This is an archive of past discussions about User:A455bcd9. 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.
Hello, A455bcd9, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
Please, do not use Asia Harvest as a source, for it is not neutral, its statistics are unscientific, and it is therefore totally unreliable. Asia Harvest is essentially one of the different American Evangelical websites or organizations of propaganda, which have contributed in the diffusion through the internet of many false statistics about Christians in China and in other countries.
Specifically, Paul Hattaway's estimates aren't based on empirical data from surveys or censuses, but are evidently speculations from his own fantasy. Figures from Catholics are even contradicted by the official counting of the Roman Catholic Church itself.
Wikipedia is not a place for fantasy speculation about alternative realities. Sources must be factual. In our specific case, results of empirical research the number of religious people in China from neutral scientific institutes have been published in recent years (some of them are already enlisted in the page, and they have found no more than 3% of Chinese claiming to be Christian), and they are available for the writing of factual articles in Wikipedia.--Etsop (talk) 17:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Guangdong and Liaoning], Research Directorate, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Ottawa]</ref> The study points out that “owing to the difficulties of conducting such a [study] in China
shtml Indipendenza del Veneto, via libera del consiglio regionale al referendum]</ref><ref>[http://bur.regione.veneto.it/BurvServices/Pubblica/DettaglioLegge.aspx?id=276454 LEGGE REGIONALE n.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
Guangdong and Liaoning], Research Directorate, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Ottawa]</ref> The study points out that “owing to the difficulties of conducting such a [study] in China
of Oriental Studies: Section 4 China), Edited by R. G. Tiedemann, Brill: Leiden - Boston 2010), 1050 pp., ISBN 978-90-04-11430-2
ed., ''Handbook of Christianity in China: Volume Two 1800-Present.'' Brill Academic, 2009). ISBN 9789004114302. [http://books.google.com/books?id=PISgbgLZsAAC Google Book]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Euro English, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page French. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hello, A455bcd9. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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.
Hello, A455bcd9. 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.
Hello, A455bcd9. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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.
Hello, A455bcd9. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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.
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.
Oh my god, I am so sorry, I meant to just add the public domain tag to the reference and I must've somehow reverted your edit. Apologies, — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs09:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Consider providing reliable sources to strengthen the page's verifiability.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Meatsgains}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.
Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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.
@Obi2canibe: Hi, I'm surprised, I just copied information that was below in the content of the page regarding the UAE and put it in the infobox with the exact same source. If you think there's a problem please start a discussion on the discussion page of Tamil diaspora. (I've be on Wikipedia for 14 years, I know what vandalism is, and I don't understand how what I did could be considered as vandalism). Thank you. A455bcd9 (talk) 17:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
I have responded on the talk page.
I too have been around for a long time on Wikipedia and one thing I have learned is not to trust sources provided by editors. People lie. Always check the sources.--Obi2canibe (talk)17:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
According to the statistics of Ethnologue, there are more Russian speakers than Portuguese. You can clearly see that on the graph. Also, there are pages about Portuguese and Russian with the following data:
Portuguese - Total users in all countries: 257,647,190 (as L1: 232,421,190; as L2: 25,226,000).
@Mvximenko: Hi, thanks a lot, you were right for the number of total speakers of Russian vs Portuguese. I kept your modification. Unfortunately there's a bug on Ethnologue's list so I sent them an email. You also updated number for L1 & L2 which is great, however we need to be consistent in the whole column which shows 2019 figures. That's why I unfortunately had to revert your edit. I don't have access to Ethnologue (except the public "top 200", that's why I was using it as a source). It seems you have access to all data so if you could update the L1 & L2 columns with 2021 data it would be awesome. Please let me know if you need any help to do that. (Also, I'm afraid that there may be similar issues with Yue vs Tamil, Wu vs Korea, Javanese vs Italian, Bhojpuri vs Punjabi, regarding the total number of speakers). Best, A455bcd9 (talk) 09:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bahaeddin Şakir, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Turkish. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Hey there, why did you remove accurate information from the page “Mashriq”? Before it seems you listed the wrong information in which you included Israel as an Arab country. The Term Mashriq is an Arabic word used by Arabs to refer to only Arab countries in such part of the world. Why did you remove such information? Along with this, the only source that would list Israel in this term is Britannica, which was defined. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 09:51, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
I removed some statements from the page Mashriq because they were not backed in the article by Wikipedia:Reliable sources. It's not a matter whether information is accurate or not. Be careful that Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source, so it cannot be used, that's why I undid your last edits. Regarding the term Mashriq, it is of course used by Arabs, but today it is used also by non-Arabs (I'm one of them for instance :) ), that's why (unless there's a reliable source claiming this) it is not relevant to mention it in the introduction. There's maybe a different definition of the term depending on the source (Western sources may include the region, no matter the ethnicity of its inhabitant, whereas Arab sources may only include countries with an Arab-majority population, including territories of these countries where the majority of the population isn't Arab, for instance), I don't know, but in any case, we need reliable sources to back such claims. Do you see what I mean? A455bcd9 (talk) 12:24, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
If accurate information can be used over non accurate information, then why shouldnt it be used? This is common logic and applies to the integrity of information being put out. It is a duty to reflect accuracy as much as possible in these articles.
Regarding the term Mashriq, it is an Arabic Term used by Arabs. When you use it, it is being spoken as an Arab. For non-Arabs, it is specified “eastern part of the Arab world” or “Eastern Arabia”. The Term Mashriq specifically refers only to Arab countries in this part of the world. So Mashriq in general does not refer to Non Arab countries. Before, you listed Israel as an Arab country.. this was completely wrong and I am not sure why you did this. And again you are purposely not allowing the specification that Israel is not an Arab country nor part of the Arab world, which is accurate to the definition. The term is used by Arabs, it is an Arab word. Non Arabs do not use this term in official settings either. If you say it, you are repeating after the Arabs as mentioned earlier. But that does not take away from it being used by its original owners, the Arabs. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 12:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
My only point is to find reliable sources backing these claims. I apologize if I made a mistake in any previous edit. For the rest I don't have an opinion on what is accurate or not, I trust reliable external sources.
However, when you say "Non Arabs do not use this term in official settings either.", here are some examples of the term being used in official settings by non-Arabs:
United Nations ("For purposes of this paper, the Mashreq countries include Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria.")
So it seems that the term is indeed used also by non-Arabs. Sometimes it includes Israel, sometimes not. It would be awesome if we could find a source backing this claim and add it to the article. A455bcd9 (talk) 12:48, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
I am not denying that it will not be used non Arabs, as you are a non Arab and are using it. Although it is again to be specified that the term is used by Arabs mainly and originally. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 13:37, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Mashriq is a term invented by the Arabs in Arabic to refer to the "Eastern Arab World". This is common logic that does not require a source, as the information itself is a source. Along with this, Israel is not an Arab state. Why is this also being deleted to make it seem as if Israel is an Arab state? In regards to the "Levantine Arabic" article, Levantine Arabic is the native language of the Arabs of the Levant. The Arab countries listed have this as their native language. Israel does not have Arabic as an official language, nor is MSA the main language alongside Hebrew as was inaccurately claimed. The language of Israel is Hebrew. Levantine Arabic is spoken by the Arabs (Palestinians) living within Israel. This was also specified .
Hi,
"the information itself is a source": this is not how Wikipedia works.
I can see that previously you have been talked to on more than one occasion regarding the addition of unreferenced or poorly referenced content and disruptive editing. Please change your behavior and provide sources and if required discuss proposed changes in the talk page of these articles. :) A455bcd9 (talk) 14:06, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Why are you continuously adding false information to these articles. I ask again, is Modern standard Arabic the main language of Israel as you claimed in the article? obviously not so why implement it?
you listed Israel as an Arab country under Mashriq as well until i came to revise it. what is the intention in implementing false information and trying to make Israel seem as an Arab state or that its language is Arabic? It is extremely important to be listing accurate information in these articles. Let keep the integrity here and be truthful in articles. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 14:25, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi,
The article says that MSA is, with Hebrew, the main language in Israel in the public sphere. Which is the case as Hebrew is the official language and MSA was the official language until recently and it now a "special status" language. For instance, Arab localities in Israel, road signs are written in MSA, education is in MSA, government information is written in MSA, etc.
Regarding the Mashriq article, Israel was listed with other states, it was not listed "as an Arab country". You added information that Israel is not an Arab state but the source you provided only says that Israel is not part of the Arab League. So either find another source or revert your edit so that the text of the article matches the content of the source. A455bcd9 (talk) 14:40, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi,
It is still not the main language of Israel.. and as you just specified Arabic lost official status years ago there If it still were, then there could be made a case for it. Along with this why are you deleting the accurate and most obvious fact that Levantine Arabic is natively spoken by the Arabs of the Levant? What is the intention of doing all this? i keep asking but these questions are intentionally avoided. Is Israel an Arab state? Its not, so why are you making it ut to be one?
Hi,
Regarding the status of MSA in Israel, I changed the sentence.
Regarding your other edits in the Levantine Arabic page, you removed referenced content and added unreferenced content, that's why I undid your edit. You also changed the formatting in the Infobox. Please discuss specific issues in the talk page of "Levantine Arabic", it'll be easier. And please provide reliable sources for every single sentence you want to add.
Regarding the Mashriq article, I did not say that Israel was an Arab State. I just want the content of the article to match the source you provided. And the source you provided is about the Arab League only so I wrote that Israel is not a member of the Arab League. Nothing more. A455bcd9 (talk) 15:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi,
everything that is added accurate and undeniable information, whether sourced or unsourced. this is because the information is universally known as well. For you to say "add a source for every sentence you want to add" that would mean Wikipedia articles would have a source listed at the end of each sentence throughout articles. this has never happened and frankly seems it will never happen. It is not viable. Please do not remove accurate and well known information that cannot be disputed in any sense. It is your edits alone that have purposely listed false information continuously.
Yes, exactly good Wikipedia articles should have a source listed at the end of each sentence throughout articles. According to Wikipedia:Reliable sources: "Wikipedia requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations." and Help:Referencing for beginners: "One of the key policies of Wikipedia is that all article content has to be verifiable. This means that reliable sources must be able to support the material. [...] If you are adding new content, it is your responsibility to add sourcing information along with it." There is no such a thing as "universally known" information. A455bcd9 (talk) 15:34, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Edit warring
Your recent editing history at Levantine Arabic shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. PLEASE NOTE: You and User:WatanWatan2020 reverted each other 9 times each yesterday on that article. If I had seen the edit war yesterday, I would have blocked both of you on the spot. Any future edit warring may result in you being blocked from editing. - Donald Albury14:53, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the warning. I understand your reasoning, however I don't understand what to do next.
Indeed, this edit from WatanWatan2020 removed sourced content and added unsourced content (and a phone number link in a grammar table...). That's why I reverted it and asked him/her to discuss in the article's talk page first. We had a discussion but in my own talk page (above). Unfortunately, the user didn't provide any reference in the discussion, claiming that "everything that is added accurate and undeniable information, whether sourced or unsourced" and reverting my revert. That's why I thought it was a case of Wikipedia:Vandalism ("The malicious removal of encyclopedic content [...] without any regard to our core content policies of [...] verifiability [...] is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia."). However, according to this page, "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." and, if I understood you well, according to you there's a possibility that WatanWatan2020 is of good-faith. The numerous warnings on their talk page and the above discussion made me think otherwise though.
Anyway, currently, the page Levantine Arabic stands in a version with unsourced content, sourced content (about the difference between Levantine & MSA) has been removed, the "plainlist" template in the Infobox has also been removed and there's a phone number link ("tel:") in the grammar table.
I would like at least to remove the phone number link ("tel:") from the grammar table, add back the removed references and the "plainlist" template. But you wrote here that "if you revert one of WatanWatan2020's edits again, you may be blocked from editing without further warning."
What is the best way to improve this article without being blocked?
Did you have any chance to read my previous message?
As you suggested, I started a discussion in the talk page about WatanWatan2020's edit and why I think it should be reverted.
WatanWatan2020 answered but did not address any of the mentioned points and instead complained about my behavior.
One other user answered and agreed with my reasoning on most points.
I pinged two other contributors (representing 81.0% of edits), and we're still waiting for their answer.
Based on WatanWatan2020's lack of constructive answer and on the other user's answer, I wanted to revert WatanWatan2020's edit (or at least all points except point 2 that is still open to discussion). But you wrote that: "if you revert one of WatanWatan2020's edits again, you may be blocked from editing without further warning." So, what should I do next?
Hi, i have responded to the accusations and have reported you to an admin for edit warring once again. You have been pushing an agenda and POV for far too long, and maintaining a grip over such pages while deleting others contributions. thanks. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 11:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
You said that you "have reported [me] to an admin for edit warring once again". Could you please send me a link of such a report so that I can join the discussion?
Also, I don't understand why you say that I am pushing an agenda or POV. Could you please tell me which agenda you think I'm pushing? I'd love to solve this misunderstanding.
I've been checking all of this stuff. And I feel like an ancient account like @A455bcd9: knows better than to edit war. But an account like @WatanWatan2020: with an account made in 2021 and most likely little to no experience on Wikipedia shouldn't report Watan for "edit warring". Sorry for butting in. Just thought I should say that. Thatoneguylol101 (talk) 22:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
For amazing work both here and on Wiktionary (and perhaps elsewhere?) on Levantine Arabic! I don't know enough to comment on the linguistic accuracy of your work, but the effort is very clear, and I'm grateful for it! Alarichall (talk) 14:53, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello @Alarichall: thank you so much! I hope the article is accurate (it's quite hard to find good sources...) and I'm glad that you appreciate it: I put a lot of effort into it.
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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.
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Levantine Arabic 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 Cerebellum -- Cerebellum (talk) 14:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
The article Levantine Arabic you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Levantine Arabic 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 Cerebellum -- Cerebellum (talk) 00:41, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Unblock IP
I'm trying to edit Wikipedia from 185.201.60.0/22 (Free Wifi in a public area). This IP was blocked in November 2019 by @Favonian:. The warning message when I try to edit a page says: "If you are confident that you are not using a web host, you may appeal this block by adding the following text on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Caught by a colocation web host block but this host or IP is not a web host. My IP address is _______. Place any further information here. ~~~~}}"
However, from this IP I cannot edit my own talk page. So I used another IP to write this message:
{{unblock|reason=Caught by a colocation web host block but this host or IP is not a web host. My IP address is 185.201.63.254 It is a free wifi in a public area. A455bcd9 (talk) 16:28, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Much as I would like to claim the honor, my only part was to remove talk page access from the IP range after one of our long-term pests had demonstrated their linguistic talents there. The original block was put in place by ST47 and it was later extended to a global block (covering all wikis) by Jon Kolbert, who holds the high office of Steward. As far as I can tell, the IPs in the range are indeed open proxies (in which case Wikipedia:Open proxies applies), but I'll yield to the experts, should they disagree. Favonian (talk) 17:53, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your swift reply.
I think there are two issues here:
1. The warning message that says you can appeal the block even though you cannot.
2. The particular case of "185.201.63.254" and whether it should be banned or not.
Regarding 1 maybe registered users could have the right to write on their own page?
Regarding 2: "185.201.63.254" is the IP of the Eurostar free wifi (in the train, not the one in the station). So it's a shared IP but the risk of long-term abuse seems limited as I cannot imagine a vandal buying tickets from Paris to London just to disrupt Wikipedia 😉. A455bcd9 (talk) 18:44, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cities by GDP (PPP) per capita until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
User:Sandstein's archive has a specific instruction at the top for the page not to be edited, and for concerns to be raised in a new section on his talk page. I suggest you delete your additional comment there and start a new talk page section asking for the deleted article to be restored to draft. As a practical matter, however, you could start a new list in draftspace from scratch, without making such a request. BD2412T05:29, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
OK but could you please answer my question: "Your last message in the discussion page was: "I think we could have a list of 150 or 200, if the list was comprehensive in listing all cities with sufficient GDP's worldwide." Did you mean "all cities with sufficient GDP" or "all cities with sufficient GDP per capita"?" A455bcd9 (talk) 07:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Frankly it doesn't matter to me which statistic is being catalogued so long as the list is not single-source, is limited to a reasonable number of cities, and does not arbitrarily exclude cities falling within whatever that reasonable number is. BD2412T22:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi, and thanks. If you don't mind, we should continue everything else at that talk-page. I have posted an answer there already. Not really your fault, elsewhere this would have worked, but for the Middle East you should first watch "The Life of Brian" and only then edit. The People's Front of Judea is the exact opposite of Judea People's Front, enemies to the death even, if you see what I mean. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 23:32, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Map
Your version is fine. I had something pop up over the last few days. You just need to carry my copyright through to the new version. -- GuerilleroParlez Moi21:06, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi. First of all thanks a lot for creating that map! I'm sorry if I made a mistake with the copyright. What should I write exactly? Or should I re use your template? A455bcd9 (talk) 22:07, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Congratulations, A455bcd9! The article you nominated, Levantine Arabic, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:06, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Congratulations!
Congrats on getting Levantine Arabic promoted to FA! You really put a lot of work into it. I'm happy to see that someone took their time to research so much about my family dialect :) (maybe next stop is Lebanese Arabic..?).
Thanks a lot! Haha no I think I'm gonna go on a wikibreak after that ;)
Regarding Help:IPA, I don't know enough so I asked some friends. I'll let you know their answer. (I didn't even know that page existed, it looks quite nice). A455bcd9 (talk) 18:30, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this special, very exclusive award created just for we few, we happy few, this band of brothers, who have shed sweat, tears and probably blood, in order to be able to proudly claim "I too have taken an article to Featured status". Gog the Mild (talk) 11:13, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
I've just installed your update to the nominations viewer; that's a very handy feature to have. I don't know if this is possible, but two other possible enhancements occurred to me. The urgents list and the FACs needing an image or source review are both useful to look at when someone is deciding what to review, but neither are on the main FAC page. Could your script be aware of which FACs are listed in those pages, and flag them in the collapsed view in the viewer? Something like:
(nomination 4 weeks old * Inactive for 2 weeks * 1 nominator* 5 participants * 2 supports * On urgent list * Source review needed)
Unfortuantely, I don't know how to code that. I'm not knowledgeable enough in Javascript and I barely managed to adapt @Gary:'s code to display the inactivity information. Still, I guess it's doable: the script would first check the Urgents list and the Image and source check requests pages, look at all articles listed on those pages, and then tag them appropriately in the list. A455bcd9 (talk) 11:07, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you today for the article "about Levantine Arabic, a variety of Arabic spoken in the Levant"! Enjoy your first! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
You are welcome. In a nutshell: Precious is built on daily awards some great editors gave in the past, and I took the idea (10 years ago), just not managing daily, but writers of FAs are sure to get it. I then search - for someone I didn't meet before - on user talk, user page, articles created, and I like something personal, which I found in the quote about languages and looking for reliable sources. Nice to meet you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:49, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi -- I've been doing some GA reviews recently, and noticed that X-bar theory is now the oldest unreviewed article waiting at WP:GAN -- it was nominated back in March. I think it's been waiting a long time because it's a fairly technical linguistics topic, and many editors are not going to feel competent to review it. Then I recalled your excellent article on Levantine Arabic, and wondered if you would be interested in reviewing it. Is this something you might be interested in? If not, no problem, but I guessed you might have enough background to take it on, and I thought I'd mention it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:52, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. I've just read the beginning of the article and I'm unable to understand most of it. Way too technical for me. I'm not a linguist and actually most of the Grammar section in Levantine Arabic was written by someone else because I'm not well-versed in grammar. Sorry... A455bcd9 (talk) 11:03, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Unrelated to the map, I've been wondering what's the exact number of fluent speakers in MSA for a while now. I posted my reasoning on Reddit last year. tl;dr: if we define "speaker" as someone able to understand and speak with fluency on any topic then only those with higher education in Arabic are able to reach such a level, which leads to about 60m speakers, far from the 274.0 million current estimate.
Of course, if we define MSA user as someone able to understand MSA on TV or at the mosque, this would lower the bar.
What do you think? Do you have sources about this? I found some that I posted here. A455bcd9 (talk) 06:59, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Ethnologue has not yet approved my contributor status (yesterday was a Federal holiday in the United States), so my access to the site is purely thru the university's subscription, which is limited. I'm unable to find their criteria for identifying an L2 speaker.
I don't know of good research on this that addresses Arabophonie as a whole. Manfred Woidich refers to modern Fuṣḥā as 'Modern Written Arabic', which I think is a more socially accurate descriptor than 'Modern Spoken Arabic'. Very impressionistically for Egypt: Most people can understand a Fuṣḥā news broadcast. Most people think that they understand a Friday xuṭbah, but I think it's likely that many overestimate their comprehension. A majority can read everyday written material without difficulty. (How big a majority? Not sure.) The number who could read a novel is substantially smaller. When it comes to production, I suspect that most people who have finished aṯ-ṯānawiyyah could write in Fuṣḥā, but are likely to do so with mistakes, & probably feel unconfident about their writing abilities. Professionals in intellectual work with higher educations are much more likely to be able to confidently write in correct Fuṣḥā. But speaking Fuṣḥā extemporaneously? That's relatively few people. Speaking Fuṣḥā extemporaneously outside of limited, stereotyped, practiced professional contexts? That number's got to be minuscule. I don't know which of these sets of speakers Ethnologue is considering to be L2 speakers. There definitely aren't 65.5 million Egyptians who could have an extemporaneous conversation on a novel topic in Fuṣḥā. No way. Pathawi (talk) 12:09, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. That's more or less what I concluded from the sources I found. You can find them here and there, let me know when you join the program and have access to these pages, I'd love to know your opinion. A455bcd9 (talk) 12:54, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Niacin
A Pubmed search on Parkinson's disease niacin, limited to reviews, yields articles that may be worth adding to the paragraph you started on PD and niacin. David notMD (talk) 11:31, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
The issue: individual clinical trials are usually not accepted as references because those do not meet the WP:MEDRS guideline. (Nor does in vitro or animal research.) There are exceptions made in Research sections of medical/health articles, but as this is a Good article, it should probably adhere to the guideline. I intend to remove the clin trial ref and add review ref(s).
But in any case feel free to replace the clinical trial ref by review ref(s) if they are focused on nicotinic acid (articles I found are mostly about nicotinamide riboside). A455bcd9 (talk) 12:34, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
What you cited is an editorial description of one clinical trial. This does not make it a review, i.e., MEDRS compliant. A better citation would have been the actual trial article by Chong et al, which brings us back to not MEDRS. P.S. While I was the person who raised Niacin to GA (along with nine other vitamins) I try hard to not take an 'ownership' approach to subsequent changes to the articles. I will leave your addition in place until ready to provide review references for the potential as prevention or treatment for Parkinson's disease. David notMD (talk) 12:42, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Got it. I added Chong et al. as a source and changed the wording to make it more neutral. Another article by Chong et al. ("A novel treatment target for Parkinson's disease") was actually already cited so I think it makes sense to cite this follow-up clinical trial. A455bcd9 (talk) 12:52, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
I have kept the two Chong co-authored articles for the moment, but removed everything else in the Research section. That paragraph about animal and in vitro evidence was added on 15 April 2016 and should have been identified and removed before or during the GA review in 2020. David notMD (talk) 15:39, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
The rationale for MEDRS is that people look to Wikipedia for medical/health information, so Wikipedia has chosen to be a trailing indicator for information. Hence limitations to reviews, systematic reviews and meta-analyses. David notMD (talk) 16:05, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
From tht article "Niacin has not yet been tested in humans in the context of Alzheimer’s disease." Again, Wikipedia is a trailing indicator on medicine/health. David notMD (talk) 18:03, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
"Based on these findings, a clinical trial of niacin treatment for glioblastoma patients is currently taking place at the University of Calgary." A455bcd9 (talk) 18:20, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 25
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hinglish, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Google Pay.
Thanks for the invitation - it looks like a very worthwhile endeavour (what I think Quora was supposed to be originally). However, I don't think I can promise anything currently. Try me in six months. By the way I am based in the North of England. Regards Chemical Engineer (talk) 15:48, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Hey. I'm moving the conversation here just to talk about basic background issues for pulling together a map like you propose. Have you worked on map creation for Wikipedia before? I am willing to put work into this, but don't yet have experience. I'm thinking thru steps we might take to ensure that it remains reliably sourced—or at least is revertible to a reliably sourced version. Pathawi (talk) 18:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
I suppose that makes sense. I have basic access to Ethnologue thru my university, but don't have access to language-specific maps. (I signed up for the contributor program today; I do fieldwork in the Sudan & Egypt, so I imagine I'll be approved after the US holiday.) The map for the Sudan is not very useful for our purposes. Does the map for Sudanese Arabic give more useful info? Pathawi (talk) 03:04, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
The Sudanese map is okay, we can just hatch Sudan in a first version. And once you're approved in the contributor program you can submit a request to improve the Sudanese maps. If approved, your requests will be implemented in Feb 2023. And we'll then update the Wikipedia map. Unless you have another reliable source for Sudan and South Sudan that is more accurate. A455bcd9 (talk) 06:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Great. What do you think about shades of a base colour for dialect regions, following Versteegh (The Arabic Language, second edition, 2014)? He identifies five major regions: the Arabian peninsula; Mesopotamia; Syria/Lebanon; Egypt; the Maghreb. He sees Maltese, Cypriot Maronite Arabic, the Arabic of Uzbekistan & Afghanistan, the Arabic dialects of Anatolia, Shuwa, & Ki-Nubi as having—of course—historical connections with central dialect regions, but sufficient histories of isolation to merit separate consideration. These could perhaps be in a sixth range of hues. So while there are plenty of structural phonological differences & distinct isoglosses that distinguish Cairene Arabic from Ṣaʕīdī Arabic (both of which are, of course, bundles of speech varieties), they have similarities & a shared history which make it convenient to consider them a dialect grouping markedly distinct from the Arabic of Tunis. For readers who have no background in Arabic, this might make the map more legible. I suggest Versteegh because I've seen him cited by a fair bit of other dialectological work & because he follows his classification with enough of a break-down that we could easily apply this to the numerous dialects listed by Ethnologue, but I'm not wedded to that specific source. Pathawi (talk) 13:52, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Oof. That's rough. But it's probably roughly right. We should be able to find the original source at the Library of Congress. I think I have all the sort-of-standard references for Sudanese & Juba Arabic at home. When I get back from the office I'll see what they've got. Whatever's out there is certainly going to be rough: The political situation in the Sudan over the past few decades & the ongoing strife in South Sudan has made the region a difficult place to do research. The only work done on Dar Fur Arabic, for example, has been done in Europe with refugees. If there's anything like a dialect map based on on-site investigation, it's going to be from the '60s or earlier. But I'll take a look & tell you what I can find! Pathawi (talk) 20:54, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! I also found a map of Chadian/Shuwa/Baggara Arabic in the Central African Republic in Versteegh 2014 p. 206 we could use it as well. It also shows the distribution of Chadian Arabic in Sudan and South Sudan (near the border). A455bcd9 (talk) 20:57, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Stefano Manfredi's Árabi Júba : un pidgin-créole du Soudan du Sud has a map of Juba Arabic & pidgin Arabic (« árabi el besít »), p 11. We probably don't care about the latter. No dice on the Sudan, yet: I've checked the major Western language sources. There are a couple of Arabic-language Sudanese dialect dictionaries at the university library. Tomorrow, I'll head in, scan the South Sudan map, & take a look at the Arabic sources. I don't remember noticing a map in them before, but checking will only take a few minutes. We probably ultimately won't do better than this Library of Congress map. Pathawi (talk) 23:43, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Here's the Juba Arabic map. Again: I think we should ignore « Arabe véhiculaire », as Manfredi is clear that it doesn't refer to a native speaker dialect, but a range of pidgin varieties by non-native speakers who use Arabic as a lingua franca.
I checked the Arabic-language sources on Sudanese Arabic at my university library. No maps. Reichmuth's grammar of Šukriyyah has a map of the area his research covered, but it's not meant to be a full map even for that dialect. Pathawi (talk) 23:22, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, that's amazing. Do you think the small Juba Arabic speaking areas in Northern Uganda, RDC, and Kenya are actually Nubi speaking?
I don't think that the spillover into neighbouring countries is Nubi: It doesn't match the documentation of Nubi. I'd guess that it's just meant to show that national borders don't contain speech varieties, & that some degree of cross-border interaction in Juba Arabic must occur. I don't there's been an actual language survey of these areas.
Arabe véhiculaire shouldn't be Baggārah as such. Baggārah Arabic is an L1 variety. Manfredi is describing diverse pidgins that people use as, eg, a market language. Pathawi (talk) 10:37, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Another question: what about Zanzibar, Eritrea, and Somalia. Any significant Arabic-speaking populations there? Do we have maps? I feel like there's no native Omani Arabic speakers left in Zanzibar. No native speakers either in Somalia. But maybe a few Arabic speaking tribes in Eritrea? A455bcd9 (talk) 07:41, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't know Zanzibar at all. I had the impression that there was a tiny remaining Omani community on the order of a couple hundred people. Ethnologue claims that there are 17,000 Yemeni Arabic-speakers in Somalia, but that's an immigrant population. I don't know where they get that number. There is no local Arabic-speaking population in Somalia. It makes more sense to include France than Somalia at those numbers. In Eritrea, the Rashā'idah speak Arabic. They emigrated from the Arabian Peninsula in the mid-nineteenth century & spread all over the region, from Jordan to Eritrea. Their dialect is distinctive in the Sudan, & has clear historical connections to the Peninsula. Because of the long-standing Rashā'idah population, Arabic is one of Eritrea's national languages. But where in Eritrea are Rashā'idah communities located? I'd be guessing pretty recklessly. Pathawi (talk) 10:48, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
I agree for Somalia.
For Zanzibar this article says: "For centuries, the Arabic language has been one of the key languages spoken in Zanzibar, but it has now been practically replaced by Swahili." and concludes: "Today, the Hadrami variety of Arabic has almost disappeared, while the Omani Arabic remains the spoken variety, although it is used by a very limited number of people."
We could still add Zanzibar to the map with a triangle or hatched area.
For Eritrea, Ethnologue mentions: "[acw] Northern Red Sea and Southern Red Sea regions. Users: 30,400 in Eritrea (2020). Ethnic population: 80,000 (2010). Status: 6a* (Vigorous). Alternate Names: Rashaida, Rashida. Classification: Afro-Asiatic, Semitic, Central, South, Arabic."
We could similarly color these two areas.
In both cases (Zanzibar and Eritrea) I think it's a detail and we can deal with it later, it's fairly easy to add a triangle on a map (once we have the map :) ). A455bcd9 (talk) 11:32, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
With regard to Eritrea, I think it makes sense to go along with Ethnologue's description for now, & show Hijāzī Arabic as being spoken in Northern & Southern Red Seas Regions. It's a source we're following anyhow, & it accords with other (non-reliable) information out there. I don't know of anything that contradicts it. & the regions are so small.
For Zanzibar: I guess this is partially a question of what we imagine a dialect map is doing. So, you included the map of Cyprus in your request. That would be two small dots for fewer than 200 speakers. Even in the villages where Cypriot Arabic speakers are found, they're tiny minorities. 30% of Dearborn, Michigan, USA speaks Arabic, almost all Levantine, with something like 200 times the total number of Cypriot Arabic speakers. Detroit, as well, has a very large number of Levantine Arabic speakers. But we're not going to place Michigan on this map. I'm assuming that it intuitively makes sense to both of us to include the 200 Cypriots but exclude the tens of thousands of Michiganders. I propose that the principle we might draw from that intuition is that what we're trying to convey with a dialect map is a geography of where particular living dialects of Arabic might be considered endemic, & that that consideration is largely social: The Rashā'idah have been in Eritrea for over a century & a half & the government clearly considers them to be indigenous Eritreans, so Rashā'idah Arabic (Hijazi Arabic) is endemic to Eritrea. There have been Maġribī communities in Paris for over a century, but they've always been understood as exclaves, so we don't think of Maġribī Arabic as endemic to France. Given that there's no documentation of a Zanzibar dialect ever taking shape (at least, by Gintsburg's interpretation of Nakano: I haven't looked at Nakano—the book is in our university library, & I could take a glance), & that Omanis in Zanzibar seem on the one hand to maintain strong ties to Oman & on the other to have largely shifted to Swahili for home use, I guess I'd be most inclined to just leave Zanzibar off. As you say, it's easy enough to add a triangle afterward. Pathawi (talk) 15:21, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
@Pathawi Hi, fwi I've just uploaded this file from this source: The Baggara Belt and its main tribes.. If I understand the article: "there is broad agreement on the inclusion of Baggara dialects within West Sudanic Arabic" and WSA = Chadian Arabic. Wdyt? A455bcd9 (talk) 10:41, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
I think that that's a correct reading of the article, & consistent with other overview sources. Normally, I'd say we shouldn't assume that ethnicity maps to dialect, but Manfredi & Roset are clearly using this as a dialect map with their charting of isoglosses. (I'm cringing a little because it's clear that there's significant dialect variation thruout the region, but Manfredi & Roset don't actually break the isoglosses up into specific dialects.) In the east, this should overlap with Sudanese Arabic. Pathawi (talk) 14:28, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Oh, I had posted it to automatically delete after a certain number of days (I can't remember how many) because of the author's copyright. I still have the scan on my laptop & can get it to you again. Pathawi (talk) 22:41, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't know what it would take to convince you: Arabic is one of the 1,000 Vital articles Level 3 articles, and yet the current map was so inaccurate that it was removed from all articles on the English Wikipedia. However, it (or its translations) is still used in more than 200 articles in various language editions. If you google "arabic dialects map" you won't find an accurate map either (it's either the one from Wikipedia, or variations of it, many including the non existing "Somali Arabic").
So it would be amazing if you could help. Please let me know if you need anything else. I can also try to help (if there's any way to collaborate on such a work and fasten the process...).
Could we move dialect by dialect through the map? The lion's share of the work is going to be synthesizing the sources together to come up with a polygon that people are happy with. Further, adding dialects with less than 2,000 speakers as of 20 years ago seems fanciful to me. -- GuerilleroParlez Moi20:29, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't understand your question. What do you mean by "move dialect by dialect through the map"?
Regarding small dialects, I assume you refer to Cyprus, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and Afghanistan? If that's easier don't add them. We can always add a triangle (rather than a precise location) as some maps do. A455bcd9 (talk) 06:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
@Goran tek-en, I've unfortunately just been blocked (see below...): I hope this situation can be solved at some point, but in the meantime I'll answer you here. So:
Yes: all of Western Sahara except for the small area where Moroccan is spoken
Ethnologue says for Hassaniya in Morocco "proper": "Souss-Massa-Drâa region: Mhamid, western Algeria border", see here => so small that you can probably forget about it...
@A455bcd9 As there is a risk material could be deleted before this issue is resolved I will hold my work until you have sorted this thing out, I do hope you understand this, thanks and just get back to me when it's fixed. --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 17:23, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
@Goran tek-en, I unfortunately understand your concern... However, I don't get what kind of material could be deleted, what do you have in mind? (I'm just curious) A455bcd9 (talk) 17:29, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
@A455bcd9 Under "Blocked as a sockpuppet" below it's written "and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted." and as you are the requester and the one with knowledge I just don't want to risk doing substantial work that risk being deleted, it's probably not very likely but still, it's enough. Sorry for that but just get back to me and we will continue. --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 13:52, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
@Goran tek-en: Ah, I get your point. Please note that the ban only applies to the English Wikipedia. In particular, it doesn't apply to Commons. So there are 0 risks the work you'll do will get deleted from there. And even regarding the English Wikipedia, only contributions "made while evading blocks or bans" may be reverted (for instance, if I create a new account and try to edit pages other than my talk page). Anyway, I understand your fear and hope this situation will be resolved at some point... Cheers, A455bcd9 (talk) 18:20, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Roman Catholicism in China may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
— Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 09:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Tamil diaspora. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use your sandbox. Thank you. Obi2canibe (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
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 Cerebellum -- Cerebellum (talk) 14:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
. 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:Levantine Arabic for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cerebellum -- Cerebellum (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
; see Talk:Levantine Arabic 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 Cerebellum -- Cerebellum (talk) 00:41, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Template:Contains Levantine characters has been nominated for merging with Template:Contains special characters. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Izno (talk) 16:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
