Loading AI tools
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:HaEr48. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Note that I wrote "Hellas (Greece)" and other editors reverted me and used only "Greece" even though I tried other ways to solve the dispute such as using "Hellenic Republic (Greece)" or "Greece (Hellas)". Thus it was other editors who reverted me. Because I feel offended by this anti-Hellenic behaviour and I perceive it as an attack on my ethnicity I will not continue editing on Wikipedia and leave the project. Please see the sources I added in Name of Greece if you want to know more about the name issue. Thank you. Sofia Koutsouveli (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Sofia Koutsouveli: Sorry that this makes you want to leave the project. I see that the term "Greece" offended you, but I feel that the rule makes sense. If everyone can push their ideas to Wikipedia using the "I feel offended" justification, imagine what a mess people can make on much more contentious topics! About the revert rule, your reverts of other people's revert also count. I think one of the reason for that rule is that one dissenting editor cannot force "revert war" against the consensus opinion. Looking at the reverts and the talk page, it does seem in this case that your opinion is the dissenting one among the involved editors, that's why I posted the gentle reminder on your page. Again, I'm sorry if this discouraged you from editing, but do take a look at Wikipedia's policies in this regard (e.g. WP:COMMONNAME, WP:EDITWAR, and others), and feel free to come back if you change your mind. HaEr48 (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 | Hello, HaEr48. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Trunajaya rebellion at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! – Corinne (talk) 04:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC) |
Hello, HaEr48 -- I just wanted to mention something: in the section Trunajaya rebellion#Amangkurat II's accession and alliance with the VOC, I noticed that Amangkurat appeeared sometimes with "II" and sometimes without. I thought that, after the first use (with "II"), they should be consistent, so I took the "II" off several of them. If you think it should be with the "II" in each instance, we've got to put it back. – Corinne (talk) 04:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks Corinne for the copyedit. About Amangkurat II, I'm leaning towards consistently including the "II", because the rebellion spanned the reigns of both Amangkurat I and his son Amangkurat II, so we need the number for disambiguation. What do you think? HaEr48 (talk) 06:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Well, it's up to you. We read, in the first sentence in the section Trunajaya rebellion#Amangkurat II's accession and alliance with the VOC, that King Amangkurat II died in 1677. Amangkurat II, with the "II", is mentioned twice in that paragraph. I think it is clear that the rest of the section is about Amangkurat II, not his father.
- The next section is clearly chronological, and the dates are all after 1677, so it should also be clear that "Amangkurat" is Amangkurat II.
- In the next section, Trunajaya rebellion#End of Pangeran Puger's rebellion, there are some confusing things. The first sentence reads:
- In addition to Trunajaya's forces, Amangkurat II was also opposed by his brother Pangeran Puger, who took the old capital in Plered and claimed the throne for himself in 1677.
- If this ("In addition to Trunajaya's forces, Amangkurat II was also opposed by...") is a continuation of the story that is being told in chronological order, the second half of the sentence, with the past tense "took" and "claimed" and the mention of the year 1677 throws the reader into confusion. It seems to be going backward in chronological order. If the first part of the sentence is indeed a continuation of the story being told in chronological order in the sections just previous to this, then Panageran Puger's actions ("took" and "claimed"...in 1677) took place a few years earlier. If that is true, then we've got to change "took" to "had taken" and "claimed" to "[had] claimed":
- In addition to Trunajaya's forcers, Amangkurat II was also opposed by his brother Pangeran Puger, who in 1677 had taken the old capital in Plered and claimed the throne for himself.
- You might even change "was also opposed by" to one of these:
- (a) continued to be opposed by
- (b) continued to face opposition from
- (c) still faced opposition from
- (d) faced renewed opposition from.
- (I think I like (b) and (d) the best, but it's your choice.)
- The "At first" in the next sentence is not precise enough. It might be sufficiently precise if you were more precise regarding time in the first sentence of the paragraph. You might add something to the first sentence to clarify when Amangkurat II was opposed by, or continued to face opposition from, his brother. If you don't clarify this, because of the mention of 1677 at the end of the first sentence, the "Amangkurat" at the beginning of the second sentence could refer to Amangkurat I (since he was alive in 1677), so you might want to add "II" there. Then you wouldn't need "II" at the second mention, after "In September 1680".
- The next section, Trunajaya rebellion#Aftermath, begins:
- Amangkurat II secured his reign after the rebels were defeated.
- To you, it may be quite clear when the rebels were defeated, but for someone new to the topic, it might help if you give a year here. Then the year would make it clear that it was Amangkurat II and not Amangkurat I.
- I thought of some articles that I copy-edited a few months ago that had to deal with this same issue. You might want to read them to see how the author dealt with it. It's Bohemond II of Antioch (son of Bohemond I of Antioch) and Bohemond III of Antioch. There's also Bohemond IV of Antioch. I think that if it is quite clear that you could only be referring to one of them, you can leave off the number. If there is any chance of confusion, then use the number. – Corinne (talk) 18:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- I see you submitted this article for review for GA. You might consider providing a link to this section ("see additional comments from GOCE copyeditor") to minimize the chances of concerns being duplicated. – Corinne (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC) But perhaps you will have dealt with the issues by the time a review begins. – Corinne (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Message added 01:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Your login details have been sent. Thanks for using The Wikipedia Library --Cameron11598 (Talk) 01:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
| Hello, HaEr48. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Arung Palakka at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! – Corinne (talk) 17:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC) |
You said : "Tthe Arab argument are either written by non-expert, or primary source, or actually just reports (not endorsement) of the claim." I think it's not true. Please see, if you want, my "summary" at the end of this part.
And It's actually the "Arab or Berber" argument. Fulgery (talk) 16:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Fulgery:. Which source are you talking about? Looking at your summary, citing multiple sources. it seems that they fall into any of those 3 categories. Even the experts you cite seems to be less authoritative than the opposing point of view cited by Atlas and others. Ibn Khaldun, while an excellent scholar, didn't have the tools that today's historians have and Syed Ameer Ali was not an expert on North African history. With respect, given the assessments of multiple other editors, I suggest you to concede this point, so that the article can be unlocked and we all can continue contributing to it. HaEr48 (talk) 01:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
On 23 January 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Trunajaya rebellion, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that at the end of the Trunajaya rebellion, King Amangkurat II stabbed the defeated rebel leader Trunajaya to death? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Trunajaya rebellion. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Trunajaya rebellion), 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.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Indonesia#Good_articles_.28104.29 JarrahTree 06:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
@JarrahTree: What do you mean? HaEr48 (talk) 07:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
You created https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Indonesia/Recognized_content but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Indonesia#Good_articles_.28104.29 already existed - hope that clarifies it JarrahTree 07:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- @JarrahTree: But the existing one (if I'm not mistaken) needs to be updated manually, while the other one I intend to be populated by a bot - I added some magic incantation there which should work. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Recognized content, for example. So hopefully it will free our editor to do less mundane tasks than updating that list. Besides, it will have more than just good articles, but also FA, DYK, ITN articles and other things. HaEr48 (talk) 07:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Impressive , if you can swing that - great - there is such a low level energy and or response at the project at times JarrahTree 07:55, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I see you have added the DYK for Trunajaya rebellion to your submissions page, however it is not eligible for the 2017 WikiCup because you did most of the work and nominated the article for DYK during 2016, before the WikiCup started (see the rules here). For this reason, as a WikiCup judge, I am removing your submissions for this DYK. I see the article is a GA nominee, and because you have been doing further work on the article in 2017, it should be eligible to score points in the WikiCup if it becomes a GA. You can add it to the list on the WikiCup talk page as needing review if you wish. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notification, Cwmhiraeth and sorry for that mistake. So the rule confuses me a little bit since it said the time the article appears on the Main page also matters ("Points cannot be granted until the article has actually been featured on the main page"). Does it mean that the actual work and the appearance in the main page have to happen on the same round? For DYK, there is usually a long lag between the time of actual work and the time the article feature on the main page. For example, Trunajaya rebellion was started on Dec 25 and only appeared in Jan 23 - 1 month lag. Given that each round only last 2 months, many DYK articles would be started in one round and be featured in a different round, right? For example if I start working on an article now, and it gets posted in the main page after Feb 26, then that article won't count either. HaEr48 (talk) 22:56, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- It's only the 2016/2017 difference that matters. A DYK you nominate now can be submitted in this round if it appears on the main page before February 26, or in the next round if it appears after that date. I hope that clears things up. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:59, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Cwmhiraeth: I see, should've delayed that article by several days :) just kidding HaEr48 (talk) 06:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- It's only the 2016/2017 difference that matters. A DYK you nominate now can be submitted in this round if it appears on the main page before February 26, or in the next round if it appears after that date. I hope that clears things up. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:59, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
On 30 January 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Arung Palakka, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that after the Bugis prince Arung Palakka supported the Dutch East India Company in the Makassar War, he became the most powerful man in South Sulawesi? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Arung Palakka. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Arung Palakka), 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.
Wikiwand in your browser!
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.
