EdwardsBot (talk | contribs) →The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009: new section |
HappyInGeneral (talk | contribs) |
||
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 189: | Line 189: | ||
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">'''[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost|Read this Signpost in full]]''' · [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Single|Single-page]] · [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Subscribe|Unsubscribe]] · [[User:EdwardsBot|EdwardsBot]] ([[User talk:EdwardsBot|talk]]) 01:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)</div> |
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">'''[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost|Read this Signpost in full]]''' · [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Single|Single-page]] · [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Subscribe|Unsubscribe]] · [[User:EdwardsBot|EdwardsBot]] ([[User talk:EdwardsBot|talk]]) 01:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)</div> |
||
<!-- EdwardsBot 0002 --> |
<!-- EdwardsBot 0002 --> |
||
== Question == |
|||
I've replied to your question both at my talk page and at the discussion you linked. Could I ask why your question was originally posted by [[User:Kuki Szabolcs]], whose signature you replaced with your own? [[User:Hersfold|'''''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>''''']] <sup>([[User:Hersfold/t|t]]/[[User:Hersfold/a|a]]/[[Special:Contributions/Hersfold|c]])</sup> 21:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC) |
|||
: I am quite surprised myself, this user ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Kuki_Szabolcs with 1 edit]) was never created on English Wikipedia, it was created on the Romanian Wikipedia, by me. Since I used the same session it must have transferred somehow to English Wikipedia, however if you ask me, this is a bug. Best Regards, --[[User:HappyInGeneral|HappyInGeneral]] ([[User talk:HappyInGeneral#top|talk]]) 01:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:10, 29 October 2009
|
Index
|
||
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Question about majority vote
Is this poll valid? That is, is there somewhere such a policy that supports: "After the poll has closed, the majority result will prevail, and the results of the poll will be implemented."? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 22:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- No, it is not really valid. See Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Chzz ► 22:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Falun Gong
While I tend to agree with most of your arguments in the debates, I think other editors have raised a valid point that you seem to have made little or no edits to articles other than those related to Falun Gong. Whether or not you're being a good editor, this doesn't make you look good. I would urgue you to take a break from editing these articles and instead find other articles to edit. Wikipedia is rich and complex and I'm sure there are many subjects and areas that could use your help.
You may also gain valuable insight from editing controversial articles in which you have less of a passionate interest...this will help you to form more persuasive arguments, and it will also help you to learn which courses of action are most constructive.
I agree with you that there is a constant attempt at sanitizing the material on persecution of Falun Gong...but at the same time, appearing to be singly-focused on the "other side" of the issue doesn't help either. There are problems with the persecution article, and I'll be the first to admit it. I would like to encourage some middle ground, improving the article, neither whitewashing it with PRC's perspective nor making it a Falun Gong-POV narrative. Cazort (talk) 17:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- Falun Gong is a complex subject. I taken an interest in it, and I am quite close on what you can call an expert on this subject. Since I taken an interest in it, just reading through and checking what are the most blatant violation takes all my time. I will consider your points, although since I am a self declared Falun Gong practitioner, I don't see how diverting my attention will get me anytime "clean" in the eyes of the PRC-POV pushers. How about judging everyone's edits based on their merit. That being said, can you point me somewhere where I did not make legitimate edits, that is edits that are not in the best interest of this encyclopedia? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- OK, FYI, I started working a bit on these pages and expand from that, there are lots of interesting pages on Wikipedia to which I would like to contribute in a meaningful way. Unfortunately I am no expert there and other then blatant vandal reverts or copy edit, it takes a lot of time (from the little I have) to read up on the sources, for example this and this are just to examples that caught my eye. Anyway, hopefully things will work out as from the watch list I see that you keep an eye on the Falun Gong pages and hopefully you will be perhaps even able to draw even more independent participation to it. Thank you for that. Best Regards, --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Alt text question
I use the Altviewer tool to find all the images that either need alt text, or need to be marked as purely decorative. It's a judgment call as to which is which, but typically if an image is something like a flag that merely repeats adjacent text and is not the subject of comment, it's purely decorative. Eubulides (talk) 19:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Notable practicioners
Hope the phrasing didn't set you off. Standard practice of such lists is to list only those who have extant articles, and those were all I could find. The Ownby book mentions a few names, but none of them so far as I can tell would meet notability guidelines. If you know of any others, let me know and I can see if they can get added to the list. I'd personally like to see it as long as possible, because most wikipedia portals have a separate "biography" section and right now the Portal:Falun Gong doesn't have much content of any kind to add to it. I think I can get together at least a bit of an article on Li's second book based on Ownby, and am going to try to start a history article after finishing assessing for Kuwait, but any other articles, particularly biographies or books or anything else, that you think would meet notability and other criteria would be more than welcome as well. And, particularly if you can get them over 1500 characters of text, we could nominate those for the DYK section of the main page, and with luck get a few more people inolved that way as well. John Carter (talk) 22:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Hi John, thanks for your clarification on notable and yes, I agree that it would be great to create that many of pages. I'll do my best but I don't promise anything. On the spare time that I will be able to put my hands on, I would like to enrich the HRTR article among others. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 22:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
RFC
You said you were filing an Rfc on the self-immolations. All I can see is that you've made a comment on a noticeboard. If you do in fact wish to file a formal RfC, please follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:Requests for comment. John Carter (talk) 18:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- I did not want to over do it, but sure I can do that. Thank you for the reminder. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, for the moment I'll wait until tomorrow to give a chance for the NPOV notice board to react. Then I'll file the RfC, is that OK with you? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
date formats
FYI, I tried to work some of your thinking regarding standardizing date formats within an article into a re-work of the proposal that appears below the comment of supporter # 21 (the standard being months should be abbreviated or written out, but not numerical).--Epeefleche (talk) 07:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Conventions are good to know
I was writing to OC not to you. It is conventional to use indentation to indicate to whom one is responding. Multiple responses to the same comment, like ours will be indented at the same level. If I were answering your comment I would indent one level more than you. Unfortunately not everyone understands this. You should also grasp that my response only makes sense as if it were to OC who didn't answer the question. Anyway I advise you to follow the convention I mentioned because it leads to less confusion.PelleSmith (talk) 14:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- You are right, thanks! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 14:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Template:Combi
Please see Template talk:Combi#Needs documentation or deletion - article Azerbaijan – United States relations has {{combi}} with problems per Talk:Azerbaijan – United States relations - I tried using {{endcombi}} on it, but in "Show preview", it didn't fix the problem described (words run together), so I abandoned my edit again. If testing, you'll need to pop in one or two more level 2 headings, so as to generate a TOC (which will show below the infobox). However, if I simply remove {{combi}}, it looks fine. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- I just ran into {{combi}} while trying out Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser. Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser will complain because |} reports as an unbalanced entry. To fix that I inserted that piece of wiki with the {{endcombi}} template. I don't know much of it other then that. What you describe seems to be a problem with the {{combi}} template itself on one single page. If deleting it from that page solves the problem, I guess there is no harm in deleting it from that page. But be careful, there are other pages, where deleting the {{combi}} tag will mess up the page. Best Regards, --HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Dead links
Please don't remove sources simply because they point to wp:dead links: "Dead links are unprofessional, and should be fixed on a regular basis. You can try to find the current location of the resource using a search engine. Dead links of online newspaper articles can be converted to references to off-line sources. Do not simply remove dead links; they often contain valuable information." I am rolling back the change, although removing these references is not vandalism, it is very much not helpful. Please leave the links in the references in the article.- Sinneed 22:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- I suddenly realized that sounded unfriendly. My apologies. Thank you very much for fixing many things. I used to murder dead links... then I was pointed at the wp:dead external links#repairing bit quoted above. This was a disappointment to me, as I had thought killing them off was a Good ThingTM until then. *sigh* All the best.- Sinneed 22:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, thanks for letting me know! It seems that only now do I properly understand the role of {{deadlink}} template. Thank you for pointing out the quote. It really makes sense: "Do not simply remove dead links; they often contain valuable information.". So Thank You! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Most welcome and of course on the parable. I put it there for use and reuse. Wisdom learned once and forgotten is not very valuable, eh? :) All the best.- Sinneed 18:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Also: wp:REFLINKS - wonderful tool. I apply it to every article I see that it seems might profit from it. I use #6. It is not bugfree... one must give the resulting text a hard look... it becomes confused by poorly coded web pages... some foolios attach tags to their web pages that are simply wrong or themselves have suffered from rot... and the bot faithfully uses those bad tags. But it is a WONDERFUL tool.- Sinneed 03:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- You may safely answer here, as I will be watching your page for possible replies for a while. Or of course you are welcome to answer on my talk. Be happy. :) I am glad you liked the parable. - Sinneed 03:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Do you use your watch list to watch my page? My watch list at this point is perhaps too big. And I might need to trim-it down, but then it comes to the question which ones to let go :-) --HappyInGeneral (talk) 07:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, and mine, too, it huge. I give it an aggressive trimming every once in a while. Especially talk pages. Maybe once a month. If I don't remember why I am watching something, I figure it isn't too critical. :) - Sinneed 14:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Do you use your watch list to watch my page? My watch list at this point is perhaps too big. And I might need to trim-it down, but then it comes to the question which ones to let go :-) --HappyInGeneral (talk) 07:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- You may safely answer here, as I will be watching your page for possible replies for a while. Or of course you are welcome to answer on my talk. Be happy. :) I am glad you liked the parable. - Sinneed 03:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Also: wp:REFLINKS - wonderful tool. I apply it to every article I see that it seems might profit from it. I use #6. It is not bugfree... one must give the resulting text a hard look... it becomes confused by poorly coded web pages... some foolios attach tags to their web pages that are simply wrong or themselves have suffered from rot... and the bot faithfully uses those bad tags. But it is a WONDERFUL tool.- Sinneed 03:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Most welcome and of course on the parable. I put it there for use and reuse. Wisdom learned once and forgotten is not very valuable, eh? :) All the best.- Sinneed 18:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) - User:Dispenser/Checklinks Another link-work toy. Tool. Yeah, that's it. :)- Sinneed 00:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you! I will certainly check it out! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 07:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
It is inappropriate to make comments to a featured article candidate after the discussion has been closed. This article was promoted because consensus in the discussion indicated that the article met the featured article criteria. This does not mean that the article is perfect (no article is perfect). If you have concerns about any content in the article, please place them on the article talk page. If, after several months, you feel the article no longer meets the featured article criteria, you can nominate it for featured article review. This is an inappropriate step at the moment because consensus has just been judged. Karanacs (talk) 15:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks I was not aware of the the etiquette in this case, is it somewhere documented? Thank you again. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Generally, it's not a good idea to edit any discussion that's already been closed. WP:FA has some overall guidance; it points out that WP:FAR is where to go when you think that there is an issue. I see that the concern has been engaged on the talk page of the article - I hope it is resolved satisfactorily! Karanacs (talk) 19:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. I feel that there is an issue of WP:NPOV as per point "(b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context"; of Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. Although I agree that is lame to bring up the issue now, but as I was planning to do the job, just did not manage to get enough time. Anyway, it is fine I guess, nothing is frozen and the article is still open for further improvements. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Generally, it's not a good idea to edit any discussion that's already been closed. WP:FA has some overall guidance; it points out that WP:FAR is where to go when you think that there is an issue. I see that the concern has been engaged on the talk page of the article - I hope it is resolved satisfactorily! Karanacs (talk) 19:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Warnng: page move of History of Falun Gong
Please stop your disruption. Your revert is unacceptable disruption. You should address the comments to the talk page instead of warring. Ohconfucius (talk) 12:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- This is a show of bad faith, since I did commented here, which is impossible for you not to see. Then you go on and claim that you are right. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 12:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Store for reference --HappyInGeneral (talk) 15:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- While I don't think a warning was needed for 1 revert of the move, as I don't see how it fails wp:BRD, I don't see how the warning showed wp:bad faith. - Sinneed 15:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- We have a history on this already, so we pretty much know how the other thinks. Still I don't see how the rename is legitimate. Maybe you can elaborate your opinion on that. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Article talk page has discussion, marked as an archive of the page move discussion, and a space for new discussion of any proposed move.- Sinneed 16:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Right, I guess you are perfectly right, now I should ask for Request for Move, which is the official channel, and which I think was completely over stepped. I guess that is the way to do it. Thank You! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Store for reference --HappyInGeneral (talk) 15:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
(undent) As I know wp:BRD workes like this: (1) do a bold edit, which was done by Ohconfucius; (2) revert, I did that; (3) discuss (no more reverting at this point). Well point 3 was breached and as you can see they are now happy sanitizing all the pages, from the term persecution. Now as for wp:bad faith I see it like this: if wp:BRD is breached, then after this I get immediately a warning on my page, that I was bold enough to revert that bold change, then I think I'm entitled to characterize that as wp:bad faith. Do you see it otherwise? Thank you! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I think you've lost it completely
Vandalism? be careful with your wordchoices! Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 12:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- You where trying to make the 'move' section a closed issue, which is clearly not your call. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 12:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Just an advice: don't fight with me. You don't want to get one of the few neutral voices against yourself. So stop ranting around with accusations of vandalism or the like. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 12:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- I can assure you, I have no intention of fighting. On the other hand, I can say it that I don't see you neutral, you don't behave like somebody who is neutral. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 13:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- You've lost me. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 13:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Just FYI, sorry for the Vandal button revert, I think this is was one of the firsts times I used it. I thought that it will give me a chance to put some more context into it. When it did not give me that possibility I did left you a note on your talk page, which I see that you answered, but then quickly removed.--HappyInGeneral (talk) 13:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Finally. Apology accepted. You saved yourself. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 13:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Just FYI, sorry for the Vandal button revert, I think this is was one of the firsts times I used it. I thought that it will give me a chance to put some more context into it. When it did not give me that possibility I did left you a note on your talk page, which I see that you answered, but then quickly removed.--HappyInGeneral (talk) 13:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- You've lost me. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 13:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- I can assure you, I have no intention of fighting. On the other hand, I can say it that I don't see you neutral, you don't behave like somebody who is neutral. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 13:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Just an advice: don't fight with me. You don't want to get one of the few neutral voices against yourself. So stop ranting around with accusations of vandalism or the like. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 12:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
New Section
Zen Garden Award for Infinite Patience | ||
The Zen Garden Award' for Infinite Patience shall be awarded to User:HappyInGeneral who has shown extraordinary patience in the face of turmoil. Mootros (talk) 16:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC) |
Just a polite reminder that you should be careful about WP:CANVAS when soliciting comments on articles you are involved in editing. Simonm223 (talk) 17:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Funny that you should mention WP:CANVAS, see here. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
ANI Report.
Hello, I wish to inform you that I have asked that your edit practices be looked over. I feel that, in the past, you have edited with an intent to push a POV. I do not wish to get particularly involved in Falun Gong issues again, but after seeing several moves of a page I had previously moved (and been involved in a move debate about), and seeing that list of move reverts, I came to feel that you are edit warring with the goal of forcing your own POV to be reflected in these articles. A growing consensus has formed on these pages, one that will, in time, greatly improve coverage of Falun Gong issues. Your editing has become disruptive to this process, and is likely to hurt the encyclopædia. I hope, however, that you will understand that my desire is not to oppose you, but to ensure that this topic, and the disputes about it, are resolved. Irbisgreif (talk) 07:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for the notice, let me answer there. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 11:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Numbers
Hi HappyInGeneral, re the numbers (thanks for the work), if you intend to revise them, I suggest you set google up to display 100 results per page, and click through to the last page. The total number of hits given on the first page is very often a lot higher than the number given on the last page. For example: 289 hits, but actually, if you go to the second hundred, you find that the total has been reduced to 168 hits. Generally, the total displayed on the first page is only a rough estimate which can be out by a lot.
I was unable to eliminate all Falun Gong sites from the counts. The reason is that google news only considers a certain number of arguments; any further arguments beyond those are simply ignored. So if you add further sites to exclude, it just doesn't take any notice of it. My estimate of around 600 was just based on a visual scan of the results, and is conservative; it may well be more. Cheers, --JN466 02:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you! Great info! So basically we can do some filtering, then the rest is a manual count. I wonder if Google offers some api, through which to download the full list, perhaps in a xml, csv, etc... . --HappyInGeneral (talk) 11:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009
- News and notes: WikiReader, Meetup in Pakistan, Audit committee elections, and more
- In the news: Sanger controversy reignited, Limbaugh libelled, and more
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Unfortunately, nationalistic disputes (and I include Falun Gong in this due to the Communist Party's involvement) tend to be a royal mess regardless of what's done. My only suggestion would be to continue to try and bring in more people to the project who aren't currently involved, in the hopes that with some more neutral viewpoints on the matter (people not particularly biased either way), you'll be able to bridge some of the gaps between those on the ends of the spectrum who can't agree on anything. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you! Makes sense. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Welcome
On my talk page, you wrote:
Reflinks worked out really well, see for example the Sarah Palin page history. Also now I've compiled a list of fixers that I know of so far, please feel free to let me know of more if you know! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 22:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I am glad. You are welcome.- Sinneed 22:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009
- Interview: Interview with John Blossom
- News and notes: New hires, German Wikipedian dies, new book tool, and more
- In the news: Editor profiled in Washington Post, Wikia magazines, and more
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Question
I've replied to your question both at my talk page and at the discussion you linked. Could I ask why your question was originally posted by User:Kuki Szabolcs, whose signature you replaced with your own? Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- I am quite surprised myself, this user (with 1 edit) was never created on English Wikipedia, it was created on the Romanian Wikipedia, by me. Since I used the same session it must have transferred somehow to English Wikipedia, however if you ask me, this is a bug. Best Regards, --HappyInGeneral (talk) 01:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)