User talk:Reeves.ca/Archive 1

--CounterTime (talk) 21:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Hey User:CounterTime, why did you leave your signature on my page?Reeves.ca (talk) 13:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I noted that you were interested in improving the jizya article, that's why I wanted to create this talk page so that one can discuss any possible issues. Cheers. --CounterTime (talk) 17:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note, but I think ti would be more productive to keep the conversation focused on the actual pages being discussed for the benefit of the other editors. Makes sense? Reeves.ca (talk) 17:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. For the context of some disputes that I have with user @RLoutfy please see here, here. Thanks! --CounterTime (talk) 18:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015
Hello, Reeves.ca, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia. Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who use multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. CounterTime, do not create other accounts to work from under any circumstances. Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@User:Iryna Harpy - Thanks for the welcome! I'm new here so please excuse the incorrect formatting, I'm still learning. That said, I don't know (or care) who CounterTime is - these accusations are baseless, but I'll be more than glad to dispel any confusion. Secondly, the article about Jizya is one of the poorest quality articles I have come across in Wikipedia, so much so that it compelled me to open an account for the first time. The article is not neutral as describe by NPOV guidelines and the edits made by RLoutfy are making things worse (less neutral). I would more than gladly comply with the correct protocol to challenge any of the changes I made in the article - your help and patience is appreciated. Also, have you seen any of my changes? The talks do not address any of the issues I have edited.
 * Okay, Reeves.ca. You created an account and stepped into the article while there are content disputes, and have only edited that article at this point. My antennae go up when something could be construed as being suspicious.


 * Nevertheless, I've already just reverted your latest content changes. You'll notice that I've asked that you create a new section on the article's talk page as there already appears to be a lack of consensus as to the content. It's better to discuss issues on the talk page than to run the risk of a WP:EDITWAR. There's a bit of a learning curve involved in editing Wikipedia articles, and I'd prefer that you don't run the risk of having a bad experience from the outset. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks User:Iryna Harpy! That's the guidance I was looking for! Much appreciated. Reeves.ca (talk) 13:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Question User:Iryna Harpy: Why is RLoutfy freely editing the article while so much is in dispute while my edits are reverted? Shouldn't the disputes be resolved first as you stated above? Reeves.ca (talk) 13:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I also confirm, I'm not Reeves.ca and I can do anything you wish to prove that. --CounterTime (talk) 17:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In answer to all of you, the article has remained stable until very recently. When there is suddenly a hive of activity around it changing the content dramatically, and involving a couple of new editors, it does draw attention and raise concerns (particularly as it deals with specialist subject matter). I am merely attempting to maintain the status quo until a responsible way forward can be established. In the meantime, Reeves.ca, I invite you to read current sections describing the issues on my own talk page User_talk:Iryna_Harpy and User_talk:Iryna_Harpy. Thank you all for your patience! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I've struck my warning template as I don't believe that you are CounterTime. It's unfortunate that you've started editing the article at the same point in time as a slow edit war has gripped it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you Iryna! It's honestly been a very challenging experience; a steep learning curve coupled with technical prowess I don't have and a nice dose of being caught in an edit war sure makes this tough...Perhaps I should try less controversial topics as my starting point as a Wikipedia editor.
 * Well, controversial topics aren't usually a great starting point, but no one is going to prevent you for involving yourself... and WP:AGF is extended to new editors (erhem, in theory).


 * By the same token, my recommendation to new editors is invariably boring: try working on articles that are in need of tidying up and have been all but abandoned. This will allow you to familiarise yourself with policy and guidelines, simultaneously getting your head around the learning curve associated with wiki markup, templates, how to cite references, etc. Dabble around the deep end, but do try to balance it with articles not necessarily in your direct line of interest. Happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the recommendation. I'll try my hand at some of these abandoned articles. Regards, Reeves.ca (talk) 21:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Arabic -> English
Hi! Just learned that you had a decent arabic knowledge (as the ar-4 badge suggests), so are you capable of performing good arabic translations to english? Cheers! --CounterTime (talk) 15:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Arabic is my mother tongue, however it takes a special proficiency to translate/transliterate religious text.  That said, my error detection is very sharp and would be able to help where needed. Also, I've switched the tag to just ar since ar-4 has a typo: it should be بالعربي not ب العربي. (Reeves.ca (talk) 15:42, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Excellent, good to hear that. Could you please provide some help here and here? (just scroll down to the bottom of these sections to see which translation is contested) Thanks in advance. --CounterTime (talk) 15:48, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've read through the long discussion and I will apologize for not wanting to get involved. While I agree that your translation is correct, much time will be wasted debating with the other editor. Reeves.ca (talk) 16:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem. Thanks for your help! Cheers! --CounterTime (talk) 16:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Page was patrolled on Wikipedia
Hello again! Just another question for you. What does it mean when my page is patrolled? Is that like the "star" for a watchlist? Reeves.ca (talk) 22:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, you're already on my watchlist. See WP:PATROL. I'm not part of a formal patrol project, but I do patrol new user pages informally. If you have problems setting out your page, or if your page is vandalised, I'm watching your back. I promise to use my powers for goodness and niceness instead of evil! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hahaha! Thanks, that's sweet of you. But even after reading WP:PATROL, I'm still not sure I get it..what's the major difference between patrolling and watching? Watching sends me a notice if something changes on the page, can patrolling do more? Sorry if I'm being a little obtuse - just trying to figure out if I should be patrolling pages I'm interested in - Reeves.ca (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, not yet. As advised, it's best to wait until you have some experience. It's more of a way to inform other Wikipedians that the page is being watched by someone who knows their way around the traps, but you only receive the same notifications as you would if it's on your watchlist.


 * If you come across a new article that hasn't been marked as being patrolled, it means that it was created without going through the formal process of being written in an article draft space in the user's sandbox, then submitted for evaluation and approved. In such cases (once you have some experience), you'll evaluate whether it appears to be a genuinely encyclopaedic article. If not, you'll make a decision as to whether it violates WP:BLP and notability policies and consider the different forms of nominating it for deletion if it doesn't look right, or looks like an inappropriate WP:CONTENTFORK, etc. If it looks like something that conforms to general notability guidelines, you might find that it needs expansion, more reliable sources, copyediting (blah, blah, blah) and tag it appropriately for clean-ups. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:51, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sir Gilbert Elliot, 2nd Baronet, of Minto, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Elliot. 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) 09:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hope you have no objections, Reeves.ca. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)