User talk:Middayexpress/Archive 13
 | This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
| Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 20 |
Dar Al Hayat reference
Hi. You reverted my changes to the Dar Al Hayat reference at Somalis in the United Kingdom. I realise that you want to link to the translation to show up in the citation, but the present formatting seems to prevent the "accessdate" field from working. I think it's because you've included the links in the "title" field rather than the "URL" one. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- You also reverted my addition of citation templates to the politics section. I assume that this was a mistake and have added the templates again. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- If I did indeed remove those formatting changes, they were certainly not done intentionally. I have also restored the British Arab source you removed [1] on the grounds that you are "not sure if this is reliable - the source is unformatted and looks self-published". While the formatting is a little idiosyncratic, the ref itself is reliable as it is from the National Association of British Arabs. Middayexpress (talk) 17:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- Great, many thanks. No worries about the citation templates, and thanks for starting to use them yourself when editing the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- No prob. However, it turns out that the link to the Dar Al Hayat article's English translation does not turn up when one only avails oneself of the single url field. The links to the original Arabic-language article and its English translation only appear when one actually links to both, which luckily the cite news template likewise accommodates. Middayexpress (talk) 10:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed, although this again prevents the access date from showing. The fact that there is no field for a URL for the translation suggests to me that we shouldn't include it. Also, since the translation is on a blog, how can we know that it is reliable? I think it would be better to include just the original URL and the translated title. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- The translation was written by a professional journalist, Susannah Tarbush, with a history of being published by reliable third party publications, such as the Saudi Gazette [2]; the article was just hosted on her blog. The original Arabic-language article, however, was published by Dar Al Hayat. Middayexpress (talk) 11:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- OK, well that at least reassures me that it's likely to be a good translation. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- As it turns out, the author [3] of the original Arabic-language article [4] (سوزانا طربوش, tucked away near the top) is the same person as the author of the English translation i.e. she translated her own article. Middayexpress (talk) 01:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Betterer and betterer. Now if we could just get the citation to show the access date... Cordless Larry (talk) 07:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- As it turns out, the author [3] of the original Arabic-language article [4] (سوزانا طربوش, tucked away near the top) is the same person as the author of the English translation i.e. she translated her own article. Middayexpress (talk) 01:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- OK, well that at least reassures me that it's likely to be a good translation. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- The translation was written by a professional journalist, Susannah Tarbush, with a history of being published by reliable third party publications, such as the Saudi Gazette [2]; the article was just hosted on her blog. The original Arabic-language article, however, was published by Dar Al Hayat. Middayexpress (talk) 11:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed, although this again prevents the access date from showing. The fact that there is no field for a URL for the translation suggests to me that we shouldn't include it. Also, since the translation is on a blog, how can we know that it is reliable? I think it would be better to include just the original URL and the translated title. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- No prob. However, it turns out that the link to the Dar Al Hayat article's English translation does not turn up when one only avails oneself of the single url field. The links to the original Arabic-language article and its English translation only appear when one actually links to both, which luckily the cite news template likewise accommodates. Middayexpress (talk) 10:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Great, many thanks. No worries about the citation templates, and thanks for starting to use them yourself when editing the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- If I did indeed remove those formatting changes, they were certainly not done intentionally. I have also restored the British Arab source you removed [1] on the grounds that you are "not sure if this is reliable - the source is unformatted and looks self-published". While the formatting is a little idiosyncratic, the ref itself is reliable as it is from the National Association of British Arabs. Middayexpress (talk) 17:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
August 2010
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Somalis in the United Kingdom. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Christopher Connor (talk) 05:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Injera redux
Leaving aside the other editor's behavior issues, do you have any problem with the rewording that I proposed at Talk:Injera? -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Edits to Japanese wrestling articles
Hiya, I've seen you in a couple of places rename a section called "in wrestling" to just "wrestling" on articles on Japanese wrestlers. I realize that you are probably not aware of this - but "in wrestling" is the correct headline according to the Pro Wrestling Project's MOS. So I would appriciate it if you from here on out leave the section named as it is. Thanks in advance. MPJ -US 05:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Will do; thanks for the heads up. Middayexpress (talk) 21:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Overlinking in Japanese articles
Hi. I see you have been steadily working through a large number of Japanese biographical articles, in many cases adding wikilinks to "Japanese" in the article lead sentences. I would like to ask you to read the guidelines at WP:OVERLINK, which discourages wikilinking for terms, such as "Japanese", with which the vast majority of readers will be familiar with. If you come across articles that already have "Japanese" wikilinked, it would be a great help if you could actually delink them rather than modifying the wikilinks. Thanks for your help. --DAJF (talk) 04:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Somali People
I have gone through a number of references provided by yourself on the talk page [5] of the article Somali People, and I notice that one main reference is actually spurious. Please have a look at the talk page [6] again: unless a correct reference is provided, I plan to edit out the whole claim altogether. RantingMrP (talk) 14:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
| This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
| Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 20 |