User talk:Kowal2701

Archives

Index Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.

I used to get help from now departed template helpers in the early stage of a range of projects.

I have asked SMcCandlish for help to check - in case I got it all wrong. It has been a very long time since I used to work on the quality/importance materials. Apologies if I have made a mess.

I must say I am quite confused as to why anthropology and literature are being considered joint sponsoring projects. I am also disappointed that other eds have not helped you set things up, the lack of collaboration at that point seems to be missing something. Please make sure that at some stage you reverse engineer other similar sized taskforces, to get a sense what else is needed. The psychiatry task force https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Psychiatry_task_force is a good example of what appears a well organised task force. JarrahTree 13:52, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, that looks great. It's okay I don't mind doing most of the boring stuff like tagging. I was thinking of moving it to its own wikiproject as out of all the articles tagged so far, practically none had the WP:Anthropology banner, and we have a decent amount of editors. I think I'm starting to get the hang of WP:AWB Kowal2701 (talk) 15:00, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it worth creating more categories for importance? Kowal2701 (talk) 15:04, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re: importance, I am not sure, if it was to rise to a project rather then task force, importance is needed, some task forces dont include importance. The relative low level help you have been not given for simple project architecture (quality/importance and so on) is reflective of the reduction in collegiality some have noted - and even quit altogether because of... Keep the faith, and take care, we live in interesting times. JarrahTree 06:55, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lol maybe, be very careful, your edits are not linking and the numbers are not relating to the project articles but to wikipedia as a whole - you need to get help, so to speak.JarrahTree 08:17, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sadads sorry to ping, would you be able to help if not too busy? We can go back to your talk page if you'd like to keep discussions in one place Kowal2701 (talk) 08:25, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template editors with experience in helping create the required tweaks are the ones to seek out - I could be wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Funandtrvl

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Sammi_Brie

come to mind, for no particular reason of order of choice

but the list is large - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ListUsers/templateeditor

I may completely misunderstand, but the template tweaking me thinks is what makes things work... JarrahTree 08:50, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the assessment categorisation for WikiProject Psychiatry. It uses additional assessment parameters in {{WikiProject Medicine}}, e.g. Talk:Alfred Adler is assessed for Medicine as importance=Low, but psychiatry-imp=high. I think you will either need to assess each article for its importance to oral tradition, or delete the assessment categories.

I have tweaked Template:WikiProject Anthropology to populate the quality assessment categories for now.

According to the article Folklore, that topic includes oral traditions, so I have added WP:WikiProject Folklore as a parent, but it is inactive. Have you considered reactivating that project instead of creating a new task force? – Fayenatic London 21:36, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Folklore is a subset of oral tradition rather than the other way around, so it wouldn’t really make sense. Also folklore covers oral and literate folklore, and we’re interested in oral folklore among other things. I’m happy to do assessments once tagging’s done, although there’s an error atm which means I can’t log in to use AWB. Tbh we’re looking at moving it to its own WikiProject as we have a lot of members and practically none of the articles tagged had Wikiproject Anthropology banner previously, so we’re just bloating their categories with articles outside of their scope Kowal2701 (talk) 08:22, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not responding sooner, it looks like you got it fixed -- clearly I am not in a good place to work on this right now. Sadads (talk) 11:13, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That’s okay, no worries, sorry for wasting your time Kowal2701 (talk) 13:05, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oral tradition articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
	Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	???	Total
FA			1			22	23
FL						2	2
GA		2	2	1		83	88
B	2		1	6		463	472
C	1			9		914	924
Start	3	2	3	16		1,733	1,757
Stub	1		2	3		715	721
List	1			9		149	159
NA					36		36
Assessed	8	4	9	44	36	4,081	4,182
Unassessed						81	81
Total	8	4	9	44	36	4,162	4,263
WikiWork factors (?)		ω = 18,399			Ω = 4.62

Assessment is now working. This table will be updated daily. – Fayenatic London 16:25, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much Kowal2701 (talk) 18:02, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fayenatic london Hi, no worries if you're too busy, but we'd like to move this to a WikiProject, I can have a go at doing this but I'm wary of creating a mess for others to clean up. Would you be able to help at all (or volunteer to help when I inevitably balls it up lol), again absolutely no worries if not Kowal2701 (talk) 17:02, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, from the category point of view, the only category that would need renaming is Category:Oral tradition taskforce articles, as your assessment categories do not specify "task force" or "WikiProject" in their name (although they do have a link that should ideally be updated).

I'm willing to help keep the assessment links working. I think you should first ask at WP:COUNCIL for approval; you can also ask there for help any other guidance required. – Fayenatic London 20:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I've asked the council Kowal2701 (talk) 20:36, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of List of oral repositories 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) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:11, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mansa Musa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Galam.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:53, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 2024 Developing Countries WikiContest has come to a close! After a thrilling finish to the event with a slew of submissions on the final day, we have our winners. With 608 points, Thebiguglyalien (submissions) comes in third with his series of Kiribati and Botswanan submissions; BeanieFan11 (submissions) flies into second place at the last second with 771 points after a string of good articles about sportspersons; and after leading for much of contest's three months, Generalissima (submissions) finishes with a whopping 798 points to take home the Gold Belt Buckle. Congratulations to our winners!

In addition to his spot in the top three, BeanieFan11 (submissions) also wins the special awards for submitting under the most countries (44 countries) and for writing the most articles about women (15 Did you know? nominations)! Magentic Manifestations (submissions), after making 16 submissions under the Indian flag—15 of them good articles—receives the awards for most submissions for a single country and most featured or good articles promoted. For their submission of one FAC review, five FLC reviews, and 20 GAN reviews, Simongraham (submissions) wins for most article reviews.

The results of the contest have far exceeded any expectations the coordinators had for it at the beginning: among the submissions to the event were 3 FAs, 10 FLs, 88 GAs, dozens of article reviews of every kind, and more Did you know? submissions than we can count! Regardless of your level of participation, every contestant can be proud to have contributed towards a major step in countering the systemic bias on Wikipedia. Every year, millions of readers and editors around the globe use Wikipedia to educate themselves and communicate with others about parts of the world that often receive less attention than they deserve. Thank you for participating with us in the contest and contributing to this effort. The DCWC will return next year and we look forward to seeing you contribute again! However, before that...

We need your feedback! Join the conversation on the talk page to discuss your reflections on the contest (even if you didn't participate!) and help us make it better.

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the contest talk page or ask one of the coordinators: Ixtal (talk · contribs), sawyer777 (talk · contribs), or TechnoSquirrel69 (talk · contribs). (To unsubscribe from these updates, remove yourself from this list.) Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 19:02, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you please fix up all the pages in Category:Pages using WikiProject banner shell with duplicate banner templates? If the page already has {{WikiProject Anthropology}} then you should just add |oral-tradition=yes rather than adding a duplicate banner. Thank you — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:46, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry, only realised halfway through Kowal2701 (talk) 19:50, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sorting those. Would also be nice if the closing braces }} could be put on the same line, but that is much less important — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah idk why it’s separate, it might just be what AWB’s doing Kowal2701 (talk) 08:07, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How is ENIAC part of Anthropology/oral tradition project? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:46, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also Gemini 6A. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:25, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They’re not, I have no idea why they’re tagged. I was tagging articles that mentioned oral tradition or oral history. I’ll untag them Kowal2701 (talk) 07:39, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the IP comment that wasn't allowed to participate in the discussion, and your reply to them about GS/AA was also removed. Hope you don't mind. Cheers KhndzorUtogh (talk) 14:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No that’s okay, no worries Kowal2701 (talk) 14:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! When you move an article from mainspace to draftspace, you shouldn't blank the redirect afterwards – it is better to tag it with {{db-r2}} instead so that an administrator can delete it. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:06, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, sorry about that, won’t happen again Kowal2701 (talk) 20:10, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, just advice to make it more practical! There's also User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft.js that can be useful if you don't want to do it by hand. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Eurocentrism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Berber.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Mwene Muji 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) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of kingdoms and empires in African history, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kingdom.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:53, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, i figure it'll be easier to have one discussion rather than spamming random talk pages.

As you noticed, I just made some changes to the west africa sections on the africa page. You were right that there was a lot of weird writing and unsourced assertions. I'll keep trying to work on it as I go, and if I get time/can find full texts of the Obenga books will do Congo as well. Overall I think these sections are probably longer than they need to be. There's plenty of little detail that doesn't really belong in an overview article, which IMO should focus on large-scale changes like breakups of empires, religious spread, climate changes, major economic changes etc. Catjacket (talk) 20:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah these sections are being written for Draft:Postclassical Africa and Draft:Medieval Africa, once that's done we can trim and condense them down, they're just sitting in the History of Africa article for the time being, otherwise it'd be empty. Sorry, I just left a message at Talk:History of Africa Kowal2701 (talk) 20:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need all these pages? A history of Africa, and a postclassical africa, and a medieval africa, and a west african history, etc.... I think we'd be better off focusing things into fewer articles. Easier to maintain and navigate, considering how hard it is to ensure well-sourced and appropriately contextualized and caveated writing for African history, where sources are so few and far between. Catjacket (talk) 21:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should I copy the edits I just made to postclassical Africa? Catjacket (talk) 21:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Idk, for Asia there's History of Asia, History of East Asia, etc., but no time period articles. Also for Europe you don't have History of Western Europe etc. Maybe we should instead be focussing on making the regional history articles be general history, rather than just summaries of various countries' articles. Idk tho, I quite like writing in detail and then condensing that, and having time period articles mean that writing isn't wasted, but it might not be best for the encyclopedia. A good thing about having time period articles is that we can use them as a base to then copy relevant info over to the modern day country articles' history sections which are in dire need of writing Kowal2701 (talk) 21:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that regional history articles (and period history articles) should be focused as much as possible on wide-view historical patterns rather than detais of the history of a certain state or people. Improving the quality of the existing pages should be the priority (especially given the endemic problem in West African history of unsourced assertions, poor sources, or seemingly reliable sources like Delafosse who actually just invent stuff). If you want to write in detail and then condense you should be writing on country pages and then transposing to the general pages, removing unnecessary detail. Doing it the other way would give us a bunch of country history articles that repeat the same thing and don't have the country-specific detail that people would be looking for when they go there. Catjacket (talk) 08:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but I was trying to reperiodise and rewrite Ancient Africa, Medieval and early modern Africa, Colonial Africa, and Postcolonial Africa. I agree that for country articles it should be only the country specific bits, and ideally sources that cover the history of that country would be used. Only the bits in the present-day territories would be moved over to country articles, and then expanded on, for instance in Republic of Congo, the focus is on Kakongo, Ngoyo, Vungu, and Loango, rather than Kongo.

The regional history pages are generally quite poor imo, History of West Africa looks like it’s turned into West Africa, shouldn’t the cultural history section be the main focus of the article? Kowal2701 (talk) 10:21, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah you're probably right, it's overcrowded. If you want to slim down History of West Africa, put something in that page's talk page. As long as there isn't pushback, then you could move all the non-history sections to the main West Africa page, similar to what I did for Mali Empire and History of the Mali Empire.

I think working to improve Ancient Africa etc. is a noble and productive mission to set for yourself. It's not one I'm particularly interested in undertaking tbh. I just don't think that we can look at Africa as a monolith in any of these periods, with the possible exception of the colonial period, and therefore those pages are subtly and unintentionally perpetuating the very dumb idea that Africa is one single place. My ideal world would be a condensed and efficient History of Africa article with very long and well-structured pages for the history of West, South, East Africa etc. The fewer pages there are, the easier it is to make sure each one is relatively up to date with constantly changing scholarship and free of bad/outdated/colonial sources. But I recognize that there is a demand for history of "Africa" as a unitary concept, so I'm not going to worry too much about it.

All that being said, if you would like help with specific sections, such as the West Africa work I did the other day, I'm happy to provide it. If these pages exist then they should be as high-quality as possible. Catjacket (talk) 12:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that the regional articles are more important, and continental history articles prior to 1800 seem anachronistic. Also pan-Africanism does sort of lend itself to the homogenous stereotype. I don't know the solution. Could it be to have History of West Africa until 1250, Medieval West Africa (ie. 1250-1800), History of North Africa until 1250, Medieval North Africa, and then have Early modern Africa (1800-1935/45) and Africa since 1935 or 1945. Ancient Africa would redirect to a disambiguation page, History of Africa until 1250. Idk that's probably too many articles. Kowal2701 (talk) 21:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That could be a valid solution, but you'd need a whole taskforce to put all that together. I'm not sure it's worth it. Catjacket (talk) 13:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Talk:History of Africa#Periodisation, it's the best I've got thus far for a periodisation (with 1500 as an internal break in Medieval Africa) Kowal2701 (talk) 20:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 2 November 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article List of oral repositories, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that oral repositories are individuals trusted with memorising a society's oral traditions, and have been termed "walking libraries"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/List of oral repositories. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, List of oral repositories), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mfecane, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Ndzundza language and AmaNgwane.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, Kowal2701. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Multinational corporations and developing countries, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 14:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on History of Africa. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. 176.113.180.173 (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you're the one that needs to read this ANI notice. 172.56.235.58 (talk) 20:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not blank my talk page without asking. Northern Moonlight 00:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Im really sorry about that, I just meant to blank the welcome message Kowal2701 (talk) 07:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Seeing your comment in Talk:Turkey, you should be able to access Wikipedia Library. Did you try doing the initial set up? Bogazicili (talk) 17:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I use the Wikipedia Library loads but some of the entries on Oxford Research Encyclopedia are locked Kowal2701 (talk) 17:37, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah you are right, I was just going to come back and say that myself. I thought it would be unlocked, but it isn't. Oxford Research Encyclopedias database seem very high quality actually. Bogazicili (talk) 17:42, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, looks like there's a technical issue [1]. So access might be restored later. Bogazicili (talk) 17:45, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh nice. Yeah they're so useful, the only publisher the Wikipedia Library is missing imo is Taylor and Francis books/Routledge. Countless times has it had the perfect and only source on a topic. It's got 200 upvotes at Suggest a collection so hopefully it gets added soon. Kowal2701 (talk) 18:03, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They have good overview sources, I use Taylor and Francis/Routledge books often. Bogazicili (talk) 18:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]