User talk:YellowMonkey/Archive129

Wikipedia Signpost: 22 June 2009

Special report:Study of vandalism survival times
News and notes: Wikizine, video editing, milestones
Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia impacts town's reputation, assorted blogging
Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
Features and admins: Approved this week
Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: AWOL

I'm currently taking the last exams. I would be back active in July if I passed all of them =). Thanks for your inquirent.--AM ^(talk) 18:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bodyline

You may have missed that references "az" "pollard" and "testlist" are broken. DrKiernan (talk) 12:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, will fix YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need third party NPOV help

Hi. I saw your name on ATC's page (and your protection banner on The Naked Brothers Band page) and realized you might be able to help. This page, in my view, needs a strong NPOV third opinion. I'd suggest reading from the bottom up as the page is being used as a forum. Also, a talk page guidelines banner wouldn't hurt, either. Sorry to bother you, and thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I'll look, also note, I did the IB myself YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice edits, thanks. Just need to edit and stop talking without edit wars; but better the past two days. The article is getting too bloated. Having to archive talk page almost weekly. Helpful having a new editor. I just hacked out a bunch of redundant material. If you don't mind, keep an eye out for a few days. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - June 2009

Note: the Newsletter is "collapsed" for convenience. To see the full letter, click on the "show" button at the right end of the gray bar.

If you are no longer interested in WikiProject Eurovision then please remove your name from this list. This Newsletter was delivered by Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 02:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

York Park

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:York_Park/GA3 Yeah thanks mate, it's coming along nicely and would have to be close to GA standard. The only problem is finding an alive ref for the naming rights sponsorship. Found this but it may not be reliable. Nearly there I think. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 07:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: Despair at FAR

Hey YM, thanks for your note. I do understand where you're coming from, and I'm aware that people have gotten frazzled at FAR and that it's not what it used to be. Sometimes I foolishly believe I can make a difference or affect some change through my actions, though. :)

What annoyed me is that, in two particular instances, I decided to actually work on the referencing. I figured if anyone still watching FAR saw me doing it, they might help, and we might be able to save a couple. So on Samuel Beckett, the nomination mentioned referencing and 1c, so I asked for clarification. I was ready to start researching, getting books, filling in the gaps, and so on. I got no response. Then comes the delist vote from the nominator, utterly ignoring my request for information.

I understand. People implicitly mean the paragraphs that have no citations at all, inl ine with the contemporary idea that almost everything has to be sourced. People are a bit hesitant, perhaps for the fear of looking like a prick, to tag every sentence. I actually tag the odd sentence in my FA/GA more than other people's FA with only 20% referencing YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then there is Wikipedia:Featured article review/National Anthem of Russia/archive1. Once again, I asked for details about the 1c objection. A full two weeks later, I finally get a one sentence response about chewing gum. Once again, we get the delist vote from the same person as from Beckett. In this case, I had actually emailed the main editor asking for sources and other information.

I'm sure by now you can see why I consider it a waste of time. People nominate articles with generic statements, and are not required to provide details when asked by people who are actually willing to work on the article. Then, they paste their generic delist statements and the article gets delisted. I can see your point that it's useless to provide detailed prose feedback when the referencing is bunk, but in neither of these cases was I asking for prose feedback. I was asking for details on the 1c objections because I wanted to work on the articles.

Do you still want to work on it if I talk to the nominator about your inquiry? In most cases, it is just a general desire for some generic attention to citations. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the process is going to be like this, and nominators aren't required to provide details of their objections when queried, we might as well just semi-automate the process and make a PROD-like template. Only if an interested editor removes the template, requests details, and pledges to work with the nominator does the FAR get opened. --Laser brain (talk) 14:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It sort of already is sort of mechanical in 80% of the cases where the article has been abandoned for 3 years and nobody likely cares, and you should probably only bother with the cases where there is some effort by an associated editor/wikiproject like Cane toad and Lake Burley Griffin. I hope you change your mind YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I am connecting with what you are saying. In the end, maybe it's not that big a deal if articles are delisted. It's not as if we're deleting them—we're just saying they no longer meet today's criteria. As always, feel free to ping me if editors are working on saving an article and you think the prose needs some attention. I'll be happy to help. --Laser brain (talk) 15:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had the opposite experience to you. I provided very specific details of a FA's failures, which were all met with generic, "It looks all right to me". See the recent Solar System FAR HarryAlffa (talk) 18:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Launceston, Tasmania

I'm currently cleaning up and copy editing the article. Hopefully in a couple of weeks a will be able to nominate it for a peer review then a GAN. I'm not sure how to reference books, as I've never really done so a lot in the past. Do you know of a page that gives a run down, or could you quickly tell me yourself? Thanks Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 07:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well you just copy teh format used in Bill Woodfull or anywhere other cricket FA/GA. Use a separate section with the list of books with full details with teh cite book template and the shorthand notes section put "Haigh, p. 55" in the short parts YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, & what do you do when there is two authors? Do you go Wooley/Tatlow? Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 07:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the notes your go "Haigh and Frith, p. 23" or "Cashman et al., p. 12." In the long form you use "coauthor=Frith, David;Roebuck, Peter; Manthorpe, Neil" etc there is an example in Woodfull of "Haigh and Frith" and "Harte and Whimpress" in the last part but as Whimpress only added about 7% in a revised addition as "Harte with B Whimpress" I didn't bother to add Whimpress in the shortform YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if the mass tagging of cn for canberra and Australia will spark a reaction? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I was hoping, so things get fixed before FAR. Australia is a bit of a mess really. If nothing happens maybe we should remove info, that will spark a reaction. Although I don't have any books or know a lot about Canberra except in winter it's colder than here, which is quite something! Also can you check out ref 11 for Launceston, Tasmania to see if I've done the right thing. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 07:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also User:Philcha has done an incredibly good review on York Park that this editor is moving house and probably won't be able to finish the review. Have you come across User:Philcha before? Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 10:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I asked him to go to WP:FAR he said that FARs have to be at the same standard as FAC and when I told him it wasn't I asked him to go to FAR but he hasn't visited yet. His GA reviews are easily tougher than the old FAs (which is half of them) YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARs should be nearly as good as FAC. Very good GA reviewer though, and also would be handy at FAR. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 08:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Else I could close FARs with only 1 opinion.... YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note: I won't be supporting FAR unless they are close to FAC. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 09:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket notability

I came across you on Fake IPL Player, but right now I wanted to check with you on getting a Cricket modification to WP:Athlete. We currently have a Test umpire on AfD -Cortez Jordan, it'll pass, but I don't think such things should even come up to AfD. The guy's stats from Cricinfo were up as a ref, and for most cricketers and umpires of the past, save the Hobbs or Huttons, pages wouldn't be up to date or elaborate, I guess. What say you? -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 20:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CRIN for a basic run-down on what the cricket project feel is notable enough for inclusion. It says The major cricket qualification includes any player or umpire who has appeared in a Test match since 1877; or in a limited overs international (including Twenty20 internationals) since 1971; or in any major domestic competition. Major domestic first-class competitions include the County Championship, the Ranji Trophy, the Sheffield Shield, etc. Major domestic limited overs competitions include all ListA matches and the Twenty20 Cup, Indian Premier League, etc.. This is a project guideline only and as such not enforceable but it has the advantage of being both objective and rational. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 22:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did see that, that's the reason why I brought it up as something that needs to be tagged on to WP:Athlete as there definitely is confusion and/or misunderstanding amongst non-cricket followers. Maybe it's not due yet, but there's a more selfish motive in what I was suggesting - I'm looking at writing articles for a good chunk of (primarily Indian) players who qualify WP:CRIN, but not as obvious on WP:Athlete, so it would ease the process. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 23:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ATHLETE is supposed to cover all the players anyway; all FC/List A/T20 domestics pass that Test, although I have seen some North Americans prod Test cricketers and were rolled back in 5 minutes. I don't think a formal change will make a difference; it's just the odd guy who AfDs things and gets uanaimously rebuffed by people within the wikiproject and outside; this doesn't just apply to cricket. Umpires are somehow unspokenly taken to be on the same plane as the players they adjudicate. There isn't anything to worry about. None of these AFds ever get any support YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, if you guys say it isn't a problem, I'm fine with it. YM, my current focus is on the women, I did find that between the World cup and World T20 teams there were at least seven Indian girls who don't have a page, so I was going to start with them, and possibly move on to the Black caps, the English and Aussie girls seem to be doing ok, the Pakistanis it's really difficult to get any info because the Dawn and Jang don't really cover them much, similar problem with the WIndies. Once I'm done with that, I was thinking of having a go at players from Associate nations, and no, Ireland's mauling of Pakistan did not influence my decision. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 02:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created Anagha Deshpande, Reema Malhotra, Sulakshana Naik and Harmanpreet Kaur. Is there any policy on using CricketArchive vs Cricinfo? I couldn't find any. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 16:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They're both RS. I guess it depends on which page loads quicker, which appears to depend on the machine sometimes. CA is more convenient with the oracle as statsguru only works for internationals, but they have their strengths and weaknesses YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll probably use Cricinfo more often, just because I'm used to it! The current set of girls in blue are all blue now. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 05:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HarryAlffa seeks an explanation

Seeking an explanation here HarryAlffa (talk) 19:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your conduct on the RFC and the talk page, YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an explanation. A narrative of your thoughts, quoting my contributions (with diffs) which prompted them please. Is this an unreasonable request? HarryAlffa (talk) 13:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for returning the protection back at the Philippines page. Unfortunately, you only placed a semi-protect and I believe a much tougher protection is necessary until maybe June 30, 2010. I have a worrying feeling that the edit wars would continue especially because I have doubts that the other editor might be using a lot of sockpuppets. Thanks anyway.--23prootie (talk) 01:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I have used fprot now. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Adil your

looks like he was a sockpuppet Wikireader41 (talk) 02:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, pity I didn't know YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

he managed to get unblocked. ????Wikireader41 (talk) 01:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

State-sponsored terrorism

Hi, you say in your recent edit that the Balochis aren't widely recognised as terrorists. The BLA has been proscibed not just by Pakistan, but aslo by the UK and US and therefore the accusation against India merits at least a brief mention.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the Balochi item should be removed. The BBC article is about rebellion in Balochistan and the accusation and denial re India is one sentence in the entire article. We should have at least one WP:RS where the accusation is central before we include unsupported claims. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 12:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the BLA is a small insurgency and is obscure, only three listed countries including the direct opponent YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tamil people

Dear YellowMonkey,

Can you analyze this edit? The IP didn't provide any ref. AdjustShift (talk) 09:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've only watched about 10 Indian films and all were Bollywood Hindi films, none were Tamil, and none were older than 18 years old YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 04:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The edit is actually factually correct but needs to be sourced and copy edited, the word several shows up several times! I'm sure The Hindu has written about it (I clearly remember reading a Friday Feature on south Indian actresses in Bollywood about 15 years ago), but it's unlikely you'll find it online as they have digitized articles only since 2000. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input, Spaceman7Spiff. AdjustShift (talk) 07:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one trivial ref I came by when I was looking for Shobana, there probably might be some good ones. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 15:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Belligerent and combatant

Dear YellowMonkey,

Could you tell me that belligerent and combatant are same or different? I currently have a edit conflict in the article Fall of Saigon because of these words. Thank you in advance.--AM ^(talk) 12:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The US is not close to being a belligerent in any case. Not unless PRC and USSR are labelled belligerent for also suppling the DRV. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The US had soldiers and equipment in this period. China and russia at this moment do not(soldiers) therefore they did not need a commander, which is one of the requirements of belligerence, troops along with commander in charge(Gerald Ford for US) and equipment otherwise the US troops in Vietnam at the time would be labled as terrorist and or spies. No Nonsense Here. Clearly US should be listed. See Belligerent and laws of war, specifically Hague 1907. Cheers. Sea888 (talk) 03:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SECTION I ON BELLIGERENTS

CHAPTER I The qualifications of belligerents(Hague 1907)

Article 1. The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to militia and volunteer corps fulfilling the following conditions:

1. To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

2. To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance;

3. To carry arms openly; and

4. To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. In countries where militia or volunteer corps constitute the army, or form part of it, they are included under the denomination "army."

Art. 2. The inhabitants of a territory which has not been occupied, who, on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading troops without having had time to organize themselves in accordance with Article 1, shall be regarded as belligerents if they carry arms openly and if they respect the laws and customs of war.

Art. 3. The armed forces of the belligerent parties may consist of combatants and non-combatants. In the case of capture by the enemy, both have a right to be treated as prisoners of war.

Sea888 (talk) 07:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Five people disagree with you and if you keep reverting, I'll have to ask for a block YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Battle of Warsaw (1920)

Witold J. Ławrynowicz June 26, 2009

To Whom It May Concern: I recently found the following page on Wikipedia: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Battle_of_Warsaw_(1920)

This page essentially accuses me of plagiarizing material from the Electronic Museum website for the “Battle of Warsaw (1920)” article I wrote for the Polish Militaria Collectors Association publication. Since I was not informed about these proceedings against my work, I was denied the possibility of addressing the charges. I will do so at this time.

The accusation of plagiarism from the Electronic Museum page is not only a very serious attack on my reputation as a writer and historian, it is also completely false and unfounded. What your investigators, namely “Yellow Monkey,” found was the person who plagiarized my original work. I can easily prove to be the author of the article entitled “Battle of Warsaw 1920,” originally published as “W siedemdziesiątą rocznicę bitwy warszawskiej 1920” in Polish on August 9, 1990 and August 16, 1990 (in two parts), in “Głos Polski/Gazeta Polska” in Toronto, Canada. I am in possession of original newspaper copies of this article from 1990.

The piece was later translated into English, by myself personally, and subsequently published in “Hetman: Biuletyn Koła Miłośników Militariów Polskich im. Andrzeja Zaremby” (Hetman: the Polish Militaria Collectors Association publication), in 1996. I am also in possession of this copy of “Hetman.” Later in 1996, it was published on the Hetman website at www.hetman.org, which no longer exists, and is now found at www.hetmanusa.org. I can produce a witness to all of the above facts, as well as photos of the original publications.

Bożenna Kirckpatrick, whom I have never met, placed a shorter version of my work on http://www.electronicmuseum.ca/Soviet-Polish_War/spw_3.html. Kirckpatrick rewrote and posted my work as her own before the www.hetman.org website was closed. This is the reason for which it seems that my work followed hers.

To put it quite bluntly, your investigators did not do their research, and my name and reputation have suffered the consequences. The accusations made against me by “Yellow Monkey,” on behalf of Wikipedia, are borderline slanderous. Before waging such an attack against a writer, Wikipedia employees and/or agents should have fully investigated the background of the article. Their failure to do their duty demonstrates a serious lack of due diligence.

At the very least, I expect Wikipedia to withdraw the accusations made against me on the Battle of Warsaw (1920) page and issue a proper apology. I will be monitoring this issue closely.

Unfortunately, there are several other issues on this webpage that I am also forced to address.

Quote 1: “As for Witold Lawrynowicz - this FAR will serve as a broader venue for his status as a reliable source. His results in Google books - 2; 1 is a biological abstract, the other a footnoting snippet [13]. Google Scholar - [14] (chemical except for one to Wikipedia) or, for W. Lawrynowicz[15] - no history-related articles.”

“Novickas” is simply unable or unwilling to find my numerous historical works published in the USA, Canada, Poland, Sweden and Great Britain. There is a grand total of 173 articles, four books, and several Internet publications on historical topics under my name. I have been publishing in the history field since 1973. It seems that “Novickas” is attacking me as if I was his personal enemy, yet I cannot recall anyone with such a pseudonim.

Quote 2: “Another sourcing issue: 17 refs go to this website: [12] by Witold Lawrynowicz. He's a chemist and an amateur historian. Hetmanusa.org is the website of the Polish Militaria Collectors Association. I don't think this is an FA-quality source.” I do not see any justification to the statement that hetmanusa.org is not an FA-quality source. The opinion of “Novickas” has no factual foundation. I suppose “Novickas” never encountered this organization, and for this reason regards it as untrustworthy; this alone is not a reason to state that it is not an FA-quality source. I doubt that “Novickas” has ever ready any of the publications produced by Polish Militaria Collectors Association. Quote 3: “If it were a comprehensive survey of all the literature, it would contain, for instance, an alternative to Lawrynowicz's "Stalin, in search of personal glory, wanted to capture the besieged, important industrial center of Lwów." Richard Pipes et al. are convinced that Stalin, in not moving towards Warsaw, was acting on Lenin's orders [20]. Another contradiction here, I think: this book states the Soviets accidentally destroyed their own communications center [21]. The article, ref'd to Lawrynowicz, says the 203rd Uhlan Regiment destroyed it. I'm not an expert on the topic, but a little digging has convinced me that its review suffered from a lack of knowledgeable editors. The reviewers didn't catch the plagiarism, for starters. Novickas (talk) 16:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)” “Novickas” may not realize it, but the bibliography for “Battle of Warsaw (1920)” is simply too large to provide a comprehensive study for such a short article. Furthermore, Richard Pipes’ opinion is not supported by numerous other researchers, such as Norman Davies in “White Eagle, Red Star,” Orbis Books, London, 1983, page 210. The destruction of the Russian radiostation was a direct result of action by the Polish 203rd Uhlan Regiment, which I myself described in detail in „Zdobycz ciechanowska”, Przegląd Polski, Nowy Dziennik, 08.17.2007, New York, USA. It also was described in Zbigniew Wieteska’s “27 Pułk Ułanów im. Króla Stefana Batorego,” Warszawa 1992, page 8, B. Skaradziński’s “Polskie lata 1919-1920,” Volumen, Warszawa 1993, page 241 and T. Machalski „Zagon na Ciechanów” in „Przegląd Kawalerii i Broni Pancernej”, London 1962, Nr. 28. pages 12 – 15. Writing or commenting on the history of Poland requires knowledge of the Polish language and study of Polish language sources. By his own admission, “Novickas” is not an expert on the topic, but I will refrain from attacking his ignorance personally. Most disturbing, however, is the following statement:

Quote 4: “I submit that his historical works are not reliable sources "published in reputable peer-reviewed sources and/or by well-regarded academic presses." Novickas (talk) 18:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)”

Publications in Przegląd Kawalerii i Broni Pancernej, MARS, Wojskowy Przegląd Historyczny, Armoured Fighting Vehicles News, Hetman, AJ-Press, and others, as well as lectures for the Polish-American Historical Association and the Piłsudski Institute in New York prove “Novickas” wrong. I could defend myself further, but I think that my published pieces speak for themselves. I would encourage you to research my work further and convince yourselves of this fact.

I fully expect Wikipedia to immediately withdraw its false and unfounded judgments and publish letter of apology to myself.

Sincerely, Witold J. Ławrynowicz witekjl@aol.com

Nobody has accused you of plagiarism. The concern in question was that Wikipedia copied your work too closely. In any case, when I was judge the debate and move it to voting, I simply list what has been suggested above. As the articles lacked references anyway I did not demote the article because of the concerns over plagiarism. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]