my recent change to Dabusun Lake and let me know what you think. [8] has "Dabasun Nor (Variant - V)". I also found a 2018 usage of the Dabasun Nor spelling (see edit history on that page). My mental calculus is such: "big database says variant + a 2018 usage = alternately". 'Formerly' would apply to other variants that don't have a usage since maybe 2000. Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On 7 November 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Suli Lake, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Qarhan Playa's Bieletan subbasin – including the Suli, South Suli, Dabiele, and Xiaobiele salt lakes – is China's largest source of brine lithium? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Suli Lake. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Suli Lake), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
On 7 November 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Dabiele Lake, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Qarhan Playa's Bieletan subbasin – including the Suli, South Suli, Dabiele, and Xiaobiele salt lakes – is China's largest source of brine lithium? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Dabiele Lake), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
On 7 November 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Xiaobiele Lake, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Qarhan Playa's Bieletan subbasin – including the Suli, South Suli, Dabiele, and Xiaobiele salt lakes – is China's largest source of brine lithium? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Xiaobiele Lake), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
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.
Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!
Hello,
Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.
I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!
From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.
If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.
A tag has been placed on Template:Owl icon requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is an unused duplicate of another template, or a hard-coded instance of another template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is not actually the same as the other template noted, please consider putting a note on the template's page explaining how this one is different so as to avoid any future mistakes.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. –MJL‐Talk‐☖17:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi LlywelynII,
I noted from your edit on the Heshan, Guangdong article [11] that the "shan" in postal romanisation "Hok-shan" is claimed to be from the Mandarin pronunciation. However, this seems inconsistent with postal romanisation being based on local pronunciations – I would expect that the entire pronunciation is from Cantonese since 山 is historically known to have a "shan" sound in Cantonese, only disappearing in the late 19th century. Since you have cited Encyclopaedia Britannica, I would like to confirm whether this is explicitly mentioned in this source. — Zywxn | 15:31, 17 August 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zywxn (talk • contribs)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liberty, Kentucky (disambiguation) 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. Hog FarmBacon00:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I have been working on article called Jinsha site that you helped in 2013! I am doing this as part of my university course. Currently, I am working on the format, citation as well as enhancing my writing style! Any suggestions would be lovely. Thank you. --Anninarose (talk) 01:04, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Names of God in Judaism
Greetings!
I couldn't help noticing that you made the following edit at Names of God in Judaism on September 1st, 2015:[12]
Rabbi Jose{{who?}} considered "Tzevaot" a common name<ref>[[Rabbi Jose]], ''Soferim'', 4:1, ''Yer. R.H.'', 1:1; ''Ab. R.N.'', 34.{{what?}}</ref> and Rabbi Ishmael{{who?}} that "Elohim" was.<ref>
I was wondering if you were willing to clarify a bit what you were looking for with the edit? Nowadays those {{who}} tags seem to have been removed, but the part "...and Rabbi Ishmael that "Elohim" was." seems to end all of a sudden in the middle of the sentence, and that version still persists today.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Rusada requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.rusada.com/about-rusada/who-we-are/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Qwerfjkltalk19:41, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Lunu for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly indicate why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!
Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
With very few exceptions, users are free to remove content on their personal talk pages. Repeatedly reverting them is seen as harrassment and sometimes brings down sanctions on the reverter. Zerotalk01:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Zero0000: Then it's a good thing you actually read through what was going on so you understand there was nothing of the sort and I responded helpfully and politely despite their rudeness and (apparently) whininess. Feel free to mind your own business or pay more attention to what you get yourself in the middle of, and have a great day. — LlywelynII03:12, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Madaba map
Hi, You are adding many things sourced directly to the Madaba map. Interpretation of that map is a specialist subject with many disagreements between scholars. According to the policy WP:PRIMARY, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation" and "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." Clearly you are not obeying that rule. Perhaps you are working from a secondary source, in which case you should cite it even if you cite the map as well. If you have no secondary source for your interpretations, you can't add them. Zerotalk05:54, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cf. WP:IAR. Primary sources are perfectly acceptable for the precise text of those sources. Cf. the roughly 6k uses of {{bibleref}}.
If you were starting to get an itch to blank perfectly correct and appropriately sourced content just to make a policy point to me, reread WP:POINT until you really get it. — LlywelynII09:41, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Madaba map is not the type of primary source that can be simply quoted. For example, it is not drawn to scale so it is not simple to say exactly where on the ground a map item sits. Many places on the map are displayed where they fit rather than in their correct geographical position. Some things on the map are based on tradition rather than contemporary facts. It is not even agreed between scholars that the map was intended to be a depiction of geographic reality. You can "quote" modern scientifically surveyed maps, but for ancient maps you need a secondary source. Even the much more accurate Jacotin map of 1799 is cited via a secondary source. Given the vast available literature, there is no reason you can't do the same. You are welcome to take the issue to WP:RSN to get more opinions. Zerotalk12:09, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a specific example of where you think an attribution or quote is wrong, you're welcome to point it out. Apart from that, any removal of accurate sourced content still falls under WP:POINT. There's no "mystery" or "confusion" that Neapolis is Nablus, Ierosolymna is Jerusalem, etc. If you want to replace direct cites with secondary sources you're welcome to. In the meantime, don't disrupt Wikipedia or remove good content from articles to make points about what you wish some policy might mean because of personal biases against premodern cartography. xD — LlywelynII21:53, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ARBPIA
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Kindly stop attacking other editors, talk pages are for discussing article content. As WP:NPA says, focus on the content, not the contributor. nableezy - 23:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You guys are the ones focused on me and my failure to cite beyond the primary source. Pointing out that you're being rude and reminding you of WP:POINT and WP:BITE is not in any way a personal attack. I'm sure you mean the best, even if you're being arrogent and unproductive in the way you're going about doing it. — LlywelynII23:31, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you keep attacking other editors, including myself, I will be asking that you be made to stop. Nobody has bitten you, nobody has disrupted Wikipedia to prove a point. Nobody but yourself has displayed any arrogance at all. nableezy - 23:34, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, no one is insulting you. Just pointing out the unhelpfulness of beating me over the head with misapplied policy hammers when the fact of the matter is that I corrected a spelling mistake and provided the relevant Greek, an issue you and [edit:Zero] continue to ignore in favor of telling me how insulting and against policy I am. It would be great for you to use the provided source; continuing to ignore it in favor of "putting me in my place" is itself against policy and essentially bullying, however little you choose to realize that's what you're doing.
The information was correct and the sooner you both realize that and move on, the better for everyone, let alone the project itself.
For what it's worth, I really do understand that you and Zero are probably especially touchy because you're doing your best to patrol Israel/Palestine pages to tamp down on all the partisan insanity that can show up there. I really do get that and appreciate how important but unpleasant your work is. Restoring a known spelling mistake from a bad secondary source just to teach me a lesson about how vital secondary sourcing is isn't actually helping anything, though. [edit: The provided source makes the additional points I included but, if you hadn't noticed, my last revision of the information on the page simply corrects the spelling mistake and provides the Greek.] — LlywelynII23:52, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Paul Bargehr
On 30 May 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Paul Bargehr, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Austrian doctor Paul Bargehr was decried for exposing healthy Indonesians to the leprosy bacillus in his experiments? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Paul Bargehr. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Paul Bargehr), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
On 8 June 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mount of Temptation, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the temptation of Christ has been associated with Jebel Quruntul in the West Bank since at least the 4th century? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mount of Temptation. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Mount of Temptation), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Orphaned non-free image File:Machiavelli The Prince cover.jpg
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:Machiavelli The Prince cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
On 12 July 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ernest Muir (doctor), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Scottish medical missionary Ernest Muir championed the use of the traditional Ayurvedic cure chaulmoogra oil in treating Hansen's disease (leprosy)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ernest Muir (doctor). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Ernest Muir (doctor)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
On 13 July 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Giuseppe Mariani (doctor), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that dermosyphilopathologist Giuseppe Mariani received a silver medal for his bravery under fire at the Third Battle of the Isonzo? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Giuseppe Mariani (doctor). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Giuseppe Mariani (doctor)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Hello, LlywelynII. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Huzhou dialect, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Please don't set the priority for all WikiProjects to "top", like you did here and here and here and here and here and here and many other times. You need to stop doing this, and you should go revert all of those importance/priority ratings to the original settings. I can't imagine why you thought any person from the 17th century would be of equal importance to WikiProject Medicine as articles like Health, Medicine, and Cancer, but that subject obviously isn't, and you shouldn't do things like that. It's generally considered okay to add tags for relevant WikiProjects, but please don't ever set the importance rating to "top". That's a decision to be made by the WikiProject itself. In your case, I advise never setting a priority rating at all. Nobody will yell at you for leaving it blank. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:33, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If a member of the relevant project disagrees, they're free to set it to their preferred values. Some of your opinions—like imagining that the main Chinese covid vaccine article, which we had allowed to linger unupdated for months because it was regarded as low/mid importance—are just as blatantly wrong as whatever your problem with the 17th century is. If the edits drew your attention and got an extra editors involved in working on those pages, yeah, that's exactly what should've happened. That said, thanks for your work on these various projects and sorry this obviously effective behavior irks you quite as much as it does. No, I have no problem at all with a considered evaluation of the topics leading to reassigning them to lower levels of importance. — LlywelynII08:55, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We need to be conservative when assigning higher importance levels to articles. Even if we get just 40% articles into the top-importance category, it loses the point of separating extremely important articles from others. It is not possible for an editor to look through all your contributions, manually check them and reassign a lower rating. —CX Zoom[he/him](let's talk • {C•X})09:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can use this user right to perform maintenance, answer edit requests, and make any other simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates, modules, and edinotices. You can also use it to enact more complex or controversial edits, after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as their consensus among other informed editors has been established. If you are willing to process edit requests on templates and modules, keep in mind that you are taking responsibility to ensure the edits have consensus and are technically sound.
This user right gives you access to some of Wikipedia's most important templates and modules; it is critical that you edit them wisely and that you only make edits that are backed up by consensus. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password.
If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
If you were granted the permission on a temporary basis you will need to re-apply for the permission a few days before it expires including in your request a permalink to the discussion where it was granted and a {{ping}} for the administrator who granted the permission. You can find the permalink in your rights log.
There's no discussion added. The person obviously doesn't speak English regularly and didn't understand what you were trying to say about handling things on the talk page.
Regardless, they're wrong. The Treaty of Tordesillas provided for an official voyage which never happened—at least in part because Ferd & Isabella wanted Columbus involved and he was in Trumpian denial over any agreement that diminished the range of his notional admiralty—and, as a result, the exact delineation proposed by the treaty was never hammered out and remained a vague band of values. The article actually extensively details (and sources) the vagueness and range of values but it does become a little confusing since it still does include images that (completely incorrectly) just draw a single line on a map and say 'that was it'. — LlywelynII16:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The policy on speedy deletion allows administrators to delete pages without discussion only if they satisfy one or more of a specific list of criteria. An editor thinking that an article title is "useless" is not one of those criteria. JBW (talk) 09:22, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nice of you to write. The specific criteria were already listed. Go back and read them. Also see the talk page for the page itself and justify it. — LlywelynII13:28, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A vague handwave "if you need codes, G1, G6, &c" is not specific criteria. It is not patent nonsense (G1), nor is this a technical deletion (G6). If you think this redirect is useless, then nominate it for deletion at RFD. Edit-warring to add the speedy deletion tag bac is not acceptable. See also WP:NOTCSD item 15. -- Whpq (talk) 14:05, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That title is patent nonsense and it's not a handwave. Those are specific criteria and the only edit warring is ignoring that, coming from the other side and for no apparent reason in defense of an obviously halfassed college assignment. Absolutely nothing else on this project is titled "Author, Image, Title of Work" with no formatting and you can just admit that without accepting that I'm a good person. There's a box to contest speedy deletions: Use it. There's a discussion on the talk page no one is replying to: Use that. (Seriously, the edit warring is coming from JBW's end and sorry for the needless drama pulling you in and wasting everyone's time. If everyone is confused that there are still incoming links and it might be useful, look at them. They're only housecleaning links about the move and edits. No one will ever use or need this title again.)
I'm an editor in good standing for multiple decades and am not just making any of this up. The other admin was simply mistaken in this one instance and should use any of the appropriate methods to deal with it apart from trying to sweep it under the rug with this inappropriate revert edit warring and handwaving of the valid reasons being provided without any argument to the contrary in any appropriate forum. I'm sure they're generally useful and don't need anyone coming in to notice this abuse of their authority.
Fwiw, you must've meant a different code. There's nothing wrong with the TARGET for the redirect that I created. The redirect it's coming from is patent nonsense, but that isn't what the thing you're pointing me to is talking about. — LlywelynII01:17, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not attempt to speedy that again; it will be declined again, and if you persist, you will be blocked from editing. Instead, please participate in the RfD that Sdrqaz has linked to. OhNoitsJamieTalk02:00, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Any editor, not just admins, can challenge a speedy deletion by simply removing the tag. And I will reiterate that G1 is not met. G1 is for unintelligible text or gibberish. The title may be useless as you claim, but having the author, image, title of work is intelligible. -- Whpq (talk) 02:01, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Fair enough but—fwiw—if that's the new consensus that should probably be expressed more clearly on the gloss page. Not all editors are as pigheaded as I am but enough are that it would save some bother. — LlywelynII07:31, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turkey in Asia 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 until the discussion has finished.
Hi, I noticed that recently User:Dmhw and User:Freeman6000 have vandalized and blanked several pages regarding the Ming dynasty of China. They have been warned numerous times to stop blanking and removing content from pages, yet they continue to do so.
Also, their editing habits appear similar to User:Ylogm who was blocked here: [13]. For example, Ylogm and Dmhw have similar usernames (string of random letters). They also edit similar articles within a close time interval that few other users edit such as [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], any many other articles.
These similar editing habits suggest that Ylogm, Dmhw are the same user. After Ylogm was blocked on March 3, 2023, the account Dmhw was created on March 8 to evade the block [22].
Hi there, you've moved the page citing its Japanese title, but nearly all English sources give its title as Funü shibao so that the title was used in this way. Could you please explain the reason for the move? Thanks, Egeymi (talk) 04:24, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you commented previously on the Scientific racism page and so I was hoping you might look at a change I've proposed, and on the feedback I'm getting from other editors. I'm proposing to add an entry on Thomas Malthus. You can see my proposed text in my sandbox, and feedback from other editors on Talk:Scientific racism#Thomas Malthus. It's a bit noisy, maybe clearer towards the end.
A general concern I have about the Scientific racism page is that it expends a lot of space on decontextualized racist quotes from 17th and 18th century individuals that while deeply offensive had questionable impact, as their racism was casual and incoherent, representing immature science and ordinary beliefs in their era. Meanwhile the page totally ignores individuals like Malthus, Spencer, Shockley and Terman whose racism is overt and strategic, and who were major figures in Social Darwinism and Eugenics, recognized precursors to fascism and genocide. JBradleyChen (talk) 04:34, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, thanks for the heads up. My own concern was the WP:UNDUE Anglo-American focus inevitably produced by the WP:BIAS of—especially lazy or poorly informed—English contributors who have trouble properly contextualizing things and thinking their own open and multicultural societies that overcame fascism are the sole font of all modern evils around the world. My own thought was that there should be more from earlier in the scientific revolution and more on continental sources. Piling in additional English thinkers doesn't improve any of that.
That said, yeah, my understanding is that Malthus's terrible economics and disaster scenarios were pretty influential. I don't believe any racism of his was terribly important—although you could prove me wrong with your sourcing—but he'd be worth mentioning (with cites) as an influence in Continental and Anglo-American concerns over "waste" of "limited resources" by "lesser races" in actually influential works on public policy and theory. I'd be amazed if there were none. — LlywelynII08:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree that the article is very euro-centric. I don't see sound, objective criteria for deciding who is included or not included. Your suggestion of including Oscar Peschel makes sense to me.
Regarding Malthus, I don't understand what is wrong with the citations I've provided. Chase 1977 and the six others I discussed yesterday all seem valid to me. I don't see any objectivity in the refusal of the other editors to consider them.
I am pretty new here, and am trying to figure out how to navigate the policies and culture of Wikipedia to fix pages like this. I'm not reluctant to challenge the positions of the prevailing editors, but I want to be smart about it and use the system properly.
That said, I'm less certain of your position regarding "the beginning of civilization." There surely has been violence between various cultural groups and class discrimination for millennia, but I would argue that "science" didn't really exist before Bacon's development of the scientific method. Also, I find Muller-Wille argument convincing the concept of "race" didn't exist as such until the 18th century (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4326670/pdf/emss-61956.pdf).
Eh, science is "Eurocentric" during the early years. There's just an UNDUE focus on the Anglo-American bit vs what I'm certain were similar currents in France and Germany. — LlywelynII09:14, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you are thinking 17th century and earlier? Who did you have in mind? The article mentions Bernier, Buffon, Blumenbach, Pruner, Schopenhaur, Cuvier, Meiners, and also Linneaus (swedish). It doesn't mention Voltaire although I understand he argued for polygenism. Which early scholars do you think had the largest impact? JBradleyChen (talk) 02:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: @JBradleyChen: Oh, I just finished the rest of your comment. If you are new here, I guess I'm just sorry you had the bad luck to pick that article as one of the places to get your feet wet. Anything tangentially related to America's culture wars right now—somehow inclusive of Covid and global warming—is essentially locked down by religious zealots who are rapidly approaching parity with discussions of borders and ethnic history in the Balkans, articles in Arabic about the history of Israel, or articles in Chinese about the status of Greater China. I made my points on the talk page and then planned to leave that entire mess alone. It'll approach something objective and reasonable a few centuries from now, if then.
One amusing solution would be to make your arguments somewhere slightly less nuts, like the French, German, Chinese, &c. articles on the same topic. If your points are valid and are well received by tens of other communities, it makes the Americans look a little bit nuttier to continue trying to maintain their walled garden. Almost none of them will be involved in multiple projects in other languages.
More seriously, if you really have an issue with one guy or a cohort of like-minded ideologues who have WP:OWNERSHIP issues over the page and you really want to push upstream against them, the actual solution is (a) pay attention to their legitimate concerns with your ideas and address those concerns by improving your content and its sourcing, not by arguing back and forth; (b) stay civil, polite, and calm during the discussions that help you improve your content, always assuming the good faith of even objectively unhelpful editors; imagine they're being unhelpful because they really don't see your point yet and will be able to in the end, but don't argue back and forth in the hope they'll see the light on their own; and (c) bring your improved version to a larger audience than the people who continuously monitor that page and its talk. Don't do anything counterproductive like getting a random group on a different website to brigade the discussion but you can always try emailing the actual professors or their assistants and seeing if they might pop by. Within Wikipedia, you can go to the different community portals for people who hang out a lot around here, things like the Help Desk or Teahouse; you can post open requests for feedback on the talk pages of the WikiProjects who might have intelligent editors interested in the topic, here like WT:HISTORY, WT:USHIST, WT:ANTHROPOLOGY, WT:EUROPE, WT:RACISM &c. &c. &c.; or, most often, you can follow the WP:RFC procedure to just get anyone who might be involved to pop by. You'll need to create a new section with a fair summary of both sides of the disagreement, though, since absolutely no one is going to read through what's already there. — LlywelynII09:54, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your (a) (b) (c) approach makes sense, and is kind-of what I'm trying to do, although I worry about (b). Regarding (c), I may want to do that, but I figure I ought to try to work with the current editors first, assuming good faith and the friction is just my inexperience. That said it's easy for me to imagine people might want to bury or protect a character like Malthus.
I'm glad you mentioned "a fair summary"; I tried to summarize the situation (on the Talk page, 16:55, 12 May 2023). One of the editors kind-of flipped out. I didn't think my summary was that bad. He left me imagining it was against the Wikipedia culture to summarize.
One thing I'm wondering about is to what degree the editors I'm dealing with have an agenda and to what degree it is just me being a noob. Obviously nobody has admitted to having any sort of agenda, although I've tried to be transparent about my concerns about the page. JBradleyChen (talk) 03:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JBradleyChen: It's 130% them and the only noobish part of it is trying to talk only to them after the first 130k characters didn't budge anyone and they "kind-of flipped out" at a neutral attempt at a summary, which they presumably took as you attempting to "control" their "narrative".
I'm sure they're mostly sane people with their friends and family. That article is a lightning rod for American secular-religious zealotry, though, and that's what you're running into... assuming you're responding to their legitimate complaints and looking for broader secondary coverage and good examples of primary shout-outs to Malthus's influence. (If you haven't, y'know, do that too.)
Do keep being fair minded, do broaden the discussion in fair and open ways like I described, and kindly don't hold this bad experience against the project as a whole. Altogether, the guys being so strident do mean well and presumably are putting their best foot forward as far as addressing the evils of their own culture's history. Trump & co. have fried a lot of nerves in the native English-speaking world. Don't take it personally but do try your best to move the project as a whole forward, not just arguing in circles. — LlywelynII12:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
1. Apologies if this is the wrong format or venue. No, I don't have a double secret block on my account. (I think.) I'm just making a request on behalf of User:Geographyinitiative to undo their permanent suspension. Checking their global edit total, I accidentally noticed they have a permanent block here which was stunning to me.
3. If it helps, I just want to be a character witness.
1st, apparently GI is pretty young and 2–3 years ago would've been even younger. The lead of their Wiktionary user page is still complaining about colleges not giving enough credit for AP tests. They were disruptive and unhelpful then, treating even a mention of the more common way of writing Chinese characters as a political issue instead of an accessibility one and ignoring very clear messages from the community and admins. They have grown since then.
2nd, the 68k helpful edits they've built up since then at Chinese and English-from-Chinese entries on Wiktionary speak to the fact they're extremely productive, increasingly better informed on these topics, and helpful. If possible, you don't want to keep them away from all the help they could provide with Chinese places, bios, and info... or wherever else their next passion project goes.
Most importantly, 3rd, during those edits they really have taken it to heart not to push their understanding—as good as it usually is—without first WP:AGF and trying to see where the other people are coming from. They've learned to work within the process and won't be doing a repeat of the mess that set this off in the first place.
4. Of course, User:Geographyinitiative would need to come by and tell you in person that they really do understand now. I'm just someone who can point out they really do mean it when they say they've changed and shown edit after edit, month after month that they've learned that lesson.
...and, yeah, if this is completely the wrong venue, just point in the right direction or let me know that GI can start the unblock process themself and this message will help skip the "no, just go away and get gud" stage of the process. — LlywelynII02:15, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am closing this request primarily as LlywelynII isn't blocked. The best venue, if you need to request an unblock on the behalf of another user that is capable of posting thier own unblock request would be WP:AN. Otherwise, the editor in question can make thier own request at thier talkpage after reading the guide to appealing blocks. SQLQuery Me!05:23, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 05:41, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Footwear, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
A "bare URL" error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Footwear, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
A "bare URL" error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Hi there! I saw you were active in the Fashion wikiproject and was wondering if you could take a look at a draft I've written about the designer Draft:Sandy Liang. I was very surprised to find that she did not have an article because of her notability and wide coverage in various publications. As a novice contributor I would love your feedback and review. Thanks! Luiysia (talk) 20:44, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Censorinus, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Censorinus, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Articles are not allowed to be left sitting in redlinked categories, and you are not entitled to go around putting non-existent categories back onto articles with demands that other people create them for you — for one thing, not every category that people could conceivably want to add articles to is justifiable for creation, and for another, anybody else can only create the category for you if they already have enough prior background knowledge about the topic to know where it belongs in the tree (which is necessary because categories have to have other parent categories) and what other items belong in the category (which is necessary because a category isn't generally justifiable for creation until it has at least five things in it.)
So no, you don't get to go around adding redlinked categories and then demanding that they sit there until somebody gets around to creating them on your behalf — the use of redlinked categories is strictly forbidden, so your only options are either you create the category yourself or you don't use it at all. Bearcat (talk) 16:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And you don't get to bite newbies or blank valid content. See also WP:POINT.
Kindly find something more productive to do with your time. Creating the categories you already know are missing would be a start. — LlywelynII16:59, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An article you recently created, Jian'an (Eastern Han), is not suitable 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. SBD091 (talk) 12:12, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not remotely how this should've been handled—months of use, months of other editors tinkering, no discussion, no fact tags from you or anyone else, no question from you or anyone else re: actual content—for any page, let alone one that is necessary for its year chart and has no actual problems like this one. Anyway, rather than jumping through hoops to try to figure out what the actual problem was imagined to be, I'll just try to get this mistake fixed. It helps no one at all to remove entirely valid information like this article (which is standard or even an improvement vs the other era articles it copied its format from), even if it's of course better to have more cites eventually.
In the future, whether an admin decides Wikipedia's actually better off blanking this article or not, the correct way to handle an article like this is to actually talk to people and point out actual problems with the information... at minimum, where something seems like it might be problematic. No, no one will ever respond well to "I'm deleting your helpful work for no reason except misapplication of policy unless you drop everything you're doing and go hunt sources for points no one is questioning". For newer users, you're bound to turn some off the project entirely. — LlywelynII13:23, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can't create a category redirect like an article redirect. There is a different code/template used. Look at Category:Agriculture in ancient Rome for an example. Please go back and fix all of the inaccurate category redirects you created so they conform to the proper formatting. Thank you. LizRead!Talk!07:19, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for keeping an eye on things but I obviously can. It's what you're unhappy with. Moreover, italicized notes of the category (which are created by the redirects I created) seem vastly preferable to soft redirects where those aren't specifically called for.
If you've got a policy to poke people about, kindly remember to link it if you or others get pulled into discussions like this semioften. Not saying it's a duty on you (like you were trying to do with me) but you and others who police this might also find it would be a vastly better use of everyone's time to have the code get annoyed if this is an actual problem for the project. Don't actually do it, but go see what happens when you try to redirect a page to itself for something like what I'm talking about. Something like that would actually point out that people can't do this if there's a new policy the admins prefer. Similarly, if this is an identifiable and generally agreed on problem, talk to the bot team about running cleanup. If there's a policy you can link to, I'll get around to doing it eventually, sure, but it's not going to be a major priority and seems (from your example) to be worse on its merits. Add my vote to Oppose wherever that discussion happened, if it did. — LlywelynII07:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On 26 September 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Temple of Piety, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that ancient Rome's Temple of Piety was closely connected with the legend of a daughter who breastfed an imprisoned parent? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Temple of Piety. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Temple of Piety), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Puhaddin, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Crane Mosque, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Hello, LlywelynII. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Qianliyan (disambiguation), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
In the talk page of this page, you said you wanted to move that page name to « Wu people », a move I agree with, but when will it happen? Or does it need special permission from certain people to make such a move, uniformizing the page as well with other similar peoples like the Waxiang, Zhuang and Cantonese? 166.62.226.9 (talk) 00:13, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@166.62.226.9: It doesn't need any special permission, although it may require a formal move request. The main issue is being willing to take the time for the necessary adjustments and to fight any silly people who come along who (mistakenly) like where it is now. You're welcome to do it and can cite me for support, but it'll be easier for you if you have a registered username. Anonymous IP addresses mucking around with page location tend to be reverted on general principle, so you'd just be creating extra work for yourself trying to do it from an anonymous number. — LlywelynII00:17, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, LlywelynII. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Qianliyan".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Category redirects are created differently than article redirects. If you just use the standard code then they show up to be tagged for CSD C1 deletion on the Empty Categories list. If you look at the code/template on this page, maybe you could use it as an example for any category redirects you want to create in the future. Once you see it, it's easy to remember it's just that few editors have cause to create category redirects so it's not widely known. Any way, thank you for all of the work you do on the project. LizRead!Talk!22:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jeez, you've been here even longer than me. Thanks for the help and kind words. Maybe see you around if I ever make it to any of the meetups or bump up to admin duty. In the meantime, thanks for the work you do (especially any cleaning up you have to do after me on occasion). — LlywelynII00:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello my friend! Good day to you. Thanks for creating the article, I have marked it as reviewed. Have a blessed day!
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qianliyan (disambiguation) 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 until the discussion has finished.
Fair enough to remove the link to Slender West Lake once the Yangzhou Lotus Bridge article was active, although your edit doesn't seem to have anything to do with that.
The other bits seem to be confused or misapplied. It's necessary to dab the Lotus Bridge as the one in Yangzhou since people use Lotus Bridge (without its accent) for the Macao thing as well.
As far as "but I hate pipes!!!1!", (a)the current formatting is parallel and easier to read—cf. WP:READER—and (b) there's WP:IAR when you're doing something for procedural reasons that actively makes the page uglier and harder to use. Keep it in mind. (If you insist on always hating piped dabs because your software or whatever tells you do, you or I could create Lotus Bridge in Yangzhou as an entire new redirect just to carefully fit all policies and keep the page easier to read. It's kinda WP:POINTY to have to bother with, though.) — LlywelynII01:57, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I take your point. I follow the DAB rules most of the time because they usually make sense, but try to keep my obsessive tendencies under control when they don't. In the case of Lotus Bridge, how about using the already-existing Lotus Bridge (Yangzhou) redirect. It's a perfectly respectable alternative title for the article and disambiguates nicely. Leschnei (talk) 00:31, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure you do. The DAB "rules" are mostly MOS guidelines to keep things looking good and clear to the reader. Using the piped form involves repeating the name Yangzhou and is less clear than the current formatting. It also needlessly causes the formatting to be different between the two entries. The other option besides the pipe would be to create Lotus Bridge (Macau) and dab that from the Lotus Bridge (Yangzhou) place... but then you're repeating both names unhelpfully. Of course it's just my opinion but it's better as it is. — LlywelynII02:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cortador: Yep. The only reason I did the paperwork on yours once I saw you'd started engaging. Problem is, I was trying to get you to talk the entire time and you simply kept on with the disruption. — LlywelynII18:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
24/48 blocks aren't the end of the world, but this never should've been imposed. I've already explained this to Bbb23 at length so obviously I need a second opinion here.
In imposing it, Bbb23 apparently ignored the actual content of my submission because it was 'malformed' (fair enough) and the content of Cortador's own submission (which isn't). (a) The edit war was from the other side. The contentious edit being removed was theirs, so my removal of it shouldn't've been considered the beginning of counting off 3rr. (b) At every stage of this, I called for discussion on the talk page (which I initiated) and—upon getting close to 3rr—mentioned that to Cort and further posted to their talk page for a cooldown and conversation. (c) At every stage of this, Cort ignored any attempted conversation; did not initiate any discussion of their own; and just restored the contentious edit, only posting to the talk page once 3rr was coming into play while simultaneously reporting me. (d) I took that in good faith and even noted in my submission that Cort had finally started engaging and just needed an admin nudge to not act this way in the future.
In all, Bbb23 seemed to be checking boxes and skipping the context and content of what had happened. Fair enough as an admin (who wants to deal with each drama?), but, no, in this case it was misapplied. (Unless there's now an admin consensus that during 3rr/edit warring, the page should be restored with the contentious edit instead of without it. In that case, yeah, fair enough but I absolutely didn't know.) — LlywelynII02:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
Come now. The 3RR is obvious. Your removal is a revert, as are the next three removals. This is exactly to the letter of 3RR; there are no qualifying exceptions here. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇03:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
@Jpgordon: Just to be clear, then, the other editor's refusal to discuss the change and my continuous attempt to do so have no bearing? and 3RR prefers to leave the contentious edit rather than remove it pending the discussion? — LlywelynII06:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On 7 March 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Five-Pavilion Bridge, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Yangzhou's Five-Pavilion Bridge(pictured) was built by salt merchants to welcome the Qianlong Emperor? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Five-Pavilion Bridge. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Five-Pavilion Bridge), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
On 19 March 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Xu Garden, Yangzhou, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Xu Garden was created by community residents grateful to their local warlord? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Xu Garden, Yangzhou. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Xu Garden, Yangzhou), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
On 1 April 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lianxing Temple, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the White Dagoba at Lianxing Temple was probably not originally made of an enormous pile of salt? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lianxing Temple. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Lianxing Temple), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Nah. I'm anonymous as far as that video goes. Nice not to be doxxed, although I'm sure there was sth else that mixed the two sources I must've been using at the time. Even so, fun rabbit hole and, yeah, Yolo reaaaally mucked up Welsh history. — LlywelynII10:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
.svg){kind=icon}
