User talk:Wasechun tashunka

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Wasechun tashunka. 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 {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Doug Weller talk 13:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removing uncited material

I was reading the talk page of one of my favorite singers, Willie Nelson (must get his new album) and saw your comment on removing uncited material. Here's what our policy actually says at WP:BURDEN:

"Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step.[3] When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable.[4] If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." Doug Weller talk 13:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the help, Doug! Wasechun tashunka (talk) 17:45, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017

Hello, I'm CorbieVreccan. I noticed that you made this change to an article, List of people of self-identified Cherokee ancestry, but you didn't provide a reliable source. You will need to add the actual source content, not just the ref tag from the other article (which has no content to refer to). If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, WP:IRS, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 16:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, I've replaced the ref tag and elaborated the citations. :) Wasechun tashunka (talk) 17:55, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some policies to refresh your memory

Wikpedia is a collaborative project, and authors have a right to anonymity. However, policies like WP:AUTOBIO and WP:COI are important and need to be observed. Please read them and bear them in mind. Also, do not use other editors' recent contribs as suggestions for where to go try new edits, as it could give the impression of WP:HOUNDING. Please note that as a courtesy I am writing this directly, not using the warning templates or our auto-flag system. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 17:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @CorbieVreccan:, I apologise if I am in breach of any of these policies. Would you be able to refer me to which edits I've made which violate the above so that I can better understand the issue? Thanks, Wasechun tashunka (talk) 17:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're an intelligent person, so don't waste anyone's time here by pretending you don't understand these very basic policies, OK? It's clear from your very first edits and upload here, which it looks to me you created this account to perform. Read the policies; follow the policies; don't violate the policies any more. While this is up, and also looking at your 5th edit with this account:[1], I'm going to ask: is this your only account? - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 22:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is my only account (feel free to do an IP check or whatever else is required to prove this).

Regarding the first edits performed on this account, my name is not Billy O'Callaghan, if that is what you are suggesting, nor am I, or have I ever been, employed by him. I am merely a fan, and although I did create this account to edit that article initially, it was not at his or anybody else's request. I recently partnered in conducting an interview with him, acquiring the photo in my uploads, and felt that I should add it to the article, as I knew of no others with free licensing.

I apologise if this is not allowed, and I understand if you wish to revert any edits I have made. Wasechun tashunka (talk) 00:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised by CorbieVreccan's comment above. I followed the two links in which he claims there is evidence of your not following WP policies and could see no obvious violations (such evidence links are supposed to point to specific examples showing the alleged behavior, but in this case do not). Yet the sweeping authoritarianism in the language used by CorbieVreccan is unmistakable. It is not typical of WP editors and I apologize to you on behalf of myself for his or her unjustified and insulting tone. We are members of a cooperative and human project and should strive to act that way. David Spector (talk) 19:29, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words, David, but it's unnecessary to apologise on behalf of someone else, especially since it's water under the bridge! I just do what I feel is right, and don't let myself be phased if people disagree with anything I do, that is their opinion and right. Wasechun tashunka (talk) 19:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I felt it was necessary, as I felt that you were being treated unfairly. I had a right to express myself in the form of an apology and I stick by my criticism of CorbieVreccan's comment. I am also happy that you were not adversely affected by his or her comment. David Spector (talk) 20:15, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the better question, in reference to this edit, is an inquiry as to whether you have edited previously under other accounts or as an anon IP. This is not the usual 5th edit of a brand new user. If you have exercised a right to vanish or a clean start then no worries, provided you follow the rules. That said, it appears you are mostly doing wikignoming edits that are generally helpful, and we always need that sort of thing. Montanabw^(talk) 23:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Montanabw, I understand your point, however, this is my first account, and I had not previously edited as an anon IP. Being aware of Wikipedia's high standards, I had copied over the bones of another biography in order to base the edit off of, and simply filled in the gaps. It may not seem like the fifth edit of a new user, but it was, apparently, as a new user, my fifth edit! I apologise, once again, if my edits are in breach of Wikipedia policy; feel free to revert! Thank you for your comment. Wasechun tashunka (talk) 09:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've hit the ground running. How did you know you had to do all of this? (I do occasional editathons, I'd love to see whatever excellent educational materials you found to help you get started...) Montanabw^(talk) 05:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I find that reading the source of existing pages and learning by example is the most helpful, and I still start pages by using other pages as templates because it's just quicker. I've also found that typing "WP:" into the search bar is the quickest way to get help on anything. Wasechun tashunka (talk) 19:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Edit source rather than Visual Editor? (Something I teach folks right off...). Still, as we say at WP:RS, you got a source for that? I'd love to have better cheatsheets for people. Montanabw^(talk) 00:52, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't use cheatsheets, I just take the time to look for what I want in other pages. For example, for an article I'm preparing on the extinct Canis arnensis, I looked at the other extinct Canidae articles and copied over Canis apolloniensis because it was the most complete. The only thing that needed adding was the photo, which is explained well on the WP:Taxobox page. With that format in place, it's just a question of gathering all the sources and summarizing information. It's mainly common sense! Wasechun tashunka (talk) 16:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Canis arnensis

Greetings from Evolution of the wolf! You may find these useful: WP:CITET.

Any changes you make on Wikipedia need to WP:CITE expert WP:RELIABLE sources which other editors can WP:VERIFY. Familiarise yourself with these and few will find fault in your work. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 22:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

		The Content Creativity Barnstar
		For your creation of Canis arnensis. At last, someone is taking a serious look at these early wolves. William Harris • (talk) • 22:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the barnstar, it's my first one! :) I am surprised the early canids are so overlooked on Wikipedia, especially since there is much academic interest in their role in shaping modern canids. I was planning on creating a C. etruscus page next, and notice that you've listed a few useful sources on your sandbox. Wasechun tashunka (talk) 14:21, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome; it was good work so you have earned it. (And as you have so elegantly put it above, the past is all now water under the bridge.) Be aware that very short articles on some of these wolves once existed but have been deleted by "the system" as they had little content and were infrequently visited. One of the objectives of Evolution of the wolf was to mention these wolves somewhere on Wikipedia with their own chapter heading, and a redirect on their name pointing to that chapter heading. Then the bots go to work across the internet. For an example, please go to your search engine and key in Canis mosbachensis. Then look on the returned list for the Wikipedia entry. You can see how I have it now reliving on Wikipedia under its close cousin, Canis variabilis. (Yes, they had deleted the recognized ancestor of the gray wolf!).

Under the Evolution of the wolf article, I will shortly be turning my attention to the ancient wolves of Europe - I am reading a dozen references on this that I have collected. The way I see it, there are 4 ways to progress the ancient wolves:

You should feel free to create ancient wolf-related articles as you think fit, and I will add to them later.
Given that longevity has been an issue in the past, an article titled "Ancient wolves of Europe" could be created. Chapters in it could include C. etruscus, C. acitanus, and C. arnensis. Your work on C. arnensis could be used to populate that chapter, and the current Canis arnensis could be turned into a redirect to that chapter. (This is the same arrangement as C. variabilis/Canis mosbachensis currently.) There are others to be added later.
Thinking bigger, "Ancient wolves of Eurasia" and we could add C. variabilis and C. chihliensis into the mix in the same way. There are others to be added later.
Thinking biggest, simply "Ancient wolves", and include the North American offerings as well - C. Ambrusteri, C. dirus also set up the same way.

What are your thoughts on how this might progress? William Harris • (talk) • 08:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that each species warrants its own article, as it's possible to go into too much detail for the section of a broader article on extinct canidae - I shudder at how long a page expanding on all species of extinct canids would stretch to! This allows your Evolution of the wolf article to deal with the wider topic of how the species are interrelated, and the gradual evolution of the wolf. As an example, Cephalotropis has a small page on the species itself, with Evolution of cetaceans providing a timeline and general overview of the evolution of the infraorder/family. In this way, the topic can be approached on different levels, and the reader can easily move between the evolution article and the respective species articles.

Looking over the WP:GNG, I think that so long as the articles correctly reference secondary sources and not just the papers, they should stand up to notability guidelines. It made sense to integrate C. mosbachensis as a section with the size it is, but with a bit more information and reference to non-academic sources it would certainly qualify as being worthy of its own article. If an article's notability is questioned, and it were to be deleted, at least it still has an overview in the main article. Of course, these are my opinions, but I'm happy to support whatever you choose to do. Wasechun tashunka (talk) 19:56, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That will be the plan then. In the event of any proposed delisting of an article, the consolidation strategy can be the emergency Plan B. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 12:03, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do You Have Queen Jane?

I really think I must have some connection to you outside of WP. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 01:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That seems a bit "irrational"... Montanabw^(talk) 02:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus H. Christ soap on a rope! Just go file a suspected sock investigation and leave me alone. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 10:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming you are referring to the lovely mare at Mill Swamp, and not the Australian racehorse out of Blonde On Blonde or the Dutch WB by Colman? In which case, no, I don't have Queen Jane. Sweet little mare, though!

(If I've read you wrong and you're making a clever reference to the Bob Dylan song, then, yes, I've got plenty of records!) Wasechun tashunka (talk) 07:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Little gray mare? Yes very sweet. I sold her over ten years ago after a very traumatic event in my life and I had no spare emotional energy for crazy horse politics, so divested of all but my riding horses. I haven't really thought about her until I saw your reference to Havapai on the CSH article. I don't even remember the name of the people I sold her to, but thought I'd make a shot in the dark by asking.

BTW, just to translate MBW's weird ass comment, she's hinting that you are RationalObserver coming back to be my meatpuppet. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 10:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've only just noticed that the two of you have a bit of a history (so I hope you don't mind, Lynn, that I'm not going to consider your opinion as being "unbiased" due to this history in calling for a third opinion). If Montanabw has any worries about me being a sock puppet or whatever, I am more than happy for them to ask for a WP:SPI on this account. I wish people did that from the onset, at least then there are no misunderstandings! Wasechun tashunka (talk) 18:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is rather bad form to dismiss the opinion of subject matter expert (and I'm quite sure you know that to be true) with the assumption that I would allow my feelings towards another editor to skew it. If I had gone to an article called, say...Buttefuch, Montana, in which Montanabw was embroiled in a debate with another editor, and offered a dissenting opinion to hers (yes, she's a she) on a subject I knew nothing about, well then you might be able to accuse me of bias. But, in the face of the evidence that she has provided here on your talk page, a reasonable person should be able to see that the conflict with her on the CSH article is not due to my inability to be unbiased. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 02:00, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do of course value any informed opinion, and I am fully aware (I believe) of who you are! However, what I was suggesting was that in looking for a third opinion, someone who is unknown to both editors is most desirable. Even though I trust that your response was not coloured by any previous dealings you've had with Montanabw, I think it's only fair to them to ask for an opinion from someone else, in case they feel it was. I also feel that Montanabw will not be happy to undo their revert based on what conclusion you or I would come to (as they clearly already haven't), but would if an outside observer were to come to a decision in favour of my edit, as I would if it were in their favour. Wasechun tashunka (talk) 17:47, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps an opinion is in order for how long one is required to wait when another implements BRD, then disappears for days during the "D". Lynn (SLW) (talk) 20:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She and I have history, but I decided a while back that it's a waste of time to play whack-a-mole at SPI. So edit on, just be aware that the comment about "some connection to you outside of WP" was concerning. (and perhaps a bit WP:BAITy too). The now-indefinitely-blocked editor in question was extremely disruptive to multiple editors, and I am sure you really don't wanna be that guy (or gal). And so far you are not. Now, back to the discussion. Montanabw^(talk) 20:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Wasechun tashunka I can now see that you were a victim of the same kind of off-wiki discussions with an admin that I was. At least you weren't just summarily blocked for being a sock like I was. But, as the last comment implies, you haven't heard the last of it, just as I didn't. In lieu of simply filing and accepting the results of an SPI, you can expect more incivility on this front. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 09:07, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WHOA! Wow, SLW, was that ever a failure of AGF. SLW is referring to an action by a now-deceased administrator. For what it's worth, any time someone posts to my talkpage, I get an email message. I don't get messages otherwise because I have 5000 articles on my watchlist (down from 6000), and lately I have not been able to prioritize wikipedia due to real life work commitments. Wasechun tashunka, while I find your precocity on wikipedia rather amazing for a newcomer, I am perfectly willing to AGF on your contributions and only suggest that you seek to provide reliable sources for your content suggestions. I find that most editing disputes can be resolved by everyone looking at the same external links and deciding if a consensus can be reached on what they say. Montanabw^(talk) 04:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can certainly empathise with not finding the time to edit, as I have been absent for a week due to other commitments. If you are referring to the GV page, you can rest assured that I will hold off suggesting any additions before I have solid citations to back them up! My complaints were that some of the current sources don't seem to hold up to WP:RS, as they give no indication of having primary sources to back up their claims. Wasechun tashunka (talk) 20:10, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Religious hatred

Religious Hatred towards Irish Catholics shall not be tolerated, Wikipedia is Neutral and does not encourage this sort of behaviour — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackW436 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting that you do not misquote sources so as to group demographics into "Catholics" and "Non-catholics" is not religious hatred. Pointing out that the Republic of Ireland is a secular nation, as per its laws and constitution, is also not religious hatred. If you feel that you have been the target of some sort of discrimination, you are free to take it to moderation. Wasechun tashunka^HOWL_TRACK 20:00, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, it occurs to me, too late in the game, that you have not been properly notified that Jack has reported you to Wikipedia's administrator noticeboard for incidents. That case was subsequently been closed with a WP:BOOMERANG to the OP. This all happened so quickly that it must have slipped everyone's minds to notify you that this has been the case. Normally such a notification is explicitly required for all involved parties. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:52, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, Mr rnddude! I'm glad that's over. Wasechun tashunka^HOWL_TRACK 16:09, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Shandon Street

On 19 September 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Shandon Street, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that five churches have stood at the top of Shandon Street since 1624? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Shandon Street. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Shandon Street), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih ^Talk 00:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Whale watching in Ireland) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Whale watching in Ireland, Wasechun tashunka!

Wikipedia editor SamHolt6 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Article reviewed, well done!

To reply, leave a comment on SamHolt6's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

SamHolt6 (talk) 20:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Wasechun tashunka. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Wasechun tashunka. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Portal:Indigenous peoples of Australia

Portal:Indigenous peoples of Australia, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Indigenous peoples of Australia and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Indigenous peoples of Australia during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]