DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hello there, user. Consider that you were taking charge of contributing to the Saudi Arabian protests, if you read the recent news there would be two deaths: a protester and a government soldier. I have place the soldier name as part of the death list, but I can't really tell if that's the right place to put, unless if you really want the death table section to be under protester-ONLY death (meaning no pro-government troops were included). Either way, I will leave those for you to decide where you want to put the soldier's death. Thanks
Thanks for the note, i'll have a look. BTW, i would recommend that details relevant to an article go on the article's discussion page, and a note on my talk page to let me know is enough. Also, remember
WP:OWN. So even if i edit your edits, it doesn't make me the owner... If the KSA authorities ignore the 2000s in Morocco option, sooner or later there'll soon by an avalanche of new editors and i'll become a minority editor. Boud (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
This one is hard to use: the Ministry only says that the shooting occurred in a region where political protests take place, and specifically claims there is no link with the political protests. I think the others are now in the timeline. Boud (talk) 23:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, user. There are two events ongoing, but for the one in Awamiyah, do you think it should be under the Saudi protests or it just another outside event? If it should be included then I will include another death toll.
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Nice going with that article. Mohamed CJ(talk) 16:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Suliman al-Reshoudi
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Are you familiar with this case? [1] If I can find enough sources, I'm going to try to start an article on al-Hashimi in the next couple days. Thought you might be interested, given your previous work in this area. Cheers, and enjoy the week, -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP Human Rights in the Signpost
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Human Rights for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 17:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was agreed already on the talk page of that article that there are no sources to confirm a Battle of Damascus, it was the POV of one editor, Alhanuty. Also, the article was more of a content fork from the Rif Dimashq campaign article. All other editors agreed that the info from the article was better suited to Rif Dimashq campaign article (by a count of 3 to 1). And it was merged. Alhanuty went against consensus and reverted back without even talking. Alhanuty didn't even try to start a new discussion, he simply went against a majority consensus. And I'm once again pointing out that the article, which he created, is totally at this point his own POV because there are no sources to indicate a battle for Damascus or even a siege as he suggested. Also, more than half the content he put in the article is already in the other one. The current rebel offensive that Alhanuty has been pointing out to has not been happening in Damascus itself, but 30 kilometers to the east of the capital in Rif Dimashq province, which the Rif Dimashq campaign article already covers in detail. This includes the airport which itself is not in the capital itself, but 30 kilometers southeast from it, and is already covered in the other article. I have merged the new content that you added to the Rif Dimashq campaign article, thank you for those updates. EkoGraf (talk) 14:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I clarified those sentences you pointed out to at the Casualties article. Hope they are good now. :) EkoGraf (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, since it has become a hot topic I made a totally new proposal at Rif Dimashq campaign article. The main central article on all the fighting in Damascus capital and Rif Dimashq province will be
2011–2012 Damascus clashes. The sub-articles to that article will be Battle of Damascus/Operation Damascus Volcano, Darayya massacre, 1st Rif Dimashq offensive (military August-September; result - indecisive), 2nd Rif Dimashq offensive (rebel November-present; result - ongoing). So in essence I am proposing to split Rif Dimashq campaign up into a 1st offensive and 2nd offensive articles, the military one and rebel one. Since the issue of the scope of the article has been hotly debated. And some even proposed that the article cover all the way since November 2011, but 2011–2012 Damascus clashes already does this. So, can we agree on splitting the article into two offensives? Since we already agreed that there have in fact been two offensives. And the 2nd offensive article would of course also include the current sporadic clashes in the capital, although they are still minimal. EkoGraf (talk) 15:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
In reply to not seeing Alhanuty commenting anywhere on that talk page, he is user 24.0.208.70. In any case seems we have reached a wide agreement on what to do with all of the articles. EkoGraf (talk) 14:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Talkback
Hello, Boud. You have new messages at Talk:Free Syrian Army. Message added 22:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
DYK nomination of International Criminal Court investigation in Mali
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
DYK for International Criminal Court investigation in Mali
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
While all constructive 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.
Geneva II Middle East peace conference may have broken the syntax by modifying 3 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page
.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
title=Syria opposition to consult allies over US-Russia initiative | date=2013-05-13 | publisher=[[[Al Arabiya]]/[[Associated Press|AP]] | url=http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2013/
=| title=Al Arabiya Exclusive: SNC leader says Geneva II may end Syria war | date= | publisher=[[[Al Arabiya]] | url=http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2013/07/28/Al-Arabiya-
Glad that you found my work useful! Boud (talk) 15:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dolfinarium Harderwijk
Thank you for taking the time to look over the Dolfinarium Harderwijk article. Apparently I missed a whole lot of small mistakes and you managed to further clear up some other sentences as well. It is appreciated! I also wish to express my appreciation for the articles you create and contribute to yourself. You produce some really important and in-the-news content. Keep it up. Crispulop (talk) 22:57, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DYK nomination of Geneva II Middle East peace conference
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Crispulop (talk) 14:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Talkback
Hello, Boud. You have new messages at Crispulop's talk page. Message added 09:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy
describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy
describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy
describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi I’ve added a PROD template to an article you created some years ago. The Global Hunger Alliance seems to have vanished. Mccapra (talk) 15:46, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
YasminaDD (talk) 22:46, 2 June 2018 (UTC)Thanks Boud
YasminaDD (talk) 22:46, 2 June 2018 (UTC) Hi Boud.Thanks for your edit. I added a reference for the first "citation needed". However, for the second part, I am not sure how can I cite emails and meetings that took place years ago?[reply]
Other Wikipedians will have to judge the validity of your first reference - see
WP:NONENG
for suggestions.
For the second part, you would need to convince, for example, a journalist or someone active in a human rights organisation that this is an important issue, and provide the emails and reports or verbal memories of the meetings to that person to help convince him/her that this really happened. If that person then published a report (preferably online: newspaper article, human rights report) with the information in those sentences, then that would be one example of a
WP:RS
or not, although obviously there's a fuzzy middle ground.
This might sound unfair, since you feel that these facts are important and should be in the Wikipedia article and you're sure they're true. (I personally have no reason to believe that they're false, and they seem both credible and relevant to me.) But you have to think of the whole system of trying to check claims of facts and trace their sources, and see the point of view of Wikipedians and Wikipedia readers. There are millions of people around the world who contact ministers and bureaucrats and politicians and successfully convince them to implement administrative/legal changes. But who judges what were the "causal" factors that led to the change? Journalists, historians, human rights organisations have (some) credibility for judging what the facts are and how significant they are and who/what was most important in getting the change to happen. Wikipedia
does not substitute for them
. You can see longer (more careful :)) explanations of what I've more or less said here in the links above, especially:
- if you are the same Yasminah... (you don't have to say if you are, but you should read the guideline)
WP:BLP
- Yasminah Elsaadany is presumably still alive, and Wikipedia is especially sensitive to claims of facts about living people (though positive facts are less sensitive than negative ones).
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited
usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject
.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for helping out with the reviews at DYK. Just a heads-up: if you write a hook, you cannot review it, per
Rule H2. It seems the nominator did tweak this one enough to make it his own, but in future you could either suggest a new hook and then leave it to another editor to finish reviewing the nomination, or encourage the nominator to write his own alt hooks. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 22:42, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
H2 refers to "You're not allowed to approve your own hook...". Sure, that's obvious.
I guess what you're trying to say is that my variations on FallingGravity's hook and tweaking of his/her ALT3 hook are felt by you to be "my" hook. Given that ALT1 and ALT2 contained almost the same information as FallingGravity's original hook, and that FallingGravity wrote ALT3, and I only modified it a little, I don't really think it can be called "my" hook without modification of the guideline.
Just to clarify in this particular case: although I wouldn't use the description "my hook", I do see that it would have been useful to let a third-party reviewer judge whether or not to finish the review, e.g. using subst:DYK?again, especially since there's a BLP aspect here. Boud (talk) 08:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Help adding an article about prominent woman?
Hi there, I'm new to Wikipedia and don't really know how it works, but I created an article about a prominant and notable woman. I'm wondering how to get it to appear on Wikipedia. Can you help? It's over here:
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiger Squad until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article.--DBigXrayᗙ 20:20, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy
describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
On 5 December 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article ALQST, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that ALQST is a Saudi Arabian human rights organisation created by a former Royal Saudi Air Force officer? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/ALQST. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ALQST), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Hi. I've moved this article to draft because it is in a pretty poor state. It looks like you created it from existing content so it's nothing personal. However, it's obvious that the subject of the article has been editing it and it is basically promotional from start to finish. If you want to do anything about it, you know where to find it. Deb (talk) 12:50, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Deb. I've put an edit history analysis at Draft talk:Naresh Dadhich (political scientist)#Disambiguation from 2008. So yes, the "this-is-ND's-brilliant-self-cv" content was put copied there by me under the assumption that it was covered by CC-BY-SA, without condoning the (low) quality. As a matter of principle, do we have any policies about removing an article from mainspace to Draft - without any of the normal discussion procedures for move and delete proposals?
In terms of practicality, in this particular case, it's probably hard to complain and
WP:SNOWBALL applies. In 12 years of en.WP history, the ND-political-scientist article has not progressed at all. Four titles of what appear to be books and no other bibliometric information do not constitute a list of verifiable references for inline sourcing of factual claims in the article. The involvement of User:Nareshdadhich
, whose user page looks like a not-very-humble cv, doesn't suggest that the person most motivated to improve the quality of the article by asking for help from uninvolved parties has made any effort to read any Wikipedia guidelines. (Which makes me wonder about the author's would-be academic skills...)
So I'm not disputing the move, but I am curious about whether a policy exists. There could be similar cases that are not so clear-cut. Boud (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2019 (UTC) minor edit Boud (talk) 21:16, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so, but I've done it once or twice recently (I should add that I came across this one purely by accident - I wasn't tracking the article creator or anything.) It certainly meets the criteria for speedy deletion, but this seemed like a less drastic solution. I'm not sure where to go from here. Deb (talk) 21:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's an unreferenced BLP. That would have justified deletion. I agree that draftifying was nicer. I'm going to put a template on the ND-the-Wikipedian's talk page - as a retired political scientist and VC, he might be willing to invest the time to learn the elementary academic principles as practised at en.Wikipedia. Chances are he hasn't yet realised that this corner of "the Internet" is not just "click and it works", and that intellectual care and effort are expected and required. Boud (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Committee for the Abolition of Illegitimate Debt until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. Just Chilling (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for March 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited
usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject
.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Naresh Dadhich (political scientist) during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. MPS1992 (talk) 04:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned
disambiguation page which either
disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.
Under the
see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information
.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, 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. — Gorthian (talk) 03:30, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi
Why the name of the article is Sovereignty Council of Sudan and not Sovereignty Council? --Panam2014 (talk) 23:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Panam2014 - In this name change MayorCarter made the change from Sovereignty Council (2019) to Sovereignty Council of Sudan without respecting the fact that a debate was opened:
assuming good faith, that MayorCarter will learn from this mistake. In terms of Wikipedia principles, the move made by MayorCarter has no effect on the discussion, except for annoying people. If you like you can ask for admin help for temporary move protection - and explain that it would help for the present discussion to move the name back to the name when the move request started, to reduce confusion. Keep in mind that the better you explain yourself, with appropriate links, rather than forcing admins to have to look for all the info themselves, the more likely it is that an admin will respond to you quickly. Start from the top of Wikipedia:Protection_policy for more info about admins (how they're selected, who they are) and this particular role of admins. See Template:diff for a guideline on how to show individual edits like I did above. Boud (talk) 00:27, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Bluetooth mesh networking - Community usage
A note about using a peer-to-peer communication app in HK is interesting, but I'm afraid it's not about Bluetooth mesh protocol, as standardized by Bluetooth SIG. To my knowledge, none of the phones available on the market are capable of peer-to-peer Bluetooth mesh communication. They only can talk to mesh network if one of the nodes provide them with so-called proxy capability. So I assume that Bridgefy app uses some other form of mesh communication, most probably based on iBeacon protocol. iBeacon is based on Bluetooth Low Energy like Bluetooth mesh is, but they are different things.
Summarizing, I'd suggest to move your info to some other Bluetooth- or mesh- related pages.
MichalHobot (talk) 11:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MichalHobot: The sources used in the article do not, as far as I can see, make the surprising claim that "mesh networking" is a protocol. It might well be true that Bridgefy is not based on the Bluetooth Mesh network specifications but instead on iBeacon, which according to you depends on Bluetooth Low Energy. If so, please add your sources and cite the info from them at Bridgefy, and it would be best to use web.archive.org or wikiwix.com to include archiveurl's so that if the sources are volatile, the Wikipedia entries will still make sense in a few years' time. Nobody guarantees that s/he will maintain any given Wikipedia article...
It would be best to place more specific discussion on the talk pages of these articles - interested readers and editors are more likely to find the info in the obvious place in that case - thanks! :) Boud (talk) 01:16, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How do you fix the "|first= missing |last=" errors?
Quebec99 (talk) 17:24, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may have already started fixing that - see this edit. Instead of first and last, use author. My interpretation is that these authors are initials, but there would be no point trying to separate out the initials into "last" and "first" names. It would be speculation. In principle, looking at the newspaper's list of journalists should make it possible to work out who is who, but that would be quite a bit of work. Boud (talk) 17:40, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I made a few of these changes just now, but I'm happy to leave it to you to do more on this series of pages. Since Press TV often lists two authors with a slash - AB/CD, meaning e.g. Andrew Bloggs and Carol Dean - we could in principle split to |author1=AB |author2=CD. Since the author information in this case is already weak, I would say that keeping a single author is just as useful as the split. Boud (talk) 17:48, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!
Hello,
Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.
I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to [email protected], so we can invite you in!
From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.
Thanks for catching those that my editor adds for me (seemingly randomly). I don't always notice when it happens. Apologies! 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 19:07, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. :) Boud (talk) 19:24, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ITN recognition for
2019 Iraqi protests
On 3 December 2019,
2019 Iraqi protests, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:16, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
The Ohconfucious date scripts
These tools help to align the date format in the articles. To let editors know the last time the tool was used, it changes the template date to the current year and month. Dawnseeker2000 17:28, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I re-read the info at the top of Template:Use_dmy_dates - I think you (and the bot) are right about the intended meaning of the date tag in the use dmy dates case. Boud (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
2018–19 Iraqi protests → 2018 Iraqi protests
Only you and me have expressed opinions. Do u know anyone who could finally close that move request and do the rename? 83.11.94.170 (talk) 16:47, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Anybody with an account can move the page. (I've gone ahead and done it.) Could you look back over the article and restructure it so it doesn't still have 2018 protests / 2019 protests as its main division? I hacked away everything post-summer 2019, but decided to leave the actual sectioning of the remaining gno-ledge to the experts. :) 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 23:28, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have read that involved editors should not close requests. I have no idea about the two sections division. Certainly there should remain some reference into 2019. Hacking away only post-summer 2019? Well since the rename everything post 2018 should go out. So I did some of it also. Thanks. 83.11.94.170 (talk) 03:41, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Everything should go out except a general reference of 2019. Well what is now does not look bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.11.94.170 (talk) 03:44, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reference TO 2019. Sorry. English is not my native. 83.11.214.121 (talk) 18:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, books may be
deleted for several reasons
.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated book prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the book's talk page.
Boud, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:30, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On 14 January 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Joseph Muscat, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Protests of 2019
You've done something unconstructive on the article "Protests of 2019" and we're stopping you, but we don't want to bite you. If you wish to add a poltiical viewpoint that you feel may have been overlooked then please expand the text.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be
deleted for any of several reasons
.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
I started an RfC concerning pointing to the template namespace in the COVID 19 navbox. You voiced an opinion about this voiced about a week ago, so please feel free to restate your opinion at
Template talk:COVID-19#RfC on linking to template namespace. Bait30 Talk? 05:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Helping me with updating a file.
Hey,
You have previously said that there's a button "Upload a new version of this file" on the Commons:File:COVID-19 Outbreak Cases in Poland.svg but I dont see any button like that, and there's also is a text saying "You cannot overwrite this file." So, how I can upload an updated, a newer version of that .svg picture? Thx, for help. Natanieluz (talk) 13:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Natnieluz: If you have Polish set in your preferences: go to the bottom of the section "Historia pliku". Just above the next section "Wykorzystanie pliku" you should see "Załaduj nowszą wersję tego pliku". In English do the equivalent. :) In many browsers (e.g. firefox), you can use Ctrl-f to search for a string (sequence of characters) within the page. Do you see "You cannot overwrite this file." at the position in the page that I'm talking about? Boud (talk) 17:00, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I found the explanation: Commons:Commons:FAQ#How_can_I_upload_a_new_version_of_a_file.3F + Commons:User_talk:Natanieluz - you only created an account at Commons at 16:43, 6 March 2020 UTC = 17:43 CET, so you'll have to wait two more days, until 17:43 CET 10 March, before being able to upload new versions. I don't think that for you to switch to new file names for each update until then would be reasonable. The idea of forcing people to wait until they've had a chance to learn is reasonable, and four days is not extremely long. For reading through the various guideline pages, four days is in fact rather short. Building an encyclopedia is a long-term project. At your talk page on Commons you have a welcome message pointing to lots of th e key guidelines. If you switch your preferences language to Polish, then this welcome message will very likely to switch to Polish. Boud (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, from this I figure you know something about tables. On
Template_talk:COVID-19_testing#Autocollapsing. Can you help? Sun Creator(talk) 16:13, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Ref source in templates
Hey,
you often write: the ref source is/should be in one of the templates, can You tell me where (in which template this is), how You made that source and how to use it? Natanieluz (talk) 21:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
hi Natanieluz. The templates are
Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/Poland medical cases by voivodeship (which you edit quite often). The idea is that the full source for a reference should only be in one of these; references in the other or in the main article should be repeat references. I've noticed that recently you've started using repeat references :), which to me makes sense. However, you're using ref names such as ":0", which apparently is the only option allowed by Visual Editor. I edit the wikicode directly using a text editor. This allows me to use the keyboard and keyboard shortcuts, almost without using the mouse, which makes editing fast and efficient. I use the firefox browser and the emacs
text editor. Emacs has many powerful tools to make systematic editing efficient. To use these two together, in my ~/.emacs file I have
and in ~/.emacs.d/lisp/ I have the edit-server.el code that does the work. Here's a longer explanation. When I start an "edit" on Wikipedia, I see a little "edit" button at the bottom-right of my editing window; if I click on this, I get a standard emacs editing window, which has the full power of emacs, rather than just the firefox editing tools. I don't know if VE (Visual Editor) shows you the reference names; if you try edit code to at least look at the source, you'll see ref names such as MOHPL_LD8_DS5_OP1_SL1_ZP1_PD1_17Mar. The idea is that when you're looking at the full reference, you cross-check the name against the actual source of the reference; and when you're editing numbers in a table, you can add up the numbers from the name, e.g. if the references for one day include DS5 DS2 DS1, then you expect to get DS=8.
With other powerful text editors (where you can do everything from the keyboard without wasting time with a mouse), e.g. vi, (and there are many, many text editor programs available that are less powerful than emacs and vi), you'll have to find other ways of connecting them to your browser.
For making the structured references, you're welcome to cut and paste from notes on my user page (they're obviously CC-BY-SA, since they're on Wikipedia), or make similar notes on your own page.
Hope this answers your question. :) (BTW, in English you don't capitalise the "y" in you, except at the beginning of a sentence. :)) Boud (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Boud: ohh ok, thanks - and sorry for late answer but I have pretty bussy days right now. Yea and I know that "you" is writted with "y" not "Y", but I like starting you with "Y" couse of (for me) that make more pleasant and welcoming :). So there is a more "easy" way to make that sources like you? or is this 100% needed to be done with every source? Natanieluz (talk) 18:58, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Each of us contributes what s/he can: we're all volunteers, including you. I think that this method (with names such as MOHPL_LD8_DS5_OP1_SL1_ZP1_PD1_17Mar) is good and will tend to reduce errors, but you've seen that I made a few errors recently, even with this method. I've seen that a few other editors have been following the method with the information in the ref name. But as long as you don't mind me or others updating your references with the longer named ones, you shouldn't feel bad about adding references with the ":0" label from VisualEditor. This is already better than copy/pasting the same reference in full detail many times. :) Boud (talk) 21:44, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Boud: okey, if I am not wrong, I can "manualy" (in VisualEditor or in source editor) edit that ":0" to source name, like you done here [2], in short - when I publish changes in VE and then we have ":0" I can manualy overwrite which source name e.g."MOHPL_WP4_DS3_PD2_PK1_MA1_LU1_KP1_452tot_21Mar", if that will work - I will do that Natanieluz (talk) 14:24, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also see this edit to the medical cases template. If you look carefully at the two templates, you'll see <noinclude>...</noinclude> sections in each, at the top, and at the bottom. This means that when the template is included in another page, the noinclude parts are ignored. Each of these two templates calls the other one in its own noinclude section. If you look at a template on its own, you see the noinclude parts. This way, a reference in one can be used in the other, and looks OK without having to go to the main article. But also, the main article does not end up with multiple copies of the same reference. If you want, you can experiment in your user space, e.g. create User:Natanieluz/sandbox/test, User:Natanieluz/sandbox/medtemplate, User:Natanieluz/sandbox/voivodetemplate, and put {{User:Natanieluz/sandbox/voivode}} in a noinclude section in /sandbox/medtemplate, and do it the other way around too, and put in some simple references. Put in a bit of text, enough to avoid getting confused which article is where. Boud (talk) 21:35, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Natanieluz: In terms of the logic of referencing and cross-referencing, I didn't see any mistakes. :) I looked at your edits without separating them from those of other people - there were one or two others who made minor changes not long after you did - but I assume the changes were mostly from your edits. I made one change (to the three pages) in the name label: there was DS twice, instead of MA4 the second time. The numbers in the tables were correct (it seems to me); it's only the label itself that was wrong, and it was wrong in a consistent way, so it was only a problem for humans, not for robots. Someone coming along later (one of us or someone else) might have got confused later on. I made that sort of mistake in name labels at least once or twice. Also, I replaced http by https - for some people this is quite important for personal privacy - see especially Edward Snowden to understand why most of the world shifted from http to https a few years ago - and I changed archive.vn to archive.today - see this discussion. Boud (talk) 20:10, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect
Template:Cablegate. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Cablegate redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Guy (help!) 18:50, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Nomination for deletion of Template:WikiLeaks cable
Are you proposing to delete the template itself in the same proposal as the redirects? That's rather confusing - deleting a redirect to a template is less serious than deleting a template itself. However, I'll assume that that's what you mean. Boud (talk) 19:20, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Boud, no, just the redirects. Guy (help!) 21:40, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect
Template:Wikileaks cable. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Wikileaks cable redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Guy (help!) 18:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Disambiguation link notification for March 22
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited
, I believe you are responsible for producing this insightful gnuplot graph of "SARS-CoV-2 spread in Poland and its neighbours".
The graph can be still improved:
a) Please always use the red color for the most important country, in this case: Poland
b) Please arrange the countries on the graph's legend roughly in the same order as the are placed in the figure, namely, from top to bottom: DE, CZ, PL etc so that the eye need not search the entire graph to localize the next country in the graph
c) remove labels from the "y" axis for the multiplicities of 2 (2, 20, 200, etc.)
d) on the y axis, introduce minor tics (in gnuplot: "set mytics 10"). Their length is typically half the length of ordinary tics
e) it should be possible to draw the "30% slope% curve as a dashed line. Ths would easily indicate that this curve is different in nature and does not represent any country. Also, please do remove the symbols from its ends!!! You can also reduce the line thickness for it.
Anyway, great job, this is my favorite figure for many days!
@Boud: Hey, can you look at [3], I'am not sure if everything is correct, there were too many info from MOHPL today, they are even correcting there own tweets. Natanieluz (talk) 21:27, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Edit war
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Ythlev (talk) 18:12, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination for deletion of Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/Singapore medical cases
You did a good job summarizing all arguments and closing the RfC on discrimination in the coronavirus pandemic article. I'm impressed! -Darouet (talk) 22:46, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@
Talk:2020 coronavirus pandemic in Poland/Archive 2#Too much politics my editing on that page is mostly described as propaganda (without targetting me personally). I disagree, but I listen to criticism. :) Boud (talk) 01:18, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
The decentralised Fediverse servers.
@Boud: Hey, you often write about this Fediverse or/and Mastodon, e.g. here [4] can you provide me any examples of other gov having a server there? I'm quite interested in this, and sources/examples will be very helpful :), Natanieluz (talk) 10:48, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Natanieluz: OK, I'll keep an eye out for that. My comment was mainly that any government department could do that. For the moment, what I know of includes:
https://mastodon.etalab.gouv.fr/about - the description at the right ("Instance ouverte...") says that the server is a test server, that creating an account is open to all employees of the French state, provided they have an account on .gouv.fr (general French state domain) or on one of other certain other domains listed on the link, which includes many research organisations, some universities, the Parliament, the Senate; any new user must first read the terms and conditions (CGU); 1600 users are registered, 118 are "active" (which seems to be defined as "did something in the previous month").
@Boud: ohh, Poland is behind Russia and Turkey... And unfortunately things in Poland is getting worse and worse, even yesterday (13 april) I saw a public attack by Polish government controlled media (TVP) "Telewizja Polska" they attack private oppositional tv media (TVN) (TVN is owned by Discovery group), they are even attacking journalists's family :/
And the saddest thing is that even if they sue that gov propaganda - most of our courts and judges are politicized, here you have [5] a example what "our" judges from political attached do. (This "judge" is a member of totaly politicized National Council of the Judiciary (pl. KRS) most (if not all...) of judges who are sitting there are political members, there are not neutral, there are not independent.Natanieluz (talk) 09:45, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Barnstar for current events article
The Current Events Barnstar
this barnstar is hereby awarded for all your edits at Protests of 2019. well done!! we very much need that article here. thanks for your efforts!Sm8900 (talk) 03:42, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please accept this barnstar, with my compliments. By the way, I am the Lead Coordinator at
WP:Contemporary History task force. --Sm8900 (talk) 03:42, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
@Sm8900: Thanks for the compliments :). But I'm wondering if the delete procedure can be appealed since the person who contributed probably about 70% of the content last time I checked - me - was not alerted to the AfD proposal. I had no idea that there was a new AfD going on. Right now I'm rather busy, and the edit record should not disappear from the WMF archives. It would probably be easiest to restore the article once there are some peer-reviewed academic articles on the topic rather than hurrying to re-create it. The difficulty is that academics studying the topic are more likely to be studying what's happening sociologically in relation to the pandemic... Boud (talk) 23:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
no problem. I'm very glad that you said that. not only can it be appealed.... it is being appealed. click this link to view it! so hopefully, perhaps we can get this article to be retained!!!
hi., what is the latest status, on the edit process or article improvement process for Protests of 2019? I have saved the latest version in my user space, at User:Sm8900/Drafts/Protests of 2019. you are welcome to work on it there, or alternately to create your own copy. could you please let me know what the current status is? I appreciate all your efforts. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 19:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite follow. The article, including its full edit history and copyright of all the authors, is temporarily undeleted at Protests of 2019. In terms of copyright, I am forbidden from working on any version that includes contributions by other authors without the proper copyright tracing, since the copyright conditions of their contributions - CC-BY-SA by default unless they declare something like PD on their user pages - require full attribution. There's a procedure we can look up for requesting a copy of the full article including the edit history in user space, but I'm not going to look it up right now.
But back to your question: I technically cannot edit or improve the article right now (unless I write a script to download the full edit history and reconstruct that on another mediawiki server, which I'm not going to do; or if one of us requests restoral of a full copy with full attribution in our user space). The temporary undeletion makes it a little easier to respond at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2020_June_15#Protests_of_2019. I'll discuss there. In principle you should put a warning on the snapshot that you have made about attribution and the context. Boud (talk) 22:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sm8900: - see Wikipedia:Userfication#Userfication_of_deleted_content and Category:Wikipedia_administrators_willing_to_provide_copies_of_deleted_articles for policy and admins willing to provide you with a userfied copy of the article. You should also ask the same admin to delete - on your request - the page User:Sm8900/Drafts/Protests of 2019 - on the grounds that you created this with the best of intentions, but without realising the problems of missing attribution. I don't think just a warning placed there is really enough. I would also suggest that you place your opinion in the DRV as either endorse or overturn or relist, in the style that others have done, with a very brief summary of your reasons, and briefly state that longer comments by you are above. That would make it easier for uninvolved people to more easily get an overview of the discussion. Boud (talk) 00:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ok. thanks for your important points on that. --Sm8900 (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Akmaie Ajam: Selamat malam (di sini sekarang malam)! :) See wikt:protestor. Both are correct. The general policy with a question of style like this (such as US vs AU/UK English) is to prefer consistency within any single article. Consistency between different articles is not generally expected. Once an article is one style, it's generally not a good idea to change unless there's a special reason to, or if all editors agree. The Sudanese Revolution article (that started off as a "protests" article), has had "protestors" for a long time. The Belarusian 2020 protests articles had had "protesters" more or less since it started (I think). Keduanya artikul baik. Boud (talk) 21:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
I'd come across Eman al-Nafjan when looking for sources for Riyadh International Book Fair, whose red links (and long DYK nom on the talk page) you might find interesting. HLHJ (talk) 02:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for September 4
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited
2019 Libyan local elections, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Derna
Thank you for creating this article, but the subject's correct first name is Phakiso. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 20:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks! Done That was my error with an unfamiliar name. If you know how to say "Phakiso", preferably with a reference, then please add the info at Talk:Phakiso_Mochochoko#Pronunciation_of_Phakiso, or directly in the article after checking the expected Wikipedia conventions. Boud (talk) 01:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for October 12
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Przemysław Czarnek, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Deviance.
@Bookku: I only know of the one paragraph at Peace process#Women's participation (the reference is in the references section). There's an image next to the section that you may find useful. Boud (talk) 00:01, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bookku: PS: An article you may be interested in is Feminism in Saudi Arabia - women are organising and defending their humanity even in the most extreme misogynistic environments (as well as in more "moderately" misogynistic places). Boud (talk) 00:24, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On 28 October 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2020 Polish protests, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:48, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
October 2020 Polish protests, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 02:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
You are attempting a one-person edit war against overwhelming consensus. So let's look at the evidence and get more and more uninvolved parties to look at the case. Boud (talk) 02:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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.
This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.
Closing as it has been posted. Several admins monitor ITNC, so it isn't necessary to make a help request. 331dot (talk) 15:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All-Poland women strike
Dear Boud,
I'm concerned about the impartiality of editing when it comes to "All-polish women strike" article.
It is strange you address warnings to me, and not to the user Trasz and other anonymous who constantly remove sourced information?
Are the statements I added false?
About relevancy: What is relevant? Statement about Suchanow can be treated as a minor detail.
But I do not remove it. The acts of symbolical violence by many organizers and protesters, devastations of monuments etc. are important hallmarks of the protest. The lack of clear condemnation of the violence by organizers is also important. I cited Marta Lempart herself and added original source.
So do not aim your threats to me, rather help to write an unbiased article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Semper liber sum (talk • contribs) 18:45, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited University of La Verne, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Franchise.
Hello Boud, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021. Happy editing,
I have just discovered, through your user page, that you were the author of the famous paper applying Benford's law on the results of the 2009 Iranian election. I had read about it ten years ago. This is fascinating. Have you written on the subject ever since? Kahlores (talk) 04:01, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kahlores: Glad you liked it. :) My main subject is cosmology, so the short answer regarding Benford's law is "almost nothing", apart from getting the paper peer-reviewed. I did write a chapter in this non-free Princeton book coordinated by Steven J. Miller (not the Trump guy), and a few weeks ago I did a quick calculation which Reuters included in its fact check on the "Elvis lives!" rumours about the US presidential election.
What you might find interesting, since you appreciated the 2009 paper (peer-reviewed in JApS), is my SARS-CoV-2 paper, currently waiting for the peer review report(s). It's again a "statistical signs of likely fraud" paper, using a completely different method, but again based on "what's obvious to an astronomer". Here's a brief popular explanation. Poland turned up as one of the "minor heroes" of the paper. Algeria and Belarus are the "champions" in defeating Poisson noise. The paper aims to be one of the new generation of quantitative science papers aiming at high-quality, long-term reproducibility: any quantitative scientist with reasonable scientific computing skills should be able to check the complete chain from the source data to the pdf form of the paper. Boud (talk) 11:48, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Grammatical error suggestion
Thanks for your suggestion at grammar mistakes that I edit. Regardless of grammar question, I'm not competing with Julietdeltalima, I'm constructing edit that tells Wikipedia's openness. See this edit by Iryna Chuiko, he have no idea what he is doing when editing the page which means "changed Kiev into Kyiv 9 times". Despite the title of the show is notably called Kiev Day and Night, not Kyiv, according to sources or even in Ukrainian language, this editor invert the proper title without competent reason. You should see their edit to the subject, not grammar alone. 196.188.241.215 (talk) 06:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you weren't discouraged. :) I didn't want to get into the specific editing conflicts - you can always ask uninvolved editors to help if a conflict is difficult to resolve. I'll just comment that the Ukrainian language is normally written in cyrillic script, and since the Russian language is widely used in Ukraine (I don't know the political implications of the choice of language there), there's the problem of transliteration from either Ukrainian or Russian into the latin alphabet - which often leads to long disputes about the "correct" transliteration. See Talk:Maria Kalesnikava for a recent long title debate about a Belarusian trying to restore democracy in Belarus. (By the way, comments on talk pages are normally added at the bottom.) Boud (talk) 13:40, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting article expansion help
Greetings
Requesting you to visit article Draft:Sexual politics and please do expand them if find yourself interested.
I restored your edits on the population of Eritrea. Since you did not engage in the discussion and preceded with doing changes without reaching consensus.
Also you did several changes to include accusations of crimes supposedly committed in Tigray conflict by Eritrea. These are claims and not verified are not appropriate in that article.Leechjoel9 (talk) 18:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A notice about discretionary sanctions for the Horn of Africa
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
Hey, just a reminder that when you reply to :*, the options are :** or :*:. ::* is
always wrong. (Lots of editors don't know it, and it's not the end of the world, but it is better to get it right when you can.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:35, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
@WhatamIdoing: It's not the end of the world, which is still another 4.5 Gyr or so away, but it's a bit embarrassing. :P Thanks for the correction here and at AN/I! :) Boud (talk) 22:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2020 Oromo schoolyard massacre to War crimes in the Tigray War claiming genocide as whole under Tigray war crime causes controversy. it supposed to be under Ethiopia page not Tigray war crime page. to keep matter apart not associated each other. however you insisted to be appears in the page. Therefore I added the link of related massacres to signify matter related to all. Please be careful as you are editing very sensitive issuesMfactDr (talk) 00:13, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
@MfactDr: I'll switch over to the talk page for the article in a moment... Boud (talk) 00:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Women in Red
Hi there, Boud, and welcome to Women in Red. I'm really glad to see that we can benefit from your wide experience of editing, now that you intend to spend more time on creating biographies of women. In this connection, if you have not already done so, you might find it useful to look through our Primer for creating women's biographies. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 13:07, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
March 2021 at Women in Red
Women in Red| March 2021, Volume 7, Issue 3, Numbers 184, 186, 188, 192, 193
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
WP:NOTCENSOR. Boud (talk) 16:47, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
For the record no consensus has been reached and the material you want to add to EDF has major issues. Additionally the EDF article is currently biased against EDF. The material you want to add only adds to the bias therefore making the page POV of "EDF is bad". Criticism of an organisation is ok but to point of just being smears especially by active participants of the conflict ie Amnesty and HRW being in collusion with TPLF, makes there reports unreliable. Both Eritrean and Ethiopian governments have rejected. Also Amnesty and HRW have not specifically called out TPLF for their war crimes.Facttell (talk) 18:09, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is closed. Finding the factual errors (extraordinary claims without evidence) and the logical flaws in the 18:09 16 March 2021 comment is left as an exercise for the reader.Boud (talk) 19:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Facttell Closing Response: Click the Show function to see the full discussion. On my part, this discussion is moved to the Eritrean Defence Forces Talkpage. The issue is unresolved and adding Amnesty International and HRW reports as sources and adding the Tigray War section is controversial.Facttell (talk) 01:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
::Continuing to add something that is tangential if at all even verified is clear vandalism. Please stop adding that, there is already a Tigray War page. EDF page is about EDF and not unverified and unconfirmed independent of the sources you are using. Those edits do not belong and will be deleted for vandalism.Facttell (talk) 16:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
War crimes by a military force are not "tangential" to the topic of that military force. Currently, the EDF is in major international news headlines for its war crimes. Boud (talk) 16:55, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unverified and unconfirmed allegations and accusations do not belong on the EDF page. The Tigray War page has whatever allegations you want to put are there. Duplicating that on the EDF page is just spreading disinformation. The EDF page should be about the EDF ie training battalion, etc and not allegations especially weasel worded reports from amnesty and HRW which have major criticisms even from Democratic countries. So that does not belong in the EDF page.Facttell (talk) 17:01, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly have not read
WP:VERIFIABILITY. Click on the link and read it. Thanks! Boud (talk) 17:09, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Ok I’ve verified that Amnesty and HRW have both been criticised by governments and their sources are not always credible and in this particular instance the 41 refugees of Tigrayan origin are themselves suspected of being Samri group members who committed massacres in Mai Kadra. Also whatever allegations against EDF are in the Aksum massacre does not belong on the EDF page. The amnesty report is highly disputed by Eritrea and Ethiopia government and people and the victims of Mai Kadra. So trying to add highly controversial disputed material as if a fact is unacceptable and vandalism.Facttell (talk) 17:16, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I've verified that Amnesty and HRW have both been criticised by governments Since Amnesty's and HRW's main purpose is to criticise human rights violation by governments, it's rather unsurprising that they are criticised by governments. That does not stop them from being
WP:NPOV: "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased." ... "Remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage." (emphasis added)What you claim is misleading can be addressed by rewriting the passage. Your belief that the information "misinforms or misleads" only justifies rewriting that part of the text, not removing it. Boud (talk) 22:17, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
The EDF is clearly missing much data about the EDF which is the subject of the article. The Tigray War has a page already and duplicating that in th EDF is misleading and going beyond the scope of the article. Further any allegations against the EDF that are disputed already in the Tigray War and the War crimes cannot be added as an accepted fact. Just because Amnesty and HRW accuse and write a report does not make that report reliable. And reliablity can be disputed. Any mention of Tigray War in EDF when both EDF and Eritrea and Ethiopian governments have denied the presence is putting unconfirmed and unverified allegations hence vandalism.Facttell (talk) 22:33, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:NPOV in my comment of 22:17 15 March 2021. Please read these fundamental Wikipedia policies.Boud (talk) 23:39, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
I did and Amnesty and HRW neutrality in the conflict is highly questionable therefore presenting and what they report is not verified but just the words of potential war criminals hiding in refugee camps. Link provided in Talkpage of Tigray war.Facttell (talk) 01:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Amnesty and HRW are generally accepted as reliable sources of human rights information (not 100% neutral, but being criticised by nearly every sort of government in the world over half a century suggests that the overall bias is not very strong or consistent). The fact that you personally hypothesise that the witnesses and survivors are lying and are in fact war criminals is not sufficient to remove the sources. Instead, we can add the sources the claim that Amnesty and HRW are wrong if they're sufficiently notable and if they're sourced. (Additionally, I recommend that you fully read the Amnesty and HRW reports; if you think they're wrong, you could at least read them properly to see what they claim. You'll see multiple methods of cross-checks done, for example, that some of the interviewees were phoning from Aksum (landlines show area codes), that satellite photos cross-checks with stories of graves dug.) Boud (talk) 03:25, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not one refuting Amnesty or HRW both governments are and additionally AI and HRW have only double down unwilling to review their sources nor obtain information from both governments. If they were really neutral and unbiased they would at minimum interview victims within Ethiopia. I don't they have been denied access to Ethiopia. Also their is already investigations being done by Ethiopian Human Rights organization which is independent from the political party in power in Ethiopia. AI and HRW should've consulted and collaborated as they do with Western governments however their unwillingness to do so and repeating exactly as TPLF propaganda makes them a party to the conflict and not a neutral source. Also the Tigray war does not belong on the EDF page,the subject is about the EDF and not what they are accused of! I think the Tigray war already covers any allegations. The two subjects are different topics and are covered in separate pages. Already EDF is linked into the Tigray but repeating Tigray war data here is clouding the page. If you continue the EDF page will essentially be just accusations from Tigray war page. This page needs work but not more clutter!Facttell (talk) 03:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, you should read the reports. The whole point of
using sources in Wikipedia is that we're supposed to read and understand the sources that we use. Amnesty 25 Feb 2021: page 5, footnote 2: Amnesty International is still trying to secure access to Tigray Regional State to conduct fact-finding on the ground, following a formal request made on 3 December 2020. Other international human rights investigators do not have formal access to Tigray either.; same page, On 18 February, Amnesty International shared the research findings presented in this briefing with Ambassador Redwan Hussein, Ethiopia's State Minister for Foreign Affairs and Spokesperson for the Emergency Taskforce in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, but had not received a response at the time of writing.; Human Rights Watch 5 March 2021: Human Rights Watch provided its findings to Ethiopian and Eritrean government officials on February 18 but received no response.; While the lack of access to conflict areas has hindered reporting on the conflict, ... It's not very convincing to say that AI has just repeated TPLF propaganda; AI has been accused of serving in the federal Ethiopian government's interest in its report on the Mai Kadra massacre - the Amnesty and EHRC reports (published so far) on the Mai Kadra massacre give very similar overviews of what happened. EHRC does have formal (legal) independence from the federal government, but (see the article), its resources (salaries, overall funding, other resources) are weak, and we don't have independent sources stating how independent the EHRC really is in practice from the federal government. The existence of the EHRC is certainly a good institutional part of federal Ethiopian structures: if it gains in respect as being independent and effective as a neutral human rights body, then it might gain in funding and other resources and contribute more in a complex human rights context. But EHRC has not yet published its report on the Aksum massacre, and it will very likely be criticised from at least some sides, and maybe by all sides, if it does its job properly. Boud (talk) 04:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Let's continue the discussion on the talkpage of EDF, I have many issues with EDF page. I am comparing the page to other DF military pages. The way the page is written and missing data or we confirm the data is in other articles. Adding everything from other articles will just make the page unreadable and confusing for other people to follow.Facttell (talk) 22:48, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Tigray war data should not be repeated in the EDF article. The EDF page so far is biased against the EDF. You want to add more allegations against EDF, how does that even bring this page to NPOV?Facttell (talk) 04:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV does not mean that we balance good and bad information about a topic; we make the NPOV balance reflect what the best sources say. For example, in the article on Figure of the Earth, there are no direct links to Modern flat Earth beliefs; you have to first click on flat Earth for the overall historical development of flat Earth ideas, and go from there to the conspiracy theories. I'm not proposing to exclude official Eritrean government information from the EDF page, but under NPOV, there is no basis for excluding information from Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch and the Universal Periodic Review from the EDF page. Anyway, I agree to close this particular discussion on my talk page. Boud (talk) 11:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion section is now closed.Boud (talk) 11:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the
On 24 August 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Rukhshana Media, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Rukhshana Media is named after a young woman called Rukhshana who was stoned to death in Afghanistan in 2015? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Rukhshana Media. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Rukhshana Media), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
--Rosiestep (talk) 01:34, 29 September 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]
Eritrea
Probably not enough for an SPI, given the time passed, but does this diff from 2016 sound familiar to you? BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 15:22, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BubbaJoe123456: Interesting. There are quite a few similarities in specific and general style and in topic, though my feeling is that there are also a few characteristic differences. This is just intuitive - I haven't tried using any proper statistical tools. Ponyo picked up some SPs last time around when I failed to be sufficiently sceptical. Boud (talk) 19:46, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:3RR warning if the user continues rapidly removing well-sourced material and/or using hate speech in edit summaries. Boud (talk) 09:30, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
THis Rastawarke guy keeps putting fake oromo news on the menelik page about aanollee without citing any reputable sources. Can you warn or ban them as they are spreading hate. I've provided my sources and yet he keep reverting it back [1][2]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mooproop1 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:TALK about editing talk pages. You should not delete material on someone else's talk page as you did here on this talk page, and you should sign your comment with four tildes: ~~~~. Focus on the content of the editing and the quality and content of the sources, rather than attacking other editors. The location for discussion should most reasonably be Talk:Menelik II#Aanolee massacre. Thanks. Boud (talk) 01:30, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
October 2021 Sudanese coup d'état, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Indefensible (talk) 16:08, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Disambiguation link notification for October 29
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited
October 2021 Sudanese coup d'état, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ABC
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020 May Kado massacre (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article.
Hi there, I am writing you to ask whether you could help me with the review of the page European Partnership for Democracy, on which I've been working on so that it fits with the community standards. I would be grateful if your expertise could help me enhancing it again, if it needs to, or if you could validate the publication. Thank you in advance for your consideration.
Coffeebreak12 16:18, 23 November 2021 (CET)
23
Follow up on your comments
Hi Boud, thank you very much for having taken the time to answer me in the talk page of European Partnership for Democracy. I truly agree with your comments -- I've been trying to include the more external sources as possible, but unlike NED/IRI/NDI/USAID that you mentioned, the EPD is a network of NGOs relying on funding from various donors, mainly from the EU (The Secretariat support the actions of its members towards the EU institutions, both in terms of advocacy and fundraising). The only researchers that spoke about EPD are already included in the draft article. Find below some additonal sources that could help editing the article. At the EU level, EPD works in coalition with other European NGOs to work on democracy related issues of the EU - for example, recently by recommending actions on the EU Rule of Law report[1], or co-organise events with various stakeholders such as policymakers and civil society[2]. Actions on the ground are mainly about civil society support (capacity building, helping advocacy coalitions etc) and depends on the funding opportunities (EPD answers to call for proposals to this extent) and cooperation between local CSOs and governmental authorities (for example, on issues related to media development in Kyrgyzstan[3] through the project Media Dialogue. On the other hand, the approach to policy dialogue promoted by EPD (through advocacy and project) is inclusive and participatory (see a recently published paper[4] on the topic that seeks to frame policy dialogue methodogolies in international cooperation). To further answer specifically on your questions, EPD's view on digital democracy is to have democratic principles in the digital sphere, including in the rules that govern the online public sphere. EPD supports open data (through the Charter Project Africa[5]), advocates for transparency in paid add advertising (through research and advocacy[6]) to give a few examples. I did not thought of including these information before because I understood Wikipedia article standarts as primarly focused on dictionnary-like information (general and not anecdotic information to keep the article short and concise).
Best regards,
Coffeebreak12 14:56, 24 November 2021 (CET)
hi again
risky and have to be limited to summaries. Boud (talk) 15:55, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Hi again Boud ! Thank you for your mentoring in this process -- I've included into {{reflist-talk}} my references, I hope it helps. I understand that it's relevant to provide these links to editors -- thank you by the way to redirect potentiel editors from the page of Talk Page of EPD to yours. I've been kind of struggling making it right for the past weeks, and I am really thankful for your help in this review/approval process. I mainly aim at updating the information because the current page is really out to date and provides for inacurate information. It's very interesting though to participate in the Wiki community and to get familiar with writing standards and address to one another -- a full new world for me. I remain at your disposal to provide you with any information on my edits' proposals, if any.
Best, Coffeebreak12 17:36, 24 November 2021 (CET)
Hi again Boud I hope this message finds you well. I really appreciate that you started to review my changes in the page of EPD and I hope that other editors will continue reviewing my change. For the sake of love to academia and definitions, I just would like to build on your comment in the edit histoiry, saying that we should prefer the use of "democracy promotion" rather than "democracy support" -- which is a page that does not exist and is not a wide concept in your view. First, please note that in the page of Democracy promotion, it's written "can also be referred to as democracy assistance, democracy support". We at EPD use the word democracy support, because this wording defines our work more than "democracy promotion". Democracy support is a bottom up movement building on the needs of civil society in the ground, joint contextual analsysis and shared objectives. On the other hand, "democracy promotion" is connoted with the idea of an external support and influence coming from a third party regardless of policies and programmes ownership on the ground. Many international organisations such as the OECD[7] or the European Parliament[8] speak of the field with the term of "democracy support". Thanks for the discussion, hope it's interesting for you.
Best,
Coffeebreak12 17:31, 30 November 2021 (CET)
Hi there
Armenia-EU Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement
. These imply joint agenda and establishment of funding priorities, hence I think you can probably remove the quotation mark.
To continue our discussion on the distinction between democracy support and promotion, these frameworks establish win-win relationships - unlike the negative history of the understanding of "democracy promotion" may imply (e.g. Iraq)
The quotes are indeed risky, because they risk being scare quotes. I had assumed that this was jargon rather than well-defined terminology, but partnership does seem to define the word, so I put that instead as a Wikipedia intrawikilink. Done As for the question of whether the partnerships and democracy support within them are genuinely win-win relationships or not, from a Wikipedia point of view, that's up to third-party sources to judge. Boud (talk) 10:50, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(If you already know this tip, then skip over it.) I notice that you like to add archive.org/web links to citations. One request that I have is that if you are making up a citation to a website that requires a subscription to read the article (nytimes.com and independent.co.uk come to mind; though I don't recall you using those two much) that instead of using |url-status=live you instead use |url-access=subscription. When Wikipedia displays the citation, it will offer up the archived version first. Usually the archive version will access the entire article without needing a subscription. (I don't know why; maybe they have agreements with Internet Archive.) Anyway, it's something to keep an eye out for. I rarely add archived links to live pages, but I always do this for New York Times citations (because otherwise I cannot read the article).
Also, thank you for removing a "the" in front of a university name. I have long since noticed that most Americans obsessively add "the" in front of just about everything, even when it isn't necessary. Platonk (talk) 04:57, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Platonk: I have no objections to adding url-access=subscription to articles that are paywalled, but I prefer to do this in addition to the url-status=live and archive for the article.However, I don't think it's justified for me to add url-access=subscription for a reference for which I have no evidence about the paywalling. The paywall-blocking mechanisms are apparently quite sensitive to what sort of javascript or cookies or browser parameters are set in the user's browser (including geolocation info, for example). If someone else allows some cookies or third-party javascript and finds that the page is paywalled as a result of that, then I think it's up to him/her to add the url-access=subscription tag.The reason for archiving all sources, including live pages, is that the world-wide-web is volatile. In the early part of the web epoch, even a few mainstream Western media switched their web server software without putting in redirects to old URLs - after all, for a serious newspaper to have web pages at all was quite radical - and the old pages either disappeared completely or became quite difficult to find. Archiving provides, to some degree, an increased confidence in having a long-term record of the source by a more-or-less independent web archiver (see digital preservation, for example). Boud (talk) 14:38, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize those two parameters could reside simulataneously. I thought I got an error message when I tried that before, indicating they were mutually exclusive, but I could be wrong. No matter.
I agree about how volatile some links are. I also read somewhere that Internet Archive and Wikipedia work together in that when you add a link to an article in Wikipedia, within a short period of time IA sees that and archives the link. I don't think IA did years ago, but I've seen this behavior somewhat. For example, I'm looking for an archive link to add to a WP article and I find that the IA archiving started shortly after someone added the original URL to the WP article (which could be months or years after the source article was published). So that confirmed for me that IA and WP were cooperating. I've seen someone else being scolded for adding too many archived link (on the basis that it bloated a large article, maybe?); didn't know if it was some sort of unwritten rule. So I don't routinely add them, but I don't object to others doing so.
Yes, of course you wouldn't add url-access=subscription if you didn't know there's a paywall. Most people don't even know there's that parameter, though, and you're the only editor I've seen who routinely adds IA links. I'm always annoyed when people who have subscriptions to NYTimes add links that then I cannot read. I have to copy the link, open IA, paste the link, select a version, open the IA copy (slow website, that), then decide if I want to add the link to the WP article or not. And that's just to read something I was interested in (because I do use WP for my own interests, even if I'm not in an editing mood). Well, I guess I should be greatful to at least have a workaround to getting an NYT subscription.
Thanks for the reminder about how those sites determine whether or not to block readers. I can imagine geolocation being used by some websites. There's a small local newspaper that uses cookies and people are always complaining on Facebook they can't read it; all they have to do is delete their cookies and they'll get to access another few articles for free. Ta! Platonk (talk) 19:57, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you use firefox, then you might want to consider
uMatrix and/or uBlock Origin. Unfortunately, I seem to remember an announcement a few months ago by the main uMatrix developer that s/he was stopping maintenance, which is a pity, because the red/green 'matrix' type interface is very intuitive and easy to use (you do need to experiment a bit with clicking). Boud (talk) 20:17, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:EHRC. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. That was like the fourth or fifth similarly disrespectful tirade of yours I've read. I hope to never again read one of these. Platonk (talk) 00:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That was a comment describing concern about the action, not the person. Try reading
WP:BIAS: it's about a statistical demographical bias. Boud (talk) 05:49, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Nonsense. I'm not going to discuss or argue the WP:Systemic bias essay with you because this isn't about the other editor's edit, it is about how you handled yourself in this situation, causing me and another editor to get involved to deal with it.
Recap: You made a change to a decade-old redirect to co-opt it into a disambiguation page with a flimsy edit summary. An editor with 10-times your edit experience reverts it. That is considered a challenge to your edit. But instead of you following
WP:BRD advice ("Discuss the contribution, and the reasons for the contribution, on the article's talk page with the person who reverted your contribution. Don't restore your changes or engage in back-and-forth reverting.") you escalate the situation by reverting them with a snide edit summary. They respond by reverting you with a matching sarcastic edit summary, you revert them and this time you demand she explain herself instead of you explaining yourself. She doesn't return to explain or answer you, but you're not done with her yet. You then post your invectives on both Talk:Tigray War and Talk:EHRC
. You express yourself like a tantrum, call her reverts "racist", suggest she is from some "rich country" and her act of reverting your edit was "a pure case of [such] bias".
At that point you were no closer to understanding why she reverted your original edit, and despite your tirade — which was disturbing to read even though it wasn't directed at me — I offered you a perfectly logical explanation of that editor's actions that indicated no bias on their part.
So yes, you were assuming bad faith of her edits, insulting her personally, and showing your contempt for your fellow editor who you perceive as different from yourself. No, Boud, you weren't
focusing on content
but on that editor's person, because you were making assumptions about that editor's background and intentions.
This wasn't the first time you used these insults. The last time I recall you using these sorts of terms was in the RSN about tghat.com just two weeks ago, but I know I've read them elsewhere, too, in the last month. I wasn't able to find them yet, but in my searching I discovered other discussions as far back as the mid-2000s complaining about how you were inappropriately bandying about the term or concepts of "racist" and "bias". I highly suggest you check your personal POV at the door before entering Wikipedia editor space. And please refresh your understanding of
WP:PA
to see how in the future you could contribute to a more pleasant editing environment within Wikipedia.
You made a change to a decade-old redirect to co-opt it into a disambiguation page with a flimsy edit summary. I disagree with "flimsy". The edit summary was just one word, but I saw no reason for there to be any controversy about switching to a disambiguation page. An edit summary does not need to be detailed if the reason is clear.
10-times your edit experienceUnreal7 vs Boud. 10 times my number of edits, true, and 47 edits per day, compared to my 3 edits per day. Less experience than me in terms of years editing. Typically smaller edits: mean edit size 132 bytes, vs me at 434 bytes.
you escalate the situation by reverting them An experienced editor can make a mistake, especially one who edits on average 47 times a day; reverting a mistake is not an escalation. I can make mistakes too, of course.
with a snide edit summary There is nothing
statistical demographic bias
in the context of the particular article being edited. The bias is well-known and there's no easy or magic solution. Here you are violating WP:AGF by adding your misinterpretation of my comment.
They respond by reverting you with a matching sarcastic edit summary, I fail to see any sarcasm in "It's not the Ethiopian one either. This is a two dabs situation." The first sentence is clear: it's a fair comment that this is not the ET.encyclopedia. The second sentence is unclear: there's no disambiguation policy that I could find that forbids having a disambiguation page point to two articles, in a situation with no obvious justification for one being the "main" article, and where either could reasonably be the article that the reader is looking for.
you demand she explain herself instead of you explaining yourself. I made a guess as to the likely outcome of consensus and opened up a discussion, inviting Unreal7 to participate if she wished to.
post your invectives I do not see any
WP:BIAS
.
So yes, you were assuming bad faith of her edits, insulting her personally, No, that's a false statement. I only described her edits as being consistent with a statistical pattern of the Wikipedia editor community in general. There were no personal insults against her.
you were making assumptions about that editor's background and intentions. No. I now see what Unreal7 says briefly about her background, and I have no reason to doubt that. At the time, I had no idea what her background was, and I made no assumption about her background; I only saw the editing events. I made no statement and implied nothing about her intentions or her background.
2022 Kazakh uprising, but there are clearly two arguments whether the page moved or not was divided into two sides supporting only one word, someone supporting "uprising", including you as nominator, and others who supporting page move as 2022 Kazakh unrest
.
The pages you want to purpose to move have not yet created (redlink), so why not creating redirect pages (
A good reason not to create them (yet) is technical, to avoid creating extra work. If a page Y already exists, then page X cannot be moved to Y. The technical operation of a "move" is to keep all the editing history (and talk page) the same - only the name is changed, from X to Y. But if page Y already exists (as a redirect), then extra technical help is needed to first delete page Y, and then carry out the page move from X to Y. See Wikipedia:Redirect#Reasons for deleting for more discussion. After an uninvolved person has closed the discussion and (depending on the result) made the page move, then making redirects will be reasonable. Boud (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
New message from Ue3lman
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Maekelay Zone § Requested move 28 January 2022. Ue3lman (talk) 21:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
February with Women in Red
Women in Red Feb 2022, Vol 8, Issue 2, Nos 214, 217, 220, 221, 222
Yo, I'm hoping we won't see any more of this nonsense from you. There isn't anything like a consensus for the change on talk and never was, and the proposal had been clearly contested at the time you tried to force it back through, and I know you knew that at the time you did this since you had already replied. Split warring is hugely disruptive and doubly inappropriate in a subject area that is under discretionary sanctions. VQuakr (talk) 22:32, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem that I might have misestimated the likely consensus. Boud (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC) (edit: more conditional)Boud (talk) 00:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, the
Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Boud (talk) 17:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
Thank you! Listening to the charity concert mentioned here. I created the articles of the composer and the soprano. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now, you can also listen on YouTube, and more music, the piece by Anna Korsun begins after about one hour, and the voices call "Freiheit!" (freedom, instead of "Freude", joy). Music every day, pictured in songs. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Bernstein (Wikimedian) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article.
geographical bias. The countries whose mainstream media currently dominate en.Wikipedia are those with unsuspicious COVID-19 data; this makes it difficult to work against the existing geographical bias. And in the essay, there's an open question for Wikipedia more specifically, especially for infoboxes - do we sufficiently well warn readers of the difference between official data and reliable data, especially in the case where official data is dubious? In what ways should or could we handle the specific case of official versus reliable data? Please edit the essay directly if you have any good ideas, where it will be more useful than here... Boud (talk) 21:59, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
@Boud: Thanks for the mention, and for the link to the article on geographical bias. Some time ago I was thinking that seemed like an important question to look into and cover; I'm glad there's already work being done. I started typing out some thoughts yesterday, and have now put those in a very much not-quite-fleshed-out state at Wikipedia:Reliability_of_open_government_data/Intralexical's_Response. Not putting anything in the main essay yet as I'm not sure if any of it counts as "good ideas", and I would want to put more thought into it and flesh it out more in any case. Not sure when or if that will happen, so also feel free to take from the draft if you see anything you like. Intralexical (talk) 20:58, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Metrics/April 2022
Women in Red metrics pages are bot-driven. Ideally users will not edit the page to add articles, but rely on the bot process. diff thx. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:25, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination of
Sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine
for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article
Sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine 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/Sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article.
As a personal note, this isn't meant unkindly at all, and isn't a reflection of my view of you as an editor (of which I view you as a very good editor). I really appreciate the hard work you've done, I just feel this article was created far too soon. Curbon7 (talk) 07:32, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
May Women in Red events
Women in Red May 2022, Vol 8, Issue 5, Nos 214, 217, 227, 229, 230
Thank you for your comment here, which looks helpful. I have a very vague idea about the differences between ANI and AE, and I had been wondering all the afternoon about the reason why Black Kite suggested that AE is the appropriate venue. Conciseness is not my main virtue but I think I can manage to summarise my main quarrels in 500 words. It won't be easy: it's a pattern (I argue) of incivility and tendentiousness, not a few edits. If you have any practical suggestion as to how to proceed, I'd be grateful. In any case (I imagine) it will be necessary to wait for the closure of that discussion at ANI - or am I wrong? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:46, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gitz6666: My guess is that Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard is a good place for the meta-question of how to withdraw your ANI complaint (I assume that's possible) so that you can open an AE request. Conciseness is often not easy, but without that, uninvolved people don't have the time to make any useful assessments. Boud (talk) 23:24, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. After a long thought and this conversation with Alex Bakharev, I decided not to pursue the matter further. If in the future I will have new reasons for believing that Volunteer Marek doesn't comply with WP:CIV, WP:AGF and WP:DIS, I will follow your advise and raise the issue at AE. Best, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gitz6666: For what it's worth, the cases I did at WP:AE are this one and this one, both concerning the same user. I found the declaration of the result in the first case quite appalling: the admins (or at least the closer) didn't seem to have actually checked the match between claims and evidence by myself and the other editor, and the closer called my behaviour "substandard" and I was "cautioned to moderate" my behaviour (along with the other editor). My only reasonable interpretation is that the admins read the editor's claims without checking the evidence properly. This is possibly because it was difficult to understand the editor's behavioural problem without having sufficient understanding of the editorial conflict. In the second case, an admin at least gave me the chance to explain to him/her how to check the validity of the troublesome editor's claims. So despite my huge investment of time and patience, and presentation of evidence that the editor was repeatedly making false or misleading statements, which makes rational discussion extremely confusing and tiring, there were no formal sanctions against the editor.However, my huge investment of time (the whole process was several months for the first WP:AE + an RfC + the second WP:AE) did actually give results: the editor's behaviour became a bit more constrained after the first WP:AE, and one admin made one highly significant statement regarding a key content issue during the second WP:AE, which was enough to convince the editor that s/he would have to accept NPOV on that key content issue.The long-term (a year or so) effect seems to be stable in terms of Wikipedia content, but I admit that the effort was exhausting. It was concerned with the existence (around 2021) or non-existence of about 3 million people in a particular country (population 3 million versus population 6 million), so it was probably worth it for people interested in that part of knowledge. (Of course, if more, sufficiently experienced and patient editors with basic understanding of what distinguishes a good quality source of demographic information from a low quality source had been involved, the issue would have ended up as NPOV in a few days instead of several months.) Boud (talk) 16:53, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for sharing those links. Your past experiences are such as to moderate my most warlike spirits - I really don't want to go through all that! However, if there's a problem one needs to address it somehow, otherwise one becomes angry and rude in the long run, or just stops editing. Maybe one problem of that dispute of yours was that it required a relatively high level of technical expertise from the editors: consensus among uninformed people may be a problematic way of producing knowledge. At War crimes in Ukraine, on the other hand, everybody could in principle read the sources and express a meaningful view on how to best summarise their contents. In fact, I strongly believe that the best way for de-escalating that conflict would be to bring in more editors - I mean, editors who have a detached, objective approach to the subject, editors who at least try to have such an approach, and who could help containing the few vociferous ones that have an entirely different way of editing Wikipedia. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:26, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Women in Red in July 2022
Women in Red July 2022, Vol 8, Issue 7, Nos 214, 217, 234, 235
War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
Pokalchuk (disambiguation) is malplaced because DAB pages should be at the base name if there is no primary topic. If you don't object, I would like to move the contents to Pokalchuk and either keep it as a DAB page, or make it a surname page. What do you think? Leschnei (talk) 18:12, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
@Leschnei: Go ahead either way, shifting to Pokalchuk as either a DAB or a surname page. I did actually suspect that I did this the wrong way around - I scanned through WP:DISAMBIG too rapidly... Thanks in advance for the cleanup. :) Boud (talk) 18:18, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I've changed it to a surname page. Leschnei (talk) 19:19, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Women in Red in September 2022
Women in Red September 2022, Vol 8, Issue 9, Nos 214, 217, 240, 241
Hello, Boud! I just wanted to thank you for the recent edits on the
2022 Ukrainian southern counteroffensive. I had evidently misread the source, so good that you recognized this and corrected it! Sometimes I should rush less when working on article updates... Applodion (talk) 22:04, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Women in Red October 2022
Women in Red October 2022, Vol 8, Issue 10, Nos 214, 217, 242, 243, 244
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominika Lasota until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
On 7 November 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Ethiopia–Tigray peace agreement, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. — Amakuru (talk) 09:57, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nadia Oleszczuk until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Remember to search slight spelling variations of your subject's name, like Katherine/Katharine or Elizabeth/Elisabeth, especially for historical subjects.
--Lajmmoore (talk) 18:00, 27 December 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]
Just putting Finkbeiner test here for easy re-discovery, especially for men who become scientists or Wikipedians despite being surprised by the competitivity in their field. Boud (talk) 07:50, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Women in Red in February 2023
Women in Red Feb 2023, Vol 9, Iss 2, Nos 251, 252, 255, 256, 257, 259
Boud, I suggest you to stop your unreasonable edit war (
WP:EDITWAR
) against me in the article "Tabassum movement". Even if you're the major contributor to this article, it doesn't mean the article belongs only to you and other Wikipedia users need your permission to edit the article.
Your argument that putting all refs into Reflist is somehow much more "legible" and "easy to edit" doesn't hold water at all, because most of Wikipedia articles don't use your put-all-refs-into-Reflist format (use WP:VisualEditor instead of waging edit wars). You can put all refs into Reflist again, I don't mind it. However, if you continue to revert the whole edit (diff) because of your individual (and, IMO, debatable) preferences, then you leave me no choice but to ask Wikipedia administrators to be involved in this case.
I repeat again: the majority of Wikipedia articles don't use your "legible" and "easy-to-edit" way of putting all refs into Reflist. Don't use it as an excuse for edit warring.
Russian Rocky (talk) 18:53, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Majoritarianism is not an argument. There is no consensus implying that anyone should use VisualEditor.Editing that respects the work of other editors generally makes changes that can be reasonably easily checked using the differencing functions on the wiki source provided by MediaWiki software. Your shifting of the references into the main body and renaming the labels made any changes you made in sentence and paragraph structure hidden by the shifting of the references.I'm sorry if my edit reversed some of your content changes, but those were camouflaged by your shifting of the references. If you want to use something like VisualEditor, then better use it in a way in which your changes are still easy to see if you want to avoid someone misinterpreting an edit like you seem to have done in this case. Your edit overwhelmingly looked like shifting references into the body, making any content changes difficult to see. If there is no option in VisualEditor to keep the references in the references section, then propose a wishlist item for VisualEditor to be fixed. People who use VisualEditor have to take responsibility for any damage done using it.In fact, it appears that what appear to be your changes to the content look useful but only concern a few dozen bytes of wiki source. Let us not confuse the two different issues. Boud (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would be best to go to Talk:Tabassum movement#Trying to preserve edits by Russian Rockyif you feel that the swaps you made between the NYT references are correct. I've left them in place to allow for discussion: my matching of source to content might be wrong. Boud (talk) 23:03, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Boud, there is no "put all refs into Reflist and no other way" consensus either. It's definitely not a good reason for edit warring and calling names as if you know better than others what is and what isn't "more illegible and difficult to edit". Just because you personally prefer putting all refs into Reflist, it does NOT mean that it's more "legible" and "easy to edit" for others. And this isn't just about the article's size. You make it impossible for other editors to edit references in the "Section" mode. Because you put all refs into Reflist, other editors need to edit the whole text. It's a nightmare when an article is long.
And what damage are you talking about? You reverted the whole edit because you personally prefer putting all refs into Reflist. You literally said it in your edit summary, calling it your "bibliography". I didn't try to camouflage anything as you claim. I added categories, wikilinks, improved references (added author-links, dates, used proper cite templates, etc). I didn't know that touching your so-called "bibliography" in Reflist, which is visible only in the "Source editing" mode, would provoke you.
You've said "respect the work of other editors", but I've noticed that you arbitrarily put refs into Reflist in almost every article you edit (diff1, diff2, diff3, diff4, diff5, etc). What will happen if someone arbitrarily shifts another "bibliography" of yours into article text? Another edit war?
Sorry, I don't really get it. You tell other editors how to edit your article, but you yourself edit other editors' articles as you like.--
Russian Rocky (talk) 06:36, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
impossible for other editors to edit references in the "Section" mode ... other editors need to edit the whole text: incorrect: the technique is to edit in a modular way: one edit to the body section, then one edit to the references section.There is no edit war; your four errors in
matching content to sources have been corrected by another editor after I pointed them out; and you have restored your updates to the details of the references. We appear to have converged.Thanks for the cooperation. Boud (talk) 08:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
My errors? Now you slander me with "four errors in matching content to sources [which] have been corrected by another editor after [you] pointed them out". Do you mean these edits (diff1, diff2) by User:Dl2000? FYI, Dl2000 fixed your errors after you copy-pasted your own old refs with old ref names (diff).
In my initial edit (diff), there were no errors. I can prove it for each of the four errors you slander me with:
1)One of the victims was Shukria Tabassum, a nine-year-old girl.<ref name="hazarapeople" /><ref name="NYT_7Zabul_beheadings" /> → One of the victims was Shukria Tabassum, a nine-year-old girl.<ref name="hazarapeople" /><ref name="NYT_Tabassum_protest" />
Dl2000 fixed your error. In my initial edit, the same sentence is the following: One of the victims was Shukria Tabassum, a nine-year-old girl.<ref>{{cite web |last=Younas |first=Mohammad |date=2015-11-15|title=Shukria Tabassum |url=https://www.hazarapeople.com/2015/11/15/shukria-tabassum/|website=hazarapeople.com|publisher=Hazara International|access-date=2016-01-04 |archive-date=2021-06-04|archive-url=https://archive.today/HjrGt|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="Mashal" />
Note: <ref name="Mashal">{{cite news |last=Mashal |first=Mujib |date=2015-11-11 |title=Protest in Kabul for More Security after Seven Hostages Are Beheaded |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/12/world/asia/afghanistan-protest-taliban-isis-hazara.html |newspaper=[[The New York Times]] |access-date= 2021-06-04 |archive-url=https://archive.today/GC2Gk |archive-date=2021-06-04 |url-status=live}}</ref> (in my initial edit) corresponds with<ref name="NYT_Tabassum_protest">{{cite news | last1= Mashal | first1= Mujib | title= Protest in Kabul for More Security after Seven Hostages Are Beheaded | date= 2015-11-11 |newspaper= [[The New York Times]] | url= https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/12/world/asia/afghanistan-protest-taliban-isis-hazara.html |access-date= 2021-06-04 |archive-url= https://archive.today/GC2Gk |archive-date= 2021-06-04 |url-status=live }}</ref> (in your edit)
2)In reaction, on 11 November 2015, 2,000<ref name="NYT_7Zabul_beheadings" />–20,000<ref name="TOLO_kidnap_20" /> protestors marched → In reaction, on 11 November 2015, 2,000–20,000<ref name = "NYT_Tabassum_protest" /><ref name="TOLO_kidnap_20" /> protestors marched
Dl2000 fixed your error. In my initial edit, the same sentence is the following: In reaction, on 11 November 2015, 2,000<ref name="Mashal" />–20,000<ref name="TOLOnews">{{cite news |date=2015-11-21 |title=Insurgents Kidnap Over 20 Bus Passengers In Zabul |url=https://tolonews.com/afghanistan/insurgents-kidnap-over-20-bus-passengers-zabul |work=[[TOLOnews]] |access-date=2021-06-04 |archive-url=https://archive.today/IaVKa |archive-date=2021-06-04 |url-status=live}}</ref> protestors marched
Note: In the original version of your article, this sentence was the following: In reaction, on 11 November 2015, 2000<ref name="NYT_Tabassum_protest" />–20,000<ref name="TOLO_kidnap_20" /> protestors marched (diff).
3)negotiations were held between some of the protestors and officials on the protestors' demands for improved security measures.<ref name="NYT_7Zabul_beheadings" /> → negotiations were held between some of the protestors and officials on the protestors' demands for improved security measures.<ref name = "NYT_Tabassum_protest" />
Dl2000 fixed your error. In my initial edit, the same sentence is the following: negotiations were held between some of the protestors and officials on the protestors' demands for improved security measures.<ref name="Mashal">{{cite news |last=Mashal |first=Mujib |date=2015-11-11 |title=Protest in Kabul for More Security after Seven Hostages Are Beheaded |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/12/world/asia/afghanistan-protest-taliban-isis-hazara.html |newspaper=[[The New York Times]] |access-date= 2021-06-04 |archive-url=https://archive.today/GC2Gk |archive-date=2021-06-04 |url-status=live}}</ref>
4)The 11 November protest was self-managed and calm, with human chains formed at the sides of the march to leave pavements available for non-participating pedestrians.<ref name="NYT_7Zabul_beheadings" /> → The 11 November protest was self-managed and calm, with human chains formed at the sides of the march to leave pavements available for non-participating pedestrians.<ref name = "NYT_Tabassum_protest" />
Dl2000 fixed your error. In my initial edit, the same sentence is the following: The 11 November protest was self-managed and calm, with human chains formed at the sides of the march to leave pavements available for non-participating pedestrians.<ref name="Mashal" />
And what "technique" are you talking about? Your "technique" means 2 edits each time. Do you think you have the right to lecture other editors how to edit Wikipedia articles?
Russian Rocky (talk) 18:37, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
You and I disagreeing on how we think the content matches the sources is not a case of slander, it is a case of either you or I or both of us making errors. I've put a few strikethroughs above. In any case, convergence makes sense over at the talk page of the article.Regarding Wikipedia editing, there are many Wikipedians, and many disagreements on the best ways of editing. Boud (talk) 21:45, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to be framed as if the reason of this edit war was my "errors" and you fixed them with the help of Dl2000. You're fully aware that the true reason was your personal preference of using the so-called "bibliography" reference format.--
Russian Rocky (talk) 13:06, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
There was no edit war, and others will intepret our edits in the ways they wish, preferably according to
WP:AGF. You and I differ in what we see as editing in a way that makes it easier for other editors to see what has been changed. Neither you nor I are likely to persuade each other. Boud (talk) 14:02, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Ok. Let's consider the case closed. It's counterproductive to waste each other's time any further.
Russian Rocky (talk) 18:39, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Women in Red March 2023
Women in Red Mar 2023, Vol 9, Iss 3, Nos 251, 252, 258, 259, 260, 261
Hello, I'm ElKevbo. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! ElKevbo (talk) 22:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You've recently made a few edits accusing someone of plagiarism. ElKevbo (talk) 22:35, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I made some talk page edits showing text matches, with sources. I comment that they appear to be plagiarism, using the well-accepted definitions that do not require interpretation, and ask if there are external sources, since these are prominent people so the existence of external sources is likely. So I think what you're trying to say is not that you've reverted some of my edits, since at least at the time of [7], you had not reverted any of my edits, but instead that you're worried that those edits violate our BLP policy. Is that what you're trying to say? Boud (talk) 22:41, 12 April 2023 (UTC) Adding ping: @ElKevbo:. Boud (talk) 22:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I haven't reverted the edits because I've asked administrators to delete them entirely so they're not visible in the edit histories; that's our typical approach for edits are serious violations of BLP. ElKevbo (talk) 22:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So where's the discussion? Are you claiming that the discussion has to be offline to protection the reputations of those two people? While BLP applies to talk pages as well as article pages, the context is different. I understand your motivation, but this is not like accusing someone of rape or murder without sources - while copy/pasting without attribution is seen negatively, in this case there were sources show the exact copy/pastes. In any case, it would nice to be able to participate in the discussion rather than have this happen behind closed doors. Boud (talk) 23:00, 12 April 2023 (UTC) Sorry, forgot to ping: @ElKevbo: . Boud (talk) 23:00, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ElKevbo: If there's a Libera irc channel to discuss this, given that some info may need to stay non-public, I could join now. Boud (talk) 23:09, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ElKevbo: Just to make things clear: I'm happy to go by whatever the consensus is, but so far I'm not convinced by "serious violations of BLP". Obviously, it's tricky to discuss details if the final decision is that they are BLP violations, because then this meta-discussion would have to be deleted. Boud (talk) 23:19, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ElKevbo: Whether copy/pastes are interpreted negatively or not is a matter of interpretation. The current state for the Ursula von der Leyen#Plagiarism accusations, for example, seems to be that the copy/pastes themselves are undisputed - the disagreement is about whether they are ethically acceptable or not. I'm not convinced that my brief comments risk convincing anyone to make interpretations of intentions one way or the other. Anyway, I'd be happy to chat over irc with BLP admins for off-the-record discussion. Boud (talk) 23:37, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done Seems like case closed. Sorry for people wishing to read details, but BLP issues cannot always be discussed on-wiki. In any case, while the initial comment above was a standard template, leading to confusion, the bottom line is that there was a de facto consensus. Boud (talk) 22:26, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Women in Red May 2023
Women in Red May 2023, Vol 9, Iss 5, Nos 251, 252, 267, 268, 269, 270
The Wikipedia Library: #1Lib1Ref - May 15th to June 5th
Tip of the month:
Looking for new red links? Keep an eye out for interesting and notable friends, family, or associates of your last article subject, and re-examine group photos for other women who may still need an article.
In July 2015 around 15.5% of the English Wikipedia's biographies were about women. As of July 2023, 19.61% of the English Wikipedia's biographies are about women. That's a lot of biographies created in the effort to close the gender gap. Happy 8th Anniversary! Join us for some virtual cake and add comments or memories and please keep on editing to close the gap!
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muamar family detention incident until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
There is a new requested move discussion in progress for the Charles III article. Since you participated in the previous discussion, I thought you might like to know about this one. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:01, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When creating an article, check to see if there is an entry in the sister project Wikidata. If your subject is listed, the Wikidata information can be useful
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Consultative Council (Poland) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katarzyna Pikulska until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
comment that did not appear to be appropriate, civil, or otherwise constructive, and it may have been removed. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Please do not use edit summaries like invitation for those objecting to the anti-advocacy RfC to contribute constructively rather than complain. We are all here to contribute constructively. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:52, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
If you look through the full set of comments on the initial RfC, I think that you will find
WP:CIVIL applies to all of us. Thanks! :) Boud (talk) 23:04, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
The problem with edit summaries is that you often cannot respond like that in another edit summary. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:44, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. There are some cases where empty edits are accepted (e.g. to fix a major problem in your own edit comment), but using empty edits to respond to previous edit comments by other people would be extremely disruptive. Boud (talk) 23:47, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for not replying that we shouldn't template the regulars. But, I'm lazy and it's easier than typing. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:06, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Refseek
@
WP:VPR. I'm pretty much in agreement with you. I always thought the recent limitations of google, along with the "Don't do evil" thing which went went up in smoke 2008-2009 is a good reason not to exclusively indicate its use at the find sources template. I started using [8] which should be on the list. Its a much more academically orientated search engine. There is specialised search engines that don't see the light of day on here. I would also like to see archives on it, for example archives.org. What is current state of the RFC. It seems a bit chaotic. It looks as though its being reformed? scope_creepTalk 16:56, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
I never thought about those aspects. I'm still on surface I guess. I never bothered looking to see who ran it. I've found it quite useful and seems to find stuff that Google doesn't care to share. It will be interested to see how you get on. I've been wanted to change that template for more than a decade. There seems to be quite a few of these new search engines. I don't mind mucking in to create new articles on any of this stuff, assuming its notable to advance your project. scope_creepTalk 18:50, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A Wikipedia article would be useful no matter the outcome of the current discussions. What's interesting here is that you say that you more or less agree with me, but one of my points is at the meta-level: what do we know about how we know things? or what do we know about how we find out about how we find out about things? We, as a community, should be able to do better than our own anecdotal experience. The word "notable" is now removed (not by me) from my userspace draft of the RfC - which makes Refseek now "eligible" (per the wording of the question) despite not being notable. Personally, I would consider Refseek ineligible until we at least have a viable Wikipedia article on it. Anyway, I'm about to check the VP discussion ... Boud (talk) 18:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Women in Red December 2023
Women in Red December 2023, Vol 9, Iss 12, Nos 251, 252, 290, 291, 292
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. LizRead!Talk! 01:17, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Boud! Thank you for your additions. Unfortunately I don't understand "reflist talk" or "Please add further discussion within this section above this 'reflist-talk' line". Do you want me to add something?
I tried to read
WP:ARBECR, but I failed to unterstand it. What's that about "non EC editors may only file edit requests in AI/IP topic area"? Cheers, 93.211.218.228 (talk) 22:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
On the first point, no, there's nothing particular you need to do with the 'reflist talk'. You can see {{reflist-talk}} to see a longer version of the "hidden comment" meant to explain the role of the template. Boud (talk) 23:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the second point, you are (in this role, at least) an IP user, so you count as a "non-EC" editor. That means that in principle, even on the talk page
requests to edit nobody will object. Boud (talk) 23:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
+1 on the last sentence, that's the essence of
WP:ARBECR. I usually give more detailed explanations to new users but not to IPs, sorry about that, it doesn't say anything about you personally. Selfstudier (talk) 23:22, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Aha, Thanks to both of you! Most of the time I/IPs are allowed to start a request. (Open systems make autopoiesis. Closed systems die.) --93.211.218.228 (talk) 23:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Women in Red May 2024
Women in Red | May 2024, Volume 10, Issue 5, Numbers 293, 294, 305, 306, 307
I have been editing on WP for a long time now and I know what a copyio is. Making pointy and irrelevant edits is not a good look, suggest you desist. I will ignore, this time, that you also breached the 1R rule, removing the fact that the court did not comment twice. Selfstudier (talk) 22:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the alert about 1R - technically you're right, even though it was about removing non-information, which I hadn't thought was particularly sensitive. To be careful, I've self-reverted.The source (The Guardian) says The ICC has not commented officially and has advised diplomats that it is not aware of any dramatic moves in the investigation. and your edit added The court has not commented officially and has advised diplomats that it is not aware of any dramatic moves in the investigation. That is clearly a copyright violation. Changing "ICC" to "court" or
WP:RELTIME was a problem; "not aware of any dramatic moves" is too vague for Wikivoice; whether Japan counts as Western world#Modern definitions is definition-dependent - the source does not say which particular G7 members attempted to influence the judges of the ICC; we don't know if the G7 diplomats are genuinely worried about disrupting ceasefire talks, so "for fear" risks talking about the diplomats' genuine thoughts (which we cannot know) rather than their statements - it's safer to say that that's the argument they presented, no matter whether they believed it or not - amid concerns that such a move could disrupt the chances of a breakthrough in ceasefire talks is ambiguous about who has the concerns, it could be either "everybody" (implicit generally accepted knowledge) or it could be these particular diplomats who have the concerns. Boud (talk) 07:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Introduction to contentious topics
You have recently edited a page related to the
contentious
. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.
This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.
The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.
Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.
