User talk:Apaugasma/Archive 2

Hello, I'm Fazoffic. I want to Help Article Rashidun Caliphate by adding this^[1] and this ^[2] Reference. Where do you think this reference should be added? ~Thank you ▪ ^꧋ꦩꦣꦪ Fazoffic ( ʖ╎ᓵᔑ∷ᔑ) 06:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Fazoffic, these sources should not be used on Wikipedia at all, because they are not reliable. The problem with the first one is that is self-published (websites and blogs may be semi-reliable if their author is a recognized expert who has published peer-reviewed work with academic publishing houses, but this does not seem to be case here, and it is always preferable to use the properly published peer-reviewed work itself). The problem with the second one is that its author Mahmud Shakir is a popular writer rather than a recognized expert whose work is cited by other scholars, and that its publisher, al-Maktab al-Islami, is not reliable: it does not have a reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight.

Please do not use sources like this on Wikipedia. My best advice for you is to get familiar with proper academic literature. An easy way to do this is by starting out with reading only books published by anything that has "University Press" in its name (Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press, Cornell University Press, etc, etc.). Of course there are many other reliable publishers, but if you just start out with reading reliable sources like this and then pay close attention to whom they are citing, you will get familiar with the names of other reliable publishers and of the recognized experts in the field. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:51, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@Apaugasma: I see Arwiki uses references like this in their articles (especially the Rashidun Caliphate) and that article has become a featured article. I don't know why they are do that. Maybe They More belived Arabic Sources than Other Sources? ^꧋ꦩꦣꦪ Fazoffic ( ʖ╎ᓵᔑ∷ᔑ) 13:31, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Arwiki has very different standards from enwiki. Part of the problem for them is indeed that most of their contributors will not master languages like English, French, German or Italian, in which most the high-quality sources on Islamic history are written. It's not a matter of trust, but a matter of access. The best Arab scholars, as well as scholars of Turkish, Iranian, Pakistani and other Muslim backgrounds, do themselves write in English, French, German or Italian. This is because only those who can read sources in these languages will become true experts in the first place, and most of those who read these languages also choose to write in them. There is even a marked tendency the last 20 years for scholars whose native language is French, German or Italian to write in English: writing in English will ensure the largest possible audience (I too am not a native speaker of English, yet I choose to write here rather than in my native language because it will be helpful to more people). For these reasons, the content on the English Wikipedia is of a much higher quality: editors here generally do have access to the very best sources, and are therefore also expected to use them. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:53, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

		The Islamic Barnstar
		As I suspected, you are indeed extraordinary. And I think you deserve it

^꧋ꦩꦣꦪ Fazoffic ( ʖ╎ᓵᔑ∷ᔑ) 03:16, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Apaugasma,

Just a head's up, CSD G5 does not apply to an article if other editors have made contributions to the article. To be a valid CSD G5, the block evading editor has to be the primary or sole contributor to the page. If CSD G5 does not apply, you can always try WP:PROD or bring it to WP:AFD. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:56, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Liz, are you aware that Special:Contributions/119.63.138.0/24 and Special:Contributions/119.73.112.0/24 are also sockpupppets of SheryOfficial (see here)? Their modus operandi was precisely to use accounts for moving or creating pages and then to edit them as anon (if you ctrl-f "119." in my 500 most recent contributions you will find many more instances of this, as I've been reverting them). Surely edits like these do not count as substantial contributions? In particular, though they do sometimes make high-quality contributions, I do not trust any edits by this sockmaster which haven't been verified in the sources by other editors, so as long as articles created by them are only edited for stuff like wikilinks or categories but not for sourced content, I think they should be deleted. AfD won't solve this because the problem is not notability. I will try WP:PROD if all else fails but perhaps you just didn't notice that the IPs were also socks? Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 10:06, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Apaugasma, thanks for your interest in the Aqsa topic. I suspect there will be another RM proposal soon, so I thought it would be worth addressing your comment on PTOPIC. If you look at the outbound clicks from Al Aqsa Mosque since the move was made, you will see that the PTOPIC is very clearly Temple Mount, by a factor of more than 2x. This is almost certainly because the "third holiest site in Islam" is of wider interest than the prayer hall building within it.

There is a discussion at Talk:Qibli Mosque#Traffic stats, where we would appreciate your views. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:53, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I wonder whether the amount of outbound clicks would still be the same if the al-Aqsa Mosque DAB page would actually follow MOS:DABPIPE and display a link to Temple Mount rather than displaying "Al-Aqsa Mosque (complex)" while actually linking to Temple Mount. Yes, the "third holiest site in Islam" (the entire al-Aqsa Mosque complex) may be a more popular subject than the single mosque building of that name, but the "third holiest site in Islam" is the al-Aqsa Mosque complex, not the Temple Mount, which –in so far as it refers to the Second Temple buried under it– is a Jewish name, and which really refers to the entire hill rather than only to the plaza at its top.

Sure, we should tell readers that the al-Aqsa Mosque complex is located on the Temple Mount, and that they should go look at the Temple Mount article if they want to know more about this. The most enduring solution would probably be to create a well-written article called al-Aqsa Mosque complex. But it's a very bad idea to directly steer people looking for al-Aqsa Mosque related information to Temple Mount without explanation, and rename the article on the al-Aqsa Mosque proper to the obscure Qibli Mosque. How and when are readers in such a situation going to discover the difference between the al-Aqsa Mosque and the wider complex around it? How are people even going to find the article on the al-Aqsa Mosque proper?

The long and the short of it is that when dealing with ambiguous names, Wikipedia should disambiguate and explain, not confuse readers by renaming articles away from their common names and by offering readers piped links which lead to something else than they display.

Look, I appreciate that you put a lot of time in this, which is a real pity since it created such a mess. But one thing that I'm not going to do is to waste an equal amount of time in trying to clean up the mess. I feel I already spent too much time on it. I'm just hoping that other editors will see sense, in which case I'll be happy to !vote for going back to a sensible name-disambiguation structure. If not– tant pis, it will probably sort itself out in time and with the improvement of the articles themselves. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:53, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Apaugasma, thanks for this. I think we agree on most things.

A lot of progress has been made over the last couple of months on this very important topic:

• Sourcing of the highest quality has been found and added, allowing for clear differentiation between the complex and the southern building. This has allowed for improvements to the articles, and allowed for better discussion between editors.
• Hundreds of links throughout the encyclopedia were previously confused as to whether they meant the compound or southern building, as many editors were previously unable to differentiate. You gave a couple in your comment at the talk page, and even more went the other direction (see e.g. ) Many of these have now been fixed, and they continue to be fixed.
• We now have clear evidence as to PTOPIC for the "Al Aqsa Mosque" base name. Your point above re MOS:DABPIPE can be discussed at the talk thread I mentioned - it could be formatted as per Spirit? Can you amend the page as you see fit, so we can see the results over the next few days?

As to whether we have a separate article for the Aqsa complex vs Temple Mount, that is a tricky question. I am in two minds, as there would be a lot of overlap. The same is true of the Cave of the Patriarchs article. I think we should resolve the Aqsa Mosque disambiguation first, and then open this question. I believe Selfstudier agrees with you, by the way.

Onceinawhile (talk) 15:08, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

The traffic statistics here show more hits for "Al-Aqsa_Mosque_(Temple_Mount)". But that does not mean that readers are wanting the Temple Mount when they search for "Al-Aqsa Mosque". It is much more likely they want Al-Aqsa Mosque on the Temple Mount. Using parens like that is a common method for disambiguation, not for giving alternative names. Zero^talk 15:43, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Zero0000 that redirect is ONLY used in this one disambiguation page. It was created solely for the purpose of this experiment. See full explanation here. So zero users are clicking on "Al-Aqsa_Mosque_(Temple_Mount)". They are only clicking on whatever we pipe them to. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:45, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I am glad you raised this, as I now see that Apaugasma didn't realize this either. I have just added the piping back in to the disambiguation page. Our readers don't see this, which is of course the point here. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:49, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: It is a fair idea to use traffic stats to gauge what readers want when they look for "Al-Aqsa Mosque", but neither version does it. The previous version fails for the reason I stated (which you didn't understand, I think). The current version doesn't work either: they are given the choice of clicking on "Temple Mount" (which they heard of), or "Qibli Mosque" explained also as al-Jāmiʿ al-Aqṣā which are two names they never heard of (and those diacritics will help put them off). People don't sit and think about it before clicking; they just glance at it and click. I believe a large number of those who want the building will click on "Temple Mount". Zero^talk 02:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

@Zero0000: please could you create a version which you think would give the clearest and fairest results? We can add it after Apaugasma's version at Talk:Qibli Mosque#Current status and phases of the disambiguation traffic assessment. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I replied at Talk:Qibli Mosque#Traffic stats. As I said above, I really don't want to spend much time on this. Renaming these articles seems to be mainly a political point, which is something I resist, as I think it would be much better if first the relevant articles would be improved (and al-Masjid al-Aqsa created!) from a non-political, scholarly point of view. But since I don't have the time to improve the articles, I certainly don't have time to quibble over their naming. al-Aqsa Mosque (building), al-Aqsa Mosque (congregational mosque) or simply al-Aqsa Mosque will all be fine, just get rid of the Qibli Mosque name. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:50, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I can't speak for others, but this discussion should have no political dimension. The reason for my interest is explained here. It is also due to my discomfort with the longstanding confusion around this terminology. Search google images for Al Aqsa Mosque, it shows mostly pictures of the Dome of the Rock. Al Aqsa has become prevalent as a brand, and there is huge confusion as to what the brand relates to. The number of people who think the Jami'a was the first qibla is disturbing, as the building didn't even exist at that time. Within our project, I have been striving to clean up 400 links to [[Al Aqsa Mosque]], more than half of which turned out to be bad links. The confusion was almost endless.

Yes the Aqsa brand is frequently used politically, but we must be able to look through that and focus on helping our readers understand.

Thanks for your detailed comment on the Qibli page - I have responded in detail there.

Onceinawhile (talk) 13:42, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

It seems crystal clear to me that the person you talked to at the al-Aqsa compound who thought you were crazy for believing that the al-Aqsa Mosque referred to the actual mosque there of that name, was not at all reacting in this way from a scholarly or antiquarian indignation, but from a purely political point of view. You shouldn't take people with such clear political motivations so seriously if you want to be an encyclopedist. People are ignorant. Yes, you likely were ignorant too, but that doesn't mean that random people you meet talking about politically loaded subjects are a reliable source to quench your ignorance. If they're indignant about something, they're most probably not reliable. In any case, that's why we insist on independent, disinterested, reliable sources, which should not just be sought after the fact, but which should be your first stop if you ever want to know about something. Yes, there is much confusion about this topic, but by diving in it from a one-sided angle and without much background knowledge, chances are that you are going to make the confusion worse. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. I mean, I know, that's kinda the story of Wikipedia. But we still ought to try to be careful. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:46, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Apaugasma,

I appreciate you taking the time to comment on the SPI I opened but I have to say I think that the diffs I found, in particular the first one , show that your basic assumption about what MarhsallKe would and would not !vote for is untenable. If you would like to remove that comment –– in the interest of keeping an already long report from becoming even more complex for patrolling admins to work through –– feel free to do so along with my response. Otherwise I suppose we will have to agree to disagree. Best regards, Generalrelative (talk) 03:16, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Generalrelative, I've answered at the SPI. I'm sorry to make the report longer –I know that's undesirable at SPI– but I'm really quite sure of what I'm saying. What I would like to stress here at my talk is that, while I believe you're barking up the wrong tree at the SPI, I full agree that BQ's behavior is obnoxious, and should be dealt with in some way if it persists. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:02, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Understood, and thanks for the thoughtful response. Happy to agree to disagree on this. Generalrelative (talk) 13:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Apaugasma! Can you verify that this is an alternative account that you created? I want to make sure; sock accounts, LTAs, and trolls will often try to impersonate other editors in order to carry out more damage. If you did not create this account, please let me know as soon as possible so that I can handle it immediately. :-) Thanks - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:35, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Oshwah! Thanks for being so vigilant. Yes, I did create that account. Following the guidance at WP:ALTACCN, I tagged its user page and redirected its talk page to mine. Is there anything else I should do? In particular, do you believe the Greek letter version is recognizable enough for an alt? Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:43, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Apaugasma - Oh no, you did nothing wrong at all! :-) I patrol the recent changes list and the account creation log very closely, and when I see a new account pop up and with a user page saying "I'm an alternate account of this other account that's spelled very closely to mine", it naturally draws me to look into it and make sure. The things that would cause me to know for certain that it's legit would be to see an edit made from the parent account confirming this, or the fact that the alternate account was created by the parent account. Since I saw neither, I wanted to reach out to you and ask. :-) What I'll do for you is add a dummy edit to your user page to state that I've confirmed its legitimacy. If you have any questions or need anything, please let me know and I'll be happy to lend a hand! Happy Friday! :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Update: The dummy edit is here. :-) - Cheers ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:57, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

It would be so exciting to see it work, so please, please make that WikiProject a reality :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:46, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi CactiStaccingCrane! Well, I'm supposed to be on a wikibreak, but instead I find myself writing a whole new article with corresponding template, looking to rewrite another article, and proposing a new way to technically distinguish core content with an associated start-up WikiProject.

Clearly something is wrong. I find that most guidance pages on wikipediholism around here 'aren't meant to be taken seriously', but I do think I'm in serious trouble. I do dream of Wikipedia, wake up with thoughts about Wikipedia, edit Wikipedia before even taking breakfast, forget to eat, the whole shebang.

So what I'm going to do is to finish these articles I've been working on (mostly offline, but I'll upload when ready), and then just really get a break. Hopefully other editors will step in at the WikiProject, and if not, it can always be revived in the future. My personal priorities at the moment just lie elsewhere, as I'm sure you'll understand. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:21, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Ouch, wikipediholism is potent stuff. Hopefully things will be all well in the end. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:23, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Apaugasma. You've used the reference {{harvnb|1994–2011}} is this meant to be {{harvnb|Daftary|1994–2011}}? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:50, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi ActivelyDisinterested! Yes, it is. I only saw it after I hit the 'publish' button and meant to fix it later today or tomorrow. I still have got a lot of work with that page; I'm concurrently also producing a rewrite of the main article, Ghulat, so things are getting along a little slower than expected. Should still be finished within a few days though. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:00, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

No worries. I've cleared all the "A-" no target errors, so this just popped up in the error list. All fixed now. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:10, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Dear Apaugasma, you have reverted my edit to the Arsi Zone article. As I referenced in making my edit, the source of my material was the Ethiopian government website for Central Statistical Agency of Ethiopia. I quoted this in making my alteration. You cannot have a more reliable source than the official government statistical service! This gives the official estimates of population as at July 2022 by Region, Zone and Woreda - for every part of Ethiopia. Rif Winfield (talk) 07:01, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Rif Winfield! Yes, I believe you, but the problem with that edit was that it did not provide enough information about the source to show that it is verifiable. Where have these estimates been published? It only says "Central Statistical Agency of Ethiopia (web), 2022". This would at the very least need an URL (where on the web?). You see, without such an URL or printed publication anyone could claim that 'according to government agency X, so-and-so'. You may use the {{cite web}} template to cite the website where the information can be found. Your edit is preserved here, so if you edit that revision and add the {{cite web}} template with the URL, everything will be fine. Thanks! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:46, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

The url is https://www.statsethiopia.gov.et/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Population-Size-by-Sex-Zone-and-Wereda-July-2022.pdf, so I thought that it would be clearer to quote "Central Statistical Agency of Ethiopia (web)", but I am happy to instead enter the whole url. The problem is that the current article, and indeed all article on Ethiopia quoting population, are repeating 2007 figures. Since that earlier day populations have virtually doubled in many areas, so the 2007 figures are very misleading. From www.statsethiopia.gov.et we can update figures (area in km², and male/female populations, plus density) for EVERY zone and woreda throughout Ethiopia, which I propose that we do systematically.Rif Winfield (talk) 04:47, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I have applied the {{cite web}} templates. We really need the exact name of the website and the exact title of the report, which I also added.

In the future, please discuss issues related to articles on the article talk pages (in this case, Talk:Arsi Zone). In this way, all editors can see what we're discussing, and participate in the discussion if they want to. I'm not sure, for example, whether everyone would agree to using the projected estimates for 2022 rather than the full 2007 census. I'm not very interested in this issue, but other editors may be. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:26, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello Apaugasma, been some time since we last had contact, hope you're doing well. This user (who has given me sockpuppetry vibes ever since he edited) just restored the move of a veteran socker , whom you seem to know quite well. I was thinking about filling an SPI, but would you prefer to do it yourself? I only have this one diff to show, perhaps you can think of more similar ones? If not, then I'll go ahead and make the SPI. Bests. EDIT: Found one more example HistoryofIran (talk) 16:48, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi HistoryofIran! I hope you're doing well too. Praxidicae had already opened an SPI when you posted this. I've tagged you there, you may want to watch that page. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:14, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

In response to your query in an edit summary - yes, that was indeed a mistake, sorry! I was checking an IP edit, then got distracted and didn't notice there were later revisions. PohranicniStraze (talk) 19:56, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

No worries. I already assumed as much. Thanks for letting me know! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:59, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, the "enemy of" wording rather than "opposed to" is fine, whichever you prefer. The version I was looking at when I mistakenly edited an old version said "Walid was against the Muhammad and Islam". Feel free to revert the rest of the way back to your revision if you want. PohranicniStraze (talk) 20:02, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I changed that to "an enemy of Muhammad and Islam", but I think your suggestion "opposed to" is actually better (a bit less pigeon-holing; I wasn't really putting a lot of effort in this). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:19, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this barnstar in recognition of your repeated, courteous but firm work in maintaining the standards of Wikipedia. This is appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:26, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Wow, thanks a lot! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:47, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Greetings @Apaugasma

From your one of passing comment else where (in a discussion not directly related to following) I thought it would be interesting to have your inputs in following if the topic interests you.

Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view#Statement of purpose as part of NPOV policy of avoiding honorifics

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 08:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Bookku, I largely agree with the feedback you've already gotten there. It reads a bit like a 'solution looking for a problem'. We already have guidelines around some kinds of honorifics, and it seems that nothing more is really needed, especially not something as weighty as a statement of purpose. Please do not forget that our fifth pillar is that Wikipedia has no firm rules. There are only very few things here which are centrally decided, and a largely stylistic issue such as honorifics really shouldn't be one of them. On the contrary, guidelines about stylistic issues should allow maximum flexibility for local consensus to deviate from them.

For example, I regularly ignore MOS:MUHAMMAD, because following it to the letter would run contrary to common usage in reliable sources. It's also not rarely the case that a literal interpretation of the MOS would obscure substantial issues about which the Wikipedia editors who wrote up the MOS were ignorant (one example being that a Companion in many cases was not at all a 'companion' in the normal sense of that word, which should be explained and marked out by capitalization).

I'm in my right to do this (as far as it has local consensus) precisely because WP:NOTBURO (did you read that blurb?) is policy. WP:IAR is one step further and often not advisable, but not taking the rules too literally and not trying to regulate everything with firm and fixed rules really is foundational to the whole Wikipedia project. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Considering an academic opinion over the views and opinions of the believers of the Ismaili religion is a form of bias. Also new works have show connections between the Umm-al-Kitab and Ismailism, check Intellectual Interactions in the Islamic World, The Ismaili Thread for more. 201.92.244.22 (talk) 19:00, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that source, it's a really valuable contribution to Ismaili studies! I wasn't aware of it yet, but I have now incorporated it into the article. Do note, however, that this source too says that it is commonly thought today that the doctrines exposed in the Kitāb al-Haft, the Umm al-kitāb and related texts have nothing to do with Ismailism. This clearly is the status quo, and on Wikipedia we always tend to give more weight to long-established views than to cutting-edge insights. In any case, the new source argues for an influence of ghulāt ideas on later (mainly Tayyibi) Isma'ilism, which seems probable enough.

As for bias, the simple fact is that Wikipedia follows academic views. If some would like to call that being 'biased' to academia (see also WP:ABIAS), then so be it. It's not different from a physician being 'biased' to medical sources or a priest being 'biased' to religious sources: writing an encyclopedia is an academic endeavor. But in the end it really doesn't make sense to say we are biased. Summarizing what academic sources say is simply what it means to write an encyclopedia, and being what one is supposed to be is not being biased (see WP:NOTBIASED). I would expect Isma'ilis to understand this though, given the fact that the Agha Khan himself sponsors such excellent academic institutions as the Institute of Isma'ili Studies (which, not coincidentally, published the source with which you delighted me). Again, thanks for the source, and happy days! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:49, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

You don't have to bother thanking me. it's just a normal duty to correct things wherever. Shan.venance (talk) 23:25, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I understand. I just thought yours was a helpful first edit and thought I'd thank you for it, that's all. If you ever have any questions about Wikipedia, please feel free to ask them here or at the Teahouse. Happy editing! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:02, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi, fellow editor! I'm going "door to door" to bring this proposal to editors' attention. Please consider posting your view. Thanks! Albertatiran (talk) 07:40, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Do you have an academic or personal email for correspondence? This would be much appreciated. 2A02:C7E:5027:5B00:950F:2483:8B58:75D (talk) 20:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello London IP! If you register an account and log in, you can email me by visiting my user or talk page and clicking 'Email this user' in the 'Tools' section of the left sidebar. This way, a Wikipedia user can receive email without disclosing their personal email on the internet (remember that every edit made to Wikipedia creates a new webpage that will remain visible on the internet as long as Wikipedia's servers will keep running). If you contact me in this way, your own email address will be visible to me. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:53, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi again; this is to let you know that I've received your email well. I'm not interested to participate, but if you ever publish something, please do let me know (by wiki-email or on my talk page). Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Apaugasma, Someone created this article which I had draftify given several reasons but I feel this is worth an article if worked upon. This came into my attention when I helped on Fateh Muhammad Panipati and got that appeared on DYK. If you feel free, please help on this one! ─ The Aafī (talk) 05:55, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for whatever you contributed here. I should be having access to some offline sources and will update the article accordingly. I was confused with the name and used what I thought was best. Thanks for the move. Please consider having autopatrolled flag at the least. Regards, ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:38, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi The Aafi! I updated the article, adding the Encyclopaedia of Islam entry. This would also be a good source to start from to expand the article a little if you wish to. I also moved the old article at al-Shatibi to Abu Ishaq al-Shatibi, and converted the former into a disambiguation page. This created a ton of links to al-Shatibi that will now need disambiguation, so I'll still have some work with that.

In the future, if you think a subject is notable but you do not immediately have sources available, it's worth having a look here. An entry in Encyclopaedia of Islam is not only incontrovertible proof of notability, it's also the best source to establish basic facts (correct name, dates, etc.) for a stub article. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:44, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

This is helpful. It would be glad if we get this ready for DYK anytime soon. I'm occupied with DCW's Bhopal Photo Event currently and thus not able to give much time here but I am happy with your assistance. Please do have a look at DCW as well: a recognized user group affiliate of Wikimedia, that focuses majorly on the South Asian Deobandi Islamic scholarship at a global level. Regards, ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:50, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Apaugasma, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled user right to your account. This means that pages you create will automatically be marked as 'reviewed', and no longer appear in the new pages feed. Autopatrolled is assigned to prolific creators of articles, where those articles do not require further review, and may have been requested on your behalf by someone else. It doesn't affect how you edit; it is used only to manage the workload of new page patrollers.

Since the articles you create will no longer be systematically reviewed by other editors, it is important that you maintain the high standard you have achieved so far in all your future creations. Please also try to remember to add relevant WikiProject templates, stub tags, categories, and incoming links to them, if you aren't already in the habit; user scripts such as Rater and StubSorter can help with this. As you have already shown that you have a strong grasp of Wikipedia's core content policies, you might also consider volunteering to become a new page patroller yourself, helping to uphold the project's standards and encourage other good faith article writers.

Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:25, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello i reverted you at Makonnen Wolde Mikael, i know you reverted a sock, but i'm reverting the edits of another disruptive user Zaikadu YonasJH (talk) 05:58, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi YonasJH! Sure thing, please do revert back any bad edit I reinstate as part of reversing block evasion. I often don't have the time to look at the actual contents, so it's great when other editors do!

I'd also like to ask you take a look at this edit. It's reinstating an edit made multiple times by Gabi838r socks ( ), but maybe that's just because the Gabi838r socks were correct on the content and Zaikaidu was wrong? Thanks! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

@Apaugasma: Thank you for understanding. I frankly don't know much about the sources at Taytu Betul, there doesn't seem to have been much discussion in contrast to Yekuno Amlak and Makonnen Wolde Mikael's. I'm wary of Zaikadu edits, however i don't have the time or resources to verify all the sources or edits this user makes, so i'm not going on a revert spree per WP:GF. I also don't know if the sock (Gabi838r) contributed anything significantly to Taytu Betul, sock appears to revert to earlier versions edited by other users, but because he's socking it's being reverted to Zaikaidu's version, similar to what just happend on Makonnen Wolde Mikael article, at least that's my observation. YonasJH (talk) 20:44, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

There's actually a pattern where the Gabi838r socks have been directly undoing Zaikaidu's edits, on several pages. This may just be because they have conflicting and opposite points of view though, I'm not sure. Anyhow, it would be good if someone knowledgeable and interested in the content would look into it. Failing that, it's already great that you revert the stuff that you know is wrong. In the future, please don't hesitate to undo any of my reverts of block evasion, as long as you clearly explain in the edit summary (as you did) why the sock edit should be reinstated. Thanks again, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:01, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I can see why my edits on Ras makonnen are deleted. I have looked at other sources as well. On the other hand, I do not know why my edits on Taytu Betul are deleted Zaikaidu (talk) 20:30, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

@Zaikaidu: from the edit summaries of the editors reverting you (e.g., ) their concern appears to be that the information you added to Taytu Betul is not present in the source given. However, you should directly discuss this with these editors at Talk:Taytu Betul. Please open a new section there and discuss your edits rather than repeatedly reinstating them, a practice called edit warring which is not allowed here. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 01:48, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

It is funny, because I cited this source, and now my edits are being deleted Zaikaidu (talk) 20:11, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

....for fixing my botched ANI edit conflict tidy, I was trying to work out why it was showing I'd removed more than the amount of duplicated bytes that had been accidentally added! Mike1901 (talk) 21:09, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi, nice to have met you recently at MOS:ARABIC.

Today I saw this, thought of you, and learned a word!
https://dailydoseofgreek.com/scripture-passage/hebrews-1-3a/
– Fayenatic London 07:57, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Ha, that's great! If you're interested, I've also pointed out the only two earlier usages (as found on TLG) of this Koine word at my user page, and offered an analysis of its meaning. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:09, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I noticed! I read your WP:NOTBIASED essay as well – very interesting. – Fayenatic London 18:52, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Apaugasma. I'm in agreement with you about the use of mental health terms in discussions on Wikipedia, but I don't think there's much that can be done at this time. Unfortunately such terms as simply common parlance at the moment, and we'll have to wait for a societal change before anything happens. I'm mean the greater society, rather than Wikipedia culture, and it does appear to being slowly happening. Until then it's a case of having to assume other editors are only talking idiomatically, and without malice. I hope you don't let it get to you, change is happening we just have to wait. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:03, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi ActivelyDisinterested! Yes, change is happening, always too slow, but faster than I could honestly imagine even twenty years ago. I can't wait to see what it will be like in another twenty years. I always say to my partner that when we will be really old and just about to die, a new progressive revolution similar to what happened in the 1960s will break out. If we can survive 21st-century ecological breakdown, things will be looking very good in the future. Embracing neurodiversity will be a part of that, but also the end of technophobia and the concomitant resistance against science and the scientific worldview. If all is good, we won't need to have discussions like we're having right now.

But then we're living today, and Wikipedia does now have a problem at the intersection of perceptions of other editors' views about (pseudo)science and perceptions of other editors' mental states and capabilities. Jimbo's 'lunatic charlatans' comment has done much to encourage this in a bad way. I'm fairly sure Jimbo never meant it as the excuse to be uncivil and to cast aspersions many editors are now using it for, but here we are. It is driving good editors away, I'm sure of it –it very nearly drove me away. Ironically, being cast as an irrational, illogical pro-fringe lunatic has effectively eaten away at my sanity, though I must say that Wikipedia in general tends to do this (and thus in the final analysis that's on me, for being a Wikipediholic). Perhaps Wikipedia will always unavoidably resemble Twitter, Facebook et al. to some extent, being a place where text-only content discussions just need to happen, and where for complex reasons uncivil behavior will sometimes simply be tolerated. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:21, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the corrections and demands that you provided for this page. I tried to answer all your questions, and clarify what was requested. I do sincerly appreciate the way you contributed. RigOLuche (talk) 16:58, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi RigOLuche! I also copy-edited your newest additions to the article.

It might be a good idea for you to put up a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests each time you add a significant amount of material to an article, so others with a better grasp of English can review it for you. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 10:31, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello Apaugasma, Fazoffic has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I made new articles about Muslim meme and i can't speak english correctly. Can you help please?.... Thank you ^꧋ꦩꦣꦪ Fazoffic ( ʖ╎ᓵᔑ∷ᔑ) 07:19, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Fazoffic! The article's English wasn't too bad really, but I did fix some mistakes and copy-edited it a little.

In the future, please place requests to check your English in Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. Unlike me the editors there are generally native speakers, and they are much better than me in finding the clearest way to express something in English. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 10:34, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to apologize if I have made an investigation more difficult. Live and learn, I guess. However, I'm still hopeful it might prove beneficial if it causes attention to be drawn to this longstanding and persistent issue. Dealing with the same thing over and over again in the same pages over for years can get tedious. Regards, Wareno (talk) 15:49, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Wareno! I feel you. Unfortunately it's simply impossible to prove at this point that we're dealing with sockpuppetry, which means that you will have to engage the user on content.

I've been in this type of situation a lot so I know how stressful it can be. My advice is to take it as an opportunity to improve the article: the best way to show on talk that your edits are accurate is to literally quote from reliable sources, which is a lot easier and feels less like a waste of time when you're simultaneously using these sources to add new content to the article.

Some tools I've found helpful when quoting from sources on talk pages are {{tq}} (for short quotes), {{tqb}} (for longer quotes that take up more than one line), and {{box}} used with the following code {{box|color=#e0dfdc|text}} (for quotes that take up a full paragraph or more). What I also often do is to list out the sources I refer to between <small> and </small> brackets at the bottom of my comment and to refer inline to the source using {{harvnb}} templates (not refs or footnotes, which create too much clutter). Examples here and here.

Be sure though to not make the same mistake as I did in that last diff by continuing to argue with a user who does not acknowledge the quotes from the sources as given. In that case it's much better to proceed to a WP:3O or even a WP:RFC.

One more thing: as long as you're not going to ANI, strictly discuss content and edits, not behavior and editors. Always be friendly (this always helps, even if others are not friendly), and always try to be as concise as possible.

Hope this helps a little, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to say beauty products, not beauty hopes. Thank you for catching that! :) Patissiereyumeiro (talk) 05:41, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Patissiereyumeiro for your great contributions to the alchemy article! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:16, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

...ever considered running? I believe you have handled the Theguywholearnhistory-Wareno case quite admirably. I've witnessed many disputes and conflicts on WP but I've scarcely seen an editor responding so concisely and skilfully before; in this case, I could not have responded better. You seem to have all the knowledge, experience and prowess to carry the mob, so why not give it a shot? Colonestarrice (talk) 03:25, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Colonestarrice! That is one of the nicest compliments anyone has ever given me on Wikipedia. It really means a lot. But no, I won't be running for admin any time soon, for various reasons. One reason is that I'm not experienced enough in some areas of the project which are traditionally considered important at RfA (mainly everything relating to deletion). Another, perhaps more important reason is that I'm –somewhat unsuccessfully– trying to spend less time on Wikipedia. Taking up the mop would probably mean the final blow for my off-wiki projects, which I actually hold to be far more important! If all is good, next year I'll really be doing the Attic Nights thing as shown at the top of my talk page. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:22, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Though it's a shame, I fully agree that one's private life and projects take precedence over WP. I hope you find the time to complete your off-wiki projects – or have an "Attic Night" (if I understand the term correctly) – and should you ever change your mind someday, you certainly have my vote. Colonestarrice (talk) 20:52, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

In regards to your statement at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive SPA in Hunnic topics, if that's true then we can't accept the words of 17th, 18th and 19th century historians when it comes to Native American cultures unless it was specifically discussed by modern historians. If they don't discuss it then you don't have an article. GA isn't interpreting anything. There is a list of those with Hunnish decent. There are sources saying this person is of Hunnish decent. If there are historical sources that contradict each other then we do just like we do when modern sources contradict each other. We don't get rid of both claims. We find a way to incorporate both. We just ended a year long debate at Trail of Tears about the inclusion of that event as a genocide. It took a year to get people involved to agree to something. We spent months debating at Andrew Jackson before we were able to agree to wording that might not be what everyone wanted but was acceptable to the majority. In both cases we had both historical and modern sources that contradicted and even disputed each other. We found a way to include as much as we could because that enriches the encyclopedia. On claims that were contradicted you include both sides of the argument and let the reader decide. --ARoseWolf 16:45, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

This is fundamentally incorrect with regard to Wikipedia content policy. As I pointed out at the ANI thread, Wikipedia:No original research says that articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if it has been published by a reliable secondary source. It doesn't matter whether primary sources contradict each other, or contradict modern secondary sources, we only represent the claims made by modern secondary sources. Putting claims from primary sources side by side and 'letting the reader decide' is not a valid option per policy, and for very good reason: we let historians, not readers, decide which claims are more or less reliable, how they should be interpreted, and whether they even deserve to be mentioned at all in a particular context (whether they're wp:due). In most cases, your approach would lead to a truly disastrous form of false balance.

Perhaps after months of discussion between editors with a good background knowledge of a particular subject you might collectively arrive at a piece of semi-original research that is passable and fairly accurate, even if fundamentally at odds with content policy. But please don't suggest that this is how things should normally be done on Wikipedia, and never ever encourage editors engaged in nationalistic disputes to put claims about ethnicity found in medieval sources on Wikipedia without solid backup from modern expert sources. There's actually nothing wrong with some original research if done by competent people without any ax to grind, but unfortunately Wikipedia editors bickering about ethnicity are most often the exact opposite of that. Our policies did not arise out of nowhere, and whenever there's some disagreement between editors about content it's content policy that should be looked to for guidance. For anything to do with history the spirit of our policy is clearly to take away the burden from editors and to let historians decide which claims are reliable and due. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:26, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

You will not find anywhere on Wikipedia that I specifically "encourage editors engaged in nationalistic disputes to put claims about ethnicity found in medieval sources on Wikipedia without solid backup from modern expert sources." I came here in good faith to discuss with you about your comment and to offer my own experiences and how I formed my view point, very much within policy, concerning sourcing and how it's defined and used. I did not come to your talk page to be talked down to or chastised for something I didn't even do. No one in those discussions on either of those articles I referenced were experts on anything other than working together to review sourcing and to find solutions within policy, not outside of it. We came to a consensus, within policy, as determined by those participating in the discussions and I appreciate every person that took the time to discuss and the efforts of those that edited the articles to match consensus. If the spirit of Wikipedia is as you claimed, which I 100% disagree with you on, then there are thousands of articles, including many countless FA's which completely rely on primary sources. I don't believe that the intent was ever to solely rely on the critique by modern sources of historical sources for every word on Wikipedia. Thank you for taking the time respond to my inquiry. --ARoseWolf 22:14, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I didn't mean to chastise you, and I'm truly sorry that my replies came over that way. I just wanted to explain to you that what you said is contrary to policy: you secondary sources are preferred but not required and especially in historical claims vs policy articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if it has been published by a reliable secondary source. I'm fairly struck that you still don't appear to recognize this basic contradiction.

Why yes, there are a great many WP articles (though normally not FAs) that are chock-full of original research, which is of course due to the fact that what precisely OR is and why exactly WP should avoid it can sometimes be a subtly difficult thing to understand. Rest assured though that our most experienced editors do understand it, as does anyone who regularly edits in subject areas that are fought over by people with nationalistic or religious motivations. I'm thinking that perhaps this is a bit about where on the project one edits. As I stated above, when editors come to a consensus on a talk page about using primary sources, that's fine: nothing trumps wp:consensus on this project. But as I also said, that won't work with people who have an ax to grind, who do not have the slightest interest in actually reflecting what reliable sources are saying, or who are simply so blinded by their own POV that they can't see outside of that particular POV's frame of reference. All of those things are invariably the case for the great majority of IPs/new accounts/throw-away accounts/socks editing in many topic areas. In such areas, you will find experienced editors maintain a strict approach to WP:OR, which is absolutely necessary given the amount of POV-pushing already happening even on the basis of secondary sources alone.

So yeah, if there's a heated discussion with an editor allegedly pushing a pro-Turkish POV and unduly calling things Turkish, don't go tell them that they can use medieval primary sources to establish that the kings of Hungrary were of Hunnic (=~ Turkic) descent. It's not only that this is flatly against policy (it's extremely common for medieval sources to claim false lines of descent for political reasons which are subject to the medieval context itself, and we really just can't repeat such claims if not accompanied by a modern expert's opinion), it's also that to get a heated content dispute like that back on the rails it is absolutely crucial to first find a common basis that stands firmly within the inner bounds of content policy. Good-faith discussion about whether to use primary sources and how can always follow later, though in topics like this such discussion is perhaps not very likely to happen (wait a few generations!). In any case, with medieval history it is very rarely (I'm tempted to say: never) a good idea on WP to solely depend on primary sources in the first place. That's probably what irks me most about this, whence the fervor with which I respond. Again, if that affected my tone to the point of being condescending, I apologize, for that was not my intention.

Also sorry for the wall of text, I really shouldn't be taking up so much of both your and my time with this. I wish you a good day, wherever you are on this planet of ours. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:05, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. The text is not a waste of time for me but I do apologize if it is for you. I find that Wikipedia is so nuanced with so many different topic areas and the subtle differences in which policy is applied to them that sometimes it requires much more detail to explain a specific perspective. Don't worry yourself over that. And in regards to the last situation, I was drawn into the content side of it which was never intended (I apologized for that) as I do not have much experience in that topic area and will most likely not edit in that topic area anyway. My concern is and always will be the way we treat each other, even when we believe someone is in error. Immediately jumping to bad faith assumptions of another person's intentions and how they are editing on Wikipedia is never a good thing for the encyclopedia and all parties involved in that situation were wrong, even if one side was ultimately right in accordance with specific topic content policy. Under no circumstances are we allowed to become uncivil and break with standard interaction policies and then fall back on content policies as a justifiable reason. The two are distinguishable and you can adhere to content policy without breaking interaction policy. That was my point throughout the discussion and why I specifically told GA on their talk page to stop. I did not go to the other editors talk pages to tell them because I respect their experience. However, they were just as wrong in that area as GA was, more so because of their experience. As a mentor I am tasked with pointing mentees to policy to help them on their journey here. I take that responsibility very serious and, in regards to medieval history, I will note what you have told me and make sure that I point that out to anyone that may ask about that. I will not, however, compromise my belief that while content policy is paramount to the construction of the encyclopedia we are a community of editors and paramount to the success of this community in building that encyclopedia is the way in which we interact with each other. Just as there is few compromises in content policy for the encyclopedia where the compromise is the exception to the rule, policy on how we are expected to treat each other in this community should not be compromised except on rare occasion and where it can be shown that doing so was the only recourse. I will always stand firm in that. I am writing a lot too but I want to say this, sometimes we attract flies larva and sometimes we attract caterpillars. Flies are the ones that are here only to take. It is their only purpose. Caterpillars are here to grow, even if they don't know it. In most cases it may be difficult to distinguish between the fly and the caterpillar. Sometimes they look and act very much the same, initially. But only one will transform into a butterfly. I am here to find the butterflies. But I feel strongly that we don't have to compromise how we treat each other to do that. Thank you for your well wishes and the same to you wherever you are. --ARoseWolf 19:00, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with what you wrote here, and appreciate your approach to these things. There was a point in that ANI discussion where you almost succeeded in de-escalating the situation, which was quite amazing. There was this point about OR that irked me, but in general you were doing a fantastic job, as I've seen you do elsewhere too. Please continue doing that, don't let this quibble discourage you. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:18, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

It hasn't discouraged me. I learned something out of it that I can take and evaluate. I know Bbb23 was watching the discussion and I appreciate them giving me the opportunity to try and de-escalate it. They stepped in at the correct time to end the disruption GA was causing. While I believe civility was poor on both sides the content issues and disruption eventually became overwhelming. I think a longer block was justified because GA refused to discuss their edits with the ones they were in a dispute with but I have a feeling if they don't change how they approach editing then that will happen regardless. I also doubt they have permanently retired. I really do appreciate your kind words and your willingness to discuss the issue you had with me. --ARoseWolf 13:58, 16 December 2022 (UTC)