西部创业去年净利增逾900% 两年业绩承诺未兑现

← Archive 13 |

Archive 14

| Archive 15 →

Article Dhund Abbasi

百度     里亚布科夫说：“我们已不止一次地完整阐述了自己的全部立场。

Dear Osiris Hallo and sorry to bother you, but I had a spot of trouble with this above article last couple of days; as some person (probably an ethnic Dhund Abbasi) keeps making unreasonable and spurious changes and I have to keep on asking/requesting not to do so and to then try to fix the article manually all over. Ive left notices on the IP address of the user who (whilst assuming good faith) seems to be vandalising the article and removing sourced material and replacing with his own p o view. Ive also left talk on the article talk page, which hs I think bearing on this basic issue. Some days ago, you might recollect, we had a Gheba gnetleman who complained about the 'Gheba' tribe article. I am afraid that this sort of thing will persist as far as Pakistani ethnic groups/tribes are concerned as there are a lot of prejudices etc (see Dhund Abbasi talk) and there just doesnt seem to be any rational middle ground, people feel strongly about these things here. I really feel that Simple English Wikipedia should please discuss this matter and come to some sort of coordinated policy here, for articles relating to Pakistani and Indian ethnic groups/tribes etc. In the long run, that will save us a lot of bother, thanks Hamneto (talk) 04:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Hamneto

Hi Hamneto. It's no trouble. I'll have a look over it and post a comment on the talk page. If the unsourced edits continue, it might be best to protect the page until some reliable sources are presented. In the meantime, though, it'd probably be a good idea to avoid using the label "vandalism"; in my experience, it usually just makes things worse... Osiris (talk) 06:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Osiris, yes, I am sorry indeed to talk of 'vandalism' I realise this makes things worse-- but it was a bit of a shock and I guess I lost my cool. The edit problems seem to to continue, and I have just amended the article again manually. I would be grateful if someone could watch/patrol it or maybe protect it for a while, until some reliable sources are produced? Its very galling that sourced material is removed time and again and unsourced claims left there. Thanks Hamneto (talk) 07:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Hamneto

Me again! I wished to again reiterate that this sort of thing wont go away, as the issue of Pakistani ethnic origins is a complex one (see above and Talk page of this article) and I would really, please request some sort of policy on how to deal with such claims in future. Thanks Hamneto (talk) 07:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Hamneto

 (change conflict) In light of the persistence of the unnamed editor to add those unsourced claims, I think it would be good about right now to protect the article for one week. And I think we could classify this as disruptive editing? This reminds of that particular editor who likes to make claims of sovereignty over the disputed territory of Azad Kashmir and Jammu and Kashmir. Chenzw  Talk  07:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Hallo dear User:Chenzw, am sorry to bother you all but wished to request protection for a while too, here! Im sorry i still dont know how to make many auto changes and thus have to make them manually. A rather tedious process. Regarding your comments above, yes, there are a number of 'islamist' issues involved here, apart from notions of ethnic 'superiority' implied in being (as stated in the first note above top) an Arab, or Turk, or Afghan etc. Ours is sadly a deeply divided and complexed society, with many petty historical issues of this sort looming large in the public mind. Even as late as the mid 1970s, believe me, it wasnt like this. The credit goes to those who 'Islamized' (radically) this society and its youth. Hamneto (talk) 08:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Hamneto

┌─────────────┘
There isn't much for me to recommend when it comes to dealing with these sort of disputes in the future, other than continuing to back up your edits with high-quality sources— if they don't do the same, then they really have no ground to stand on. People who are here to simply push their own point-of-view will never be easy to reason with, but their edits will speak for themselves. Chenzw and I are usually around if you need any help (if not, you can also get an administrator's attention on WP:AN). Osiris (talk) 08:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Hallo, I guess youre right dear Osiris, thanks. Im grateful for your help and guidance, here Hamneto (talk) 05:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)Hamneto

Broken redirect

Hey, would you mind fixing that broken redirect? I'm not very experienced with templates, so I don't want to do it myself in case I mess something up. ;) -Mh7kJ (talk) 00:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah! Yep, they can go. Thanks for that. Osiris (talk) 00:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! :D -Mh7kJ (talk) 00:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Tornado chart templates

I'm curious as to why you removed the QDs from these two unused templates: {{Tornado chart small}} and {{Tornado Chart}}. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Technically speaking, QD T2 does not allow for the deletion of just unused templates. A template is eligible for T2 only if both conditions are met:

• The template has been replaced by a newer template.
• The template is not transcluded (nor linked to) by any article.

Due to policy issues, it seems that this template can only be deleted by means of an RfD. A bit arcane, and even then I can't seem to find the discussion which led to the adoption of this particular deletion criterion. Chenzw  Talk  07:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah T2 is only meant for templates that have been replaced. Unused by itself is never a reason for a QD. The reason for this is that unused does not mean not useful. There are lots of templates that will never appear to be used. For example templates that are subst'd. -DJSasso (talk) 12:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion, I should have explained it better in the edit summary. I do quick-delete a lot of templates, but only if they're no longer used and no longer useful. If they don't meet that criteria, RFD is the more appropriate method. In case anyone wants them, they can just say so; if there's no objection, it can be deleted. Osiris (talk) 01:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

About France communes

Hi, thanks about your advise. I will just put a Yonne commune template only. I will endeavor to make this wikipedia to get 100,000 and more than it.--Aplikasi (talk) 10:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

category people

I wonder if it would be best to differentiate present 'People by occupation' by limiting it to professionals (those who are employed as), or at least full-time activity. The others could go into a category 'People by activity'. Occupation does have a connotation of employment. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

You mean like criminals? On enwiki they have that category under "People by behaviour". Would that work for the categories you had in mind? Activity sounds a lot better than behaviour for criminals. But (on enwiki) it also contains "Vegetarians", and other things. Osiris (talk) 12:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, 'behaviour' is too open-ended. I started on this by the case of Robert Falcon Scott and Peter Scott. Robert was a Royal Navy officer (occupation), whereas his son sailed a dinghy as a hobby or sport (activity). Macdonald-ross (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I see. "Activity" sounds fine to me. If you can't find enough categories to in there with it, I suppose you could just take away "by occupation" and put it in Category:People. Osiris (talk) 22:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Your navbar

Hello Osiris. I really like your navbar. Are there any problems if I reuse it for my user page?--Frigotoni ...i'm here; 17:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Not at all, Frigotoni! Consider it public domain Osiris (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much :) --Frigotoni ...i'm here; 20:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Dr Ayub K. Ommaya

Hallo dear Osiris! An interesting new development, regarding the above Pakistani origin doctor. An earlier unidentified user had added him to a list of 'Notables' of the Swatis tribe and subsequent research including some reliable material received from a Pakistani professor, seemed to confirm this. Now, however, a new user has challenged this information, claiming to represent the family of Dr Ommaya--and has provided some information but which seems to have some discrepancies and also to be rather quiet regarding Dr Ommaya's early origins...I first thought this was someone just playing tricks and left a note on the User:Fugu99 talk page (please see, thanks) but I soon realised that this user was indeed acting in good faith, although in a rather unorthodox manner. The user has again today mentioned names of family of Dr Ommaya, and I have been as bold as to ask for direct contact/confirmation from the doctor's siblings, to prove the statements that the user is making on their behalf--I dont know if this is correct or not, but the whole matter is quite interesting and unusual and I wished to obtain your solid advice. Could you be good enough to kindly have a dekko and give me the benefit of your advice? Maybe you could also ask or talk to this user? Thanks very much, Hamneto (talk) 05:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Hamneto

Hi Hamneto! I'll be glad to give it a dekko (there's a word I haven't heard for many years!) I read the material you received from the professor. Is this from a published work? If it is, give the full citation on the talk page and we can compare it to the sources given by Fugu99. I see that Fugu99 has denoted the absence of the Swati connection in his sources, but if Ommaya was not Swati and was not born in Mian Channu, then are there any other reliable sources that give different information? If not, and if the material you received from the professor is not a published work, then remove him from the list and delete that information from the article. Because of this policy, we can't publish anything about somebody that hasn't already been published by a reliable secondary source. In other words, if that information is simply something Professor Md. Asif Khan wrote in an email, we can't use it as a source and we can't publish the research. The same thing would also apply to personal communications between you, Fugu99 and Ommaya's family. Unless the answers you get from them are published somewhere in a reliable source, we can't use the information even if it's true, unfortunately. I encounter this problem all the time in writing articles about people.

That's all the advice I can give at the moment, I'm afraid. When there are more sources for me to look at, then I can have a better idea of what should be written. Osiris (talk) 06:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Osiris, thank you very much for your detailed response! Yes, I also think that Fugu99's information is probably more reliable vis a vis my earlier contact with Prof M Asif Khan, since most of his information seems to be 'personal knowledge' and not to/from an attributable source or sources-- he does mention however that Dr Ommaya's father was one Mr Nader Khan, a VCO in the British Indian Army, and refers to the Indian Army Lists (not any one in particular but those for 1920s and early 30s in general) which are supposed to show that the said Nader Khan was of the Swati tribe and originally native of Garhi Habibullah in Mansehra district of NWFP. The old British Indian Army Lists are reliable --But there is some doubt in my mind as to whether the 'Nader Khan' is indeed the same gentleman who was indeed father of Dr Ommaya or not? There could have been more than one Nader Khan's serving in HM's Indian Army at the same time. I have asked Fugu99 to clarify this mystery too, with reliable references if possible, and by and large I am of the view that the evidence given by this user is based (in my view) on more reliable secondary sources. I await more proof from Fugu99, and shall then submit whatever reliable proof/evidence is available, for your consideration. Meanwhile, I have removed Dr Ommaya's name in any case from the Swatis list as it seems to me to that its more likely Fugu99 is correct. Apropos, the term 'dekko' yes indeed!  :) Not very much in use nowadays-- but then, Im afraid Im old-fashioned in many ways. Best regards, Hamneto (talk) 10:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Hamneto

Comply

Does the first paragraph of girl comply with WP:COMPLEX? PassaMethod (talk) 11:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, not so much. That's difficult to simplify, though. You could try shortening the sentence, or explaining some of the words differently in parentheses. If you had something to link "ambiguous genitalia" to it would also help. Osiris (talk) 11:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Crystal LED

The Crystal LED article deserves its own page, it is not a type of LED, is a display manufacturing technology similar, but not equal to OLED.--83.40.154.194 (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Sure, do you want me to move it back? Osiris (talk) 14:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

No, but I'd appreciate if you change it.--83.40.154.194 (talk) 14:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

As in change it back to how it was before? Osiris (talk) 14:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but you could also leave a reference of the article LED Crystal, in the article LED. And if you want to add also OLED, or I'll do it myself. Sorry if my spelling is not correct.--83.40.154.194 (talk) 14:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Done both. Osiris (talk) 14:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, good afternoon.--83.40.154.194 (talk) 14:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Likewise! :) Osiris (talk) 14:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Sentence

I added two sentences to sex organ. Do they comply with WP:COMPLEX? PassaMethod (talk) 15:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, they're okay. You'll get the hang of it. Osiris (talk) 01:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Osiris. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Bots.
Message added 14:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Riley Huntley (talk) 14:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Zizan Razak

I think he was pretty well informed about articles article Zizan Razak it. Thank you for your help.--Aplikasi (talk) 23:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Suspicious Accounts

Excuse me, I recently observed several operating accounts starting with TMD. These accounts are editing under substandard English. Can you do something, Osiris? September 1988 (talk) 00:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, they are part of a school project. I usually announce when we have in-class editing, but I forgot this time. They are non-native speakers of English. Anything really terrible will get some improvement soon enough. Sorry for any confusion. PS, if you want to correct their English, please do. That could be very helpful, but please be gentle. ELTted (talk) 00:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Infobox movies

While I see you are cleaning up many of the errors caused by importing the EN: version of {{Infobox movie}} you are missing depreciated entries in many of your changes. Category:Articles with infobox errors has been flooded with 357 new entries (I check it pretty much every day to keep it off the backlog so when it jumped over 6 (the number of subcats) I knew there was an issue somewhere). While you have not gotten to many of these new entries, several such as Serenity (movie) and Eight Below still have (had for Serenity) errors. The big problem is that removing these errors also removes information for the article. Well.. technically it doesn't actually remove information as the template now ignores things like IMDb pages and other movies in the series.. the change of templates removes the information, not the actual deletion of the information. Of the first 10 in the category I fixed, 9 of them now have less useful information than they had before. Only one had all of the information which was available to the infobox already on the page. Hence, the change to the infobox has a habit of making our pages less useful. --Creol(talk) 06:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Creol. I have been on purpose missing some of the fields I removed from the template, as I wasn't yet sure whether it was a good idea to actually deprecate them. I have been removing the parameters for linking to Allmovie.com and IMDb, and moving the values to the external links sections. I didn't remove any of the series (|preceded by= and |followed by= because I think I changed my mind about that after. I checked the discussion on the English Wikipedia, and while some of the reasons for removing those fields are sound, others don't really apply to this wiki. So I'll put those parameters back in. Do you consider it a good idea to continue moving the external links to the appendices? If not, I'll put those back into the infobox too... Osiris (talk) 07:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I've got to go out for a bit. I've added the three external link parameters back in for now also. I'll see what you think about moving some of those to the appendices before doing anything further. Osiris (talk) 08:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Culture of bullying

I have responded to your comments here. If you do not understand, I am ready and willing to try to explain on-wiki in different words. --Ansei (talk) 14:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

New article cleanup category

I just added Category:Language articles with speaker number undated to Category:Wikipedia article cleanup. I'm letting you know so you can move it if I've put it in the wrong place, and so you can add it to that tracking page if you see fit. Cheers! --Auntof6 (talk) 05:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Scripts

Hi there, and belated greetings for the new year. I hope you are not in the path of either fire of flood which seem to have been January in Oz. I have not seen the rain, but smoke from the fires in SW Victoria have made things very hazy here. Anyhow, you seem to have a good understanding of scripts. I found this one: GregU dashes for fixing those bloody en dashes per MOS. I have been a bad lad on En for not using the right ones and this script seems to fix them. I would like to use it here. Do you know how this can be done, or what needs to be copied? Best wishes, --Peterdownunder (talk) 12:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)