User talk:Daask/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Daask. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi, Sondra.kinsey. Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Aristophanes68 (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sondra.kinsey. I noticed a commented-out paragraph in Immigration and Nationality Act Section 287(g) ("In 2009, ICE standardized their..."), which I've traced to your large edit of 20 March. What is the status of this paragraph? Is there any way I can help to make it ready to be part of the article? Ibadibam (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ibadibam: My first thought upon seeing the section was "Why didn't I include that?" So I just updated and improved the citation preparing to include it in the article, only to realize that it doesn't really fit. It's old news, and it didn't really change the program substantially. Right now, the history section tells a smooth narrative. This passage doesn't quite achieve notability in my eyes, and seems clunky when I try to insert it in this history. I'm inclined to continue leaving it out. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 13:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

Someone just noticed and reverted vandalism created by 112.198.77.187 nearly two years ago. Their contributions appear to have been pure vandalism. Is there an easy way to revert all their edits in case there is other vandalism hidden on other Wikipedia pages? Sondra.kinsey (talk) 17:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I just checked their edits, and none appear to be the current version on any page, so it looks like whatever edits they have made, they have since been reverted. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore: Thanks for checking! This user hasn't been active in a while, but sometimes I stumble across more recent vandalism and have manually gone through their contributions and reverted each edit. Is there a faster/better way to do this? Or at least a tool to easily see which contributions have already been reverted? I am not looking to be a part of the anti-vandalism patrol, but I like to fix things when I notice them. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 14:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Easiest way is just look at their contributions, then see if anything has (current) next to it. If not, it's already been reverted or there have been other edits since then. Most times than not, the edits are reverted. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

This was a response to User_talk:Jenhawk777#Thanks for your hard work! regarding Christianity and violence

Oh bless you! and thank you! I have put a lot of work into it. Doug Weller does not seem to think it will be accepted because it is a duplicate, and I knew it was when I started writing it, but I tried editing the original article and the author reverted all my edits while only explaining one, and that got me discouraged enough with editing I thought I would try writing something myself and see what happened. I noted in the Teahouse he did the same to someone else and was warned about an edit war??? I don't think he wants his article changed. It is tagged as biased for reason, though. I would be completely content with editing instead of finishing another entire article, but I don't know if I can convey quite how it feels to work for hours and come back and find it all gone. He sent me a talk today saying these were just a collection of my thoughts... I don't know exactly what that means--I asked him so we'll see--but none of what I wrote is original material. It's all paraphrased, published, referenced and verifiable. It's the newest scholarship rather than the oldest. I will try continuing to edit. We'll see what happens. Thank you for your encouragement--it helped.  :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

About this; there are people who are very concerned about the buildup of... stuff in draft and userspace, and who work on deleting it and cleaning it out. Their work gets kind of intense and has been the subject of several ANI threads, and may end up leading to an Arbcom case.

The most recent one was here.

The people doing that clean up focus on stuff that can never become a WP article. This can never become a Wikipedia article, as there is already an article on the topic. If it is labelled a draft, it will eventually be targeted for deletion. There is no need to put this person through that drama; there is enough going on as it is. I hope that makes sense. I changed the header back to userpage in this diff, which should keep it off the cleanup people's radar. Jytdog (talk) 20:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Christians for Socialism 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 Midnightblueowl -- Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:21, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

The article Christians for Socialism you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Christians for Socialism for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Midnightblueowl -- Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:41, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello,

Thanks for dropping by Isaiah 13. We can always use more editors on the articles dedicated to individual chapters of the Bible, as they tend to become a dumping-ground for poorly attributed material, outright plagiarism, and unreliable sources. If you have any interest in doing more work of the kind you did on Isaiah 13, there's a whole slew of similar articles.

I keep a messy and somewhat incomplete list of these articles here, [1], and I find myself repeatedly adding new chapters after I come across more of the same. If you're not interested, feel free to stick to whatever else you're already doing. Nobody is compelled to edit in any particular section of Wikipedia.

Cheers, Alephb (talk) 20:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Tony Campolo into Christian heresy in the modern era. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@Diannaa: I appreciate the link to {{copied}}. I will use that in the future and have added it to both relevant pages in this case. In the future, I will also use the preferred edit summary including the phrase "see that page's history for attribution". However, it is not clear to me from Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia that such a phrase is required, and I did, in fact, note the copying and link to the original article in my edit summary. Are you saying that was insufficient? Sondra.kinsey (talk) 15:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I must have missed that. Sorry for the unneeded message. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

It should (the CN text) therefore be placed in the article body. WP:CiteLead. Regards,--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

There you go, Sondra.kinsey. :) Rectified. Regards.--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I wanted to ask you if you would consider removing the entire controversy section relating internet personalities.

I still do not see notability in the subject.

Cheers. WikiEditCrunch (talk) 09:43, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

@WikiEditCrunch: I outlined my thoughts on the section fairly thoroughly at Talk:The Wall Street Journal#WSJ controversy. Prior to my edit, I felt strongly that the section should be removed. I still support removing the section, but less adamantly. I think we need other editors to weigh in for WP:Consensus, as it looks like you and me vs. Emir and Apoorv. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 15:28, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I definitely agree on that.

Cheers.WikiEditCrunch (talk) 15:48, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Draft:Warmline, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Legacypac (talk) 03:02, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

You wanted more references on the King Abgar V page. Which section do you think requires more references? Tatelyle (talk) 19:53, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@Tatelyle: I was looking at ‎Life: Addition of sons of Abgar V. The only reference in context is Eisenman, but it's not worded in such a way as to indicate you derived the claim from his work. Was he your source, or how did you arrive at this claim? Sondra.kinsey (talk) 20:46, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

But I quoted Moses of Chorene (ancient chronicler), Acts of the Apostles, and Prof Robert Eisenman, who is perhaps the world's expert in this field. Tatelyle (talk) 13:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

And regards the Exodus entry, my content WAS cited. But someone has removed my material presumably because they did not agree with it, despite my citations. Josephus gives a specific date for the Exodus, which should be mentioned in the chronology section, and it was removed. Why? I shall be placing Josephus assertions back in, as it is the best historical account of the era of the Exodus that we have. Tatelyle (talk) 13:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but I've removed your addition to the lead as try as I may I can't see it as anything but original research not backed by the article. Doug Weller talk 18:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I was attempting to summarize the following quotes already in the article:

• "typical late-Second-Temple-period eschatological text"
• "calls for a complete reassessment of all previous scholarship on the subject of messianism, Jewish and Christian alike"
• "The blood of the slain messiah paves the way for the final salvation"

Do you have suggestions for rephrasing? I continue to believe my summary was appropriate. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 18:53, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

The thing is that it also says nothing "sensationally new" and looking at Knohl's retraction of his reading I don't think we can assume he still thinks a complete reassessment is called for. Doug Weller talk 19:19, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

OED links are completely worthless to the majority of us who don't have accounts there or who aren't currently attached to an academic institution — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rskurat (talk • contribs) 16:50, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@Rskurat: While I appreciate your preference for open access resources for references, in this case, I strong disagree with your edit. The text explicitly discusses the Oxford English Dictionary. If you want to rewrite the section to use another dictionary, I would not object, but you cannot simply change or remove citations without considering the content it is cited to support. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 22:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

It's good to see another editor interested in the addiction and recovery project, even if we disagree from time to time. - Scarpy (talk) 21:41, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

@Scarpy: Thanks for your encouragement. I have felt spurred lately to WP:be bold, although I realize I may be overzealous at times. I'm glad for the broader community of editors that can together achieve a consensus undoubtedly better than what any of us would have written alone. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 15:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Sondra.kinsey, I corrected a number of WikiProject assessment article class statuses today that you had made.

The A-class is a very special assessment, which requires a formal review process, much like a GA (Good Article) or an FA (Featured Article)—it means that the article is of a higher quality than a Good Article, but is not at the level required for an FA. (GA, A, and FA all have very specific criteria, and some A-level criteria are WikiProject specific.) Most WikiProjects are not set up to to make this assessment, and I see no sign that WikiProject Addictions and recovery has such a process in place. Since this is the case, A-class should never be used for this project.

It is also only appropriate for articles. You had given A-class to two templates; templates should not be graded at all. Some projects are set up to use Template class for templates; others just leave the class field blank or use "NA" (for not applicable). I gave these both Template class, but Addictions and recovery is not set up for it, so it shows up as "NA", which is perfectly fine.

It's a good idea, if the article is also under the purview of other WikiProjects, that you use their assessment when adding your WikiProject. One of the articles I changed was assessed as B-class by the other WikiProject, so I went with that; in another case, the other WikiProjects were all at C-class, so I also used C-class.

Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Thanks for letting me know. The overall status of addictions and recovery pages is quite low, so when a fairly well-researched page came up, I was inclined to rate it highly by contrast. I now realize that assessments don't work that way. I will try to improve some of the articles I have written up to GA or FA status and hopefully that will help me understand the criteria better. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 09:09, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@Martin of Sheffield: You recently changed my citations on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard#Anabaptists not Protestants. I've made mistakes in Talk Page etiquette before, so I may need guidance here. I had mixed citations, using standard <ref>{{cite}} for most citations, but using {{sfn}} for one work where I had lots of citations and wanted to include page numbers. I realize this was ugly, but I figured it was just a talk page, so I wasn't too worried about it. Unfortunately, these page numbers were lost in your edit and need to be restored. I have a few questions:

1. Is it okay to use poor citation style in talk pages, as I did?
2. Is it assumed that talk pages have the same citation style as their associated articles?
3. Is it okay to fix other people's citations in talk pages?
4. Can you restore the page numbers using the most appropriate citation scheme?

Hello, Sondra.kinsey. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for deleting the redirect on "Reverend King" to MLK, which was certainly the right thing to do. I knew it was against some guidelines for a pastor known predominantly by that name not to have any link on the page, not even a disamb. But because I was an ordinary Nigerian editor, the cabals on Wikipedia worked against me, and no one was ready to listen to my "inexperienced" argument. From here, I was directed here, then directed back to "redirect for discussion" again, a forum I already visited before coming to "move request". I don't like systematic bias in any form, that is why I am letting it out here. More background to the discussion can be found here and here. This post can be considered unnecessary, but I always find a sense of fulfillment and peace of mind when I pour my feelings out. HandsomeBoy (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@HandsomeBoy: The noticeboards are separated by the desired action, so they can be a tricky place to discuss when there are multiple options involving multiple pages, including page moves, dabs, and redirects. I usually just stick to article talk pages in those cases. It's difficult to compare the weight of an uncommon name for a very famous person against the common name of a little known person. That said, making Reverend King a dab seemed obvious to me, so I didn't look into all that history. I hope you have found working with editors in other parts of Wikipedia less onerous! Daask (talk) 11:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I am learning :). HandsomeBoy (talk) 12:55, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for working on the page! When this was suggested, albeit in a slightly different format, I remember warning the student that this could be a bit too specific for Wikipedia and that they may need to go more general, as in covering the entire state or adding this into existing articles. I'm glad to see that you've improved it to help deal with these concerns! Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

That template was created after discussions on both the standard composition bar template and the compact version were ultimately inconclusive. There is no reason to delete the classic composition bar. Its discontinuation was controversial to begin with, and the classic version should be retained even if it is less-used, as multiple users argued for during the discussions at the time of its original redesign. — Μαρκος Δ 11:26, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

We seem to be working at cross-purposes at the moment. Given "Transitional program", "Transition Program", various capitalizations of these, "transitional demands", and the Trotsky book - what redirect/disamb structure would you like to end up with? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@Elmidae: I apologize for creating confusion. I noticed that many pages were not distinguishing between transitional programs in general and the Fourth International's transitional program in particular. I proceeded to turn all of Transitional ProgramTransitional Program, Transitional ProgrammeTransitional Programme, Transitional programTransitional program, and Transitional programmeTransitional programme into dabs temporarily, and used Dispenser's Dablinks tool to check all incoming links. I changed most of them to point directly to The Death Agony of Capitalism and the Tasks of the Fourth International, and left some pointing to Transitional programme presuming it would redirect to Transitional demand. I then made the capitalized versions redirect to The Death Agony of Capitalism and the Tasks of the Fourth International and the lowercase versions redirect to Transitional demand. This made sense to me. However, given the high probability of people accidentally linking to the wrong article, it may be best to make them all redirect to a dab page. What do you think? I didn't look at Transition ProgramTransition Program or Transition program. Daask (talk) 17:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I see. That kind of grand design really suffers when someone sticks their fingers in mid-action - sorry :p I believe a central dab page at the most generalized term "Transition program" might indeed be the best solution? Capitalization is probably not the most reliable characteristic when someone hacks in a search term. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

However, no strong feelings either way. If you think your current structure works well, don't go breaking it all up on my account! --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Your edit removed content, wikilinks, and sourcing. It was not just a re-ordering of sections. If you want to re-organize sections, that is one thing. But if you are removing or reframing content, discuss that on talk. Be accurate with your edit summaries. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 22:16, 13 April 2018 (UTC)