Loading AI tools
Hi Alexanderkowal! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Hello, I'm Dudhhr. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, American Enterprise Institute, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. – dudhhr talkcontribssheher 21:43, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you Dudhhr, I'm surprised it isn't a reliable source, I've seen discussions about making that integrating that website into wikipedia, regardless I'll go find a different source, thanks for the help Alexanderkowal (talk) 21:46, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- Is that an acceptable reference now? Alexanderkowal (talk) 22:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- Is that an acceptable reference now? Alexanderkowal (talk) 22:18, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page American Enterprise Institute, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
- A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
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, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 22:14, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
Robert McClenon (talk) 04:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of kingdoms in Africa throughout history, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Heis. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 18:04, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of kingdoms in Africa throughout history, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Ndebele and Bemba.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page List of kingdoms in Africa throughout history, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
- A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
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, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from one or more pages into Politics of Germany. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 03:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Diannaa I did attribute it, but only in my first edit. All of it is copied from other pages, I’m going to add more myself at a later date.
- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Politics_of_Germany&diff=prev&oldid=1215526601&title=Politics_of_Germany&diffonly=1 Alexanderkowal (talk) 07:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Diannaa I’ll put something on their talk pages now, thank you Alexanderkowal (talk) 07:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Politics of Germany, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Reparations.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:50, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content, as you did at History of North Africa, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. On a smaller note, please also do not mark your edits as "minor" unless you are making superficial changes such as fixing format or grammar errors; see Help:Minor edit. R Prazeres (talk) 16:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- Oh yeah my bad, clicked minor out of habit Alexanderkowal (talk) 16:45, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- It’s all from General History of Africa volume 3, do I put that in the bibliography or cite each page? Alexanderkowal (talk) 16:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- I've used emotive language as I was writing for the History of Africa article and I'm trying to use a tone similar to oral tradition. If you don't feel it fits then feel free to change the phrasing. I've got to trim down what I have so I thought the extended version was better for that article. Alexanderkowal (talk) 16:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- No worries. But two things:
- 1) You must add citations inline, not at the end of the page. Read the guidelines, as this is part of the basics of editing Wikipedia. Please fix that in your edits, otherwise I'll revert it again as the problem wasn't addressed properly. (Editors are happy to fix any minor format problems, but it's not up to others to add sources and citations for you.)
- 1) Do not use emotive language or try to emulate oral tradition. Wikipedia uses an encyclopedic tone; see WP:TONE for what this means.
- If you have any other questions about guidelines, feel free to ask, but do also familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies in general. Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 17:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- PS: Please also remember to include page numbers in your citations, if you haven't already. R Prazeres (talk) 17:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, I'll do that now. I have seen a lot of pages just use a bibliography but I guess for history the convention is inline citations and that does make sense. Regarding the tone, please see History of Africa#Colonial period (1878–1951), this is what I'm trying to emulate. I don't think it falls outside of WP:Tone but idk. Alexanderkowal (talk) 17:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
The article List of kingdoms in Africa throughout history you nominated as a good article has failed 
; see Talk:List of kingdoms in Africa throughout history for reasons why Talk:List of kingdoms in Africa throughout history/GA1the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Phlsph7 -- Phlsph7 (talk) 08:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
- adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
- comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
- follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
- comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
- refrain from gaming the system.
Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
Selfstudier (talk) 13:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I'm QwertyForest. I have just seen the dispute going on at Politics of Germany. Although the IP has been edit warring with you, it appears that you have also been edit warring with them. I would suggest going back to TP discussion or perhaps Dispute Resolution. Keep in mind that bringing the matter to an admin noticeboard at this point is probably going to land you with the same sanctions as they give the IP. I hope you and the IP can come to a resolution. QwertyForest (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, I did reach out first and we are talking on the TP but we’re still warring. I’ll leave it for now and see whether we can talk it out. Thanks for your comment Alexanderkowal (talk) 15:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
There's been a discussion about reverting a lot of your recent additions basically because of no edit summaries based on the belief some contentious material is being added. I suggest you use WP:Edit summaries in the future... to avoid what might be a mass revert. Moxy🍁 22:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- On which page? If I've written something, I usually do loads of little edits trying to find the right wording or phrasing. I usually do edit summaries for big changes or contentious ones Alexanderkowal (talk) 22:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'll use abbreviations in the future Alexanderkowal (talk) 22:33, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I reverted your 2nd sentence in the agnosticism article, but I also see you are trying to edit the Atheism article. I just want you to know, as someone that has been editing the agnosticism article for over a decade, that the atheists in the atheism article are dogmatic. They've been trying to re-write the Agnosticism article for years to conform to their atheist narrative. You will almost certainly have, no luck getting changes in the Atheism article.They want the broader definition. I agree with the arguments you are making, but they want the broader definition so it can encompass agnosticism and then make agnosticism just a subset of atheism instead of being something distinct. Obviously up to you on what time you invest, but I just wanted to share with you the very, uphill battle you are facing. IIXVXII (talk) 21:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, it’s okay, it’s natural for a page to have a bias towards the topic. The broad definition is problematic, however as long as there’s a disambiguation link to agnosticism I think it’s okay, I’m not going to invest anymore time into it Alexanderkowal (talk) 21:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- I do think the agnosticism article needs to be expanded to discuss absolutism vs relativism as this seems to be the dividing line between agnostics and atheists Alexanderkowal (talk) 08:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Or rather perspectivism Alexanderkowal (talk) 09:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Can we get you to review Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries... Specifically WP:COUNTRYLEAD and Wikipedia:COUNTRYSECTIONS. Country articles are simply not set up like pop culture articles... there's more of an academic approach. Moxy🍁 22:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Okay will do, thanks. At the moment the government section reads neutral and adding criticism in might make it read negatively, and I’m not sure how to fix that Alexanderkowal (talk) 08:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Is WP:BRD appropriate for contentious topics? Going by policy it is, but in practice idk Alexanderkowal (talk) 19:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
I notice a tendency on your part to insert politically opinionated text into general discussions. You have done this in several articles (with warnings from WP editors and administrators to desist), and now you have added ideological POV commentary to a general section on U.S. foreign policy. This cannot, and will not, stand—not without a full discussion on the Talk page about its appropriateness. Mason.Jones (talk) 15:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- ? I have not had warnings to desist? Not everything in the US article has to come from a US perspective, in order to reach WP:NPOV others must be applied and this is an example of that Alexanderkowal (talk) 15:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Editors do not insert sweeping, opposing viewpoints on every U.S. government policy in a general country article. There are sub-articles in Wikipedia that delve into ideological positions (and where several viewpoints are presented). The article "United States" is not the place for ideological asides, and certainly not without discussion on the Talk page. Your editing history is rife with such interventions, and they won't be tolerated. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- ? I don't know what you're getting at. In a section on foreign relations I included a sentence about the US' relations with developing countries, including Africa, with the preceding sweeping clause giving context. This has nothing to do with ideology at all. I honestly didn't feel there was a need for prior discussion since the content is so obviously relevant and extensively cited. I work via WP:BRD, my edits are not made in isolation, they require input from other editors. I think you've overreacted, and I hope we can work constructively Alexanderkowal (talk) 16:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- I saw your deleted comment, please take a breather and come back to this later Alexanderkowal (talk) 18:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Editors do not insert sweeping, opposing viewpoints on every U.S. government policy in a general country article. There are sub-articles in Wikipedia that delve into ideological positions (and where several viewpoints are presented). The article "United States" is not the place for ideological asides, and certainly not without discussion on the Talk page. Your editing history is rife with such interventions, and they won't be tolerated. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
You can make your point without challenging an editors common sense, as you did here. Also, keep in mind that edit warring is still edit warring even when done in slow motion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, I don't think we're edit warring although the discussion could be more collaborative Alexanderkowal (talk) 15:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
In one of the many Wiki chat rooms people are discussing your lead fixation all over. I suggest you review Wikipedia:How to create and manage a good lead section. Moxy🍁 16:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- it's because I know its importance, and it's usually the only thing I read when reading wikipedia. I struggle to process lots of information, so I find it easier to start with the lead as a summary and expand on the summary in the body, in contrary to wikipedia policy. Tbh w you, it is mainly ego that attracts me to highly trafficked articles, however I think I still make positive contributions. I suppose I should always have a cursory overview of an article before editing its lede, it's just not how I intuitively work Alexanderkowal (talk) 16:20, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'll read the policy more, I'm British so prefer convention to rules Alexanderkowal (talk) 16:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Seriously thinking of taking action against this Mason guy Alexanderkowal (talk) 16:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Feel free to join the community Wikipedia:IRC.... Moxy🍁 16:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, I'll make sure not to spam or anything Alexanderkowal (talk) 16:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Feel free to join the community Wikipedia:IRC.... Moxy🍁 16:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
While on this subject, I agree about the lead fixation and the current RFC about the Nakba in my view is a form of disruption, since the only editor at all concerned about this has been yourself. There has been no current dispute and therefore no reason to have an RFC. Selfstudier (talk) 09:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- How the rfc a form of disruption? It's trying to correct my mistake in not seeking consensus first on a contentious issue. Alexanderkowal (talk) 09:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- There is no evidence that this material is contentious. It is not disputed by anyone. Furthermore, we specifically discussed this issue on the talk page and you agreed that there was no need for an RFC. Selfstudier (talk) 09:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't have a strong opinion on whether there should be an rfc, I didn't start it, I just gave reasoning for it. People can predict what is going to be controversial and possibly contentious Alexanderkowal (talk) 09:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- There is no evidence that this material is contentious. It is not disputed by anyone. Furthermore, we specifically discussed this issue on the talk page and you agreed that there was no need for an RFC. Selfstudier (talk) 09:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the criticism I'll work on it, if I seem to be doing it again just link the policy that Moxy has done above Alexanderkowal (talk) 09:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
An editor has requested that Kerma kingdom be moved to Kingdom of Kerma. Since you had some involvement with 'Kerma kingdom', you are invited to participate in the move discussion. WP:PROD is only for deletion of articles and files, not redirects. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you Alexanderkowal (talk) 07:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Your edit to Mali Empire has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 12:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- I haven't copied any material without attribution, that all came from the General History of Africa volume 4, and I gave the pages it was from and properly cited it. How does this infringe copyright? Alexanderkowal (talk) 12:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- The book is marked as "© UNESCO 1984". Of course you need to cite your sources, but it's not okay to copy prose from a book and paste it into Wikipedia. That's a violation of our copyright policy. Everything you add to Wikipedia needs to be written in your own words please. — Diannaa (talk) 13:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, I was just trying not to do OR, I'll reword it Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- If I put it in the quote box, can I then copy? Like with the excerpt from Tarikh al-Sudan Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- The book is marked as "© UNESCO 1984". Of course you need to cite your sources, but it's not okay to copy prose from a book and paste it into Wikipedia. That's a violation of our copyright policy. Everything you add to Wikipedia needs to be written in your own words please. — Diannaa (talk) 13:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Your edit to Mandinka people has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 23:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- That’s my bad I need to read the policy again properly. WP:Copyright. I don’t know how I would reorganise and rewrite that sentence without making it much worse Alexanderkowal (talk) 00:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Hello, can you help me with something? There is a user (FMSky) who reverted absolutely all the edits I made, without justification, and continues to remove referenced information, such as in Jobbik party, where he removed information that I had not even included. Hidolo (talk) 01:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- You're a single purpose account / sockpuppet who mass inserts "far-right" to political parties, often without sources to back it up, and does nothing else --FMSky (talk) 01:11, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not that. I only want to fix Wikipedia, because of your biases edits. You only eliminate sourced info. That is not well. Hidolo (talk) 01:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- I recommend contributing beyond polemical insertions as it’s a good way to gain experience and familiarity w policy, just find something you’re passionate about. Admins will also be more sympathetic with an editor who contributes more widely Alexanderkowal (talk) 09:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- WP:BRD is a good policy Alexanderkowal (talk) 09:13, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don’t think you should be mass reverting another editor on all their edits. Alexanderkowal (talk) 09:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not that. I only want to fix Wikipedia, because of your biases edits. You only eliminate sourced info. That is not well. Hidolo (talk) 01:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- I recommend doing an WP:RfC with the various options, and do a survey below that where you search “Jobbik ideology” into Google scholar and tally up all the academic sources that discuss Jobbik’s ideology about which labelling they use. Maybe the first 5 pages? Make sure to not be biased when doing it as people will check Alexanderkowal (talk) 09:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- You can also start a topic at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard if your issue is with the conduct of another editor Alexanderkowal (talk) 09:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- ^ I would do this Alexanderkowal (talk) 09:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- When doing polemical insertions I try to be really careful with the wording so as not to ruin the flow of the article and avoid loaded words where possible, people’s opposition tends to be around the wording rather than the content , and you’ve always got to be thinking about WP:NPOV and representing the different POVs weighted by their appearance in WP:RSs Alexanderkowal (talk) 10:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Please self-revert your latest edits to comply with 1RR, this is not the first 1RR violation I have brought to your attention.
and . Makeandtoss (talk) 14:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'm confused, those two diffs you've linked weren't both reverts, the second one was expanding on the first Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- The second one's edit summary states: "Undid revision 1230563017 by האופה". Makeandtoss (talk) 14:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- you're right, I'll revert, I still think that edit is awful though Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- so if two people revert make the same edit you can't revert both even if it's against consensus? Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, 1RR is a very strong restraint on editing. Multiple edits in a series count as only one edit ("an edit or a series of consecutive edits") if no one else has edited between them, but if you make an edit that has the effect of reverting and then someone else makes an edit, you can't rapidly follow that with anything that reverts that edit or any other recent edit (unless one of the exceptions listed in WP:NOT3RR applies). — BarrelProof (talk) 16:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, thank you. I think there should be some sort of exemption for content deriving from consensus from an RfC (which wasn’t the case here) Alexanderkowal (talk) 16:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- I hear you, and I've been there, but the rules seem designed to avoid the possibility that any one person will start enforcing what they perceive to be a consensus that others do not see and to enforce a "cooling off" period for editors to try to gain some perspective about what they are doing. The rules also make you more careful about performing reverts of minor aspects, since you know you're using up your ability to do other reverts for a while. — BarrelProof (talk) 17:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- That makes sense, I do think there should be an exemption for strong consensus from an RfC as that would’ve received community wide input that don’t have the page watched Alexanderkowal (talk) 17:19, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- I've put it at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Another exemption to 3RR and 1RR Alexanderkowal (talk) 17:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- I hear you, and I've been there, but the rules seem designed to avoid the possibility that any one person will start enforcing what they perceive to be a consensus that others do not see and to enforce a "cooling off" period for editors to try to gain some perspective about what they are doing. The rules also make you more careful about performing reverts of minor aspects, since you know you're using up your ability to do other reverts for a while. — BarrelProof (talk) 17:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, thank you. I think there should be some sort of exemption for content deriving from consensus from an RfC (which wasn’t the case here) Alexanderkowal (talk) 16:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Unfortunately here this rule is taken literally instead of the spirit of it, i.e. even if someone on the talk page explicitly tells you that they now agree and you can revert, you still can't revert if you had already reverted once in the past 24 hours. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, 1RR is a very strong restraint on editing. Multiple edits in a series count as only one edit ("an edit or a series of consecutive edits") if no one else has edited between them, but if you make an edit that has the effect of reverting and then someone else makes an edit, you can't rapidly follow that with anything that reverts that edit or any other recent edit (unless one of the exceptions listed in WP:NOT3RR applies). — BarrelProof (talk) 16:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- The second one's edit summary states: "Undid revision 1230563017 by האופה". Makeandtoss (talk) 14:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
I suggest to review WP:REALNAME. — BarrelProof (talk) 17:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- I feel it’d be dishonest to use anything else Alexanderkowal (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- I’ll try and come up w something impersonal Alexanderkowal (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- It's just advice. It's your decision. — BarrelProof (talk) 17:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ghana, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gold Coast.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Welcome to the 2024 Developing Countries WikiContest, Kowal2701! The contest is now open for submissions. List your work at your submissions page to earn points. If you haven't done so already, please review the following:
- Got open nominations? List them at review requests.
- Looking for a topic to work on? Check out suggested articles and eligible reviews.
- Not sure if your article qualifies? See the guidelines for more information or contact a coordinator for verification.
- New to Wikipedia? Many experienced editors are part of this contest and willing to help; feel free to ask questions about the contest on the talk page.
- Know someone else who might be interested? Sign-ups remain open until 15 July, so don't hesitate to invite other editors!
On behalf of the coordinators, we hope you enjoy participating and wish you good luck! If you have any questions, please leave a message on the contest talk page or ask one of the coordinators: Ixtal (talk · contribs), sawyer777 (talk · contribs), or TechnoSquirrel69 (talk · contribs). (To unsubscribe from these updates, remove yourself from this list.) Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
I believe that there is a reliable sources noticeboard on Wikipedia. Please share the link to the same.-Ganeemath (talk) 14:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
I've made something you may find useful...Template:Editor search boxes
Moxy🍁 23:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- That’s brilliant, thank you Kowal2701 (talk) 06:14, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- I do think it’d be beneficial to have a contents page for policy, although it’d be a bit of a nightmare making/organising it Kowal2701 (talk) 06:18, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you again for this Kowal2701 (talk) 19:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Moxy🍁 11:57, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Kowal2701.
Yes, I would like to join that Wikiproject that you asked me about.
Best wishes,
O.ominirabluejack (talk) 08:17, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm so sorry I didn't reply, the page is WP:WikiProject Anthropology/Oral tradition taskforce Kowal2701 (talk) 19:13, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Syriac chant, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Syrian Christians. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 20:11, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Oral tradition taskforce articles indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Oral tradition articles by quality indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- These categories are empty right now, but they won't once I start tagging articles for WP:WikiProject Anthropology/Oral tradition taskforce. The issue is that I'm not entirely sure what I'm doing Kowal2701 (talk) 17:21, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
The 2024 Developing Countries WikiContest has now been running for a month, and we've already seen some momentous improvement in the quality of many articles about underrepresented subjects! So far, our top-scoring participants are:
Magentic Manifestations (submissions) – 338 points, mainly from nine good articles. He's a contender for the "most submissions for a single country" specialty award, with nine submissions for India.
Arconning (submissions) – 305 points, including from six seasonally-appropriate Olympics-related good articles.
Generalissima (submissions) – 290 points, the bulk from her featured article about Greenlandic interpreter Qalaherriaq and two China-related good articles.
AirshipJungleman29 (submissions) – 245 points, mostly from the achievement of bringing Genghis Khan to featured status.
Thebiguglyalien (submissions) – 144 points from three good articles, including two about Kiribati elections, and four reviews of good article nominees.
Looking for ways to climb up the leaderboard yourself? Help out your fellow participants by answering a few review requests, particularly the older entries. Several more nominations needing attention are listed at eligible reviews, and highlighed entries receive a 1.5× multiplier! The coordinators would like to extend a special thanks to 
Thebiguglyalien (submissions) for his commitment to keeping these review pages up to date.
If you have any questions, please leave a message on the contest talk page or ask one of the coordinators: Ixtal (talk · contribs), sawyer777 (talk · contribs), or TechnoSquirrel69 (talk · contribs). (To unsubscribe from these updates, remove yourself from this list.) Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the message... :-) No, I'm sorry, I'm not interested in the project you linked to me: I have generally arranged articles on Italy, including the one on folklore, but I'm not particularly interested in the topic. A greeting. LukeWiller (talk) 19:02, 3 August 2024 (UTC).
Hello! Thank you for the invitation! Regrettably, I am not very interested in oral tradition. I'm mostly interested in topics concerning Yugoslav and post-Yugoslav popular music, cinema and comics, and I have only occasionally made contributions to other pages. I was intersted in "Ajde Jano" due to numerous popular music covers of the song. Once again, thank you for the invitation. Ostalocutanje (talk) 13:35, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your message. Oral tradition sounds fascinating. I suppose it's mostly replaced by Whatsapp, these days! Even here in the DR Congo... I've added my name and will have a look in due course. Francis Hannaway (talk) 12:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Did you ever encounter it much while you were there? Besides the Mwindo epic, there’s no coverage on WP Kowal2701 (talk) 13:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
I was working on an edit at the same time as you made some small ones. Mine overrode yours, but I have manually added yours back in. Do you want to check I haven't missed anything? Sorry about that. It took me longer than usual as I was moving up the terminology section into the lexicology section, so I didn't see your edits in the interim. Lewisguile (talk) 12:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
I used to get help from now departed template helpers in the early stage of a range of projects.
I have asked SMcCandlish for help to check - in case I got it all wrong. It has been a very long time since I used to work on the quality/importance materials. Apologies if I have made a mess.
I must say I am quite confused as to why anthropology and literature are being considered joint sponsoring projects. I am also disappointed that other eds have not helped you set things up, the lack of collaboration at that point seems to be missing something. Please make sure that at some stage you reverse engineer other similar sized taskforces, to get a sense what else is needed. The psychiatry task force https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Psychiatry_task_force is a good example of what appears a well organised task force. JarrahTree 13:52, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you so much, that looks great. It's okay I don't mind doing most of the boring stuff like tagging. I was thinking of moving it to its own wikiproject as out of all the articles tagged so far, practically none had the WP:Anthropology banner, and we have a decent amount of editors. I think I'm starting to get the hang of WP:AWB Kowal2701 (talk) 15:00, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Is it worth creating more categories for importance? Kowal2701 (talk) 15:04, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Re: importance, I am not sure, if it was to rise to a project rather then task force, importance is needed, some task forces dont include importance. The relative low level help you have been not given for simple project architecture (quality/importance and so on) is reflective of the reduction in collegiality some have noted - and even quit altogether because of... Keep the faith, and take care, we live in interesting times. JarrahTree 06:55, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- Lol maybe, be very careful, your edits are not linking and the numbers are not relating to the project articles but to wikipedia as a whole - you need to get help, so to speak.JarrahTree 08:17, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Sadads sorry to ping, would you be able to help if not too busy? We can go back to your talk page if you'd like to keep discussions in one place Kowal2701 (talk) 08:25, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template editors with experience in helping create the required tweaks are the ones to seek out - I could be wrong.
- Lol maybe, be very careful, your edits are not linking and the numbers are not relating to the project articles but to wikipedia as a whole - you need to get help, so to speak.JarrahTree 08:17, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- Re: importance, I am not sure, if it was to rise to a project rather then task force, importance is needed, some task forces dont include importance. The relative low level help you have been not given for simple project architecture (quality/importance and so on) is reflective of the reduction in collegiality some have noted - and even quit altogether because of... Keep the faith, and take care, we live in interesting times. JarrahTree 06:55, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Funandtrvl
- come to mind, for no particular reason of order of choice
- but the list is large - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ListUsers/templateeditor
- I may completely misunderstand, but the template tweaking me thinks is what makes things work... JarrahTree 08:50, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- I looked at the assessment categorisation for WikiProject Psychiatry. It uses additional assessment parameters in {{WikiProject Medicine}}, e.g. Talk:Alfred Adler is assessed for Medicine as importance=Low, but psychiatry-imp=high. I think you will either need to assess each article for its importance to oral tradition, or delete the assessment categories.
- I have tweaked Template:WikiProject Anthropology to populate the quality assessment categories for now.
- According to the article Folklore, that topic includes oral traditions, so I have added WP:WikiProject Folklore as a parent, but it is inactive. Have you considered reactivating that project instead of creating a new task force? – Fayenatic London 21:36, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you. Folklore is a subset of oral tradition rather than the other way around, so it wouldn’t really make sense. Also folklore covers oral and literate folklore, and we’re interested in oral folklore among other things. I’m happy to do assessments once tagging’s done, although there’s an error atm which means I can’t log in to use AWB. Tbh we’re looking at moving it to its own WikiProject as we have a lot of members and practically none of the articles tagged had
Wikiproject Anthropology
banner previously, so we’re just bloating their categories with articles outside of their scope Kowal2701 (talk) 08:22, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you. Folklore is a subset of oral tradition rather than the other way around, so it wouldn’t really make sense. Also folklore covers oral and literate folklore, and we’re interested in oral folklore among other things. I’m happy to do assessments once tagging’s done, although there’s an error atm which means I can’t log in to use AWB. Tbh we’re looking at moving it to its own WikiProject as we have a lot of members and practically none of the articles tagged had
| Oral tradition articles by quality and importance | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quality | Importance | ||||||
| Top | High | Mid | Low | NA | ??? | Total | |
 FA |
1 | 22 | 23 | ||||
| FL |
2 | 2 | |||||
 A |
1 | 1 | |||||
 GA |
2 | 2 | 1 | 83 | 88 | ||
| B | 3 | 1 | 4 | 456 | 464 | ||
| C | 7 | 886 | 893 | ||||
| Start | 3 | 2 | 3 | 14 | 1,754 | 1,776 | |
| Stub | 1 | 2 | 4 | 729 | 736 | ||
| List | 1 | 9 | 137 | 147 | |||
| NA | 29 | 29 | |||||
| Assessed | 8 | 4 | 9 | 39 | 29 | 4,070 | 4,159 |
| Unassessed | 1 | 90 | 91 | ||||
| Total | 8 | 4 | 9 | 40 | 29 | 4,160 | 4,250 |
| WikiWork factors (?) | ω = 18,437 | Ω = 4.63 | |||||
- Assessment is now working. This table will be updated daily. – Fayenatic London 16:25, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you so much Kowal2701 (talk) 18:02, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Fayenatic london Hi, no worries if you're too busy, but we'd like to move this to a WikiProject, I can have a go at doing this but I'm wary of creating a mess for others to clean up. Would you be able to help at all (or volunteer to help when I inevitably balls it up lol), again absolutely no worries if not Kowal2701 (talk) 17:02, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- Well, from the category point of view, the only category that would need renaming is Category:Oral tradition taskforce articles, as your assessment categories do not specify "task force" or "WikiProject" in their name (although they do have a link that should ideally be updated).
- I'm willing to help keep the assessment links working. I think you should first ask at WP:COUNCIL for approval; you can also ask there for help any other guidance required. – Fayenatic London 20:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Your edit to Amusnaw has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 12:04, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Kowal2701 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
It says my IP address is blocked for 6 months because I'm using a proxy or VPN, I've got no idea what this means but I'm just using normal 4G on my phone, and hotspot on my laptop (both are blocked). I'm in Spain but I was editing fine yesterday. Any help would be greatly appreciated Kowal2701 (talk) 13:45, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
In order to look into this, we need to know the IP address or addresses involved. If you don't want to post these publicly, you may use WP:UTRS to provide them privately. 331dot (talk) 14:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of oral repositories, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Elder.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
The Developing Countries WikiContest has now been running for two months, and we've seen tremendous improvement in the encyclopedic coverage of several underrepresented areas from a wide range of editors! The coordinators would like to highlght some of the newer faces who have been making notable contributions in the contest, including but by no means limited to:
- Arconning (submissions) – 386 points, with several good articles primarily relating to the Olympics
Vigilantcosmicpenguin (submissions) – 141 points, who created multiple articles about abortion rights and laws in African countries
TheNuggeteer (submissions) – 126 points, who has contributed to several articles associated with the Phillippines- Jaguarnik (submissions) – 125 points, with several good article reviews and an appearance in the In the news section of the Main Page
Averageuntitleduser (submissions) – 119 points, and has written about several Haitian topics and historical figures.
Only one month remains until the end of the contest, so it's time to make your remaining nominations! Please consider answering some review requests, particularly the older entries, as a way of helping out your fellow participants and moving up the leaderboard. Good luck!
If you have any questions, please leave a message on the contest talk page or ask one of the coordinators: Ixtal (talk · contribs), sawyer777 (talk · contribs), or TechnoSquirrel69 (talk · contribs). (To unsubscribe from these updates, remove yourself from this list.) Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
The redirect List of bards has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 11 § List of bards until a consensus is reached. asilvering (talk) 09:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of List of oral repositories at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:11, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mansa Musa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Galam.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:53, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
The 2024 Developing Countries WikiContest has come to a close! After a thrilling finish to the event with a slew of submissions on the final day, we have our winners. With 608 points, 
Thebiguglyalien (submissions) comes in third with his series of Kiribati and Botswanan submissions; 
BeanieFan11 (submissions) flies into second place at the last second with 771 points after a string of good articles about sportspersons; and after leading for much of contest's three months, 
Generalissima (submissions) finishes with a whopping 798 points to take home the Gold Belt Buckle. Congratulations to our winners!
In addition to his spot in the top three, BeanieFan11 (submissions) also wins the special awards for submitting under the most countries (44 countries) and for writing the most articles about women (15 Did you know? nominations)! 
Magentic Manifestations (submissions), after making 16 submissions under the Indian flag—15 of them good articles—receives the awards for most submissions for a single country and most featured or good articles promoted. For their submission of one FAC review, five FLC reviews, and 20 GAN reviews, Simongraham (submissions) wins for most article reviews.
The results of the contest have far exceeded any expectations the coordinators had for it at the beginning: among the submissions to the event were 3 FAs, 10 FLs, 88 GAs, dozens of article reviews of every kind, and more Did you know? submissions than we can count! Regardless of your level of participation, every contestant can be proud to have contributed towards a major step in countering the systemic bias on Wikipedia. Every year, millions of readers and editors around the globe use Wikipedia to educate themselves and communicate with others about parts of the world that often receive less attention than they deserve. Thank you for participating with us in the contest and contributing to this effort. The DCWC will return next year and we look forward to seeing you contribute again! However, before that...
We need your feedback! Join the conversation on the talk page to discuss your reflections on the contest (even if you didn't participate!) and help us make it better.
If you have any questions, please leave a message on the contest talk page or ask one of the coordinators: Ixtal (talk · contribs), sawyer777 (talk · contribs), or TechnoSquirrel69 (talk · contribs). (To unsubscribe from these updates, remove yourself from this list.) Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 19:02, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Hi, could you please fix up all the pages in Category:Pages using WikiProject banner shell with duplicate banner templates? If the page already has {{WikiProject Anthropology}} then you should just add |oral-tradition=yes rather than adding a duplicate banner. Thank you — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:46, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
How is ENIAC part of Anthropology/oral tradition project? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 22:46, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Also Gemini 6A. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:25, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
I removed the IP comment that wasn't allowed to participate in the discussion, and your reply to them about GS/AA was also removed. Hope you don't mind. Cheers KhndzorUtogh (talk) 14:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Hi! When you move an article from mainspace to draftspace, you shouldn't blank the redirect afterwards – it is better to tag it with {{db-r2}} instead so that an administrator can delete it. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:06, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, sorry about that, won’t happen again Kowal2701 (talk) 20:10, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- No worries, just advice to make it more practical! There's also User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft.js that can be useful if you don't want to do it by hand. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Eurocentrism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Berber.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Mwene Muji at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Hello,
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
Kind Regards,
BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of kingdoms and empires in African history, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kingdom.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:53, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Hey, i figure it'll be easier to have one discussion rather than spamming random talk pages.
As you noticed, I just made some changes to the west africa sections on the africa page. You were right that there was a lot of weird writing and unsourced assertions. I'll keep trying to work on it as I go, and if I get time/can find full texts of the Obenga books will do Congo as well. Overall I think these sections are probably longer than they need to be. There's plenty of little detail that doesn't really belong in an overview article, which IMO should focus on large-scale changes like breakups of empires, religious spread, climate changes, major economic changes etc. Catjacket (talk) 20:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah these sections are being written for Draft:Postclassical Africa and Draft:Medieval Africa, once that's done we can trim and condense them down, they're just sitting in the History of Africa article for the time being, otherwise it'd be empty. Sorry, I just left a message at Talk:History of Africa Kowal2701 (talk) 20:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- Do we really need all these pages? A history of Africa, and a postclassical africa, and a medieval africa, and a west african history, etc.... I think we'd be better off focusing things into fewer articles. Easier to maintain and navigate, considering how hard it is to ensure well-sourced and appropriately contextualized and caveated writing for African history, where sources are so few and far between. Catjacket (talk) 21:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- Should I copy the edits I just made to postclassical Africa? Catjacket (talk) 21:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- Idk, for Asia there's History of Asia, History of East Asia, etc., but no time period articles. Also for Europe you don't have History of Western Europe etc. Maybe we should instead be focussing on making the regional history articles be general history, rather than just summaries of various countries' articles. Idk tho, I quite like writing in detail and then condensing that, and having time period articles mean that writing isn't wasted, but it might not be best for the encyclopedia. A good thing about having time period articles is that we can use them as a base to then copy relevant info over to the modern day country articles' history sections which are in dire need of writing Kowal2701 (talk) 21:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that regional history articles (and period history articles) should be focused as much as possible on wide-view historical patterns rather than detais of the history of a certain state or people. Improving the quality of the existing pages should be the priority (especially given the endemic problem in West African history of unsourced assertions, poor sources, or seemingly reliable sources like Delafosse who actually just invent stuff). If you want to write in detail and then condense you should be writing on country pages and then transposing to the general pages, removing unnecessary detail. Doing it the other way would give us a bunch of country history articles that repeat the same thing and don't have the country-specific detail that people would be looking for when they go there. Catjacket (talk) 08:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed, but I was trying to reperiodise and rewrite Ancient Africa, Medieval and early modern Africa, Colonial Africa, and Postcolonial Africa. I agree that for country articles it should be only the country specific bits, and ideally sources that cover the history of that country would be used. Only the bits in the present-day territories would be moved over to country articles, and then expanded on, for instance in Republic of Congo, the focus is on Kakongo, Ngoyo, Vungu, and Loango, rather than Kongo.
- The regional history pages are generally quite poor imo, History of West Africa looks like it’s turned into West Africa, shouldn’t the cultural history section be the main focus of the article? Kowal2701 (talk) 10:21, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah you're probably right, it's overcrowded. If you want to slim down History of West Africa, put something in that page's talk page. As long as there isn't pushback, then you could move all the non-history sections to the main West Africa page, similar to what I did for Mali Empire and History of the Mali Empire.
- I think working to improve Ancient Africa etc. is a noble and productive mission to set for yourself. It's not one I'm particularly interested in undertaking tbh. I just don't think that we can look at Africa as a monolith in any of these periods, with the possible exception of the colonial period, and therefore those pages are subtly and unintentionally perpetuating the very dumb idea that Africa is one single place. My ideal world would be a condensed and efficient History of Africa article with very long and well-structured pages for the history of West, South, East Africa etc. The fewer pages there are, the easier it is to make sure each one is relatively up to date with constantly changing scholarship and free of bad/outdated/colonial sources. But I recognize that there is a demand for history of "Africa" as a unitary concept, so I'm not going to worry too much about it.
- All that being said, if you would like help with specific sections, such as the West Africa work I did the other day, I'm happy to provide it. If these pages exist then they should be as high-quality as possible. Catjacket (talk) 12:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed that the regional articles are more important, and continental history articles prior to 1800 seem anachronistic. Also pan-Africanism does sort of lend itself to the homogenous stereotype. I don't know the solution. Could it be to have History of West Africa until 1250, Medieval West Africa (ie. 1250-1800), History of North Africa until 1250, Medieval North Africa, and then have Early modern Africa (1800-1935/45) and Africa since 1935 or 1945. Ancient Africa would redirect to a disambiguation page, History of Africa until 1250. Idk that's probably too many articles. Kowal2701 (talk) 21:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that regional history articles (and period history articles) should be focused as much as possible on wide-view historical patterns rather than detais of the history of a certain state or people. Improving the quality of the existing pages should be the priority (especially given the endemic problem in West African history of unsourced assertions, poor sources, or seemingly reliable sources like Delafosse who actually just invent stuff). If you want to write in detail and then condense you should be writing on country pages and then transposing to the general pages, removing unnecessary detail. Doing it the other way would give us a bunch of country history articles that repeat the same thing and don't have the country-specific detail that people would be looking for when they go there. Catjacket (talk) 08:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- Idk, for Asia there's History of Asia, History of East Asia, etc., but no time period articles. Also for Europe you don't have History of Western Europe etc. Maybe we should instead be focussing on making the regional history articles be general history, rather than just summaries of various countries' articles. Idk tho, I quite like writing in detail and then condensing that, and having time period articles mean that writing isn't wasted, but it might not be best for the encyclopedia. A good thing about having time period articles is that we can use them as a base to then copy relevant info over to the modern day country articles' history sections which are in dire need of writing Kowal2701 (talk) 21:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- Also see Talk:History of Africa#Periodisation, it's the best I've got thus far for a periodisation (with 1500 as an internal break in Medieval Africa) Kowal2701 (talk) 20:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
On 2 November 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article List of oral repositories, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that oral repositories are individuals trusted with memorising a society's oral traditions, and have been termed "walking libraries"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/List of oral repositories. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, List of oral repositories), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mfecane, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Ndzundza language and AmaNgwane.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
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.
