User talk:Spiderone/Archive 7
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Birthdays
In reference to your implied question in your edit summary on Maria Menounos, her birth date is not included because it was unverified. Per WP:BLP, we may only include birthdates if verified by a reliable source. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Help test new SuggestBot design
We have developed an exciting new version of SuggestBot’s interface with some cool features! Volunteer to be one of the first users to try it and help us make it better by answering a short survey! If you’re interested in participating, leave us a message on SuggestBot’s user talk page. Regards from Nettrom, SuggestBot’s caretaker. 18:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
WikiCup 2013 April newsletter
We are a week into Round 3, but it is off to a flying start, with 
Sven Manguard (submissions) claiming for the high-importance Portal:Sports and Portal:Geography (which are the first portals ever awarded bonus points in the WikiCup) and 
Cwmhiraeth (submissions) claiming for a did you know of sea, the highest scoring individual did you know article ever submitted for the WikiCup. Round 2 saw very impressive scores at close; first place 
Casliber (submissions) and second place 
Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) both scored over 1000 points; a feat not seen in Round 2 since 2010. This, in part, has been made possible by the change in the bonus points rules, but is also testament to the quality of the competition this year. Pool C and Pool G were most competitive, with three quarters of participants making it to Round 3, while Pool D was the least, with only the top two scorers making it through. The lowest qualifying score was 123, significantly higher than last year's 65, 2011's 41 or even 2010's 100.
The next issue of The Signpost is due to include a brief update on the current WikiCup, comparing it to previous years' competitions. This may be of interest to current WikiCup followers, and may help bring some more new faces into the community. We would also like to note that this round includes an extra competitor to the 32 advertised, who has been added to a random pool. This extra inclusion seems to have been the fairest way to deal with a small mistake made before the beginning of this round, but should not affect the competition in a large way. If you have any questions or concerns about this, please feel free to contact one of the judges.
A rules clarification: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on 29/30 April, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 15:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 07:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Comments
You have comments on my talk page.HotHat (talk) 01:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Rivalries discussion
See, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tennis#Rivalries.HotHat (talk) 04:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.
IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.
Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:
- Views/Day
- Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
- Quality
- Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.
The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:
- Content
- Is more content needed?
- Headings
- Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
- Images
- Is the number of illustrative images about right?
- Links
- Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
- Sources
- For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Bosniaks
Serbs and Croats have believe that Bosniaks are "Turkified" Serbs/Croats. You can't remove the categories "Bosniak people" from every Bosniak persons wiki because of your warped personal beliefs. "Bosniak" IS an ethnicity whether you personally like it or not. You could justify removing the categories from wikis of people with the name "Nenad" but you cannot justify removing the categories from wikis of Bosnian people with Muslim names like you did with Adnan Bešić, Muhamed Filipović, Fuad Gazibegović, Tahir Niksic or Hasan Cemalovic. The Bosniaks wiki says: "Bosniaks are typically characterized by their historic tie to the Bosnian historical region, traditional adherence to Islam".
I will be reporting you--DemirBajraktarevic (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- You can't categorise someone because of their name. By that logic, everyone called Yasmin, Nadia or Fatima is Muslim. Is Mohammed George a Muslim then? Read WP:OR. Spiderone 14:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
You don't need to pretend that there is reason to believe that these people aren't Bosniaks. Like I said I am reporting you and we can have somebody deal with this situation.--DemirBajraktarevic (talk) 14:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- Do you have a reliable source to prove that these people are Bosniaks? Spiderone 14:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Do you have reliable sources to prove that they are anything but? --DemirBajraktarevic (talk) 15:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- No. I cannot find any sources for their ethnicity therefore their ethnicity must be omitted. Do you have any evidence for their sexuality, favourite music or how many pets they have? No! It is unsourced. So why should we include something that isn't sourced in the article? Spiderone 15:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Like I said I'll report you and we can have a third person deal with you--DemirBajraktarevic (talk) 15:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 Response to Third Opinion Request:
|
| Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on Spiderone/Archive 7 and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here. |
Opinion: The Wikipedia rule, stated here is unambiguous:So the identity of an individual as Bosniak must be established in the article before the category is added, and must not only be claimed but must be established by reliable sources. On the other hand, if the category is improperly included this same rule says that the proper way to address it is not to remove the category but to template the article. After the templates have been posted for a reasonable period of time — I would recommend a month — if the information supporting the category has not been added to the article, then the category can be removed. This is, it should be noted, different from what is set out in the verifiability policy: Under that policy, unsourced information can be removed immediately though the best practice is to {{cn}}-tag it and leave it for awhile; under this guideline, however, it would appear to me that tagging is mandatory before the removal of an unsourced category. I would also note in this context that there have been repeated, exhaustive discussions at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability over the subject of removal of unsourced material without first making a good faith effort to find sources for that material, and the ongoing consensus seems to be that editors who occasionally delete unsourced material without seeking sources for it should be protected in doing so, but that the practice of routinely deleting unsourced material without first seeking sources is at the very least disfavored and some consider it to be a sanctionable practice, particularly if it takes place within a particular topic area. (And, I would note, some also believe it ought to be sanctionable whether or not the article was tagged first, but I do not feel that idea to be so clearly established, though some might differ with me in that regard.) Another thing to note, however, is that while removal of unsourced categories without first tagging the page may be questionable under the guideline linked above, there is no reason to believe that the removing editor's failure to do so enables another editor to restore the category without finding sources for it. Whether rightly or wrongly, once it is gone it's gone and the WP:BURDEN section of the verifiability policy clearly states that any editor who restores unsourced information after it has been removed must include reliable sources to support that reintroduction. |
|
What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TransporterMan (TALK) 16:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC) |
I think we should revert all his removals and I will personally look for sources for all the wikis --DemirBajraktarevic (talk) 16:07, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- I disagree. As was said
"Another thing to note, however, is that while removal of unsourced categories without first tagging the page may be questionable under the guideline linked above, there is no reason to believe that the removing editor's failure to do so enables another editor to restore the category without finding sources for it. Whether rightly or wrongly, once it is gone it's gone and the WP:BURDEN section of the verifiability policy clearly states that any editor who restores unsourced information after it has been removed must include reliable sources to support that reintroduction."
Put the sources first. Then add the category. Spiderone 16:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- Also, I was using Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material Spiderone 16:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- While I do not ordinarily re-enter discussions after I have opined, I would like to address the BLP immediate-removal question: There has been a considerable, but unsuccessful effort made — see the discussion here and prior discussions linked there (and there is a real possibility that there has been subsequent discussion about which I am not aware) — to define ethnic categories as inherently contentious for purposes of the BLP policy. There has also been an unrelated effort to merely define what is meant by "contentious" — see, for example, this RFC and this discussion — which have similarly ended in no consensus. If you look at the history of the term (and I discussed it at length in that RFC), I believe that it means something more than merely "controversial" or "objected to", with the closest and easiest meaning probably being "negative" or, probably closer but more unwieldy, "something that the person might reasonably find to be objectionable for some reason other than merely being incorrect, with any doubt being resolved in favor of it being objectionable." In light of all that, I do not feel that incorrectly labeling someone as a Bosniak is necessarily contentious, though a case could probably be made for it for some individuals on a case by case basis. (Improperly categorizing Stephen King as Irish probably isn't contentious by that test; but categorizing Ian Paisley as Irish probably is.) Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.
IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.
Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:
- Views/Day
- Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
- Quality
- Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.
The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:
- Content
- Is more content needed?
- Headings
- Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
- Images
- Is the number of illustrative images about right?
- Links
- Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
- Sources
- For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)