User talk:Absurdum4242

Welcome!

Hello, Absurdum4242!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, Cassiopeia talk 08:43, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 2024

Hello, I'm Cassiopeia. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Yamakawa Kikue, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Cassiopeia talk 08:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, the change that I made was to change to the correct translated name for the law that passed, and was referenced in the previous edit, and to link to the Wikipedia page for that law (which I’ve been doing to any orphaned / non-linked references to that law that I’ve been able to find - about 20 in total). I’m uncertain what source you think would be needed to change the name to the correct translation, and to link it to that page - which also contains the information about the age requirement. I DO in fact have a source I can link to, a newspaper article published the day after the law was passed, but it seems irrelevant to the Yamakawa Kikue article - belonging to the page about the law itself instead. I can add it now if you prefer, but I think it would make the page worse not better to do so. Absurdum4242 (talk) 08:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that the other change I made was to clean up the syntax / grammar of the sentence “Accompanied by” is not grammatically correct English. Absurdum4242 (talk) 08:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Absurdum4343, Good day. You are welcome to do copy edit (grammar and etc.) but if you change or add info, then you need to provide independent, reliable source such as from the newspapers and books to support your claim. You can use the "horizontal format" of Template:Cite web if the source is from the web. Source in any language is welcome as long as it meets the said requirement above. I suggest you to complete WP:TWA so you would familiar with Wikipedia fundamental guidelines to help you on Wikipedia editing. Let me know if you have any further questions. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 08:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there… umm… I honestly can’t see what information I have changed or added in this case, except for using the correctly translated name for the law, and adding the original Japanese name for the law in brackets - which is all contained in the Wikipedia article I linked to. Is there any chance you could explain to me which information in my edit you consider “new”? Otherwise, like I said I can link to the newspaper article, but that seems like a really messy / distracting way to do it? Absurdum4242 (talk) 08:52, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve redone it now with that reference included. I still think it distracts from the flow, but hopefully it helps. Absurdum4242 (talk) 09:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have provided the source. If you use books as source then use the horizontal format of Template:Cite book. Cassiopeia talk 09:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Manhood Suffrage Law

Hello! Thanks for your efforts to link this law in Wikipedia articles. Just as an FYI, I changed the title to Universal Manhood Suffrage Law, as this is the standard English translation for this law used at the time in the 1920s, by the Japanese government today, and in academic sources. This is because the law was the result of the Universal Manhood Suffrage Movement" in Japan drawing upon the concept of Universal manhood suffrage that was expanding around the world at the time. All instances of General Election Law on the web seem to derive from the English Wikipedia article with that idiosyncratic title created here in 2006. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 11:23, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, interesting - I’ve specifically been changing it away from that in articles, just because the main page was named that, and individual pages were about 50/50 which they used. I guess I have to go change the articles that I’ve already switched it in tonight 😆

I figured that fixing all the orphaned links / mentions to it would be a good first practice task, since I only started today.

I’ll get back on to that now I guess, thanks for taking the time to explain. And rename / redirect…

Actually, you might be able to tell me how to do that. I came across another poorly named page while I was doing those links, and I’d love to rename it / set up a couple of different redirects to it for other versions of the name. Absurdum4242 (talk) 11:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Transfermarkt

See WP:WPFLINKSNO. Much of Transfermarkt's content is user-edited making it a self-published, and therefore unreliable, source. As for other sources, your best bet is almost always going to be look at what sources are cited in similar articles. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your reply.

As far as I can tell from looking at other historical season pages for the UK / European seasons now, it’s a mix of either https://www.worldfootball.net or otherwise just absolutely nothing, and most all of the articles have “citations required” marks on them. Which is fine as far as it goes if that’s how everyone has decided to handle it.

If I use worldfootball.net for the other articles in the series (which I am happy to do) am I likely to have editors take those citations out as well, or is that generally considered a reliable site?

I apologise for taking your time, I’m a new editor with no real interest in soccer generally, but an interest in Japan, which is why I picked that article up from their rescue from deletion list. I’d like to do this right. Absurdum4242 (talk) 16:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for your support in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2005 Bangladesh-India border clash. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 10:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NP, I don’t have a dog in the fight either way - but it seems like a reasonably sourced article. It could do with being a little more neutral etc, which I’m eventually going to have a go at editing into it, but doesn’t seem delete-worthy Absurdum4242 (talk) 11:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 12:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While doing some more research, I noticed that this article “Deaths along the Bangladesh–India border” is a more overarching article about the problem, and contains a section about the 2005 clashes. If the article is deleted, it should be possible to move the information over to this article as a merge. In fact, I’m wondering if we should suggest that in the deletion deliberation, as a way to resolve it smoothly? (I’m not sure exactly how changing your vote / you withdrawing your article as creator would work here, since I’m new). It would be much more likely to achieve consensus if we did it that way? Absurdum4242 (talk) 14:04, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I Don't Think Merge is the correct solution nor is deletion, For example, Check the Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts. There are many minor skirmishes with lack of coverage yet no nomination for deletion, nor merging. I am comparing that with the clashes with Bangladesh and India is because the clashes have a similar pattern. It should be a separate page with the August 2005 Clash be added to that as well. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 14:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BangladeshiEditorInSylhet, those minor skirmishes with lack of coverage should be nominated for deletion. There are loads of them, yes, but that doesn't mean they meet our guidelines so much as that no one has gotten around to removing them yet. (Sorry for jumping in to this discussion, I just happened by on this talk page.) -- asilvering (talk) 07:38, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering Lack Of Coverage? Explain. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 07:46, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You said There are many minor skirmishes with lack of coverage yet no nomination for deletion, nor merging. If you see articles in this state, they should be deleted. Articles need to meet WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage. -- asilvering (talk) 19:53, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering Sure, I'll nominate them for deletion/merging. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 03:52, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you understood that I disagree with both, Deletion and Merging. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 14:31, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I do understand that you disagree with both, I… wonder why though? I can’t see any information in your stand line article that isn’t (or at least couldn’t be with very minor editing) in the 2005 clashes section within the larger article.

I’m outside the politics, not having any allegiance to either side, and honestly I suspect politics WAS behind the deletion request, so I’m not thinking in terms of winning / losing culture war points which….. I assume maybe everyone but Liz in that selection talk is? Deletion nomination dude’s points were just kind of silly and factually incorrect, but at the same time I can’t see why YOU wouldn’t want the articles merged except for reasons of wanting to win / stop that guy - because the information itself would be preserved and present either way. Especially since it was the main article that popped up first, not yours, when I googled again today for more sources etc.

Suggesting merge seems like it can’t lose to me, but…

Anyway, the other reason I reached out was to give you a heads up that IF your article is deleted, it would be very easy to add anything lost to the other larger article, and THAT article should be completely proof against any chance of deletion, as it has sustained sources, over many years. Absurdum4242 (talk) 15:35, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's correct that the sources should be preserved, But I am still for it to be in the Encyclopedia. You can ask more questions, I don't mind, I might not be able to answer sometimes when I am in school or I am outside. If i have time, I can answer. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 15:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again! Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1979 Bangladesh-Indian skirmishes, Should I help you with anything? BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 07:45, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! Absurdum4242, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:20, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AFDs

Hello, Absurdum4242,

I don't think you are experienced enough to be participating in AFD deletion discussions. You have to really be acquainted with Wikipedia's polices, guidelines and standards for notability and also have the ability to correctly assess sourcing in an article. But some of your comments have been thoughtful so I wonder if you edited Wikipedia before, with another account. Most editors who have been editing less than a month, do not display much familiarity with judging sources and assessing notability. So, I'm not going to tell you to stop participating but please do not spread yourself too thin and comment on a lot of AFDs, select a few on subjects you are most knowledgeable about and analyze them thoroughly.

Another thing I'm going to ask you to do is to PLEASE put your comments at the bottom of the discussion. Sometimes you are placing them in the middle of the discussion which is very confusing on a discussion thread that is arranged chronologically. That should be an easy request to abide by. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:50, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, thanks for your message. I’ve never edited Wikipedia before, but have been studying different things at uni for decades, so finding and judging sources is something I can do - and that honestly other editors commenting seemed not to be able to do. And I figured the best way to learn was to do it - and that if I was getting it wrong people would either ignore me, or tell me where I was stuffing up, which would help me going forward. Plus there seemed to be a ton of stuff which keeps getting relisted due to no / minimal replies, so I thought I could at least do that…

Re comment positioning, it’s been driving me absolutely nuts too. I’m editing off an iPad because I don’t use desktops, and there has been NO consistency with where my replies have been appearing. Click the reply in the same place three times, and have it turn up in three different positions, and I have absolutely no idea why. So I’m really sorry about that, and I’ll do my best, but until I get to the bottom of why…

Anyway, thanks again for your message, have a great day,

Michael Absurdum4242 (talk) 02:52, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Absurdum4242, you may simply need to start using the source editor to make replies, rather than the reply tool. It's not terribly fiddly, and that way you'll always be able to place your comments exactly where you want them to go. Just put a : at the beginning of the line to indent it one step. I've appreciated your comments at AfD, by the way. -- asilvering (talk) 07:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and Help

Thanks for your support in AfDs and I hope you could contribute to the newly created pages, Bangladesh Popular Party and Bangladesh Jatiotabadi Olama Dal, When I was creating the page, I needed more sources and later on understood that the pages need improvement, and revisions that are vital to the page by other users. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 15:07, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Make your own user page. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 15:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of Tochigi Governors has been accepted

List of Tochigi Governors, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:52, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement

Hello again, Can you add more information to this draft: Draft:Rahmat Darji? If you can't, no problem. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 13:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, searched now, and google is giving me nothing. Good luck with it though. Absurdum4242 (talk) 13:52, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok No Problem. I only found one source from Songramer Notebook which I already cited. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 13:53, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a famous case? If it’s minor you might have trouble getting it approved / defending it from deletion unless you can come up with enough to prove notability. Absurdum4242 (talk) 14:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to establish notability. I am searching the name by different ways such as books, newspapers, websites, journals. Some websites come up but many of them are just lists of Peace Committee members. I don’t just also search in Google, I search in local ones as well, I am looking for some. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 14:53, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking for some reliable and trustworthy sources. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 14:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]