User talk:Swpb/Archive/2020

Zephyr disambiguation page
Well I would consider the origin/ethymology of a word its primary meaning (whatever you define as primary as in "primary topic"). After all I would consider an Encyclopaedia's purpose to clarify things and emphasise context, not to obscure it in many paragraphs by adding the key information as an addendum down below. I also think that some editors tend to overdo it with rules in this place and are too willing to beat others over their heads with them instead of having a thought about the didactic purpose, don't you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Gazdík (talk • contribs) 00:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Etymology is the province of articles, not navigation pages. "Primary topic" is not a "whatever you define" or "what I would consider" – it has a very specific meaning that's been discussed to death: the single topic that readers are overwhelmingly likely to mean when they use a search term. The guidelines are there for very good reason. If you can't take the time to understand them, I'm not inclined to help you. Also, in no particular order: 1) sign your posts; 2) put your posts at the bottom of the page; 3) Use mainspace talk for content disputes. You've been here waaay too long not to know all these things. — swpb T&#8201;•&#8201;go beyond&#8201;•&#8201;bad idea 14:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC)


 * See? You make it way too complicated Good Sir (deleted as I see no need to justify myself against personal insinuations), more or less without answering the substance. The matter is as simple as this: does my edit help the interested reader looking for information in context better understand or not? And if not, what is my purpose here? Martin Gazdík (talk) 15:22, 4 February 2020 (UTC) Martin Gazdík (talk) 22:56, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


 * 1) It does not. 2) I don't know. 3) Please indent. Thousands of editors don't find it too complicated; maybe this is a you problem. — swpb T&#8201;•&#8201;go beyond&#8201;•&#8201;bad idea 15:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, your answer implies a certain paradoxon: if no article is highlighted in any way as containing the origin of a particular word, how would a (hypothetical naive) reader know where to search for it among dozens of such articles with the same name? (See clarity of context). If you refrained from correcting others ad nauseam (also: it's rude as is patronising others, if you must do it, do it silently and do not brag about it, and personal attacks and insinuations here of all places? Well, that's a novelty too) just for a second and ponder a thing...But I digress Martin Gazdík (talk) 15:35, 4 February 2020 (UTC) Martin Gazdík (talk) 22:56, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Schools in Sitamarhi district


A tag has been placed on Category:Schools in Sitamarhi district 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! 04:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

List of vehicle speed records
I'm not sure which part of MOS:DATES you were referring to here; I thought for a second I had misread the Use dmy dates template as Use mdy dates, (something I unfortunately have a tendency to do) but then I looked at the diff again and saw that it was me changed it to DMY and you who changed it back to MDY. Ionmars10 (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I thought you were saying that MDY is not, in isolation, an acceptable date format, which it is. You were going for consistency. I prefer MDY in prose, but I see the rest of the dates in the prose are DMY, so I guess DMY it is. — swpb T&#8201;•&#8201;go beyond&#8201;•&#8201;bad idea 14:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Short description on Radiosynthesis (metabolism)
Hello Swpb. The edit I made on Radiosynthesis (metabolism) to the short description in this edit (diff) was intended to shorten the short description to under 40 characters. Short descriptions appear in the mobile app during search, and serve as a way disambiguate between articles. Therefore, I didn't think it needed lot of information. The article on short descriptions states that The short description should be as brief as possible. A target of 40 characters has been suggested, but this can be exceeded when necessary. Thus, I decided to shorten it. ~ Tridwoxi (talk) (contribs) 18:58, 19 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Ok. Wikidata, where many of the short descriptions come from, has a longer standard, but you're right that Wikipedia's standard reigns here. — swpb T&#8201;•&#8201;go beyond&#8201;•&#8201;bad idea 21:51, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Department stores based in California


A tag has been placed on Category:Department stores based in California 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. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:39, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Source assess table
Would it be possible to set the table and Danny's script for the table to collapse by default? The tables can grow quite large in the daily afd logs and navigating the discussion becomes difficult. The discussions tend to become very self-assertive by editors using this template. The assessment of sources is done by individuals themselves, which others might not agree with. Collapsing solves the issue of making it clear that the assessment is a part of the editor's rationale who made that assessment, and does not represent a consensus of others necessarily. - hako9 (talk) 20:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I've added the autocollapse class so that the table will collapse when there is more than one table present on a page, like on the daily logs, and added an abbreviated disclaimer about status with respect to consensus. — swpb T&#8201;•&#8201;go beyond&#8201;•&#8201;bad idea 16:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much, for this, and for everything else. And I think I can say on behalf of every editor here. - hako9 (talk) 20:32, 13 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Aw, shucks! Thanks. — swpb T&#8201;•&#8201;go beyond&#8201;•&#8201;bad idea 14:22, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Source assess table
Template:Source assess table has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Paul McDonald (talk) 21:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Category:Cineflix original programming has been nominated for renaming
Category:Cineflix original programming has been nominated for 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. Bearcat (talk) 19:24, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Nacoochee Mound
The evidence is presented in the sources provided themselves. Did you review the sources at all? I looked over each source before adding the citation. No evidence was provided to refute the assertions made in the primary or secondary sources to the article itself. The Cherokee were present and did occupy and live in the village following the American Revolution. Is that minimal to the over all existence of the village. It's a possible conclusion however, minimal is far from saying they were never there as asserted in the non-sourced statement. I was being generous in leaving the statement and adding the template. Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:58, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Which source specifically, and precisely where in the source? I can see justification for removing or hedging the statement that Cherokee were not present, but I'm not aware of definitive evidence that they were present. One source says the might have been, but that excavation has not been done. — swpb T&#8201;•&#8201;go beyond&#8201;•&#8201;bad idea 15:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not the place of a reviewer to prove the information contained in an article is factual or not. It is the place of the creator of the article and the one who makes the statements to prove it is factual. We do this with in-line citations that specifically detail and/or support the statements being made. None of the sources state the Cherokee were not ever present or did not inhabit the area. After the Battle of Taliwa the Cherokee pushed the Creeks south and occupied northern Georgia and western South Carolina. As they did so they occupied existing towns. I have not entered this into evidence because I need to verify the sources as reliable but we are given a map of Cherokee Country from 1755, post Taliwa to the Removal, as part of our studies of Cherokee history and the map included the Cherokee town of Nacoochee which is across the Chattahoochee River from Chota, not to be confused with Chote in Tennessee, and along the trail west and southwest of towns of Soquee and Talulah. The Cherokee occupied and inhabited even more villages after the American Revolution as they were compelled to cede the northerly lands to the United States. Whether this map is factual or not is as irrelevant as the sources provided here in determining truth or not. The sources do not determine one way or another and in most cases refuse to even address it therefore the accepted narrative that the Cherokee did occupy and inhabit the area stands. Proof must be presented to refute accepted historical data.Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This is edit warring and I am bringing you up before ANI as disruptive. Every source of historical data says the Cherokee were present. The town was Creek American Indian town prior to defeat to the Cherokee at the Battle of Taliwa. Your personal opinion does not matter to wikipedia in the face of historical data. You have not proven the Cherokee were not present. Tsistunagiska (talk) 13:47, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Good luck with that. If nothing else, you can lean about burden of proof. — swpb T&#8201;•&#8201;go beyond&#8201;•&#8201;bad idea 13:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This is your official notice. Information icon4.svg There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Tsistunagiska (talk) 13:51, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The discussion has been categorized as Edit Warring and moved to the appropriate location. This notice should take you there. == Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion ==

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The true waste of time was the reversions in the first place. I would like to note that my initial edit called for citations on the claims made that the Cherokee weren't present as it was non-sourced. You still haven't provided one shred of evidence they weren't there. All current evidence, as referenced in the sources to the article itself, and eye witness testimony/analysis states they WERE there. The only one claiming they weren't is you and/or the previous editors who put that information into the article to begin with. If you didn't feel you needed to defend yourself then you wouldn't have commented. You have provided no relevant citations for your claims up to this point either as I pointed to in the talk page. You started out pushing your narrative and continue to do so despite being proven wrong. The closing of the ANI is not because you were right but because of Wikipedia policy that there must be four reverts in a 24 hour period. I will get an admin to review the article and see if your mis-referenced statements can be further edited to what we currently know as fact rather than conjecture on the part of an editor or editors. Tsistunagiska (talk) 17:33, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC)