User talk:Passenger68

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Passenger68. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by MadScientistX11 (talk) 21:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Muhammadu Buhari: Next steps

Good morning Passenger68. That section on my talk page was getting full so I thought it made sense to start a new discussion here. I think we made good progress yesterday. Here is my proposal for how to move forward. Please note: I'm assuming we get no more feedback on the talk page for Buhari. If we do, if for example the Internet user who has been reverting your work in the past replies then what I'm about to say will need to be adjusted. But if we don't get any more feedback then I think when the block is lifted I'm going to say we have a consensus on the talk page and go ahead and revert back to your version. I think it is better for me to do that if you don't mind because it looks more like a consensus to have another editor restore your work rather than having you do it yourself. From that point on (again assuming things go smoothly and no more edit warring) I'm going to mostly drop out and go back to editing my nerd articles and let you and the other editors who know more about Nigeria take it from there. BTW, I put your version into my sandbox, it is posssible to get the code even when it's blocked. I started comparing the two versions: yours and the one reverted to. My thought was to to do some additional work and perhaps make some minor adjustments so that small details that don't matter much were restored from the old version to your version. But as I started doing that it just seemed kind of pointless. For one thing I don't know anything about Nigeria so on every fact I was working in the dark. For another, the more I looked at it the more it seemed just sticking with your version made the most sense. But, and this is just a suggestion, if you have time that might not be a bad exercise for you to try. See if you can develop a compromise version somewhere between your version and the one that was reverted to. You seem to be catching on really fast so I assume you know how to look at diffs, compare versions, etc. but if not and you need help there let me know. The other thing I was going to do but now think it makes more sense to suggest to you is to try and add more and better refs to your version. I think we've put aside the issue if dawodu.com is a biased site but still having refs to more well known news sources such as Yahoo News, Huffington Post, and BBC would make your version and the article itself even more solid. I had a few links to relevant articles that I left on the Buhari talk page. So that is kind of a brain dump, hope it makes sense, let me know if anything here isn't clear, or you disagree, etc. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 15:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

see Buhari's talk page as you are over interested in Buhari — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.17.218 (talk) 16:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

As I said on my talk page I don't know what saying someone is " over interested in Buhari" even means. If you are implying he has some political agenda there has been absolutely no evidence of that and you should familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies for wp:civility and also to wp:assume good faith If you have some actual substantive suggestions: ideas about the changes Passenger68 made that you think were in error, or not clear, or not well sourced, or that represent bias by all means please let us know what those are. We want a true consensus and welcome your help if it can be constructive. But simply repeating that someone is "over interested" in the topic of an article and reverting things with vague unsubstantiated threats that they are libelous is not constructive. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 16:56, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Buhari: Questions

Passenger68 So I've been looking through the article trying to find ways to improve it. I'm working from your version my assumption is that will be our starting point. Some of the references do seem questionable. BTW, I think most if not all of these were in the version you started with so this is no reflection on your work. I just thought you might like ideas to improve the article while we wait for the block to be lifted. Reference 5 goes to Facebook. That is almost never a good source for a reference. I think the Facebook page is just to a news article in a paper called The Sun but much better to link directly to the news article. Also, this reference seems very questionable: http://www.gamji.com/sanusi/sanusi26.htm The site looks like self publication and the fact that it says "a completely personal view" at the top doesn't make it a good source for most things. Is that author a well known expert on Nigeria or Buhari? If not or if there isn't some other significant justification for that article I would remove that reference and try to replace it with more main stream ones. That's all for now. I may have additional comments after checking more references. Also, some of the references are just URLs or URLs with some date info. Even for Internet references it is better to fill in things like the name of the author, title of the article, etc. as much as possible. I realize some of this you probably already know, just trying to think of as much useful stuff as possible. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 22:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Reference questions

I'll use a numbered list and I'll comment and sign when I'm done:

1. I upgraded one of the references in case you want to take a look. It is in my sandbox now: User:MadScientistX11/sandbox Reference 7 is now a better ref with more meta-data. BTW, I assume you know how to use the forms in the citation tool in the editor. If not that is very useful and I can give you pointers, actually it would be trivial for you.
2. Reference 11 goes to the Daily Mail. Have you ever heard The Daily Mail song? It's pretty funny. But The Daily Mail does not have a great reputation for fact checking or error correction. They can be used for a source if it is really relevant and there is no other source but if it's a genuine story it almost certainly will be in other more credible papers and switching that ref would be a good idea. I looked at this more closely again. The fact sourced seems to be a fairly mundane one about how the army promotes people but the article linked to is about removing civil war statues from US military college. Unless I'm really confused this seems to be a complete mismatch and I wonder if someone just wanted to work in the Daily Mail article for some political reason. I looked at this more closely and I don't see how reference 11 is in any way relevant. It is about a war college removing civil war generals. It is tangentially relevant in that the paragraph talks about the same war college but that is to indirect to make it any use as a reference. I'm just going to delete it.  Done
3. Reference 16 isn't working for me. I click on the URL but it never connects to the server. Could just be done or maybe dead link. There are tools to capture archived versions of dead links here: http://archive.org/web/web.php If you type the URL into the wayback link it can often find saved versions of the URL. Just noticed I made an error here. I was going back and forth between my sandbox version and the version currently live and on this one at least got them mixed up. It is ref 36 in your version that doesn't work. I'm checking wayback for it now... OK, fixed it. FYI here is the archived link I found with Wayback which is now fixed in the version in my sandbox: http://web.archive.org/web/20130409100536/http://www.africasia.com/archive/na/98_06/abcr0604.htm  Done
4. Reference 23 to Reuters is also timing out for me. In that case the server may just be down temporarily, can't be sure with the error message from a cloud service. Suggest checking again later. Its not an actual Reuters reference but I found the URL in wayback and fixed it. This was another confusion between the original and your version, in your version (the one in my sandbox) this is now ref 44. It would be best if we can find the actual Reuters story, the formatting on the archived URL is kind of odd but at least it is no longer a broken link.  Done
5. Reference 25: http://www.inecnigeria.org/results/presidential/ goes directly to a page not found page. Another possible wayback fix This is ref 46 in the new version. Found it on wayback and updated URL so no longer dead link. There should be more cleanup of the ref format as well but I'm tackling most urgent stuff first.  Done
6. Reference 27 Is odd. It goes to "Nashville Plastic Surgeons | 234Next.com" The actual page is just a page not found page. Another to try with wayback.
7. Refernce 36 Also hangs. This was the same as ref 16 so is now  Done
8. Reference 20 looks to me like a spam site. This was actually the same as ref 2 btw the numbers are pretty confused now, between me switching back and forth between your version and the one currently live and then as our version changes as I modify or delete refs. The main thing is I'm cleaning up all the dead links, sorry I never was good at book keeping kind of stuff but this list served its main purpose which was to make sure I addressed all the problems documented.  Done
9. Reference 30 Goes to a page not found error Ref 61 in new version. Found via wayback.  Done

I think thst's it for the refs. I may take a stab and fixing some of these later. Let me know if you plan to work on them. You can feel free to work on the version in my sandbox if you want or to copy it to your sandbox. Either way let me know before you start working on it again and I will do the same. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 00:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm working on this again in my sandbox. Just fyi I'm going to try and address some of the issues above. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 19:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello MadScientistX11 ! I just posted some additional sources on Buhari's talk page. I hope it will answer to your questions. Passenger68 (talk) 08:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

OK. Just waking up now and getting back to it. Want to read through things carefully one last time, etc. Will comment more shortly. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Going forward

Here is my proposal for how to go forward. Let me know if you object or prefer working another way. I plan to work through the article and make small changes where I incrementally replace parts of the existing articles with the work you did plus my revisions to your work (currently in my sandbox) plus the new refs you added in the talk page. I made one change just now to the beginning but next I want to read all the new refs you came up with, go through the criticism of the IP editor, etc. So I may not make any more changes directly to the article for a few hours now, although possibly sooner. Also, I want to see if we are going to face more edit warring from the IP user. If so then I want to focus on stopping the edit warring first. At this point we would have to use a formal arbitration which can be rather time consuming and not much fun but I'm confident we have a very strong case and would eventually win the arbitration. Just wanted to give you a heads up I may not make any more edits for a few hours as I read through things but I plan to edit back in virtually all your changes (or rather my revised version of them) by the end of the day today. As always if you have other ideas let me know. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey MadScientistX11! I'm completely in your debt for everything you've done! I guess this is how the true Wikipedian spirit is like, helping others to make their first steps and untangle the complicated webs of rules, noticeboards and (un)written customs. I agree with your suggested approach - I'll take a look every other hour over the page to see what the reaction will be. In the meantime, do let me know what you think about the sources I've found (if they're good/useful), for future references.

PS: I've noticed a different user added a photo of Buhari and capitalized his name in the infobox. I had thought to add a photo as well, but I had trouble finding one that respects the Creative Commons rule. I think the one added is in a similar situation, but can't quite tell yet.

Thanks!

Passenger68 (talk) 16:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I noticed the picture as well. My guess is that the picture which was added won't satisfy Wikipedia copyright policies, it's a common mistake, but I'm not even bothering with that yet. If it is not a properly released photo someone else (or a bot) will notice it pretty quickly and will remove it or tag it. Oh on the first stuff you're welcome and yes this is the way its supposed to work. This is actually the hardest kind of editing when you are dealing with people who have an agenda. But we'll get there. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 17:25, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

FYI, I'm working on the Economic Policy section now. Want to review some of the new info you provided and see if I can work that in. BTW, my interpretation of Buhari and IMF is a bit different than what you wrote. From the stuff you wrote it seemed as if Buhari just rejected IMF reforms. What I got from the refs was subtly different, yes he broke with the IMF but the reforms he instigated were even more drastic than what the IMF required. I think that is an important point. Let me know if you disagree. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 18:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey MadScientistX11!Yes, you're right and I welcome your edit. Actually, I'm sure I found a source at one point saying that the broke ties with the IMF quickly, without negotiations, but when I was doing research over the weekend I found that great source. And yes, Wikipedia seems to work in babysteps :) Passenger68 (talk) 18:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

"Baby steps" is a nice way to put it. Just wanted to let you know I'm taking a break for now. I haven't added back all your changes but so far I'm surprised (pleasantly) that we haven't faced more opposition. I was expecting this would go to formal arbitration which can take a long time and be a real pain. Then again as they say "don't count your chickens yet" it could be that certain people just haven't noticed all the changes yet. Anyway, I'm going to stop editing for now. I think it is in much better shape than it was and if someone challenges the edits I think we have an excellent case to make that they were all well supported. So my thinking is lets take a break now and see what happens. Of course you can still make more changes if you want but my advise would be to hold off for a bit until we see if anyone objects to the current ones. I'll be watching the page in case anyone tries large scale reverting. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 21:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I agree with your assessment, it's better to wait a bit and see what will happen. In the meantime, a new IP made several edits on the page, changed its structure and made it less coherent. When you have a bit of time, have a look see, tell me what you think. Passenger68 (talk) 10:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. I thought this was going too easily. Now the real work starts. Before I just revert all those changes I want to look carefully at what was done and what was said (if anything) on the talk page. Doing that now. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind but I asked for help in the teahouse. I have a few years editing experience but I haven't really been involved in this kind of editing where someone has a clear agenda. There are others in the teahouse who have been doing this a lot longer than I have and have more patience than I do. But just to be clear: I'm not by any means giving up here, just asking others for help. My first reaction was to just mass revert all those changes but at least a couple of them were correcting typos or other things that I thought were reasonable changes. I'm going back now to look at changes again one by one and even if I don't hear back from the teahouse will start reverting the ones that I think are clearly wrong. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 15:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Bomb attack?

Do you know about this alleged Boko Harum attempted bomb attack? As far as you know is it true? If so, I think we should definitely leave that info in the article as it adds balance. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 16:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems trolling never rests. Saw the post in the teahouse, and you're right, it seems we need some big guns on our side, otherwise this will turn into an endless editing war. We add, they revert, we revert, they revert again..not very practical and really time consuming for both of us. So far, you've got my full support :) And so far, this has been a really interesting experience - a crash course in Wikipedia editing dos and donts. I've learned a lot from you!

As for the bomb attack, it seems to be true if Reuters says it's true, had no idea about it. I focused mostly on Buhari's past, not that interested in his present, just added some things I came across on routine searches.

Passenger68 (talk) 17:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

MadScientistX11

I've been reading up on all the rules I could find when it comes to dispute resolution and protecting pages and I want to ask your opinion on a thought I've had. What if we come up with a final version of the page, put it both in a sandbox and in the article and then escalate the situation to the request protection noticeboard and/or dispute resolution mechanism?. I feel it would be easier for other editors and admins alike to take a stance on a topic when two clear versions of the page are in conflict, rather than the current situation where there's my first edit, your take on it and then the edits applied by the various IPs who took a sudden interest in Buhari. ::To tell you the truth, all this editing war has made me more determined than before to fight for this. I feel it's no longer about the page, it's about the principle of a fair and accurate encyclopedia that refuses to bow down to entrenched interests and hidden agendas.

Passenger68 (talk) 18:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The sandbox idea isn't bad but the problem is that if we do that it is harder for people to compare the changes. You can't do a diff (where you see changes between versions) on two different files. I think we are still making progress. I've just been trying not to do what I have done in the past: just immediately revert the edit. I want to take my time and make sure we keep anything that was actually good info (like the bomb stuff). Lets see how that goes today, I plan to make more changes within the next hour or two. I absolutely agree with you this has made me more determined than ever to see this through and do it right. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 18:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Just Did a Reversion

Some of the initial changes in the latest version (the one after my changes) seemed pretty reasonable. There were a few typo or capitalization corrections. I either agreed with them all or thought they were too trivial to argue about. Also, some of the personal stuff about his wife and daughter seemed like they were adding good info. But after the change where they changed Buhari participated to didn't participate in the coup I felt most of that was clearly wrong. That fact is so clearly contradicted by the reference. So that is where I reverted to. Is there some significance to these changes to the personal info that are significant and I'm missing? I think reverting to the point I did (rather than just reverting everything) was the more appropriate thing to do. Keep in mind you can still make changes if there were some things included in those intermediate changes that I left that are clearly wrong or sound awkward. But if my change gets reverted again I wanted us to have the strongest possible case for why some admin action might be justified and I thought taking a stand on the coup fact was the best way to go. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 18:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

What do you think of the current version? I was pleasantly surprised that so far it hasn't been reverted and one of the IP users made another edit (a minor one for grammar which was correct) so he at least saw the changes. Are there any glaring issues in the parts that I didn't revert that you think are crucial to address? For some things that are fairly trivial, alternate wordings of section headers for example, my thought is to just leave those as it helps establish a consensus and what matters most are questions of fact not style. But if I missed some crucial facts that got reverted or that still need to be corrected I want to help fix those. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

So, I had a bit of time on my hands so I went through all the edits and tried to update the page so as to reflect a more balanced point of view than how it was before. I'm hoping this version will stay up a bit longer, maybe we'll finally be able to call it a day and move on to other projects :)When you can, do let me know your thoughts on my edits! Passenger68 (talk) 17:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been away from the computer since yesterday morning. I have some health stuff I'm dealing with. Actually, I have surgery scheduled on my spinal column in a couple of weeks and there are lots of tests and crap I have to do before hand. Will take a look now. I was thinking the same thing actually, that it would be better for you to start taking the lead on this. But I'm still going to be watching the page and possibly making more edits myself and if at some point we need to request a block on some user or other kind of administrative stuff I definitely want to help with that. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 19:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Just took a quick look but looks like you did lots of great work! Outstanding! BTW, I really like your edit summaries, I think that is so important and something many people neglect, often making them just a few words, making them truly readable and summarizing the justification for an edit makes the edit so much more supportable. It looks like the edits aren't being reverted either (knock wood). --MadScientistX11 (talk) 19:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Just Checking In

I've been watching the Buhari page and it looks like no one is making mass revisions. FYI, the book I ordered: A history of Nigeria / Toyin Falola and Matthew M. Heaton from my library just came in and I will pick it up today. Do you know anything about that one? I forget why I wanted that one in particular, I think there was one specific fact that looked iffy and was referenced by it but anyway I plan to look through the book the next few days and if I can find ways to add more detail, better references, etc. will do so. Just wanted to check if there are any specific issues that have come up, questions you have, etc. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 17:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)