Ish ishwar

I posted query for assistance on Rich Farmbrough's talk page. I'm copying you, Ish ishwar, since you were mentioned.

The section "Language status" has a disputed note on it that dates back to January 2013. It refers one to the talk page, which I'm guessing is referring to the section "Is the language in decline, or incline?" The discussion is only two comments, a question by an ip address and a response by Ish ishwar who is still active on Wikipedia. The latter appears to me to settle the "dispute" by providing an adequate clarification. Additionally, it would appear the introduction has been edited to delete the contradiction. Is there any way to resolve this and delete the tag?

The neutrality of this section is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (January 2013) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

It seems to me that leaving the tag for so long on the article undermines not only its integrity but the credibility of Wikipedia as a whole. Cheers! (glad the # of drama free days is approaching 2 months) --Beth Wellington (talk) 20:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Where did you find the info on the Western Apache language? I just found a youtube video that explains the whole alphabet. --Fdomanico51997 (talk)

Hi. A while ago, you added Bell (1993) to the Jemez language article in the bibliography section. I don't have access to this reference. If you do, and have some time, the page could really benefit from some help. Just whenever you get around to it. Thanks. Joeystanley (talk) 13:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I noticed your fine map work for the Ahtna language and Tlingit language and was worndering if you might be up to the task of making one for the Eyak language. I think it would greatly add to the article. Thanks, Vedrfolnir (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC) HI, I AM LOOKING FOR MY PEOPLE, AND EVERY HISTORIAN WITH FAMILY TREES AND COLLEGES CANNOT FIND MY PPL BEFORE WOUNDED KNEE. BRANDY(FLYING HAWK)MEEKS meeksbrandy96@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.171.106.206 (talk) 05:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have a passing interest in linguistics, and I recently came across some of your older contributions and edits. I am surprised at the depth and extent of your contributions, and I think what you have added to WP is tremendous. I am afraid that you have left WP without proper acknowledgement, I hope you continue your research and interest into languages, especially Native American. Edgar Vekilnik, Jr. (talk) 02:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Again, please see my reply at Talk:Intensifier. – Keith Cascio (talk) 22:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Please see Talk:Intensifier. – Keith Cascio (talk) 04:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

Why did you turn back my contributions on Optimality Theory ("because regressive assimilation of the final segment always applies first after /ɪ/-insertion, so that it prevents other rules from applying; see also bleeding order")? There 's nothing wrong with this approach, it's just another version of classic order ranking. Greets, Solejheyen (talk) 18:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

hi.

so, we should talk about this on the OT page. – ishwar  (speak) 02:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

see: Talk:Optimality theory#rule ordering revert – ishwar  (speak) 03:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

As of late, our paths on Wikipedia have not crossed. I just wanted to let you know that I do think of your contributions. Be well. CJLippert (talk) 19:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

hi.

i dont have so much time these days to edit. I hope youre well, too.

take care – ishwar  (speak) 20:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I revert your move of color name to color term since the page covers names and not terms such as value, lightness, tone, shade, etc. PaleAqua (talk) 03:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

you actually reverted more than that. – ishwar  (speak) 04:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Reverting my reverts now. PaleAqua (talk) 07:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

As the primary author, would you like to weigh in at Talk:English_grammar#Suggest_splitting? Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

hi.

feel free to edit and split. I'm sure it will be fun. – ishwar  (speak) 20:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sir, the page Kanglei mythology, already has redirects, Manipuri mythology and Meitei mythology, but the mythology is about Meitei people, speaking Meitei language, so can the page name be moved back to Meitei mythology itself, or a new one Meitei Mythology? If possible, could you kindly proceed to it?

 

Thanks for uploading Image:Navajolang-readingAdahooniligii.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 02:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

• Morphological Doubling Theory Ling.Nut (talk) 05:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi; I happened across your File:Tlingit-map.png last night and noted some issues on it:

• the Tsetsaut have been extinct since the 19th Century, their territory is now part of the Nisga'a Lisims
• Nass-Gitskan may be a language, but AFAIK the Nass people consider their language distinct from Gitxsan, if only in choice of orthography I wouldn't know; but they are politically separate/distinct despite shared cultural traditions/relations (clans etc). Point is, I guess, is this a map of language areas, or of territorial identity/claims? If the latter both Nisga'a and Gitxsan territories extend quite a bit further inland/north
• discrete boundaries are always an issue as many people's lands overlap; Nisga'a and Gitxsan claims overlap with those of the Tahltan, for instance; but more to the point, The Taku River-Atlin Lake-Teslin Lake area is subjet to the "rule" of two kwaans of the Tlingit - Aa tlein kwaan and Desleen kwaan or something like that; their band government is the Taku River Tlingit First Nation and ethnigraphically they are known as the Inland Tlinkit, and they're found right up into the Yukon (kinda "top dog" in the pecking order in Whistehorse, as I was told bup there....).; those areas should at least be stripe-shaded, given the overlaping calims with the Tucthcone/Tahltan/Tagish.
• There's a good map of Tlingit kwaanas on one of the refs on the History of the Tlingit page, I'll see if i can find it.Skookum1 (talk) 17:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

File:Mono home.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Mono home.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Mono home.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 04:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

File:Gorgonia, Mescalero medicine man.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Gorgonia, Mescalero medicine man.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 05:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

File:Mescalero tipis.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Mescalero tipis.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 05:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

File:Mescalero, Painted boy.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Mescalero, Painted boy.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 05:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

  Hello Ish ishwar! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 105 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. John R. Ross - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 05:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I hope you are doing fine and I sincerely apologize for this intrusion. My name is Claudi Balaguer/Capsot (from the Catalan Viquipèdia or the Occitan Wikiccionari) I have just read your profile and you seem a very learned person and interested in (small) languages and cultures (talking to linguists may be fun sometimes...) so maybe I am not bothering you and you will help us... I'm part of an association "Amical de la Viquipèdia" which is trying to get some recognition as a Catalan Chapter but this has not been approved up to this moment because it does not belong to one state. We would appreciate your support, visible if you stick this on your first page: Wikimedia CAT. Thanks again, wishing you a great summer, take care! Capsot (talk) 07:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I am trying to bring WP:WikiProject Theoretical Linguistics back to semi-active status. Toward that end, I have moved all members who have not posted to the project page in the past six months to a section, "Inactive members." If you wish to be active in the project, I hope you will move your name back to the section, "Members." You may also remove your name if you are no longer interested in the project. Thanks, and happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 17:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Chiricahua Ft. Sill seal.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Can you point me to the source you and Nikater relied on when you created this map? I'm involved in an editorial dispute with another editor who insists that material based on that map is wrong. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 17:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi.

I didnt create the map. Rather it seems to have been based on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lenapehoking.png. I dont know why I'm listed as co-author.

The images I created are here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ishwar. All maps list their source unless later editors have removed this information (several folks have converted the png files to svg & sometimes they didnt indicate that I created the png source file.) Anyone who is creating a detailed map should not be using my maps of the entire north American continent since these maps lack detail and may be the result of a compromise of changing boundaries of tribes over time. The map sources that I used for these entire continent maps try show the distribution of tribes at first European contact which may differ from tribe to tribe.

If you want accurate information, I suggest starting with the Handbook of North American Indians Northeast volume. This volume was published several years, so the information may (or may not) be outdated by more current research. I cant say for sure since I dont know anything about northeastern Indians. (I'm just a linguist that happens to have specialist knowledge in Apachean languages, which are at the opposite end of the continent.)

– ishwar  (speak) 20:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Harry Hoijer.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Harry Hoijer.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Refer to that talk page: Talk:Americanist_phonetic_notation#Why is it correct to tag non-IPA symbols as IPA?. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 01:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Still no answer? --Mahmudmasri (talk) 05:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

An article that you have been involved in editing, Mongolian language has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments good article reassessment page . If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Rcsprinter^{Gimme a message} 17:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Jaco Pastorius - Donna Lee melody excerpt.ogg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under Non-Free content criteria but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a Non-Free rationale.

If you have uploaded other Non-Free media, consider checking that you have specified the Non-Free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ish ishwar

I've seen that you known the Zuni language. I have a question for you about its orthography. I've created on the french Wiktionary wattsita for dog, transcribed from a paper by Lynn Nichols in the IJAL. However I've seen in a link (Zuni Language) a wordlist where it is wattsida. Is there a rule for writing -t- and -p- intervocally as -d- and -b-? Thanx. Dhegiha (talk) 10:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Dear Ish ishwar,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the communityHERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your nameHERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chlopeck (talk • contribs) 22:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

I think there is a misspelling in your original article Southern Athabascan grammar. Search for "betwitch" in that article. Since the three uses are near the word "witch", I think you meant to use the word "bewitch"? 24.28.17.231 (talk) 10:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

 

Your recent editing history at Navajo language shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Dear Ish ishwar,

It's the first time I've used a talk page, so please excuse my amateur mistakes. I note that you have contributed to the Hopi_language page, and there I see "The retroflex r varies between a retroflex fricative ... and a flap". I'd _love_ to consult with whoever has noted these flaps. I've noted these flaps (or taps) myself, especially in the village of Orayvi, and I've had trouble getting book reviewers to believe me. Did you by any chance write the part about the flaps? or do you know how I could find the author? Thanks Krbeesley (talk) 01:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi.

You're very lucky I was logged in to Wikipedia on the same day that you wrote me this note. I rarely check Wikipedia these days.

Yes, I added probably all of the notes about Hopi phonology including that bit about /r/. Just to be clear, I've never heard Hopi in the wild. And, I don't run in Uto-Aztecan circles. (My specialist knowledge of American languages is in Athabascan, especially Apachean.)

The only person that I know of who noted the flap realization was LaVerne Masayesva Jeanne. This appears in her dissertation (MIT, chair: Ken Hale). Here's the quote:

‘The sole remaining "liquid", the rhotic written /r/, is produced in a variety of ways, ranging from an extremely light tap [r] to a retroflexed, i.e. apico-domal, fricative [ẓ], with the latter allophone predominating. This consonant is voiced except in syllable-final position where it is regularly a voiceless apico-domal fricative [ṣ].’ (p. 12)

You can download it: http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/16325

She's alive but retired: http://www.unr.edu/anthropology/people/faculty/laverne-masayesva-jeanne

The note about Mishongnovi /r/ being weakly fricative is from ‘Moencopi variations from Whorf's Second Mesa Hopi’ by Clyde Kluckhohn & Kenneth MacLeish in IJAL, 21, pp. 150–156, (1955).

Most of the phonological content in the wiki is, of course, from Whorf's grammatical sketch in that 1940s handbook.

Sorry to hear about folks doubting your hearing. Hope this info helps you.

– ishwar  (speak) 15:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Many thanks for your response, and the pointer to Jeanne's thesis. I've tried to get in touch with her before, but as you note, she retired about 4 years ago. I'll try again. I first became aware of the pre-vocalic tap realizations of /r/ a few years ago, in Orayvi, when an Orayvi friend heard me say "Orayvi" with the usual apico-domal fricative-sibilant [ẓ], and he _corrected_ me to say it with a tap. I now know an Orayvi woman who also uses such taps. And I've heard the taps from other Orayvis whom I don't know personally. And I have a 1964 recording of an Orayvi woman ("Mrs. Monongye") who seems to pronounce the pre-vocal /r/ as a fricative or approximant that is, however, not sibilant. (The usual [ẓ] and [ṣ] allophones are sibilant, very roughly similar to the English s in measure and sh in ship.)

I'm investigating the thesis that tap, or at least non-sibilant, allophones of pre-vocal /r/ are common in Orayvi and perhaps other "Friendly" villages (Kiqötsmovi, Upper Munqapi). Lower Munqapi, Hotvela and Paaqavi, founded by "Hostiles" after the 1906 Orayvi Split, would (I conjecture) use the more common [ẓ] allophone before a vowel. Ideally, a survey should be done, but getting permission to do linguistic work on the Hopi Reservation has been difficult for decades. Suggesting that there are linguistic differences between the traditionally Friendly and Hostile villages may also be politically incorrect.

Historical orthographies may also provide clues. In 1859-60, two Mormon missionaries (Marion Shelton and Thales Haskell) lived 4 months in Orayvi, and Shelton wrote down almost 500 Hopi words in the Deseret Alphabet, a phonemic alphabet that the Mormons were then promoting as a reform orthography for English. I'm editing this vocabulary with Dirk Elzinga of Brigham Young University. The /r/ before a vowel (there are quite a few of them) he consistently transcribed using the Deseret Alphabet R-letter, so I assume that he heard it as something clearly rhotic. (He knew and even taught Spanish, so he would have heard an alveolar tap as an R.) But the coda /r/ (only three examples in the vocabulary) he consistently transcribed using the Deseret Alphabet S-letter. (The /s/ phoneme is usually, but not always, transcribed using the Deseret Alphabet sh-as-in-ship letter. There is a Deseret Alphabet s-as-in-measure letter, but he never uses it when writing Hopi words.) His orthographical conventions suggest that he heard pre-vocalic /r/s that were rhotic, but not sibilant, and coda /r/s that were sibilant. It's highly unlikely that he perceived them as belonging to the same phoneme. These transcriptions would be consistent with pronunciations of /r/ that I hear in Orayvi today.

In 1892 a Mennonite missionary named H.R. Voth arrived in Orayvi and started studying the language. The earliest Hopi book (1916) that I've found in the Mennonite orthography uses <r> for the pre-vocalic /r/ and, it seems, for the code /r/. These conventions are very similar to Marion Shelton's, and it seems unlikely that the Mennonites realized, in 1916, that they were dealing with one /r/ phoneme. By 1923, however, a subsequent Mennonite publication uses <r> for pre-vocalic /r/ but <rs> for coda /r/. So it looks like they finally realized that there was just one /r/ phoneme, but they retained the orthographical convention <rs> for the coda /r/ to reflect its sibilance.

But as I said, my ear, my scholarship and my political correctness are being questioned by a prominent reviewer, so I'm trying to be very careful. Your pointer to Jeanne's dissertation was very helpful.

Thanks again and best wishes, Krbeesley (talk) 17:34, 11 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi; I see you were one of the first people to edit the Lillooet title, which I have filed an RM under per WP:CSG#Places and a mandate to do so from CANTALK/WPCANADA....I won't say much more but here, read AjaxSmack's oppose vote and my responses which detail the history of the article/title and its supposedly competing PRIMARYTOPICS (the language and people articles). Sources are on my side, policy is too, and yet...... how I miss the early days of Wikipedia when Phaedriel and Luigizanasi and other people with broad minds and no guidelines strapped to their boots were making sense and cooperation....instead of knee-jerk opposition and completely uniformed and uncited claims...... I'm from the damn place, am something of a recognized expert on the history and geography of the area and all its peoples, and being treated anti-AGF by people who .... just don't know very much at all, and apparently don't want to either.

I don't know if you're among those that are hostile to me for TLDR or whatever, I'm doing my best to supply guidelines and sources...and keep my cool.....but I see you were the one who established the St'at'imc and St'at'imcets titles which were moved without discussion five years later; St'at'imc is back where it belongs after an exhaustive RM last year, I was too tired to go after Lillooet language to move it back to its correct title as my "opponent" has been vicious and obstructionist and I actually had a bout of nervous exhaustion and economic loss last year from dealing with his ongoing resistance at that RM and four others of the same kind. WP:CSG#Places is my mandate and there are dozens of parallel precedents/examples......but I'm being thrown loopy quantitative derisions concerning the town and more, despite all the googles lined up and policies cited.....as I've said elsewhere "when will the madness stop?". Gawd, I miss Phaedriel.......I don't know if you'll vote there, or even close the damn thing; at least I know you can read and won't throw TLDR at me....I'm tired of the animosity, the off-base resistance to obvious,citable PRIMARYTOPIC, and the reality is that the people article is differently titled, and the language article should be, and that they are NOT valid dabs re primarytopic as a result......

Kwami's attempt to shut down discussion has been repeated over many RMs; Comox, Saanich, Bella Bella, and Bella Coola are also in the same boat as still-open RMs though Sechelt/Shishalh and Chemainus/Stz'uminus and others are all closed despite the same sorts of objections. His call for a discussion of guidelines has been debunked by CambridgeBayWeather, who points out that all the guidelines mandating such moves already exist; the discussion at WP:NCETs talkpage is going nowhere and needs more input from people who actually discuss things, instead of ignore those they don't want at the party.....sorry to "rant", as you know I left Wikipedia after the 2011 Cdn election/Harper-govt articles/ads block-fiasco and when I came back several months later I discovered undiscussed and rampant changes to long-standing titles the "old consensus" within IPNA and other members about using native terminology had been upended by one-sided and ill-considered invocation of NCL, without even attempts to read and fix the articls affected; that guideline had been tailor-remade to fit the "new agenda"......and efforts by its authors to refute invocations of WP:NCET and WP:UNDAB and even WP:TITLE have been made to assert its primacy over non-language articles.....

Nnow, since I have been threatened with a long-term block for criticizing other editors (the concept of NPA has been, it seems, extended to criticism of actions and ideas, even though directly personal attacks against myself apparently are more than OK and go unremarked upon), I better shut up huh? In any case, your thoughts whether here or on the RM about PRIMARYTOPIC of "Lillooet" as the original person who moved Lillooet to a redirect to St'at'imc in 2005 are part of my discussion.....Skookum1 (talk) 17:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Been doing RMs to remove needless "people" dabs added by Kwami and other advocates for WP:NCL (and catching all kinds of heat for it, which you may have noticed it, though I've "won" 95% of these RMs). In one discussion somewhere Maunus said "we can't take Skookum1's word for it" - I think per the "old consensus" as I describe t he old set of standards our loose group of editors came to terms with back then; this quote is evidence of its existence:

"ok, but the Dilzhę́’é prefer to be called Dilzhę́’é, regardless of what non-Dilzhę́’é call them. I note that other articles such as Nuxálk (= Bella Coola) & Nuxálk language use the names preferred by the peoples rather than the names more well-known to outsiders. i was just going by this convention. peace"

The obstinacy about those names is frightening at times, and disturbing at others, and otherwise just a bore...but disruptive to getting correct titles back where they were before; Bella Coola just went through an RM, and Bella Bella another, closed "no consensus/not moved" despite ample evidence that the towns are the PRIMARYTOPIC (the Heiltsuk, who are the government of Bella Bella, call it that). The "old consensus" I've been meaning to draft up, but am up to my eyeballs in admin-alligators wanting to ban me; but would appreciate your input in such matters as someone "from the old consensus". Phaedriel and Luigizanasi are gone now, and others. I'm being treated as a DIVA for standing up for guidelines and our old consensus......by people who don't even read the guidelines they quote themselves, and who violate guidelines right and left in their attacks on me, or their spurious and persistent "oppose" votes. The article t hat is from Tonto Apache people now has an RM on it to revert it to Tonto Apache, by the way.Skookum1 (talk) 11:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Great to see you being active on Native American language pages, I often look back through the page histories and think about the amazing amount of work you did "back in the day". There is still so much to do, and I hope you'll stick around and help doing it. For example right now Navajo language is up for a GA review and it needs a lot of work in my opinion. Anyway, thanks for your work past, present and future.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Probably not here to stay. I'm busy these days with more theoretical and experimental work in phonetics/phonology/speech perception.

Yeah, back in the day, I was just kind of annoyed at the lack and quality of Indian language information on websites. I though it was cool that I could put some things from published research up and hope that some folks would do the same. It was fun. I also wanted to get a better handle on some details, specific and general, about languages I didn't know about. I didn't make very far into South America, unfortunately.

If I ever get some free time, I'd like to read some of K. Pike's work on Mexican language tone systems and summarize it here. When I looked at them years ago, they appeared pretty impenetrable, beautifully complex, and not something I could figure out without a bit of effort. They have pretty much not informed the theoretical work on tonal systems. – ishwar  (speak) 22:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

That would definitely be a worthy effort, even though as you note the study of tonology of Mexican languages has advanced quite a bit since Pike, but mostly without building on Pike's work.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ish ishwar! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to ping me with {{ping|DerHexer}}. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 19:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ish ishwar. I saw that you've expanded Shogi strategy and tactics by adding more examples of different castles. Just for reference, there is a template Template:Shogi diagram that I created which can be used for shogi diagrams. I'm not sure how well it will work since you want to use both arabic letters and kanji numerals for the ranks, but the template might be able to be tweaked to do that if it's something absolutely needed.

Also, just wanted to let you know about Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Shogi. It's something I proposed a while ago, but have sort of put aside for the time being. I'm not sure if there will ever be enough interest generated for a stand-alone Wikiproject, but you never know. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:35, 28 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

I had noticed that after I started with my table solution. Of course, it quickly dawned on me that it's not general enough since the kanji will need to be upside-downed to do anything besides just castles. (And, I dont know if that's even possible in html.) So, it's probably best to use your deal.

Yeah, I do like japanese numerals instead of letters. That's what Japanese books/websites use. And, all my apps, too. But, it doesn't matter really. English (and international?) uses the letter convention. So, maybe that's standard if there is a standard.

I probably can't commit to anything as far as projects. Just taking a break from real life work for the time being. – ishwar  (speak) 23:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

No worries about the project. We are after all volunteers. I was just letting you know about it for reference. I posted a bit more about the diagrams on the article's talk page. I think there might be a better way to add them to the article using columns. Personally, I prefer the kanji numerals as well. It might be possible to do both if needed, but either way works for me. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi there! I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. Recently, you reverted my fix to Castle (shogi).

If you did this because the references should be removed from the article, you have misunderstood the situation. Most likely, the article originally contained both <ref name="foo">...</ref> and one or more <ref name="foo"/> referring to it. Someone then removed the <ref name="foo">...</ref> but left the <ref name="foo"/>, which results in a big red error in the article. I replaced one of the remaining <ref name="foo"/> with a copy of the <ref name="foo">...</ref>; I did not re-insert the reference to where it was deleted, I just replaced one of the remaining instances. What you need to do to fix it is to make sure you remove all instances of the named reference so as to not leave any big red error.

If you reverted because I made an actual mistake, please be sure to also correct any reference errors in the page so I won't come back and make the same mistake again. Also, please post an error report at User talk:AnomieBOT so my operator can fix me! If the error is so urgent that I need to be stopped, also post a message at User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OrphanReferenceFixer. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 02:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC) If you do not wish to receive this message in the future, add {{bots|optout=AnomieBOT-OrphanReferenceFixer}} to your talk page.Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Breaststroke, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scissor kick. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi there! Thanks for joining Wikipedia Asian Month. Here is some information about participating in the event:

1. Please submit your articles via this tool. Click 'log in' at the top-right and OAuth will take care the rest. You can also change the interface language at the top-right.
2. Once you submit an article, the tool will add a template to the article and mark it as needing review by an organizer. You can check your progress using the tool, which includes how many accepted articles you have.
3. Participants who achieve 4 accepted articles will receive a Wikipedia Asian Month postcard. You will receive another special postcard if you achieve 15 accepted articles. The Wikipedian with the highest number of accepted articles on the English Wikipedia will be honored as a "Wikipedia Asian Ambassador", and will receive a signed certificate and additional postcard.
4. If you have any problems accessing or using the tool, you can submit your articles at this page next to your username.
5. Wikipedia Asian Month is also held in other language Wikipedia and count independently. Check for other language editions.
6. If you have any question, you can take a look at our Q&A or post on the WAM talk page.

Best Wishes,--AddisWang (talk) 16:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

You've edit warred and have now used full protection to aid your position. This isn't the conduct expected of an admin. —SpacemanSpiff 17:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Why? Protection is not aiding my position. As I stated, it's to encourage folks to discuss which they were not doing. – ishwar  (speak) 17:15, 4 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

If you don't understand WP:INVOLVED then you shouldn't have any admin tools. Please stop edit warring and/or abusing your admin tools or you will be blocked and/or a desysop request filed. —SpacemanSpiff 17:17, 4 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

I don't see any abuse. Will you then – in your duties as an administrator – request that the involved parties discuss their position on a talk page? That is my sole intention. If you feel that a desysop request is warranted, then you should do so, of course. peace – ishwar  (speak) 17:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

I think you need to drop the Meitei stick quickly (see [1]). Are you aware of the sanctions in place on India/Pakistan articles? I'm posting a notice below just in case you're not. --regentspark (comment) 02:49, 5 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

No, I wasn't aware as I usually don't edit in this area. But, what effectively does this mean? Is one allowed to edit India pages or not? Why exactly are you telling me this? Am I guilty of something?

Just making you aware that you need to be extra careful editing in this area. About the Meitei stick, you need to get consensus for your edits because of WP:BRD and because it appears that there are many editors reverting your preferred name for the language. I'm surprised I need to explain all this to an admin but this should be fairly obvious.--regentspark (comment) 14:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Ok. There are basically two editors (but mostly one) reverting my edits. I do admit to editwarring (although I don't believe I've violated any 3RR rule contrary to SpacemanSpiff's understanding). I was affected by what I perceive as Filpro's rather rude edit style. That's my fault. I generally don't keep up with the bureaucratic part of wikipedia. I primarily add substantial context to wikipedia that hasn't existed here before. So-called sanctions are new to me and frankly don't seem necessary. I also still fail to understand why you and SpacemanSpiff are singling me out. – ishwar  (speak) 15:59, 5 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Since you're the one making the change, it's up to you to seek consensus. That's why you're the one getting all these messages. --regentspark (comment) 17:06, 5 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

I see. So, it's a narrow focus on the India article. In contrast, i view it as the general area of all wikipedia reference to Meitei/Manipuri related things. In other words, i view wikipedia as more interconnected. Therefore, it's not 'up to [me]'. Rather it's up to both me and Filpro to seek consensus. And, if different names in different articles are used for the same referent, then there should be an explicit mention and justification for that state of affairs. (My implicit assumption: a one-to-one correspondence between name and referent is preferred.) Maybe my perspective is a minority one.

But, at any rate, I now understand why you admonish me and not Filpro. Presumably, SpacemanSpiff also has a similar focus on a subset of articles. – ishwar  (speak) 17:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

I don't think you're seeing the problem. There is no narrow focus or broad focus. Rather, there is just how you go about making changes (and how you use your admin tools). Wikipedia functions better when there is discussion and consensus and it is incumbent on you to seek that consensus - whether it be on the India article or in the language page or elsewhere. Provide sources, make your case in a reasonable way, and other editors will evaluate your arguments. Edit war, and you'll end up blocked and not listened to. It's all fairly simple and completely independent of where and what you're actually doing with content. --regentspark (comment) 17:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I now no longer understand why you are singling me out. I see the problem. But, I don't see why you are not also explaining this to Filpro as they initiated the edit war in the first place. Is it because I have admin status and therefore deserve extra censure? (I'm not sure since you just mentioned that parenthetically.) Or, is the presumption that Filpro already knows these things and therefore doesn't need to be censured? – ishwar  (speak) 17:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Because it is your change that is being reverted. And I'm done with explaining all this so you're welcome to do whatever you want with my warning. --regentspark (comment) 18:02, 5 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

And, Filpro's change was reverted as well starting from Meitei language. I'm sorry you are frustrated, but you are not explaining your selective attention to me. – ishwar  (speak) 18:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

As for the 'Meitei stick', well, there isn't a consensus on what Wikipedia's policy is. I'm trying to follow some aspects of Wikipedia policy while another editor is following a different policy. So, there needs to be some resolution coming from other folks. Feel free to comment at Talk:Meitei language. Both me & Filpro should probably refrain from editing Meitei-related topics. – ishwar  (speak) 03:41, 5 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

While there may not be a consensus on the name to be used, your behavior here is what is classified as disruptive. You violated 3RR on India and then added full protection in violation of WP:INVOLVED and are continuing to edit war in other articles, including misusing WP:Rollback. THe sanctions exist to prevent such behavior and if you do continue this, you are likely to be topic banned from the area. —SpacemanSpiff 04:03, 5 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Ok. And, the reason you aren't concerned with Filpro's edit warring is because their edits aren't disruptive? – ishwar  (speak) 04:14, 5 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ish ishwar. I'm not very knowlegable on creating templates and I'm not sure what the basic difference is between Template:Shogi diagram and Template:Shogidiagram, but the names are almost identical which might make it confusing for anyone wanting to use them. It might also make it easy for unintentional mistakes to happen. It might be a good idea to change the name of one of them so that they are easier to distinguish by name. I have no preference as to which one's name is changed, but it could be some simply done like "Shogi diagram 1"/ "Shogi diagram 2" or something more specific to the difference(s) between the two.

Also, if you've copied some of the syntax from within Wikipedia or from another language Wikipedia, you probably should add some attribution to "original" version somewhere since you've basically created a completely new page with a new edit history. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:33, 11 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Template:Shogidiagram calls Module:Shogi diagram just like the chess diagram. Basically, the Shogidiagram version uses text characters for the shogi pieces (instead of image files of characters like the Shogi diagram). There is also a technical difference in that Shogidiagram requires two piece in hand arguments in addition to a header & footer argument (unlike Shogi diagram which used the header & footer arguments for mentioning the pieces in hand). Otherwise, the template itself is mostly the same. I plan to customize it further by making some arguments optional, label switches, etc.

The basic idea to use text instead of image is to reduce page load time (see, e.g, the mammoth Castle (shogi)) & to render a sharper character at all text-sizes.

For the name, I propose that there be only one diagram template. So, once the pages are fixed so that the diagrams within fit the argument structure, then Shogidiagram can be moved to Shogi diagram (i.e. copied into it & Shogidiagram deleted). So, Shogidiagram is just a temp template for this transition period.

The module is inspired by the chess one, but the syntax is mine as I had to deal with different issues and a different structure. I mentioned that with my 'based on' language, but even that's probably not needed as the structure is probably a natural one based on how one writes the html. I just looked at the chess module because it's easier to learn the syntax via example (I never heard of Lua before) instead of from a reference book (for me anyway). However, the Shogidiagram template is definitely based the Shogi diagram template. In fact, I'd say that Shogidiagram is a working (in alpha) modification of Shogi diagram.

There's something funny about the code in that the arrow images show something like a 1 pixel whitespace between the left & right sides of the images and the border of the table cells. I haven't figured this out yet... (This doesn't show up at the top & bottom of the images, so I first need to confirm the images are truly square.) – ishwar  (speak) 01:01, 11 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

I don't really understood much of the technical details that go into creating templates; I basically copied the one I "created" from what was being used on Japanese Wikipedia and tweaked it as I thought needed. If this new version is an improvement, then I'm all for it. I just wanted to point out WP:CWW and the possible problems with the names.

I also noticed the white space in the arrows. I basically created them using MS Paint, saved them as png files and then uploaded them to Commons. I'm sure there's probably a much better way to do that as well so feel free to improve/tweak/re-create/delete as needed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

The template from jawiki is clever. So, it was good to import it. Actually, if you hadnt have done that, i probably wouldnt have been motivated to look at the chess template or to learn Lua & the necessary html. (I didn't think that it was possible to rotate text via CSS.)

I think it's an improvement because it's faster to display text than pics. And, fonts are very clear when you increase their size unlike pics, which get blurry. Also, since the template is a wrapper for a Lua module, one can add optional formatting. For example, one could add a flag like orientation=upside that would flip the board making (a) white on the bottom, black on the top and (b) adjusting the board coordinate axes, and (c) putting 王 on the bottom & 玉 on top. Things like that.

The possibly negative points about using text include:

• (i) The diagrams look different on different computers since displayed text appearance is always font-dependent. This is not bad in itself, but if the fonts differ in size and/or alignment, then the diagrams may look misaligned on some computers if the html table dimensions and CSS formatting is off. It's impossible to know without testing lots of different fonts.

• (ii) The rotated text depends on web browser support for the transform: rotate bit, which is new. For example,

<div style="transform: rotate(180deg)">香</div> gives:

Although it seems that most modern browsers support this now, very older browsers may not.

• (iii) Well, it's in Lua now. Although it's more customizable, it's now harder to maintain since not everyone knows Lua. I'll try to help as much as i can with this by documenting it. (Unlike the chess module which is completely undocumented and uncommented)

I dont think there's a better option for the arrows. So, although the pieces are text, the arrows remain as images. I dont know if there are suitable arrow and line character points in the Unicode tables. There are definitely arrows, but if we want to use the arrows as they are being used in the diagrams, then they need to connect up to edges of the html table cells to look 'nice'. And, even if there are suitable characters, they also need to be supported in actual fonts that would be on readers' computers. I think the MS Paint pics are fine.

It will take me a little while to adjust the diagram code in articles since i've made so many diagrams. But, once that's done and everything's behaving as expected, then i plan to use the template:shogi diagram name. The pic-based version can be transferred to something like template:shogi diagram image. And then, i go back the articles and replace shogidiagram with (the easier to read) shogi diagram.

I figured out the 1px spacing issue with the arrow pics. Apparently, wikipedia's default CSS gives table cells extra padding. So, you have to null that to 0 padding explicitly. – ishwar  (speak) 15:16, 13 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

This actually didn't fix all 1px spacing issues. So, still a mystery.... – ishwar  (speak) 15:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. At the moment we have not received your response on the address collection. Sorry for the inconvenience if you did submit the form before. If you still wish to receive the postcard from Wikipedia Asian Month, please submit your mailing address (not the email) via this google form. This form is only accessed by me and your username will not distribute to the local community to send postcards. All personal data will be destroyed immediately after postcards are sent. If you have problems of using the google form, you can use Email This User to send your address to my Email.

If you do not wish to share your personal information and do not want to receive the postcard, please let me know at my meta talk page so I will not keep sending reminders to you. Best, Addis Wang, sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:04, 26 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Are you going to write the page quoting reliable sources? If not I'll rewrite it as a redirect.Xx236 (talk) 10:04, 28 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Bishop Head Pawn.Xx236 (talk) 10:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, eventually. It's just a stub after all. If you know the topic, then you can add some information, too. – ishwar  (speak) 18:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

No, I don't know the subject. No, they aren't stubs, they are unsourced substubs, your personal notes in main space. Xx236 (talk) 09:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Are you happy now with my 'personal notes in main space'? – ishwar  (speak) 17:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi. You recently participated in the Requested move discussion for Saraiki dialect, which has now been closed. The close is under discussion at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2017 January#Saraiki dialect, where you'll be welcome to comment. Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 13:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

I don't know what to say. The objection against Saraiki language is silly. I don't understand why Wikipedia doesn't seek out actual linguists to settle this rather than relying on ill-informed editors. – ishwar  (speak) 08:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

I also never understood the arbitrary time limits on these things. – ishwar  (speak) 09:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Well, isn't that how wikipedia's decision making is supposed to work? If there's a dispute, it gets settled by "uninvolved" (i.e. ill-informed) editors. And I think the greater problem is not with the discussions, but with the article content itself. Edits to language-related articles are relatively more susceptible to the Dunning–Kruger effect – few amateurs would have the confidence to edit articles on say quantum chromodynamics, but with such an everyday matter as language, I guess it's easy for many people to feel like they know what's going on. I've taken most of the major Indian language articles off my watchlist – it was unbearable to see the mess that well-meaning editors make of them on a daily basis. – Uanfala (talk) 13:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I view it as a flaw of wikipedia. It's sort of like a democracy: it works better when the members are knowledgeable. Other encyclopedias invite experts to contribute giving you higher quality material.

The issue here is a few editors don't seem to realize that dialect isn't defined by mutual intelligibility to the exclusion of socio-political criteria as is apparent by the wikipedia article names for Spanish & Portuguese and Swedish & Norwegian and so on. I don't know where they got this idea from. As far as I know, all introductory linguistic textbooks mention mutual intelligibility as a possible definition while in the same breath mentioning the lack of consistency of the definition as used by laypeople. I guess there will be problems as long as this misconception is held.

The other issue is that other editors seem to want Saraiki to be associated with the term dialect merely because they don't wish speech to be elevated to the status of language and wish it to be denigrated with the connotations of dialect. Generally, linguists reject this desire for denigration. Now, maybe wikipedia wants to consider this point of view as something valid to consider in naming an article in a democratic fashion. But, it's actually against wikipedia naming policy to use disfavored ethnonyms (in alignment with the practice of linguists [and I guess anthropologists too]). The editors are ignoring this.

For me, there's simply no debate here. – ishwar  (speak) 15:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

  Administrator changes

  NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

  Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

  Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

  Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

  Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

  Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ish ishwar. Just wanted to let you know that I started Draft:Karolina Stycznska. Feel free to add content as you see fit. I'd expect there be more online about her in English now that's she's been officially promoted to 2 Kyu. There will also likely be quite a bit on her in Japanese and in Polish as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Nice! – ishwar  (speak) 18:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

The draft was moved to the main space by a WikiProject Japan editor. See WT:JAPAN#Draft:Karolina Stycznska for reference. I'm also working on Draft:Template:Infobox shogi professional so if you have any suggestions, etc. on how to make the template work best, please feel free to add them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shogi notation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Hodges. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:55, 11 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Kakching Khunou

added a link pointing to Meitei

Maibam

added a link pointing to Meitei

Shaphee Lanphee

added a link pointing to Meitei

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Acoma Pueblo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Acomita. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shogi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Akira Watanabe. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Camellia sinensis

added a link pointing to Thea

Camellia taliensis

added a link pointing to Thea

Euryale ferox

added a link pointing to Bori

Evangelical Baptist Convention

added a link pointing to Meitei

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi, just a friendly suggestion, but can you mark your minor (i.e. cosmetic) edits on the shogi article (or any article) as minor? Just so no one has to go through them. Thanks. OneWeirdDude (talk) 19:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

hi. Ok. I'm sorry to have made you go through minor things. So, what's your definition of minor? Or, should i just use my judgment? I've used the minor marking in the past but at some point decided it was too subjective to be worth the time and the potential for mislabeling.

(Also, it's a different topic & unimportant, but my that that > that they was really a typo. I should know since i wrote it. I meant to type they. Amusingly, that that turned out to make sense. More importantly, i'm still not satisfied with the clarity of that section with either sentence....) – ishwar  (speak) 22:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

I saw that there's actually a what's-not-a-minor-edit section now at Help:Minor edit. So, it seems to be a lot less arbitrary than it used to be years ago. – ishwar  (speak) 15:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shogi notation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Akira Watanabe. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ish ishwar. I haven't been doing very much work on shogi lately, but just wanted to let you know that your continued efforts are much appreciated. Anyway, just in case you haven't heard yet, there are going to be 8 major titles from June 2017. The Eiou-sen has been upgraded to major titles status now that the man vs. machine Denou-sen matches are finished. The official announcement can be found here. I haven't checked yet, but there's probably an article or two about this in the Japanese media as well. Mainichi and Asahi seem to provide fairly decent coverage of shogi, so perhaps they willmention it. I don't think we'll find anything about this in English other than some forums or noticeboards, unless the JSA or a Japanese paper decides to publish a translated version.

Also, I've been sitting on a bit of info related to opening trends in pro games from the April 16 Shogi Focus. Katsumata 6-dan presented some of his research regarding changes he seen ranging rook and static rook opening selection since the 1980s. It was kinda interesting, but it may be too OR-ish for Wikipedia. I'll try to post it on Talk:Shogi opening sometime this week. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:18, 21 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

My shogi-playing friends let me know that. I added a redlink to the shogi title template, but no more than that. I guess i'll just continue contributing to shogi theory gradually rather than dealing with tournament info.

Maybe we'll get an english article. Seems like that Fujii kid is making shogi newsworthy for the publishers.

I think i skimmed through that Shogi Focus show that you mention (from YouTube). I have to look at it more carefully. You mean Katsumata's research is too 'original'? If so, why? None of the shogi literature (books) actually seem very scholarly to me (coming from academia). And, i dont see anything like peer review for them. So, whatever a professional says seems to be the gold standard no matter how unsatisfying as that may be. Well, that's my impression anyway, i may be wrong. For what it's worth, the British Shogi magazine started to publish game statistics on opening popular in the 1980s. So, it can be compared to Katsumata. But, i guess all the Shogi info is originating from the Japanese magazine, so old copies of that would be the best source? Sometimes books say things about changes in relative popularity of opening strategies, but they never present any actual data on it. I wonder if sometimes it is based only on personal impressions, which (as we know) can be wrong. Sometimes we can confirm with the data in Kyokumenpedia, but Kyokumenpedia may not have all the data anyway. Anyway, i like this stuff. I'm very curious about openings/strategies that are no longer used. (I found one that i mentioned here: Central Rook#vs Side Pawn Capture variation) – ishwar  (speak) 19:20, 21 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the reply.

1. It might be possible to create a stub for the Eiou page since there it was covered by the Sankei Shimbun, Nikkan Sports and Mainichi Shimbun here, here and here respectively. It's the first new major title in 34 years, so that could also be a hook for a DYK nomination.
2. Sota Fujii gets lots of media covered mainly because he's still a junior high school student and because he keeps winning, inlcuding beating people like Habu. I haven't been able to find much on him in English, but there's quite a bit in the Japanese press. He's also covered on mainstream news programs and talk shows. One interesting thing that I saw was that the JSA prominently announced the result of his NHK Cup game against Shota Chida [2] a month before the game was shown on TV [3], which is something I've never seen them do before because it's kind of a spolier. NHK, for reference, only posts the official game results after the game has been broadcast.
3. About my OR comment, I have no problem considering Katsumata as shogi expert and no reason to doubt his findings. He's a data cruncher and his widely recognized as such by shogi persons. My comment was more about what others might think since shogi is not something typically well covered in English and Katsumata may be a bit of an unknown quanity. He did describe his findings as "dokutoku", but I don't think that means they cannot be trusted. Anyway, he used pie graphs to discuss some basic trends in three separate years for ranging rook and static rook openings. I thought those pie graphs could be converted to a simple Wikitable with an some sentences or two about Katsumata and the things he found. Citing the specific Shogi Focus can be done using {{Cite Episode}}.

Finally, I didn't mention this in my previous post, but the JSA has also been involved in a Shogi Internet Channel on Abema TV since Janaury. They've been using it quite a bit for official games and other shogi-related programs; I've even seen TV commercials promoting it. This might be something that also could be created into a stub or at least added to the JSA article since it's has recieved some coverage in the mainstream press.[4] [5] -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, my friends told me about Abema TV, too. Theyre very up on the shogi news. However, last time we checked it wasnt available to view in the US. But, sure – seems worth mentioning to me. Makes the article very up-to-date compared with most of the english stuff on the JSA which is from the 1980s mostly.

I guess there's a jawiki Eiou article that may have useful notes. I thought it's interesting that this was elevated.

I have no idea what dokutoku means here. If the data is clear, then why say it all? Maybe it means some games were hard to classify in his limited set of categories, but he forced them into his categories anyway just to make a pie chart with less slices or to not stray from trad openings? If that's true, then other person doing the classification may reach a different graph – hence the comment? No way to know unless we see the data ourselves... – ishwar  (speak) 21:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

I believe he said "dokutoku", but I'll have to check again. He probably said whatever he said just to not appear to be boasting or arrogant; a lot of Japanese do similar things to soften the tone of what they are saying a bit and make themselves appear a little humble. He did not really discuss any of his data and probably did all the number crunching prior to the show and just summarized things in a general way to suit the type of audience who watches the NHK shogi programs. There were a couple of shots of him using his laptop and it looked like he was working off some kind of database, but I don't remember him discussing it. I just assume he used the results from official games for the years he analyzed.

My guess is that quite a lot of the people watching are casual players who might not be as interested in a hardcore technical analysis than they are in some general info and interesting factoids. The program used the be more of a instructional type of thing with more detailed analysis and weekly tsume shogi problems, and was actually called NHK将棋講座. They still devote part of the program to that kind of thing, but they also do more features and interviews in an attempt to reach a more diverse audience. Over the past few years, the JSA seems to have been trying to broaden the appeal of shogi beyond the traditional club player and the "Shogi Focus" program is one way they are trying to do that. The hosts used to be well-established older professionals, both men and women, but now they tend to be younger (and better looking) pros who are popular with fans for reasons not only related to their shogi ability and more mainstream show business types/idols who are currently very popular and who also happen to play shogi. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:05, 24 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, i wondered about that too. My native speaker consultant tells me that dokutoku is usually used to talk about other people's stuff not one's own stuff. So, it seems weird. But, i haven't asked them to watch it in the context of the show.

I suspect that would you say about the simplification is probably true too. – ishwar  (speak) 20:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

He may have said something else besides "dokutoku". I think it would be fair to consider him a reliable source for something such as this. Probably he should be attributed and treated as a primary source, but still would sort be like citing a reputable news blog. Like many pros, he makes part of his living off publishing shogi books and he has authored ones such as this and this. Perhaps some of what he presented on NHK was stuff he worked out a while back for another project. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

I dont think a primary source characterization is right. This is mostly a concept in the field of history (or like literature studies, whose researchers seem to me to be like less rigorous historians). He's a secondary source if you want to characterize it in this way. He has to actually analyze the data to produce something new that is readable/interpretable. The primary sources would be the game records themselves (or the immediate reports of the social events surrounding the games if you are dealing with a social/cultural stuff).

I like those books a lot, they were partially translated into English, too. – ishwar  (speak) 02:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

I rewatched the episode only this time using headphones. The word he said was 独断 (dokudan) and he used to the day that he basically chosen to categorize the openings in his own particular way and not in reference to some standard way of categorizing them. Also, you're right about the primary source thing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi, when forgetting to mark edits as minor, don't worry about it too much, although it helps if it's not common practice. If you mark as minor by mistake, you should make a dummy edit (e.g. add a comment that says "Delete this comment", in "comment" tags) and mark it as major. OneWeirdDude (talk) 19:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:左馬.gif. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 20:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:Kifu325.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 20:10, 14 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ish ishwar. Was wondering if you have any suggestions as to how to improve Draft talk:Template:Infobox shogi professional. I'm thinking of tweaking some of the parameters, but any other ideas you might have can be added to the draft's talk page. Right now, I'm using the Habu article as a guide for men, the Styczyńska article as the guide for women, and the Oyama as the guide for deceased players since if I can get the template to work in those, then it should work in the rest no problem. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:02, 10 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

There's no shogi barnstar yet, but you definitely would deserve multiple ones for all the time and effort you've made in improving shogi-related stuff on Wikipedia. Thanks for doing all of that.   -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Sure. Thanks. I dont need any award though. Basically, i'm learning shogi (in part) by writing. Just a gift to the world. Hopefully, i'm not getting too much wrong. Contributing to wikipedia seems to be better than making some private website/blog that might disappear in 5–10 years as has happened to much of the English material of the past. Little by little, it starts to add up to something. I was surprised about the lack of nonJapanese material when i first started learning. Remedying this dearth of info (on American languages) was my initial motivation to join wikipedia so long ago, so it's the same feeling here. – ishwar  (speak) 01:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Oh, and it goes without saying, but it's good to say anyway: your expertise is very much appreciated as well! – ishwar  (speak) 01:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

FWIW, I'm not even close to being an expert on shogi and do really spend as much time on it as I used to. I probably enjoy Wikipedia more these days. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Please don't usurp primary topics like at Nishio. It's a city of 160,000 people and is the undisputed primary topic. —Xezbeth (talk) 05:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Nothing is being usurped. I guess i object to that characterization. I'm disambiguating the articles when the situation calls for it. If other concerned editors like yourself want to establish an article as primary by some arbitrary criteria, then that's fine. I don't object. However, it's not something that i find very interesting and so i leave it to others to do such things. I find the Wikipedia:Disambiguation guidelines rather vague and not well-defined. (Actually, in my opinion, it seems like it would save many hours of time (including time spent arguing) to completely dispense with primariness at all. Well, i won't try to convince anyone of this.) – ishwar  (speak) 09:43, 22 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello! Last year, you signed up to participate in Wikipedia Asian Month (WAM) 2016 on the English Wikipedia. The event was an international success, with hundreds of editors creating thousands of articles on Asian topics across dozens of different language versions of Wikipedia.

I'd like to invite you to join us for Wikipedia Asian Month 2017, which once again lasts through the month of November. The goal is for users to create new articles on Asian-related content, each at least 3,000 bytes and 300 words in length. Editors who create at least four articles will receive a Wikipedia Asian Month postcard!

Also be sure to check out the Wikipedia Asian Art Month affiliate event - creating articles on Asian art topics can get you a Metropolitan Museum of Art postcard!

If you're interested, please sign up here for the English Wikipedia. If you are interested in also working on other language editions of Wikipedia, please visit the meta page to see other participating projects. If you have any questions, please visit our talk page.

Thank you!

- User:SuperHamster and User:Titodutta on behalf of The English Wikipedia WAM Team

This will be the last message you receive from the English Wikipedia WAM team for being a 2016 participant. If you sign up for WAM 2017, you will continue receiving periodic updates on the 2017 event.

Back in 23 August, you seem to have changed the row designator for all shogi notation from [a-i] to [1-9]. Although this is closer to Japanese notation, it is not what I have seen elsewhere in Western shogi literature. --IanOsgood (talk) 23:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

replied here: Talk:Shogi#Problem_of_notation_in_all_(very_interesting)_Wikipedia_shogi_articles – ishwar  (speak) 00:51, 12 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Please don't create redirects to one person when there are several existing articles of other people already. If I don't notice them then it might take a decade for someone else to. —Xezbeth (talk) 05:44, 14 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

i wasnt aware. If there isn't a disambig page for the name, then i wouldnt know, of course. – ishwar  (speak) 14:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

  You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Wbm1058#Failed page-swap. —usernamekiran(talk) 01:31, 28 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

I feel like I'm repeating myself, but please do not usurp primary topics like this. The voice actor is the primary topic by a huge margin. Use a hatnote. —Xezbeth (talk) 07:47, 7 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Nothing is being usurped. I guess i object to that characterization. I'm disambiguating the articles when the situation calls for it. If other concerned editors like yourself want to establish an article as primary by some arbitrary criteria, then that's fine. I don't object. However, it's not something that i find very interesting and so i leave it to others to do such things. I find the Wikipedia:Disambiguation guidelines rather vague and not well-defined. (Actually, in my opinion, it seems like it would save many hours of time (including time spent arguing) to completely dispense with primariness at all. Well, i won't try to convince anyone of this.) – ishwar  (speak) 07:55, 7 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

I read that boilerplate response last time. In which case, stop moving pages if you don't understand how primary topics work. —Xezbeth (talk) 07:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Why? If my edits of initiating the integration of new shogi pages into the rest of wikipedia are getting your attention so that you will make a decision about these things, then my edits have achieved their goal.

I thought it would be best to integrate them, but i dont really want to spend much time on it as my interest is in generating new content rather than interlinking info bits. So, i'm leaving that part to folks like you.

If this is bad, i'll stop and only concern myself with shogi content. – ishwar  (speak) 08:44, 7 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

It's just the page moves that I have an issue with. Hiroshi Kamiya has been at its current title since 2006; he's an extremely prolific voice actor with hundreds of inbound links and thousands of page views a month. Moving it will always be controversial, so there cannot be justification for moving it without using a move request via Wikipedia:Requested moves. —Xezbeth (talk) 08:48, 7 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Ok.

I dont see the controversy. Following the "the primary meaning among a general audience" guideline, then i would imagine that neither person is generally known if i just ask random people on the street. (This is my speculation here. Obviously, there must be some threshold value of n% of people known topic X, which i havent specified either.) Thus, i would give them equal weighting. It seems like this is a case of "topic[s] [that] may have principal relevance for a specific group of people" – namely, cartoon watchers vs shogi players.

Now, since cartoons are more part of pop culture unlike shogi, which is traditional Japanese culture, then the group of cartoon watchers is, of course, larger by definition as it's pop culture. But, it isnt clear to me that wikipedia or encyclopedias in general should be biased toward pop culture over traditional culture.

You mentioned page views. (The date of page creation is, of course, irrelevant.) However, the use of that information in determining the definition of primary is not explicitly stated. The page gives two examples where the primary topics are not the most popular in terms of page views. In fact, the page says "no absolute rules for determining whether a primary topic exists and what it is." If the defining of primary in practice (and not what is written on that page) is determined by page views, then the practice should be clearly stated as such in the disambiguation guidelines. Like: the primary topic is the page with the most page views except (a) when one is a city, in which case the city will be primary, (b) arbitrary exception #2, (c) arbitrary exception #3, and so.

As the guidelines read now, there is no way to determine whether something is primary except by talking with other editors. So, an edit of mine (including a page move) here gets a consensus (where consensus = your opinion). So, there can be no usurpation. I am forcing a decision, which is my intention. If i move a page after your decision, then that would be usurpation as the primary status would then be known.

You can, of course, just tell me what the guidelines are and i can follow them. But, why arent they on that page? Since i'm not a wikipedia disambiguation expert, how would i even know that what you tell me is even correct? – ishwar  (speak) 20:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I was wondering if you might be able to do the same for the other articles moved (e.g. chu shogi)? Some of them, like this one, are neither correct English nor correct Japanese (e.g. if shogi needs a macron, then so does chu). Sorry to bother you about this but there are too many for me to get through right away. Thanks, Double sharp (talk) 00:02, 28 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

I've reverted chu for now and left the others since they are not quite as wrong. If you could get to them first it'd be greatly appreciated; otherwise it may wait some hours before I can do it myself. Thanks, Double sharp (talk) 00:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Comment: I'm not sure if I'm on board with the change of "shogi" to "shōgi" for all of the category pages , article titles and in-article mentions, except when it's a romaji rendition of 将棋 in Japanese text. This change seems unecessary since shogi is pretty westernized by now as "shogi" in most publications and websites. You might find some examples of "shōgi" being every now and then, but that is (at least) these days, more of the exception than the rule. Perhaps this macron use in both "chu" and "shogi" is something which should be discussed. The best place to do that at the moment might be at User talk:Spiderjerky#Shogi vs. shōgi. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:17, 28 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

  You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Biografer#Shogi articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

I saw your post, but then thread has been removed so I guess I’ll comment here. About the links, I don’t remember which of the two of us originally added the links, but I tend to agree with the point you're making to keep them; however, I can also understand the points made by Beetstra (who does lots of EL cleanup) and Yunshui (an admin like yourself who has helped me before). Basically, it would be nice to have the links, but perhaps not essential. Still if you want to continue things at WT:EL, then this might be an interesting (and overdue?) way to possibly review the current guideline. The point you raised is an interesting one though that looks at links from a different perspective.

As for the date format, I agree with you as well; however, I'm not against the use of all numerical dates per se and have used them when that was the style being used in the article. The issue in this case was that the dates were being mass converted based upon some misconception that Japanese shogi (no macron  ) needed to use such a format. It makes no difference as to whether mdy or dmy is used, but the template and article body uses the former, which is why I switched to that when cleaning up/expanding the stubs you created. If dmy is preferred then the template syntax tweaked. All numerical could be possibly made to work as well I guess though it would seem inappropriate for actual article content.

The other thing about the "expand" template dates was not something you commented on, but basically the date you added the template to the article was being changed to the current date like this. Seems minor perhaps, but pages tagged with that template are probably categorized according to when the template was originally added, not when the template was reviewed. This is similar to how maintenace templates work, and changing the date makes it seem as if the template was just added. There's some information lost when the date is changed since editors assume the date indicates how long "this" has been an issue, and it might also mess with the categorization of the pages. I'm going to leave them as is to possibly avoid any further accusations of edit warring over this, exit, but you can restore the original dates if you want. One thing that came out of this discussion is something I’ve been thinking about for awhile and is something I will pose to you in a new thread a bit later today. — Marchjuly (talk) 23:09, 28 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

hi.

I dont know if the links are needed either. But, that should be determined on the merit of the links themselves and not the arbitrary wikipedia guideline. I guess wikipedia in general likes their guidelines long, complicated, bureaucratic. Not sure why. Perhaps it's to discourage new editors and maintain groups of elite knowledgeable editors? I dont know. But, i dont think it's worth time to try to change the guidelines since probably nobody wants to change them. (i obviously dont have a high opinion of this area of wikipedia.)

Always less confusing to have month names instead of month numbers. The order of year, month, day seems to be an arbitrary individual preference: any order should be fine.

Well, i dont know why the expand templates need to have dates anyway. As far as i can tell, these dates are just used to delete the expand requests if they are old (because some editors would prefer not to see them instead of adding content?). Doesnt seem important to me. – ishwar  (speak) 23:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

  You are invited to join the discussion at WT:JAPAN#Date formats. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

I've been thinking about this for awhile, but the events of yesterday have reminded me to ask you about it. Do you think it would be helpful to create some kind of MOS guideline for shogi related articles? Currently, there is pretty much only you and myself working regularly on shogi stuff and for the most part we seem to be in agreement about most things. However, the number of articles created over the past year or so has really increased the shogi presence in the encyclopedia, so it's a bit hard trying to keep track of them all. My thinking is that as more shogi articles are created, more editors are going to be helping to clean them up and imrpve them. So, any guidance which can be given will probably be seen as helpful.

Ideally, there would be some standardized format or guideline which could be applied to all article (mostly stuff from MOS:MOS), but there could be specific things related to shogi articles as well. It could cover the whole gamut of articles from BLPs, tournaments, openings, etc. and cover things such as image use, notability, templates, diagrams, notation, date formats, naming conventions, style of English, citations, etc. Right now, I'm just slowly working my way through the stubs you've created and trying to exapnd them. I'm sort of following a general format, but there have been variations based upon the particulars of each article. I'm not entirely sure this is the best way to approach this or whether the general format I've been following is really good, so there's probably lots of room for improvement. It might be possible to find others as well from Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Shogi, other related WikiProjects, and even those not interested in shogi per se but with specific knowledge about particular technical aspects like templates, etc. Moreover, it would be a gradual process which might over time as a postive side effect generate enough interest and participation to eventually establish a Shogi WikiProject. Everything could be done in a userspace sandbox for common use which can then be submitted for independent review once it's ready to go.

Any feedback on this would be appreciated and things like MOS:JAPAN or pages in Category:Wikipedia Manual of Style (regional) can be used as a basic template just to get started. Specific references to the MOS may even eventually be suitable enough to propose adding to relevant community-wide policy/guideline pages. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:32, 1 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

I guess this is ok.

I wouldnt spend much time on it since the main issue for me is that most of the info on shogi is not in English and the stuff that is in English is not on the interwebs. So, i mostly want to spend time adding content over formatting. The formatting/style can always be changed later. But, if the content is never written, then it just doesnt exist.

Relatedly, there's a recommendation for academic folks writing a thesis/dissertation/paper to write in plain text first since some folks spend lots of time fiddling with formatting or bibliographic software stuff or whatever instead of writing the paper.

As an extreme perverse example, imagine that we died in car accidents 6 months from now, then i guess shogi wikipedia growth will stop. But, after that, there will still be style tweakers that would fiddle with how our legacy looks – perhaps even decades after our deaths. Well, if we added more content before our demises, then the tweakers would have more to tweak.

But, of course, it doesnt hurt to be standardized in form. And, really, you should just do whatever you feel is the most fun as we are volunteers after all. – ishwar  (speak) 19:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

By the way, my edit summary of really was not what i intended. I intended it to be reply, but it was filled in by my browser's autocomplete/memory. Anyway, i just noticed it and thought that a really comment would change the interpretation of what i wrote above. – ishwar  (speak) 05:33, 4 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

"Really" or "Reply" both work for me. The context of each is bit different, but no blood no foul. Also, I appreciate your frank feedback on the MOS idea. It might be a grandiose idea (at least in the moment), but there was the notation discussion awhile back, then the shogi vs. shōgi, and finally the date formats which made me think it might have some value. Of course, an MOS probably wouldn't have prevented those three things from happening, but at the same time it would give something to link to when issues like those are encountered, etc. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Shogi opening, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pinwheel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 12 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

I think it's better to leave the archiving and tweak the date parameters instead. FWIW, I just double the date parameters, whether that will even work I am not sure, but I do know they parameters can be adjusted per the needs of the page. Automatic archiving is not perfect, but it's better than no archiving at all. Manual archiving is possible, but that probably means that some kind of criteria needs to be established as to when to archive; otherwise, different people may be doing it at different times. FWIW< I think it's possible to use a template {{faq}} to create "sticky threads" in a way by adding links to significant talk page discussions so that at least the links are always visible on the main talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Ok. I think the manual disorganized way of archiving is fine as it only needs to be done when the page takes too long to a person's computer. Otherwise, it's better to never archive in my opinion. I would guess that most folks these days will be more likely to scroll down a page than take the time to click on multiple links to separate archive pages. – ishwar  (speak) 02:03, 19 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Archiving began as a result of Talk:Shogi/Archive 2#Time to archive?. Might be a good time to reassess to see if manual or no archiving is preferred. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited NHK Cup (shogi), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hiroshi Kobayashi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi admin can you please review draft:Prakash Neupane Thanks. MAXNP (talk) 20:26, 22 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Heads up: this user is canvassing admins trying to get a review. —C.Fred (talk) 20:29, 22 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

I noticed you added this template, for "achieved professional status" on many shogi players. I understand what you wanted to do, but please be aware that this template is just a redirect to {{death date and age}}, which means that any machine, script or bot that reads it, reads it as "death date".

Thus, those players were wrongly added false death dates on wikidata at least twice, some more than twice ; it caused disagreements and it was difficult to explain to non english-speaking people the cause of this ; and it took some time to understand the origin of it.

Do you think something could be done to avoid this confusion ? maybe change the template or remove the redirect ? because contributors who are aware of this can avoid the trap, but others may fall in it, again, and again, and again...

You may contact me on wikidata to talk about it and try and find a solution :) --Hsarrazin (talk on wd) 11:53, 1 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

hi.

i dont know much about it.

i put this comment here on the talk page of the template: Template talk:Infobox shogi professional.

it does seem like that redirect is incorrect. However, it was done 8 years ago for unknown reasons unrelated to shogi player templates. – ishwar  (speak) 18:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi

give me some advice or process to make allow Meetei language Wikipedia page which can be written in Meetei Mayek script  Awangba Mangang (talk) 08:23, 2 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

 

I don't like kitten

Awangba Mangang (talk) 11:21, 2 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

 Module:Shogiboard has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the module's entry on the Templates for discussion page. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 20:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I would like to ask you to give some reference for the statement that Axininca is important for linguistic theory. "It's actually famous" doesn't sound as a serious ground. If it's so important, you should be able to give many references that use this language to support some linguistic theories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manissero (talk • contribs) 07:27, 8 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

There's already a reference in the article. The McCarthy & Prince article is one of the seminal papers on Optimality Theory (which is probably the most influential theory in phonology in recent times) and this paper heavily uses Axininca data to support the theory. There are, of course, other papers written with this language's data. McCarthy & Prince did not discover the language – it was already known to theorists based on Payne's work. If you want more references, how many do you want mentioned? – ishwar  (speak) 08:27, 8 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

You raise here a good question: how many references are needed to say that this language is important for phonological theory? If there is only one reference, the statement could be: "this language has been used by X to support his/her views in phonological theory" --or something similar. If there were two references, the statement could be the same saying "this language has been used by X and X..." If there were more references, probably it would be better to say "this language has been used by several authors (X, X, X...)..." If you have a very high number of references, it would make little sense to make two lines between brackets, so maybe four or five references as examples would suffice. So, as for many things in life, there isn't an exact answer to your question, but obviously one reference doesn't mean that this language "has figured quite prominent in linguistic theory involving phonology and morphology", as the article says. Moreover, which are the references for morphology? I find the present statement quite inexact. I propose to change it for some statement similar to those I have proposed depending on the number of references.--Manissero (talk) 07:31, 10 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

i listed several references to theoretical stuff.

several works are about reduplication. Now, as i guess you know, reduplication concerns both morphosyntax and phonology. I simply added morphology due to the discussions of Axininca reduplication. However, the authors are pretty much only concerned with Axininca reduplication as it informs phonological issues. So, one could argue that including morphology to that statement is a mischaracterization of the literature. And, i wouldnt disagree, i was just being imprecise.

You will also find Axininca data in many phonology course handouts – many of which can be found online these days.

Obviously, it would be good to add the data that the theoreticians have been so interested in, but i'm feeling more like adding japanese chess info to wikipedia instead of linguistic info since japanese chess is even more esoteric and hard to come by in non-japanese languages. – ishwar  (speak) 22:58, 10 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

– ishwar  (speak) 22:58, 10 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Well, I have to admit that I'm impressed with the number of references you added. I had thought that the statement was simply false, given that there were some clear mistakes in the article, which I have corrected (e.g. there is no glottal stop in Payne's grammar, but it was written in the consonants table). Thank you for the information, I didn't know that this language has been so much used for theory.--Manissero (talk) 06:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

I want to create templates parameters to be added in infobox settlement in Meetei language in Incubator:Wp/mni https://incubator.m.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Infobox_settlement&mobileaction=toggle_view_mobilemni/settlement]....Awangba Mangang (talk) 15:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, could I check why you've re-added the category 'Professional shogi players from Tokyo Metropolis' to these articles? All of these players are from mainland Tokyo - they're not from the Izu Islands or Ogasawara Islands, so they can be added to the more precise category. --Prosperosity (talk) 06:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi. It's simply to correspond to the Japanese language wikipedia.

The tokyo metropolis corresponds to tokyou-to, which is the 'greater' tokyo area (or 'tokyo prefecture') while just tokyo corresponds to tokyou-to-kubu, which is 'tokyo proper' or 'the special wards of tokyo' (or 'tokyo city') – this is the smaller region inside of tokyou-to. Japanese folks (at least if they live in tokyo) usually make a distinction between the two.

Of the course, the problem here may be that the English word Tokyo (on wikipedia) doesnt really mean tokyou-to-kubu and that the english language and japanese language categories are improperly linked (which probably will end up being a big mess....). – ishwar  (speak) 06:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Just as an example, Tama, Tokyo is inside of tokyou-to 'greater tokyo' but it's not inside of tokyou-to-kubu 'tokyo city proper.' (And, Tama isn't on a small island either.) – ishwar  (speak) 07:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

 

I understand the different distinctions of Tokyo well, but I don't understand what you're trying to do - what distinction are you making between the categories of Category:Professional shogi players from Tokyo Metropolis and Category:Professional shogi players from Tokyo?

As it currently stands on the English Wikipedia, the categories are split as such:

Category:People from Tokyo Metropolis → All Tokyo-to people.

Category:People from the Izu Islands → All people from Izu

Category:People from Tokyo → Everyone who lives in the 23-ku and Tama

Category:People from Western Tokyo → Tama (but this category is barely used)

The Japanese Wikipedia categorisation is different, but it's an entirely different Wiki with different policies/conventions to the English Wiki, which splits the categories like:

Category:東京都出身の人物 → All Tokyo-to people.

Category:東京都区部出身の人物 → All 23-ku people

To me, the category Category:Professional shogi players from Tokyo should include everyone from the 23-ku and Tama as per it's parent category 'People from Tokyo', and Category:Professional shogi players from Tokyo Metropolis should only include outliers (e.g. people from Izu or Iwo-Jima or somewhere), otherwise there's no distinction between the two categories. --Prosperosity (talk) 07:43, 18 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

You wrote:

"but I don't understand what you're trying to do - what distinction are you making"

The distinction is what I wrote above – namely, the difference between tokyo city 東京都区部 ('tokyo') vs tokyo prefecture 東京都 ('tokyo metropolis'), which is what the correspondence between 東京都区部出身の人物:People from Tokyo and 東京都出身の人物:People from Tokyo Metropolis assumes.

What you're saying is that 'Tokyo' on en.wiki 'Tokyo' means something that has no corresponding definition in Japanese and, therefore, the link between 'Tokyo' and 東京都区部 is incorrect. Instead, 'Tokyo' = (東京都区部 + nonisland parts of 東京都) while 東京都区部 should have no corresponding category.

Well, i dont know what en.wiki should follow. What is the definition of 'Tokyo' on en.wiki? Is the same definition consistently used here? What you suggest is not what Japanese folks generally think. If en.wiki uses different definitions than what is in Japanese, then all categories using 'Tokyo' with this more expansive nonJapanese definition should be delinked from the ja.wiki categories. Otherwise, it's a false correspondence that will mislead people like me. – ishwar  (speak) 20:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

I added a red link to the heat-not-burn tobacco product article I just expanded. Can you create an article for Sendai Pageant of Starlight or should I just remove the red link if it is not notable. QuackGuru (talk) 01:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Well, i know nothing about heatnotburn tobacco. I was just surprised when i recently read a news article about how vaping stuff is illegal in Japan so that they use this heatnotburn stuff instead, which i had never heard of. So, i clicked around wikipedia a bit to see what it was and made a little edit after reading one source. I'm not really comfortable editing anything else unless i read a substantial amount of medical articles. And, it's not like i'm trained in medicine or pharmacology or biology or whatever anyway, so i couldnt be sure that i would be able to appropriately evaluate the articles. And, i'm actually not that interested in it, so i dont have so much motivation to learn about it.

i think i'm best editing in areas that i know things about. (beside the general copyediting, i think wikipedia is best served by editors who know their subjects well.)

So, sorry, but i respectfully decline your offer with regret.... peace – ishwar  (speak) 03:31, 30 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I will leave the red link to Sendai Pageant of Starlight for now. If it is removed I won't restore the red link. I thought an article on it would be really nice. Look at those beautiful pictures[6]. It may be possible to import an article written in Japanese if there is an article written in Japanese. QuackGuru (talk) 05:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Ah, i'm sorry. I assumed that was about tobacco, but i see it's not. Well, i dont know much about it. (never been to that part of japan either...) – ishwar  (speak) 03:25, 1 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

there's a japanese wiki page: ja:SENDAI光のページェント

It would be great if it were rewritten for the US. Those images look wonderful. If there is a Japanese project for the US Wikipedia you could make a request for a new article on my behalf. Or you could start a stub with a link to the Japanese version to be transferred. QuackGuru (talk) 17:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Administrators must secure their accounts The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised. Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:23, 4 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

 

Category:Queen, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:48, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

The page Shogi opening sequences page you made has grown to the point that the Wikipedia parser isn't actually parsing all of the templates you have included. I would suggest that you might want to split it into multiple pages, and make sure to preview the page to check that it doesn't say "Warning: Template include size is too large. Some templates will not be included." at the top in preview mode. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Ish ishwar,

Thanks for creating Rushing Silver! I edit here too, under the username Boleyn and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

Please add your references.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Boleyn}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Boleyn (talk) 20:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello ,

I badly need your help on Chandrayaan-2 page . A user Rowan Forest is vandalising the information to remove the fact from Page introduction that "Chandrayaan-2 mission is First mission aiming to land near Lunar South Pole."

He claims Chinese landed on Lunar South Pole first with Chang'e 4 mission but the fact is Chinese landed at 45.5 degree latitude which is far from Lunar South pole while India is landing at 70 degree latitude which is much closer to Lunar South Pole region .

Please help against that user Rowan Forest sir . — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChadHollingsworth (talk • contribs) 16:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

That is one more sockpuppet avoiding their indefinite block. Thank you. Rowan Forest (talk) 19:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

 

A tag has been placed on Category:Jivaroan languages requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

 

A tag has been placed on Category:Saliban languages requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:47, 25 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ish ishwar. I was thinking about making Momoko Kato Katō Momoko and Kato Momoko into a WP:REDIRECTs to Momoko Katō, but I'm a bit concerned about ja:加藤桃子 (女優) and ja:加藤桃子 (タレント) since it's not clear who of the three would be the primary "Momoko Katō/Kato" for English Wikipedia and who would need to be WP:DABBED. Right now, only the shogi pro has an English article, but someday perhaps the others will or someone else new might. Any suggestions on what to do here? Just follow what's done on Japanese Wikipedia? If all three had English articles, a DAB page could be be created. however, not sure if it make sense to do that right now for just one English article and then links to Japanese Wikipedia for the other two. Also, not sure if a hatnote should be added to the top of the shogi player's article to distinguish between the three. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:44, 14 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

hi.

well, i wouldnt worry about it since there's no pages for them. I guess one can address the issue now by creating pages for the other folks to make the disambiguations and force english wiki folks to evaluate whether to speedily delete them (or slowly delete them) or keep the pages. And, if kept, maybe other folks will fill out the pages if interested. Just depends on if that editing + interaction is fun for you do.

i dont think there should ever be a primary topic. It's not usual for encyclopedias to do such a thing. Wikipedia, of course, does its own byzantine things for some reason, but you don't have to play along with it. I'd just do name (disambig topic) for all and be done with it. [for the one, i'd say タレント = celebrity is vague, maybe model is better? Ah, you're making me read about uninteresting people, haha. I can't believe the jp wiki is putting their bust measurements on pages.] That's if there are 3 pages. If only one, there's nothing to disambiguate yet. – ishwar  (speak) 14:04, 14 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for taking a look. You're right in there's probably no point in worrying about this now and that disamguation can be added later on if needed. I just created simple redirects to the article for the three pages mentioned above.

And now for something completely different. In Professional shogi player#JSA, it mentions that Akiko Takojima was the first female to reach AP 1-dan. This is correct (you can see that in table shown here), but for some reason she's not being counted as being the first in recent articles when it comes to Satomi, Nishiyama, and Katō. Do you think this might be because Takojima's promotion came under the old system, whereas the others were promoted under the current system? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:17, 16 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Oh, i didnt know. And, i also dont know why they wouldnt report it. Well, what you suggest sounds plausible. I dont know much about the older system (or systems), but that was when the restriction on only 4 players per year could be professionals had not been put forth, which is about all i know. Also, could be reporters messing the facts up (they often misreport/misunderstand scientific or statistical stuff) although if it's the JSA that is making the omission you would presume that they know better. If you are cynical, maybe you could think of something more nefarious like the omission is due to Takojima leaving the JSA. Well, i have no idea. Your guess is as good as mine. You can always leave a footnote noting the discrepancy between sources and you neednt make any speculation on the reason for the discrepancy (to avoid your own bias) and just leave it to the reader to ponder over. – ishwar  (speak) 03:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

You never know when it comes to the JSA I guess. When the LSPA was formed, the JSA took away the status of those who left. I can understand that, but the way they did was strange in that it was as if the JSA was trying to erase them from its history. The badge numbers were re-assigned and everyone was moved up, etc. Takojima was badge #1, but when she left Sekine was moved up to #1 (before after). Shimizu went from 19 to 7. Kitao actually did leave as 49, but came back as 43. Maybe the JSA thought gaps in the badge numbers was undesirable, but it kinda seems (at least in my opinion) like it was also partly done out of spite. As a counter example, Beni Takemata not only retired, but also left the JSA altogether in March 2019 to pursue other things, yet the JSA still has a profile page for her. Anyway, one thing about Takojima and 1-dan though was that it appears that the criteria were tweaked to make promotion a bit easier for her to achieve since she was the first female apprentice; so, maybe that's why she's not considered by some (at least some younger journalists) to be the first. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:09, 17 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ish ishwar. Can you think of a good article for incorporating something like this and the just played Toyoshima-Kimura game. Both are records so to speak and it might be interesting to figure out a way to incorporate mentions of the them being so into articles other than ones about the players themselves. Maybe the first paragraph of Shogi#Strategy and tactics as examples of actual games? -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:40, 22 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

hi.

it's kind of like trivia. So, chess has an article of this sort: List of world records in chess. Perhaps there's a jawiki corresponding article for shogi too?

in my grand vision of shogi wikipedia coverage, every concept (rules, theory [castles/tactics/openings/etc.]) should have a real game example showing the concept. And, one can pick out interesting games for these examples. However, just being the longest game doesnt seem to be an example of anything like tactics. So, i dont see a justification there. (but maybe i'm lacking in imagination?) I do see how it could be relevant for discussion of the endgame especially if there is a generalization that 相入玉 leads to longer games on average. And, even if there's no such generalization (or no source backing up the generalization), it could be used to demonstrate the difference in strategy required for such games. (writing such material is a bit more complicated than just covering openings/josekis. Not sure that i'd be up the task yet myself. And, pro games can be pretty sophisticated...)

but, if it's just trivia at List of world records in shogi, then you dont have to do anything except mention it. No thinking required at all. – ishwar  (speak) 21:01, 22 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

It does have a kind of trivia feel to it and maybe would be best suited as a single entry in a WP:SAL article about "shogi records", or just a mention in each player's article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ish ishwar, I have been working on cleaning up after a disruptive user who has added empty "History" sections with only "expand section" templates, to hundreds of articles, as described at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1010#Countless empty "History" sections, plus copyright violations, etc.. In searching for edits by this user, I have noticed that you have added similar contentless sections to quite a number of articles, mainly "Promotion history" sections with only "expand section" templates in articles about shogi players, for example in Io Murota. In accordance with MOS:BODY, and common practice, I would ask you to consider not doing that. Sections can be created when content is available for them; creating empty sections, especially large numbers of them, is generally considered not helpful. Thanks for your understanding. --IamNotU (talk) 12:05, 28 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

why is it not helpful? It seems helpful to me. It shows me and any other future editor that happens upon the page that there is content missing from the article and what that missing content should be. In other words, it is a guided invitation to add content.

what is the reason for not adding expand-section sections?

(as a side note, i didnt find a discussion of empty sections in that manual of style link after a quick glance at it. And, common practice ≠ good practice.) – ishwar  (speak) 12:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

The relevant part of MOS:BODY is:

Headings introduce sections and subsections, clarify articles by breaking up text, organize content, and populate the table of contents. Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading.

You are correct that common practice is not always best practice, but the Manual of Style is a "generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow". The purpose of sections is to clarify and break up text, and organize content and the table of contents for the benefit of readers. If a single sentence does not warrant a subheading, then it seems clear that adding a subheading with no content at all is not warranted, and clutters the article.

Personally, I would not object to such sections if you or others intend to add content yourself within a short period of time. However, some of them have been around for half a year now.

For reference, here are some comments and warnings by senior editors about the subject: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. Many similar comments can be found in the edit history of articles where JohnLickor372 and their IP sockpuppets have added the same type of contentless sections with "expand section" to many articles, which are in the process of being removed following the ANI discussion. I do understand your reasoning above, and I don't think that your edits are disruptive in the same way, but I think it would be inconsistent for us to remove those empty sections without at least commenting on yours.

Here is a discussion with related reasoning about the use of "expand section" templates in general, where it was found that the consensus is that empty sections should be removed: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 February 11 § Time limit for Template:Empty section and Template:Expand section.

One more thing, the documentation of Template:Expand section states that it is not to be used for empty sections:

If the section is completely empty, the {{Empty section}} template should be used instead of this template.

I hope this makes sense. If you'd like, I could ping some of the above editors, who could maybe give a better explanation than I have, or give further references to relevant RFCs etc. Thanks... --IamNotU (talk) 13:13, 29 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ish ishwar. Have you seen this post about re-using kifu on the JSA's website. I'm wondering how this affects Wikipedia since technically the JSA is implying that permission of some kind is needed for commercial re-use and Wikipedia's licensing doesn't allow any such restrictions. I took a peek at ja:棋譜 on Japanese Wikipedia to see if anything was added about this, but there's nothing so far. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:52, 14 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia is domiciled in the US. In the US, there is at least one court ruling (but maybe more one?) that establishes that chess game records are uncopyrightable. And, as I understand it, this is also the case in Europe. And, this ruling should pretty much apply to all games (chess-like or otherwise).

My understanding of Japan is that somebody needs to sue somebody to decide the issue definitely. But, it hasnt been done yet.

So, it doesnt really matter if the JSA or the media conglomerates assert copyright or that the records are their 'property' even if it turns out that game records are copyrightable works in Japan.

The above applies to citation and publishing of whole works (or maybe large sections of works). What Wikipedia should be doing is only referring to specific parts of game records for some pertinent topic. All that is covered by fair use even if the game records are copyrighted in the US. Trying to prevent showing even a single game diagram would seem to be the equivalent of preventing quoting a passage from a news article or short story.

Now, you see that the notice didnt mention the term 著作権. I dont know if that is significant or not. But, there may be another way for the media conglomerates to keep their monopolies on record publishing. I think i read some news articles saying that 3rd parties publishing records will damage the JSA and the conglomerates financially and so may violate whatever the equivalent of tort law is in Japan. However, again, as I understand it, there has been no court case deciding the matter.

Tortious interference (or whatever the relevant law is) in Japan may have no standing in the US. I dont know. The laws in general are too complex for a Wikipedia editor to deal with. Since there is no copyright issue here, I think we can just leave this to the lawyers. Let the JSA or the conglomerates sue Wikipedia so that the courts can figure it out definitely. It has nothing to do with us. (We know Wikipedia can throw money at the courts since they already figured out a legal way to publish that famous monkey photo without paying royalties to the photographer – Monkey selfie copyright dispute.)

These companies' threat tactics have clearly worked. They have successfully pressured normal Japanese folks to not publish game records without spending any money in court. And, most shogi books are still published by professionals (perhaps only professionals if using professional records). And, there is no complete shogi game record database available to the public making professionals and the media folks the sole gatekeepers to historical research and in-depth analysis.

(Broadcast, especially live ones, of games as events is probably different. Sports organization typically own exclusive rights to the events and often the players have often rights of publicity regulating commercial use of their images [although it's not a national law in the US, it varies state by state in details]. But, i think that Wikipedia has no interest in the game event. There's no reason to report what food the players eat, their facial expressions, what famous hotel they are staying at, etc. My interest in using professional games is solely in the shogi theory as a mathematical system, fairly far removed from the human components.) – ishwar  (speak) 21:01, 14 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

relevant articles on the 2016 court cases:

https://chess24.com/en/read/news/chess24-win-moscow-case-announce-new-york-line-up

https://chess24.com/en/read/news/us-judge-agrees-with-chess24-on-chess-moves

includes the court ruling documents

The issue also involved broadcasting of the 'facts' of the events. So, over and above the issue of merely publishing only the game record. So, maybe Wikipedia is protected even here to some extent. Nonetheless, i dont see any reason that Wikipedia would ever need to broadcast an entire shogi game event. So, it's a non-issue if Wikipedia never does so. Don't know about ja.wiki though – maybe it would be a legal problem there if they use servers in Japan. Still, the media conglomerates have, for instance, successfully pressured the popular YouTuber, Chrono, to not broadcast shogi games on his channel. Putting aside whether he was actually legally ok to do so, he likely didn't want to pay the legal fees in order to find out. – ishwar  (speak) 20:44, 15 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate you taking the time to look into this. I've only added a few complete game scores to articles, but these could actually be easily removed without any real loss of understanding if it does turn out to be a problem. The JSA is asking those who want to use game score to request permission using this form, which means they feel than have the right to deny such a request. Whether they legally can claim such a right is, as you note, probably needs to be clarified the Japanese courts, and if that happens then maybe Wikipedia will be forced to respond. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

I doubt anything would ever happen. In the chess examples, the US judge threw out the case before it even went to a trial. In this case, it's even simpler since it's only the game records and nothing else of the game event. I mean i'm not a lawyer or anything, but i would have no worries.

Being a good person, one might ask whether we have a moral imperative to follow the JSA's wishes. But, since the JSA actually does very little to create non-Japanese language shogi resources (one of the main complaints within the nonJapanese shogi community), i feel that Wikipedia would be taking almost nothing out of the professionals pockets. So, it feels fine. Now, if there were an abundance of English language materials, then i might feel otherwise. (And, i personally, have bought many shogi books on theory, so i'm helping them that way too – although i would prefer to pay the professionals directly instead paying the publishing companies...) – ishwar  (speak) 01:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ish ishwar. Would you mind taking a look at this? I basically just used the Template:Women's Professional Shogi Players that you created and just changed the names. If you find that I left someone out, please add them. — Marchjuly (talk) 12:57, 14 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Nice. I'll take a look in the next few days. Cheers. – ishwar  (speak) 03:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

there was one player missing, which i added. I also added the title holders to match the jawiki template (and the JSA main player page). Not sure if that's the best way to display it, but i dont like the way Japanese folks do it by showing only the title and omitting their dan rank (seems to obscure information). Guess the women's players should have something similar although perhaps it's a bigger priority to just get them all pages as well as their tournaments. – ishwar  (speak) 23:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

 

Dear Ish ishwar,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more. ​

Best regards, Chris Troutman (talk) 11:29, 20 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ish ishwar. I just started working on User:Marchjuly/sandbox/Eiō and am wondering if you might take a look at it. I haven't really been working on a straight translation of the Japanese Wikipedia article this time around, but instead have been using the sources I can find to come up a new version. The Japanese article isn't too difficult to read, but it includes lots of extraneous details (lots which is not really sourced very well) and has lots of sub-sections which might not work as well on English Wikipedia.

Anyway, the draft seems a little out of balance now (maybe too much detail), but perhaps once the "Background" (maybe change the name to "History") section has been added it will flow better. For the "Background" section, I was thinking of using a bit of the Denōsen stuff found in Computer shogi since that's primary the origin of the Eiō, and that add content about the first and second non-title tournaments, and the third tournament won by Takami. The reason I thought it might be good to add these as part of the "Background" section is that the format was slightly different for the first three tournaments than it was for the fourth one. I thought about adding that to the format section, but felt it would be a bit confusing to have "Current format" and "Old format" subsections; so, I thought a sentence or two on how the format changed in the background section might be better. I've been looking at some of the other articles about major titles, but the Eiō is so new that there's not really any need a "Records" section, etc. I also kinda don't think that we need separate sections for the mini tournaments to determine who the women's professional and amateur players are since there doesn't really seem to be much coverage of them anyway and the seem to just be mentioned after the fact.

Any suggestions you have would be appreciated. Feel free to make any improvements you think are needed as well. If you are sources about the background/history and the format that would work, feel free to add them as well. I've been searching the Japanese newspaper websites and find some which I've already added, and others which I've yet to add (they require a subscription to be viewed in their entirety so I can't see the content I'm looking for). Thanks in advance -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

looks good to me. And, it has been a very needed article. I dont know much about it. So, i'll have to read some stuff.

i think History is better than Background. I'd also put the history after the Format section – a description of the article's subject first and then detailing of how it came to be.

Seems to me that describing the women pro and amateur tournaments is part of the description of the entire tournament. Although maybe most dont care much about it, omitting this leaves an incomplete picture of the tournament. I mean you can imagine there are some readers from, say, France that wonder how they could ever play an official game against a professional player. Finding out how they could do that via this tournament is going to be a hard thing to learn about if they don't read Japanese. – ishwar  (speak) 20:34, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for taking a look at this. I think you're right about changing the name to "History" and also about the location of the section; both suggestions do seem to be improvements. I've been trying to find more sources about the women's pro and amateur player slots, but there is really hardly anything on them, except maybe in stuff which would not really be a reliable source for English Wikipedia. There are separate play-in type tournaments held for each in March (I think) to determine which player gets to participate, but there's not lots of coverage of them. I'm sure separate subsections are needed for each listing specific players, etc., but probably a separate paragraph in the "Format" section going into a little more detail would be be OK. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:27, 4 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

I making this into a separate post since I didn't want it to get mixed up with the stuff about the Eiō. Since you seem to do a fair amount of editing over at Japanese Wikipedia (JW) and also seem to have a good grasp of how templates work, I thought that maybe you could help me sort something out.

On English Wikipedia (EW), it seems to be common practice to avoid using the thumbnail syntax for images in the infobox. The infobox templates used on EW seem to automatically format the image's size, etc. in accordance with the device being used by readers or according to the preference setting of registered accounts. There's also the mobile version of EW as well which is taken into account. I'm sure there's some default setting that is used, but this seems to be set up with things like WP:ACCIM, WP:THUMBSIZE, etc. Sometimes someone will use a thumbnail/fixed sized format in the bodies of articles which seems OK, but when it's done in the infobox it seems that the main reason is just to add a caption, even though pretty much all infoboxes have a caption parameter. Mostly fixing this kind of thing seems fairly uncontentious here on EW per WP:IBI and I don't think I've ever seen such an edit reverted.

I'm not quite so sure how things work on JW though. If you look at articles like ja:福崎文吾, ja:中村修 (棋士) and ja:井上慶太, the image formatting seems to be consistent with what's done on EW; other articles like ja:森下卓, ja:佐藤康光 and ja:森内俊之 use a combination of thumbnail and fixed sized format which seems doubly bad. Anyway, I thought such clean up would be fairly uncontentious on JW as well so I went and did it, but got reverted fairly quickly. The editor who reverted me was cordial (a tad bit condescending perhaps) and tried to explain why on my user talk; I could understand what they were saying, but I wasn't able to explain my position very well. The main reason they seem to have done so was just because they felt it was harder (too hard) to read the captions the other way, which seems to be more of a problem with the caption than anything else. Perhaps the software used by JW does do things differently than the one used by EW, but I can't see why it would since most devices these days regardless of where they're manufactured are pretty standardized. (I remember hearing people say back in the day that foreign-made skis wouldn't work in Japan because Japanese snow is unique, and the reply I received sorta gave me that impression.) I find this to be even more confusing since in the 中村修 article, the same editor formatted the image the same way but the formatting was "fixed" later by a bot and wasn't reverted. I basically did the same thing the bot did and while bots can sometimes make mistakes they really only do what they are set up to do; so, if a bot makes such an edit, it's probably done for a reason.

FWIW, I'm not asking you to run over to JW and change things back, but rather just curious for my own understanding of how templates like infobox templates work and how image formatting works. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:44, 22 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

well, it doesn't make much sense to me especially given that you were doing the same thing that bots do. Maybe that editor doesn't know what they are talking about? I guess they have an argument that one way creates an easier to read caption, but that just suggests changing the template code adjust the formatting. From a coding perspective, i think the more elegant thing to do would be to give the template the filename argument and have the template do all the formatting behind the scenes instead of putting wikiformatting on top of the argument before giving it to the template. Regardless, the best thing is to be consistent across the whole site so that a future bot can easily be written to make automatic changes.

i think you know more about images & templates than me. – ishwar  (speak) 20:14, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

The edits I made were subsequently restored by another editor, who then explained (much better than I was able to) why the images shouldn't be formatted that way; so, things seem to have been resolved (at least for the moment). The editor who reverted me also went back and shortened all of the captions, which means I guess that they are no longer an issue as well. Anyway, I think you're right about the trying to over wikiformat things when it comes to templates; it's better to either let the template wikiformat things or change the template code if there's a problem. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Would you mind checking this edit? I don't know the origin of this problem, but if it's someone's creative composition then we might have to be careful using it per WP:COPY. I don't know why an editor who's never edited before would show up out of the blue and add a lance to the problem unless they possibly saw it somewhere in a book or something. I don't think I've ever seen it before, but it looks like a composition. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:30, 8 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

somebody added that about 2 years ago. I left it alone in case they eventually added more to it. But, as it stands now, it just a diagram without any accompanying explanation. Plus, it's a long mate, which are generally harder for novices – shorter mates for examples seem preferable to use when introducing mate topics. I removed it. – ishwar  (speak) 19:11, 13 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ish ishwar. I've started working on a draft for the LPSA. It's kind of hard to find secondary sources for it, so it might not be as detailed as the JSA one. Feel free to improve on what I've started if you think anything is needed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:29, 11 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi again Ish ishwar. Hope you're doing OK. I'm wondering if you've got any comments on this draft. I've sort of run into a brick wall with respect to sources, and am actually wondering if it might be too detailed as currently written. Perhaps it might be best to trim some of the stuff about the circumstances of the split and just focus on the fact that there was a split. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

hi. I'll take a look in a few days. – ishwar  (speak) 10:14, 7 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ish ishwar. You might want to look at Talk:Shogi opening sequences and WT:CHESS#Shogi opening sequences is "too big" since you're the creator/primary contributor for that article and you might be the best person to try and figure out how to sort things out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

thanks. Yeah, i had seen that. I *fixed* by simply removing diagrams (which aren't strictly necessary – i just like pictures). – ishwar  (speak) 10:16, 7 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ish ishwar. This is something I've been wondering about for a while now so I figure I'd ask you about it. I've been working on creating stubs for the rest of the Women's professionals who still had red links, and am down to the last one: Saki Tanaka 3-kyū. My thinking is that it might be best to wait until the 3-kyūs like Tanaka are promoted to 2-kyū before creating articles for them. Technically, they are only provisional professions and can drop back down to the Kenshūkai ranks if they don't achieve 2-kyū status within a certain amount of time. I don't think that has happened to anyone yet, though some have come close, as far as I can tell, but even so it might be best to put off an article about these players until they obtain regular women's professional status. At the same time, you could argue WP:NTEMP in that once they do become notable they will always be notable even if they do drop back down. In theory that might sound OK, but in actual practice anything about these players on the JSA website, etc. might also disappear if they do drop down and trying to cover such a thing in the articles themselves might be hard to do without any sources to work with. It's not really a problems for kishi because once someone becomes a 4-dan they cannot drop back down to the Shōreikai. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

cool. Great job! Sorry, i havent been helping with it.

i agree with waiting for them to become 2-kyuu. They could also drop out for other personal reasons. And, it does postpone your workload until they do become pro (although that in itself does require continual maintenance – a negative....) – ishwar  (speak) 23:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

All the pros now seem to have at least stubs; so, at least there's a start made and more content can be added to them whenever. I'm a bit busy now, but I may start working on drafts for the women's major titles once the LSPA draft is completed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Grapefruit, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Piriform. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I am writing this to seek your guidance and support to modify one of the semi protected pages on - "Viswabrahmin".

Link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vishwakarma_(caste)

I have relevant research content to make changes to this page. But since it's s semi protected page, I don't have access to make necessary changes.

It is automatically being reverted when I am trying to make changes to this page.

Can you let me know if you have access to make modifications to this page? If yes, let me know if you are willing to make the changes given, I provide you with relevant content and sources. Krishna 050493 (talk) 17:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Could you take a look at this please? It was moved out of process and the content changed on this while the original title was then repurposed to duplicate an existing article. Based on a post on WT:INB, I deleted the duplicate article, reverted the move and restored content to your version (which appeared to be an extension of the longstanding content), now the content has again been changed. I'm not sure what the right thing is, but you seem to have an idea, so perhaps you can look into it? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 06:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ish ishwar, thank you for your edits on Wikipedia and for tidying up the infoboxes of trick-taking games. I see you've created new categories for Category:German deck trick-avoidance games, Category:German deck plain-trick games, Category:German deck point-trick games and Category:German deck banking games. Strictly speaking, of course, they are not "German deck" games, but "Games played with German-suited packs" (or decks). Anyway, my question is: were you planning to do the same for games played with French-suited packs? And Spanish-suited packs? And Italian-suited packs? And Bavarian-pattern packs? And so on. Bermicourt (talk) 10:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Bermicourt:

Hi.

No problem.

Not sure about your point on the wording of the category. I guess most NOUN + NOUN compounds have an ambiguous relation between the two nouns. I think you are saying that the games played with German decks are not restricted to be played with only Germans decks (that is, one can always transfer the games to other types of decks with 4 suits), right? That's totally, true of course. Do you want to change the wording of the category to your proposal Games played with X-suited packs/decks? I'm fine with that as well.

Yes, that was my plan. I was aiming for the intersection of the Category:X-country deck card games categories and the subcategories under Category:Card games by objective & Category:Card games by mechanism (or something along those lines). Basically, I'm imagining a reader that has a particular deck type (e.g. Spanish-suited) and wants to know what are the games of type Y (e.g. shedding games) are traditionally played with that deck type. This information is on wikipedia, but it is kind of inconvenient to extract out of it at present since one has to read every article one-by-one to figure it out. I thought categories would be an unintrusive way to group games by this way. (Incidentally, I always was curious about other countries' decks. This pandemic has given my family a good opportunity to play games at home satisfying my curiosity. However, my spouse who has only played shedding & melding games in Asia doesn't care so much for the complexity of point-trick games. Thus, the interest in seeing what types of games are used with what type of cards.)

Yes, all types of deck would seem to be useful for the categorization. I'd thought that I'd start first with a general 6-way division of German, Swiss, Italian, Spanish, French, & non-suited. Then, proceeding to any other subcategorization as desired. However, please advise me for the most sensible structure (and also whether this is sensible at all) as I'm definitely no expert in card games.

cheers! – ishwar  (speak) 22:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ish, I understand what you are trying to achieve and think there are easier and better ways of doing it that don't necessarily require you to look at every article or create more categories. Here are some options:

• Any game played with a German-suited pack can easily be adapted to a French-suited pack by converting 3 of the 4 suits - Acorns to Clubs, Leaves to Spades and Bells to Diamonds (Hearts stay the same) - and converting Obers to Queens and Jacks to Unters. You then remove the cards that aren't used, but that happens anyway in some games.
• Use Wikipedia's advanced search feature to list the games you want. Click the spyglass in the search box to go to the search page. Click the down arrow of "Advanced search". Under "Pages in these categories" type in the categories you want .e.g. "French deck card games" and "Shedding-type card games"; they'll pop up as you start typing and you can select them. Then click the "Search" button and all the articles you want will be listed.
• Use the navbox for trick-taking games - they're already divided into games played with 52 or 32 French-suited cards and those played with other regional suits (German, Italian, etc.). I haven't done this in the navbox for non trick-taking games because there aren't many of each type. The biggest group is shedding games and they're all are played with French packs apart from Kille which is has a bespoke pack that doesn't merit a separate category. However, the navbox could be amended to show the suits used.

The existing category tree has been carefully grouped by objective, mechanism and type of pack, following the system used by John McLeod on what is recognised as the world's leading card game site, pagat.com. This gives it a clear structure based on recognised criteria. The new categories have introduced a number of issues: they have resulted in different types of sub-category within a parent category (such as Category:German deck point-trick games and Category:Tresette group within Category:Point-trick games with individual articles in both. They are also very much WP:NARROWCATs whose parent categories aren't large enough to warrant them, This will be especially true if categories are created for other regional games such as those played with Italian-suited, Spanish-suited and Bavarian-pattern. That leaves the problem of single-game packs like Kille and proprietary packs - they could be grouped together, but that would create a category of games with no practical relationship to one another - not ideal. Also I have found the new categories make it more difficult to navigate and understand basic structure that McLeod and others have painstakingly worked out. My recommendation is to use the options above and to remove the new categories so that we can restore it to a recognised and easy-to-follow structure, while using Wikipedia's powerful search facility and navboxes to achieve the finer-grained searches we need. I hope that helps. Cheers. Bermicourt (talk) 14:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

You mentioned that you were always curious about other countries' decks. I never even knew they existed and I'd lived in Germany for years! One day, I stumbled across a Skat pack on Amazon with German-suited cards and was amazed. The great thing is that nowadays we can buy these packs cheaply online and it really enriches the experience of playing card games. It's not just the cards - which are often very beautifully designed - but also that different games have different characters that can reflect the culture of their region of origin. But even within regions, you get games with a very different feel. For example, in Bavaria, Grasobern is a nice, relaxing, leisurely game that is easy to learn; Watten, with its winking and blinking signals and bluffing is hilarious and fun, while Schafkopf is varied and challenging; the shorter version is fast and furious. For two players, Sixty-Six is one of the best, but you have to have your wits about you. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Cheers. Bermicourt (talk) 17:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

. If you have any questions.

"YouTube and other video-sharing sites are generally not considered reliable sources because anyone can create or manipulate a video clip and upload without editorial oversight, just as with a self-published website." Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:28, 15 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

generally, yes. But, in this case, it was created by Yale University. So, it's not clear what your objection is. – ishwar  (speak) 18:31, 15 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

OK then. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:02, 16 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:Rahsaan blackmysterypipes.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 20:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:Rahsaan multiplesax.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 20:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)Reply