It was known by many sources that there are not ethnical Pashtuns (or Afghans) but of Punjabi ancestry and therefore should be placed in the Hindki or Hindkowan pages. But Shashank the Indian-sided wikipedian did not agree with that as he said that they were not of Punjabi ancestry but are 100% Pashtun. So now after one year I found the source that these "Pashtun Hindus" themselves say that they are of Punjabi ancestry. https://www.thebetterindia.com/155394/hindu-pashtun-shilpi-batra-sheenkhalai-afghanistan/
So whats the discussion now: Whether to place the These Pashto speaking Punjabi ancestry Hindus in the HindkiHindkowan pages or in the Pashtuns page. As you were in there last year, can you give your personal opinion on the Talk page I pinged you. It would be great as you are aware of the discussion. Thank youCasperti (talk) 16:15, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that a few months back you did a nice job of monitoring and reverting edits by spam accounts on the Azerbaijani language page. There has been a lot of activity there recently with deletions of sources in order to push the idea that North and South Azerbaijani are not different languages. If you could help out by monitoring again to prevent this persistent vandalism it would be very kind. Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 11:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Monopoly31121993(2) and thank you for posting here to let me know about this issue. My apologies if i missed that. By the way, thank you for fixing this (i saw your edits there). I will try to keep an eye on this article. Cheers.---Wikaviani (talk)(contribs)22:45, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikaviani: It is related sire, because he evaluated the historical records from historian records such as Waqidi who relied on the narration of Hadith narrations in writing al-Tarikh wa al-Maghazi (Arabic: كتاب التاريخ والمغازي, "Book of History and Campaigns"). not to mention that the source also has academic title grade of Master of Arts in the field of Seerah, or Islamic history in time of Prophet Muhammad. I am one of the source student anyway Ahendra (talk) 23:21, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ahendra is here to "fix" Wikipedia to suit their POV(canvassing, edit warring). Ahendra has already canvassed Itaqallah(the IP that has been edit warring on Battle of Mu'tah) and stated how they are going to "fix it". This editor is not here to build an encyclopedia, but to fix Wikipedia. Waqidi should not be used, since the historiography section of the Battle of Mu'tah specifically states how Islamic records of the battle were later changed. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:57, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Berosya: Please take a look at this to understand how infoboxes are to be added to an article. Also, i suggest you use the "preview" button before the "publish" one if you have doubts, since you made 10 straight edits that were all messing the article's layout. Thanks.---Wikaviani (talk)(contribs)11:45, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Berosya: Wikiviani, this is the guide to creating infoboxes—you linked to a list of available templates. Berosya, you might want to experiment in your user sandbox and then copy the wikicode from there to the article when it's in good order. Largoplazo (talk) 14:32, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.
Redirects
New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.
Discussions and Resources
There is an ongoing discussion around changing notifications for new editors who attempt to write articles.
A resource page with links pertinent for reviewers was created this month.
A proposal to increase the scope of G5 was withdrawn.
Refresher
Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.
Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here
16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Changing values
If you change values you need to add a reference to support.[1]
@Doc James: Hey, thank you for the reminder, you're right and i should have waited before changing the figures. i heard the new values in the TV news but the internet sources were not updated yet, this is why i did not provide a cite, i intended to do that a bit later. Best.---Wikaviani (talk)(contribs)01:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi IP user, thank you very much for letting me know about my mistake, i used this source and confused the two columns "total recoveries" and "serious, critical". This is corrected now. Wish you a great rest of your day.---Wikaviani (talk)(contribs)01:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wikaviani: Please, do not add a duplicate source for Woldometer in this article ([2]), since it as already defined. You can use it with a cross-reference with <ref name="WOMC"/> Thank you. --MarioGom (talk) 15:50, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also be careful with edits that break the format of the table, like this one ([3]). You can preview your changes before publishing to double-check. --MarioGom (talk) 15:53, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MarioGom: Hi, thanks for notifying me about the dupplicate source, i haven't noticed that. However, if i'm not mistaken, the second edit you're talking about(([4])) was not breaking the format, i suggest you take a look at this and this. Best.---Wikaviani (talk)(contribs)16:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In response to your ping, my area of expertise is history not so much genetics(ie. biology). My suggestion is take that source to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and see what other editors say. And, unfortunately, I can not recall any editors that specialize in genetic editing. You might ask Doug Weller and/or Ymblanter. Sorry I could not help you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Wikaviani, how are you? I would like to know if you would be willing to join me in petitioning a change to the rules at SPI, namely the policy of not using CheckUser to link IP addresses to potential socks. The way I see it, it weakens the power of SPI if anyone can just make edits on an IP to evade scrutiny, at a time when this website is literally plagued with sockpuppets and saboteurs. Perhaps there is a way to conceal IPs when CheckUser is requested, so only admins can see them? Let me know your thoughts, and take care. - Hunan201p (talk) 06:38, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your ping and I recommend using WP:RSN to see if that research is reliable or not. Even if it passes as RS, there are other genetic studies with different results and summaries. So if that source is legit, then other studies should be cited (neutralizing and WP:WEIGHT); e.g. take a look at this:
"Our ADMIXTURE analysis (Fig 2) revealed that Turkic-speaking populations scattered across Eurasia tend to share most of their genetic ancestry with their current geographic non-Turkic neighbors. This is particularly obvious for Turkic peoples in Anatolia, Iran, the Caucasus, and Eastern Europe, but more difficult to determine for northeastern Siberian Turkic speakers, Yakuts and Dolgans, for which non-Turkic reference populations are absent. We also found that a higher proportion of Asian genetic components distinguishes the Turkic speakers all over West Eurasia from their immediate non-Turkic neighbors. These results support the model that expansion of the Turkic language family outside its presumed East Eurasian core area occurred primarily through language replacement, perhaps by the elite dominance scenario, that is, intrusive Turkic nomads imposed their language on indigenous peoples due to advantages in military and/or social organization."
Thank you very much for your response, i asked Doug Weller's opinion about the source and he seems to find its inclusion WP:UNDUE (so do i). Also, your above source is very recent and would be relevant for inclusion. Cheers.---Wikaviani (talk)(contribs)16:06, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Central asia page
Hi there Wikaviani,
The map there that you replaced on Central Asia was not placed by me but was there for a long time (decade ago?). A now blocked user Jirgen666 constantly removed it to make his statement true. "Include Mongolia too if Afghanistan is included in a map, or just delete it". He had some good points, and if you check the edit history you can see I did change the info (Latitudal theory of Humboldt). But anyways you can check his block log and contributions. He was violating the rules and got blocked. It was a one-purpose account, that really made a mess.
The map that contains Afghanistan is in the definition section and was not placed by me. Afghanistan is the most common addition to the core definition of Central Asia that's why the map is there I guess.
but there was already a consensus for it several years ago, Wario-man did not agree with that map (If I read it correctly on the talk page). But others agreed to it because Afghanistan is definitely considered a Central Asian country (and South Asian too for political reasons) but not a core central Asian nation.
Here are some example sources why:
The most common country that is added to the Central Asian list besides the core post-soviet states is
@Casperti: I suggest we discuss on the article's talk page, but to make it short, i don't get why you removed this edit i made in order to add northeastern Iran as a region that is sometimes included in Central Asia.---Wikaviani (talk)(contribs)21:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikaviani: Yes you are right about that. I reverted that part because they aren't "Countries" but "Regions", therefore, it was better to remove it from the lead and detail it in the "Definition" section. But those two regions are indeed also the common additions so it is the truth and you are right. Also, that source that is given in the source only talks about Afghanistan-Mongolia (countries) as a common addition. So given this reasoning what do you think? Should it be in the lead as well? Casperti (talk) 11:40, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wikaviani. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:
Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.
The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. ~Swarm~{sting}03:41, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MWahaiibii and TheseusHeLl: That source sounds reliable, that said, if the current wording is not convenient for you, feel free to reword it with an inline cite from the source. Do not hesitate if you think that you need any help. Cheers.---Wikaviani (talk)(contribs)20:29, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, one last thing. User TheseusHeLl made major edits in the List of pre-modern Arab scientists and scholars, removing entries that had been there since a very long time claiming original research, which i have no problem with. But shouldn't we be talking about them in the talk page instead of deleting more than 50 scholars in few edits. Again sorry for the disturbance. -MWahaiibii (talk) 22:29, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"before adding them to the list", These entries had been in the list for a very long time i did not add them and i'm also not trying to add any new additions. I know his edits are made in good faith but i think major edits should be discussed in the talk page first instead of editing right away, thats why i reverted his edits. -MWahaiibii (talk) 23:08, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The entries being in the list for a very long time is not the point, the editor removed scholars whose Arab ethnicity is not sourced, his removals can be qualified as being bold, i have no problem with that.---Wikaviani (talk)(contribs)23:37, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MWahaiibii: Well, you're being dishonest here. You added over 200 name to the article in 2018. Where are your sources?
"removing entries that had been there since a very long time claiming original research" Being there for a long time doesn't negate the fact that it's WP:OR. -TheseusHeLl (talk) 23:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wel, to be honest, this is not a big deal, TheseusHeLl followed WP:BOLD according to me. By the way, it's not too late for a discussion on the article's talk page. I can take part to it too and help finding sources in order to settle this issue. Best.---Wikaviani (talk)(contribs)00:03, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A favor?
Hi Wikaviani,
I hope you are doing well. I was just looking through the edit-history of an editor who is causing some trouble on Calculus, and I noticed the following sequence of edits, all from here:
Since both editors involved seem troublesome, it is not easy for me to guess which one is right. And I personally have no expertise. But I saw that you have edited the article in the past, so maybe you can tell if the addition is appropriate?
Hey Joel B. Lewis, long time no speak my friend ! thanks, i'm doing well and i hope everything is going well for you too. This editor is clearly disruptive on Calculus, i added the page to my watchlist in order to keep an eye on it. As to their Ahmad Shah Durrani's edit, their source is Govind Sakharam Sardesai who is an historian and thus, sounds reliable for that topic, however, the editor cites the source twice (with exactly the same pages) and i could not access it to verify if it effectively supports their edit. Gonna ping another editor who knows this article too. @Kansas Bear: your input would be appreciated, do you have access to this source :
G S Sardesai's Marathi Riyasat, volume 2."The reference for this letter as given by Sardesai in Riyasat – Peshwe Daftar letters 2.103, 146; 21.206; 1.202, 207, 210, 213; 29, 42, 54, and 39.161. Satara Daftar – document number 2.301, Shejwalkar's Panipat, page no. 99. Moropanta's account – 1.1, 6, 7" ?---Wikaviani (talk)(contribs)15:31, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
After checking on Govind Sakharam Sardesai, I could not find anything that stated definitively that he was an historian. Wikipedia states he attend university at Pune and Mumbai, but nothing specific. Which for me, puts him on the fence in terms of a reliable source. So I would take Sardesai to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.
User:Prototypehumanoid, added "but pyrrhic" to "The Third battle of Panipat was fought between Durrani's Afghan forces and the Maratha forces in January 1761, and resulted in a decisive but pyrrhic Durrani victory.", and "This brought Punjab till north of Sutlej river under Afghan control. Ahmad Shah Durrani vacated Delhi soon after the battle, pleading the Marathas for peace."
Thank you very much for your input, i thought he was an historian due to his Wikipedia page which labels him as such. Might ask the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard about the reliability of the source, and even if reliable, this source should be used with care in order to avoid giving it an undue weight. Cheers.---Wikaviani (talk)(contribs)20:06, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks both for your input! And Wikaviani, thanks, I and my family have been doing as well as one could hope for under the circumstances. All the best, JBL (talk) 00:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I know you were well-meaning when you put four tags on Rhizopogon salebrosus, but inline citations are not required unless something is a direct quote or likely to be challenged. The general references that the author included in the "References" section of the article clearly showed the species notability, which means that neither the "notability" or "no citations" tags you put on the article were correct. A better one would be the "no footnotes" tag. Please use that next time.
Please be more careful. The editor who originally wrote the article tried to blank their otherwise acceptable page. It wasn't perfect, and I added their references as inline citations, but bombing a page with incorrect tags 17 minutes after creation is not okay and scares away new editors. Please don't bite the newbies. Thank you. Mcampany (talk) 03:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mcampany and thank you very much for letting me know about that. Please note that information must be verifiable, thus, sources are needed in the body of an article and the sources listed in the article were not cited to support any part of it. Your above remark is true for an article's lead section (WP:LEAD). Also, none of my actions were intended to bite that editor, i only wanted to improve their article and i am sorry to hear that they tried to blank it. Best.---Wikaviani (talk)(contribs)23:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Al-Andalusi: Hi, i thought mt edit summary was clear enough. I don't see how replacing cats like "Astronomers/mathematicians of medieval islam" with "Astronomers/mathematicians of the Abbasid Caliphate" is improving the article ?---Wikaviani (talk)(contribs)00:47, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that neither your edit summary nor your attempt here at explaining the revert are "clear enough". Category:Astronomers of the Abbasid Caliphate and Category:Astronomers of medieval Islam have a parent-child relationship. Al-Khawarizmi lived during the Abbasid Caliphate, therefore it is "clear" that the more specific Abbasid-category should be used here in place of the parent "medieval Islam" category that covers a span of 7th to 15th centuries and a geography from Spain to India. Al-Andalusi (talk) 05:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Would you like to explain your inexplicable mass-reversion? I removed no cited material. "sourced content removal"? That's quite a charge. Ogress01:17, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ogress: Hi, thank you for posting here, but in my humble opinion, since you're a veteran editor, i think you should cool down and desist from reverting back to your favorite version, thus not following WP:BRD and without achieving any consensus while the onus is on you to justify your changes, especially to a GA. Care to explain how your changes removed "irredentism" from the article ? and how you improved it ? As far as i can see, you splitted a section that was reliably sourced into several parts, one of those parts being left without any source to support it, that's why i reverted you (but i restored partly your changes, like the link pointing to the main article). Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk)(contribs)11:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm annoyed because you mass-reverted multiple changes without any actual explanation. You reverted multiple things, but your objection was: para breaks. You could have fixed the cite issue yourself and said something to me about it instead. I am happy to add that cite into every paragraph; I broke up the paragraph because it involves multiple thoughts and was hard to read as a giant mega-paragraph. Would you like me to add the cites or do you want to do it?
As for the irredentism, Assyrian is not distinct from Babylonian by this era. Parpola's "National and Ethnic Identity in the Neo-Assyrian Empire and Assyrian Identity in Post-Empire Times" is cited in this very article discussing the formation of the Aramaic-speaking Assyrian ethnicity. This reference here is to the internal political divisions, which retained some currency. Tl;dr this isn't Assyrian people v. Babylonian people, it's Assyria v. Babylonia / Upper Mesopotamia v. Lower Mesopotamia. Ogress18:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ogress: Hi, sorry for the late response. I explained the problem with your edit in my edit-summary, but maybe i wasn't clear enough. Thanks for clarifying, please feel free to add the relevant cites to that paragraph. Best.---Wikaviani (talk)(contribs)22:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference.
Google Adds New Languages to Google Translate
In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.
Discussions and Resources
A discussion on handling new article creation by paid editors is ongoing at the Village Pump.
Also at the Village Pump is a discussion about limiting participation at Articles for Deletion discussion.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kabuli palaw, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Khorasan. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
The article has a very limited number of sources, only 3 of which one sounds quite reliable (Qafarlı). However, i was not able to check what the sources really say. Also, surprise, the sources are all in Russian. Since i do not speak Russian, might ask LouisAragon to take a look at these sources. Anyway, i feel that you're right about this article, it's very poorly sourced, gonna tag it. Cheers.---Wikaviani (talk)(contribs)19:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ymblanter's opinon : [5]. They're fine, but when it comes to topics like Armenian role in the history of the Caucasus, they might be biased. Neither he nor i were able to access the sources and dig deeper ...---Wikaviani (talk)(contribs)07:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I hope you remember me I do not speak English well But I like to have activities on the English wik, I made edits on the Kashmar page today, Content is a little too much And I do not know if the translation was correct or not, If possible, please do a review And confirm the correctness of the article، Thank you M.k.m2003 (talk) 13:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much my dear brother, Brother, can you help me with this project? I would like this article to be an ideal article and I can not do that But with you, it may be possible, I am waiting for your answer, Thank you very much M.k.m2003 (talk) 22:31, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like some kind of POV-pushing. The cited source seems legit but the wording and the representation of that source may be fishy/POV. --Wario-Man (talk) 08:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, i checked and reverted the edit, since it was a clear misrepresentation of what the cited source says. The Turkish language is only ranked sixth among the spoken languages of the province (not the city). Besides, as far as i can see, there is no mention of Azerbaijani. IP warned. Cheers.---Wikaviani (talk)(contribs)20:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the IP user messed the representation of older citation(s) while added a new one (link). Double check it. Seems the source is OK but the IP's edit was a sneaky attempt or nationalistic approach. I think some Provinces of Iran and some regions like Iranian Kurdistan suffer from the same issue. There is a some kind of irredentism or ethnic POV in those articles. --Wario-Man (talk) 06:06, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is an encyclopedia, we go by what sources say, Nader's origin may have been Turcoman, but he was a Persian. Do not post here, go to the articles' talk pages.---Wikaviani (talk)(contribs)23:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He was not a persian. Persian is ethnicity. He is turkmen. Stop stealing history. And also why did you delete the edits I made at the Battle of garni? i do not change only numbers
No, the name of Iran was Persia at that time, thus, he was a Persian, just like a Catalan is Spanish today. Also, i said do not post your messages here.---Wikaviani (talk)(contribs)23:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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.
.jpg)
_(14573454469).jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
_(14752756965).jpg)
