User talk:DutchKnight96

Welcome![edit]

Hello, DutchKnight96, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to List of Islamist terrorist attacks. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! 220 of ^Borg 11:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Islamist terrorist attacks[edit]

Hi there, DutchKnight96
Just want to give you a bit of advice about your edits in general and specifically at List of Islamist terrorist attacks.

Realise that you are a very new editor in an area that can be very controversial (one mans' terrorist is another mans' freedom fighter, sort of thing) The term terrorist and "Is it a terrorist attack" is frequently argued over, ad nauseam.
A basic level of wp:notability needs to be met, or this page will just become huge and impossible to maintain. Hence we can't add every presumed terrorist attack. Take note of the edit notice that says "... a reliable source that states the attack is both terrorist and Islamist must be provided for any new entry."
Your edit here does not seem entirely NPOV. Remember that Wikipedia (WP) is an encyclopaedia, so it has to be written in an encyclopaedic style. Saying "orphaning their 4 young children who witnessed the attack" may be true, but is it encyclopedic? Is that what the source says? It sounds a bit like a report in a newspaper, which WP is not. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not for more info.

And please be careful in wording your edit summaries, WP is not censored, but that doesn't necessarily apply to summaries! "Fixed my f%&k ups", gets the idea across, but still isn't necessary. You have to realise that anyone in the world can look at the page edit history and see what you write. 220 of ^Borg 21:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply regarding your advice[edit]

Copied over from my talk-page to keep discussion in one place. --220 of ^Borg 10:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 220 of Borg,
Thanks for your advice.

Despite being a new editor on Wikipedia I do have some experience on the similar editing webpage wikia.com. I created this account on Wikipedia because for my studies and personal interests I would like to keep the List of Islamist terrorist attacks page up to date. I understand the controversy surrounding said page though and understand I should keep the notability in mind.

My apologies for one of my edits that wasn't too NPOV. Your advice regarding the neutral point of view has been duly noted and I shall do my best to avoid such mistakes in the future.

As for the the vulgar language used in one of my edit summaries, apologies for that aswell. As said before, I do have some experience on Wikia so I still have to get used to the formalities of WP. (Formalities the other website sometimes lacks.)

Last but not least, as mentioned I'd like to keep the List of Islamist terrorist attacks page up to date, and for my studies (and interests) I frequently follow various news sources. Would you consider the reports from amongst others Russia Today about the attack in Kabul 5th of October notable enough? Can I add attacks claimed by organisations known for Islamic terrorism such as the Taliban? Or should I avoid adding attacks in nations where such acts of terror take place on a frequent basis? (i.e. Afghanistan, Iraq)

Best regards, DutchKnight96 (talk) 22:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reasoned reply. Occasionally 'noob' editors' 'fly off the handle' at "being told what to do"!

The 'mechanics' of Wikia.com would be similar I imagine, but probably less rules? Like WP:Verifiability & WP:NPPOV etc.

Keeping pages "up to date" is indeed an important function, and I often do it myself. [1]. (I seem to have 'adopted' that page) One has to beware of WP:recentism though.
My edit here came to be all too true, unfortunately.
WP language can be much worse that 'fark' (or it's variations ). I recall warning off an editor (probably blocked now) for, IIRC, telling another editor to "go kill themself" (WP:NPA)
I was myself updating a few 'terrorism' related pages, probably re the Parramatta shooting, when I came to the 'Islamist' page. It looked a real mess in several areas. Lots of unsourced entries, I think some talk-page discussions re layout and format of the linking to the 'man page' of terrorist incidents (where they exist) may be needed. I was going to 'ping' the editor who had the most edits there about it, unfortunately they have retired.
All incidents added should be 'notable'. If it has a WP page, and is classified as 'Islamist terrorism' then add it. Ones with no WP page are more of a judgement call, can't say about the Kabul attack, a link to the information would help! You can add anything you want, in a way, someone else will just remove it if they disagree. (WP:BRD) A set of criteria may need to be created. 220 of ^Borg 10:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A set of criteria would be very helpful indeed. I personally consider something add-worthy when it has media attention from a significant news source and the attack has been claimed by an Islamic organisation known for using terrorism to achieve their goals. And the lone wolves, of course.

I fear a lot of updating is going to be needed now that the Israeli government warned for a new wave of terror. (Considering the long list of attacks in Israel on the page in 2002-2004 I assume it wouldn't be a problem adding these new incidents.) DutchKnight96 (talk) 18:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]