User talk:Catjacket: Difference between revisions

 

Line 64: Line 64:

:Hi, I responded on the [[Talk:Sack of Old Oyo]] page. Let’s discuss there, since it’s only about that article. [[User:Catjacket|Catjacket]] ([[User talk:Catjacket#top|talk]]) 21:34, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

:Hi, I responded on the [[Talk:Sack of Old Oyo]] page. Let’s discuss there, since it’s only about that article. [[User:Catjacket|Catjacket]] ([[User talk:Catjacket#top|talk]]) 21:34, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

==Disambiguation link notification for September 11 ==

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited [[Kingdom of Wuli]], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page [[Groundnut]].

([[User:DPL bot|Opt-out instructions]].) –[[User:DPL bot|DPL bot]] ([[User talk:DPL bot|talk]]) 07:56, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi Catjacket. You added references to “Mendy 2013” to Bissau, but no such work is defined in the article. Could you added the required cite to the Sources section, or let me know what work this refers to? — LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:17, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out. Confusion between different editions of the same book. I’m still working on the history section, but I’ll fix this ASAP. Catjacket (talk) 12:26, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Carjacket. — LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:29, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you’ve contributed a lot to Ghana Empire, would you be interested in a taskforce on oral tradition? Kowal2701 (talk) 19:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely!! I’ve never worked on a Wikipedia taskforce before, but very excited to participate. How does it work? Catjacket (talk) 02:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s a place for people to collaborate on improving Wikipedia’s coverage of oral tradition. It’s still very nascent so there are lots of things that need to be done and what exactly it’ll involve hasn’t been completely clarified, at the moment we’re discussing the scope. Anybody can suggest initiatives on the talk page and edit the main page (there’s no leaders, it relies on consensus) and give ideas. I recommend seeing WP:WikiProject Kowal2701 (talk) 06:33, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry I should’ve said earlier but we’re working on Draft:Oral traditions of the Soninke people if that’s something you might be interested in? None of us speak French so we can’t access a lot of the literature Kowal2701 (talk) 10:50, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For sure, I’ll take a look and see what I can contribute. I speak French, are there any paticular sources that y’all need help integrating? Catjacket (talk) 18:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven’t been able to have a proper look but there’s a couple mentioned in Conrad and Fisher’s “The conquest that never was”, I’ll give the links in a sec Kowal2701 (talk) 19:16, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We’re looking at rewriting the sections on epics so that they’re summaries rather than transcriptions and translations Kowal2701 (talk) 19:18, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There’s fr:Bida (mythologie), [1] [2] [3] [4] and Legende by Monteil (I can’t find a link) Kowal2701 (talk) 19:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You’re invited to participate in The World Destubathon. We’re aiming to destub a lot of articles and also improve longer stale articles. It started today on Monday June 16 and will run until Sunday July 13. There is over $3300 going into it, with $500 the top prize. If you are interested in winning something to save you money in buying books for future content, or just see it as a good editathon opportunity to see a lot of articles improved for subjects which interest you, sign up on the page in the participants section if interested. Even if you can only manage a few articles they would be very much appreciated and help make the content produced as diverse and broad as possible! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:00, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Tuabou requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G15 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it exhibits one or more of the following signs which indicate that the page could only plausibly have been generated by large language models (an “AI chatbot” or other application using such technology) and would have been removed by any reasonable human review:

• Communication intended for the user: This may include collaborative communication (e.g., “Here is your Wikipedia article on…”), knowledge-cutoff disclaimers (e.g., “Up to my last training update …”), self-insertion (e.g., “as a large language model”), and phrasal templates (e.g., “Smith was born on [Birth Date].”)
• Implausible non-existent references: This may include external links that are dead on arrival, ISBNs with invalid checksums, and unresolvable DOIs. Since humans can make typos and links may suffer from link rot, a single example should not be considered definitive. Editors should use additional methods to verify whether a reference truly does not exist.
• Nonsensical citations: This may include citations of incorrect temporality (e.g a source from 2020 being cited for a 2022 event), DOIs that resolve to completely unrelated content (e.g., a paper on a beetle species being cited for a computer science article), and citations that attribute the wrong author or publication.

Text produced by these applications can be unsuitable for an encyclopedia, and output must be carefully checked. Pages created using them that did not undergo human review may be deleted at any time.

If you think these signs were incorrectly identified and you assert that you did carefully check the content, 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. Additionally – if you would like to create an article but find creating new encyclopedia content yourself difficult, please share this with other editors at the Teahouse, and they may be able to help. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your legitimate contributions. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:17, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I responded on the talk page. I think that nominating this article for speedy deletion is unnecessary and harsh. Tagging the page with ‘More citations needed’ or something would have been better. If the link in the population information is dead, you can just mark the link as such. It’s copied from the original page on the French wikipedia. I acknowledge that I should have checked if the link worked, but that’s got nothing to do with AI chatbots. For the ISBN thing, a simple search in Google books would have brought up the Gomez book and proven that the source is legit. Do your homework before accusing people of using chatbots. Catjacket (talk) 17:31, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit on Sack of Old Oyo:

Hello, is aw you edited, my Wikipedia page, and edited something completely different? That had nothing to do with my page? Maybe you an make as standalone wiki page on a separate sack of old oyo you’re discussing? Because this has nothing to do with my sack of old oyo, that not only has more sources, but older, more credible, by yoruba historians in the 19th century. I just want to know why you deleted everything on my wikipedia, and wrote a random write up, with barely any sources. This wikipedia took weeks, of editing, and requiring multiple wiki mods revciewing the evidence of both sides. Again, can you explain why you removed basically my page, and sourced a different sack, or fall to the one i’m discussing? I think actions like this can fall under requirements for a report, if you don’t explain.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oluwafemi1726 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, i Saw you edited, my Wikipedia page, and edited something completely different? That had nothing to do with my page? Maybe you an make as standalone wiki page on a separate sack of old oyo you’re discussing? Because this has nothing to do with my sack of old oyo, that not only has more sources, but older, more credible, by yoruba historians in the 19th century. I just want to know why you deleted everything on my wikipedia, and wrote a random write up, with barely any sources. This Wikipedia took weeks, of editing, and requiring multiple wiki mods reviewing the evidence of both sides. Which can be seen her ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sack of Old Oyo ),

• furthermore, your “sources” the oldest, one is 1959, again, i think anyone that’s being neutral can see i have more “ancient”, or “grounded” sources, that link directly to people that lived in that error, (1800’s) Like arguably the most accredited Yoruba Historian Samuel Johnson. Even in the battle box, he removed the Sokoto caliphate, when Ilorin was under the leadership of it, and completely ignored the fact that after this, led directly to fula settlements in Yorubaland. All of this can easily be found by reading The history of the Yorubas : from the earliest times to the beginning of the British Protectorate, by Samuel Johnson, which is by far the most accredited Yoruba historical book prior to colonialism. Again, can you explain why you removed basically my page, and sourced a different sack, or fall to the one i’m discussing?
• This is evident, as you removed my soruce which goes into detail, the sacking, and how towns left, like “All the towns owing “any allegiance to Oyo, and hence Gbodo was besieged”[1. While your “sources”, you didn’t cite a single one, or have any real reference, in context to where you put them in your text. its obvious you just looked up random sources, to cite in your wiki page, that you didn’t read.
• My sources, citations, i put direct quotes which you didn’t. every citation goes directly, to the text/narration of the part of the page its cited in. And i again, included the oldest document in both of our edits, and arguably the most important, and detailed book on yoruba history, prior to colonialism.

I don’t appreciate you just removing, my wikipedia , and adding a shorter one, with less “official” sources, with no quotes, for no reason. This is grounds for reporting, so i’d appreciate a response.

Oluwafemi1726 (talk) 21:00, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I responded on the Talk:Sack of Old Oyo page. Let’s discuss there, since it’s only about that article. Catjacket (talk) 21:34, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]