User talk:Afasmit

This user may have left Wik.ipedia.Pro. Afasmit has not edited Wik.ipedia.Pro since September 2019. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Archives

Archive 1. Archive 2. Archive 3 Archive 4

Thank you so much for your contributions to this page. I can't seem to find links to any of her work. Are you aware of any places to buy or online concordances?

Thanks again :)

Mammynuns (talk) 19:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've done some work on fire articles, would love you to comment on this discussion about what qualifies as a current wildfire if you have a moment. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since most of its content is user-generated, Transfermarkt is not a reliable source. Please stop citing the website in articles. Thank you. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your edits today. They pleased me a lot. What I'm not sure about is if a composer worked in one country his whole life but was born in another, should he be listed under both categories? My sense is yes, but I know others disagree. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 18:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Afasmit You might be interested to read Wik.ipedia.Pro talk:WikiProject Novels, the discussion on International titles. You reverted one of the sections blanked by an editor who did this to all the articles on novels by Agatha Christie without discussion first. Now the topic is being discussed. I reverted one of these, too, but will not revert them all unless there is more support to do so, after the topic is aired properly. You reverted for the article The Secret of Chimneys with a concise statement of your view, https://en.Wik.ipedia.Pro.org/w/index.php?title=The_Secret_of_Chimneys&curid=542507&action=history . I am sure your views will improve the discussion. --Prairieplant (talk) 21:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I see that you've been reinserting [ɪː, ʏː, ʊː] in Dutch IPA transcriptions. This creates a discrepancy between them and Help:IPA for Dutch (which they all link to), which is unacceptable. Each transcription that links to Help:IPA for Dutch must use the same transcription system that is shown there, otherwise we might as well don't have that IPA guide at all.

To see why it's not necessary to use the symbols [ɪː, ʏː, ʊː], see this discussion.

If you disagree with our current transcription system, please challenge it on Help:IPA for Dutch, but don't use another system until there's a consensus to change the guide. Peter238 (talk) 14:26, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No idea which edit you're talking about. Is it one several thousand edits ago? If I did use any of these transcriptions for a Dutch word, that must have been by mistake as they look and sound non-native to me as a Dutchman. They also don't occur in the Dutch phonology tables that I doggedly follow. Perhaps your bot caught me undoing a large deletion (like a vandalism) that contained a transcription like this. Afasmit (talk) 08:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:Afasmit, can you take a look at the Maiorana surname article when you've got a minute, and, if necessary reword some of what's written, add/remove links and categories to make it sound more proper. It's a small job, but it would be a great help, thanks. --Emperorofthedaleks (talk) 04:41, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you've eliminated a well-sourced well-written entry and replaced it with an unsourced and unlikely conjecture. I've restored the sensible version upon your request and added some more people. Afasmit (talk) 06:32, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I meant could you reword the Anglo-Saxon version to fit Wik.ipedia.Pro with information based from this source ([1]). You can add related names and how it comes from Cheshire if you want. Maybe model it on Grant (name) article, which is very well written. --Emperorofthedaleks (talk) 11:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Haha thanks, my bad. Didn't look at the spelling. Martin sv 85 (talk) 06:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Afasmit, first of all thanks for working on the articles of academics, including some of the articles I created. Before you manage to add much more material I quickly wanted to advise you that according to the Wik.ipedia.Pro:Manual of Style/Biographies places of birth/death should not be added to the section within the lede brackets, but rather to the main body of text. See WP:BIRTHPLACE for more. Happy editing! Crispulop (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Crispulop, I think this style aspect is a classical example of a guideline rather than a rule. It has been discussed extensively and I agree with this interpretation by two editors. If there is an info box or a description of the birth or death in the main text, I leave those places out of the lede. If not, I put them in there. The person building this article can use the new information in any style they want, although stubs reading something like

Zbygniew Prlwytzkovski (1902-1989) was a Dutch scientist.

Prlwytzkovski was born in 1902 in Rommeldam. He was a fictional person after whom the fictional element Prlwytzium is named. He died in Rommeldam in 1989.

always strike me as unnecessarily clumsy. Afasmit (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

My name is Artyom Anikin, and I am currently researching the life of Anthony Colve. I've recently written an article about his biography that will be published in the coming days in the academic journal, New York History, and it has a lot of information that is missing from your recent update of his page. I find it great that you have taken the time to update it as much as you have, and I hope that my article can help fill in the rest of the story. There are some interesting contradictions. You cite a source I did not see previously, the records of fort Sint Anna, which list him as living till 1695, while my research turned up a copy of his gravestone that listed his death as occurring in 1693. I'd like to talk to you about this if you are interested and I invite you to contact me. My article will hopefully be of great help to yours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artyomanikin (talk • contribs) 20:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I have recently started a new WikiProject and am trying to recruit new members. The project, WikiProject Wildfire, focuses on articles that relate to wildfires. There is a lot of work that needs to be done. From updating templates, to classifying and improving articles. Any level of commitment is welcome! If you care to just add some input on the founding of the new project, awesome. If you would like to take an active role in editing articles, that is awesome as well! Knowledge of wildfires is NOT a prerequisite for joining the project. In fact, it would be great to have some members of the project who are NOT fire-buffs. That way we make sure that articles aren't just written by and for people in the fire community. If this is something you have any interest in, I would love to have you join the project! Please feel free to join the discussion or leave me a message on my talk page. (Note that you are receiving this message from me because I saw you made multiple edits on a wildfire related page, specifically List of Washington wildfires. Not just spamming you at random.) Hope you have a great day! Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you reverted an edit I made that corrected the phonemes of words with ⟨ong⟩ in them. The letter ⟨o⟩, in a closed syllable with the absence of a lengthening vowel, represents the /ɒ/ phoneme. It may make an [ɑː] sound or an [ɔː] sound in different contexts in AmE due to the lot-cloth split and the cot-caught merger, but it's not correct to say that it represents the phonemes /ɑː/ or /ɔː/. If you feel that that needs to be shown on that page, then it should be put in [] brackets to show that it's a narrow transcription. --Clorox (talk) 06:21, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I decided to talk to two admins, you and another person on the same subject. I asked about the KTFF 50th Anniversary Cup your version is very good, even the version in Persian.

But I note that the French version Coupe du 50e anniversaire de la KTFF of that problem, I would like to understand why? There are 14 reliable sources in 2 sources (Article 1 and 8) are two books that talks about a tournament on the 50 years of the federation and the other book on the team, 2 works speak of the competition.

The seventh source shows Yucel Hatay, known for writing several books on "Cyprus Turkish Football Association", "football in North Cyprus" and the "Northern Cyprus national football team".

The arguments given by those who are against this article, leaves desired. They say Sourcing very poor, anecdotal ....

Yet there were competitions around the world or there was a single edition that is on Wik.ipedia.Pro, sometimes with no sources. I admit to having trouble understanding for the latter. The two books are definitely the best sources.

Cordially. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E34:EE0E:ABD0:F48F:1CC6:E35A:1ABD (talk) 17:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm not an admin. Wouldn't want to be one either ;-) Afasmit (talk) 17:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it does not matter your opinion is just as important.

Knowing that the items are 100% reliable. I like to have your opinion, you keep the article in French, yes or no ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E34:EE0E:ABD0:F48F:1CC6:E35A:1ABD (talk) 18:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but no, I have not contributed to this topic in any language. Afasmit (talk) 20:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the prominence, I was too confident in Pkb! --Pampuco (talk) 17:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Afasmit. Thank you for construcive edits! Just let me say, that permanent comparison of national results to world bests is not helpful. For all who are interested in: WRs are shown in its own article. Regards.Montell 74 (talk) 21:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Montell. I do think that the comparison with the world records are helpful, as it puts the national record in context with the current "state of the arts". In the Finnish case it shows that the male sprinters are amongst the best in the world, while, say, the female long distance skaters are not. Afasmit (talk) 21:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be among the bests depends on a lot of points. F.e. equipment, sponsorship and advancement by government. It makes no sense to compare each athlete to world leaders in it's discipline. What is the benefit to compare a sprinter of Guam with Bolt? Montell 74 (talk) 21:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Finnish sprinters and long distance skaters are operating under the same conditions. Perhaps the Finnish skating organization pushes the sprinting more these days, while women are under-sponsored; no idea, but the difference is information. More importantly, the individual records are pretty much meaningless to anyone not familiar with the top times. Just about everyone happens to know that 10 seconds flat for the 100 m dash is required to be in the top echelon and Guam's own Philam Garcia with his 10.66 s personal and national record may not be a challenger for Olympic gold, but few will know that 34.23 s on the 500 m in speed skating is pretty darn amazing for anyone, no matter where you come from. (By the way, it amazes me how many national record pages there are. You'd imagine some countries would run out of participants. Indeed, none of the ca 10,000 Palau women may have attempted pole-vaulting yet and none of the 5000 Nauru men may have yet bothered to speedwalk 20 let alone 50 km;-)

A real drawback may be that the world-records need to be updated on all these pages. We could link the times to the respective record progression pages, with the added benefit that one could see that, for example, Pekka Koskela's 1000 m time was actually a world record until March 2009. Afasmit (talk) 01:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To update these pages all the time after a new WR is really unfortunate. Look at the history of these pages and you will see to whom it may concern. Maybe you ask more editors f.e. of the Netherlands speed skating records article... Á link to WR progression is the more better way. Regards.Montell 74 (talk) 12:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Afasmit. I think your last changes doubles the progression you can find on the speed skating world records' article. Isn't your intention to point out, that some of the national records was once a world record? So please see my changes at finnish records. Wouldn't that be more helpful?Montell 74 (talk) 07:39, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the additional information and infobox to the Godfrid Storms page! Just curious where you were able to the the additional information (dates of birth/death, spouse, etc.)? When I created the page I was unable to find much on him other than various publications. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 01:29, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I should have attached a reference. Here is a very brief obituary, in Dutch, with all the information added. I reached it via his birth place (Sittard) mentioned in his dissertation (which also of course mentioned his PhD supervisor). For some reason it appears on a website with newspaper clippings about Ameland. He may have had a vacation cabin there. Afasmit (talk) 01:41, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Afasmit! I've added it as a reference. Definitely an obscure source, but provides a lot of good information. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. What is meant by that [2]? Who is that? Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:42, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That was an accident. Pasted in the previous name I added the default sort to. Afasmit (talk) 17:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Afasmit,

Considering what will follow is clearly orginal research, I'm posting it here rather than on the World football Elo ratings talk page.

I've performed some testing in applying the Elo ratings backwards all over the database, starting with current ratings as on December 2017 and getting back to the first international game in 1872. The result wasn't really what I was expecting, since Scotland ended on that original game with 2406 points and England with 2275 points! Here is a table comparing the initial ratings calculated this way with the actual ratings used on eloratings.net:

http://www.international-football.net/test-elo-backwards

So, as you can see, it's not conclusive. This being said, I wanted to test it a bit scientifically. First thing, I wanted to check whether initial ratings used by Kirill do have an impact on the first games. For this, I've simply generated a script which would calculate the average variation of points in the earliest games and compare it with the average variation of points in the latest games. This can be checked on this page which calculates those average. Be careful as it hasn't been optimized so the page is a bit long to load:

http://www.international-football.net/test-16?nb_games=10

According to this page, 13.11 points exchanged on average during the 10 earliest games of each team, compared to 12.03 during the 10 latest games of each team. There is a slight difference, but the gap is not that big.

In order to know whether the ratings I've calculated backwards would reduce the gap, I've created this other page which use them as initial value and simulate the outcome. You can simulate up to the 7,500 first international games, leading us to 1967 (my host server screams when we try more). I've calculated again the average variation of points that would give for the 10 earliest games of each team. And here is the result:

http://www.international-football.net/test-17?total_games=7500&nb_games=10

According to this, 11.04 points would be exchanged on average during the 10 earliest games of each team in using those values. So it does have a positive impact in reducing the gap during earlier games. This being said, it also stretches the results of Elo ratings. England, the leader on August 11th 1967 has now 2212 points (instead of 2018 points) and Montserrat, at the bottom, has now 599 points (instead of 794 points).

Overall, I would say that the experience was pretty fun, but largely inconclusive. It's a bit weird to have such a high rating for Scotland during the very first game against England in 1872, and the whole Elo scale is messed up with a lot more teams exceeding 2000 points than it is currently the case. Probably a more reasonable adjustment would perform better results. Cheers, Metropolitan (talk) 04:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Metropolitan.

Sorry for the slow response. I've taken (had to take) a month of sabbatical from Wik.ipedia.Pro.

I'm sure you've seen the overhauled football elo ratings website. The numbers have changed a lot. Perhaps Kyril, or whoever is managing the site now, has been reading our discussion, as almost all the differences are due to a different starting rating for 165 of the 238 countries you list. They still don't write on the "about" page how this initial rating is calculated, and they (unfortunately) still start at multiple of hundreds, but overall it appears to be an improvement. It's interesting to compare it to your calculated initial numbers:

Ignoring the 14 (or 17 if you count Kurdistan, Somaliland, and the Chagos Islands) teams that have played fewer then 20 matches, 51 country ratings previously agreed (differed by less than 51 points). Now 95 do. Another 3 are 51 or 52 points different. 110 initial country ratings are now closer to your calculations, 70 stayed the same, and 44 became more different. So, whatever new method they applied is closer to your calculations and my gut feeling;-) For these 224 countries, the average (absolute) difference between your calculations and theirs was 131 and now is 92 points. Your average initial rating was 1361.6, theirs was 1357.1 and now is 1359.0. Not much of a difference, but the spread has become much wider, both for the initial as the current numbers: your SD for the initials is ±375, theirs was just ±250 and now is ±313. I believe most better teams have gone up in current ratings, while most weaker teams have gone down. Because of this and since most matches played are intracontinental, African, Asian and Oceanic countries generally sank in ratings, while European and South American countries rose. Changes in the half-century and decade average ranking show that best; I'm almost ready wit an update for those.

Amongst the initial ratings that differ more from yours than before are four countries with conflicting histories: at the website the Republic of Ireland rather than Northern Ireland continues from the Irish team that started in 1882. It has relatively little impact on current and historical ratings (In 1921 Northern Ireland starts with 1600, Ireland has 1526 at that point), but the initial ratings are impacted. Likewise, the website continues Vietnam from South Vietnam instead of North Vietnam. The others don't have such explanation. As an example of a country with likely too high an initial rating I had used Bolivia: the website changed the initial from 1500 to 1300 while your calculation had it start (surprisingly) at 1546. So, the website's change feels better to me. Others aren't so obvious. Some examples of initials that now differ more from your calculations than before are: Norway (you 1671, old 1600, new 1400!), Guyana (1262, 1200->1500), Grenada (1327, 1300->1500), South Africa (1751, 1700->1900), Mongolia (647, 800->900), Dominica (1086, 1200->1300), Romania (1818, 1700->1600), East Germany (1723, 1600->1500), Turkey (1744, 1600->1500), Bulgaria (1672, 1500->1400), Switzerland (1812, 1600->1500!), and Chile (1777, 1500->1400!). Some others didn't change even when you had much different initials (e.g. Philippines (1005, 1300->1300) and Wales (1922, 1500->1500). It's good that the British teams didn't go as extreme as yours; e.g. Scotland's 2406 points would have been silly (they raised it from 1800 to 2000).

It really would be interesting to know what method they used; since you are quite invested in it, perhaps you can compel them to add it to the website. Cheers, Afasmit (talk) 23:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Afasmit,

Last month I sent a message to Kirill through eloratings.net contact form to inform him about your observations on initial ratings, so that's indeed probably related. I'm glad to see this has lead to an improvement on earlier ratings. I advise you to do the same if you want more informations about how new initial ratings have been determined.

Thanks for having pointed out the addition of Kurdistan, the Chagos Islands and Somaliland. I've just noticed Western Sahara has been added as well.

Recently I've focused my efforts in presenting Elo ratings in their competitions contexts. It's still not finished yet, but I've added results of 1,500 international tournaments, with the Elo ratings of their champions, runners-up, third-place and fourth place teams. Here's a preview if you're interested:

http://www.international-football.net/competitions

Unfortunately, this shows the previous Elo ratings calculations. I'll need to process to yet another full database update. Last one was rather tedious to achieve so I'll try to find out a more efficient method to do it. Anyway, you're the first person I'm talking about this so don't hesitate to give me your feedback on this new section about competitions. Tell me if you have any ideas about what would be interesting to be displayed. Metropolitan (talk) 11:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The full database update has been done. All ratings from Eloratings.net as on January 13th, 2018 are now available on the website:

http://www.international-football.net/elo-ratings-table

Metropolitan (talk) 04:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with your massive changes in the article Rivers of Europe. You have removed substantial content without any explanation, so would you mind explaining yourself on the talk page there. Kostja (talk) 09:30, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did leave an explanation and invitation for comments on the discussion page. I've replied to your concerns there as well. Afasmit (talk) 01:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions. Do we have any sources that support Reinder and Reindert actually being the same name? Dr. Vogel (talk) 19:23, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DrVogel, I had included Reindert with Reinder mostly because they are so similar, and people looking for Reinder may have been looking for Reindert. Reindert stems from Reinhard[3] and Reinder could either come from Reinhard or Reinier.[4]. Afasmit (talk) 20:27, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those are really good sources, I didn't know they existed, thanks very much! Dr. Vogel (talk) 13:07, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, nice work, now the 2 articles look much better. I've added the IPA pronunciation to both articles, but my Dutch is limited. Would you please be able to check if the IPAs that I've entered are correct? Dr. Vogel (talk) 22:03, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You know the edit I made to this article:

https://en.Wik.ipedia.Pro.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_elections_in_which_the_winner_lost_the_popular_vote

Well you reverted it, but you shouldn't have as I was editing it to match the popular vote totals of the 2016 election article:

https://en.Wik.ipedia.Pro.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016 PlanetDeadwing (talk) 18:51, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:PlanetDeadwing You meant to say "I was editing it to match the unreferenced edits I made to the 2016 election article." If you have references that officially update the official results, please give them. Otherwise, we have to assume you're doing this based on preliminary results, based on misinformation, or (most likely considering what you wrote here) just for fun. Afasmit (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just for fun? Are you kidding? I was correcting the 2016 election page because I noticed that the votes for each candidate in the Results table added up to a larger number than the listed number of total votes (so I corrected the total vote count) and Clinton and Trump's vote share percentages were also incorrect (the percentage total for each candidate added up to over 100%, so I recalculated their percentages; 62,984,828 is 45.93% of 137,125,040, and 65,853,514 is 48.02% of the same number). It's all correct and backed up by the source for their popular vote in the main box at the top of the page (this one: https://transition.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2016/federalelections2016.pdf) Thus, when I corrected that main page, I also corrected two other pages pertaining to their popular vote totals. PlanetDeadwing (talk) 22:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually... I just checked that source again and the popular vote percentages really are 48.18% for Clinton and 46.09% for Trump... OK, I'm honestly confused at this point. If those are the percentages, that means the percentage total for all of the votes adds up to 100.30%. The Results table on the 2016 election page must be erroneous instead. PlanetDeadwing (talk) 23:04, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've been checking both, I don't know which is right. The results table on the 2016 article, or the official source I provided. They both contradict each other. For example, the official source states that Evan McMullin received 731,991 votes, but the 2016 article states that he received 732,273. Sorry about this. I've been doing my best to correct the article but I guess the entire results table needs to be rewritten to match the official source. I don't want to meddle with the article anymore though because it might look like vandalism. PlanetDeadwing (talk) 23:21, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've been off the grid for a while. Thanks for following up on this. The numbers are not all that different, but it is best to stick with a single official release.Afasmit (talk) 04:46, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Afasmit, thanks very much for your improvements to Coolen. You're also more than welcome to check I haven't accidentally made a mess at nlwiki :) Dr. Vogel (talk) 01:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Afasmit,

I've recently been looking for editors to invite to join New Page Patrol, and from your editing history, I think you would be a good candidate. Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wik.ipedia.Pro policies and guidelines; we could use some additional help from an experienced user like yourself.

Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. If you choose to apply, you can drop an application over at WP:PERM/NPR.

Cheers, and hope to see you around, — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 21:10, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, do you can see here? Cheers Dawid2009 (talk) 06:46, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

World Football Elo Ratings => old page (national footbal teams ratings and average, leaderes)

Elo rating system in football => new page, changing name ([[5]]) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.125.41.7 (talk) 20:03, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• See Wik.ipedia.Pro:Requests for history merge#Rejected requests July 2018. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:44, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• See Wik.ipedia.Pro:Requests for history merge#Rejected requests July 2018 again. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:39, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meant to tell you I brought up the issue of the source at WP:RSN#Library of Congress Name Authority File. Looks like we can't use it but there's another source we can. Doug Weller talk 14:06, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I was a bit annoyed that you reverted all edits (including several categories and the defaultsort) just because you didn't like the source for the birth year. I'm glad the conclusion of the short discussion (Francis is always very, very opinionated) was that the flap of a book by an author is a good source for a birth year for this author;-) In general, I would assume that Library of Congress data on a birth year is a solid reference (often it says "data obtained from publisher" or "from author"); it is important for them to keep authors with identical names apart. It's unlikely that they'll rely on Wik.ipedia.Pro for that. Going through a few 1000 articles to add defaultsorts at the moment, I'm again amazed how some pages get scrutinized to bits (for notability, sources for data added, etc.) and others live on for ever as clear and outrageous self promotions or efforts of fans of a local third class sports team.Afasmit (talk) 18:20, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to revert everything, I've no idea how I managed to do that. I should have edited rather than reverted. Many apologies. I went to RSN because I really wasn't at all sure about using the LOC, at least without knowing where they get their data. I'm not at all surprised to see the disparity you mention. I end up on all sorts of pages I never planned to visit following vandals or incompetent editors, and some of the stuff I see is scary. Doug Weller talk 14:47, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. I reverted your edit on Eleonore von Habsburg because you sorted her as "Eleonore Jabsburg" -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 13:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Afasmit. I saw you added Panacomp.net as a reference in your rewrite of List of rivers of Europe. Panacomp.net is a travel agency website (self-published, unreliable) with some history of being spammed. I didn't look closely to check, but I hope it safe to assume that you simply copied it from the Spanish article. I made a note in my edit summary while removing it that the refs may need a thorough review for similarly poor links. I hope I guessed right on what had happened. Let me know if I made a mistake. --Ronz (talk) 16:03, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to have ended up adding a reference like that. My method was to use official geographical surveys and peer-reviewed papers first, but building that list was such a lot of work and sources for the data on rivers in some countries (e.g. in the Balkans) were so hard to get, that there may be a few more accidents like that. I can't blame the Spanish site, as I only took the (slick) format from it, and that page has only notes, no sources/references. Feel free to improve on the references. Almost a year has passed and maybe some new surveys and studies have become available on the web. Afasmit (talk) 18:38, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. Working on such topics without easily accessible references is difficult. I'm just looking through the panacomp.net usage for spammers, upe's, and the like. --Ronz (talk) 22:04, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Afasmit,

I have discovered only now, that you have reverted my edit last year. Unfortunately you are mistaken. There are several 'Flag' paintings and the one being sold is not the one the Wik.ipedia.Pro article is featuring.

Provenance of the 'Wik.ipedia.Pro flag' (1954):

The painting was included in Johns's first solo exhibition at the Leo Castelli Gallery in early 1958. Alfred Barr, director of the Museum of Modern Art, wanted to buy the work, but was concerned that it might be considered unpatriotic. He persuaded a friend, Philip Johnson, to buy it instead; Johnson bought it, and donated it to the Museum of Modern Art "in honor of Alfred H. Barr, Jr." when he retired in 1968. The here mentioned MoMA is the MoMA in NYC.

Provenance of the flag painting being sold to Mr Cohen in March 2010 (see source C.Vogel in The NYTimes): The painting was executed in 1958 and was so coveted by the dealer [Leo Castelli] that he never sold it. It hung in his [Leo Castelli's] Manhattan home until his death [1999]. For years before the sale, the younger Mr. Castelli lent the work to the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, where it was on view.

Last year I have had a link to the former SFMoMA exhibit, where I had confirmed, that the SFMoMA exhibit and the 1954 flag painting are in fact two different paintings. Unfortunately this information is not available any more. Please undo your reversion of the creation year accordingly.

Thank you FHessel

I've figured out that you're referring to the List of most expensive paintings. My bad; the confusion came from the link to his 1954 flag painting. There are some other articles on Jasper Johns paintings of flags, but none match this 1958 one. He would have saved us some trouble had he diverted to painting some other topics, like a banner or perhaps even a banderole;-) I've removed the link and changed the year. Afasmit (talk) 06:37, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Afasmit, Thanks for the corrections of the mountain heights in the Christian Kaufmann article. I may have relied on older estimates that were not as accurate as more modern measurements. The addition of Hans Kaufmann's name for 1901 is somewhat misleading. He made trips from Grindelwald to Canada from 1901 to 1905 and was there in 1901, according the his Führerbuch. But he did not travel for the CPR with Christian, Whymper, Klucker, Pollinger, and Bossonney in 1901 aboard the ship Australasian from Liverpool to Quebec. Therefore, his name in that sentence/context is somewhat misleading; I would prefer it were not there. Hans probably travelled to Canada later in the year (1901), but it was not with Whymper's group. Thanks for your interest in the Kaufmann article. (After doing some more research on this, I have edited my original post, which I wrote a short time ago.) p.dreher

Hi P.dreher. I believe your heights were straight from Outram's account. They were estimating roughly back then;-) Outram and Collie were actually on the hunt for Mounts Hooker and Brown, which David Douglas (of Douglas fir fame) had somewhat overestimated to be over 16,000 ft and by far the highest in the rockies, but turned out to be below 10,000 ft.

I'd read the Führerbuch before and I knew that Hans was not invited/hired by Whymper. I thought I had read that he actually preceded Christian in Canada. This could be a false memory or somebody else had made a mistake. Hans was there at least before July 18 1901, when he guided people near Moraine Lake. Christian arrived with his group on June 9, so possibly a bit earlier. I've amended the intro to avoid confusion.

Have you thought about writing on their possible uncle Ulrich Kaufmann? He's something else. Afasmit (talk) 06:27, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Afasmit, It would be especially helpful if we could access a copy of Hans Kaufmann's entire Führerbuch, but I have not been able to locate a copy. The only available entries are the Canadian ones online. Do you have access to the full Führerbuch? I'll try to confirm when Hans Kaufmann travelled to Canada.

Yes, Ulrich Kaufmann was also a very remarkable climber and traveller; I still need to investigate his relation to the Kaufmann(Graben)family. Here again the "backbone" of an article on Ulrich would be his Führerbuch; I'll look into finding it. There is a very short Wik.ipedia.Pro article in French and German.

By the way, adding the meters for the mountain heights has made the parentheses somewhat awkward; wouldn't it be better to express the heights as follows: Mount Columbia (3,747 m /12,293 ft) rather than Mount Columbia (3,747 m (12,293 ft))? P. Dreher

Hi P.dreher. I've also only seen the Canadian trips extract at at the American Alpine Club site. The originals must be in some Swiss archive, library, museum, etc. Considering how thoroughly the Swiss birth, wedding and death data have been put online, it may be accessible via that archive(etc.)'s website. The AAS thanked G. Hasler, Esq. (A.C.), of Lausanne for sending them photocopies of the Canadian entries. Perhaps that is a lead. And I would LOVE to read Ulrich's writing on his climbing of Aoraki and Kabru. I hope the reports of these trips are not limited to what his clients (Emile Boss, have written about it. Check This write up about the possibility he did make it to the top of Kabru. The authors misspell his name variably "Kauffmann" and "Kauffman" (never "Kaufmann!) and his role is underplayed as "one of the fastest step-cutters living" (we know better;-), but the argument is pretty solid. We know that Christian Almer married Ulrich's older sister Margaritha in 1846.

I agree that the double parentheses are ugly, it's just a result of the convert template, which doesn't (yet) allow for alternative formatting; go ahead an change where necessary. Afasmit (talk) 20:51, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Afasmit, thanks for your edit on List_of_mountains_of_the_Alps_above_3000_m. I'm writing some articles about the still missing items of the list, and I discovered about Mont_Taou_Blanc that its prominence is just 111 m. I've prepared the english article about it in my sandbox. It's not just Peakbagger, also in this case the Navigatore Cartografico confirms it. I also trust it more than peakbagger, also because the Navigatore is the official cartography of the local authority (Regione Valle d'Aosta). I think that the correct mountain to be added to the list (Prominence > 300 m) should be the Pointe de l'Aouille, 3445.9 m (you can see the correct height zooming at a 1:10.000 scale). In this case should we erase the Tout Blanc from the list?--Pampuco (talk) 19:36, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pampuco, Thanks! I've finally navigated to the right maps. That "CTR edizione 2005" should be the new standard for mountains in the Aosta region. I haven't figured out yet how to search for a name / string on that site. I'm sure it's obvious when you know a bit of Italian;-) Do similar maps exist online for other Italian regions or provinces? Afasmit (talk) 23:38, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if there is any effective search tool to locate a text string on the map. When I navigate it I already roughly know where is the item I'm looking for, so I zoom in a defined part of the map. For the second question the answer is that most (or even all) of the Italian regions should have something like the "Geonavigatore" of VdA. I use sometimes the Geoportale of Regione Piemonte and the Visualizzatore tecnico of Regione Liguria. Both of them, like the Aosta valley one, give access to a Carta Tecnica Regionale (CTR) at different scales. I'm not so sure but I think that for any region is compulsory having its own CTR, a pubblic official map of the regional territory, and most ot them give access to it through tools like the "eonavigatore".--Pampuco (talk) 08:42, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is great! I'll have to do a lot of corrections now... Pity for Peakbagger that they can't use them -there must be licensing issues- as they're still struggling with the 1930s maps. As you may have noticed I've updated the Aosta peaks on the 3000m list. I even found an extra one, with a temporary number of 452a (de Chambave crest was just enough higher than the Aiguille to get over the 300 m mark). I'll mess up the numbering for a while, and correct them with a script at some point.Afasmit (talk) 08:53, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw you did a great work on the list, and I think now it's much better then before. Maybe also the List of mountains of Italy should be updated in the same way. Its alpine section > 3000 m is a paste-and-copy part of the of the general list of the Alps, isn't it? --Pampuco (talk) 17:17, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was confused by your edit of the Defaultsort for Helen van Dongen. I read the appropriate section of Wik.ipedia.Pro:Categorization of people#Other exceptions. It suggests that the sort should be on "van Dongen", since Ms. van Dongen was active after 1830. I had no idea of the subtlety involved here. Cheers, Easchiff (talk) 08:16, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Easchiff. It is a bit confusing to the English-speaking world, where separate prepositions and articles are not part of surnames. If English names were commonly "David from Attenborough" and "John the Smith", I'm sure indexing in English would also not be on "from" and "the";-) The 1830 date mentioned in the guideline is for Belgian people. After the origin of that nation that year the new government decided to change the customary indexing to one including tussenvoegsels. I'm not exactly sure why; the French-speaking elite made the rules, but in French the preposition "de" (equalling "van") is also not sorted on. Anyway, Helen was Dutch. It's possible that she became an American citizen, though that is not mentioned in the article. A second way to check how to sort is the authority control, which is basically dedicated to show how to index people. I always check VIAF, because it's an aggregator listing most authority controls, which can conflict with each other (they make plenty of mistakes or with migrating people rules can change; also, Brazilian names are particularly tricky;-). At VIAF you can choose a majority rule or pick the English (Library of Congress) choice. In Helen van Dongen's case, they all say "Dongen, Helen van" or, unusually, "Dongen, Helen". Perhaps she dropped "van" altogether in the US. Afasmit (talk) 19:00, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - you've clearly thought this through. Easchiff (talk) 04:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am cleaning up derivatives of Antonius and noticed this edit at Anthonie. It seems to be nothing but WP:OR. Can you produce a WP:RS for an WP:IC rather than me removing the content.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:51, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:1594 compositions requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wik.ipedia.Pro. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wik.ipedia.Pro's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:41, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wik.ipedia.Pro arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, what do you think about mentioning in list of mountains of Africa, Turkey, Canada and others when the mountain is an isolated volcano or is part of a large tectonic mountain range. Reuns (talk) 23:53, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:15th-century Netherlandish women has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:48, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:15th-century Netherlandish people indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:51, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Oboes in popular music has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Wholly unsourced and useless content.

While all constructive contributions to Wik.ipedia.Pro are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Why? I Ask (talk) 07:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect List of highest mountains in Oceania and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wik.ipedia.Pro:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 9#List of highest mountains in Oceania until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 217.117.125.83 (talk) 17:51, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect List of highest mountains of Australasia and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wik.ipedia.Pro:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 18#List of highest mountains of Australasia until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. J947 † ^edits 04:24, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Afasamit,

When you wrote about double English horn concertos you mentioned a double concerto for two cor anglais written by Ignaz Malzat. How and where did you find out that this piece existed? I cannot find a trace of it anywhere on the internet.

Thanks in advance, Markus 83.251.174.219 (talk) 08:19, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]