User talk:PPEMES/Archives/2016/May
 | This page 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. |
Warning about sourcing 1
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Craig J. N. de Paulo, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 18:06, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Your objection to the new versions is noticed and respected. Thank you for your responses on its talk page. Please continue the discussion on the article's talk page, so as to give other users a chance to understand what is your objections on attempts on improvement. Thank you!
Moving Hospitaller colonization of the Americas
You converted a page that I largely wrote, Hospitaller colonization of the Americas, into a list, removing the GA status. I don't want to be territorial - nobody owns pages - but I do not think that converting a Good Article into a list is any kind of "improvement". I would like to move restore the GA page back to the original, and keep your list, Territorial possessions of the Knights Hospitaller, as a separate, shorter list page. Fishal (talk) 14:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Sure, if you prefer. Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think I can simply undo your move. I'll contact an admin. Something like this should have been discussed first, I would think. Fishal (talk) 19:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Well. You wrote good text! I noticed how Russian Wikipedia covered the subject and though it was much more logical. I'm not sure it is motivated to basically have the text doubled in it's own article, unless you add a lot of more contents, make the current article too large. Until then, I suppose the article should be balanced with more contents concerning territorial possessions in other parts of the world, similarly to the good contents you proved on the Americas? By the way, feel free to move this discussion from my talk page to the discussion page of the article in question. Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Right now I think Knights Hospitaller and History of Malta under the Order of Saint John mostly cover the history. The page I created covers one small moment in the history. Maybe a more accurate title would be "Hospitaller colonization of the Caribbean", but the name matches other pages like Scottish colonization of the Americas, Swedish colonization of the Americas, etc. A page about the Hospitaller territories would be more like Territorial evolution of the British Empire, I think: more of an extended list with links to relevant articles, including the one specifically about the Caribbean colonies. Fishal (talk) 04:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- I see what you mean. However, I would still say that the overlapping is legitimate. Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- The problem that I see, though I don't want to be territorial about it, is that I put in the work to make it a GA, and as a list it no longer is. If there was a consensus from other editors who work with the topic to merge the article into a list, I wouldn't complain, to just get rid of a GA without discussing it seems to me to be regression, not progress. Fishal (talk) 04:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- I don't see your excellent contributions being diminished by being put in a more relevant context in a second article. The former article of yours may still be revived. I have added a template of need of improvement in the new article. Chicbyaccident (talk) 10:55, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- That's just it, going from a GA to a list needing cleanup, while it doesn't change the text itself, affects the trustworthiness of the page and seems like a net loss for the encyclopedia. Like I said, I don't want to be territorial about it, but I think that making such a change to a stable article with no discussion was the wrong move. Fishal (talk) 01:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- I'm just trying to evolve Wikipedia. Wikipedia is "never finished". That also applies to its articles. Either way, your former article Hospitaller colonization of the Americas may wll be revived in its former state and I won't object to that. With that solution, I don't see any problem according to what's best for Wikipedia, including your excellent contributions. Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. I will request that an admin undo the move, and then I will restore the page you created so it includes your list content; I will put it into Category:Territorial evolution. Fishal (talk) 22:15, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, then you misunderstood me. I'm not advocating that. I'm advocating keeping and improving the existing article, not moving anything back. Chicbyaccident (talk) 09:31, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. I will request that an admin undo the move, and then I will restore the page you created so it includes your list content; I will put it into Category:Territorial evolution. Fishal (talk) 22:15, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- I'm just trying to evolve Wikipedia. Wikipedia is "never finished". That also applies to its articles. Either way, your former article Hospitaller colonization of the Americas may wll be revived in its former state and I won't object to that. With that solution, I don't see any problem according to what's best for Wikipedia, including your excellent contributions. Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- That's just it, going from a GA to a list needing cleanup, while it doesn't change the text itself, affects the trustworthiness of the page and seems like a net loss for the encyclopedia. Like I said, I don't want to be territorial about it, but I think that making such a change to a stable article with no discussion was the wrong move. Fishal (talk) 01:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- I don't see your excellent contributions being diminished by being put in a more relevant context in a second article. The former article of yours may still be revived. I have added a template of need of improvement in the new article. Chicbyaccident (talk) 10:55, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- The problem that I see, though I don't want to be territorial about it, is that I put in the work to make it a GA, and as a list it no longer is. If there was a consensus from other editors who work with the topic to merge the article into a list, I wouldn't complain, to just get rid of a GA without discussing it seems to me to be regression, not progress. Fishal (talk) 04:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- I see what you mean. However, I would still say that the overlapping is legitimate. Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- Right now I think Knights Hospitaller and History of Malta under the Order of Saint John mostly cover the history. The page I created covers one small moment in the history. Maybe a more accurate title would be "Hospitaller colonization of the Caribbean", but the name matches other pages like Scottish colonization of the Americas, Swedish colonization of the Americas, etc. A page about the Hospitaller territories would be more like Territorial evolution of the British Empire, I think: more of an extended list with links to relevant articles, including the one specifically about the Caribbean colonies. Fishal (talk) 04:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Well. You wrote good text! I noticed how Russian Wikipedia covered the subject and though it was much more logical. I'm not sure it is motivated to basically have the text doubled in it's own article, unless you add a lot of more contents, make the current article too large. Until then, I suppose the article should be balanced with more contents concerning territorial possessions in other parts of the world, similarly to the good contents you proved on the Americas? By the way, feel free to move this discussion from my talk page to the discussion page of the article in question. Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think I can simply undo your move. I'll contact an admin. Something like this should have been discussed first, I would think. Fishal (talk) 19:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Clearly I misunderstood your statement. At the moment, a former GA is in a messy, unfinished state. Trying not to be territorial about a GA that I wrote, that still seems like a net loss for the encyclopedia. Why are you opposed to having 2 pages - an article on the Caribbean colonies, and a list for the complete list of territories? The colonization as an event is notable enough to merit its own page, like the other articles in this series. Even if you wrote an entire article about the territorial evolution, the Caribbean period would merit its own separate article. Fishal (talk) 22:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- Well, perhaps a duplicate content under your former article name would do for the time being? Chicbyaccident (talk) 22:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- I suppose so, so that at least the GA is restored. But I'm still confused as to why. If you did not create Territorial possessions of the Knights Hospitaller to be a list of their territorial possessions over the years, then what is it supposed to be? What would you put in the page that is not already in the articles Knights Hospitaller and History of Malta under the Order of Saint John? Iff the "territorial possessions" page is not a list, to me it seems redundant. Fishal (talk) 16:38, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Well, I can't really see the problem. I will have to refer to other users' opinions on the matter. Chicbyaccident (talk) 17:13, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- I suppose so, so that at least the GA is restored. But I'm still confused as to why. If you did not create Territorial possessions of the Knights Hospitaller to be a list of their territorial possessions over the years, then what is it supposed to be? What would you put in the page that is not already in the articles Knights Hospitaller and History of Malta under the Order of Saint John? Iff the "territorial possessions" page is not a list, to me it seems redundant. Fishal (talk) 16:38, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Friendly society into Fraternal order. 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. 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. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 21:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for your note. I agree. I will try to do so at the next appropriate occation. Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:18, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Reference errors on 22 May
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
- On the Order of Polonia Restituta page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (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, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Unexplained edits
You really need to always include adequate edit summaries. At present you hardly ever do so. Any unexplained edits can be reverted for this reason alone. Cheers, Afterwriting (talk) 23:22, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Sure, I tried to take your comment in account. Chicbyaccident (talk) 07:40, 31 May 2016 (UTC)