User talk:Murus/Archive 1
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
June 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ubiquitous city may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"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:
- Global Holdings Announces Plans to Develop World’s Largest Tech Testing and Evaluation Center.]]</ref>New technologies such as driverless cars, renewable energy feeds, state-of-the-art
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll check. --Murus (talk) 04:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Pleurisy may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. 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:
- symptoms and pain in the chest, while viral infections are self-limited. Help of a pulmonologist (respiratory physician in the U.K. and Australia} may be enlisted to determine the underlying course of a pleurisy and chart post-illness
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing to. --Murus (talk) 06:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rust Belt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Buffalo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. Fixed.--Murus (talk) 14:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Adding references can be easy
I noticed that you added some references that could be improved with additional information. Here's how to add references from reliable sources for the content you add to Wikipedia. This helps maintain the Wikipedia policy of verifiability.
Adding well formatted references is actually quite easy:
- While editing any article or a wikipage, on the top of the edit window you will see a toolbar which says "Cite". Click on it.
- Then click on "Templates".
- Choose the most appropriate template and fill in as many details as you can. This will add a well formatted reference that is helpful in case the web URL (or "website link") becomes inactive in the future.
- Click on Preview when you're done filling out the 'Cite (web/news/book/journal)' to make sure that the reference is correct.
- Click on Insert to insert the reference into your editing window content.
- Click on Show preview to Preview all your editing changes.
- Before clicking on Save page, check that a References header ==References== is near the end of the article.
- And check that {{Reflist}} is directly underneath that header.
- 7. Click on Save page. ...and you've just added a complete reference to a Wikipedia article.
You can read more about this on Help:Edit toolbar or see this video File:RefTools.ogv.
If you already know all this & I've misinterpreted something in your editing, please don't take offense, just trying to help a fellow editor. Thanks --Shearonink (talk) 06:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- To use this message, place
{{subst:User:Shearonink/ref}}
on User:talk pages when needed.
- Thanks. --Murus (talk) 07:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Your deletion - Taksim Gezi Park
Dear Markus2685, I have noticed that you have made changes to the Taksim Gezi Park article, that is wonderful! However, you did not provided related and reliable source to your claims which is not good. Please be informed that I have rolled back your edits. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. See you around, --Murus (talk) 04:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Dear Murus… The information you have deleted was contrary to your claims indeed supported by sources. Therefore your argument you did not provided related and reliable source is absolutely not understandable. The information was supported with four reliable sources. I have now even added a fifth source, namely The New York Times. News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable WP:NEWSORG. And the main article about the Pangaltı Armenian Cemetery, where the Taksim Gezi Park article links to, is supported by 11 sources. That's why your argument for deleting the information is not correct. I would therefore very kindly ask you to not delete it again. Thank you. --Markus2685 (talk) 09:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Markus2685! Thank you for your quick reply and for providing a more reliable source: The New York Times from June 7, 2013[1]:
Gravestones from an Armenian cemetery at Taksim demolished in 1939 were used to construct stairs at Gezi Park, a republican-era project by the French planner Henri Prost that is like the jumble of high-rise hotels, traffic circles and the now-shuttered opera house on the square, named after Ataturk.
— —Michael Kimmelman, NYT
- Hi Markus2685! Thank you for your quick reply and for providing a more reliable source: The New York Times from June 7, 2013[1]:
However, since this is a serious claim that can be even interpreted as a slander, would you be so kind as to research it more. We know for sure that the press acts as an echo chamber, so some history books may be of great help. By the way, what area do you refer to when you talk about "on the areal"? [2]
I am asking since near everything in Pera can be included under this category. Meanwhile, I will put the thing back into a limbo while you will continue your worthwhile research. Believe me, I have no political interest in this matter whatsoever, and am driven by the intent to keep this wonderful resource free of bigotry and bias! If you don't agree with me which is fine, you can submit for an arbitration, it is always nice to have a third pair of eyes involved. Best, --Murus (talk) 18:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, so just to make this clear. What exactly is bothering you? The word "demolished" or what is it? Because the fact that an Armenian Cemetery existed on the area of today's Gezi Park is undeniable and this information is supported by numerous reliable source. And also the fact that the cemetery is not existing anymore is something undeniable. So what exactly is bothering you that you still want more sources (although concerning to Wikipedia rules there are already more than enough reliable sources given). And sorry to say this, but your way of argumenting, makes the impression as you obviously have a political interest because saying that more sources are needed (although more than 6 reliable sources are enough) is not understandable and also saying that mentioning this fact could be "interpreted as a slander" reminds of people (mostly Turks) who find that saying there was indeed an Armenian Genocide is a "slender". This has nothing to do with slender or anything else. If the Armenian Cemetery was demolished and if this information can be supported by reliable sources (which it can) than this is a historical fact which belongs to this Wikipedia article. If someone, because of personal reasons, thinks it is as "slender" mentioning this fact, like many Turks think it is a "slender" saying that there was an Armenian Genocide, this is their personal problem and not a Wikipedia problem. --Markus2685 (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input, Markus2685! I indeed does not have any political interest in this matter, so rest assured! If you check the article's history, you will notice that at first I have written myself that the barracks and the park were situated on the grounds of a cemetery. When I conducted more research, I did change the wording to "near" since I did not find convincing evidence to that, and decided to go by the "do-no-harm" golden rule. In my humble opinion, Wikipedia cannot change the world, but merely is trying to inform it. I am also aware of the fact that the new Turkish generation that is engaged in protests now is sympathetic to the plight of the Armenians at the beginning of the 20th century. However, I think one should be cautious while arguing a case, and should be also careful about where to do so. But as I mentioned before, if you believe that I am wrong, go ahead with that arbitration thing, everything should be decided in a collegiate manner. Sincerely yours, --Murus (talk) 19:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- I have added an opening sentence to the history section and made a few stylistic edits. I am glad that we are having a worthwhile, cooperative discussion here. The sentence: "After the Armenian Genocide the cemetery was demolished in 1930 and its marble tombstones were sold in 1939 or were used in the construction of the Park" has too many citations, so I am asking to kindly reduce them to one or two, most authoritative. Best,--Murus (talk) 13:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC).
Impact factor article section deletion
Dear Randykitty,
You have deleted without discussion a section in the Impact factor article by merely stating:
I agree that this is a spoof, but you cannot write that without a reliable source; remove incorrect info about Master List (updated continually))
instead of dropping the mentioning of an ISI-clone and changing "annual" to "continuously" in the case of the Thompson Reuters Master Journal List. Indeed, the evaluation of journals by Thompson Reuters is done continuously, and the results are made available through the Web of Science database immediately.[1]
However, in case of the journal impact factor ratings, journals are added to the list annually, when a new JSR is released.[2]. See, for example, the 2013 list that you chose to delete: [3] That means that a certain journal can be found in a Master Journal List database,[4] which is free to use, however that does not mean that its impact factor has been calculated. You should be aware of the fact that a lot of second-tier journals claim having an impact factor of unknown provenance. Not all of developing countries' scholars have access to the JSR. I've seen stuff on the internet when Thompsons' actual ratings were distorted. Therefore, checking into the Master Journal List can be the only option to decide on a reputation of a certain journal before submitting. That is why I feel strongly about emphasizing both the impact factor spoofing and the availability of a Master List.
Another thing, the current pull towards eliminating journal impact factor ratings may result in chaos. That is why I shared the information about Thomsons self-policing and supressing journals suspected in citation inflation.[5][6][7]
In short, there is a lot of confusion with bibliometrics both in real life and on wikipages nowdays.
I have no doubt that all your eliminations are of good-faith nature, and not a result of playing the get-as-many-edit-counts-as-you-can game, but nevertheless, it is always nice to have a third pair of knowledgeable eyes to get involved. I know that as a novice editor and reviewer (7 months and 16 days after registration) you will be also highly appreciative of such an opportunity. So, how do we proceed further? Best, --Murus (talk) 00:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- Wow. As a newbie, I'm quite honored that an editor like you with months of experience and hundreds of edits behind its belt is willing to provide me with some guidance! And I'm impressed by the good faith that you are displaying in not suspecting me of playing an edit-count game. So I humbly present you here my (probably clueless) replies to the issues you raise:
- The TR Master Journal List is, as far as I know, updated whenever one of the TR databases decides to include a new journal. The JCR does this three times a year, other databases perhaps at other times. So saying that it is updated "annually" is incorrect, I think. The JCR itself is published once a year of course, but that is a different matter altogether.
- I was under the impression that WP is not a self-help guide. It is not our function to warn people. All we do is report information that can be sourced to independent reliable sources. You give no source at all about the "spoof" site. Yes, I agree, it looks very much like a spoof site, but what you and I think is absolutely not important. As long as there is no reliable source about this spoof site, it has no place in the article.
- Finally, (you included this in a separate section, so I hope you'll forgive me for replying in this section) there's the issue of including year-by-year statistics about how many journals are covered/got added this year/etc. These are pretty useless statistics, in my opinion. If they are in the article for 2013, then why not for the other years, too? That would make for a pretty boring and rather useless article, I think.
- Hope this clarifies my thinking behind the edits I made. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 17:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- Dear Randykitty, thank you for your input. Before getting into particulars I would like to ask you if you are a paid worker for the Wikimedia Foundation. A simple yes or no would suffice. Thank you in advance for your coming reply! I would also appreciate if you kindly drop me a note on my page, looks like we are both extremely busy persons. With best wishes, --Murus (talk) 01:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC).
- That's a strange question and it doesn't seem to have anything to do with this discussion. In any case, as a matter of principle, I don't give out any personal information, sorry. --Randykitty (talk) 05:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- Dear Randykitty, thank you for your input. Before getting into particulars I would like to ask you if you are a paid worker for the Wikimedia Foundation. A simple yes or no would suffice. Thank you in advance for your coming reply! I would also appreciate if you kindly drop me a note on my page, looks like we are both extremely busy persons. With best wishes, --Murus (talk) 01:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC).
July 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Eugene Bullard may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. 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:
- from the government of France.<ref name="ANB" /> He became a knight of the [[Legion of Honor]] ([[:fr:Ordre national de la Légion d'honneur|Chevalier de la Légion d'honneur]]}, which is France's most coveted award. He was also awarded the [[Médaille militaire]], another
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- Sharks, I'll get there, thanx!--Murus (talk) 02:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Taksim
Murus what I can say is this...The Taksim Barracks were actually built on top of the Armenian cemetery (here's a source that says so). The source also says that the Taksim Barracks were built on top of the Muslim cemetery. I find this hard to believe (See this photograph). It is clear that the Taksim Barracks cannot possibly be on the lands of the Muslim cemetery given is disproportionate location to the barracks. However, the Armenian cemetery (Harbiye Tarafi (Ermeni)) is more understandable. Proudbolsahye (talk) 03:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- Dear Proudbolsahye, thank you for your message. I am really impressed with all new sources that are presented since I previously did my own, though limited in scope, research of the topic! I guess, we have all to review them, compare, and after that develop a conclusion which will be historically accurate. I am relying on you in this matter since I cannot read Turkish or Armenian, which is very unfortunate. Best, --Murus (talk) 03:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC).
messages
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Disambiguation link notification for July 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Coccidioides, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Saprophytes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yep, mea culpa!--Murus (talk) 14:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Who Framed Roger Rabbit
Non-free content can be used in articles only if:
- Its usage would be considered fair use in United States copyright law and also complies with the Non-free content criteria;
- It is used for a purpose that cannot be fulfilled by free material (text or images, existing or to be created); and
- It has a valid rationale indicating why its usage would be considered fair use within Wikipedia policy and US law.
The article already has several non-free images. You can't add non-free images to articles just to "score." Trivialist (talk) 02:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
August 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Eugene Bullard may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"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:
- Houghton Mifflin Company, 1920, Volume II, p. 324.</ref> joined 269 American aviators at the [[Lafayette Flying Corps]<ref>Gordon, Dennis. The Lafayette Flying Corps: The American Volunteers in
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. Fixed!--Murus (talk) 17:21, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 21 August 2013
- Recent research: WikiSym 2013 retrospective
- WikiProject report: Loop-the-loop: Amusement Parks
- Traffic report: Reddit creep
- Featured content: WikiCup update, and the gardens of Finland
- News and notes: Looking ahead to Wiki Loves Monuments
- Technology report: Gallery improvements launch on Wikipedia
Disambiguation link notification for August 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Daniel Drew, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Fisk (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. Fixed!--Murus (talk) 21:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 28 August 2013
- Recent research: WikiSym 2013 retrospective
- WikiProject report: Loop-the-loop: Amusement Parks
- Traffic report: Reddit creep
- Featured content: WikiCup update, and the gardens of Finland
- News and notes: Looking ahead to Wiki Loves Monuments
- Technology report: Gallery improvements launch on Wikipedia
Disambiguation link notification for September 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited My Lai Massacre, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frontline (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. Done! --Murus (talk) 13:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 04 September 2013
- News and notes: Privacy policy debate gears up
- Traffic report: No accounting for the wisdom of crowds
- Featured content: Bridging the way to a Peasants' Revolt
- WikiProject report: Writing on the frontier: Psychology on Wikipedia
- Arbitration report: Manning naming dispute case opens; Tea Party case closes ; Infoboxes nears completion
- Technology report: Making Wikipedia more accessible
September 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to My Lai Massacre may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"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 ⇨)
|
---|
|
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
- Glad you caught it! Fixed. --Murus (talk) 00:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to My Lai Massacre may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. 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:
- platoon killed at least 60–70 Vietnamese, as they swept through the northern half of Mỹ Lai (4} and through Binh Tay, a small sub-hamlet about {{convert|400|m}} north of Mỹ Lai (4).<ref name=
- p.139. Cited in Oliver, Kendrick. (2006) ''The My Lai Massacre in American History and Memory'', (Manchester: Manchester University Press, p.112.</ref> [[United States Secretary of the Army|
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, done.--Murus (talk) 06:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hugh Thompson, Jr. may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. 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 ⇨)
|
---|
|
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- Done! Thanks!--Murus (talk) 07:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 11 September 2013
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Indonesia
- Featured content: Tintin goes featured
- Traffic report: Syria, celebrities, and association football: oh my!
- Arbitration report: Workshop phase opens in Manning naming dispute ; Infoboxes case closes
Disambiguation link notification for September 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited My Lai Massacre, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Look (magazine) and Hugh Thompson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, fixed!
The Signpost: 18 September 2013
- WikiProject report: 18,464 Good Articles on the wall
- Featured content: Hurricane Diane and Van Gogh
- Technology report: What can Wikidata do for Wikipedia?
- Traffic report: Twerking, tragedy and TV
The Signpost: 25 September 2013
- Traffic report: Look on Walter's works
- WikiProject report: Babel Series: GOOOOOOAAAAAAALLLLLLL!!!!!
- Featured content: Wikipedia takes the stage
The Signpost: 02 October 2013
- Discussion report: References to individuals and groups, merging wikiprojects, portals on the Main page, and more
- News and notes: WMF signals new grantmaking priorities
- Featured content: Bobby, Ben, Roger and a fantasia
- Arbitration report: Infoboxes: After the war
- WikiProject report: U2 Too
The Signpost: 09 October 2013
- Traffic report: Shutdown shenanigans
- WikiProject report: Australian Roads
- Featured content: Under the sea
- News and notes: Extensive network of clandestine paid advocacy exposed
- In the media: College credit for editing Wikipedia
- Arbitration report: Manning naming dispute and Ebionites 3 cases continue; third arbitrator resigns
Nick Turse
Hi Murus. The discussion at the Nick Turse article about whether to include his opinions on the Columbine Massacre -- a subject you weighed in on last spring, saying it should be included -- is again under discussion. Care to weigh in again? 76.14.66.186 (talk) 00:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Hi 76.14.66.186. Thank you for your note! I remember Nick Turse's article and will stop by. Regards, --Murus (talk) 20:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 16 October 2013
- News and notes: Vice on Wiki-PR's paid advocacy; Featured list elections begin
- Traffic report: Peaceful potpourri
- WikiProject report: Heraldry and Vexillology
- Featured content: That's a lot of pictures
- Arbitration report: Manning naming dispute case closes
- Discussion report: Ada Lovelace Day, paid advocacy on Wikipedia, sidebar update, and more
The Signpost: 23 October 2013
- News and notes: Grantmaking season—rumblings in the German-language community
- Traffic report: Your average week ... and a fish
- Featured content: Your worst nightmare as a child is now featured on Wikipedia
- Discussion report: More discussion of paid advocacy, upcoming arbitrator elections, research hackathon, and more
- In the media: The decline of Wikipedia; Sue Gardner releases statement on Wiki-PR; Australian minister relies on Wikipedia
- WikiProject report: Elements of the world
The Signpost: 30 October 2013
- Traffic report: 200 miles in 200 years
- In the media: Rand Paul plagiarizes Wikipedia?
- News and notes: Sex and drug tourism—Wikivoyage's soft underbelly?
- Featured content: Wrestling with featured content
- Recent research: User influence on site policies: Wikipedia vs. Facebook vs. Youtube
- WikiProject report: Special: Lessons from the dead and dying
The Signpost: 06 November 2013
- Traffic report: Danse Macabre
- Featured content: Five years of work leads to 63-article featured topic
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Accessibility
- Arbitration report: Ebionites 3 case closed
- Discussion report: Sockpuppet investigations, VisualEditor, Wikidata's birthday, and more
The Signpost: 13 November 2013
- Traffic report: Google Doodlebugs bust the block
- Featured content: 1244 Chinese handscroll leads nine-strong picture contingent
- WikiProject report: The world of soap operas
- Discussion report: Commas, Draft namespace proposal, education updates, and more
The Signpost: 20 November 2013
- From the editor: The Signpost needs your help
- Featured content: Rockin' the featured pictures
- WikiProject report: Score! American football on Wikipedia
- Traffic report: Ill Winds
- Arbitration report: WMF opens the door for non-admin arbitrators
The Signpost: 04 December 2013
- Traffic report: Kennedy shot Who
- Recent research: Reciprocity and reputation motivate contributions to Wikipedia; indigenous knowledge and "cultural imperialism"; how PR people see Wikipedia
- Discussion report: Musical scores, diversity conference, Module:Convert, and more
- WikiProject report: Electronic Apple Pie
- Featured content: F*&!
December 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to The Tallis Scholars may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"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:
- ref>[http://www.gimell.com/musicstore-about-us.aspx Gimell Records]. ''Official website'' Accessed ( December 2013/.</ref> The singers have paved the way for many younger groups such as [[The Sixteen]
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- Done! It is always a pleasure to deal with you! --Murus (talk) 00:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 11 December 2013
- Traffic report: Deaths of Mandela, Walker top the list
- In the media: Edward Snowden a "hero"; German Wikipedia court ruling
- News and notes: Wiki Loves Monuments—winners announced
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Wine
- Interview: Wikipedia's first Featured Article centurion
- Featured content: Viewer discretion advised
- Technology report: MediaWiki 1.22 released
The Signpost: 18 December 2013
- WikiProject report: Babel Series: Tunisia on the French Wikipedia
- Traffic report: Hopper to the top
- Discussion report: Usernames, template data and documentation, Main page, and more
- News and notes: Nine new arbitrators announced
- Featured content: Triangulum, the most boring constellation in the universe
- Technology report: Introducing the GLAMWikiToolset
The Signpost: 25 December 2013
- Recent research: Cross-language editors, election predictions, vandalism experiments
- Featured content: Drunken birds and treasonous kings
- Discussion report: Draft namespace, VisualEditor meetings
- WikiProject report: More Great WikiProject Logos
- News and notes: IEG round 2 funding rewards diverse ambitions
- Technology report: OAuth: future of user designed tools
The Signpost: 01 January 2014
- Traffic report: A year stuck in traffic
- Arbitration report: Examining the Committee's year
- In the media: Does Wikipedia need a medical disclaimer?
- Book review: Common Knowledge: An Ethnography of Wikipedia
- News and notes: The year in review
- Discussion report: Article incubator, dates and fractions, medical disclaimer
- WikiProject report: Where Are They Now? Fifth Edition
- Featured content: 2013—the trends
- Technology report: Looking back on 2013
The Signpost: 08 January 2014
- Public Domain Day: Why the year 2019 is so significant
- Traffic report: Tragedy and television
- Technology report: Gearing up for the Architecture Summit
- News and notes: WMF employee forced out over "paid advocacy editing"
- WikiProject report: Jumping into the television universe
- Featured content: A portal to the wonderful world of technology
The Signpost: 15 January 2014
- News and notes: German chapter asks for "reworking" of Funds Dissemination Committee; should MP4 be allowed on Wikimedia sites?
- Technology report: Architecture Summit schedule published
- Traffic report: The Hours are Ours
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Sociology
The Signpost: 22 January 2014
- Book review: Missing Links and Secret Histories: A Selection of Wikipedia Entries from Across the Known Multiverse
- News and notes: Modification of WMF protection brought to Arbcom
- Featured content: Dr. Watson, I presume
- Special report: The few who write Wikipedia
- Technology report: Architecting the future of MediaWiki
- In the media: Wikipedia for robots; Wikipedia—a temperamental teenager
- Traffic report: No show for the Globes
The Signpost: 29 January 2014
- Traffic report: Six strikes out
- WikiProject report: Special report: Contesting contests
- News and notes: Wiki-PR defends itself, condemns Wikipedia's actions
- Arbitration report: Kafziel case closed; Kww admonished by motion
The Signpost: 29 January 2014
- Traffic report: Six strikes out
- WikiProject report: Special report: Contesting contests
- News and notes: Wiki-PR defends itself, condemns Wikipedia's actions
- Arbitration report: Kafziel case closed; Kww admonished by motion
February 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Muhammad ibn Zakariya al-Razi may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"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:
- The Achaemenians| place = Leiden | publisher =Brill | year = 1982|isbn= 90-04-06506-7}} p. 8.}} (See also the following excerpt: "the question of the identification of Avestan Raya with the Raga
- Neoplatonic]] conception of causality rather than an intellectual approach or a mechanical one).{{Citation needed|date=October 2012}} Razi's alchemy brings forward such empiric qualities as
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
The Signpost: 12 February 2014
- Technology report: Left with no choice
- Featured content: Space selfie
- Traffic report: Sports Day
- WikiProject report: Game Time in Russia
The Signpost: 19 February 2014
- News and notes: Foundation takes aim at undisclosed paid editing; Greek Wikipedia editor faces down legal challenge
- Technology report: ULS Comeback
- WikiProject report: Countering Systemic Bias
- Featured content: Holotype
- Traffic report: Chilly Valentines
The Signpost: 26 February 2014
- Featured content: Odin salutes you
- WikiProject report: Racking brains with neuroscience
- Special report: Diary of a protester: Wikimedian perishes in Ukrainian unrest
- Traffic report: Snow big deal
- Recent research: CSCW '14 retrospective; the impact of SOPA on deletionism
Books & Bytes, Issue 4
News for February from your Wikipedia Library.
Donations drive: news on TWL's partnership efforts with publishers
Open Access: Feature from Ocaasi on the intersection of the library and the open access movement
American Library Association Midwinter Conference: TWL attended this year in Philadelphia
Royal Society Opens Access To Journals: The UK's venerable Royal Society will give the public (and Wikipedians) full access to two of their journal titles for two days on March 4th and 5th
Going Global: TWL starts work on pilot projects in other language Wikipedias
(test) The Signpost: 05 March 2014
- Traffic report: Brinksmen on the brink
- Discussion report: Four paragraph lead, indefinitely blocked IPs, editor reviews broken?
- Featured content: Full speed ahead for the WikiCup
- WikiProject report: Article Rescue Squadron
The Signpost: 12 March 2014
- Traffic report: War and awards
- Featured content: Ukraine burns
- WikiProject report: Russian WikiProject Entomology
The Signpost: 19 March 2014
- WikiProject report: We have history
- Featured content: Spot the bulldozer
- News and notes: Foundation-supported Wikipedian in residence faces scrutiny
- Traffic report: Into thin air
- Technology report: Wikimedia engineering report
Dispute at My Lai Massacre
I'm going to try one more time to reason with you and assume good faith, despite evidence to the contrary.
I will restate my reason for deleting the sentence that you added at the end of the section, and I would like you to respond to it:
- Summarizing the "Aftermath" section with the total number of civilian casualties in the Vietnam War makes it seem as though all civilian casualties were the result of American War crimes. This is not the case. You said, "it helps to understand why it happened and puts things into perspective." But because you are including civilian casualties caused by communist forces, as well as American allies, no, it does not put things into perspective. It is actually misleading. Explain to me why this number which includes war crimes committed by other nations is necessary to "put into perspective" a single war crime by the United States.
I will also try to correct certain misconceptions you seem to have.
- You seem to think that in a content dispute that Wikipedia defaults to including disputed material. This is not the case. Unless I am mistaken, there is no policy which states this in one direction or the other. If you know of such a policy, please link me to it.
- You seem to be hoping to find editors to help you revert rather than trying to convince me of the material's worthiness. This is not the appropriate way to handle WP:dispute resolution. We rely on consensus building on Wikipedia. Material that has 51% of editors supporting its inclusion is not acceptable. Casually dismissing my concerns with a single sentence is not sufficient justification for either the material or your reversions. Wikipedia is not a vote. This is typical of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, which we would consider WP:Disruptive editing. So you are obligated to try and convince me that the material is appropriate. When I see you immediately jumping to WP:RFCs and second opinions, it appears as though you consider dialog unnecessary as long as you can round up enough editors supporting your view.
- You seem to think it's appropriate to call my edits "vandalism" when I've raised very legitimate arguments against the material you are restoring. This appears to me like an attempt to intimidate me into concessions. However, I am well aware of what is and what is not vandalism. I have been editing for over 5 years now. I've seen just about every subtle tactic deployed to circumvent our policies on neutrality, consensus building, and verification. This does not impress me.
In addition, you asked for a second opinion here, and you got one here, stating that the material is inappropriate. Yet you continue to revert, saying a discussion in which you are not involved, is occurring on the talk page. Two editors have called the material WP:SYNTH. There is a consensus. What will it take to convince you the material is bad?
I would like to try and de-escalate things with you by pointing out that I read the article nearly top to bottom. I did not go through and revert every change you made to the article. Almost all of your edits were useful. It is just this one passage you added that I and others have a problem with. Rather than focusing solely on this one sentence, remember that I approved of every other change you made. I am not disapproving of your proficiency at editing in the slightest. I am merely pointing out that, while the material may have been interesting for you, it is not encyclopedic due to our many policies on WP:WEIGHT, WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH, and WP:NEUTRALITY.
In the interest of compromise, I have tagged the disputed material and section to warn our readers to view it with appropriate skepticism. I will wait 24 hours for you to begin dialog with me and actually attempt to justify the material. If I have no received a response by that time, I will delete it again. If you revert after that point, I will seek administrative action. Consider this your formal warning for disruptive editing. Hopefully we can resolve this amicably without escalating any further. PraetorianFury (talk) 20:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- I have been better than my word and waited 3 days for a response, since your edit history shows about that much time between edits. I will continue to assume good faith and that you have acknowledged through WP:SILENCE the inappropriateness of the material. I am hoping that it is not the case that your only motivation to comment is to explain a reversion. PraetorianFury (talk) 21:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
The Signpost: 26 March 2014
- Comment: A foolish request
- Traffic report: Down to a simmer
- News and notes: Commons Picture of the Year—winners announced
- Featured content: Winter hath a beauty that is all his own
- Technology report: Why will Wikipedia look like the Signpost?
- WikiProject report: From the peak
The Signpost: 02 April 2014
- WikiProject report: Deutschland in English
- Special report: On the cusp of the Wikimedia Conference
- Featured content: April Fools
- Traffic report: Regressing to the mean
The Signpost: 09 April 2014
- News and notes: Round 2 of FDC funding open to public comments
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Law
- Special report: Community mourns passing of Adrianne Wadewitz
- Traffic report: Conquest of the Couch Potatoes
- Featured content: Snow heater and Ash sweep
Books & Bytes - Issue 5
- New Visiting Scholar positions
- TWL Branch on Arabic Wikipedia, microgrants program
- Australian articles get a link to librarians
- Spotlight: "7 Reasons Librarians Should Edit Wikipedia"
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
The Signpost: 23 April 2014
- Special report: 2014 Wikimedia Conference—what is the impact?
- News and notes: Wikimedian passes away
- WikiProject_report: To the altar—Catholicism
- Wikimania: Winning bid announced for 2015
- Traffic report: Reflecting in Gethsemane
- Featured content: There was I, waiting at the church
The Signpost: 30 April 2014
- News and notes: WMF's draft annual plan turns indigestible as an FDC proposal
- Traffic report: Going to the Doggs
- Breaking: The Foundation's new executive director
- WikiProject report: Genetics
- Interview: Wikipedia in the Peabody Essex Museum
- Featured content: Browsing behaviours
- Recent research: Wikipedia predicts flu more accurately than Google
The Signpost: 07 May 2014
- Traffic report: TMZedia
- WikiCup: 2014 WikiCup enters round three
- In the media: Google and the flu; Adrianne
- WikiProject report: Singing with Eurovision
- Featured content: Wikipedia at the Rijksmuseum
The Signpost: 14 May 2014
- Investigative report: Hong Kong's Wikimania 2013—failure to produce financial statement raises questions of probity
- WikiProject report: Relaxing in Puerto Rico
- Featured content: On the rocks
- Traffic report: Eurovision, Google Doodles, Mothers, and 5 May
- Technology report: Technology report needs editor, Media Viewer offers a new look
The Signpost: 21 May 2014
- News and notes: "Crisis" over Wikimedia Germany's palace revolution
- Featured content: Staggering number of featured articles
- Traffic report: Doodles' dawn