User talk:Apaugasma/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I don't believe we've been introduced...[edit]

The Magician, illustrating the concept that as above, so below.

...but I've seen your name around plenty, and given the current unpleasantries I've finally decided to click on your very interesting-looking signature. Some fun topic area overlaps :) Admirable work on As above, so below -- with some expansion and tweaking (sandwich the images less, maybe a less indiscriminate list at the end) I could envision it making GA, and there'd be a Quarter Million Award in it if that's anything that interests you? (I was working on The Magician (Tarot card) when much newer, with quixotic aspirations to bring the whole Major Arcana to GT/FT, but not for now.) Vaticidalprophet 20:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vaticidalprophet! Thanks for coming here, and thanks for the compliments! I've seen your name around a lot too (I'm a big lurker around here ), and I've often appreciated your insightful comments, as well as your enthusiasm for content work. I fear that the As above, so below article looks better than it really is: the topic being rather close to the subject of my original research, I was able to make an OK article out of it, but the sourcing is actually very thin. It's almost all passing mentions, and there's really not much material on it out there. I guess I'm just very happy to have a reliable article on a topic like that.
I'm not really interested in GA/FA stuff, to be honest. I'm mainly here to fight the enormous spread of misinformation represented by Wikipedia, which often means that I'll go through an article replacing and updating the most offensive stuff. Only when I have a lot of time and encounter an article that is disastrous from beginning to end (cf., e.g., [1]), I will rewrite it from scratch. But once everything in it is directly based on impeccably reliable sources, I'm generally happy to leave it at that and move on. There are so many other bad articles out there!
Then again, I do plan to further expand some of the articles I've already rewritten, and I will probably nominate one for GA at some point. Abu Lu'lu'a Firuz might actually already be there, I don't know. I can imagine myself doing a lot of that in the future, but I guess that right now my priorities lie elsewhere (mainly off-wiki, that is). If you stay around here, we'll probably have plenty of opportunity to collaborate! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abu Lu'lu'a Firuz quite likely is already there although I have to query the huge image in the last section -- I understand wanting to get the architectural detail, but it squishes the text quite a lot. I get what you mean about AASB and thinner-than-expected sourcing; it's frustratingly the case for some of my internet-culture articles. That said, you'd be surprised how niche a topic can be and still be able to pass those processes. There are FAs not much longer -- they're very niche topics, but they're as thorough discussions of it as there's possible to write.
The interesting thing about GA is it's not actually, in the end, a very high bar. It fits pretty well with your stated goal, even. I find it's something that looks scary from the outside but winds up being surprisingly easy when you're there; there's a reason the term often applied, not unkindly, to the GAN process is "lightweight". (Hence the comment at the top of User:Vaticidalprophet/GANs, referring to comments by Ritchie333 possibly, IIRC, by way of Eric Corbett? he'd know and Carrite respectively.) One benefit of the process is it lets you take an article through DYK, which can (for exactly the reasons the GSoW is a fan -- it's a powerful tool) be really useful to the combatting-misinformation goal. If an article was in poor shape for years, bringing attention to an improved version on the main page is a powerful way to influence things in the opposite direction. Food for thought. Vaticidalprophet 22:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you![edit]

Sorry for all the crap you've been through lately. Kittens are always adorable; editors, less so. Levivich 17:17, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you ever happen to be looking for something new to work on, Bible could use some attention from editors knowledgeable about ancient texts. Last year, I rewrote the Bible#Development and Bible#Textual history sections (what they looked like before) to try and bring some top RS and provide some kind of "overview". Those two sections could use a going-over by someone who knows more about this than I do. The rest of the article also needs work... some decisions need to be made about what level of detail should be in this top-level parent article, and what details should be pushed down into sub-articles, and then that needs to be applied uniformly across the article. If at any point that sounds like something you'd like to work on, please do :-) And if you'd like some help, feel free to hit me up. Cheers, Levivich 17:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Levivich! Thanks for the support, it's much appreciated!
I'm afraid that my knowledge of Biblical studies is rather thin. I'm planning to get more familiar with Hellenistic Judaism and early Christian ideas at some point in the future, but my main interests will probably always rather stay on the philosophical side. Some articles that I could see myself working on, apart from those already listed at my user page, are (in chronological order) Pythagoreanism, Alcmaeon of Croton, Philolaus, Dogmatic school, Stoic physics, Aristobulus of Alexandria, Philo, Zosimos of Panopolis, Job of Edessa, Ghulat, Abu Bakr al-Razi, Turba Philosophorum. But you know how it goes, probably I'll end up working on entirely different articles anyways. I'm also quite busy in real life, so new content creation will probably be getting on much slower than last year. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:18, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Abu Lu'lu'a Firuz[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Abu Lu'lu'a Firuz you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 20:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Abu Lu'lu'a Firuz[edit]

The article Abu Lu'lu'a Firuz you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Abu Lu'lu'a Firuz for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 21:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Barawa & Battle of Benadir[edit]

Greetings, I see you have gotten involved in helping out with the vandalism that has been going on in Battle of Benadir and Battle of Barawa etc, I'm glad to see that. I had been trying to keep those articles clean almost single handedly for a while now as you can see from the history. Strange articles. Keep up the good work though. Wareno (talk) 02:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wareno! I'm really just following a sockpuppet around, so it's somewhat of a coincidence that I ended up on those pages (which I haven't even read!). But it's true that there are a lot of poorly watched articles like that out there, so I tend to keep them on my watchlist. I'm glad you appreciate it! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:15, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Abu Lu'lu'a Firuz[edit]

The article Abu Lu'lu'a Firuz you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Abu Lu'lu'a Firuz for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 15:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For finding many PaullyMatthews socks. You must happen to take interest in the area the socks edit in since I have not seen any myself since my own report. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 01:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Blaze Wolf, it's much appreciated! I actually just find them by going through their contribs and adding the pages they edit to my watchlist. My own editing interests lie elsewhere, though I will sometimes try to improve a page plagued by socks (e.g., I first came to Abu Lu'lu'a Firuz while chasing another sockmaster). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 01:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok. I usually just leave socks like this alone since they edit so many articles for me to be able to find them. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 01:43, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would make a joke about you being one of the socks since you always seem to find their socks, however that probably wouldn't be taken very well so I'm not going to make the joke. Once again, good job with the work you are doing. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Positivism[edit]

I like your essay, and I think it says something that needed to be said. jp×g 23:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really glad you liked my essay. I'm kind of weary of affirming my role as one of the ever-fighting antipoles in the Heraclitean harmony of opposites that Wikipedia is apparently supposed to be, and I am planning to refuse service in this regard and to retreat to less contested places. But for this particular rebuttal I was willing to bend back once more on one side of the bow/lyre to ensure its proper tension/attunement. I just hope some others will be pulling the string to that side too, for example by citing the essay in discussions. Ye who read this, consider it an invitation. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Akbar ibn Hasan ibn Ali ibn Muhammad[edit]

The content used in this article is not valid enough and the user who adds the content does so anonymously. (Probably harder to complain about.) If you agree, leave this page for comment to remove.M.Nadian (talk) 12:00, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi M.Nadian! I'm not sure whether I understand your meaning. Are you referring to the content recently added here, or to the article as a whole? My impression is that the article needs to be rewritten from scratch based on reliable sources, and that it is one of these cases where arbitrary removals or the addition of badly sourced and misleading info is not really making it much worse, just because it is so bad already. Does that make sense? I already reverted the bad edit once, as it was reverted by another user, so if you engage the IP on the talk page it should be clear that consensus is against them. But I'm not going to do anything more right now. I'm sorry to say so, but I took the article from my watchlist: real-life priorities mean that I simply don't have time for this. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I meant deleting the article itself. I don't like to spend time on this article too. Ok, Thanks. M.Nadian (talk) 14:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Theories about Cyrus the Great in the Quran[edit]

He reverted. He really does not seem to understand either how Wikipedia works or even what makes sense in an article. His first revert restored all of this [2] with the edit summary "Many historical Islamic evidences from ancient sources and its modern citations are kept." I can't see the relevance of much of that text to the subject of the article. I'm getting tired of this, especially as I'm trying to get myself organised for either bowel cancer surgery (and it's spread to my liver) or chemotherapy if they can't do that, sometime in the very near future. Doug Weller talk 09:11, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doug Weller! I think we have spent more than enough time on this user already, so I have taken it to ANI (here). Please take all the rest you need and do not concern yourself with this any longer, it's really not worth it. One day these articles will get the attention they deserve, and all the bad stuff to which we're paying so much attention now will simply disappear in the rewrite. Better not get too caught up with it in the mean time. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Skepticism and coordinated editing proposed decision posted[edit]

The proposed decision in the Skepticism and coordinated editing has been posted. Please review the proposed decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brill and Encyclopaedia of Islam[edit]

As a sometime follower of the ANI page I wanted to say thanks for the ANI explanation about Brill and the Encyclopaedia of Islam. It was a useful perspective to read. Gusfriend (talk) 12:03, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Brill's pretty crazy. People think that anything with the name 'Oxford' or 'Cambridge' in it is reliable, but as someone who has read a lot of Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press monographs (okay, mostly just parts of them ), I can assure you that they do put out a stinker from time to time. Not so with Brill. I don't think I've even once come upon a Brill monograph that was truly bad, and most of it is just top notch. That really is a name which if you see it, you just know it's going to be of the highest possible quality. Too bad that most of their monographs cost $150 and upwards... ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:23, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bashir Iran[edit]

See Bashir Iran (talk · contribs) Used James B. Jordan as a source, an incomprehensible paragraph, interesting as sometimes he writes almost professionally, etc. Doug Weller talk 19:44, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User has been indeffed, and rightly so: it's quite clear they were only here to propagate their own weird theories, whose sole purpose seems to have been to somehow identify Dhu al-Qarnayn with some ancient Persian king (it appears any Persian king would do). Definitely one of the stranger forms I've seen religio-nationalist preoccupations take. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:40, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

False accusations.[edit]

Thanks for P2P. First of all, similar points of view don't signify singularity and multiple accounts. Here, in Wikipedia we don't necessarily have to have contrasting ideologies. Think before arbitrarily affixing false allegations.--Sayed Ghazi Abbas Kazmi (talk) 07:45, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, [3] vs [4] vs [5], and then with respect to the username [6] followed up by [7], really speaks for itself. It's clearly creating an illusion of support for a tendentious position (Kazmi caste ... is a respected and revered community amongst Muslims). I see that you're temporarily blocked now for this. I strongly advise you to focus on some other subject when editing Wikipedia, one on which you have no strong personal views. Kind regards, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:34, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback tips[edit]

Hey, thanks for your comments at the Rollback thread at WP:ANI. I'd like to take advantage of your knowledge in this area and see if you can help me with setting up using custom edit summaries with Twinkle. Indeed, there are many things I'd like to customize with Twinkle (rather than learn a new tool) but am not quite sure how to do, but let's go with the edit summaries first.

Let me first tell you what my interface looks like now. Looking at the edit history of a page, I see [rollback (AGF)] || [rollback] || [vandalism] at the top right. The line below that says "Latest revision...", and the line below that is "(undo)". How do I use Twinkle to use custom edit summaries?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bbb23! I'm afraid I can't help you with this. I myself use a separate text file (often indicated by the .txt filename extension) which I keep open while patrolling and from which I manually copy-paste (select text, crtl-C then ctrl-V) the most appropriate edit summary into the box. Twinkle should bring up such a box when you click [rollback (AGF)] or [rollback] (if not, make sure that in Wikipedia:Twinkle/Preferences "Prompt for reason for normal rollbacks" is checked). As I mentioned, the advantage of this particular method is that I can use the same list for manual reverts, undo button reverts, or whatever other tool. I personally like to keep things basic like that.
But the user script (User:Enterprisey/CustomSummaryPresets) mentioned by PorkchopGMX should allow to set up a custom list which automatically appears from the normal edit summary box, a method which should be quicker and easier than mine. However, I'm not sure whether the script also brings up the list of custom edit summaries in the box brought up by Twinkle. I would expect not, but I'm actually rather ignorant about user scripts, so pinging Enterprisey for help. If not, asking at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle to implement a custom edit summary option into Twinkle would probably be your best option. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:01, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, but could you do me a favor and e-mail me your text file? --Bbb23 (talk) 19:32, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
E-mail sent. I hope it'll be at least of some help. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Thanks! --Bbb23 (talk) 20:57, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. This can sort of be accomplished with the undo feature plus CustomSummaryPresets, but Twinkle rollback shows a simple box that doesn't use CustomSummaryPresets. Failing that, asking at that talk page sounds good. Enterprisey (talk!) 03:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Enterprisey: I installed the script, but how do I add the edit summaries I wish to choose from when I'm on an Undo screen? I think it explains it on your page, but I'm embarrassed to admit I'm not sure if I follow it, at least not well enough to try doing it. :-( Perhaps you can add the edit summary "unsourced" to my common.js and then I can see how it's done? --Bbb23 (talk) 18:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23: To specify custom edit summaries, copy and paste these lines at the bottom of your common.js. Then replace "Your custom edit summary", with whatever you want, making sure to retain the quotes and comma. If you want to add more edit summaries, just copy and paste the last line over and over again and modify. —GMX(on the go!) 17:46, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PorkchopGMX: I did that and added some "test" summaries, and it worked great. Thanks! I assume you mean to copy the edit summary lines for more choices, leaving the "last line" with the closing bracket and semi-colon alone.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:20, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23: Yep, do that as well. —GMX(on the go!) 18:57, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, thanks again; if I have questions, I'll come to you. :-) @Apaugasma, thanks a lot for allowing me to use your Talk page to work through this.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:26, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It very much was my pleasure! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:29, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the instructions suck. I'm working on a form to conveniently edit the summaries, but it's taking a little longer than I'd like. Expect an update soon. Enterprisey (talk!) 09:23, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing closed[edit]

An arbitration case regarding Skepticism and coordinated editing has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

  • Rp2006 (talk · contribs) is warned against a battleground mentality and further incivility.
  • Rp2006 is indefinitely topic banned from edits related to living people associated with or of interest to scientific skepticism, broadly construed. This topic ban may be appealed after six months have elapsed and every six months thereafter.
  • A. C. Santacruz (talk · contribs) is reminded to remain collegial in editing and interacting with others.
  • Roxy the dog (talk · contribs) is warned to remain collegial in editing and interacting with others.
  • GSoW is advised that a presence on English Wikipedia, perhaps as its own WikiProject or as a task force of WikiProject Skepticism, will create more transparency and lessen some of the kinds of suspicion and conflict that preceded this case. It could also provide a place for the GSoW to get community feedback about its training which would increase its effectiveness.
  • Editors are reminded that discretionary sanctions for biographies of living people have been authorized since 2014. Editors named in this decision shall be considered aware of these discretionary sanctions under awareness criterion 1.

For the Arbitration Committee, –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing closed

Edit of pages[edit]

I have seen you block people who don’t agree with your point of view. Some of these edits made by sock puppetry are past edits accurate that some people want to revive. I’m scared of editing pages because I might be accused of being a sock puppet Wolverrrinnne (talk) 20:57, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Epistemology and Stuff[edit]

Hey, I skimmed your discussion with Hob and friends from January. I'm surprised the whole Qi, falsifiability, and epistemology discussion is still going on. Though I suppose these kinds of discussions have been going on for a few thousand years, with no sign of slowing down. In a way I feel somewhat responsible for the mess, because I was, or at least I recall that I was, the first person to make edits questioning the original "does not exist" statement in the Shiatsu article, in July of 2021. Just wanted to say that you are not insane, your reasoning is not insane, and your thoughts are not in opposition to Wikipedia's principles. I don't need to tell you that a lot of people here are just philosophically closed-minded fundamentalists. You've carried that discussion much farther than I ever could, and your patience with others is immense. I've never given a barnstar before, but here goes.

The Socratic Barnstar
For excellent epistemological argumentation. MarshallKe (talk) 00:44, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, the Socratic Barnstar –I'm not sure whether I deserve such a great honor! In any case, the ideal Socrates as depicted by Plato was much more successful in his questionings, for the simple reason that his interlocutors never failed to reply in a perfectly rational way. I've often envied Socrates on that score . However, what I was dealing with here did indeed remind me more of some discussions I've had –or have tried to have– with religious bigots: the whole approach of proof by assertion interspersed with ad hominems, serving a discourse which assumes the identity of highly personal beliefs with 'reality' or 'truth', is exactly the same. But then it's also my fault that I didn't sooner disengage from such unconstructive pursuits. That 'insane' comment really hurt. Anyway, thanks a lot for the support, it's much appreciated! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amir al Momineen[edit]

You seem like you understand this better than I do, so I was hoping you could help me understand something. If the title exclusively refers to a leader of all Muslims, then why do the Taliban use it? My understanding is the scholarly consensus is the Taliban is an Afghan nationalist movement whose ambitions don't extend beyond Afghanistan. Are they using it improperly? ― Tartan357 Talk 06:29, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tartan357! The Taliban are of course also Islamists, and their use of the title Amir al-Mu'minin falls within what the article describes as the usage by local warlords. I initially chose the short description Title given to the supreme leader of the Islamic community because that it is by far its most significant use historically (the article needs a bit of expansion on this front), but it's indeed true that already from the 9th century on the title was adopted by more local Islamic leaders (though still the supreme leader within a certain kingdom or region), and certainly today (as also carried, e.g., by the King of Morocco) is no longer equivalent to a claim to the caliphate. I adjusted the short description to Title designating the supreme leader of an Islamic community, which should allow for these more localized usages. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clearing this up. ― Tartan357 Talk 02:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brill[edit]

I think it is not compulsory to use Brill there until someone have coi with it, article was verifiable with ample citations. Thank you. 37.111.216.141 (talk) 15:59, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at your talk. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New message at Talk:Badi' al-Din[edit]

Hi, you have a new message at Talk:Badi' al-Din. 37.111.216.141 (talk) 16:26, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is your issue with mentioning alcohol on al-Razi's page?[edit]

The guy literally coined the word "alcohol" for christs sake. 5.151.22.143 (talk) 12:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is based on reliable, secondary sources. No such source exists for the claim that al-Razi discovered alcohol (for a somewhat thorough discussion of the unreliability of the many non-secondary sources which unduly repeat the claim without evidence, see here), let alone for that he should have coined the term. What's my issue? Just to make sure that Wikipedia presents to its readers reliable information, and avoids contributing to the spread of misinformation.
For reliably sourced information on this subject, see Alcohol (chemistry)#Etymology and Alcohol (chemistry)#History. I will summarize it here for you:
The word 'alcohol' originally referred not to ethanol, but to the eye cosmetic kohl (from the Arabic, الكحل, al-kuḥl), which consisted either of lead(II) sulfide (produced from galena) or –in the early modern context wherein the Latin term 'alcohol' was coined– antimony trisulfide (produced from stibnite). Antimony-based kohl was produced through sublimation, and somewhere in the 16th century the word 'alcohol' started to be used more generally for any 'raised' substance produced through sublimation or distillation (another word used at the time for this was 'spirit'). The exclusive use of the word 'alcohol' for the substance produced through the distillation of wine dates only from the 18th century.
The author of one of the works attributed to Jabir ibn Hayyan (c. 850–950) experimented with the boiling of wine, but does not mention its distillation, giving a good indication that the cooling methods needed for distilling alcohol were not yet developed at that time. The distillation of wine is attested in a work attributed to al-Kindi (c. 801–873, but this could well have been written by a later author who falsely attributed it to al-Kindi) and in a work by al-Zahrawi (936–1013, a likely period for the first successful attempts at distilling alcohol in my view), but not in the works of al-Razi (c. 865–925), who was a contemporary of the anonymous Jabirian author. The first known recipes for alcohol as such (called aqua ardens or 'burning water' at the time) date from 12th-century Latin works, though further research is likely to find earlier instances in as of yet uninvestigated works written in Arabic. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:20, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

East Asian Religions[edit]

The edit https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1055322112 made the sentence nonsense since it referred to the Korean and Japanese folk religion "both" as being shamanist as someone threw in Vietnamese folk religion inbetween, so a edit was required. As i'm not knowledgable about Vietnamese folk religion and as to whether it is actually shamanic, but do have some about Korean shamanism so the edit was directed at that. FingonFindekáno (talk) 15:42, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FingonFindekáno! I only reverted your edit here because it added some stuff (about Mu and the character by which it is represented) without citing appropriate sources for that. Please remember to always cite a source when you're adding new information. It's not enough that you yourself know you're right: because Wikipedia is written by anonymous editors, our readers can only trust the information they are reading when they are able to independently verify it through external sources.
But you're of course right about the term "both" having been wrong ever since the November 2021 edit you mention. What about this? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, i'd want to refer to the Wiki page on Muism but that would be as good as tilting at Windmills i guess. It'd be nice if someone could doublecheck on whether Vietnamese folk religion is actually Shamanistic, as i've only found references to minorities within Vietnam having that practice, but not the Vietnamese ethnic religion itself. FingonFindekáno (talk) 19:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FingonFindekáno: yes, your intuition is right there: see Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. You're also right that someone should check whether it is correct to group Vietnamese folk religion with Shamanistic religions (maybe it's better to say they "combine Shamanistic elements and indigenous ancestral worship with various influences from Chinese religions"?). We are currently not citing any source for that in East Asian religions, which in fact also constitutes a verifiability problem. I'm really a bit out of my depths with regard to this topic, so please feel free to remove it, or to add a {{citation needed}} tag as appropriate. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to add image for Wikipedia page[edit]

Please how I add 2409:4073:2E9C:4E6A:0:0:7A8B:CB00 (talk) 21:04, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 2409:4073:2E9C:4E6A:0:0:7A8B:CB00,
Please have a look at Help:Pictures.
However, please also read Wikipedia:Image use policy. In particular, it is important to not violate any copyrights (see Wikipedia:Copyrights) while using images: see Wikipedia:Non-free content.
Please also do not, under any circumstance, copy-paste text from an external website which holds copyrights on this text, as you did on Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam University. Everything you write on Wikipedia needs to be 100% in your own words.
Thanks for taking this into consideration, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:30, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editor you welcomed[edit]

See [8] - I just reverted some copyvio that didn't even back the edit, and I'm not happy with their edit at Basmala as I made clear on their talk page but haven't reverted again. I don't know if you have any interest in this though. Doug Weller talk 13:49, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doug! I welcomed them after seeing this constructive edit correcting an Arabic transliteration. I generally welcome every editor who does not seem either bad-intentioned or incompetent, if need be with an appropriate 'warning welcome' template like {{Welcomeunsourced}} etc.
Maybe I should be less supportive without clearer proof of competence though. For some reason my library closed off access to Encyclopaedia of Islam (see here and here) today, but I do suspect that this editor may be acting on personal 'insights' rather than on common knowledge as recorded in RS. I myself have quite had it with cleaning up after other editors adding garbage all the time. We're all janitors with mops here, not just the admins. It's bad for my temper, and my partner suffers from it. I'm going to try better to honor my wiki-break from this point on. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:58, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have every sympathy. I’ll deal if needed. Thanks for your help. I try to welcome and sometimes I regret it, but not usually luckily. Doug Weller talk 19:54, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notice the IPs involved? I can't deal as I'm involved, but I'll see what I can do. Doug Weller talk 12:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Doug, I'm still patching up some leftover threads of content work I was doing or promised to do, so while I'm still here I can't seem to avoid to do some non-admin mopping too; not on wikibreak just yet.
Do you mean these [9] vs [10]; [11] [12] vs [13] [14]; [15] vs [16] [17]; [18] vs [19]? That's one you welcomed! If so, I would just report them to WP:AN3 if they continue edit warring. It's probably wise to also ask for a block of the ::/40 range in that case (it's the range showing up for the relevant IPs in the ip-range-calc tool). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are much better at these IP ranges than I am. But I think that might have too much collateral damage. I've told them they have to stop .[20] If they don't, they will definitely be blocked. That's a pretty done deal. Doug Weller talk 13:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lane's Lexicon[edit]

Lane's Lexicon is an incredible 19th-century grab-bag assembled from diverse and miscellaneous sources, but it might not be entirely suitable for the purpose you're attempting to use it for... AnonMoos (talk) 04:28, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, you're right of course. Like I mentioned, I wasn't able to access Encyclopaedia of Islam then. Now I've checked the entries in EI2 and EI3 (and added them to our articles too), and they don't mention the purported distinction between basmala and tasmiyya either.
I don't think my researcher's instinct to take a look at Lane first was too bad though, seeing that William A. Graham in his EI3 article also refers to him. In my experience, fine distinctions like this would something typical for Lane to write three columns about in his dictionary, which in large part follows the taste for etymology of its medieval sources. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:45, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Af dabarre[edit]

I know that I haven't provided a reliable source but I am Dabarre and the statement is wrong that is why I wanted to correct. Rey abdallinho (talk) 17:40, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rey abdallinho: I understand, but because of the anonymous nature of this project, we just cannot rely on the personal knowledge of Wikipedia editors. As you may imagine, there are a lot of people out there who would like to write all kinds of things here, but the only way for us to decide whether we can trust the uploaded information is to verify whether it has been published by reliable sources. There is often a large gap between knowing things, and knowing which reliable sources back these things up. If you're not familiar with working with sources, it may be better to learn these skills elsewhere and to come back here when you are familiar with the academic literature on Af Dabarre and other subjects in which you're interested. Sincerely, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:08, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thomasines[edit]

The situation with these is difficult as there is no scholarly concensus if they were proto-Gnostic or not, that is why I added a question mark. ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 12:15, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but it's rather often the case that the status of certain groups as Gnostic or not is disputed, and it would be untenable to go and add question marks to all of them in navigation sidebars. In this case, it seems readers will quickly learn when clicking on Thomasines that though they have been associated with proto-Gnosticism, this has also been disputed. If it's actually stronger than that and a large majority of scholars reject this association, it should be removed both from the lead of the article and from the navigation sidebar. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:35, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Farabi[edit]

al-Farabi, feeling sorry for the bad state his Wikipedia article is in

Hi. Could you take a look at Al-Farabi? Biography section needs review because it may have some issues according to Talk:Al-Farabi#Bias in Origin Theory. In my opinion, both "Persian origin theory" and "Turkic origin theory" should be summarized and merged into one section. Regards. --Mann Mann (talk) 03:01, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mann Mann, I agree that it is a complete mess, and that it should be rewritten in one section summarizing the different scholarly views and what they are based on. However, this sounds much simpler than it really is: to do this well, one would need to review the whole literature about al-Farabi's biography, which would take at least a week or two, maybe more. Articles like this are really just waiting for someone to pass by who is really interested in them. That's what drives Wikipedia, or at least any quality content on Wikipedia. It seems likely that I will take an interest in al-Farabi at some point, but not now. May I ask what made you think of me as the right editor for the job? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 07:53, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I myself patrolled similar articles before and they were in my watchlist; e.g. Avicenna, Al-Biruni, Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi, and some others. I have seen your username and activity/contributions on this topic/area. In my book, you are a veteran user who is familiar with this topic. So I think you can improve this specific article. The current revision is some kind of messy and it just causes typical edit wars like "Yes! He was ABC." and "No! He was XYZ." stuff. The article really needs some dedicated editor(s) to watch and improve it. That's the reason why I came to your talk page and asked for it. --Mann Mann (talk) 14:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for patrolling then! It's true that patrolling is much easier with well-sourced and well-written articles, but I'm afraid that it will stay like this for some time still. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Start rewriting/improving it whenever you have time. I barely patrol and review such articles since 2021. Just visiting them a few times per year (to see their state). Cheers! --Mann Mann (talk) 15:51, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could you take a look?[edit]

[21] [22]--RegentsPark (comment) 13:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I also sent you an e-mail. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'll keep a look out from now on as well. --RegentsPark (comment) 20:33, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Van Pemboewan district[edit]

Hello, I'm Fazoffic. Will you correct the Van Pemboewan Translation?▪ ꧋ꦩꦣꦪ Fazoffic ( ʖ╎ᓵᔑ∷ᔑ) 10:42, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fazoffic! I neither have the interest nor the time to work on this, but you are right to seek the help of other editors. A better place to do this is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indonesia, where you will find other editors who know Indonesian. You may also put up a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you![edit]

I'm giving you this kitten for your nice works in reverting bad-moves done by stupid-idiot-sockpuppets...

─ The Aafī (talk) 06:03, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

Hello, I'm Fazoffic. I want to Help Article Rashidun Caliphate by adding this[1] and this [2] Reference. Where do you think this reference should be added? ~Thank you ▪ ꧋ꦩꦣꦪ Fazoffic ( ʖ╎ᓵᔑ∷ᔑ) 06:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "موقع "يا بيروت": النقود العربيَّة الإسلاميَّة". web.archive.org. 2015-12-18. Retrieved 2022-07-06.
  2. ^ شاكر, محمود. التاريخ الإسلامي - ج 3: الخلفاء الراشدون (in Arabic). IslamKotob.
Hi Fazoffic, these sources should not be used on Wikipedia at all, because they are not reliable. The problem with the first one is that is self-published (websites and blogs may be semi-reliable if their author is a recognized expert who has published peer-reviewed work with academic publishing houses, but this does not seem to be case here, and it is always preferable to use the properly published peer-reviewed work itself). The problem with the second one is that its author Mahmud Shakir is a popular writer rather than a recognized expert whose work is cited by other scholars, and that its publisher, al-Maktab al-Islami, is not reliable: it does not have a reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight.
Please do not use sources like this on Wikipedia. My best advice for you is to get familiar with proper academic literature. An easy way to do this is by starting out with reading only books published by anything that has "University Press" in its name (Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press, Cornell University Press, etc, etc.). Of course there are many other reliable publishers, but if you just start out with reading reliable sources like this and then pay close attention to whom they are citing, you will get familiar with the names of other reliable publishers and of the recognized experts in the field. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:51, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Apaugasma: I see Arwiki uses references like this in their articles (especially the Rashidun Caliphate) and that article has become a featured article. I don't know why they are do that. Maybe They More belived Arabic Sources than Other Sources? ꧋ꦩꦣꦪ Fazoffic ( ʖ╎ᓵᔑ∷ᔑ) 13:31, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Arwiki has very different standards from enwiki. Part of the problem for them is indeed that most of their contributors will not master languages like English, French, German or Italian, in which most the high-quality sources on Islamic history are written. It's not a matter of trust, but a matter of access. The best Arab scholars, as well as scholars of Turkish, Iranian, Pakistani and other Muslim backgrounds, do themselves write in English, French, German or Italian. This is because only those who can read sources in these languages will become true experts in the first place, and most of those who read these languages also choose to write in them. There is even a marked tendency the last 20 years for scholars whose native language is French, German or Italian to write in English: writing in English will ensure the largest possible audience (I too am not a native speaker of English, yet I choose to write here rather than in my native language because it will be helpful to more people). For these reasons, the content on the English Wikipedia is of a much higher quality: editors here generally do have access to the very best sources, and are therefore also expected to use them. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:53, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Islamic Barnstar
As I suspected, you are indeed extraordinary. And I think you deserve it

꧋ꦩꦣꦪ Fazoffic ( ʖ╎ᓵᔑ∷ᔑ) 03:16, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion[edit]

Hello, Apaugasma,

Just a head's up, CSD G5 does not apply to an article if other editors have made contributions to the article. To be a valid CSD G5, the block evading editor has to be the primary or sole contributor to the page. If CSD G5 does not apply, you can always try WP:PROD or bring it to WP:AFD. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 02:56, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, are you aware that Special:Contributions/119.63.138.0/24 and Special:Contributions/119.73.112.0/24 are also sockpupppets of SheryOfficial (see here)? Their modus operandi was precisely to use accounts for moving or creating pages and then to edit them as anon (if you ctrl-f "119." in my 500 most recent contributions you will find many more instances of this, as I've been reverting them). Surely edits like these [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] do not count as substantial contributions? In particular, though they do sometimes make high-quality contributions, I do not trust any edits by this sockmaster which haven't been verified in the sources by other editors, so as long as articles created by them are only edited for stuff like wikilinks or categories but not for sourced content, I think they should be deleted. AfD won't solve this because the problem is not notability. I will try WP:PROD if all else fails but perhaps you just didn't notice that the IPs were also socks? Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 10:06, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aqsa[edit]

Hi Apaugasma, thanks for your interest in the Aqsa topic. I suspect there will be another RM proposal soon, so I thought it would be worth addressing your comment on PTOPIC. If you look at the outbound clicks from Al Aqsa Mosque since the move was made,[28] you will see that the PTOPIC is very clearly Temple Mount, by a factor of more than 2x. This is almost certainly because the "third holiest site in Islam" is of wider interest than the prayer hall building within it.

There is a discussion at Talk:Qibli Mosque#Traffic stats, where we would appreciate your views. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:53, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder whether the amount of outbound clicks would still be the same if the al-Aqsa Mosque DAB page would actually follow MOS:DABPIPE and display a link to Temple Mount rather than displaying "Al-Aqsa Mosque (complex)" while actually linking to Temple Mount. Yes, the "third holiest site in Islam" (the entire al-Aqsa Mosque complex) may be a more popular subject than the single mosque building of that name, but the "third holiest site in Islam" is the al-Aqsa Mosque complex, not the Temple Mount, which –in so far as it refers to the Second Temple buried under it– is a Jewish name, and which really refers to the entire hill rather than only to the plaza at its top.
Sure, we should tell readers that the al-Aqsa Mosque complex is located on the Temple Mount, and that they should go look at the Temple Mount article if they want to know more about this. The most enduring solution would probably be to create a well-written article called al-Aqsa Mosque complex. But it's a very bad idea to directly steer people looking for al-Aqsa Mosque related information to Temple Mount without explanation, and rename the article on the al-Aqsa Mosque proper to the obscure Qibli Mosque. How and when are readers in such a situation going to discover the difference between the al-Aqsa Mosque and the wider complex around it? How are people even going to find the article on the al-Aqsa Mosque proper?
The long and the short of it is that when dealing with ambiguous names, Wikipedia should disambiguate and explain, not confuse readers by renaming articles away from their common names and by offering readers piped links which lead to something else than they display.
Look, I appreciate that you put a lot of time in this, which is a real pity since it created such a mess. But one thing that I'm not going to do is to waste an equal amount of time in trying to clean up the mess. I feel I already spent too much time on it. I'm just hoping that other editors will see sense, in which case I'll be happy to !vote for going back to a sensible name-disambiguation structure. If not– tant pis, it will probably sort itself out in time and with the improvement of the articles themselves. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:53, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Apaugasma, thanks for this. I think we agree on most things.
A lot of progress has been made over the last couple of months on this very important topic:
  • Sourcing of the highest quality has been found and added, allowing for clear differentiation between the complex and the southern building. This has allowed for improvements to the articles, and allowed for better discussion between editors.
  • Hundreds of links throughout the encyclopedia were previously confused as to whether they meant the compound or southern building, as many editors were previously unable to differentiate. You gave a couple in your comment at the talk page, and even more went the other direction (see e.g. [29][30]) Many of these have now been fixed, and they continue to be fixed.
  • We now have clear evidence as to PTOPIC for the "Al Aqsa Mosque" base name. Your point above re MOS:DABPIPE can be discussed at the talk thread I mentioned - it could be formatted as per Spirit? Can you amend the page as you see fit, so we can see the results over the next few days?
As to whether we have a separate article for the Aqsa complex vs Temple Mount, that is a tricky question. I am in two minds, as there would be a lot of overlap. The same is true of the Cave of the Patriarchs article. I think we should resolve the Aqsa Mosque disambiguation first, and then open this question. I believe Selfstudier agrees with you, by the way.
Onceinawhile (talk) 15:08, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The traffic statistics here show more hits for "Al-Aqsa_Mosque_(Temple_Mount)". But that does not mean that readers are wanting the Temple Mount when they search for "Al-Aqsa Mosque". It is much more likely they want Al-Aqsa Mosque on the Temple Mount. Using parens like that is a common method for disambiguation, not for giving alternative names. Zerotalk 15:43, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zero0000 that redirect is ONLY used in this one disambiguation page. It was created solely for the purpose of this experiment. See full explanation here. So zero users are clicking on "Al-Aqsa_Mosque_(Temple_Mount)". They are only clicking on whatever we pipe them to. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:45, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad you raised this, as I now see that Apaugasma didn't realize this either. I have just added the piping back in to the disambiguation page.[31] Our readers don't see this, which is of course the point here. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:49, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Onceinawhile: It is a fair idea to use traffic stats to gauge what readers want when they look for "Al-Aqsa Mosque", but neither version does it. The previous version fails for the reason I stated (which you didn't understand, I think). The current version doesn't work either: they are given the choice of clicking on "Temple Mount" (which they heard of), or "Qibli Mosque" explained also as al-Jāmiʿ al-Aqṣā which are two names they never heard of (and those diacritics will help put them off). People don't sit and think about it before clicking; they just glance at it and click. I believe a large number of those who want the building will click on "Temple Mount". Zerotalk 02:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Zero0000: please could you create a version which you think would give the clearest and fairest results? We can add it after Apaugasma's version at Talk:Qibli Mosque#Current status and phases of the disambiguation traffic assessment. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sources presented by Onceinawhile showing usage of "al-Aqsa Mosque" as by itself referring to the compound

"I think it should be shown that in external reliable sources "al-Aqsa Mosque", without 'complex' or 'compound' or similar added to it, in a significant amount of cases refers to the larger site or to the Quranic concept rather than to the Qibli Mosque." Thanks for this comment - if OK with you I will address it here so as not to overwhelm other pages.

How may would you like? I will try to illustrate below: Onceinawhile (talk) 10:11, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon's visit: There are many dozens like the below. Remember, Sharon did not visit the Jami'a / Qibli, and the outrage related to the compound.

Third holiest / first qibla: There are many dozens like the below. Remember, the third holiest and first qibla statements correctly refer to the compound.

Political brand:

I replied at Talk:Qibli Mosque#Traffic stats. As I said above, I really don't want to spend much time on this. Renaming these articles seems to be mainly a political point, which is something I resist, as I think it would be much better if first the relevant articles would be improved (and al-Masjid al-Aqsa created!) from a non-political, scholarly point of view. But since I don't have the time to improve the articles, I certainly don't have time to quibble over their naming. al-Aqsa Mosque (building), al-Aqsa Mosque (congregational mosque) or simply al-Aqsa Mosque will all be fine, just get rid of the Qibli Mosque name. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:50, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for others, but this discussion should have no political dimension. The reason for my interest is explained here. It is also due to my discomfort with the longstanding confusion around this terminology. Search google images for Al Aqsa Mosque, it shows mostly pictures of the Dome of the Rock. Al Aqsa has become prevalent as a brand, and there is huge confusion as to what the brand relates to. The number of people who think the Jami'a was the first qibla is disturbing, as the building didn't even exist at that time. Within our project, I have been striving to clean up 400 links to [[Al Aqsa Mosque]], more than half of which turned out to be bad links. The confusion was almost endless.
Yes the Aqsa brand is frequently used politically, but we must be able to look through that and focus on helping our readers understand.
Thanks for your detailed comment on the Qibli page - I have responded in detail there.
Onceinawhile (talk) 13:42, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems crystal clear to me that the person you talked to at the al-Aqsa compound who thought you were crazy for believing that the al-Aqsa Mosque referred to the actual mosque there of that name, was not at all reacting in this way from a scholarly or antiquarian indignation, but from a purely political point of view. You shouldn't take people with such clear political motivations so seriously if you want to be an encyclopedist. People are ignorant. Yes, you likely were ignorant too, but that doesn't mean that random people you meet talking about politically loaded subjects are a reliable source to quench your ignorance. If they're indignant about something, they're most probably not reliable. In any case, that's why we insist on independent, disinterested, reliable sources, which should not just be sought after the fact, but which should be your first stop if you ever want to know about something. Yes, there is much confusion about this topic, but by diving in it from a one-sided angle and without much background knowledge, chances are that you are going to make the confusion worse. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. I mean, I know, that's kinda the story of Wikipedia. But we still ought to try to be careful. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:46, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SPI comment[edit]

Hi Apaugasma,

I appreciate you taking the time to comment on the SPI I opened but I have to say I think that the diffs I found, in particular the first one [32], show that your basic assumption about what MarhsallKe would and would not !vote for is untenable. If you would like to remove that comment –– in the interest of keeping an already long report from becoming even more complex for patrolling admins to work through –– feel free to do so along with my response. Otherwise I suppose we will have to agree to disagree. Best regards, Generalrelative (talk) 03:16, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Generalrelative, I've answered at the SPI. I'm sorry to make the report longer –I know that's undesirable at SPI– but I'm really quite sure of what I'm saying. What I would like to stress here at my talk is that, while I believe you're barking up the wrong tree at the SPI, I full agree that BQ's behavior is obnoxious, and should be dealt with in some way if it persists. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:02, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, and thanks for the thoughtful response. Happy to agree to disagree on this. Generalrelative (talk) 13:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ἀπαύγασμα[edit]

Hi Apaugasma! Can you verify that this is an alternative account that you created? I want to make sure; sock accounts, LTAs, and trolls will often try to impersonate other editors in order to carry out more damage. If you did not create this account, please let me know as soon as possible so that I can handle it immediately. :-) Thanks - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:35, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Oshwah! Thanks for being so vigilant. Yes, I did create that account. Following the guidance at WP:ALTACCN, I tagged its user page and redirected its talk page to mine. Is there anything else I should do? In particular, do you believe the Greek letter version is recognizable enough for an alt? Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:43, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apaugasma - Oh no, you did nothing wrong at all! :-) I patrol the recent changes list and the account creation log very closely, and when I see a new account pop up and with a user page saying "I'm an alternate account of this other account that's spelled very closely to mine", it naturally draws me to look into it and make sure. The things that would cause me to know for certain that it's legit would be to see an edit made from the parent account confirming this, or the fact that the alternate account was created by the parent account. Since I saw neither, I wanted to reach out to you and ask. :-) What I'll do for you is add a dummy edit to your user page to state that I've confirmed its legitimacy. If you have any questions or need anything, please let me know and I'll be happy to lend a hand! Happy Friday! :-D ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Update: The dummy edit is here. :-) - Cheers ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:57, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WikiProject Core Content[edit]

It would be so exciting to see it work, so please, please make that WikiProject a reality :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:46, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CactiStaccingCrane! Well, I'm supposed to be on a wikibreak, but instead I find myself writing a whole new article with corresponding template, looking to rewrite another article, and proposing a new way to technically distinguish core content with an associated start-up WikiProject.
Clearly something is wrong. I find that most guidance pages on wikipediholism around here 'aren't meant to be taken seriously', but I do think I'm in serious trouble. I do dream of Wikipedia, wake up with thoughts about Wikipedia, edit Wikipedia before even taking breakfast, forget to eat, the whole shebang.
So what I'm going to do is to finish these articles I've been working on (mostly offline, but I'll upload when ready), and then just really get a break. Hopefully other editors will step in at the WikiProject, and if not, it can always be revived in the future. My personal priorities at the moment just lie elsewhere, as I'm sure you'll understand. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:21, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch, wikipediholism is potent stuff. Hopefully things will be all well in the end. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:23, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Mufaddal ibn Umar al-Ju'fi[edit]

Hi Apaugasma. You've used the reference {{harvnb|1994–2011}} is this meant to be {{harvnb|Daftary|1994–2011}}? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:50, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ActivelyDisinterested! Yes, it is. I only saw it after I hit the 'publish' button and meant to fix it later today or tomorrow. I still have got a lot of work with that page; I'm concurrently also producing a rewrite of the main article, Ghulat, so things are getting along a little slower than expected. Should still be finished within a few days though. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:00, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I've cleared all the "A-" no target errors, so this just popped up in the error list. All fixed now. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:10, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arsi Zone[edit]

Dear Apaugasma, you have reverted my edit to the Arsi Zone article. As I referenced in making my edit, the source of my material was the Ethiopian government website for Central Statistical Agency of Ethiopia. I quoted this in making my alteration. You cannot have a more reliable source than the official government statistical service! This gives the official estimates of population as at July 2022 by Region, Zone and Woreda - for every part of Ethiopia. Rif Winfield (talk) 07:01, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rif Winfield! Yes, I believe you, but the problem with that edit was that it did not provide enough information about the source to show that it is verifiable. Where have these estimates been published? It only says "Central Statistical Agency of Ethiopia (web), 2022". This would at the very least need an URL (where on the web?). You see, without such an URL or printed publication anyone could claim that 'according to government agency X, so-and-so'. You may use the {{cite web}} template to cite the website where the information can be found. Your edit is preserved here, so if you edit that revision and add the {{cite web}} template with the URL, everything will be fine. Thanks! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:46, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The url is https://www.statsethiopia.gov.et/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Population-Size-by-Sex-Zone-and-Wereda-July-2022.pdf, so I thought that it would be clearer to quote "Central Statistical Agency of Ethiopia (web)", but I am happy to instead enter the whole url. The problem is that the current article, and indeed all article on Ethiopia quoting population, are repeating 2007 figures. Since that earlier day populations have virtually doubled in many areas, so the 2007 figures are very misleading. From www.statsethiopia.gov.et we can update figures (area in km2, and male/female populations, plus density) for EVERY zone and woreda throughout Ethiopia, which I propose that we do systematically.Rif Winfield (talk) 04:47, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have applied the {{cite web}} templates. We really need the exact name of the website and the exact title of the report, which I also added.
In the future, please discuss issues related to articles on the article talk pages (in this case, Talk:Arsi Zone). In this way, all editors can see what we're discussing, and participate in the discussion if they want to. I'm not sure, for example, whether everyone would agree to using the projected estimates for 2022 rather than the full 2007 census. I'm not very interested in this issue, but other editors may be. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:26, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New sock?[edit]

Hello Apaugasma, been some time since we last had contact, hope you're doing well. This user (who has given me sockpuppetry vibes ever since he edited) just restored [33] the move of a veteran socker [34], whom you seem to know quite well. I was thinking about filling an SPI, but would you prefer to do it yourself? I only have this one diff to show, perhaps you can think of more similar ones? If not, then I'll go ahead and make the SPI. Bests. EDIT: Found one more example [35] [36] HistoryofIran (talk) 16:48, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HistoryofIran! I hope you're doing well too. Praxidicae had already opened an SPI when you posted this. I've tagged you there, you may want to watch that page. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:14, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Walid ibn Utba - my bad![edit]

In response to your query in an edit summary - yes, that was indeed a mistake, sorry! I was checking an IP edit, then got distracted and didn't notice there were later revisions. PohranicniStraze (talk) 19:56, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I already assumed as much. Thanks for letting me know! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:59, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the "enemy of" wording rather than "opposed to" is fine, whichever you prefer. The version I was looking at when I mistakenly edited an old version said "Walid was against the Muhammad and Islam". Feel free to revert the rest of the way back to your revision if you want. PohranicniStraze (talk) 20:02, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I changed that to "an enemy of Muhammad and Islam", but I think your suggestion "opposed to" is actually better (a bit less pigeon-holing; I wasn't really putting a lot of effort in this). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:19, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In appreciation[edit]

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this barnstar in recognition of your repeated, courteous but firm work in maintaining the standards of Wikipedia. This is appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:26, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thanks a lot! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:47, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request for inputs[edit]

Greetings @Apaugasma

From your one of passing comment else where (in a discussion not directly related to following) I thought it would be interesting to have your inputs in following if the topic interests you.

Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view#Statement of purpose as part of NPOV policy of avoiding honorifics


Thanks and warm regards


Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 08:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bookku, I largely agree with the feedback you've already gotten there. It reads a bit like a 'solution looking for a problem'. We already have guidelines around some kinds of honorifics, and it seems that nothing more is really needed, especially not something as weighty as a statement of purpose. Please do not forget that our fifth pillar is that Wikipedia has no firm rules. There are only very few things here which are centrally decided, and a largely stylistic issue such as honorifics really shouldn't be one of them. On the contrary, guidelines about stylistic issues should allow maximum flexibility for local consensus to deviate from them.
For example, I regularly ignore MOS:MUHAMMAD, because following it to the letter would run contrary to common usage in reliable sources. It's also not rarely the case that a literal interpretation of the MOS would obscure substantial issues about which the Wikipedia editors who wrote up the MOS were ignorant (one example being that a Companion in many cases was not at all a 'companion' in the normal sense of that word, which should be explained and marked out by capitalization).
I'm in my right to do this (as far as it has local consensus) precisely because WP:NOTBURO (did you read that blurb?) is policy. WP:IAR is one step further and often not advisable, but not taking the rules too literally and not trying to regulate everything with firm and fixed rules really is foundational to the whole Wikipedia project. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

putting academic views over the community own views[edit]

Considering an academic opinion over the views and opinions of the believers of the Ismaili religion is a form of bias. Also new works have show connections between the Umm-al-Kitab and Ismailism, check Intellectual Interactions in the Islamic World, The Ismaili Thread for more. 201.92.244.22 (talk) 19:00, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that source, it's a really valuable contribution to Ismaili studies! I wasn't aware of it yet, but I have now incorporated it into the article. Do note, however, that this source too says that it is commonly thought today that the doctrines exposed in the Kitāb al-Haft, the Umm al-kitāb and related texts have nothing to do with Ismailism. This clearly is the status quo, and on Wikipedia we always tend to give more weight to long-established views than to cutting-edge insights. In any case, the new source argues for an influence of ghulāt ideas on later (mainly Tayyibi) Isma'ilism, which seems probable enough.
As for bias, the simple fact is that Wikipedia follows academic views. If some would like to call that being 'biased' to academia (see also WP:ABIAS), then so be it. It's not different from a physician being 'biased' to medical sources or a priest being 'biased' to religious sources: writing an encyclopedia is an academic endeavor. But in the end it really doesn't make sense to say we are biased. Summarizing what academic sources say is simply what it means to write an encyclopedia, and being what one is supposed to be is not being biased (see WP:NOTBIASED). I would expect Isma'ilis to understand this though, given the fact that the Agha Khan himself sponsors such excellent academic institutions as the Institute of Isma'ili Studies (which, not coincidentally, published the source with which you delighted me). Again, thanks for the source, and happy days! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:49, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's my duty.[edit]

You don't have to bother thanking me. it's just a normal duty to correct things wherever. Shan.venance (talk) 23:25, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I just thought yours was a helpful first edit and thought I'd thank you for it, that's all. If you ever have any questions about Wikipedia, please feel free to ask them here or at the Teahouse. Happy editing! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:02, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New spin-off article[edit]

Hi, fellow editor! I'm going "door to door" to bring this proposal to editors' attention. Please consider posting your view. Thanks! Albertatiran (talk) 07:40, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

server[edit]

Do you have an academic or personal email for correspondence? This would be much appreciated. 2A02:C7E:5027:5B00:950F:2483:8B58:75D (talk) 20:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello London IP! If you register an account and log in, you can email me by visiting my user or talk page and clicking 'Email this user' in the 'Tools' section of the left sidebar. This way, a Wikipedia user can receive email without disclosing their personal email on the internet (remember that every edit made to Wikipedia creates a new webpage that will remain visible on the internet as long as Wikipedia's servers will keep running). If you contact me in this way, your own email address will be visible to me. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:53, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again; this is to let you know that I've received your email well. I'm not interested to participate, but if you ever publish something, please do let me know (by wiki-email or on my talk page). Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Shatibi[edit]

Hi @Apaugasma, Someone created this article which I had draftify given several reasons but I feel this is worth an article if worked upon. This came into my attention when I helped on Fateh Muhammad Panipati and got that appeared on DYK. If you feel free, please help on this one! ─ The Aafī (talk) 05:55, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for whatever you contributed here. I should be having access to some offline sources and will update the article accordingly. I was confused with the name and used what I thought was best. Thanks for the move. Please consider having autopatrolled flag at the least. Regards, ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:38, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi The Aafi! I updated the article, adding the Encyclopaedia of Islam entry. This would also be a good source to start from to expand the article a little if you wish to. I also moved the old article at al-Shatibi to Abu Ishaq al-Shatibi, and converted the former into a disambiguation page. This created a ton of links to al-Shatibi that will now need disambiguation, so I'll still have some work with that.
In the future, if you think a subject is notable but you do not immediately have sources available, it's worth having a look here. An entry in Encyclopaedia of Islam is not only incontrovertible proof of notability, it's also the best source to establish basic facts (correct name, dates, etc.) for a stub article. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:44, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is helpful. It would be glad if we get this ready for DYK anytime soon. I'm occupied with DCW's Bhopal Photo Event currently and thus not able to give much time here but I am happy with your assistance. Please do have a look at DCW as well: a recognized user group affiliate of Wikimedia, that focuses majorly on the South Asian Deobandi Islamic scholarship at a global level. Regards, ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:50, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Autopatrolled granted[edit]

Hi Apaugasma, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled user right to your account. This means that pages you create will automatically be marked as 'reviewed', and no longer appear in the new pages feed. Autopatrolled is assigned to prolific creators of articles, where those articles do not require further review, and may have been requested on your behalf by someone else. It doesn't affect how you edit; it is used only to manage the workload of new page patrollers.

Since the articles you create will no longer be systematically reviewed by other editors, it is important that you maintain the high standard you have achieved so far in all your future creations. Please also try to remember to add relevant WikiProject templates, stub tags, categories, and incoming links to them, if you aren't already in the habit; user scripts such as Rater and StubSorter can help with this. As you have already shown that you have a strong grasp of Wikipedia's core content policies, you might also consider volunteering to become a new page patroller yourself, helping to uphold the project's standards and encourage other good faith article writers.

Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:25, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thanks for your welcome message with the useful resources and the warm cookies. Pouria.T (talk) 05:32, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Makonnen Wolde Mikael[edit]

Hello i reverted you at Makonnen Wolde Mikael, i know you reverted a sock, but i'm reverting the edits of another disruptive user Zaikadu YonasJH (talk) 05:58, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi YonasJH! Sure thing, please do revert back any bad edit I reinstate as part of reversing block evasion. I often don't have the time to look at the actual contents, so it's great when other editors do!
I'd also like to ask you take a look at this edit. It's reinstating an edit made multiple times by Gabi838r socks ([37] [38] [39] [40]), but maybe that's just because the Gabi838r socks were correct on the content and Zaikaidu was wrong? Thanks! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Apaugasma: Thank you for understanding. I frankly don't know much about the sources at Taytu Betul, there doesn't seem to have been much discussion in contrast to Yekuno Amlak and Makonnen Wolde Mikael's. I'm wary of Zaikadu edits, however i don't have the time or resources to verify all the sources or edits this user makes, so i'm not going on a revert spree per WP:GF. I also don't know if the sock (Gabi838r) contributed anything significantly to Taytu Betul, sock appears to revert to earlier versions edited by other users, but because he's socking it's being reverted to Zaikaidu's version, similar to what just happend on Makonnen Wolde Mikael article, at least that's my observation. YonasJH (talk) 20:44, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's actually a pattern where the Gabi838r socks have been directly undoing Zaikaidu's edits, on several pages. This may just be because they have conflicting and opposite points of view though, I'm not sure. Anyhow, it would be good if someone knowledgeable and interested in the content would look into it. Failing that, it's already great that you revert the stuff that you know is wrong. In the future, please don't hesitate to undo any of my reverts of block evasion, as long as you clearly explain in the edit summary (as you did) why the sock edit should be reinstated. Thanks again, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:01, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why my edits on Ras makonnen are deleted. I have looked at other sources as well. On the other hand, I do not know why my edits on Taytu Betul are deleted Zaikaidu (talk) 20:30, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Zaikaidu: from the edit summaries of the editors reverting you (e.g., [41]) their concern appears to be that the information you added to Taytu Betul is not present in the source given. However, you should directly discuss this with these editors at Talk:Taytu Betul. Please open a new section there and discuss your edits rather than repeatedly reinstating them, a practice called edit warring which is not allowed here. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 01:48, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is funny, because I cited this source, and now my edits are being deleted Zaikaidu (talk) 20:11, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you![edit]

....for fixing my botched ANI edit conflict tidy, I was trying to work out why it was showing I'd removed more than the amount of duplicated bytes that had been accidentally added! Mike1901 (talk) 21:09, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Απαυγασμα της δοχης[edit]

Hi, nice to have met you recently at MOS:ARABIC.

Today I saw this, thought of you, and learned a word!
https://dailydoseofgreek.com/scripture-passage/hebrews-1-3a/
– Fayenatic London 07:57, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, that's great! If you're interested, I've also pointed out the only two earlier usages (as found on TLG) of this Koine word at my user page, and offered an analysis of its meaning. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:09, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed! I read your WP:NOTBIASED essay as well – very interesting. – Fayenatic London 18:52, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A problem with language[edit]

Hi Apaugasma. I'm in agreement with you about the use of mental health terms in discussions on Wikipedia, but I don't think there's much that can be done at this time. Unfortunately such terms as simply common parlance at the moment, and we'll have to wait for a societal change before anything happens. I'm mean the greater society, rather than Wikipedia culture, and it does appear to being slowly happening. Until then it's a case of having to assume other editors are only talking idiomatically, and without malice. I hope you don't let it get to you, change is happening we just have to wait. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:03, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ActivelyDisinterested! Yes, change is happening, always too slow, but faster than I could honestly imagine even twenty years ago. I can't wait to see what it will be like in another twenty years. I always say to my partner that when we will be really old and just about to die, a new progressive revolution similar to what happened in the 1960s will break out. If we can survive 21st-century ecological breakdown, things will be looking very good in the future. Embracing neurodiversity will be a part of that, but also the end of technophobia and the concomitant resistance against science and the scientific worldview. If all is good, we won't need to have discussions like we're having right now.
But then we're living today, and Wikipedia does now have a problem at the intersection of perceptions of other editors' views about (pseudo)science and perceptions of other editors' mental states and capabilities. Jimbo's 'lunatic charlatans' comment has done much to encourage this in a bad way. I'm fairly sure Jimbo never meant it as the excuse to be uncivil and to cast aspersions many editors are now using it for, but here we are. It is driving good editors away, I'm sure of it –it very nearly drove me away. Ironically, being cast as an irrational, illogical pro-fringe lunatic has effectively eaten away at my sanity, though I must say that Wikipedia in general tends to do this (and thus in the final analysis that's on me, for being a Wikipediholic). Perhaps Wikipedia will always unavoidably resemble Twitter, Facebook et al. to some extent, being a place where text-only content discussions just need to happen, and where for complex reasons uncivil behavior will sometimes simply be tolerated. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:21, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hilf al Fudhul[edit]

Thank you for the corrections and demands that you provided for this page. I tried to answer all your questions, and clarify what was requested. I do sincerly appreciate the way you contributed. RigOLuche (talk) 16:58, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RigOLuche! I also copy-edited your newest additions to the article.
It might be a good idea for you to put up a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests each time you add a significant amount of material to an article, so others with a better grasp of English can review it for you. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 10:31, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 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) 01:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Translation?[edit]

Hello Apaugasma, Fazoffic has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I made new articles about Muslim meme and i can't speak english correctly. Can you help please?.... Thank you ꧋ꦩꦣꦪ Fazoffic ( ʖ╎ᓵᔑ∷ᔑ) 07:19, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fazoffic! The article's English wasn't too bad really, but I did fix some mistakes and copy-edited it a little.
In the future, please place requests to check your English in Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. Unlike me the editors there are generally native speakers, and they are much better than me in finding the clearest way to express something in English. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 10:34, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation.[edit]

I'd like to apologize if I have made an investigation more difficult. Live and learn, I guess. However, I'm still hopeful it might prove beneficial if it causes attention to be drawn to this longstanding and persistent issue. Dealing with the same thing over and over again in the same pages over for years can get tedious. Regards, Wareno (talk) 15:49, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wareno! I feel you. Unfortunately it's simply impossible to prove at this point that we're dealing with sockpuppetry, which means that you will have to engage the user on content.
I've been in this type of situation a lot so I know how stressful it can be. My advice is to take it as an opportunity to improve the article: the best way to show on talk that your edits are accurate is to literally quote from reliable sources, which is a lot easier and feels less like a waste of time when you're simultaneously using these sources to add new content to the article.
Some tools I've found helpful when quoting from sources on talk pages are {{tq}} (for short quotes), {{tqb}} (for longer quotes that take up more than one line), and {{box}} used with the following code {{box|color=#e0dfdc|text}} (for quotes that take up a full paragraph or more). What I also often do is to list out the sources I refer to between <small> and </small> brackets at the bottom of my comment and to refer inline to the source using {{harvnb}} templates (not refs or footnotes, which create too much clutter). Examples here and here.
Be sure though to not make the same mistake as I did in that last diff by continuing to argue with a user who does not acknowledge the quotes from the sources as given. In that case it's much better to proceed to a WP:3O or even a WP:RFC.
One more thing: as long as you're not going to ANI, strictly discuss content and edits, not behavior and editors. Always be friendly (this always helps, even if others are not friendly), and always try to be as concise as possible.
Hope this helps a little, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alchemy and beauty products[edit]

Sorry, I meant to say beauty products, not beauty hopes. Thank you for catching that! :) Patissiereyumeiro (talk) 05:41, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Patissiereyumeiro for your great contributions to the alchemy article! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:16, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weird question[edit]

...ever considered running? I believe you have handled the Theguywholearnhistory-Wareno case quite admirably. I've witnessed many disputes and conflicts on WP but I've scarcely seen an editor responding so concisely and skilfully before; in this case, I could not have responded better. You seem to have all the knowledge, experience and prowess to carry the mob, so why not give it a shot? Colonestarrice (talk) 03:25, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Colonestarrice! That is one of the nicest compliments anyone has ever given me on Wikipedia. It really means a lot. But no, I won't be running for admin any time soon, for various reasons. One reason is that I'm not experienced enough in some areas of the project which are traditionally considered important at RfA (mainly everything relating to deletion). Another, perhaps more important reason is that I'm –somewhat unsuccessfully– trying to spend less time on Wikipedia. Taking up the mop would probably mean the final blow for my off-wiki projects, which I actually hold to be far more important! If all is good, next year I'll really be doing the Attic Nights thing as shown at the top of my talk page. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:22, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Though it's a shame, I fully agree that one's private life and projects take precedence over WP. I hope you find the time to complete your off-wiki projects – or have an "Attic Night" (if I understand the term correctly) – and should you ever change your mind someday, you certainly have my vote. Colonestarrice (talk) 20:52, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In regards...[edit]

In regards to your statement at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive SPA in Hunnic topics, if that's true then we can't accept the words of 17th, 18th and 19th century historians when it comes to Native American cultures unless it was specifically discussed by modern historians. If they don't discuss it then you don't have an article. GA isn't interpreting anything. There is a list of those with Hunnish decent. There are sources saying this person is of Hunnish decent. If there are historical sources that contradict each other then we do just like we do when modern sources contradict each other. We don't get rid of both claims. We find a way to incorporate both. We just ended a year long debate at Trail of Tears about the inclusion of that event as a genocide. It took a year to get people involved to agree to something. We spent months debating at Andrew Jackson before we were able to agree to wording that might not be what everyone wanted but was acceptable to the majority. In both cases we had both historical and modern sources that contradicted and even disputed each other. We found a way to include as much as we could because that enriches the encyclopedia. On claims that were contradicted you include both sides of the argument and let the reader decide. --ARoseWolf 16:45, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is fundamentally incorrect with regard to Wikipedia content policy. As I pointed out at the ANI thread, Wikipedia:No original research says that articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if it has been published by a reliable secondary source. It doesn't matter whether primary sources contradict each other, or contradict modern secondary sources, we only represent the claims made by modern secondary sources. Putting claims from primary sources side by side and 'letting the reader decide' is not a valid option per policy, and for very good reason: we let historians, not readers, decide which claims are more or less reliable, how they should be interpreted, and whether they even deserve to be mentioned at all in a particular context (whether they're wp:due). In most cases, your approach would lead to a truly disastrous form of false balance.
Perhaps after months of discussion between editors with a good background knowledge of a particular subject you might collectively arrive at a piece of semi-original research that is passable and fairly accurate, even if fundamentally at odds with content policy. But please don't suggest that this is how things should normally be done on Wikipedia, and never ever encourage editors engaged in nationalistic disputes to put claims about ethnicity found in medieval sources on Wikipedia without solid backup from modern expert sources. There's actually nothing wrong with some original research if done by competent people without any ax to grind, but unfortunately Wikipedia editors bickering about ethnicity are most often the exact opposite of that. Our policies did not arise out of nowhere, and whenever there's some disagreement between editors about content it's content policy that should be looked to for guidance. For anything to do with history the spirit of our policy is clearly to take away the burden from editors and to let historians decide which claims are reliable and due. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:26, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You will not find anywhere on Wikipedia that I specifically "encourage editors engaged in nationalistic disputes to put claims about ethnicity found in medieval sources on Wikipedia without solid backup from modern expert sources." I came here in good faith to discuss with you about your comment and to offer my own experiences and how I formed my view point, very much within policy, concerning sourcing and how it's defined and used. I did not come to your talk page to be talked down to or chastised for something I didn't even do. No one in those discussions on either of those articles I referenced were experts on anything other than working together to review sourcing and to find solutions within policy, not outside of it. We came to a consensus, within policy, as determined by those participating in the discussions and I appreciate every person that took the time to discuss and the efforts of those that edited the articles to match consensus. If the spirit of Wikipedia is as you claimed, which I 100% disagree with you on, then there are thousands of articles, including many countless FA's which completely rely on primary sources. I don't believe that the intent was ever to solely rely on the critique by modern sources of historical sources for every word on Wikipedia. Thank you for taking the time respond to my inquiry. --ARoseWolf 22:14, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to chastise you, and I'm truly sorry that my replies came over that way. I just wanted to explain to you that what you said is contrary to policy: you secondary sources are preferred but not required and especially in historical claims vs policy articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if it has been published by a reliable secondary source. I'm fairly struck that you still don't appear to recognize this basic contradiction.
Why yes, there are a great many WP articles (though normally not FAs) that are chock-full of original research, which is of course due to the fact that what precisely OR is and why exactly WP should avoid it can sometimes be a subtly difficult thing to understand. Rest assured though that our most experienced editors do understand it, as does anyone who regularly edits in subject areas that are fought over by people with nationalistic or religious motivations. I'm thinking that perhaps this is a bit about where on the project one edits. As I stated above, when editors come to a consensus on a talk page about using primary sources, that's fine: nothing trumps wp:consensus on this project. But as I also said, that won't work with people who have an ax to grind, who do not have the slightest interest in actually reflecting what reliable sources are saying, or who are simply so blinded by their own POV that they can't see outside of that particular POV's frame of reference. All of those things are invariably the case for the great majority of IPs/new accounts/throw-away accounts/socks editing in many topic areas. In such areas, you will find experienced editors maintain a strict approach to WP:OR, which is absolutely necessary given the amount of POV-pushing already happening even on the basis of secondary sources alone.
So yeah, if there's a heated discussion with an editor allegedly pushing a pro-Turkish POV and unduly calling things Turkish, don't go tell them that they can use medieval primary sources to establish that the kings of Hungrary were of Hunnic (=~ Turkic) descent. It's not only that this is flatly against policy (it's extremely common for medieval sources to claim false lines of descent for political reasons which are subject to the medieval context itself, and we really just can't repeat such claims if not accompanied by a modern expert's opinion), it's also that to get a heated content dispute like that back on the rails it is absolutely crucial to first find a common basis that stands firmly within the inner bounds of content policy. Good-faith discussion about whether to use primary sources and how can always follow later, though in topics like this such discussion is perhaps not very likely to happen (wait a few generations!). In any case, with medieval history it is very rarely (I'm tempted to say: never) a good idea on WP to solely depend on primary sources in the first place. That's probably what irks me most about this, whence the fervor with which I respond. Again, if that affected my tone to the point of being condescending, I apologize, for that was not my intention.
Also sorry for the wall of text, I really shouldn't be taking up so much of both your and my time with this. I wish you a good day, wherever you are on this planet of ours. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:05, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the advice. The text is not a waste of time for me but I do apologize if it is for you. I find that Wikipedia is so nuanced with so many different topic areas and the subtle differences in which policy is applied to them that sometimes it requires much more detail to explain a specific perspective. Don't worry yourself over that. And in regards to the last situation, I was drawn into the content side of it which was never intended (I apologized for that) as I do not have much experience in that topic area and will most likely not edit in that topic area anyway. My concern is and always will be the way we treat each other, even when we believe someone is in error. Immediately jumping to bad faith assumptions of another person's intentions and how they are editing on Wikipedia is never a good thing for the encyclopedia and all parties involved in that situation were wrong, even if one side was ultimately right in accordance with specific topic content policy. Under no circumstances are we allowed to become uncivil and break with standard interaction policies and then fall back on content policies as a justifiable reason. The two are distinguishable and you can adhere to content policy without breaking interaction policy. That was my point throughout the discussion and why I specifically told GA on their talk page to stop. I did not go to the other editors talk pages to tell them because I respect their experience. However, they were just as wrong in that area as GA was, more so because of their experience. As a mentor I am tasked with pointing mentees to policy to help them on their journey here. I take that responsibility very serious and, in regards to medieval history, I will note what you have told me and make sure that I point that out to anyone that may ask about that. I will not, however, compromise my belief that while content policy is paramount to the construction of the encyclopedia we are a community of editors and paramount to the success of this community in building that encyclopedia is the way in which we interact with each other. Just as there is few compromises in content policy for the encyclopedia where the compromise is the exception to the rule, policy on how we are expected to treat each other in this community should not be compromised except on rare occasion and where it can be shown that doing so was the only recourse. I will always stand firm in that. I am writing a lot too but I want to say this, sometimes we attract flies larva and sometimes we attract caterpillars. Flies are the ones that are here only to take. It is their only purpose. Caterpillars are here to grow, even if they don't know it. In most cases it may be difficult to distinguish between the fly and the caterpillar. Sometimes they look and act very much the same, initially. But only one will transform into a butterfly. I am here to find the butterflies. But I feel strongly that we don't have to compromise how we treat each other to do that. Thank you for your well wishes and the same to you wherever you are. --ARoseWolf 19:00, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with what you wrote here, and appreciate your approach to these things. There was a point in that ANI discussion where you almost succeeded in de-escalating the situation, which was quite amazing. There was this point about OR that irked me, but in general you were doing a fantastic job, as I've seen you do elsewhere too. Please continue doing that, don't let this quibble discourage you. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:18, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It hasn't discouraged me. I learned something out of it that I can take and evaluate. I know Bbb23 was watching the discussion and I appreciate them giving me the opportunity to try and de-escalate it. They stepped in at the correct time to end the disruption GA was causing. While I believe civility was poor on both sides the content issues and disruption eventually became overwhelming. I think a longer block was justified because GA refused to discuss their edits with the ones they were in a dispute with but I have a feeling if they don't change how they approach editing then that will happen regardless. I also doubt they have permanently retired. I really do appreciate your kind words and your willingness to discuss the issue you had with me. --ARoseWolf 13:58, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Apaugasma/Archive_2&oldid=1138623875"