User talk:C.Fred

Vandalism in Lango article Ateker article

@ C. Fred please if you have time look in to the articles above, lots of editors have brought original research showing that Lango group belong to Lango race collectively known as Ateker group and there are so much work put on these articles because Wikipedia called editors to improve these. However one called Cookiemonster1618 he is removing all the evidence bringing the work back to square one. Please look to see whether he can get blocked. What he is putting there is not consistent. ThanksNgunalik (talk) 19:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

@Ngunalik If users have been introducing original research into the Wikipedia articles and Cookiemonster1618 is removing it, then CM1618 is acting according to policy. Normally I would say this is a content dispute and should be discussed at the relevant articles' talk pages, but since there is a WP:ANI report about you, you should also give an explanation there about why you think CM1618's edits are disruptive. —C.Fred (talk) 03:06, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

@C.Fred Thanks for your response. 1618 is removing evidence, extensive researched references placed by several editors over months of work. He is acusing me for doing this, but if you look carefully, these articles have lots of work contributed by several editors. 1618 has no any proof about the Lango or Kumam grouping, he is saying that they are not Ateker but provide no any evidence to substantiate this. You look at these articles for consistency and see what 1618 has done. Ngunalik (talk) 03:45, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

@Ngunalik Based on the edits you described at ANI, 1618's edits are based on reliable sources, while your edits are based on sources that are not reliable. —C.Fred (talk) 15:42, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

What are the list of "non reliable sources I have put up". Also be aware that most languages are still being researched properly especially when the language group were very few long time ago and had few literate scholars of their own. They are coming up and you look through the lists I posted on the other discussion you will see there are primary research work and academicians are taking note of these. 18:57, 30 October 2023 (UTC)~~ Ngunalik (talk) 18:57, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

@Ngunalik The one edit I found with a source explicitly cited was to an unreliable article. —C.Fred (talk) 21:05, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

@C.Fred if only one source then you can see why it was un-necessary that I got so attacked. I had just started editing something on that day and made it clear that I had not completed what I wanted to do with regards to references. Did you see my comments on the review? However the other editor 1618 just deleted the work in a hurry. Then threatened saying I must not add anything to those articles. Ngunalik (talk) 00:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

@Ngunalik To clarify, the one edit was the only edit I found with a source. Other edits, the sources were not there, or were not obvious for review. —C.Fred (talk) 01:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

@C.Fred then I do not know about that because I have added references before in that Article some times back but several people edited after me and changed the grammer or added other references afterwards. On the last day, I had only started that bit as stated earlier on. Several months ago I was adding references but I am not sure whether all are still there. For instance the reference about Nilo-Hamites I added that. Which article are you pointing to? Ngunalik (talk) 09:47, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Currently busy but I will find some time and look through these articles again at some point. To say that this one citation is the ONLY reference I have ever put in there, it is not true. I have an article on Wiki which I started and brought lots of references, most times people blocked them, changed them etc. You cannot be in control of what people do with references. Ngunalik (talk) 09:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

@C.Fred, this is what I was saying I started adding references into those articles round about last year 2022. Some of the references I can see them some have been deleted. I do not know by whom. Now the problem I find with ~1618 editor is that he deletes what I put and says Kumam, or Langi peoples are not Ateker then he claims that he has reverted it because I did not cite anything. This is not true. If you check the last edits he reverted from Kumam article below, my citation was right there. He deleted my edits but left my citation in his reverts. So what is the point of editors spending their energies serching references, when this man deletes and accuses us like this?

The Kumam are ethnic group belonging to [[Ateker peoples]], they live in Kaberamaido district, district in Eastern Uganda.<ref name=":5">{{Cite book|last=Angola|first=Geofrey|title="A history of the Iteso clans, a case study of Irarak clan of Kasilo County, Soroti district in Eastern Uganda 1900-1962|publisher=Makerere University|location=Makerere University Library|pages=6}}</ref> Ngunalik (talk) 20:07, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@C.Fred, also to add this is emerging facts which had not been explored properly so currently there are researchers travelling up to the villages of Kumam people. As you can check in this link, there has been hours of interviews with the elders of Kumam people. you and copy this and watch the documentary here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJo4_Yq7WZo&t=483s Ngunalik (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@C.Fred, following the above conversation, I have not heard much what the conclusion has been. I have today added further references in articles:- Lango people plus language, Kumam people plus language, Ateker peoples. I also tidied up here and there. I am waiting to hear whether the editor ~1618 is going to say he removed these as they were not sourced. Please have a look if you get time. Thanks. Ngunalik (talk) 23:25, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@C.Fred would the ban include the STGINU page I started? If you notice I worked hard to source and since then I have not had sourcing problems.

Also after my last edits on the three articles, I had contacted you first in the above matter and requested you to check the references I had added and you did visit the page before 1618 manually deleted some of my references. Travel guide source was just the least of sources not the main one I was relying on.

So I had checked sources already before adding my last edits these are still on Wikipedia e.g.

Webster, James Bertin (1973). The Iteso during the asonya. East African Pub. House. pp. xxi

Uzoigwe, G. N. The beginnings of Lango society : a review of evidence. OCLC 38562622.

And several others, some citations I had put them myself - I am not sure whether all are still there.

However, the above shows that Lango, Kumam are groupd as Ateker and their language are Ateker langauges. And the citations also note that Lango plus Kumam languages "fused" or has mixtures with Lwo aka Luo.

Looking from the response of 1618, and given his interpretatins, I do not think we are dealing with someone who has read the background of the subjects in these articles nor checked references already cited in those articles up to now. Which is very concerning.

All the sources he put in this discussion do not support his arguments. Even https://web.archive.org/web/20201210010927id_/https://eprints.soas.ac.uk/29330/1/10731425.pdf

From page 50 up say page 61 support what editors had already stated in the wikipedia pages which this gentleman has now deleted them.

Ngunalik (talk) Ngunalik (talk) 08:55, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

@Ngunalik Yes, StGiNU would be within the scope of the ban. —C.Fred (talk) 12:24, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Then it should have been raised through my talk page first if there were issues with my StGiNU reliable sources as well.

If the board is saying because of this one incident of travel guide which again was not raised through my talk page, I should be banned for, then that is too unfair. Every single day editors are adding unreliable sources, I see correctons about these among experienced editors. Ngunalik (talk) 12:34, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

@Ngunalik The problem is, by nature, the article covers the people of east Africa, so it's hard to carve out an exception for that article. I have not personally evaluated the edits to see what the sourcing is like. —C.Fred (talk) 12:57, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

It is not fair at all, I am confused here as to what I have done wrong. I cannot be judged on the basis of someones behaviour? Am I meant to give up editing on East African issues? The resources this individual gave was absolutely shocking e.g. classroom handouts, is the board saying all my citations were the same as his so far? I asked Bites to tell me where he thought the citations I provided on the discussion were all unreliable after my explanation, I did not get any response from anyone todate. Except that one editor confirmed that primary source can acctually be used in some situations, the comments are still there so what wrong have I done with my citations? Ngunalik (talk) 21:23, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Do you know how many facts I brought in wikipedia which caused editors to start new wikipedia pages? Some of them have been grateful for the information I provided even though I was learning how to write on wikipedia. I do not see any justice in this second sanction, even the first one I was told to respond and when I obayed, I got sanctioned for doing so - where is the justice in this? Someone who never went through my talk page, abused me, was agressive towards me, personally attacked me is being judged same with me as if whatever they did, I also did the same things. I do not see any justification at all.Ngunalik (talk) 21:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

@Ngunalik You were judged on the basis of your behaviour, particularly as it related to a number of articles about East African peoples and languages. Further, the topic ban is viewed as necessary because of how you did respond in the discussion. Your post of 14 Nov at 22:20 is a prime example of that: you cited a blog (unreliable) containing primary research (to be avoided) as an example of a reliable source.

As for your post just above this one, tread lightly, because it could very easily be interpreted as a violation of your interaction ban. (See the fourth bullet point under WP:IBAN.) —C.Fred (talk) 00:35, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

What behaviour was this on the East African peoples and languages? I did not cite a blog - I think there is a misunderstanding. I backed what ethnologue said that there is evidence current research is still going on even this year, so we cannot cite only ethnologue without comparing other resources. With this thread I did not put at the individual and I am enquiring about my situation which I am confused for. How am I not allowed to find out so I am clear? The other two resouces are the ones I posted in the discussion which is to say there was nothing new. So there was no further complaints raised after my explanation. I did not cite a blog in this discussion. Ngunalik (talk) 00:42, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

November Articles for creation backlog drive

Hello C.Fred:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.

There is a backlog of over 1800 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

area code 440

Would you please revert the article to the single code title. The policy has been to use only codes that are activated in the network in area code article titles. Often in the past have planned relief actions been canceled, delayed, or changed. The newly assigned or reserved codes are accounted for by links to the main article, with perhaps some prose about future action in the history section. kbrose (talk) 19:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2023).

Administrator changes

0xDeadbeef

Tamzin

Dennis Brown

Interface administrator changes

Pppery

• Ragesoss
• TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

• The WMF is working on making it possible for administrators to edit MediaWiki configuration directly. This is similar to previous work on Special:EditGrowthConfig. A technical RfC is running until November 08, where you can provide feedback.
• There is a proposed plan for re-enabling the Graph Extension. Feedback on this proposal is requested.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves from 12 November 2023 until 21 November 2023 to stand in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections.
• Xaosflux, RoySmith and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2023 Arbitration Committee Elections. BusterD is the reserve commissioner.
• Following a motion, the contentious topic designation of Prem Rawat has been struck. Actions previously taken using this contentious topic designation are still in force.
• Following several motions, multiple topic areas are no longer designated as a contentious topic. These contentious topic designations were from the Editor conduct in e-cigs articles, Liancourt Rocks, Longevity, Medicine, September 11 conspiracy theories, and Shakespeare authorship question cases.
• Following a motion, remedies 3.1 (All related articles under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned), 6 (Stalemate resolution) and 30 (Administrative supervision) of the Macedonia 2 case have been rescinded.
• Following a motion, remedy 6 (One-revert rule) of the The Troubles case has been amended.
• An arbitration case named Industrial agriculture has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case close 8 November.

Miscellaneous

• The Articles for Creation backlog drive is happening in November 2023, with 700+ drafts pending reviews for in the last 4 months or so. In addition to the AfC participants, all administrators and New Page Patrollers can conduct reviews using the helper script, Yet Another AFC Helper Script, which can be enabled in the Gadgets settings. Sign up here to participate!

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:22, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

hatted discussion

I wasn't trying to discount your question to @Ngunalik asking if they would agree to a six month topic ban but it didn't appear they were going to respond to it and continued the back and forth with @Cookiemonster1618. That section was starting to get off point so I hatted that portion. Feel free to revert if you think it best. This has been a mess of a discussion and I appreciate any admin taking the time to look over it. --ARoseWolf 18:07, 15 November 2023 (UTC)