User talk:Makeandtoss/Archive 2

DYK for Amman
Gatoclass (talk) 13:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Al-Maghtas
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Jordan Air Ambulance Center
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Theeb
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Naji Abu Nowar
— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  12:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Battle of Karameh
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Dina Kawar
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK for The Jordan Museum
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Public Security Directorate
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Aqaba Church
— Maile (talk) 00:01, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Shoubak Revolt
&mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 12:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

DYK for 'Ain Ghazal Statues
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thank you! Makeandtoss (talk) 10:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

It will damage the page view stats
Re this, if you care for the DYK page view stats more than for content, I humbly suggests you have spent rather too much time with management. Stats are nice, but come on, actual content trumps any of this, any time. --dab (𒁳) 08:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I pinged you to show you that "'Ain Ghazal" is far more used, keep the S in statues capitalized. I don't think it affects content in any way for a few days. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

thanks, man — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.129.196.12 (talk) 09:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Pulled
Please note that it was pulled following discussion at WP:ERROR. I reckon that action was too hasty but perhaps the hook can be re-instated or rerun after further discussion and editing. Andrew D. (talk) 12:33, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Future DYKs
I know very little about the DYK process, but am experienced at ERRORS. If you'd like, I'd be happy to take a look at any hook you have going through in future, to see if I can spot any issue before it hits main page? I can't promise I'll be onwiki in time to respond in time, or to be 100% infallible, but I can promise I'll try. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:13, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * All I want is simply to be informed about problems with my hook so that I can intervene before my efforts disappears into thin air. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That doesn't happen at ERRORS. It's fast-moving, for a reason. It's not just you being singled out, even if it feels like it. Check the page history? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I did check the history, they had two hours of discussion. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a heck of a lot. Check this entry that was pulled from OTD yesterday, also without notifying anyone. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:23, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That one is a sensitive matter with probably lots of conflicting sources, this hook is non-sensitive with several non-conflicting sources. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:25, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Look, I'm not here to argue. I have explained how ERRORS works and you can see it for yourself. The hook you wrote wasn't subjected to any specially venomous treatment. I've offered you assistance with avoiding the problem and it's up to you if you want to take it up. You can continue circuitously bringing up the same problems raised here and at T:DYK and I can keep circuitously answering them, but we won't agree and it's a waste of time, so I'll stop now. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/'Ain Ghazal Statues
Makeandtoss, I have reclosed this nomination. The hook ran for the vast majority of its scheduled time on the main page, and it is therefore not eligible to run again.

Also, in future, please do not reopen your own nominations once they have been closed. You can always make a request at WT:DYK if you believe reopening is warranted and hasn't been done already. It is up to the people at DYK to determine whether such an action is appropriate. Thank you for your cooperation. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Mudar Zahran
Hi Makeandtoss. I have a question about the changes you made to Mudar Zahran, particularly the deletion from the first paragraph. You described the sentence you removed as a "contradiction". I thought it just brought things up to date—the lead says Zahran sought asylum in the UK in 2010, he was indicted in 2013, and then in ends.

I thought the last sentence (that he was tried, convicted, and sentenced in 2014) brought the paragraph to an end, and I don't see how it contradicts anything else in the lead or elsewhere in the article. But I wanted to discuss it with you before I restored it, because I thought there might be something I was missing.

Thanks for your help. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Jerusalem Post says life-imprisonment with hard labor while all the other sources mention 15 years. Life-imprisonment does sound like a highly unlikely indictment.. According to what I have noticed from JP personally, the newspaper writes anything to polish Zahran -even if it comes to challenging their readers' intelligence-. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Bedouin badias
Makeandtoss, do you have information on hand on what Jordan's Bedouin badias are? A quick google gives me the rough impression they're very sparsely populated areas of the east, but no concrete details. Wikipedia doesn't seem to have an article on it. Thanks, CMD (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Ironically, as a native Arabic speaker, I have no idea! My understanding was that it was just wherever the Bedouins live. Arabic Wikipedia article of Badia mentions that a Badia is an area that receives low amounts of rainfall, but not to a degree that can be classified as a desert. Its generally a flat area that is dry but might be suitable for grazing. Perhaps the opposite of urban in desert context. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I've seen similar descriptions in English, including in Jordanian government websites, but that gives no context for their inclusion as part of an administrative structure! CMD (talk) 20:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Not really administrative, in this article, its just electoral constituencies, because they always complain about being under-represented. :) Another Wikipedia article described Badiya as a "subtropical steppe". Makeandtoss (talk) 20:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are correct about that distinction. Does that make those constituencies non-geographical then? CMD (talk) 20:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The constituencies are geographical, but for example the northern badia constituency may not equate to an actual northern badia..Makeandtoss (talk) 20:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. Presumably it's areas predominately inhabited by Bedouins. I've looked around a bit more and I'm still finding it very hard to get sources in English on all this, presumably because the law change was so recent. The sources that I can find are often Jordanian so they assume a lot of knowledge from their readers that I don't have. I have found some on previous systems though (took me ages to figure out what "one-man one-vote" meant in Jordan, for example, it's a peculiar local usage of the phrase).
 * As a bit of a side project it might be worth putting together a variety of sources on the topic, especially if you can find good Arabic ones. Currently English Wikipedia's coverage of the topic is very poor. (Not that the Arabic version is better mind you! ) CMD (talk) 21:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think this source is conclusive. When there were 150 members, they were elected individually. Aka if I want to elect I'd go just choose one random candidate (one-man one-vote), this was criticized as most people would choose based on their relations with candidates. This is also an answer to your previous question on why independent candidates held the majority of seats in parliament. The new system reduced members to 130 while maintaining quotas, and now you get to elect a political alignment (for example liberals) and you get to choose multiple candidates from that alignment. The percentage of votes received by each party/political alignment would determine the percentage of chairs that they would received in their constituency. And the number of votes received by each candidate would determine who gets to represent his party in the parliament.. The new system is considered to be political reform. For extra unnecessary details not mentioned in source; the one-man one-vote system was introduced in 1989 after the Muslim Brotherhood won the majority of seats for political parties and emerged as a new opposition, this meant weakening them, which it actually did. And the brotherhood realizing this, boycotted the subsequent elections. However, calls for "reform" escalated during the Arab spring and parliamentary governments sounded like a perfect introduction to democracy. But this would probably pave the way for the MB to control the country, not good. The government revoked the one-man one-vote system this year and simultaneously weakened the MB by arranging defections. I'd probably update the elections article in the next month or something. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:49, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks, that's a very good source. The elections article could use way more than an update, it could use significant expansion. To my knowledge it's a reasonably unique electoral system, so it'd be cool to have much better coverage. I too will have a look over the next few weeks, now that I'm interested in the topic! CMD (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * While the arranging defections part is largely unethical, I am pretty sure no one wants to see the democracy of this brotherhood. ;) Makeandtoss (talk) 22:02, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I have repaired your cut and paste move and done a history merge
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Nabataean kingdom a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Nabataean Kingdom. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Requests for history merge. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 00:43, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Precious
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Nabataeans
Hello, Makeandtoss.

I see you made a lot of recent edits to Nabataeans, and provided good sources. In the process, you removed a lot of content, but without explanation. A lot of that content was sourced. Users who went to the trouble of providing sources deserve better; but more importantly, retaining existing content from reliable sources helps articles stay neutral. Are you willing to explain your changes belatedly at Talk:Nabataeans? Cheers. SamEV (talk) 22:44, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I am gradually trying to replace the content. I noticed that some of the content attributed statements to specific scholars and historians, I find it better to just simply make a claim and support it by a citation template, as it looks more professional. Of course in cases of conflicting opinions, that might be necessary. But I don't think this was the case here.. Makeandtoss (talk) 23:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the response. I was actually amending my comment to say that on second look you didn't remove "a lot". Good luck. SamEV (talk) 23:06, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Apologies here. I am now somehow working simultaneously on three articles (Nabataeans, Nabataea, Antigonid–Nabataean confrontations), a bit harder to concentrate.. I am trying to nominate Nabataea for GA, you can help if you are interested. Makeandtoss (talk) 23:10, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, I wish I could. Go for it! SamEV (talk) 23:12, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Your edit on The Jordan Museum
My friend, User:Makeandtoss, The photo shown in the article The Jordan Museum clearly lists it as being 4Q 175, being the classification of a MS found at Qumran, but NOT part of the Copper Scroll, which has a different classification (serial number). The document shown on the page is a photo of a handwritten blessing taken from the Book of Deuteronomy. A transcript made of the Copper Scroll, however, has no such blessing, but is only an inventory of hidden treasures. Be well. Davidbena (talk) 12:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC)