Jump to content

User talk:Naraht/Archive 9

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

Category moves

[edit]

Hello Naraht. You shouldn't be moving categories using the move tab as you did here. You have to go either via speedy or full WP:CfD. Cheers, Number 57 16:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57: Two questions. 1) Is speedy move of categories in Twinkle? 2) Where is the policy on this? Naraht (talk) 16:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've never used Twinkle, but there is mention of it on the CfD page, so I assume it is. The policy is all at WP:CfD. Although it doesn't explictly mention not using the move tab, in practice it is very much frowned upon – this is why there are both speedy and full discussions. Cheers, Number 57 19:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see that rename categories is essentially "under" the categories for Deletion concept in Twinkle. I'll use that from now on. I think part of the concern is getting things right so that bots can handle the change in the categories in each of the articles that are in that category.Naraht (talk) 19:31, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your question at the Help desk

[edit]
 Hello Naraht. Replies have been posted to your question at the Help desk. If the problem is solved, please place {{Resolved|1=~~~~}} at the top of the section. Thank you!
Message added on 21:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{helpdeskreply}} template.

February events and meetups in DC

[edit]

Greetings from Wikimedia DC!

February is shaping up to be a record-breaking month for us, with nine scheduled edit-a-thons and several other events:

We hope to see you at one—or all—of these events!

Do you have an idea for a future event? Please write to us at info@wikimediadc.org!

Kirill Lokshin (talk) 16:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're receiving this message because you signed up for updates about DC meetups. To unsubscribe, please remove your name from the list.

Malik

[edit]

I believe it is known as both interchangeably. Yes, I am part of a national greek org. I am sure there is a userbox but I prefer to not use it at this time. BlackAmerican (talk) 01:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BlackAmerican:I think there was a note in one of the references that indicated that they had changed from Malik Sigma Psi (which they added the letters to make the administration happy) *to* MALIK. I'll have to see what I can find. OK, I've met some fairly experienced wikipedians who have fairly empty userpages, OTOH, if you do edit that greek orgs wikipedia page, you should state that you a member of that group in order to show that you do have a Conflict of Interest. My *first* edit was of the Wikipedia page of my GLO (fixing the alphabetical order of notable alumni), so I did it *really* early. I'm keeping an eye on the draft articles...Naraht (talk) 13:55, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I haven't touched my frat's page and probably won't at all. You are right it was to make administration happy. It is on page 101 of this book. [1] BlackAmerican (talk) 06:47, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BlackAmerican:. Right. I think there is quite a bit more that can be extracted from BG101 without getting into problems with Copyright infringment. Oddly enough, I actually own a copy of Black Greek 101 (bought it when I was assigned as a staff representative to the Alpha Phi Omega chapter at Howard U.), and looked at the references in the book cited in the MALIK section and the refs in the book aren't useful in finding additional information (18 is a phone interview, 19-21 are from an unpublished pamphlet). Naraht (talk) 13:49, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=LHLySACMxdcC&pg=PA102#v=onepage&q&f=false

Reference errors on 13 February

[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pi Gamma Omicron

[edit]

You are free to move the article to userspace. They are now asking me to do things that I have no idea how to do. Worst case scenario, the article can go up for AFD. BlackAmerican (talk) 17:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BlackAmerican: Yes, but I do know how to do them and am really annoyed that that was used as the reason to reject. Let me talk to the user, worst case, I'll resubmit. I'd rather not move it myself, but there are other pathways and nothing has been lost. :annoyed:/:wicked smile:Naraht (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Pi Gamma Omicron has been accepted

[edit]
Pi Gamma Omicron, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

LaMona (talk) 19:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

references

[edit]

Looks great! I trust what you are doing! You were key in getting the articles accepted on AFC! BlackAmerican (talk) 13:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BlackAmerican: Please preview before you save (I forget often as well.) The version of the founders of Alpha Phi Alpha table that you saved was broken. Normally forgetting the second closing bracket doesn't screw things up *that* much, templates that make tables can be "touchy".Naraht (talk) 15:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eta Phi Beta

[edit]

Eta Phi Beta, are the sources good? BlackAmerican (talk) 03:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I put the references in better form, but in terms of notability, it still pretty thin. Epsilon Sigma Alpha for example is both collegiate and non-collegiate and has over 1000 chapters. For new sources I'd add Indianapolis Recorder,Indianapolis, https://newspapers.library.in.gov/cgi-bin/indiana?a=d&d=INR19711218-01.1.4&e=-------en-20--1--txt-txIN------- (18-dec-1971 page 4) and the Jacksonville Free Press entry http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00028305/00440 also reference back to the legislative resolutions at http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/20112012/115136.pdf and/or ftp://ftp.legis.state.tx.us/bills/81R/billtext/html/house_resolutions/HR01800_HR01899/HR01866F.HTM for some of the facts. Not great secondary sources but best bet...Naraht (talk) 04:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@BlackAmerican:
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alpha Phi Omega, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oak Tree. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pi Sigma Epsilon

[edit]

Logo for your current project: from the clients page at greeklicensing.com, the Pi Sigma Epsilon logo there is correct. While variations on this are visible around the web, I did some looking and am convinced the proper logo should show the spur bar in gold, and the disk containing the letters should be rendered in amethyst. Jax MN (talk) 19:46, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, fairly recently, zealous speedy deleters twice removed pages that had been made for Pi Sigma Epsilon. If I can help on this one, let me know. Jax MN (talk) 16:34, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jax MN: Dropped a note to the AFD proposer, he's sort of neutral on the idea of a new page. I just need to make sure the history is from Baird's and I should be OK. But I'll let you and him (User:Justlettersandnumbers) of you know when the Draft is finished before moving it. Naraht (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March events and meetups in DC

[edit]

Greetings from Wikimedia DC!

Looking for something to do in DC in March? We have a series of great events planned for the month:

Can't make it to an event? Most of our edit-a-thons allow virtual participation; see the guide for more details.

Do you have an idea for a future event? Please write to us at info@wikimediadc.org!

Kirill Lokshin (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're receiving this message because you signed up for updates about DC meetups. To unsubscribe, please remove your name from the list.
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited F Chris Garcia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Golden Key. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: File:Alpha_Phi_Omega.png

[edit]
Hello, Naraht. You have new messages at Marchjuly's talk page.
Message added 02:46, 20 April 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Use of "pages="?

[edit]

My apologies again for screwing up your user name. When my patience starts wearing thin I tend to spend less time and care in proof-reading, but that is no excuse for collateral damage.

Anyway, I wanted to ask if you understand what I have been saying about using |pages= (in the citation/cite templates) for the inclusive page range of the source, and then appending the specific page number(s) after the template. I am also curious if you have considered using short cites just so that the voluminous full citations (such as at Alpha Phi Omega) could removed from the main text.~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@J. Johnson: I don't really understand. After doing all that work to pull the information into a Template:Cite Magazine putting information outside of it seems unreasonable. And in this type of magazine, articles often span multiple unconnected sections. If an article is on pages 19-21, 86, 88 & 89, things get worse. I don't understand short cites at all, other than they seem to be an alternative to Template:Rp which although I've used, I don't believe that I've used in Alpha Phi Omega.Naraht (talk) 02:41, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Well, I'd be happy to help you. (In part because I am interested in learning to to better explain this kind of stuff.) That you go so far as to use the ugly {{rp}} template confirms that you recognize the value of providing the specific page numbers, but there really is no need to use {rp}; short cites are definitely the superior option. Would you like some examples?
That page ranges are discontinuous is no problem. Something like |pages= 19-21, 86, 88 & 89 is fine. (Quite common in newspapers, and especially the NYTimes, which often continues a story in a different section.)
That the specific page(s) are outside the template should not seem unreasonable, as the citation (and everything inside the template) is about the source itself, while a specific page number does not tell us anything more about source, only about where material is taken for use in the article. Look at it this way: does a source, or the description of a source (that is, its citation) change depending on how many articles use it? That each article may reference different parts of the source is a detail about each article, not the source; the full citation of an article should (essentially) be the same for all articles. Does that make sense? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:11, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@J. Johnson:In general, I use rp only in the cases where I've seen a *massive* reduction in the number of reference entries. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Slasher_film&type=revision&diff=709779493&oldid=709690315 for probably the most significant example I've done, The places where I expect to see Short cites are articles which cite to books, normally at least 4 books referenced more than once, and on average at least 4 cites to different locations in each book. (Would you agree that Jefferson Davis is a good example?) I simply tend not to work on that sort of article, as my interest is in Fraternities and Sororities, where the book I'd be most likely to use is Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities where the information on fraternity XYZ is going to be entirely on pages 487-491 (for example). Yes, Alpha Phi Alpha uses it and is a FA, but most of the Fraternity/Sorority pages aren't anywhere near that deep. Also, I personally don't particularly find rp usage ugly, *shrug*.Naraht (talk) 20:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In general there is no reason for, and plenty of reason against, any repetition of a full citation (with its full load of all the bibliographic detail), so your big Slasher film edit was justified on that basis. However, plenty of editors quibble (maybe even fulminate?) against {{rp}}. It's ugly because it exposes a specific detail right in the text, while the citation it applies to is buried in a note. That it is a page number is not obvious (some readers inquire, but I think many just ignore it), and in fact sometimes it is not a page number, which causes more confusion. If an {rp} was added to a regular note (enclosed in <ref>...</ref> tags) containing a citation, it would seem obvious to just suck the page number into the note. But of course that doesn't work with a "named ref" ("<ref name= ...").
Which is another issue: if you repeat a citation with a named ref there is breakage if you edit a different section, and it can be tedious finding the citation itself if it needs to be edited. Short cites are definitely superior.
Short cites are not limited to books, or to four or more cites. Even if an article cited only (say) newspapers, and each source only once, it is advantageous to use short cites. That you associate short cites with articles that cite books, and multiple times, is, I suspect, because shorter and shallower articles (that don't cite books) tend to not use short cites. Less experienced editors especially don't want to bother initially with the slight extra trouble, and then when they do need to repeat a citation it is easier to use a named ref.
Jefferson Davis has good examples of short cites, including page specification. However, I am a bit surprised to see you all haven't used {{Harv}} templates to get the automagic linking. Well, that is probably because the article was originally written by someone who was set against using templates. I wonder: would there be any interest in converting that article, as a demonstration? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:33, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Alpha Lambda Mu (April 27)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister was:
This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Could be acceptable but simply still needs any additional amount of in-depth third-party news sources overall to establish solid independent notability.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
SwisterTwister talk 06:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Alpha Lambda Mu has been accepted

[edit]
Alpha Lambda Mu, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

LaMona (talk) 16:06, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Student org subcats

[edit]

I can probably go forward to the present day. Backward, probably have to use an established by decade system.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 19:31, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't Category:Student organizations established in 1991 showing up in either Category:Student organizations established in the 1990s or Category:Organizations established in 1991?--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bellerophon5685: Edited it to force the software to reconsider...

Response to your comments

[edit]
  • "Wikipedia prefers prose for history" — The lines make for clarity and easy reading, and keep the reader oriented so he/she does not need to plod through and get lost in a mass of information, a lot of it disjointed. The bullet style minimizes connectives required in a narrative – in order to avoid wordiness and to facilitate the quick delivery of more info detail.
  • "some of the information (for examples on members of organizations that were responsible on bringing Scouting to the Philippines) doesn't appear to fit" — The information on the founding of the Rotary Club of Manila reflects an historian's interest in historical connections, that could look tangential to the casual reader. But since the information is not readily available elsewhere, I have chosen to include it in the chronology if only to provide the completeness which the historical researcher might require or which the interested reader might find fascinating. If you feel very strongly about it, I shall remove the passage on the founding of the Rotary Club of Manila.
  • "the references seem more used for parenthetical comments which probably belong in a separate notes section" — I am still working on achieving a balance between parenthetical comments and footnotes.
  • "Is there any article currently on Wikipedia that you are patterning it after?" — The timeline style is similarly used in Scouting for Filipino Boys (1949) and Boy Scout Book (1972), and the Wikipedia article "Boy Scouts of the Philippines."

(I'm not sure if I formatted this right.)Oliver Puertogallera (talk) 08:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is the most comprehensive history of Philippine Boy Scouting anywhere. It would not fit in the Wikipedia article Boy Scouts of the Philippines, as I had planned it to be comprehensive, for the purpose of recovering, preserving, and disseminating the lost history of Philippine Scouting. I felt compelled to write it because no one else is willing and able to do it. The old guards are gone; I'm among the last remnants of the old days of Philippine Boy Scouting. If I didn't write this, my knowledge would die with me, and a lot would be lost. The last time something like this was done was in the Boy Scout Book of 1972. I tried and could not find a single copy of that work anywhere, not even in the National Library which handles copyrighting in the Philippines.
Before this Wikipedia article was made, the charter members of the BSA Philippine Islands Council were nothing more than 20 or 22 names in a list. Although sometimes inserted in BSP printed material, no one knew who they were (except for Manuel Camus and Arsenio Luz who were also charter members of the Boy Scouts of the Philippines). For the very first time, they are being introduced to the Philippine Scouting world. That is how important this Wikipedia article is. (Possibly, it could also be the last time those pioneers will ever be remembered. As this article does not toe the party line regarding history, it could be suppressed or revised later. I tried before to disseminate info through the Wikipedia "List of Scouts," but an editor in the Netherlands performed a "clean-up" that left the list sterile and senseless.) Hence, I feel that the biographies should be included, if only to teach new generations of Filipino Scouts about their heritage and to give them good examples for emulation, like Doltz, Carman, Bordner, Townsend, Chapman, Hart, Quasha, etc.
Some Scouts are also interested in Scouting history. If they could derive gratification from reading something substantial on Philippine Scouting history, it might develop in them a regular reading habit, something that most Filipinos don't engage in, and might encourage them to do further research following leads within the short narratives included in this article.
On APO (P), I've already deleted several references to APO (P). BSP National President Binay, holder of the BSP Presidency for the longest time, is also the most famous APO (P) member in history.Oliver Puertogallera (talk) 08:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

[edit]

If you wish to revert, you are more than free to do so. But it is parallel with SNCC above. Take care, fellow editor and friend. Freddiem (talk) 18:37, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

[edit]

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Kappa Pi Coat of Arms.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Kappa Pi Coat of Arms.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Amelia McSweeney (June 12)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by LaMona was:
This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
The article must be built from information found in third-party sources (newspapers, magazines) that are independent of the subject of the article - preferably not from the sorority itself.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
LaMona (talk) 22:03, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Teahouse logo
Hello! Naraht, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! LaMona (talk) 22:03, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Phi Delta Phi

[edit]

I would say keep both cats.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 19:53, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Category:Phi Delta Phi should be under both subcats if it at one point was an honor society and at another a professional frat. I think that would make more sense.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 20:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The main article and list of inns should be under Category:Phi Delta Phi which should be under both cats. There is also, I think, a category for lists of frat chapters, so that could also be added for the inns.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 20:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also,you might be interested in so frat related discussions here

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 June 12

--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 20:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Phi Omega

[edit]

Perhaps you know more about this than I, but how exactly is this a a professional frat? What profession is it attached to?--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 21:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bellerophon5685: The definition given by the PFA says "The fraternity shall be identified by, or related to a field of study or common interest. ". Note this is a relatively recent expansion (I think APO joined in the 1990s after the change.) Alpha Phi Omega's common interest is considered to be Service. See http://professionalfraternity.org/fraternal-members where the right hand side gives the area for each group. Similarly, I'm not sure that Phi Sigma Pi as with its emphasis being "Honors" fits the standard definition. Note, the average brother of Alpha Phi Omega doesn't even know about the membership in the PFA and I don't think there was any change in the way that the fraternity ran its affairs caused by it.Naraht (talk) 21:18, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Wine Psi Phi

[edit]

Website says 1959. http://www.durhamwinepsiphi.org/history.html BlackAmerican (talk) 21:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, if you want you can make a point of clarification on the article. BlackAmerican (talk) 21:24, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:USBOP-Inmate ID

[edit]

Template:USBOP-Inmate ID has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:23, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kappa Sigma Page

[edit]

I run the Public Relations for Kappa Sigma and I am making necessary updates. I would appreciate if you would go back and redo the changes that I made. Zbrabs (talk) 13:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)ZRB[reply]

Reference errors on 5 September

[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 October 2016

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:29, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SSR

[edit]

An online publication composed of "a dedicated staff of more than 100 volunteer contributors" is not something that I'd typically consider a reliable source. Can you provide evidence that scholarly sources consider it to be scholarly as well? Is an article from this publication likely to appear in the literature review section of an academic journal article dealing with the same subject? Is it overseen by an organisation with a reputation for reliability in the field, e.g. a governmental agency? Nyttend (talk) 12:09, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I notice...

[edit]

you've been trying to mentor our prolific Filipino friend. Has any advice you've given sunk in? I want to cry... every few days, another BSP content fork. It's like herding cats...

Kintetsubuffalo not recently. I'd say Enthusiastic.Naraht (talk) 14:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to sign last time, sorry. Yeah, intervention is a perfect word. I'm at wit's end, and I wasn't that far to go before.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:49, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kintetsubuffalo I do think there are some articles where he's done a pretty good job. I'd love to see some of his articles go to prose though. We just have to get his attention.Naraht (talk) 14:53, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, he's killer at research, I wish I could get him on board for cleanup for other articles. I even suggested two Phil bios we actually need. No dice. And I don't want to have to be the guy who takes the info out of the tables and puts it into prose again-ye gods!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:58, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
KintetsubuffaloAnd I definitely think that that is the *tougher* part for the Philippines. I've spent months on and off trying to get information on the Fraternities and Sororities in the Philippines and it is fairly difficult. I've had an easier time finding information on American Social Fraternities that have been inactive for 50 years than on fraternities and sororities that I know exist *today* in the Philippines.Naraht (talk) 15:01, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm trying to do the same for 2 dozen deceased Japanese Scout notables, with a reticent and lazy national office not helping or answering requests. People just aren't into history as we think they should be. I understand his passion, I am totally not against him, I really do get what he wrote above, there's just a way it gets done, and a place it gets done, and he's not interested in the method. He even quoted wiki policy on prose, so why it's in all these pretty-colored useless boxes... he's not going to inspire legions of new Pinoy readers that way. I've had to re-rename articles, I've had to re-remove undue weight from other articles that bear just a hint of Venn-diagramming with his subjects...--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At least for the Philippine Fraternities and sororities, the newspaper sources are in my native languages. :) I'm just wondering what articles he's using as a guide (and if there are any fix them as well). Yeah, I see some venn diagramming as well. I also am *not* looking forward to putting the 5 pieces of the history back together. Also, do you consider Philippine scouting during the Marcos years to be a separate organization or not?Naraht (talk) 16:26, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I say it's an iteration. This, now, is my specialty, look at Polish ZHP, Ukrainian Plast and the Yugoslav SIJ. Poland unlike the rest of the Soviet bloc never got rid of their Scouts or adopted Pioneers, they just coopted Scouting as it had played such a vital role in the Warsaw Uprising. Plast has existed in six phases they recognize, most in exile and just back in Ukraine for the last 20 odd years. SIJ like ZHP became commie Scouting, then the branches split to create the 6 modern post-Yugo orgs, but if they hadn't, I would consider them all to be the same org, with the same pedigree, just during a political hiccup. Check out Japan, I outline the name changes in the first paragraph, but I wouldn't think of forking them. Now, had Marcos done away with the Scouts entirely, or merged several existing ones with different histories, like Indonesia, those would warrant their own articles, just like the early non-BSA Scouts in America. But to my eyes it's the same org in a strange period.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:42, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kintetsubuffalo Welp, we'll keep that in mind in the merge...Naraht (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See you've tried preaching teamwork, and yet... jeez.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:29, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is disheartening...--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:53, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 4 November 2016

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trijicon edit

[edit]

Just wanted you to know I updated that page. I hope its up to standard now. Thanks for pointing that out to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usaf2222 (talk • contribs) 05:34, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*whew*

[edit]

Okay, got them all merged, I kept them as blocks as I don't have the patience to wade through all the TLDR. I am sorry we couldn't engage him at the AFD, but everyone has to make their own path here. I am absolutely certain that nothing important was deleted, as he was meticulous about duplication, cross-pollinating and overemphasis.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 06:25, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kintetsubuffalo Sorry as well. Let me know if you want help watching the articles and we'll see what he edits from here...Naraht (talk) 18:03, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I get the sinking feeling he's given up, used to see something from him every day, only 2 edits since the AfD.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:03, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Philippine Islands Council (Boy Scouts of America) sigh.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just started stubs...

[edit]

on Jorge Maria Cui, Guillermo R. Padolina and Francisco S. Román, if you know more, please add it! :)

I found he keeps a grudge list on his user page, and I am all over it. :( Oh well.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 07:14, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and Hermengildo B. Reyes is badly in need of cleanup. Help?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 07:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kintetsubuffalo I'll see what I can do Monday.Naraht (talk) 19:02, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
KintetsubuffaloNaraht (talk) 19:03, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
and J. Plaridel Silvestre. Thank you for the source-that-shall-not-be-cited, it is just as blotchy as our stuff ;) but has filled in some puzzle pieces and question marks, and occasionally they cite something I can use, even Wiki in other languages.
noting throughout the Pinoy bios that our friend likes to use faux diacritics, where neither Spanish nor Tagalog articles (when there is one) support those markings.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:35, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Try to take a look. And I don't think they are necessarily Faux, but more formal. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filipino_alphabet#DiacriticsNaraht (talk) 12:27, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kintetsubuffalo!!!!
Wow, totally didn't get the ping. I heard you have to sign it again for the ping to work. I mean the accents on Spanish names where the Spaniards don't even accent. I just did Wendel Avisado, kept it short as the news articles I found were less than scandal-free.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:18, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
KintetsubuffaloYeah, with four exclamation points it doesn't count it as signed. And if the name is used in Filipino, then it will have Filipino accents. Do you have an example of one with the accents that I can dive deeper on?Naraht (talk) 21:37, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Like this stuff, which he has now removed (he's been debulking too much now, and the wrong things, but...) I'm hiding it as you don't need a wall of text on your page. --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:36, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From further research, basically, they (Palatuldikan) are the current *correct* way to write the language, *but* rarely used outside dictionaries and school. Newspapers for example at this point don't use them, and government documents rarely do. See http://www.101languages.net/tagalog/writing_system.html . I'm curious how the tagalog wiktionary deals with them.Naraht (talk) 15:41, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
KintetsubuffaloNaraht (talk) 16:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kintetsubuffalo In regards to the Diacritics, see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Philippine-related_articles#Modern_figures , it says "This means, in general, that no diacritics are to be used unless they are widely used, as in the case of the name José and the surname Osmeña."Naraht (talk) 18:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

nice catches!

[edit]

Sometimes the eyes get tired, also I had parked Alexatos in my redlist just in case he got deleted, didn't clean it all up after he was saved. Thanks and g'night from Japan.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:51, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review needs your help

[edit]

Hi Naraht,

As an AfC reviewer you're probably aware that a new user right has been created for patrolling new pages (you might even have been granted the right already, and admins have it automatically).

Since July there has been a very serious backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed of over 14,000 pages, by far the worst since 2011, and we need an all out drive to get this back down to just a few hundred that can be easily maintained in the future. Unlike AfC, these pages are already in mainspace, and the thought of what might be there is quite scary. There are also many good faith article creators who need a simple, gentle push to the Tea House or their pages converted to Draft rather than being deleted.

Although New Page Reviewing can occasionally be somewhat more challenging than AfC, the criteria for obtaining the right are roughly the same. The Page Curation tool is even easier to use than the Helper Script, so it's likely that most AfC reviewers already have more than enough knowledge for the task of New Page Review.

It is hoped that AfC reviewers will apply for this right at WP:PERM and lend a hand. You'll need to have read the page at WP:NPR and the new tutorial.

(Sent to all active AfC reviewers) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Naraht. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 04:31, 21 November 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

[edit]

Hello, Naraht. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 4 November 2016

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:06, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Craig Anderson (2) (November 30)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Gbawden was:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Gbawden (talk) 07:47, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Had you seen this group?

[edit]

Per your interest in APO: Alpha Delta National Fraternity Jax MN (talk) 19:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jax MN Take a look at the History page for the article. I had four edits on the page within an hour of it going to mainspace :) I've been keeping track of the issues with the all-male chapters in Alpha Phi Omega and the gradual changeover to co-ed (or going underground) and ultimately this split off since I was an undergraduate brother in the late 1980s. I also have things that I'd love to the article but only know from talking to Alpha Phi Omega alumni volunteers who won't go on record. :) (TLDR:Yes!)Naraht (talk) 21:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected

[edit]

AfC Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This will come back to haunt me at ANI one day. I guarantee it.

[edit]

I guess we're fortunate it doesn't link somewhere else.[FBDB] TimothyJosephWood 17:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Timothyjosephwood I'm still trying to figure out emotions what it would mean as an emoji if it meant the other. :)Naraht (talk) 18:51, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikt:pain in the ass? TimothyJosephWood 18:57, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Timothyjosephwood Only if you don't do it right. :)Naraht (talk) 13:53, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cincopa page in Sandbox

[edit]

Hello Naraht I have noticed that on 16 December 2016 you moved the Cincopa page to sandbox (if I understood the log correctly). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:James.h259/sandbox What does it mean? I would like to see a page about Cincopa in Wikipedia. More than 2 years ago it was deleted as someone probably wrote bad description. Could you kindly suggest what should be done to add the page. Cincopa is 10 years old big company with a lot of users all over the world. It is kind of strange that it does not have its own Wikipedia page, as companies much smaller then Cincopa have wikipedia pages. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irina1953 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Irina1953 I did not move it to sandbox, I altered the entries for the *categories* so that they would not show up in categories that are only for articles which are published articles. When the article is published, the colons get removed.
As for creating an article on Cincopa, I've looked at the Deletion record at Cincopa and it was deleted three times, once after a discussion in 2009 and then twice in 2011, one of them because it was done as advertising, the other simply as a recreation of a deleted page. Given that history, I would suggest going through WP:Articles for Creation process where it can be helped and approved by an experienced user. I guess this can be treated as an abandoned draft and thus can be edited in place.Naraht (talk) 14:04, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 December 2016

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:04, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Naraht/Archive_9&oldid=1089624113"