User talk:Makeandtoss/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Removing maintenance tags

Please don't remove maintenance tags until the issue is settled. It was clear that I wasn't just the Daily Mail I was challenging. Doug Weller talk 16:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: You added a different tag, its clear that reliable sources are no longer a problem, no point in denying it. Factual accuracy, maybe. --Makeandtoss (talk) 16:07, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

3 reverts, right?

I think you know about 3RR, and you're there. I really don't meant to be difficult about this. Doug Weller talk 18:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Let's see how this plays out at RSN. There's no way we can use an email to verify anything, that's a misunderstanding of how we determine if a source is reliable. And attributing a quote from the German theologian to the UK scientists is a BLP violation, although that's not your fault of course, you trusted the Jordan Times which is an involved party with this. Doug Weller talk 18:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I have only reverted twice, I hope your last edit wasn't just to provoke me into a supposedly fourth revert. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:00, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

That's silly, of course it wasn't. Why would you do that? Why would I do that? If I wanted to do that I wouldn't have pointed it out here as you have in fact made 3 reverts today.[1], [2] where you removed the tag I added, and the latest where you reverted the IP. As I have said, these are really bad sources. Even in cases when there has been a peer reviewed study (and no one's claiming that here) it isn't always appropriate to use it until there's been some response. The media is far too often a terrible source for this sort of thing (archaeology). And where's the mainstream coverage? I'd think all the major media would be covering it if there was a real story here. Doug Weller talk 19:18, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: The only reason that I believe this story is true is because of the video I saw here, but after rewatching it, it seems that it is literally a pile of BS. There's a lot of things wrong with the video, starting with the proclaimed discovery location to the Reuters video at the end. --Makeandtoss (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I've been fooled before. And there's a story going around on the media about a 7,000 year old city in Egypt with iron tools. That's impossible. I did some sleuthing and the original said stone tools. Are we ok now? Doug Weller talk 19:49, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your continued work. That Sun article was a beaut - wrote about Hugh Schonfiedl (The Passover Plot author) as though he was still alive, etc. Doug Weller talk 19:01, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy editing

@Drmies: I'm uncomfortable with this edit summary in response to this user's good faith edit. @Super Peebo: by Makeandtoss--> https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Al-Karak&type=revision&diff=755669689&oldid=755572679 The editor is pretty new. I can see someone writing a summary for an article indicating "# of people killed, including a (nationality) tourist" but the following edit by Makeandtoss says "oh a Canadian was killed, what a monstrous tragedy. Screw the 9 Jordanians??!!!)" I think this is a very bad summary. I'm only addressing you both, because you've had this same discussion, just this year. I think summaries should be used for summaries and there's the not assuming good faith here too. I know I would be upset if someone "edit summary"ed with that following my edit.Level C (talk) 14:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@Level C: I'm uncomfortable with how a Canadian was highlighted over 10 people. I think its a very bad summary of events. I didn't address anyone specific in the edit summary, and there's no one to assume bad faith against. The western media did the same. You would be upset, so? What about the 9 million Jordanians like me? Wouldn't they be upset too? Wouldn't they be upset to read that a Canadian casualty is superior to ten Jordanian casualties? Makeandtoss (talk) 14:26, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I think there's a slight confusion on your part, still, about what goes in an edit summary.Level C (talk) 14:32, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I have been on Wikipedia two years more than you did, I know what edit summaries are for. I also know what Wikipedia is not for. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

2016 Al-Karak attack casualties

Hi there. Is the casualties section is only for those who are killed in the incidents? Recently I saw you remove Malaysia with an edit summary stating that there are "no sources for Malaysia". But checking back the page history, I saw an IP has put a source for that [3]. Do you have any official figures from the Jordanian authorities? Thanks in advance. Molecule Extraction (talk) 16:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

@Molecule Extraction: Yes its the khaberni.com link. I was surprised to see mentions of Malaysian injuries, as the Jordanian authorities only mentioned Canadian.. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

@Molecule Extraction: Updated to an English source from the Jordan Times, also no mentions of Malaysian injuries. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:10, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss: Thanks for pointing it out. Maybe there is some misreporting by the foreign media, especially when I saw the news was published by Agence France-Presse. :) Molecule Extraction (talk) 16:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

@Molecule Extraction: allegedly published* would probably be the case here.. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss: Yes. I feel a bit weird too. The source mentioned it was published together from AFP and AsiaOne. The Malaysian Foreign Affairs however stated that two of the country citizens were injured in the incident as you can see on their official press release. Molecule Extraction (talk) 16:25, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

@Molecule Extraction: We can just point out the contradiction. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:34, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss: Yep, already put a note there. Thanks anyway. Molecule Extraction (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Arabic writer needed

I went through Albert Socin list of villages in the Palestine in the 1870, the list is here: User:Huldra/Socin. Some of the villages were relatively easy to identify, as when he noted which page it was noted in Guerin; then I could easily look that up in User:Huldra/Guerin.

However, some were very tricky, and I’m not 100% sure if I got them right. I need someone checking them for me, against the Arab spelling. Especially those I have not added (those with 2 stars in from of the name) ...like ad-Dhahiriya on p. 163,

If you don't have any time/interest in this, I will perfectly understand....Huldra (talk) 21:49, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@Huldra: I can help, although I don't completely understand what exactly you want me to do.. --Makeandtoss (talk) 19:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, basically, go to User:Huldra/Socin, then check the if the different places actually agree with the spelling in the WP article. Especially when I have not been sure, and not inserted anything into the article. Is e.g. ad-Dhahiriya # 211 on p. 163? I am also most uncertain about Beitillu, is it the village mentioned on p. 146, or the village mentioned on p. 148? Etc. If you have any comments about specific places, please leave them in User:Huldra/Socin, Huldra (talk) 20:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Huldra: So for example I go to section p.124 in User:Huldra/Socin, open the p124 link, look at the Arabic spelling for the towns that have two stars, and try to find the corresponding English wiki article? Also why does Abu Ghoush have two stars, isn't it obvious that this is the right article? Makeandtoss (talk) 20:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Exactly (except it was p. 142..). And yes, I agree, Abu Ghoush is obvious, but in some articles I have not included Socin yet, as those articles need major work. (My mistake: I should have made clear that Im not uncertain about all two stars, just as Im not completely certain about all one star articles..like Beitillu). But mostly, it is the two star articles that need checking. Huldra (talk) 20:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Huldra: So my mission is to make the two star villages one star. I can do that. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, to make them into one star, you have to insert the info (or at least the reference) into the article in question. If you just write a Ok/not Ok, or something like that, besides each village you check, that would be great. Huldra (talk) 20:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok, forget the above, just make them into one star......Huldra (talk) 21:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Huldra: [4] ? Makeandtoss (talk) 21:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

That is excellent, just place an OK by each article, so that I know which articles are not done yet, Huldra (talk) 21:04, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I have added a Socin map to User:Huldra/Socin, unfortunately it isn't very exact, but is should give us some general idea as to where the locations are, (I just found Al-Mirr, with the help of it), Huldra (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Huldra: Been very very very very busy. I will follow up as soon as I can. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Don't worry, there is no need to rush. I have several such "list" which I want to add to different articles (the main one is User:Huldra/HA, but also User:Huldra/Guerin, User:Huldra/Karmon and User:Huldra/Barag1283), and I won't run out of work this year, or the next, or in 2019.....this is a long term project! Huldra (talk) 20:13, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@Huldra: Sorry if I am not frequently working on what you tasked me with, I am currently investing my limited free time on much needed work on Jordan. I am editing alone, and its very tiring. Will follow up with the lists, I haven't forgotten about them. Makeandtoss (talk) 23:29, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Thats ok, I don't expect to be finished with my task (which is adding history to all the Palestinian places) in quite a few years, yet! And I quite feel with you about editing alone: with Al Ameer son on a break, and Tiamut on an ever longer break, it is getting lonely over in our area, too....sniff. Huldra (talk) 23:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@Huldra:Lol at least they're on a break, rather than non-existent. Makeandtoss (talk) 23:57, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

I've wanted to go for a long time.  — Calvin999  09:14, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Hussein of Jordan

Hello, Makeandtoss – I'm sure you saw that I had copy-edited part of the article Hussein of Jordan and then took a break. I thought I'd get back to it today, but it will have to wait another day. I saw your recent edits to the article. While I can understand your wish to keep working on and improving the article, it is really better if you wait until I finish the copy-edit to make any further changes, unless (a) you are specifically addressing questions I posted as hidden notes to editors following "clarification needed" tags, and (b) I am not at that moment engaged in copy-editing the article. Also – and you can give this some thought while you are waiting – I saw in these recent edits of yours that you were lengthening section headings and combining two different things into one section. I only copy-edit articles, I don't write them, but I've copy-edited and read so many articles that what you are doing stands out as not standard for this type of article. I don't recommend combining two topics into one section, and I recommend against long section headings. You can do some research, and look at other biographical articles such as Faisal of Saudi Arabia, Indira Gandhi, and Jawaharlal Nehru, and I think you'll see that very few section headings are long or combine two separate topics. You can ask more experienced content creators for their opinions, too.  – Corinne (talk) 01:27, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@Corinne: Apologies, they were minor edits. Were they better before or should I consider some other title? For example the "Peace proposals and relationship with Saddam Hussein" section I can't think of another way to name it. I checked them but I feel Hussein's biography is a little bit much more complicated as so many events intertwine and there is much to report on. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

False Information

Bro why did you spread false information on the Homosexuality in Jordan?

why do you think I did that, bro? Makeandtoss (talk) 20:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Noticed your edit history ...

Hello Makeandtoss. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! --75.188.199.98 (talk) 19:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Please work to improve your use of edit summaries

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Jordan, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Your edit history shows that previously you've rarely offered explanation to your fellow editors. Please make an effort to show more consideration by offering detailed edit summaries from now on. Thanks for your time and attention, --75.188.199.98 (talk) 20:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Re: Law enforcement in Jordan

Hi The image is indeed taken from a tourism police kiosk. However, it is the Public Security Directorate's logo not that of the tourism police. As long as we don't have a free to use image of the logo, I believe a silhouette of it - as is the case in the image I added- will suffice. How about that? best Faisal — Preceding unsigned comment added by فيصل العدناني (talk • contribs) 13:32, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

@فيصل العدناني: There's another problem: thats the page of the law enforcement, which includes police, darak, rangers, university guards, etc.. You can't put the PSD logo there, especially when its tourism police logo. In any case, there's a separate article for the PSD -> Public Security Directorate, and there's the real logo there. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:47, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Black September

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Black September you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Alex Shih -- Alex Shih (talk) 15:40, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay. I have passed the article as Good Article. Thank you! Alex Shih (talk) 22:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Black September

The article Black September you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Black September for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Alex Shih -- Alex Shih (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Need advice from a Jordanian editor

Proposal to move current Hashemites page to Hashemites of Jordan

The Hashemite main page should lead directly to the current disambiguation, instead of going to the Jordan recent branch.

• Banu Hashem tribe
• Hashemites of Jordan (current dynasty)
• Hashemites of Iran (current Ayatollah)
• Hashemites of Morocco (current dynasty)
• Hashemite dynasties (historic)

This will reduce the current confusion we see on the talk page Tiwahi (talk) 21:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

@Tiwahi: Strongly oppose. The "Hashemites" term is specific to the Hussein bin Ali, Sharif of Mecca clan. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

After analyzing Hashemite & Hashemite Arab English results I agree its seems that way in English mainly due to British exposure to the Hashemites of Mecca so it stuck as such, especially that the name is attached to a country today. The work has to be added to the disambiguation, with Hashemites going to the royal family of Jordan. As you might already know in Arabic Hashemite is more literal & inclusive than English Tiwahi (talk) 09:51, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@Tiwahi: Isn't that the current situation? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:04, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I wanted to change it, but the current status quo is good to go. Possibly improving articles on other Banu Hashem dynasties when I have time Tiwahi (talk) 13:35, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10