User talk:HaEr48/Archives/2017/March

March 2017 WikiCup newsletter
And so ends the first round of the competition, with 4 points required to qualify for round 2. It would have been 5 points, but when a late entrant was permitted to join the contest in February, a promise was made that his inclusion would not result in the exclusion of any other competitor. To achieve this, the six entrants that had the lowest positive score of 4 points have been added to the 64 people who otherwise would have qualified. As a result, some of the groups have nine contestants rather than eight. Our top four scorers in round 1 were:


 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 Cas Liber, last year's winner, led the field with two featured articles on birds and a total score of 674.
 * 🇪🇺 Iry-Hor, a WikiCup newcomer, came next with a featured article, a good article and a tally of 282 bonus points for a score of 517. All these points came from the article Nyuserre Ini, an Ancient Egyptian pharaoh,
 * 🇯🇵 1989, another WikiCup newcomer, was in joint third place at 240. 1989 has claimed points for two featured lists and one good article relating to anime and comedy series, all of which were awarded bonus points.
 * Peacemaker67 shared third place with five good articles and thirteen good article reviews, mostly on naval vessels. He is also new to the competition.

The largest number of DYKs have been submitted by Vivvt and The C of E, who each claimed for seven, and MBlaze Lightning achieved eight articles at ITN. Carbrera and Peacemaker67 each claimed for five GAs and Krishna Chaitanya Velaga was well out in front for GARs, having reviewed 32. No featured pictures, featured topics or good topics yet, but we have achieved three featured articles and a splendid total of fifty good articles.

So, on to the second round. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article candidate, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 13:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Peter Adamson (academic)
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Oran fatwa for TFA
Hi HaEr48. This is just a friendly note to let you know that the Oran fatwa article, which you nominated at FAC, has been scheduled as today's featured article for March 23, 2017. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Today's featured article/March 23, 2017. Thanks! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Sasak language
Mifter (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Sasak language
Mifter (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Wow,, two notification at once :) HaEr48 (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Demolition of al-Baqi
Would you mind taking a look at the recent developments? -- M h hossein   talk 10:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes I have been looking at your recent changes and they generally look good. Thank you for your effort :) I will try to read through again today. HaEr48 (talk) 01:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * They wonderfully rejected my submission at WikiCup. -- M h hossein   talk 18:17, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

WikiCup nomination for Oran fatwa
Congratulations for getting this article promoted to FA. However, since all of the work done on it this year was in response to the FAC, I regret to inform you that it is not eligible for the Cup.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * . Thanks for the notification. Why does work done in response to the FAC not count? Also, how do you decide if the work is "in response to the FAC" or something that I work on independently? Also, there were about ~50 edits, worth +5k bytes in 2017. That's about 25% of the 2016 article by quantity, and if we weight by criticality, the 2017 edits include the "last mile" work to reach the FA status (both self-driven and FAC-driven) and consulting new scholarly sources. If you look at the diff from 2016 you'll see that the article was significantly improved. It's quite disappointing if they don't count :( HaEr48 (talk) 03:52, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * We feel that edits done in response to a review at GAN, DYK, etc., are only done because of the review. This generally only matters at the beginning of a new year and I regret that you've gotten caught up in it. It doesn't come up very often, which is why we probably didn't think to explicitly list that as a problem. We'll definitely do that for next year. I hope that you will continue to submit articles to FAC and not let this get you down. Honestly, the requirements for round 3 are generally pretty low and a few GANs ought to be enough to qualify you and I think that you're more than capable of the work required.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay.. I'd understand that kind of reasoning if the rule ("work after nomination doesn't count") was communicated in advance. But we're in the middle of the competition, and I already did my work acting on the rules as written. Please understand that to me, docking the points now feels like the rules are being changed mid-way and applied retroactively. It's honestly quite disappointing :( Looking at past years' history, you're right that round 3 cutoff are historically quite low, so that means letting the points stand will likely not displace anyone from advancing. Given that the harm is so unlikely, then why err on the side of enforcing an unwritten retroactive rule and letting a participant down? 200 points mean really a lot for a newbie like me, can you please (please please) reconsider? HaEr48 (talk) 06:33, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * ping ? HaEr48 (talk) 03:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * What do you think, ? If you have no objection I can put the entry back into submissions. HaEr48 (talk) 00:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay in responding, but I've consulted with the other judges and we are agreed that the article is not eligible for the Cup.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:12, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * . Just to clarify, this is still because of "Work done after nomination doesn't count" rule? If you really want to enforce this new rule, I suggest adding it in the rules page. HaEr48 (talk) 18:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * We intend to do that for next year.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Battle of Surabaya (1677), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Malay, Balinese and Batavia. 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) 09:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Proof of the Truthful

 * I will read the article once through again tomorrow and make sure the tenses are right. – Corinne (talk) 02:56, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello, HaEr48 - I see you have added some material to the "Necessary existent" section of the Proof of the Truthful section. I'm going to copy it here for ease of reference, with some emphasis added:


 * This would seem to lead to an infinite regress, and earlier cosmological arguments had used this to conclude that some necessary cause (such as God) is needed to end the infinite chain. However, Avicenna's argument does not assume the impossibility of an infinite regress.


 * These sentences are all right, but:


 * When you join two clauses with "and", there is little indication of the relationship of the two clauses to each other. Also, it would be nice to avoid using "this" twice. Would you consider – or would it be accurate to say:


 * Because this seemed to lead to an infinite regress, earlier cosmological arguments concluded that some necessary cause (such as God) was needed to end the infinite chain.


 * The second sentence is all right, too. Here it is:


 * However, Avicenna's argument does not assume the impossibility of an infinite regress.


 * but if possible I always try to avoid two negatives in one sentence. You have "does not assume" and "impossibility". Would you consider – or would it be accurate to say:


 * However, Avicenna's argument does not preclude the possibility of an infinite regress.


 * or (minimizing the impact of "however"):


 * Avicenna's argument, however, does not preclude the possibility of an infinite regress.


 * Just a thought. – Corinne (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Agree with your suggestions. Will apply it later. And thanks a lot, for taking the time to read and copy-edit the article! HaEr48 (talk) 01:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. I just saw your recent  in which you applied some of my suggestions. In the first one, here is the sentence as it reads now:


 * Because this seemed to lead to an infinite regress, cosmological arguments before Avicenna had used this to conclude that some necessary cause (such as God) is needed to end the infinite chain.


 * I'm just wondering – do you need to say "had used this to conclude"? It seems to me that only human beings can use something (to conclude something). Can an argument use something? Would it sound right to you if the sentence read:


 * Because this seemed to lead to an infinite regress, cosmological arguments before Avicenna had concluded that some necessary cause (such as God) was needed to end the infinite chain.


 * (I changed "is" to "was" because verbs following a past verb such as "had concluded" should be in past tense, even if it is still true.)


 * Regarding the second one, a word is missing: "does not preclude the possibility of an infinite regress". – Corinne (talk) 16:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Oops, thanks and sorry for my sloppy editing. Fixed. HaEr48 (talk) 16:29, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * No problem, HaEr48. You don't have to apologize. I make typos, too. Your typo was only in the second one. The first one you had written exactly as I had suggested earlier. The change from "had used this to conclude" to "had concluded" I only thought of today, so don't blame yourself for a typo there. – Corinne (talk) 16:36, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I withdrew
Hey, I withdrew from the competitions. -- M h hossein   talk 18:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Indonesian history
I dont think medieval is a term ever used in indonesian historiography - but your replacement lacks correlational (sorry) viable sources either JarrahTree 15:21, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean by correlational viable sources. In Indonesian texts this period is known as era "Kerajaan Islam", see id:Sejarah Nusantara pada era kerajaan Islam for example. An English example: this book uses the term "Islamic states" too. I think it's clearly more accurate and more justified than "Medieval states". HaEr48 (talk) 15:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah I see - there is the problem where despite the fact that there is a lot more going on rather than a few islamic states (possibly) that conflation occurs for 'easy' history... oh well, things are always more complicated than that JarrahTree 23:39, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Battle of Surabaya (1677)
Hello! Your submission of Battle of Surabaya (1677) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! llywrch (talk) 20:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

great job
Thanks, ! What do you think about featuring it in the Main Page's "Recent deaths" section? I have a proposal here. HaEr48 (talk) 02:59, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hasyim Muzadi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Khalifa. 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) 10:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Hasyim Muzadi
Hello! Your submission of Hasyim Muzadi at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 14:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Please see new note on your DYK nomination. Yoninah (talk) 20:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Battle of Surabaya (1677)
Gatoclass (talk) 00:03, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Fall of Plered
Gatoclass (talk) 00:03, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Hasyim Muzadi
Mifter (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Precious
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:02, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, ! HaEr48 (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for today's Oran fatwa! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Glad you liked it! HaEr48 (talk) 07:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Plered
Materialscientist (talk) 05:45, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Forced conversions of Muslims in Spain
Vanamonde (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Morisco, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hidalgo. 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)