Jump to content

User talk:Mann Mann/Archive 2019

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 2015←Archive 2017Archive 2018Archive 2019Archive 2020Archive 2021→Archive 2024

Did some depov'ing

The opening sentences of the Tabriz and Ardabil articles were extremely POV'ish. I just made some tweaks and added proper RS sources. Also removed the unreliable Britannica/Looklex links.[1]-[2] Thoughts? This might spark some..."interest" as usual (i.e. IP's/drive-by accounts/socks). - LouisAragon (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: Britannica is not unreliable in my opinion but we shouldn't cite it when there are better sources. Because its articles have some issues and they sound like basic general info rather than academic info. I think Looklex Encyclopaedia is unreliable and we should avoid it. Yeah, they were obvious POV stuff and they sounded like those cities belonged to an autonomous region or even a sovereign state. Looking at history of those two articles, it seems this user added them. Do you remember what I wrote on your talk page[3]? Another similar case by him. Just take a deep look at their contributions. If you want to solve the issue, you should start it by editing this Azerbaijan (Iran), and then Provinces of Iran (reviewing each province and its capital). For instance, I found Mashhad#Demographics sounds very ridiculous. Or obvious ethnic-nationalistic agenda like this case. --Wario-Man (talk) 08:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Yeah I remember him. He made "a few" good edits, but overal, he was definitely WP:NOTHERE. Unfortunately, I only realized how disruptive he actually was in around 2016. He should be indeffed or topic banned if he ever decides to return, no doubt about that. There are literally dozens of diffs out there that back up our concerns. As for the Mashhad page, yes, its pure crap, but hey, most Iranian city articles are unfortunately still like that. They are in absolute dogshit state ever since they were created, some 10~ years ago. I recently expanded the Fuman, Iran page and I will start fixing more articles about cities in the future. Isfahan is probably the next one on my list, followed by Mashhad and Kermanshah. As for "Azeri style", don't you think ppl @ AfD will say its "legit" based on this[4] Or do you think we should we just go for it and give it a shot? - LouisAragon (talk) 07:53, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Did you see this btw?[5] - LouisAragon (talk) 07:57, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
"Azeri/Azari style" may be a legit term but seems that article is mostly based on non-English Iranian sources. Someone should improve that article. I still don't understand how a Timurid architecture in Samarkand is Azeri style?! As I remember that user even added it to some Seljuk-era architectures. I ask another editor who is familiar with such stuff to check it. Also about that user; he had a considerable number of ethno-nationalistic rants and aggressive stuff (edits summaries and talk pages) and it's odd how he managed to evade block or why other editors didn't report him. And those issues are not limited to Iran. Many articles about West/South/Central Asian topics suffer from such issues thanks to modern nationalism, chauvinistic agendas, or other kinds of fantasy. For instance see [6], [7], [8], and [9]; An Uzbek editor liked Iranian elements among Uzbeks, so he created a 100% POV lead and made it worse by adding racialist terms to it (ignoring obvious fact that Uzbeks have Mongolian influences too). Then a Turkish editor appeared from the sky and added another kind of racialist bullshit, then I fixed it but the Uzbek editor still wanted to mention "Persian" stuff in the lead. So encountering such stuff are not odd for me anymore. --Wario-Man (talk) 08:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, it seems its just a term coined in some Iranian sources. As for those two "gentlemen", yeah, I remember both of them. IRL frustrations, nothing more, nothing less. - LouisAragon (talk) 11:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Per my experience, many of such users come from so-called anthropology forums or racialist communities to WP. That's the reason why we revert their edits, they can't accept that they're wrong. --Wario-Man (talk) 16:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
"HistoryoftheAryans" admitted to being Jamaas9 and got indeffed by Doug[10] Would you be willing to review the material he added to the lede of the Tajiks article in the past few months? Do you think those edits were verifiably correct?
As for those race/anthropology forums; yeah, they seemingly act like a "hub" for all those ppl. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:45, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
@LouisAragon: The lead is OK in my opinion. Did you find any issue or dubious claim there? --Wario-Man (talk) 18:23, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Hmm not really, I think its ok as well, but I was curious for your opinion. Btw, you might be interested in this: [11] - LouisAragon (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
You and Kansas Bear might also be interested in this:
  • IP 217.35.82.33 expressed interest to contact our mutual "friend" Jamaas9 back in June 2018.[12]
  • Almost 7 months later, IP 217.35.82.33 got into conflict with HistoryofIran on Seven Parthian clans.[13]
  • And now, just 4 days after his mini-clash with HOI at "Seven Parthian clans", IP 217.35.82.33 tried to WP:STONEWALL the RfC at Talk:Sakastan (created by HoI) even though IP 217.35.82.33 hasnt made a single edit on any related topic and has not provided any sources. I quote: "Give it a rest... that is precisely the agenda you are trying to push, and evidently not only on this article. Sakastan as a term was used before the Sassanid."[14] How did IP 217.35.82.33 find out about the RfC? Its literally his first edit after the "Seven Parthian clans" episode. Looks like obvious retaliation to me.
  • Cherry on top of the cake: IP 217.35.82.33 and IP 86.30.66.111 both have the exact same geolocation.[15]-[16] Coincidence? I dont think so.
- LouisAragon (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Seems it's not a coincidence or a random anonymous user. But as you know, admins do not block IPs unless they do disruptive edits or they are obvious block evasions. About HistoryofTheAryans' edits: most of his edits were OK and as I remember, me and other editors reverted his problematic edits. But his last comments on Talk:Tajiks showed signs of promoting racialism and made-up stuff. For instance, what is this?! He said stuff like "add more photos of darker-skinned and more Turkic Tajiks" AND "Also, as a FYI Tajiks were called "Farsi" because I believe Iranians (modern nationality) changed the modern editions of our classic literature -- replacing "Tajik" with "Farsi"" which were meaningless stuff in my opinion. Darker-skinned?! As if the current used images are some kind of very rare faces among that people or they're as light-skinned as very pale Europeans. More Turkic Tajiks?! Seriously what does that "more Turkic" mean? And the second part was just similar to his previous attempts to create a fantasy ethnogenesis for a modern nationality/ethnicity. --Wario-Man (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
He was WP:NOTHERE, so I'm not surprised about that stuff. He was also talking about "Indo-Iranian babies" the other day.[17] Btw, your thoughts about this? [18] - LouisAragon (talk) 01:14, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
They have added that template to several other articles. But I think it's wrong because just some separatist groups joined UNPO and they don't represent all people of a specific region. It would be better to contact that user because I have no idea about UNPO and its related stuff. --Wario-Man (talk) 10:25, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Its basically an advocacy group for all irredentist organizations. - LouisAragon (talk) 11:50, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Btw, this could be used as additional evidence (in combination with this one[19]) to prove that every source produced in Azerbaijan by the Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences, is a piece of state-sponsored pseudo-historic nonsense. Please read that link when you have time; you'll absolutely love it. - LouisAragon (talk) 12:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Thoughts ?

What do you think about this edit ? Can UNESCO be considered a reliable source ?---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 23:41, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Look at the authors and editor(s) of that book, e.g. János Harmatta. However, if you think that claim sounds dubious or does not apply to all Saka tribes, you can find and add counter arguments. --Wario-Man (talk) 07:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks very much.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 14:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

My revert

Hey, i did not know who that Xoltron guy was (now i know since i checked the article's talk page after you reverted me). I reverted Musicfan122 just because his edit was unsourced. Thank you for correcting my mistake (again). Will keep an eye on the article in order to revert Xoltron if he comes at it again. And, since i have your ear, your valuble opinion is welcome about this WP:RM. Take care.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 09:59, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

You might be interested

By this.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 21:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

about saka edit

are you going to present your side of argument or stay mute?SureshK 67 (talk) 12:43, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

DerekHistorian

Hi Wario-Man,

You have a lot of experience with the sorts of shady characters who pop up in Eurasian topics. I was wondering if you might check out User:DerekHistorian. Most of his editing history appears innocuous, but he's been pushing a change on Huns that appears to be text that was in the article before I rewrote most of it, although his username was not responsible for the text originally. I find that suspicious. Also his habit of making the change and then disappearing for a several weeks, then making it again, is suspicious to me. He only edits Eurasian topics. Perhaps he's a sockpuppet of a banned editor?--Ermenrich (talk) 14:04, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: Hi. There is a big difference between single-purpose accounts and the editors who are interested in specific topics or subtopics. The first group are usually problematic/disruptive users while the second group are usually normal editors with constructive and helpful contributions. In this DerekHistorian case, I see an editor who is interested in anthropology and genetics (second group => specific topics/subtopics). Does he misrepresent or falsify sources? Is he pov-pusher? Do his edits follow a specific biased pattern? Or he's just involved in edit warring and content dispute? If his cited sources or used contents are OK but what he inserts into that article is not OK and he ignores other editors' concerns and talk page, then you better look for third opinion, or take that issue to WP:ANI, or talk to that user via his talk page. For anthropology stuff, it's better to use post-2000 genetic studies because unlike old sources or outdated works, those genetic studies clarify many things. e.g. stuff like "Huns were Mongoloids" or "European Huns were blond and blue-eyed" vs a genetic study that shows how Huns were diverse or clarifies their genetic admixture. An example: Scythians#Genetics. Using anthropology sources without genetic studies OR giving too much weight to historical race concepts (stuff like Caucasoid, Mongoloid, race, and etc) only harms the quality and scientific/academic tone of the article. So I recommend to rename "Race" to "Anthropology" and create a new section "Genetics" if there are genetic researches/data about Huns. You can look at similar articles to see how they structure anthropology and genetic stuff. --Wario-Man (talk) 17:10, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
We'll see what he does now that it's clear he doesn't have consensus.
Unfortunately, "mongoloid" is the term used in sources as recently as 2015. How would you suggest dealing with that particular issue?--Ermenrich (talk) 14:20, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
It depends. Is it a peer-reviewed source? Is the author an expert? Some scientists prefer to use West/East Eurasian instead of Europid/Mongoloid while there are others who still use terms like Caucasoid, Europid, Mongoloid, and etc. If the cited content passes as reliable source, then it's OK to use it. As I said in above comment, try to expand that section by adding genetic studies because anthropology without genetics usually attracts "Xs ARE MY PEOPLE!" users and they could cause serious problems. There are some racialist forums/communities on internet, and sometimes their users target WP articles. --Wario-Man (talk) 17:06, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
It's Hyun Jin Kim, writer of the last two peer reviewed books on the subject. I'm not sure how much genetic study of Huns there is (since there aren't many remains). MMFA knows a bit about it.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:16, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Thoughts?

Two unrelated users.[20]-[21] - LouisAragon (talk) 12:37, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

U#1 could be just a temporary account. Some people create accounts and then abandon them after few edits. U#2 edits various topics and their edits could be caused by mistake or being not familiar with those topics. --Wario-Man (talk) 15:02, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Did you see this?[22]-[23]-[24] I believe @HistoryofIran: also noticed some odd changes. WP:GF assumed of course. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Obvious problematic edits but As I said, that users seems unfamiliar with those topics. Better to post a message on their talk page and ask them not do it again. --Wario-Man (talk) 00:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. - LouisAragon (talk) 13:09, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Btw, could you add these articles to your watchlist? (Kurdish Americans, Pashtun Americans, Assyrian Americans, Falafel). They are being targeted by the same IP hopper (e.g. [25]-[26]-[27]) who returns every once in a while. I left him a note, but its not gonna make any change I'm afraid. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Your thoughts about these edits?[28]-[29] I wasn't able to find mention of Hinduism being "practised/professed" in the source. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:25, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
@LouisAragon: What about "Hindu"? Does not exist too? Either remove it or ask the editor to write quote(s) from the source by opening a new section on talk page. If you look at the history of article, you'll see I reverted one of their edits.[30] So it could be a classic type of POV-pushing by misrepresenting sources. Before removal/reverting, opening a new discussion might be helpful. --Wario-Man (talk) 02:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
I have reviewed the cited source. It does not say anything about Hinduism. It just mentions Hindu gods or whatever. --Wario-Man (talk) 06:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Kushanas and Alakhana Empire

Hi there! I see you made claim that the Kushana Empire and Alakhana Empire were not Hindu dynasties. Both of these states had Hindu rulers with Hinduism being an official religion. I urge you to take a look at the pages of the respective empires. No empire/dynasty listing in List of Hindu Empires and Dynasties has been added without confirmation of the same from the parent page. Feel free to revert to me in case you have any questions. --Fidolex (talk) 07:28, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Fidolex: I didn't claim anything but I removed them per their main articles. Actually what you did is WP:POV and WP:OR. They were Hindu dynasties just because Hinduism existed in their lands or some of their rulers practiced Hinduism?! Could you show me some reliable sources that call them Hindu Emipre/Dynasty/Kingdom? And please take your concerns to the talk page of article. Better we discuss the issues there. --Wario-Man (talk) 08:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)


Advice regarding the article Agal

Hello, I've made an attempt to change a few words in the Agal article that didn't match the linked source within the article (namely the term "Semitic" to refer to the Elamites). Unfortunately, there seems to be a disruptive editor that just blindly reverts my changes, and makes no attempt to discuss beyond stating that he's "reverting vendalism" [31]. Any advice for dealing with editors like this? Thank you. -- Qahramani44 (talk) 04:11, 07 March 2019 (UTC)

@Qahramani44: Hi. Open a new section on talk page and discuss your concerns there. It's better to ping other involved editors. Prove why you're right by providing your rationale based on reliable sources. Also avoid edit warring and breaking 3RR. --Wario-Man (talk) 04:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:PA ?

Hey, hope you're doing well. If you have some time, please take a look at this and this. Thoughts ?---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 08:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Wikaviani: We could report them to WP:ANI due to their inappropriate behavior. One of them is involved in edit warring and battleground stuff and the other one convinces him to continue it. But I'm really not interested in ANI because of many failed reports and no actions by admins. --Wario-Man (talk) 08:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Yeah i'm not really interested by ANI too, some weeks ago i made a report for a 3RR violation and since i was reverting the troll i got blocked 24 hrs (while i did not break the 3RR ...), i suggest to give them some more WP:ROPE for now. Cheers.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 08:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Shot himself in the foot at ANI ...---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 19:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
When? Where? How? Diff? What do you mean? --Wario-Man (talk) 02:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Wikaviani: See [32], [33], [34], [35], and [36]. Seems they really believe personal attacks are allowed here! --Wario-Man (talk) 06:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, i've seen that, when they meet other editors who disagree with them, they make some personal attacks toward them. BTW, i meant, one of them shot himself in the foot, but it was at AN3, not ANI.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 11:06, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.17

Hello Mann Mann,

News
Discussions of interest
  • Two elements of CSD G6 have been split into their own criteria: R4 for redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons (Discussion), and G14 for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (Discussion).
  • {{db-blankdraft}} was merged into G13 (Discussion)
  • A discussion recently closed with no consensus on whether to create a subject-specific notability guideline for theatrical plays.
  • There is an ongoing discussion on a proposal to create subject-specific notability guidelines for chemicals and organism taxa.
Reminders
  • NPR is not a binary keep / delete process. In many cases a redirect may be appropriate. The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. Redirects are not contentious. See a classic example of the templates to use. More templates are listed at the R template index. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them.
NPP Tools Report
  • Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
  • copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.
  • The NPP flowchart now has clickable hyperlinks.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828
Looking for inspiration? There are approximately 1000 female biographies to review.
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Happy Chaharshanbe Suri

Hey man, just a little message to wish you and your beloved ones a happy Chaharshanbe Suri. Take care.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 19:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Qarmatians

Your thoughts concerning the addition of "heretical" and Shia views.[37] --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:17, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear: Their edits are a mix of citing both reliable and unreliable sources. For instance, they have cited Iranica (RS) and a news website called worldbulletin.net (non-RS).
  • Their text: Wilferd Madelung and most of the other modern authorities have underlined the essential differences between the beliefs of the Carmatians and the Fatimid Ismaʿilis. The Carmatians of Bahrain and elsewhere, who continued to anticipate the return of the hidden Mahdi, did not acknowledge the Fatimid caliphs as their imams, nor did they recognize their expected Mahdi in any of the Fatimids. They also waged an open warfare against the Fatimids.
  • Iranica:W. Madelung and most of the other modern authorities have underlined the essential differences between the beliefs of the Carmatians and the Fatimid Ismaʿilis (Madelung, 1959, pp. 46ff., 74ff., 84ff.). The Carmatians of Bahrain and elsewhere, who continued to anticipate the return of the hidden Mahdi, did not acknowledge the Fatimid caliphs as their imams, nor did they recognize their expected Mahdi in any of the Fatimids. This is why they were so readily drawn into the catastrophic episode of the Persian Mahdi. However, as the Carmatians and the Fatimids shared a common hostility towards the Sunni ʿAbbasids, it may appear that at times they acted in unison. Indeed, there is no solid evidence showing that the Carmatians of Bahrain were in the service of the early Fatimids, although the two sides later arrived at a form of political rapprochement.
They have just copy-pasted texts from both RS and non-RS, plus a POV/biased tone (e.g. the name of that section and new stuff in the lead section). The IP seems like a pro-Shia user. Words like heretical, offshoot, and non-Islamic beliefs need to be clarified by sources. So it's better to open a new section on talk page. Because while they have cited some reliable stuff, the changes sound like a pro-Shia bias and revisionism. --Wario-Man (talk) 16:07, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Hunan201p and genetics

Hi Wario-Man, do you have any opinion on Hunan201p's additions of controversial genetics material to Huns and Xiongnu. It seems he's using unreliable sources in both cases to try to argue a specific opinion, and taking a battleground mentality to anyone who disagrees.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: Hi. Have you seen my reply on Talk:Xiongnu? Just remove any unsourced stuff or personal interpretation of cited sources. --Wario-Man (talk) 09:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Tajiks

Hello Wario-Man. How are you?

I am very delighted that you had the time to message me and inform me of the removal of my edit firstly. But, as the ethnic group of Tajiks vary between country to country and location within these countries, I felt it was right to mention that to be accurate, it was important to state that some Tajiks are direct descendants of Bactrians while others had intermingled with other ancient and modern ethnic groups. This is the logical explanation I tried to convey in my edit. Please consider my intentions and the accurary behind the logic I applied in my edit, and hopefully the removal of my edit is reverted back to my orignal edit.

Thank you!

@Decorationsathome: Personal opinions do not matter on Wikipedia. You should provide reliable sources for your claim. What you have changed is a sourced content and your edits were problematic (read my warning messages on your talk page). You can't replace sourced text with your POV. You better read WP guidelines and rules. --Wario-Man (talk) 17:41, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
This is not a personal opinon but the claim of Afghan Tajiks themselves within the country. The reference for the sourced material, click on the reference, it does not talk about anything to do with ancestry of the Tajiks. Where in that reference when clicking on it, does it show the apparant sourced material? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Decorationsathome (talk • contribs) 04:04, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
WP:NOR and no personal commentary. Find WP:RS for your claims. That's all. Also avoid IP-hopping. Why the edits of those IPs on Bactria are similar to yours?! --Wario-Man (talk) 06:34, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@Wario-Man Please elaborate on why listing famous Eastern Persians within the culture sub-section goes against the "neutral POV policy". A majority of these individuals were born and raised in Central Asia (Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan), with a minority being from northeastern Iran. In the post-Islamic Iranian continuum these individuals would be categorized as Tajiks. This isn't an opinion or a misrepresentation. This is fact. No one is taking away from the fact that they are and will be remembered as Persians, just clarifying that they weren't of western Iranian sub-stock. Arian geek (talk) 22:34, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the compelling evidence (continuously spreading WP:OR, ignoring WP:RS, etc.[38]-[39]-[40]-[41]), it is safe to say you are not here to build this encyclopedia. You will get reported the next time you make a disruptive edit. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:49, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

IP editor(s) at Scheherazade

Do any of the IP editor(s) at Scheherazade seem familiar to you? The last post claims that there are three of them, but when I can't tell them apart it seems strange that the IP editor would be able to, and it just seems unlikely that three IP editors would just happen to descend on this page at once. Do the red-herring half-truth claims (the 1001 nights has Persian sources, therefore it is Persian; the Arabic script has evolved so the name isn't Arabic; the 1001 nights was translated into French, therefore there wasn't any Arabic version before that) or smug superior claims of insider knowledge remind you of anyone who has appeared in the past? It seems clear that there is some sort of Iranian/Persian nationalist agenda at work.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:10, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: I think those IPs belong to blocked user Special:Contributions/Ilikelife. Their edits and aggressive behavior are identical. Compare them. --Wario-Man (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Hmmm, I'm not sure. This user is much more willing to use the talk page and keeps sort of an aloof air about them. Whoever it is has at least a cursory knowledge of wikipedia policies, since they cite them. I'm pretty sure it's just one user, I'll probably report them and suggest a connection sometime soon. For right now the page is protected.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:22, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
See WP:GHBH. But this case could be a team-based work. Sometimes it happens. They share a WP link on social media or internet forums, and then a bunch of anonymous editors (IP-users) and new accounts appear. --Wario-Man (talk) 06:31, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
I've filed a case, not suggesting a connection to the banned editor though, here.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:33, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Checkusers usually ignore IP-users unless there would be obvious block evasion evidences. --Wario-Man (talk) 11:31, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
I've suggested a connection to an editor with 90 edits who just happened to show up and start taking the IP's side, using his same arguments more or less. I actually wonder now if there might be a connection to Xoltron, who also claimed he was "fixing typos" at One Thousand and One Nights and was pushing the same Persian POV. Since I've already filed the the case though, I'm not sure I can change it to include it.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:06, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Would you mind having a look over the conversations at both Talk:Scheherazade and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Extremecia and telling me if you feel that the potential socks are in any way justified in their various accusations against me? They've gotten so nasty and are so insistent on their POV and my awfulness I feel like I need someone else to have a look over it all to make sure I'm not in the wrong in some way.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:08, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: My suggestion is taking this case to WP:ANI if checkusers reject your SPI report. As you see, I only posted one comment on that talk page because I noticed signs of sock puppetry (via IP-hopping) and WP:MEATPUPPET there. But ignoring their aggressive and forum-like tone, that person (or persons) may have some valid points which could be solved by asking third opinion or submitting request on content dispute related boards. Also ask someone like User:LouisAragon about this issue because he's an experienced user in Iranian/Persian topics and he could help you. --Wario-Man (talk) 05:49, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Any idea how to get the clerks to act in the investigation? All of the personal attacks, etc. are getting rather tiresome.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:06, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your suggestions over at my talk page. The investigation has finally been closed, without any action being taken. I think it's too long after the fact to take it to ANI (especially since the worst comments were by an IP), so I guess they got away with it.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:01, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

SPI

[42] Could you add Tractor Sazi F.C. and Tabriz to your watchlist? Thanks, - LouisAragon (talk) 14:31, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Another wave of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing.[43] - LouisAragon (talk) 18:38, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Saudi nationalists are brigading wikipedia and are mobilizing their efforts on twitter

Good evening Wario-Man. I noticed that you're a moderator with interest in Middle Eastern articles on Wikipedia.

I just wanted to notify you that there is an effort among Saudi ultra-nationalist on twitter to editorialize articles on Wikipedia to suit their narrative. I have wrote about this on User/ AhmadLX page, you can check it out here.

I came to Wikipedia from Twitter just to give you a heads up guys. They (the SA nationalist) think their country and "history" is being "treated unfairly" on Wikipedia by some sort of a conspiracy against them. And they have been talking for a while about launching an edit war on specific articles. If they get to have their way they will white wash wikipedia with misinformation and outright lies.

AlOtaibi-1 (talk) 11:45, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.18

Hello Mann Mann,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

Niharika Kohli, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:

  • Allow filtering by no citations in page curation
  • Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.
Reliable Sources for NPP

Rosguill has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.

Backlog drive coming soon

Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.

News
Discussions of interest

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7242 Low – 2393 High – 7250

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk) at 19:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Shining Lots of Girls Gonna Get Hurt.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Shining Lots of Girls Gonna Get Hurt.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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Your thoughts

Hey, hope you're doing well. If you have time, please take a look at this and feel free to let me know if you think that the proposed name is irrelevant. Thanks. Take care.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 21:11, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Teamwork Barnstar
For working in conjunction with other editors to achieve a consensus on Qanat.--Kansas Bear (talk) 22:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)


New Page Review newsletter July-August 2019

Hello Mann Mann,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important.

QUALITY of REVIEWING

Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors. The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR.

Backlog

The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever.

Move to draft

NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations.

Notifying users

Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging.

PERM

Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway.

Other news

School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.

Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Hey

Hi Wario-Man, i'm glad to see you back here. I hope that everything is going well for you and your relatives mate. Btw, i tried to fix the Azeri style article issue and merged it here. Your thoughts are welcome. Take care.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 11:44, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

@Wikaviani: Thanks, nice to see you again. I still don't get how Timurid structures fit in that style? e.g. Bibi-Khanym Mosque does not mention that "Azeri" style, also see Gur-e-Amir and Goharshad Mosque. You should try finding a reliable source that confirm their style (Iranian, Timurid, Central Asian, or whatever)? --Wario-Man (talk) 12:30, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
You're right and i don't get that either. My goal was to merge that irrelevant "Azeri style" article with another article about architecture in Iran and this is what i did, however, i did not check all the monuments listed there. I think we should remove the irrelevant mosques from that section. Thoughts ?---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 21:15, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Does the cited source really support such claim? I can't find that book in Google Books. --Wario-Man (talk) 14:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
I was not able to find the source either, then i removed the monuments that were apparently unrelated with architectural style in Azerbaijan. Btw, i reverted your edit at Persian Gulf, however it was an irrelevant edit made first by a disruptive POV pusher (Persian Lad).---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 17:38, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
That "Azeri style" issue is related to this user's contributions. Take a look at them and you will find more questionable and dubious stuff which we should edit or remove them. About Persian Gulf; you didn't read my edit summary. I reverted my own revert[44] and reverted his edit before.[45] Next time, please use a better summary if you want to revert/undo my edits. Because in this case, I was not the person who tried to add/restore that Fars province. I'm just not interested in dealing with that user. Plus before my edits, you didn't notice that disruptive action. His edit[46] and your revision[47] with that wikilink in the lead section. --Wario-Man (talk) 04:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay responding, missed your reply. You're absolutely right, you self reverted but since this action reinstated the edit of the other guy i had no choice but to revert you. Apologies for my edit summary.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 16:38, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

The Seven Beauties

Hi, what's your intention at The Seven Beauties. It's just an infinite redirect loop. Please can you fix to how you intended? Polyamorph (talk) 08:31, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@Polyamorph: How it's an infinite loop? Can you show me an example? The original name of that work is HAFT PEYKAR. The person who created that article used a translated name which was wrong and misleading. See why it's wrong here: Talk:Haft Peykar. --Wario-Man (talk) 10:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
I think I fixed it. Look back in the history, it was redirecting to itself. Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 10:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Land of the cows

This one's got to be put in the "worst attempts ever" list.[48] - LouisAragon (talk) 15:56, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: That user looks like a troll. Look at their other edits; e.g. see this. --Wario-Man (talk) 23:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Thoughts about these edits?[49] - LouisAragon (talk) 22:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
@LouisAragon: Do you have access to that source?[50] Because his edit summary is confusing and it could be false/misleading. For instance, I reverted his edit on Scythians because it didn't make any sense at all and it was pure POV.[51] Looking at some of his other edits, I think that user does have no idea about "Iranian" as an ethno-linguistic term and he thinks Iranian = from Iran OR it only inludes some modern ethnic groups. So we better watch his edits. If the cited source supports "the majority of the population of Central Asia were Iranian", then restore it and use it in a relevant section. IP's edit[52] needs more details and clarification. So reverting it and asking for a discussion on talk page would be helpful. --Wario-Man (talk) 07:47, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
BTW, for lulz: [53][54] I wonder what some people smoke. Now Tusi time-traveled to Safavid era?! Those nationalist and ethnicist IPs/users... --Wario-Man (talk) 07:56, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for reply. I couldn't view the pages in question within the Cambridge History of Iran. As for the genetics journal, it does actually concern MtDNA (female line) as far as I can see. So I think we should give it some more rope for now. Please let me know if you disagree.
As for the Tusi edits... well, not a surprise, unfortunately. IMO, admins should include everything related to Iran under WP:AA2 sanctions. And they should have done it a long time ago. On a related note, I noticed that they decided to authorize sanctions on topics related to Iranian politics.[55] So I guess they're finally starting (with a big emphasis on the word "starting") to understand the sheer scope of disruption within this vast topic area. - LouisAragon (talk) 12:07, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
For now, we should watch his edits. The way he uses terms like Indo-European, Indo-Iranian, and other related terms is problematic. e.g. see this. OK. They were not Scythian, but why he replaced it with Indo-Iranian while all sources just call them Iranian?! Why he replaces Iranian/Iranic with Indo-Iranian? Look at Talk:Kyrgyz people and the opened section by him. Do you remember I talked about dubious edits by Special:Contributions/AsadalEditor? The guy that desperately tries to remove and falsify steppe origin of ancient Indo-Iranians. Now it's confirmed that he's just another sockpuppet of Special:Contributions/WorldCreaterFighter who has disrupted Eurasian topics for long time; a very similar case to Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Tirgil34. Most of these users with strange focus on genetic stuff and outdated racial terms usually turn into problematic cases. e.g. pushing a long-term agenda. For now, let's wait and watch their edits.
Ethnocentrism is one of the main reasons behind the issues and disruption of Middle East, West/Central/South Asia, and Caucasus topics. I remember some editors said that historical revisionism is common in Afghanistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Iran, Turkey, and Central Asian countries. If you have time, you better compile a list of issues and send it for admins. As I said before, local WPs are responsible for disruption on EN WP articles too. Why do you think the changing ethnicity/background of ancient and medieval persons is so common here? They come from non-EN WPs, social media, and some internet forums. --Wario-Man (talk) 13:51, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
There are a few main "narratives", and we both know it. At least in relation to Iran topics. Though there's a lot of material to provide as evidence, its still gonna require some effort in order to provide good documentation. Inb4 admins: "I don't see that much consistent disruption". - LouisAragon (talk) 14:25, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for correcting my mistake when i forgot the cap of "Turkification". Cheers.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 16:32, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

@Wikaviani: No problem and thanks for reverting that move. I have added that article to my watchlist. --Wario-Man (talk) 23:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Batu Khan

what is wrong with adding the Turkish word of Batuhan to the article? Batuhan is a very common name in Turkey. It is much more relevant to add the Turkish word than in Russian or Greek. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suicideboi (talk • contribs) 10:27, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

@Suicideboi: It's completely irrelevant and disruptive. The same reason we don't add non-Arabic variants to Muhammad or other languages to Jesus. Should we add Arabic to an Ottoman Sultan like Selim I just because Selim is originally an Arabic name? Or Persian to Hurrem Sultan? In your case, Modern Turkish language has nothing to do with that Mongol ruler. How is Batu Khan related to Turkey and Turkish language?! Non-English names must be relevant to the topic; e.g. using in historical sources and be related to the topic/person. I have already removed Greek because it's as irrelevant as Turkish there unless someone provides some sources about why his name in Greek is important. Plus your argument was invalid. Just don't add Turkish names and random stuff based on your personal analysis to unrelated articles again. That's all. --Wario-Man (talk) 20:11, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019

Hello Mann Mann,

Backlog

Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Coordinator

A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.

This month's refresher course

Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired Ballonman, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for making the occasional mistake while others can learn from their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.

Deletion tags

Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.

Paid editing

Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion
  • Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
  • Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.
Not English
  • A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.
Tools

Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent enhancements to the New Pages Feed and features in the Curation tool, and there are still more to come. Due to the wealth of information now displayed by ORES, reviewers are strongly encouraged to use the system now rather than Twinkle; it will also correctly populate the logs.

Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.

Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.

DannyS712 bot III is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Tomyris

Hi Wario-Man. Your automated edit with AutoEd here [56] seems to have messed up many of the references in the Tomyris article. Just FYI. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 14:29, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@पाटलिपुत्र: Fixed it. The automated edit added a wrong "/" to one of the used tags. That was the reason for ref name errors. See the article again. Thanks for the notification. --Wario-Man (talk) 15:47, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Qanats

You might be interested in this discussion. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Mongoloid article genetic issues

Dear Wario-Man: Happy World Teachers' Day! I am writing with regards to some stuff I have found at the Mongoloid article which seems to be dubious, contradictory or falsified. I know you are probably a busy individual, who tires of the constant controversy surrounding ethnicity articles on Wikipedia, but since you have proven to be very vigilant about it, I thought I would point your attention to [particular section I made at the talk page]. It outlines one of numerous problems with that page regarding original research, dubious interpretation and probably deliberate falsification, possibly by racist or nationalist trolls.

Respectfully, Hunan201p (talk) 02:16, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Indo- scythians

If you think it is correct in the view of scythians or sakawritten in that, then in the same purana it is also written that chandragupta vikramaditya conquered all the lands of scythians or saka from central Asia to jerusalem and defeated the Roman king in jerusalem and assumed the title of sarkari after cleaning the scythians or saka then you have to write this information also in Gupta emperor chandragupta vikramaditya page then why are you biased as one sided . Sphotana dev (talk) 07:27, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Keraites

Look at these https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/900359681 It is unclear whether the Keraites should be classified as Turkic or Mongol in origin. The names and titles of early Keraite leaders suggest that they were speakers of a Turkic language, but coalitions and incorporation of sub-clans may have led to Turco-Mongol amalgamation from an early time Amab1377 (talk) 14:35, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

ANI notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hunan201p (talk • contribs) 02:56, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter November 2019

Hello Mann Mann,

This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon.

Getting the queue to 0

There are now 810 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards.

Coordinator

Admin Barkeep49 has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers.

This month's refresher course

Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources.

Tools
  • It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
  • It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.
Reviewer Feedback

Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13.

Second set of eyes
  • Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
  • Do be sure to have our talk page on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.
Arbitration Committee

The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights.

Community Wish list

There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion.

To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Troll

Hey, Just to let you know, the disruptive troll who reverted you at Turkification with battleground comments has been indeffed. Wish you a great rest of your day. Take care.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 19:16, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

He was just another user who thought WP was his very own personal blog; good riddance. Thanks for notifying me. --Wario-Man (talk) 19:27, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
I am all broken up about it. NOT. Hope you gentlemen have a good weekend. I am going to see the new Midway movie with my sons this weekend. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:48, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Always welcome Wario-Man;-) @Kansas Bear: Thanks ! Wish you a great week-end too. Have fun with your kids;-) My own sons want to watch it with me too !---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 19:56, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Have fun! --Wario-Man (talk) 20:00, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Aqşin Abbaslı

Hi Wario-Man, I saw that you just gave Aqşin Abbaslı a final warning for disruptive editing in the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic article. Although some of their earlier edits there have certainly been disruptive - repeatedly changing "Azeri" to "Turkish" etc. - I'm not completely sure about the three you just reverted: [57]. The article gives both Azərbaycan Xalq Cümhuriyyətik and Azərbaycan Demokratik Respublikası; I'm not sure which is best for the infobox, but I don't see that it's a particularly disruptive edit to change it, is it? It's true that change had been reverted already, but always as part of other edits which were actually disruptive. They also added some wikilinks to several people, and corrected the spelling of a name, which all seems to be helpful editing. Since they didn't repeat the language-name changes, it's possible they're attempting to listen and respond to the criticism. In other words, it looks like there have been serious problems with this user, which may well continue, and they do need to learn to use edit summaries and talk pages. But this particular case was maybe a little too harsh. I'll leave it up to you if you want to consider undoing your revert and/or warning, but I wanted to point it out. Thanks... --IamNotU (talk) 17:52, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@IamNotU: Thanks for notifying me. I don't trust that user. Almost all of his edits are disruptive or problematic. He even does have an alternative account which I have already submitted a SPI case for it. But I revert my edit since he or other editors may want to discuss those stuff on talk page. And I was/am not harsh. Is this harsh too? --Wario-Man (talk) 18:21, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm also not impressed by their edit history, and no, it was not harsh at all for you to leave the warning about edit summaries, thanks for doing that. I also warned them about the second account, and twice about edit warring. I suppose it might not be long before they get themselves blocked. In the meantime, if they are capable of making helpful edits and changing their behavior, it's good to give them the chance to. That way, if they continue to be disruptive, we can at least say we tried our best, and they won't have any excuse if it comes to making an ANI or edit-warring report. I'll open a discussion on the talk page, which is also necessary before reporting them. Thanks again... --IamNotU (talk) 19:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

DerekHistorian falsifying information with regards to Hazara, Iranians and Mongoloids

Dear Wario-Man, Please see DerekHistorian's latest edits to Hazaras and Mongoloid. He continuously reinstates proven misinformation with regards to the paternal haplogroups of Hazara, Eastern Iranians and Finns, by deliberately falsifying the portions of ancestry in Hazaras and Eastern Iranians, and by injecting his own personal opinion by describing certain haplogroups as "Mongoloid"; when there's nothing in the links he posts that links any of these haplogroups to the word "Mongoloid". I believe he should be blocked from editing, and that there needs to be a big discussion about the many threats these genetics/race articles pose to this website's integrity. Yours,Hunan201p (talk) 15:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

@Hunan201p: Take your evidences to WP:ANI; e.g. the sources and how he falsified them. Let admins and other editors review them. --Wario-Man (talk) 19:42, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter December 2019

A graph showing the number of articles in the page curation feed from 12/21/18 - 12/20/19

Reviewer of the Year

This year's Reviewer of the Year is Rosguill. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.

Special commendation again goes to Onel5969 who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to Boleyn and JTtheOG who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.

Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.

Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.

Top 10 Reviewers over the last 365 days
Rank Username Num reviews Log
1 Rosguill (talk) 47,395 Patrol Page Curation
2 Onel5969 (talk) 41,883 Patrol Page Curation
3 JTtheOG (talk) 11,493 Patrol Page Curation
4 Arthistorian1977 (talk) 5,562 Patrol Page Curation
5 DannyS712 (talk) 4,866 Patrol Page Curation
6 CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk) 3,995 Patrol Page Curation
7 DragonflySixtyseven (talk) 3,812 Patrol Page Curation
8 Boleyn (talk) 3,655 Patrol Page Curation
9 Ymblanter (talk) 3,553 Patrol Page Curation
10 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 3,522 Patrol Page Curation

(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)

Redirect autopatrol

A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by DannyS712 bot III.

Source Guide Discussion

Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.

This month's refresher course

While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry merry !

~~~ is wishing you a Merry Christmas!

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 02:09, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

One more time ...

Hey, i owe you apologies since i was the one who accepted the map at Persian language. One more time, you corrected one of my mistaKes and i wanted to thank you with my own words for that. Best.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 17:16, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@Wikaviani: It was accepted by another editor not you. All uploaded images either must be sourced, or verifiable. Take a look at that map again. Not only it's unsourced, but it suffers from poor quality, made-up and odd stuff (agenda?); e.g. Pashto in Northern Iranian regions/provinces. --Wario-Man (talk) 09:30, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Happy to hear that i was not the one who accepted that edit. Thank you, i will check if sources are provided for any map addition. Cheers.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 22:09, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Confusing edit

Why did you do this? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:49, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

@Koavf: It was not confusing. Clean-up script removed extra whitespaces (blank spaces). You can check it by comparing my revision's source and older revision. Open/Edit both revisions in two browser tabs. Go to edited section and you will see the differences. --Wario-Man (talk) 20:01, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Wario-Man, Odd that you would tell me that I wasn't confused. What is the purpose of this edit? How is this better than this? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:25, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
It's better in aspect of size of article (used bytes). Let me clarify it with an example:
  • ABCXYZ
  • ABCXYZ
Two 100% similar lines? No. #1 does not have blank spaces and #2 has 3 blank spaces. Again, check the source. Press the "end" button or select both lines (when editing) to see the differences. WP software renders both line as same but the source used 3 extra bytes for #2. That script removes unnecessary blank spaces from the source (saving bytes). Is my edit or that script is still confusing for you? --Wario-Man (talk) 20:44, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Uh, yeah

That "re-write" of the Ashina tribe, although coming along slowly, has exposed some information some might find upsetting.[58] --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:34, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear: Some Central Asian related articles have similar issues. Poorly written or full of unsourced and pov leftovers. e.g. Hephthalites is one of them. It's better to notify other editors (Talk:Ashina tribe) that you rewrite that article. Thanks for your contributions. --Wario-Man (talk) 13:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Steverci

You might want to know about this. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:52, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Archive 2015←Archive 2017Archive 2018Archive 2019Archive 2020Archive 2021→Archive 2024
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mann_Mann/Archive_2019&oldid=1187459620"