User talk:Emir of Wikipedia/Archive 1

Page numbers of sources
When you do your bot-type edits, please do not remove the page numbers from citations. When citations are to a book, the page numbers are important. Your edit to the article on Sayyid removed page numbers from citations. I have restored them.-- Toddy1 (talk) 05:19, 4 August 2016 (UTC) @Emir of Wikipedia

UAE
Yes I do know a lot I've researched Editorguy123098 (talk) 21:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If I message you on your page you can reply there if you wish, don't feel like you're forced to reply to me here. Can I ask where you've researched about the UAE? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:49, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to reply on your page I'm kind of new Editorguy123098 (talk) 21:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You use the wikicode on any talk page and I'm notified of it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:12, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Anwar Hadid for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Anwar Hadid is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Anwar Hadid until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Mohammed bin Rashid City - GA Reassessment
Thanks for highlighting this but there was no reason for a GAR as the article never went through a GA assessment in the first place. In adding the project tags an IP edit also added the GA tag (I suspect it may have been a copy/paste from somewhere else). Where this happens the erroneous GA label can just be removed. Nthep (talk) 20:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Sayyid
Hello, Emir of Wikipedia. I have completed a copy-edit of Sayyid. I have done the best I can on it, but I believe the article still needs work. After more work has been done, let me know if you want me to take a look at the article again. I just have one question:

I notice the word "saint", or "saints", is often capitalized. In English, if a word does not refer to a particular saint, we do not generally capitalize the noun. See MOS:CAPS. So, I don't know if you want to adhere to English capitalization rules or continue capitalizing the word (even when it does not refer to a particular person). If you decide to continue capitalizing the word wherever it appears, we've got to make sure it is always capitalized, that is, it should be consistent throughout the article. Jonesey95 Do you have an opinion regarding this? – Corinne (talk) 15:59, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * See this MOS page. "Common nouns for deities and religious figures are not capitalized (many gods; the god Woden; saints and prophets)." So on Sayyid, "However, the descendants of many Sufi Saints such as ..." should have a lower-case "s" on the word "saints". This is not a style choice left up to editors. It is required. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I thank you from the bottom of my heart for your copy edit. I understand the article needs work and I hope to do this soon. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Airline destination sources
Please read our guidelines at WP:AIRPORTS and WP:AIRPORTS-CONTENT before making any edits to airline destination charts. According to these, existing routes (meaning no starting or ending date is known) do not require source links and have them removed during recurring clean-ups. For better article quality, we gradually add the airport's schedule website on top of the charts. So please stop from undoing edits that clearly are according to the Aviation portal guidelines. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.244.136.67 (talk) 10:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * @ 46.244.136.67 Thanks for the clarification, but I'm still story for what I've done. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Username policy
Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "Emir of Wikipedia", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because seems to assert authority on wiki that does not exist. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username by completing this form, or you may simply create a new account for editing. ''I understand that you are new here and someone should have addressed this with you earlier. Changing usernames is easy. Fixing this problem now will prevent questions later on after you've already gotten used to this name.''   Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 03:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * My username does not aim to assert authority, but to be humorous. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:02, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I suppose so. I think it could be confusing. Not everyone shares my opinion so you are not obliged to change your username. You could if you wanted to. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 01:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll keep it for now and see how it goes, but thanks for the information. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This is not a violation of the username policy in any way. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:24, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying this issue. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mohammed bin Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mohammed Al Nahyan. 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) 12:14, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

My GAN for Flag of Southern Rhodesia
Hi, I note you said you were going to review my Flag of Southern Rhodesia article, and you put it on hold yet I don't seem to notice any comments in relation to the review. You also (I presume) accidently deleted the link to the review on the talk page and changed the review page number. Is there a concern with the article you'd like to raise?  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 09:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If you read above you will see that more experienced editors were concerned that I took on too many GA reviews at once. I decided to take this advice on board and withdraw the review, but if I completed the withdrawal process wrong I apologise. Due to this I didn't take a through look at the article, and the only concern that stood out to me was a redlink. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Martin Gilliat
Could you please withdraw your GA review of Martin Gilliat if you don't intend to complete it. Thanks. Gareth E. Kegg (talk) 12:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have, haven't I? Sorry if I did not withdraw it properly, but I'm new here. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It would do wonders for your confidence if you wrote and researched a few articles from scratch, perhaps gaining a few DYK's along the way. This would give you a better understanding of the level of scholarship required for GAs. Thanks for all your efforts so far. Gareth E. Kegg (talk) 12:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Good Article Reviews
Hello, I wanted to have a talk to about the GA reviews that you are attempting. I notice that you are attempting to simultaneously complete 10 GA reviews and I also note that you are indeed a new editor. First, thanks for taking part in GA reviews, currently we have an underwhelming number of reviewers and an overwhelming number of submissions, so it's always nice to have hands on deck to tackle these GA reviews. That said, I also note that with so little experience on Wikipedia that GA reviews ought to be well outside your grasp. For example, I reviewed your GA review of Talk:Tycho Brahe/GA1 and noticed some glaring problems. If you don't mind I'll go through your GA review and try to note up some of the things that you missed, and, that would have precluded Tycho Brahe from becoming a GA had a more experienced editor taking on the review. I won't go through every single criteria as some of these don't require an experienced eye to see such as GA 1a and 6b, these merely require a good grasp of English and a basic understand of GA expectations. So instead I'll focus on the more difficult aspects of GA reviews, but, by no means an expansive discussion despite the wall below. This above is by no means an exhaustive list and I've only dedicated about half an hour to reviewing the article. Normally it takes me at least 2-3 hours to have a full GA review up and that's if I sit down take the article read the entire thing in a single sitting and then punch through every single criterion without any hitches whatsoever. If I have questions or problems that I am not entirely sure about it can take a few days to deal with. For example an early review I did required me to request assistance from an experienced Wikipedia editor who understood copyright laws for images. Even with their assistance it took two days to clear up the issue which resulted in one image being deleted and the other updated. That's with only two images in the whole article. This one has sixteen and at least two are quite suspect in their adherence to Wikipedia policy. So with all of the above I have a couple recommendations and requests for you;
 * Criteria 1b; A relatively simple criteria but one that requires knowledge of WP:MOS, it's made easier to review if you use the GA table as all the important links are there and only a button click away. You noted the length of the lede in your review here, good it's about the maximum expected of any article. That said, words to watch, you have missed a few problems. Key to the words to watch is "unsupported attributions" of which an example is "Some scholars have argued that he lost faith in horoscope astrology over the course of his career". I noted that it was cited, but, a single source is not "some scholars" and I generally prefer if no such attributions, even supported, be placed in a GA article as they can always be challenged with a simple "which ones?". At that point the editor would need to edit their article to include some examples and this automatically renders "some scholars" meaningless as it would have been replaced with examples.
 * Criteria 2a; Not particularly problematic in your review, but, there a couple of citations incl. 46 and 71 which have minor formatting issues.
 * Criteria 2b; Would require me to do a comprehensive review of the article to comment on, I didn't notice any apparent glaring problems in my skim, but, most violations of 2b are quite subtle.
 * Criteria 2c; The most problematic of your review. There are expansive portions of text that have been left unattributed in the article, incl. the first paragraph of "The 1572 supernova" and the first two paragraphs of "Observational astronomy" among several others that I had noticed in my skim. A clear cut failure of the no WP:OR policy as all material must be cited to an appropriate reliable source or sources.
 * Criteria 2d; A very important criteria and one that must be checked. A simple quick fire check of Earwig's Copyvio Detector should have immediately raised alarm bells for you here. A very likely copyright violation, now, in this instance it was a false flag as the material was copied from Wikipedia to the other page, but, one that you should have noted and then more rigorously checked throughout the article.
 * Criteria 3a and b; Not quite so difficult generally, but, where 2c is failed it needs to be doubly checked to ensure that what is present without the original research is still sufficient to keep the article afloat. In this case 3a would have been. 3b is somewhat separate here and my only comment on it right now is that there seems to be some trivial information in the article that isn't needed including a possible fringe theory.
 * Criteria 4; also rather expansive and one I won't cover here and now beyond to say that if 1b is failed then it may be likely that 4 is as well.
 * Criteria 5; simple to check, just look at the article history, article talk page and archives and see if there are any outstanding unresolved disputes.
 * Criteria 6a; one of the most important ones, every GA article must pass this criterion and must be carefully checked for copyright violations on images. I checked each image myself, image 1 needs to be updated with the appropriate PD-1923 license for the U.S. Images 2 and 3 are fine. Image 4 needs a PD-1923 licence as do Images 5-7. Image 8 it fine. Image 9 also need a PD-1923 licence. Image 10 is fine. Images 11 and 12 need appropriate PD-1923 licences. Image 13 is fine. Image 14 needs a PD-1923 licence. Image 15 is a glaring problem that would need the original uploader's assistance or be removed from the article and Wikipedia entirely. Image 16 also a glaring problem as the author is not stated and no information is given about the image that would suggest that the article is in the public domain.
 * First, tackling ten simultaneous reviews is nearly impossible for even the most experienced GA reviewer, I at most take two at a time and that is with the understanding and expectation that I may need two or three days to get them both ready for the nominator to deal with. I think you should step down from so many reviews first. I can guide you through this process as necessary. A kind administrator has dropped this link to me; Good_article_nominations/Instructions. This will give you instructions on how to retract your name from the review of the articles. I can take care of this process if need be.
 * Second, if you'd like to tackle a GA review I would recommend finding yourself a mentor to assist. I am not entirely sure of the most appropriate way to do so, but, can suggest Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's_Area which gives you a guide on being "adopted" for mentoring. You can specifically request a mentor willing to help you learn the ropes of GA reviews.
 * There are two alternatives here as well;
 * 1. I am intending to put Tycho Brahe up for WP:GAR as the article doesn't currently meet the criteria for GA. Here editors vote on whether to keep or de-list the article from GA. Some editors choose to do a sort of mini-review for the article alongside their thoughts. If the article is near GA but not quite GA material it may be a good idea to give your own mini-review for the article and see how it stacks up with what other editors are saying.
 * 2. If you aren't sure that you are ready for GAN reviews that I may suggest picking up an article on a topic you are interested in and working on it with the intention of bringing it to GA as a nominator. This will give you good insight as to how editors approach GA reviews.

That covers most everything that I needed to bring up with you. I took the time to confirm the appropriate course of action with a trusted admin with whom I've had quite a few interactions and who strikes me as calm and level-headed, I did so as I am a directly involved party and thought that an uninvolved disinterested party should give their input first. They suggested that I bring up my concerns with you, hence why I am posting this on your talk page. I appreciate that I have left quite a wall on your userpage and that you may want me to clarify any of the above. Feel free to ping me if you need anything from me or would like to discuss any of my suggestions above. I have placed your talk page on my Watchlist, you can ping me if you'd like, but, I'll be aware of any comments you leave for me anyway so don't worry if you forget to ping me. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Third, this is an action that I will be taking as it is more or less required. I will put up Tycho Brahe for re-assessment. I have two choices here, community re-assessment which generally takes a long while to be completed (there's some up there that are from December last year), or, individual re-assessment which as is expected is completed by an individual. I haven't made up my mind on this point yet. I'll notify you of the outcome of my decision here, if I take on an individual review I may ping you to assist if you'd like to see how a GA review is performed. Alternatively as I mentioned, if I put it up for community re-assessment you can still participate.


 * I thank you greatly for this advice. I chose to not review many of those articles and so I withdrew from them. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Macrinus
Macrinus, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:51, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Talita von Fürstenberg
Thank you for your revert. If so, should the article be moved to Princess Talita von Fürstenberg? Plz ping Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 18:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think the article should be moved as that is not her common name, but I suggest we gain consensus from more notable editors. Perhaps could help us. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. Since she is an American citizen, and the German government no longer recognizes titles, her name should stay as it is (her common name as a person of celebrity). However, she is still recognized as a Princess of a Princely House and her legal birth name is Prinzessin zu Furstenberg. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 20:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I would think something in the lead should indicate that "Princess ..." is her legal name. As is, it looks like an honorific. Also is Alexander von Fürstenberg's legal name - "Prince..."? The link in Talita is "Prince" which redirects. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 22:18, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * His name is the same situation as described above by Will. The situation is the same for pretty much every German "Prince" after WWII.Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
hi Emir of Wikipedia, thanks for your thanks for my edits at Articles for deletion/Harmony drive, i like to add afds to deletion sorting lists so that more editors are notified of them.

Coolabahapple (talk) 14:31, 9 September 2016 (UTC) 

ADNOC
Don't worry about ADNOC. I will be rewriting that whole section I removed in prose over the next day. It will look great. That said, we can't have improperly sourced material up. The source you cited was not reliable for this purpose and it did not contain all the information it was supporting in the article. Thanks and have a great day! Arbythecat2009 (talk) 13:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Khalid bin Mohammed Al Qasimi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dr. 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) 09:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)