User talk:Benjamin Trovato

Boo!Benjamin Trovato (talk) 05:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I removed the quote on the share of GDP of SUGHD province of Tajikistan that you provided (i.e that Sughd accounts for 70% of the GDP), because there was no source listed for this and I could not verify the information. Can you provide the source please? Thanks. 5 May 2009 Misha

Nogai Horde

Hi, thanks for expanding the Nogai Horde article. However, there are some problems and I've added the necessary tags. I noticed you added the sentence, "There appears to be no academic book in English on the Nogais, so this article is weakly sourced." Keep in mind that non-English sources are permitted on Wikipedia. If you have sources, and they aren't in English, feel free to add them to the article anyways. It is preferred that you use the <ref> ([1], [2], etc.) system (see an example at Ali Akbar Abdolrashidi). Also, keep in mind that we can't cite other Wikipedias, as Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. Cheers and happy editing. Khoikhoi 09:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Keep in mind that it is unnecessary to say "This article is derived from Khodarkovsky(2000) which appears to be the only readily available source in English" as you already have a References section below. In addition, consider using more in-line citations (i.e. page numbers). I see you've already done that with your "Sunderland, p26" ref, but consider doing it more throughout the article. Also include in-line citations from Khodarkovsky as well. Cheers, Khoikhoi 03:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Tuckahoe / Cohee

Many thanks for adding to the Tuckahoe/Cohee article. I haven't visited this article in some time, and I'm happy with its development. Your comparitive sociology segment is just what is needed to continue its development.

Incidently, as a root cause of small holders being successful in mountainous regions, it seems to me to be self-evident that the cost of military imposition of control on areas which are easily defended and favorable to guerilla-style warfare are high, while the marginal advantage of establishing such control is slight. In other words, the effort is not worth the reward of trying to bring such people under tight social control as long as they maintain a stubborn resistance to such control.

Lee Mathers Gwyncann (talk) 23:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC) new email is gwyncann@gmail.com

Siberia

I took a crack at making a map for you, take a look at Image:Siberiariverroutemap.png and let me know what you think. Any needed edits? Kmusser (talk) 20:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Map updated, in addition to your suggestions I fleshed out the northwest a bit. 00:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Also based just on looking at an atlas, the names of the rivers that you're missing are probably the Turuchan River (between the Taz and Yenisei at Turukhansk) and the Kuta River (between Illim and Lena at Ost-Kut) - it would be nice to have confirmation from another source though. Also to keep your eyes out when looking at other sources, the description from the Chusovaya to the Tavda seems a little weird, to do that portage you'd be crossing two other major rivers that also link to the Tobol, the Tura which is a direct tributary to the Tobol and the Sosva that is a tributary to the Tavda and closer to the Chusovaya than Lozva is. To your earlier question, there is no index to the commons, the closest thing is the categorization scheme, but that only works if someone bothered to categorize whatever you are looking for - best bet is still just using search. Kmusser (talk) 14:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Updated the map - take a look and see if it looks correct, I have the Amur route stopping at Nerchinsk, which I added in, and added the short spur to Kyatkha. I thought about adding Chita as well but the map is already pretty crowded in that area. I also corrected the river route there - I had been showing the Onon River but it should have been the Ingoda River which goes through Chita. Kmusser (talk) 21:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Updated the map, sorry it took so long, I had forgotten about it, take a peek and make sure it looks correct. Kmusser (talk) 18:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Global wind patterns / Winds in the Age of Sail

While the attempt was valiant, please don't "fix" moves/renames by means of cut-and-paste or reverts. They do little more than obscure the page history and make unreadable articles. To correct a "broken" cut and paste, it takes an administrator (such as myself) following extra steps to fix. See Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves for more information.|

If you'd like to move or rename a page, there is a "move" tab at the top of your screen which you may use instead. Using this function brings the page history along with the text, which is a requirement of the GFDL license that Wikipedia uses for its text.

The title is still not perfect, of course, but it may be a good idea to start a discussion on the article talkpage to get more ideas on page names. There may be better titles that we simply haven't thought of yet.

Let me know if you have any questions. Kylu (talk) 02:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Dzoosotoyn Elisen Desert (continued on my Talk Page @ Teledildonix314)

Hi Hi, thank you for inquiring about the Dzoosotoyn Elisen Desert article. If you would like to converse on my Talk Page, feel free to add it to your Watch List, and i will keep answering any questions there. Here are some links i hope will help.

Conversation thread here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Teledildonix314#Dzoostoyn_Elisen_Dessert

Help pages associated with this area here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Proposed_mergers

The two topics, which may or may not be Mergeable (i don't know the technical details, and i don't know any Chinese desert geography): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gurbantunggut_Desert http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dzoosotoyn_Elisen_Desert

Replies here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Teledildonix314&action=edit&section=12

Thank you kindly, reply if you need more help suggestions, i'm sort of a newbie also. Teledildonix314 ^Talk ~ _{contributions} 16:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Dobryi

Hi, I moved your sentence about the Russian location to a new article, Dobryi, which you might like to develop further. (It doesn't seem to have any connection with Dobry, Poland.)--Kotniski (talk) 08:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I was going to ask about this one, too. "Dobry" is a very generic and a very common name, and I am having trouble finding anything on this garrison. Could you, please, expand the stub, at least so it's clear what it's about? Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:53, April 23, 2009 (UTC)

Dezhnyov

Great; major improvement on the old article. I'm looking forward to seeing Fedot Dankarl (talk) 02:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry no help on Altasov.Dankarl (talk) 13:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I added some references and a little text to Anadyrsk; see what you think. Where does 1652 founding date come from?Dankarl (talk) 02:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

So we have Atlasov to thank for the Fedotov story, and Stadukhin was appointed an Ataman. I had always thought the term Cossack was used pretty loosely in the context of Siberian colonization; use of the title Ataman is interesting.Dankarl (talk) 17:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC) Is Ivanov building the stockade from Fisher?Dankarl (talk) 23:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You might be interested to know that the Petit Fute Chukotka is available on Google books [1]; there does not seem to be much, if any, restriction (though sometimes the number of views is limited on Google Books). Dankarl (talk) 03:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you seen anything on Kurbat Ibanov exploration of Gulf of Anadyr, Kresta Bay, Provideniya Bay circa 1660? Dankarl (talk) 03:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Dankarl (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a spit (Napkum in 1 source) within Provideniya Bay, and some beaches on either side of Cape Chukotsky. A spit at the cape itself seems unlikely since the water gets deep there fast. Any indication broadly are they using the term Cape Chukotsky? Dankarl (talk) 14:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Petit Fute says that the suggestion to rename East Cape as Cape Dezhnev came from A.E. Nordenskiold. I can't find confirmation of this information, but a Google search seems to suggest Fisher might mention it. Do you recall any such mention, or know another source? If you have it at hand, does it say when and where Nordenskiold made the suggestion?Dankarl (talk) 19:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough answer.Dankarl (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Siberian Cossack

Please see my response at my talk page. Vmenkov (talk) 03:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I replied on my talk page to your 2nd comment as well. And, by the way, thanks for your contributions to the articles on Siberian history! Vmenkov (talk) 08:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Ivanov

Thanks for the heads-up. What I don't get is that Ivanof was a mapmaker, he supposedly visited Provideniya Bay, but the bay did not wind up on Russian maps.Dankarl (talk) 04:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

distance units

I ran across (actually back across) a passage you might be interested in:

"The next day I discovered one of the reasons why reports of distances given us by different natives vary so much. Some of them calculate distance by 'sabachi,' the long or dog verst, and some by 'kony,' the short, or horse verst." Olaf Swenson, Northwest of the World Dodd Mead, NY, 1944 p 229. The conversation reported took place in a Yakut house in the Kolyma district in 1928, or possibly on the trail in the same region. Note Swenson spells phonetically.Dankarl (talk) 19:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 05:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Warring States Map

Hi Benjamin, thanks for adding the Dutch map - it's a good interim solution. I'm currently creating a series of eight maps - one for each of the states with its territory highlighted then a generic one for things like the Warring States article. The problem I have is that I am stuck behind the GFC and can't upload anything to commons. Any chance you could help me out when the maps are complete? Best Philg88 (talk) 05:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Fisher's work on Dezhnev

Hi. I noticed for Stadukhin's page you cited Fisher's work. What does his work say about Stadukhin's expedition along the northern coast of the Sea of Okhotsk from 1651-57? Does it go into detail, or just mention it in passing? I would like to know whether it would be worth getting a copy, so I could perhaps cite it for an article I'm editing on wiki. Jonas Poole (talk) 04:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Bely Yar

Hi, Benjamin! I was wondering if you could give me some context for this entry (a town or fort)? I'm trying to determine whether it corresponds to any modern places called "Bely Yar". Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 1, 2010; 18:34 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Benjamin! While I still have no idea how to best take care of the entry on the Bely Yar page, this information is very helpful for research. Much appreciated.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 2, 2010; 02:57 (UTC) 02:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I was going to whine about how my to-read list is too long already to add yet another book to it, but when I saw the title and the cover, I knew it's a must-read :) Thanks for the pointer!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 6, 2010; 14:46 (UTC)

Chanyu List

Dear Benjamin Trovato, I will respond on my page where you posted your note [2]. Barefact (talk) 06:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I have completed the draft for the tree as far as I could go, but before I move it to post, I would appreciate if you could review it [3]. I did not find any references for the following four characters, so I do not know how they fit in the picture. If you can help me, I would be grateful.

劉務恒 Liú Wùhéng  ??? 341-356

劉閼陋頭 Liú èlòutóu  ??? 356-358

劉悉勿祈 Liú Xīwùqí  ??? 358-359

劉衛辰 Liú Wèichén Posthumously named "Emperor Huan" 359-391

Barfield appear to follow Wade–Giles, without parcing into names and titles. Bichurin is citing comments from the annals that after Huhanye, Shanuys added Jodi to their name, Shanuy => Jodi Shanuy; Jodi in Hunnic means "respectful to parents" (in Chinese interpretation, which might be somewhat inaccurate), and it corresponds to the Chinese Hou "respectful to parents" that was added to the Chinese emperor's title; we see it in Yap's Shanuys Fuzhleirou(di) and Cheyaruodi as pin. ruodi and in Barfield's Wade–Giles in Hsi-lo-shih-chu-t'i as chu-t'i; these are not parts of the name, but of the title Jodi-Shanuy. The pin. ruodi is Wade–Giles juodi, which matches Bichurin's Jodi.

In some cases Chinese appended to the Shanuys's title their term for "posessor", "head of posession" hou, making it a composite Shanuy-hou; the choice to do it was up to the compiler, so there is no consistency, a few have it, most have not. Since the titles are not included in Touman, Maodun, Laoshang names, inclusion of the titles as names for other entries is inconsistent, confusing, and simply misleading. I think that where it can be done, the titles should be stripped and given separately. Ditto for the Chinese-assigned "family names", the use of family names in Hunnic context is a special topic. Ditto for the Chinese-style temple names, these are fictitious names peculiar to the Chinese anscestor cult.

Would it be too much to ask you to send me a good resolution PDF of the Barfield's table showing the family relations between the various Chanyus? [4] I will run it against Bichurin's translation and flag out any discrepancies, in addition to educating me, that might save some subsequent questions.

My best wishes to you for the New Year. Barefact (talk) 08:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

No, the wiki-email did not come through (unless I deleted it from the Spam folder without looking at the contents). I hope you sent yourself a copy and can re-send it. When that happens, it is terribly distressing, I am very appreciative of the efforts it takes to compose. Regards Barefact (talk) 01:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

[5] (((from BillMasen)))

Sino-Russian relations

If I span off the early part of History of Sino-Russian relations into its own article, would that be ok by you? And reduced the early history to a summary? You clearly know more about the subject that I can claim to. BillMasen (talk) 14:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Answer

• See User_talk:Yug#Thank_You (in 5 mins, I have to expand my answer) Yug (talk) 15:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

New Map

Hi, long time no see, hope all is well. There are a couple issues with this new map that you've added to Cai (state) amongst othera:

• 1) There is a typo in the title "Automn"
• 2) 5 BC is not Spring and Autumn - it is Han Dynasty and these states no longer existed.
• 3) Hangzhou is spelt wrong, if it even existed
• 4) Inconsistent capitalization

And that's just after a quick look. I haven't reverted your edits out of courtesy but please get this sorted out. Thanks and all the best. ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 07:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Citation of reliable sources

Hello Benjamin. Congratulations on your new article Exploration of the Pacific. It is a very high quality article. I noticed that you nominated the two references you used. So far you have not identified in detail the source of any of the information in the article. Wikipedia requires that any information that is challenged, or likely to be challenged, must be independently verifiable by the use of in-line citations leading to the document, page number etc from which the information was taken. See WP:VERIFY.

Please have a look at WP:RS which provides a lot of information about the need for reliable sources being identified for all material published in Wikipedia. Please also return to your new article and add in-line citations to allow independent verification of your material. Keep up the good work! Dolphin (t) 03:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for adding an in-line citation pointing to the book by Derek Hayes as the source of information in a sentence. I have added a new banner saying "This article has insufficient in-line citations."

To see an exemplary Wikipedia article please have a look at any of the featured articles. You will notice that after the introductory paragraph almost every sentence is supported by an in-line citation to identify the source and allow independent verification.

When a User inserts some information in a Wikipedia article it is primarily the responsibility of that User to identify the source of that information using an in-line citation. The responsibility is not primarily on other Users or on the reader. Best regards. Dolphin (t) 22:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Benjamin Trovato. You have new messages at Dolphin51's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

It's not that the winds in the tropics are "strange" between Mexico and the Philippines

Trade wind easterlies are constant in the tropics of both hemispheres, north and south, within 20 degrees of the equator, on the poleward side of the subtropical ridge. The problem is, people who initially sailed from the Philippines to Mexico in the 16th century would be sailing headlong into the easterlies (which blow FROM Mexico to the Philippines). It wasn't until they discovered the warm water currents like the Kuroshio and Gulf Stream that sailors found a quick way from west to east across the ocean. The problem is, the warm water currents that flow from west to east lie north of the 35th parallel, which is well north of Mexico and the Philippines, so it took them a while to figure it out. Eventually, they discovered the winds drove the currents, but that took another 2-3 centuries. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Fisher references in Dezhnyov article

I don't know whether you have noticed recent additions to Semyon Dezhnyov; there is now material drawn from several sources other than Fisher, with inline citations. I wonder whether I could persuade you to return long enough to add inline citations for the parts sourced from Ficher? Dankarl (talk) 16:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

If you have Fisher or can get ready access again, I'd suggest 1 note per paragraph, with pagination. You'd only need to go by sentence in a couple places. Dankarl (talk) 20:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Russian Social Terms for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Russian Social Terms is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russian Social Terms until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 15:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• Consensus was to delete the article. If you would like to have the content userfied, that is, placed in your own user space, feel free to drop me a line, or ask User:DGG, an administrator who voted to keep your article. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 02:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

George Simpson (administrator) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Churchill River, Peace River, Michipicoten and John McLaughlin

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

fixed - Thanks Benjamin Trovato (talk) 10:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Kenai settlement

This is probably the site at a location called called Kasilof, I have seen it variously attributed to Eskimo (presumably Aleutiq), Indians, and Russians, but the Russians I have seen mentioned are the group led by Kolomin of the Lebedef-Lastochkin Company and it's not clear whether the writer meant the Russians lived in these houses or that natives who moved there for trade did (looks like the author of the WP article read the same thing I did). I think I remember seeing some speculative mention of a Deshnev angle years ago but I can't turn it up now. Likewise I remember something about some unexplained Russian artifacts maybe from the same place or maybe nearer Anchorage. The site always seems to be presented as being a little mysterious; I have the impression the archaeologists are a little nonplussed at not being able to immediately classify it. A stretch. Very little available. Dankarl (talk) 03:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Asp House

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Asp House requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Yasht101 02:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC) --> Proposed deletion of Asp House ==

The article Asp House has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not referenced and notability is not clear

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Yasht101 02:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Pine Island Fort

Hi! While doing the probable correction to this article, the inline citation to DoCB was also removed. It was intended to confirm Mackay at Pine Island Fort which it does. I presume it was removed in error. Will you put it back? Thanks! Stormbay (talk) 03:41, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

A couple questions...

Hi Benjamin Trovato, I have a couple questions regarding your recent edits to Alberta-related articles.

1. At North Saskatchewan River, you added a book as a reference yet no content was added that may have been derived from the reference. So why was the reference added? If the intent was for further reading, then I will move it from the "References" section to a new "Further reading" section. If the intent was to support existing content within the article, it should be listed as a reference through an inline citation rather than how it is listed now.
2. At Rocky Mountain House, Alberta, you added a lot of new content with no inline citations, although the book "Let Them be Remembered:The Story of the Fur Trade Forts" was added to the "References" section. It is unclear what content the book supports. Does it support the entire new "Fur trade details" section or only portions of this new section? Regardless, this book should also be listed as a reference through inline citation rather than how it is listed now. Otherwise, the entire new section you authored will appear to be unreferenced and may be challenged.

Please clarify on both. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 03:03, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

1. . I took your suggestion about North Saskatchewan River. I don't think the distinction between references and further reading is clearly maintained.

1. . On Rocky Mountain House, how should this be handled?. The problem is when a section is the summary of a book. I had the same problem with Pamir Mountains#Exploration. Apparently you can't put a footnote in a section title. The device used in Pamir Mountains is not used anywhere else in wikipedia that I have seen. I have never seen a "===references===" subsection, although it is logically possible. A footnote normally implies that it is about the word or sentence footnoted, not the whole section. You could say in a footnote "this entire section is from..." but not many people would notice. A footnote before the first word might work, but this is also odd. I don't know a standard way to do it. Benjamin Trovato (talk) 03:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming on the former. For the latter, WP:Inline citations states "Inline citations are often at the end of a sentence or paragraph", while WP:Inline citations#Ref tags explains how to use multiple citations for the same source. As the whole section is a summary of the same book, what I'll do is place the main ref tag at the end of the first paragraph, and then repeat the citation at the end of each subsequent paragraph. Hwy43 (talk) 04:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I see you made the change. Thank you. Benjamin Trovato (talk) 04:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I suggest that doing the same at Paint Creek House should address the {{No footnotes}} tag there. Hwy43 (talk) 05:38, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Citation of reliable sources 2

Hi Benjamin. In August 2011 I left a message on your Talk page about your new article Exploration of the Pacific. I drew your attention to Wikipedia’s policy that the information in articles should be attributed to a reliable published source. See my diff1 and diff2. You added one in-line citation. Since then, no additional in-line citations have been added so the article remains incomplete and incompatible with Wikipedia’s policy. For this reason, the article has the “Refimprove” banner.

Since August 2011 you have done a commendable job of creating many more new articles. With some of these articles you have added a suitable number of in-line citations to identify reliable published sources for your information. Those articles are:

Verendrye Brothers' journey to the Rocky Mountains – 8 citations. Well done!

Hungry Hall – 3 citations. Well done!

Louis Primeau – 3 citations. Well done!

List of Rocky Mountain passes on the continental divide - 4 citations. Well done!

Brandon House – 7 citations. Well done!

Assiniboine River fur trade - 8 citations. Well done!

Asleep by the frozen sea – 8 citations. Well done!

Unfortunately, with many of your other articles you have supplied either no in-line citations, or an inadequate number. Other Users have observed the inadequate use of in-line citations and have added banners to eight of your articles, as follows:

Pine Island Fort – 1 citation. “Nofootnotes” banner added by User:Deor 2012/06/01

Pedlar (fur trade) – No citations. “Sources” banner added by User:Stormbay 2012/06/13

Paint Creek House – No citations. “Nofootnotes” banner added by User:117Avenue :2012/05/31

Jan Prosper Witkiewicz – 2 citations. “Refimprove” banner added by User:AllyD 2012/10/27

Early knowledge of the Pacific Northwest – 1 citation. “Refimprove” banner added by :User:Altered Walter 2012/12/28

Fort Montagne à la Bosse – 2 citations. Brief article. “Orphan” banner added by :User:Indefatigable 2012/09/10

I have added the “Refimprove” banner to six of your articles because they are incomplete due to insufficient use of in-line citations, and therefore incompatible with Wikipedia’s policy:

Okhotsk Coast – 2 citations. Added “Refimprove” banner

Gizhiga – 1 citation. Added “Refimprove” banner

Henley House – 1 citation. Added “Refimprove” banner

Fort Lac la Pluie – 1 citation. Added “Refimprove” banner

Fort Sturgeon – 1 citation. Added “Refimprove” banner

Fort des Épinettes – 2 citations. Added “Refimprove” banner

Rock Depot has only 1 citation but it is a very brief article only, so I haven’t added any banner.

I have added the “No footnotes” banner to six of your articles that contain a reference or two but no in-line citations:

Yudoma River – No citations. Added “Nofootnotes” banner

Asp House – No citations. Added “Nofootnotes” banner

Lac Île-à-la-Crosse – No citations. Added “Nofootnotes” banner

South Branch House – No citations. Added “Nofootnotes” banner

Fort de la Rivière Tremblante – No citations. Added “Nofootnotes” banner

William Pullen – No citations. Added “Nofootnotes” banner

Your article Athabasca Country contains no references or citations of any kind. (This suggests you don't comprehend Wikipedia's policy regarding verifiability.) I added the “Nosources” banner.

Please don’t imagine that when you create a new article a group of Wikipedia volunteers will come along and add all the necessary in-line citations. Wikipedia doesn’t work that way. The User who adds a piece of information has primary responsibility to add sufficient in-line citations to identify reliable published sources from which that information can be independently verified. Please read WP:RS and WP:VERIFY – they clarify and confirm Wikipedia’s policy regarding the vital importance of having all published information able to be independently attributed to reliable published sources. Information that is not attributed to a source can be removed!

You have become a prolific creator of new articles and I congratulate you for that. However, before creating any new articles please return to the articles listed above, starting with Athabasca Country, and begin the process of adding sufficient in-line citations to allow the information in your articles to be independently verified as coming from a reliable published source. Happy editing! Dolphin (t) 06:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Dolphin, not that the goals that you describe aren't good ideas, but actually you have interpreted/applied wp:ver incorrectly here. In the area in question, it basically requires all material to be sourcable and "challenged or likely to be challenged" material to be sourced. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi North8000. You haven't explained why you believe my interpretation is incorrect, and you have made no attempt to quote any guidelines or policy to support your belief. I can point to WP:VERIFY which contains the following:

This page in a nutshell: Other people have to be able to check that you didn't just make things up. This means that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.

Using that quotation as a starting point, you might explain why my interpretation is incorrect. Regards. Dolphin (t) 11:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, my previous post did 3/4 explain it and such is further reinforced by the part of the policy that you just quoted. The missing "1/4" from my original post is that you are implying that adding unsourced material is categorically against policy, and that is not correct. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

It appears we are both in agreement that Any material that is likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.

I'm not implying that adding unsourced material is categorically against policy. Wikipedia clarifies that point very well at WP:BLUE. Dolphin (t) 23:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

That's an excellent essay. It reinforces my point. Your critique of Benjamin Trovato in essence was based on an (incorrect) assertion that adding unsourced material is categorically against policy. I don't want to beat this to death because your goal is good. North8000 (talk) 13:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Reply: In general, footnotes are only needed by a person who is checking the accuracy of an article. He should have the books listed in *==references==* and should be able to find everything in the index. I would use footnotes in the following cases: 1) There are many sources, or information is hard to find from the index: Russo-Crimean Wars#Incomplete list of Tartar Raids is an extreme case, 2) Minor source different from the main source: Asleep by the frozen sea, 3) Sources contradict: Louis Primeau, 4) source might be wrong:Louis-Joseph Gaultier de La Vérendrye. Otherwise footnotes are just clutter (Jean Baptiste de La Vérendrye has 6 footnotes, 4 of which point to the main source which is only one page long). As for the objectionable articles almost all are summaries of a single source and need no footnotes (Okhotsk Coast, Fort Lac la Pluie). Exceptions are Athabasca Country - this is a stub that I will expand when I get back to the area. Everything in it is common knowledge to people who know about the fur trade. ; Exploration of the Pacific - in this case I noticed that we did not have an article on this fundamental subject, so I wrote a summary of all the relevant Wikipedia articles. Sources for each statement are in the linked articles. If I am missing something, let me know.Benjamin Trovato (talk) 02:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Benjamin. Thanks for your prompt and considered reply. You ended by saying If I am missing something, let me know. I think you are missing something important and I will try to explain. You appear to believe writing an article for Wikipedia is like writing a blog for Facebook. On Facebook, people are allowed to write whatever they like, and present it in whatever format they like. Wikipedia is nothing like that. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that is being produced by an on-line community of people. The Wikipedia community has determined what the encyclopedia should ultimately look like, and has written a number of policies and guidance documents to achieve uniformity across the encyclopedia and to achieve a high level of credibility. One of the most important policies applicable to the entire encyclopedia is the policy of verifiability. You can read about it at WP:Verifiability. In your reply to me you did not mention any of Wikipedia’s policies or guidelines. Instead you told me about some of your personal views regarding Wikipedia. For example, your reply includes:

• In general, footnotes are only needed by a person who is checking the accuracy of an article. This is only your personal view. It is not compatible with Wikipedia’s policy regarding footnotes or verifiability.
• He should have the books listed in *==references==* and should be able to find everything in the index. This is only your personal view. It is not compatible with Wikipedia’s policy regarding references or verifiability. The Wikipedia community has determined that the encyclopedia will have a high degree of credibility for readers. This will be achieved by ensuring that all information of substance can be independently verified by a regime of in-line citations. There is nothing written anywhere in Wikipedia’s policy and guidelines to support your notion that readers should have the books listed in “References” and readers should find everything themselves. The quality of Wikipedia will be achieved by its regime of in-line citations to allow independent verification. When a User creates a new article or adds some new information it is primarily the responsibility of that User to supply sufficient in-line citations to allow independent verification that the material comes from a reliable published source. It is not the responsibility of the reader to perform his own check on verifiability.
• Otherwise footnotes are just clutter. This is only your personal view. It is not compatible with Wikipedia’s policy regarding footnotes or verifiability. Wikipedia regards footnotes as an important part of achieving its objectives as a quality, credible encyclopedia. If you look at any of Wikipedia’s Feature articles you will see they all employ a large number of in-line citations. (Today’s Featured article is Terang Boelan – it has 38 in-line citations. Three days ago the Featured article was The Notorious B.I.G. – it has 111 in-line citations. There is no support among Wikipedia’s Featured articles for your personal view that in-line citations are just clutter!)
• As for the objectionable articles almost all are summaries of a single source and need no footnotes. This is only your personal view. There is nothing written anywhere on Wikipedia to support your idea that some articles need no footnotes. If a topic is so insubstantial that its content is unlikely to be challenged, it is a topic that lacks notability so it does not deserve its own article on Wikipedia. See WP:NOTABILITY.
• Everything in it is common knowledge to people who know about the fur trade. Wikipedia’s article titled Athabasca Country (which you started and gave to Wikipedia as a gift) is not intended solely for people who know about the fur trade. Like all articles on Wikipedia, it is intended for anyone and everyone who wishes to look at it, regardless of whether they know anything about the topic.
• Sources for each statement are in the linked articles. It is only your personal view that readers can go looking in linked articles to find information about the source documents. It is not compatible with Wikipedia’s policy regarding references or verifiability.

Wikipedia’s policy on verifiability is very simple and very clear. WP:Verifiability begins with the following summary in a box at the top of the page:

This page in a nutshell: Other people have to be able to check that you didn't just make things up. This means that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.

The Wikipedia community is entitled to determine policies regarding the accuracy and credibility of the final encyclopedia, and to determine standards to ensure a uniform appearance. Those policies and standards are now readily available to all Users in policy documents such as WP:Verifiability. When we contribute to Wikipedia there is an expectation that we will respect the policies and standards determined by the community. There is nothing written anywhere on Wikipedia that invites individual Users to invent their own style of writing, compose their own policies or apply their own personal views in contravention of the view of the Wikipedia community.

You are clearly a competent and prolific writer. We want you to produce articles that are of high quality and do not require a lot of repair work by others. Unfortunately, your personal views regarding in-line citations means your articles fall substantially short of Wikipedia’s quality standards because it is not immediately possible for your information to be independently verified as coming from a reliable published source. (See WP:RS) For many of your articles to reach an acceptable standard of quality in the area of verifiability it is necessary for other Users to add banners regarding finding and adding in-line citations, and ultimately for a large number of others to find suitable sources and add them as in-line citations. Why should you expect others to do this work for you? You are capable of doing it yourself.

The Wikipedia community’s policy regarding verifiability is not burdensome. It is entirely legitimate. Please respect that policy and apply it in your work on Wikipedia. Your personal views about footnotes and verifiability are not relevant here. Best wishes! Dolphin (t) 06:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I guess I disagree with Dolphin on their interpretation of policy and with Benjamin on their interpretation of common practice in Wikipedia. In this case, more footnotes would have been good and common practice in Wikipedia, but not required by policy. North8000 (talk) 11:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Reply: A statement without a footnote implicitly says "The author thinks that this information can be easily found in the listed sources or is a matter of common knowledge." A footnote only adds to verifiability if the information is hard to find in the source. If you read the sources for my articles and can find anything that does not seem to be in the source, or is contradicted by another source, please add a {*{citation needed}} and I will be happy to add a footnote or make the correction. Benjamin Trovato (talk) 23:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

IMHO You do an immense amount of excellent work in important enclyclopedic areas that are not well covered, and your work is within policy. Everything else (where I see things a bit differently than you) is small potatoes. Happy to discuss the small potatoes if you wish.  :-) North8000 (talk) 13:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

@Benjamin: Many editors have reviewed your articles and placed a banner at the top of articles, saying "its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. Please improve this article by introducing more precise citations." For example:

Pine Island Fort – 1 citation. “Nofootnotes” banner added by User:Deor 2012/06/01

Pedlar (fur trade) – No citations. “Sources” banner added by User:Stormbay 2012/06/13

Paint Creek House – No citations. “Nofootnotes” banner added by User:117Avenue :2012/05/31

Jan Prosper Witkiewicz – 2 citations. “Refimprove” banner added by User:AllyD 2012/10/27

Early knowledge of the Pacific Northwest – 1 citation. “Refimprove” banner added by :User:Altered Walter 2012/12/28

Fort Montagne à la Bosse – 2 citations. Brief article. “Orphan” banner added by :User:Indefatigable 2012/09/10

This is the official Wikipedia way of saying the whole article does not meet quality standards because more citations are needed. So rather than these editors placing a "citation needed" tag on one or two statements, they have flagged the fact that the entire article is in need of proper attribution to reliable published sources.

Wikipedia's policy on verifiability is available at WP:VERIFY. If you think this policy is inappropriate or in error, please discuss your desired changes at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. Don't simply dismiss Wikipedia's legitimate requests and replace them with your personal views. Please respect Wikipedia's requests and don't make work for others unnecessarily. Thank you. Dolphin (t) 22:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Reply: The people who posted these banners made no changes to the articles, did not mark as citation-needed any statement they could not find in the sources and left nothing on the talk page. I see no evidence that they looked at the references and were unable to verify any statement from the listed references. To justify a footnote or correction we need a specific case of something in the article that cannot be easily found in the references.Benjamin Trovato (talk) 05:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Benjamin, clearly you are a very intelligent and competent writer. I am puzzled as to why you continuously pretend you haven't read WP:Verifiability, or that you have invented a quality regime that is superior to the one developed by the Wikipedia community.

I have added "Citation needed" to some of the statements in the following articles, where they are most in need of in-line citations to establish the reliability of the content:

Yudoma River

Asp House

Lac Île-à-la-Crosse

South Branch House

Fort de la Rivière Tremblante

William Pullen

Dolphin (t) 10:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Here's the short version. Dolphin, you have been mis-representing policy. There's nothing in policy that says that what Benjamin is doing is wrong. Benjamin, you are misunderstanding the norms and norms for good editing practice of Wikipedia. The norm is to cite a large amount of the material that you write, much more than you have been. Besides being normal and good practice, it can lead to many problems (e.g. tagging and deletion of material once challenged, and even disappearance of the article if wp:notability of the topic is unclear and not established in sourcing) if you don't do that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

@North8000. At no time have I stated that Benjamin is doing anything wrong. If you believe I have stated Benjamin is doing something wrong please post the diff so that Benjamin and I can see what you are talking about. I repeat - at no time have I stated that Benjamin is doing anything wrong. Dolphin (t) 22:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

You have implied that his edits and arguments are in conflict with wp:ver. I can get into supporting detail on that but I don't see the point of doing so, and the general direction that you are advocating is good. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

@North8000: Firstly you claimed that I have stated Benjamin is doing something wrong. (That would be Ad hominem; something I scrupulously avoid.) I asked you to post a diff. You didn't post a diff but you radically changed your claim to I have implied ... Also, you radically change the focus of your claim from what Benjamin is doing is wrong to his edits and arguments ...

I have never made any statement about Benjamin. I have pointed out, correctly, that his articles are of low quality because they do not contain sufficient in-line citations to allow independent verification that the information comes from reliable published sources. Where Benjamin has offered an explanation or argument that is inconsistent with WP:Verifiability I have pointed out, correctly, that his explanation or argument is merely his personal view and is not an acceptable alternative to WP:Verifiability. You actually agree with everything I have written because you have written:

Benjamin, you are misunderstanding the norms for good editing practice of Wikipedia. The norm is to cite a large amount of the material that you write, much more than you have been.'

Dolphin (t) 23:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I could beat this to death and dissect your arguments (starting with your complete misfire on what Ad hominem means) but I have no desire to and feel no need to fight or win such battles) Your goal is good. Sincerely, 23:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Seeing we are in agreement on everything that is relevant to Benjamin's Talk page, let's agree to collaborate in showing Benjamin how to get his articles up to Good article status? I suggest we both focus on Benjamin's articles rather than on each other. All you have to do is to cease your theme about how I am incorrect in my interpretation of WP:Verifiability, and about how I am implying something that I should not be implying.

If you want to dissect my arguments, or beat something to death, I would welcome that but my Talk page is the place. Dolphin (t) 23:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

On your first paragraph, cool. On you second one, no need. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• In Okhotsk Coast, I inserted a couple of inline citations and reverted other templates since this activity is unconstructive. Please if you have doubts that the statements in the article are accurate discuss them at the talk page and make an effort finding sources first. I left the top tamplate which outlines the problem. Having said that, I do think that it would be beneficial to insert the page numbers from the book which is the main source of the article all over the page as inline citations, to help the reader to check these statements or find more details if necessary.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: What is your authority for saying that inserting "Citation needed" templates is unconstructive? Or is it just your personal view? Dolphin (t) 11:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

This is my personal view, based on the policies.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

"Based on the policies?" Are you willing to let us know which policies? Dolphin (t) 11:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I am afraid we are talking about Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. You wanted to make a point: that the article does not sufficiently comply with WP:V. Fine, you added a big nice template on top. Nobody complained. Then you apparently got frustrated with the fact that only two or three inline citations were added, and decided to randomly insert {{cn}} templates around the article. These templates make the article look extremely ugly, and did not add anything to it which was not there before. I assume if you were interested in getting online citations confirming statements which you really found doubtful, you had to look for citations yourself as WP:EP suggests. I have not seen any traces that you have done this. You knew that there was opposition t such behavior, as we witness in this discussion. Hence, it looks more like you wanted to illustrate the point, which WP:POINTY considers as unconstructive. On the other hand, I consider you proposal in this discussion to start working on these articles definitely constructive. Please do. I could help, depending on my availability. This is why we have Wikipedia as a collaborative project. But to start working on them you do not need {{cn}} in every second sentence.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Replied on Ymblanter's Talk page. Dolphin (t) 12:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Dolphin, I just saw your too-obvious-to-be-accidental mis-statement of my conversation at Ymblanter's talk page. Together with other things in the conversation above, this is starting to look like you want to conduct arguments more than you want to get cites added. North8000 (talk) 13:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Reply: As for WP:Verifiability I see nothing that requires inline citations when they are not needed. Oddly, it talks of inline citations rather than references and says nothing about the case in which something can be found by looking in the index of the reference. As for being called wrong, I have no objection to that. If two people disagree each thinks the other is wrong and until the matter is discussed each has a fifty-fifty chance of being right. As for persuading or educating me on Ymblanter's talk page, when two people disagree they are trying to help each other by correcting each others mistakes. If you seek to educate and not be educated you are missing half of the problem. Oddly, this is a religious issue. It is the old puritan-cavalier debate that was first recognized by Pericles in the Funeral Oration. Briefly, the puritan thinks that ethics is a matter of obeying rules and following orders while the cavalier thinks that one should know the problem and use good judgment. Dolphin appears to be a puritan who thinks that There Must Be Footnotes regardless of particular cases. I am taking the cavalier view that footnotes should be added only when they are necessary. We seem to be still at the original question: why should a footnote be added if the information can be easily found by looking in the reference? As for the multiple citation-neededs I checked Asp House and found everything in the reference with one minor exception. See the talk page of that article. I will probably check some of the others, but I have better things to do than check articles when there is no positive evidence that they need checking.Benjamin Trovato (talk) 06:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

@Benjamin. Thanks for giving us your views. We are all in agreement that Footnotes only need to be added when they are necessary. Where we differ is over the issue of what is necessary and what is not.

Here is an illustration of why in-line citations are extremely valuable in demonstrating that Wikipedia's information can be attributed to reliable published sources. Imagine you write an article and you identify one reference book. Someone else comes along and adds a couple of extra reference books. If I want to check the verifiability of one of the statements you inserted, which reference book do I turn to? Obviously I should turn to the one reference book you identified, but I don't know that. I see three or more books identified in the list of references and unless I do a substantial amount of research into the history of the article I am unable to see who wrote the statement that I want to verify, and what books that person inserted in the Reference list.

Here is another one. I want to verfiy the validity of a statement you added to an article. One by one I look at the books you inserted in the Reference list; I go to the Index but I find multiple page numbers associated with the topic. I could go through those pages one by one in the hope of eventually finding the one you had in mind when you wrote the statement. You wrote the beginnings of the article so it would be so much easier if you inserted the in-line citation at the time of writing. That is Wikipedia's preference, for obvious reasons. Dolphin (t) 06:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)