User talk:Asilvering
 Archives (Index) |
Beijing Arbitration Commission - Copyrighted Material[edit]
Hi. I noticed your comments at the AfD for Beijing Arbitration Commission. Do you have a particular reason for suggesting there may be copying from the commission's website? I did a few quick searches, and even a compare on the text, and I'm not seeing anything. Just wondering if you are thinking of something in particular. Oblivy (talk) 00:58, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Oblivy Sections of it sounded very much like how things would be worded on an official website, so I just wanted someone to do a check to be sure. I couldn't access the website at all at the time so it was just the gut feeling, and my suspicion that it could escape earwig's copyvio detector for the same reason it wasn't loading properly for me. If you did a few quick searches and are satisfied, I'm satisfied! -- asilvering (talk) 17:19, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Asilvering thanks for the quick reply. I had the same doubts, particularly the part about location in the CBD of Beijing. It's so polished. Perhaps an old version of the website copied. But I tried a few angles of attack, like pasting three- and four-word snippets into google, and I didn't get a clear hit. If nobody's complaining I think we can let it be, but it was a valid question.
- As an aside, I've tried the website using various VPN-country locations and it's definitely not responsive from some IP's, no real pattern but maybe blocked more often from UK. Take that with a grain of salt. Oblivy (talk) 00:45, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Question from Stlhorse on Canada Border Services Agency (13:38, 31 August 2023)[edit]
I have a question about someone sending me some valuables that are their inheritance. Question is valuables are shipped from London to Canada does Canada require any documentation for bringing in uncut diamonds? Second question Edgeline security and shipping company was holding security boxes and was shipping to a Canadian address but due to other shipment locations they sent these particular boxes with the others and they ended up in Belgium where they require a Kimberly certificate which they said was going to be very expensive due to the value. Can they be shipped back to point of origin then shipped straight to Canadian address --Stlhorse (talk) 13:38, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Stlhorse This is Wikipedia, not Canada Border Services. You'll have to contact them instead. -- asilvering (talk) 21:44, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- Tim Pencil (talk · contribs)
I added some clarification, can i ask you to give me your thoughts?
Tim Pencil (talk) 17:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Tim Pencil You need independent coverage. See WP:IS. Long-form reviews (eg in a newspaper or literary magazine) of his stories will work. This one is good: [1]. This sort of thing
the sixty-second most famous person from Brantford, Ontario as well as the “Stuart McLean of a new generation”
needs a reference to the people who said it (ie, it can't come from John himself). -- asilvering (talk) 17:27, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Draft: Jeffery B. Perry[edit]
Hello! I have been working on the page for https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Draft:Jeffrey_B._Perry that you reviewed recently. I believe I have addressed your issues with the citations in the newest version I just submitted (And I re-organized the lede as you suggested). I was hoping, since you were so helpful with your last review and seem familiar with this subject matter, that you could take a look at the current draft when you have a chance and review it again. Thank you very much. 2601:86:103:7410:9CF2:446C:C6E6:5EC (talk) 22:55, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- I don't have the time to check on this right now, but if it's still in the queue in a few days, feel free to message me about it again. -- asilvering (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Draft:Computers and society resubmitted[edit]
Hi @Asilvering, just a courtesy ping that a draft you rejected way back in March has been re-written and re-submitted (how did they resubmit with a rejection?!). Draft:Computers_and_society.
Personally I still feel it reads like an essay but the test has substantially changed since your rejection, so I thought I'd let you know. Qcne (talk) 11:41, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Oh dear. I recall that I tried giving suggestions for what to do instead on their Talk page, but they thanked me for them and... revised the article. What a shame. They obviously know what they're talking about and could be a tremendous help on a lot of rather important neglected articles (I flagged Misinformation, for example). It appears they made a second draft and submitted that, which would get around the rejection. I assume they did this in good faith, not realizing that would complicate the review process. It looks like @Bilorv already declined it since the resubmission, and I'd trust their judgement. I don't have the time right now but I'll see what I can do about getting this split into the articles we already have on these various topics. -- asilvering (talk) 18:29, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- I've declined again (but not rejected, and I didn't last time) because it still reads like an essay rather than an encyclopedia article. I'm not sure that it could be turned into an article with valid scope, but there are neutrality and synthesis issues throughout that are not easy to fix. — Bilorv (talk) 18:37, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Honestly, at a skim, I think it does read like an encyclopedia article. But that's not the problem, since what Wikipedia is after is, well, Wikipedia articles. At this point it's a genre all of its own, which causes some difficulties when people who have written regular encyclopedias or similar academic work try to write their first Wikipedia article. -- asilvering (talk) 18:57, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- I've declined again (but not rejected, and I didn't last time) because it still reads like an essay rather than an encyclopedia article. I'm not sure that it could be turned into an article with valid scope, but there are neutrality and synthesis issues throughout that are not easy to fix. — Bilorv (talk) 18:37, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Submission of article Battle of Champapuri[edit]
Hello. I made the the article Battle of Champapuri, in which you left a message that you couldn't see any result after searching on google. And that is the reason why I am trying to create this. Champapuri is the new name for Champanagar. The military conflict was happened in Champanagar between the Maratha empire and the Bengal Subah as a part of Maratha invasion of Bengal. If you want the snippet view of the sources for evidence, I can provide it. Ajayraj890 (talk) 09:57, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Ajayraj890 I tried "Champanagar" too, when I checked, and got nothing. If I cannot get even one google result for the topic, it is extremely highly unlikely to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. If your sources don't actually call it "Battle of Champapuri", it shouldn't have an article titled "Battle of Champapuri" on Wikipedia (we're supposed to reflect what reliable sources say about topics, not invent new names for them). Do the sources actually call it "Battle of Champapuri"?
- Another way you could handle this sort of thing is create Timeline of the Maratha invasion of Bengal or something similar, listing various engagements and their outcomes chronologically. That way you don't need to ensure that every single battle is notable in itself, since the entire conflict is notable (though please don't invent names for them if sources just say things like "on blah date there was a battle at Champapuri"). -- asilvering (talk) 15:26, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for your advice. But in case of naming a military conflict, it was always used as Battle of "the specific place where battle occured". If that is not the case, check the articles of the category Category:Battles involving the Sikhs. Ajayraj890 (talk) 16:43, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Ajayraj890 If any of those are not called "Battle of Whatever" in the sources, they too should not have "Battle of Whatever" as their title. -- asilvering (talk) 20:20, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- Well, then you have to check the Battle of Kolhapur. It doesn't even cite a source. Ajayraj890 (talk) 04:58, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
- And I have a question. How can we represent a military conflict then? Most of the Wikipedia pages related to military conflicts are titled as "Battle of Whatever" way. Ajayraj890 (talk) 05:02, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Ajayraj890 You represent them as they are referred to in the sources. If the sources don't really refer to a conflict by any particular name, saying things more like "on January 3, the two forces met briefly, with only minor casualties", they're probably not notable, so they shouldn't have an article. Instead, they can be mentioned in the article about the overall conflict (eg the war), or in a list-type article like the timeline I suggested. If you have something like "on January 3, the two forces met briefly, with only minor casualties; two days later, the Battle of Champapuri began", you can mention the Jan 3 attack in the article on the following battle. Basically, you discuss the more minor engagements wherever it makes the most sense to do so. -- asilvering (talk) 18:07, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
- understood. I know you what you mean. But check Skirmish of Chenab. You can clearly see that it was a minor conflict (skirmish). It is just an example. There are even more articles like that. So, I thought it was normal. Ajayraj890 (talk) 18:18, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Ajayraj890 Unfortunately, "normal" sometimes just means that no one else has noticed a problem yet. To be clear, it's ok to have articles on minor skirmishes, provided we have sources that talk about them in some depth. The problem isn't that it's a skirmish, the problem is that, if we don't have much in-depth sourcing to use, it fails WP:N. The other problem is related to WP:citogenesis - basically, if Wikipedia reports that something is "a thing", and another supposedly reliable source picks that up, Wikipedia ends up having effectively rewritten history. We're supposed to follow what published historians say about history - not the other way around! Personally, I'm much more concerned by this second issue. -- asilvering (talk) 18:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yes. And the article that I mentioned above doesn't says much about the skirmish. It explains the campaign of Nader Shah in India, which is already in many articles. I am concerned about the issue of rewriting history. There was an article called 'Battle of Umberkhind' which was used by many authors in their book. Unfortunately, there wasn't such a battle. It was just a military confrontation. Ajayraj890 (talk) 18:29, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Ajayraj890 Yes, now that I've had time to look through those references, I've placed a PROD on that article as failed verification. Thanks for pointing it out. -- asilvering (talk) 21:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
- And check Maratha occupation of Kolistan (1672) too. It only have one source cited. Infact, the source doesn't say anything about a military conflict. The editors even added the involvement of English forces, which is not in the cited source. Here is the link of the source: https://archive.org/details/shivajihistimes00sarkrich , page no 219-220Ajayraj890 (talk) 04:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Ajayraj890 Yes, now that I've had time to look through those references, I've placed a PROD on that article as failed verification. Thanks for pointing it out. -- asilvering (talk) 21:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yes. And the article that I mentioned above doesn't says much about the skirmish. It explains the campaign of Nader Shah in India, which is already in many articles. I am concerned about the issue of rewriting history. There was an article called 'Battle of Umberkhind' which was used by many authors in their book. Unfortunately, there wasn't such a battle. It was just a military confrontation. Ajayraj890 (talk) 18:29, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Ajayraj890 Unfortunately, "normal" sometimes just means that no one else has noticed a problem yet. To be clear, it's ok to have articles on minor skirmishes, provided we have sources that talk about them in some depth. The problem isn't that it's a skirmish, the problem is that, if we don't have much in-depth sourcing to use, it fails WP:N. The other problem is related to WP:citogenesis - basically, if Wikipedia reports that something is "a thing", and another supposedly reliable source picks that up, Wikipedia ends up having effectively rewritten history. We're supposed to follow what published historians say about history - not the other way around! Personally, I'm much more concerned by this second issue. -- asilvering (talk) 18:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
- understood. I know you what you mean. But check Skirmish of Chenab. You can clearly see that it was a minor conflict (skirmish). It is just an example. There are even more articles like that. So, I thought it was normal. Ajayraj890 (talk) 18:18, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Ajayraj890 You represent them as they are referred to in the sources. If the sources don't really refer to a conflict by any particular name, saying things more like "on January 3, the two forces met briefly, with only minor casualties", they're probably not notable, so they shouldn't have an article. Instead, they can be mentioned in the article about the overall conflict (eg the war), or in a list-type article like the timeline I suggested. If you have something like "on January 3, the two forces met briefly, with only minor casualties; two days later, the Battle of Champapuri began", you can mention the Jan 3 attack in the article on the following battle. Basically, you discuss the more minor engagements wherever it makes the most sense to do so. -- asilvering (talk) 18:07, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Ajayraj890 If any of those are not called "Battle of Whatever" in the sources, they too should not have "Battle of Whatever" as their title. -- asilvering (talk) 20:20, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for your advice. But in case of naming a military conflict, it was always used as Battle of "the specific place where battle occured". If that is not the case, check the articles of the category Category:Battles involving the Sikhs. Ajayraj890 (talk) 16:43, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Question from Linda Mbunyuza (21:59, 21 September 2023)[edit]
Hi I am new here I would like to know how can I create an account for myself ? --Linda Mbunyuza (talk) 21:59, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Linda Mbunyuza You've already done so. Do you mean create an article for yourself? If so, see WP:AUTOBIO. -- asilvering (talk) 02:51, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Women in Green GA Editathon October 2023 - Around the World in 31 Days[edit]
Hello Asilvering:
WikiProject Women in Green is holding a month-long Good Article Edit-a-thon event in October 2023!
Running from October 1 to 31, 2023, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) edit-a-thon event with the theme Around the World in 31 Days! All experience levels welcome. Never worked on a GA project before? We'll teach you how to get started. Or maybe you're an old hand at GAs – we'd love to have you involved! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to women and women's works (e.g., books, films) during the event period. We hope to collectively cover article subjects from at least 31 countries (or broader international articles) by month's end. GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to earn a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.
We hope to see you there!
Alanna the Brave (talk) 00:53, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
You are receiving this message as a member of the WikiProject Women in Green. You can remove yourself from receiving notifications here.