User talk:A Poor Historian

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end.

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, A Poor Historian. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! ᴀɴᴏɴʏᴍᴜᴤᴤ ᴜᴤᴇʀ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 14:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A message from Arifin16

Arifin16 (talk) 14:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC) I'm from BANGABANDHU SHEIKH MUJIBUR RAHMAN DIGITAL UNIVERSITY(BDU). I'm writing an article for BDU in our language. In future i'll convert it in English. But now we want to redirect BDU article to বঙ্গবন্ধু শেখ মুজিবুর রহমান ডিজিটাল বিশ্ববিদ্যালয় ( https://bn.wikipedia.org/s/c6vu ).[reply]

@Arifin16: I understand. I presume you mean you wanted to add a link to your university in the disambiguation page BDU. Unfortunately, disambiguation pages typically only link to other articles within the same language Wikipedia. In other words, you should only add a link to your university's article on the English Wikipedia disambiguation page BDU if your university has an English Wikipedia article. ― A Poor Historian (talk) 14:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for removing that vandalism to Zimbabwe fuel protests. This barnstar is to express my appreciation and to encourage you to keep up the great work with removing this kind of disruption. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By the way... if you enjoy patrolling and removing vandalism like I do, you should check out this Wikipedia page on patrolling recent changes. It'll provide you with a lot of awesome tools and resources to help you patrol, revert vandalism, warn users, and report repeated offenders. I've been patrolling recent changes for over 12 years; you're welcome to message me with any questions and I'll have the answer for you. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah: Thank you! I shall certainly take a good read to see how I can improve. (: ― A Poor Historian (talk) 15:05, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a great resource page, and I think you'd enjoy being a recent changes patroller. You've certainly done a great job of doing it so far... Again, please don't hesitate to being any questions my way and I'll be happy to answer them and give you anything you need. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah: So it is! I'm finding it pretty useful already. Thank you! I'll keep in touch. ― A Poor Historian (talk) 15:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You bet; always happy to help. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it up! *winks* ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 05:29, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Junior5a: Thank you! I'm trying my best. (: ― A Poor Historian (talk) 09:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Martyn Ashton

Can you please be specific about what you think I've added that contains unreliable sources? I have actually removed sources, not added them. I haven't given any opinion, just fact. Can you please let me edit the page and then let's have some constructive conversation, otherwise it's going to be a VERY long week! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.158.151 (talk) 11:13, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removing sources does not necessarily improve Wikipedia. Statements on Wikipedia require reliable sources (see WP:RS on what the criteria for reliable sources are). This is especially true on pages that are biographies of living persons, which have strict criteria for references (see WP:BLP). In particular, statements like "the video was very successful" need to be referenced to such commentary given by a reliable secondary source, not a link to the video itself. Nobody is stopping anyone from editing the page, but if when editors add unsourced information, other editors can edit it to remove them in the interest of improving the quality of information on Wikipedia. ― A Poor Historian (talk) 11:28, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, actually I was just rewording someone else's commentary there, which is based on fact; you only have to go to YouTube to see thatthe vids have beemn successful. Still, I shall have another go, omitting such opinion. You have removed mention of his videos, which are important to the story of his life I feel. I appreciate that the article must not actually be promoting such things. If you don't agree with my next version, you'll have to revert back and perhaps we can discuss it. Regards (I am actually registered but can't log in). JD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.158.151 (talk) 12:50, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's no problem; you're a positive example of practising the WP:BRD cycle. Just bear in mind that YouTube videos are usually considered primary sources (see WP:PRIMARY), and in many instances are self-published (see WP:SPS), so it means that we have to be a lot more careful about the scenarios in which the video is used as a source, that's all. Best regards. ― A Poor Historian (talk) 13:04, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A message from Clonerdyer

Napier Boys' high school If I send you the links as proof would you be able to add the correct information then? Clonerdyer (talk) 07:33, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Clonerdyer: Sending me the links won't help. Be WP:BOLD and put them up on the article so that all editors can examine and discuss them for themselves. In accordance with Wikipedia policy, references proving attendance need to be WP:VERIFIABLE by all. Also, please don't move the conversation here while discussion is still going on at your talk page. ― A Poor Historian (talk) 07:37, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly suggest that Clonerdyer post his or her proposed changes on the talk page rather than attempting to make the edits to the article, since I believe there will still be problems. Some of hte players cannot be presumed to be notable, even if we have reliable sources to show that they attended the school and are on the development squad. Meters (talk) 07:45, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very fair perspective. I agree with you. ― A Poor Historian (talk) 07:47, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SARC

Just for future reference, please use the "multiple issues" template when adding multiple tags to an article (eg: see here). FYI - wolf 08:20, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Thewolfchild: Sorry for that, and thanks for cleaning up after my mess. I will do so in the future. (: ― A Poor Historian (talk) 08:21, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No apology needed, we all learn this stuff as we go along. Cheers - wolf 08:28, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of cruise ships

A full list of List of cruise ships tells the full story with any way to sort. Example: earliest cruise ships, smallest cruise ships, etc.--Wyn.junior (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. That list has hundreds of entries, and it would be impossible to navigate it if they were not broken up into sections by their initial letter. Have you tried scrolling through a single table with hundreds of rows? It's extremely tedious and unhelpful to readers. I do not think that having the ability to sort by year and size could justify that. Besides, as the maintenance template for the page points out, many of the tonnage figures are inaccurate. ― A Poor Historian (talk) 20:07, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion moved to here.--Wyn.junior (talk) 15:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

U r mean

Plz stop changing my edits Yeetusthinefoetus (talk) 12:04, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting your problematic edits doesn't make the editor mean. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 12:10, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2019

Hello, A Poor Historian, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia. Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who use multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. —DoRD (talk) 13:16, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DoRD: I was introduced to editing on Wikipedia through a roommate at my hostel, User:Madrenergic, who has been mentoring me on how to edit and how to use the various tools. We both have a shared background in the military (it is compulsory for us in our country), and there has been occasions when I have followed him to assist in improving some articles like Republic of Singapore Navy, Chinese aircraft carrier Liaoning, and Royal Caribbean International that are his area of interest since he is working in a naval field. However, at his advice, I have not engaged in any disputes that he has been involved in to avoid looking as though we were merely alts of each other. On hindsight now I realise it probably was a bad idea to have two editors using the same internet connection, and for both of us to edit the same articles, even if I did not participate in his disputes. ― A Poor Historian (talk) 14:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your explanation. —DoRD (talk) 15:30, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook information

> (cur | prev) 18:37, 28 January 2019‎ A Poor Historian (talk | contribs)‎ . . (19,281 bytes) -148‎ . . (Facebook pages are not appropriate references) (undo | thank)

Facebook Pages are great resources for Home Pages. Information directly from the Home Company is also posted sometimes only on Facebook.--Wyn.junior (talk) 19:27, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a possible argument if you were referencing specific pieces of information to specific Facebook posts by the company functioning as press releases and there was no better source available such as a proper website or news article. However, that was not what you were doing. You have been inserting URLs to the general Facebook page against trivial general things like the companies' names on List of cruise lines. References are not the same as external links and are not meant to direct readers to a general portal or website. Please read WP:CS for guidelines on how to cite sources properly and what are appropriate as sources. If you truly think you can be an administrator one day as you say on your userpage, I would strongly suggest that you understand these guidelines well. ― A Poor Historian (talk) 20:01, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook is a great way for companies to get out important information about their company.--Wyn.junior (talk) 15:38, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is a casual source of information but it is not appropriate as a reference for an encyclopaedia, much less a reference for the cruise line's name. Again, please read WP:RS and WP:CS to understand what the criteria are for sources. It does you no good to keep ignoring these policies and bringing up the same argument over and over again. ― A Poor Historian (talk) 17:03, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is more reliable than a home page for a business name.--Wyn.junior (talk) 18:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've clearly missed the point. A business name doesn't need a citation, and even so, an official website would be a superior reference than a social media page. ― A Poor Historian (talk) 18:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree.--Wyn.junior (talk) 19:15, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of opinion; it's a matter of Wikipedia policy. I've already advised you again and again to read and understand the guidelines. You can choose to understand them and follow them, or you can move to change them and we'll see where that discussion goes. Arguing on somebody else's personal talk page isn't going to change anything. ― A Poor Historian (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You should agree with me--Wyn.junior (talk) 19:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kirsten Gillibrand 2020 presidential campaign

Would you care to comment at the Talk Page of that article? Please give your independent thoughts. Once upon a time, you taught me a lesson at Talk:Qian_Xinzhong. I have faith in your neutrality, thanks. Tony85poon (talk) 04:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A message from 103.35.213.40

Hey Ppr Historian. Just wanted to know that I've made no edits on Wikipedia in the last century or so. Thanks, Black 103.35.213.40 (talk) 08:41, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]