It is approximately 4:56 PM where this user lives (BST).

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17

	:D
	Hey, thank you for reviewing my article Afghanistan–Pakistan Confederation plan, happy contributings in advance! Starkex 🌟 , 16:24 (UTC) 20 February 2023

Howdy. It's preferred to have places listed after birth/death dates, in bio pages. GoodDay (talk) 06:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hi I don’t see that in WP:MOS though I don’t have an objection to date before place. I do have an objection to inserting “in” which is definitely not standard. Mccapra (talk) 06:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you wish, we can open a discussion at the appropriate MOS & get input from others. I've come across thousands of bios, that use "Date in Place" style. GoodDay (talk) 06:33, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks but I’d rather spend my time doing something more interesting. Mccapra (talk) 06:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I'd appreciate if you could help me in de-orphaning the article. Despite reading tips, I can't do it myself. Never tried it either. Regards - Oleo (talk) 10:34, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Oleo: done. Mccapra (talk) 19:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New Page Patrol | January 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
On 1 January 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Mccapra, in arabic wikipedia when we put the right infobox on the way (( Infobox basketball person )) all information in wikidata appear automatically in the page is it different in english wikipedia? or i didn't put the right infobox in my first page?. thanks in advance. بافلي مجدي (talk) 21:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@بافلي مجدي: there was a big argument about that a few years ago and the result was no automated filling of data from wikidata. A lot of editors felt wikidata was not reliable and as a result we still do all our infoboxes by hand. Mccapra (talk) 21:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ohhh okay, i hope you solve it really quick :) cause it helps us in arabic wikipedia and if there is wrong inf in wikidata we solve it in wikidata but now i get it here. thanks. بافلي مجدي (talk) 21:32, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	Merry Christmas, Mccapra
	or whatever else you may celebrate at this time of year. Thank you for all your work on Wikipedia throughout the year and may 2024 prove to be a happy and successful year for you and your family Josey Wales Parley 22:06, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @Joseywales1961: thank you and best wishes to you too! I hope 2024 brings you happiness and good luck. Mccapra (talk) 22:17, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, @Mccapra first Merry Christmas,

Second, Can we now remove this tag (citation style) after i add the sources. thanks in advance بافلي مجدي (talk) 17:47, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you and best wishes to you too. Thanks for tidying the citations. I have de orphaned the article too so I’ve taken both take off. All the best Mccapra (talk) 21:02, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. بافلي مجدي (talk) 21:04, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Mccapra,

When you draftify all of an editor's work, as you did to Emilioveh, it would be great if you left a personal explanation and not just post a load of template messages. They are left with a lot of questions. I suggested that they come here for more information. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:22, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've seen that you moved all the pages I recently created to draft place for no reason, you say that it's because the sources don't prove the information in the article which is totally incorrect, all the sources provided prove the information, I read them myself. If you think I'm doing it wrong, at least tell me how can I search someone experienced on the topic to make them because no one is going to do it if isn't for me. Emilioveh (talk) 08:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Emilioveh: hi I have looked at the sources you provided in each article. For the articles I have sent to draft you have provided a number of Google books references. Many of these that I have checked show a ‘zero result’, meaning that you looked in that book for your search term, found nothing, but added it in as a reference anyway. Of the links that do produce a result, none of the results actually supports what you’ve written in the article. They are either to completely unrelated points or passing mentions that don’t support the specific point you are referencing in your article. Every time I click on one of your reference links I should find a piece of text in a Google book that supports exactly what you have said in the article you wrote. Nothing else is good enough. Mccapra (talk) 08:33, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mccapra: Actually untrue, all the books have their own spaces on the books provided

Emilioveh (talk) 08:36, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mccapra: I meant all the topics have their own spaces on the books provided Emilioveh (talk) 08:39, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well maybe they do, but not through the links you’ve provided in the articles. Can you explain why for example the first reference in Nicaraguan-Salvadoran War which is to a book called Curso de historia de la América Central para uso de los institutos y escuelas normales brings up a Google book search page showing your search string and saying “no results”? Mccapra (talk) 08:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mccapra: On Page 215 there's a section about the war exactly

Emilioveh (talk) 08:57, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ok but that isn’t what you have linked to. Mccapra (talk) 09:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But I linked to the book, how should I do it then. Emilioveh (talk) 09:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thats hard for me to say because I’m not clear what method you are following. But any time a reader clicks a reference link they should be taken to exactly the text in that reference that supports the information in the article. Mccapra (talk) 09:56, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I linked to the page it says the information Emilioveh (talk) 19:06, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Happy New Year!

Mccapra,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 20:15, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding ((subst:Happy New Year fireworks)) to user talk pages.

Thank you very much and best wishes to you too for 2024! Mccapra (talk) 21:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm quite new to Wikipedia editing, and recently found out about the new article reviewing. I see that only very experienced people can do it, and that it is a lot of work (there's so many of them!). So thanks for reviewing History of College Park, Maryland.

By the way, how are the articles chosen for review? I created an article on Monday that got reviewed in the same day, while College Park City Hall has been unreviewed for a while. Perhaps it is because I started it in my sandbox and then moved it to Main?

So much to learn :o)

Blacktupelo (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @Blacktupelo: hi thanks for your message. Reviewers look at the list of newly created articles here and just pick whichever ones they want to review. We dip in and out so what gets reviewed depends on who is reviewing, what else is in the queue, and how easy or hard it appears to assess. There is no particular logic or system to it and some new articles can wait several months till they’re reviewed. Mccapra (talk) 04:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Ah, thanks, that's good to know! Blacktupelo (talk) 12:54, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello i noticed there are 2 articles for the same perosn with the same date of birth i guss one of them should be deleted.

The two articles: Bacent Osman and Bacent Othman. بافلي مجدي (talk) 05:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @بافلي مجدي: thanks for spotting that. I have merged the content and redirected the newer article to the older. Mccapra (talk) 05:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! I've just come to this page to replace the stub with more specific one (stub sorting stuff). But then I looked at the page history and noticed that you removed the redirect on this page which was decided here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Dewair (1582). Just wanted to notify you in case you missed it. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 19:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Deltaspace42: Thanks I did notice it, right at the end after I’d redirected the new article to the old title. I suppose the lesson is to check the talk page before performing this kind of manoeuvre. I didn’t undo my own moves because my search for sources (I am an extreme sceptic about new Indian battle articles) indicated that there are sources and the article could easily be expanded so I decided to leave it. I presumed the new article was a good faith attempt to create content that stood a reasonable chance of being kept at AfD. However if you disagree and feel that the consensus from the 2021 AfD should still prevail I won’t object if you decide to undo my moves. Thanks Mccapra (talk) 19:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for moving the Utah War Peace Commission. That was my original plan — for readers to click on the Utah War Peace Commission link in the infobox and be redirected seamlessly. Unfortunately, I don't know how to create redirects to specific chapters of articles. LuxembourgLover (talk) 00:00, 7 January 2024 (UTC) @LuxembourgLover: it’s easy! You write #REDIRECT as normal. Then the wiki link follows the formula Article title#Section header, I.e. you use # to separate the article title from the section header. All the best Mccapra (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The New Page Reviewer's Silver Award
		For over 2,000 article reviews during 2023. Well done! Keep up the good work and thank you! Dr vulpes (Talk) 02:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you very much! Mccapra (talk) 06:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I added multiple secondary sources to my article I still dont understand what you meant, could you help me improve whatever you deemed imperfect ?

First Battle of Yedaya Yubudirsi (talk) 17:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hi thanks for your message. Wikipedia articles require sources that cover a subject in depth, ie. There should be paragraphs or pages of material about it in several books, or scholarly articles written about it. The fact that an event is briefly mentioned in a source - as is the case with this battle - does not provide a basis for creating an article. The battle could be mentioned in the articles about the leaders involved, or in a timeline article, but to have a stand alone article much more detailed treatment in the sources is required. Mccapra (talk) 17:22, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well not in this case, you see the primary source also mentions it that briefly, altough it being an important impactful battle in the HOA history Al makrizi is only able to tell us the location, belligerents and outcome most of the time, I don't how we could say more on this topic or make paragraphs Yubudirsi (talk) 19:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree and that’s exactly the point really. If there isn’t much to be said in detail about the battle then what we know about it should be included in other articles in a sentence or two rather than a stand alone article. Everything doesn’t have to have its own article. Mccapra (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If I understood you well, you're telling me I can't make articles for 80% of Adalite history ? Yubudirsi (talk) 13:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By all means you can make articles, but not about individual battles if that’s the level of coverage we have in the sources. You could do articles about a chronological periods, or about extended wars that provide details of the battles without creating an individual article for each one of them. Or you could add details of the battles into existing articles. Mccapra (talk) 13:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So does that mean all the Battles I put in wikipedia are all gonna get deleted ? Yubudirsi (talk) 14:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It depends on the level of sourcing that supports each one. Mccapra (talk) 17:09, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are 3 secondary sources enough ? Sorry if I'm asking lots of questions Yubudirsi (talk) 07:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

don’t worry that’s fine. The question isn’t really how many sources mention the event, but what they say about it. For example, take Julius Caesar’s battles in Gaul. We know about them in some detail because he described them himself. They are also discussed and described by two or three Roman historians so we know details of the ground, the formations, the tactics and the mistakes. We can add into that generations of historians who have discussed the battles, debating whether Caesar was exaggerating, and what their significance was. In some cases we also have archaeological evidence to bring in. All of that means we have enough of a detailed picture of each battle to write an article about it. In contrast take a look at the battles Infobox in List of battles of the Second Punic War and you’ll see lots of redlinks. Why? Because we know there was a battle in that place, but we just don’t know enough about it to create a standalone article. What we can’t do is just go through the chronicles and create an article for every event in a conflict just because it’s mentioned in passing. My suggestion to you is that instead of trying to write an article about every battle, you write something similar to List of battles of the Second Punic War, combining information about multiple battles in a single article. Mccapra (talk) 14:22, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please remove the nomination for deletion for Timothy K. Blauvelt. Having 400+ citations is a lot, as there are not many scholars working on these issues. It is, sorry, totally inappropriate to remove scholarship simply because not so many people are in the field & it is underfunded. Moreover, there are multiple peer reviewed publications. I really find this nomination borders on vandalism. Hundnase (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see that you have made this point in the deletion discussion. I’m happy to wait for the outcome of the community review on this. Mccapra (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

thanks for your response -- it seems that some scammers used the AfD discussion, so those are separate things. Sorry I got that mixed up. If I can just highlight again that for this region here, 400 citations is a lot! So I feel this should be taken into account. As for my CoI, I know the person as a colleague for many years, have started various articles about academics in the region, and have in general tried to advance the use of Wikipedia in Georgia, see here. Hence pls understand that it can be a bit dispiriting if one needs to struggle to keep articles. It seems that consensus is forming for a keep. ~~~ Hundnase (talk) 07:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! Thank you for your message. Actually, the refs you've mentioned apply to the last position in the biography: Zbrodnicza ewakuacja więzień i aresztów NKWD na Kresach Wschodnich II Rzeczypospolitej w czerwcu – lipcu 1941 roku, which translated title is: Criminal evacuation of NKVD prisons and detention centers in the Eastern Borderlands of the Second Polish Republic in June-July 1941. However, if some more clarity is required, I am open on every suggestions. For example, I could "split" this book to highlight the particular chapters, as in the article NKVD prisoner massacre in Zolochiv. Cheers.Dreamcatcher25 (talk) 06:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dreamcatcher25: hi thanks for your note. I guessed that couldn’t be the relevant source because the bibliography entry says 10 June 1996 while the short ref says 1997. If 1996 is the right date could you correct the short ref please? Mccapra (talk) 06:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think we need to separate two issues here. This source is a kind of conference proceedings. While the scientific conference indeed took place in Łódź in 1996, the papers were published in a form of book only a year later. Also, when you check its ISBN in WorldCat or other simmilar database, the date of publication is 1997. Cheers.Dreamcatcher25 (talk) 06:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apologies I’ve realised it’s just me being stupid. The 1997 publication date is right there and I somehow managed not to see it. Sorry to bother you. Mccapra (talk) 07:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello @Mccapra Do you think https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_D._Eicher_Award page should be merged with ISO main page and added as a section? Regards 80.13.110.30 (talk) 08:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hi I think the current article is much too detailed and looks like it is just copied off a website. What independent third party coverage does the award or its winners have? It seems to be mainly of internal interest within the ISO community. For that reason I think the existing material in the ISO article can be expanded, but a couple of sentences is probably enough. Mccapra (talk) 08:19, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I hope you do not mind but I have added the previous AFDs for this article to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dhananjaya Das Kathiababa.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:10, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Mccapra,

This article had already been draftified months ago so it was not appropriate to draftify it again. See WP:DRAFTOBJECT for guidance. Articles should not be draftified more than once so please remember to check the page history before doing this type of article page move. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You tagged Harry W. Hunt with a note which requests showing the "notability of the topic by citing reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention."

There are a total of seven sources cited from reliable secondary sources (the Golbe and Mail and Toronto Star newspapers) all of which provide significant coverage rather than a trival mention, as demonstrated by the headlines of the articles, as follows:

• Harry Hunt: Ex-alderman owned tavern The Globe and Mail (1936-); Toronto, Ont.. 15 June 1966: 45.
• Harry Hunt to Run For Mayor on Plan Of City Leadership: Three-Cornered Fight Indicated-- Platform to Be Announced Friday The Globe (1844-1936); Toronto, Ont.. 17 Dec 1935: 11.
• The Globe Recommends Hunt for Mayor, Robbins Thompson Miller.  The Globe (1844-1936); Toronto, Ont.. 26 Dec 1935: 1.
• Extremist Victory Would Be Tragedy, Hunt Warns Voters: Mayoralty Candidate Makes Final Appeal for Continuance of "Sane, Sound Administration" ISSUE AT STAKE IS EMPHASIZED The Globe (1844-1936); Toronto, Ont.. 01 Jan 1935: 4
• Harry Hunt to Run For Mayor on Plan Of City Leadership: Three-Cornered Fight Indicated-- Platform to Be Announced Friday The Globe (1844-1936); Toronto, Ont.. 17 Dec 1935: 11.
• Hunt Statement, The Globe (1844-1936); Toronto, Ont.. 02 Jan 1936: 1.
• "Harry W. Hunt, ex-alderman, leaves $521,165", Toronto Daily Star (1900-1971); Toronto, Ontario. 25 Aug 1966: C3.

Accordingly, the notability requirement has been fulfilled. Wellington Bay (talk) 01:50, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Wellington Bay: hi thanks for your note but I don’t think it’s clear-cut. The subject is an unsuccessful candidate for mayor and the coverage is essentially local. Mccapra (talk) 01:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Toronto was at the time the second-largest city in Canada and the newspapers are not "local newspapers" as such but are both considered national newspapers in Canada. Wellington Bay (talk) 01:59, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mccapra Thank you for your review of my article on Anton Franzen and for your informative note. I now have added an edit summary to the article as requested, indicating that there was a partial translation from the German wiki article. I would appreciate it if you would be so kind as to review the note to see that it is sufficient to give full attribution to the prior article. I usually try to paraphrase when using material from other articles and, if copying, am sure to include any applicable inline references. In future, I will include the translation edit summary also. Thanks again for your assistance and guidance. Historybuff0105 (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your attention to my article. I have added the additional credible source in support of this page. Qigong4wellness (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Precious

Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:46, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @Gerda Arendt: one of the effects of lockdown is I’ve lost my sense of the passage of time. If you told me it was seven years or two years I’d believe you. But best wishes to you in our anniversary and thank you for remembering. Mccapra (talk) 22:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]