User talk:Faizan/Archive 8
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is an archive of past discussions with User:Faizan. 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
The Signpost: 25 September 2013
- Op-ed: Q&A on Public Relations and Wikipedia
Over the last year, there's been extensive debate about whether public relations professionals and other corporate representatives should participate on Wikipedia and, if so, to what extent and what kinds of rules should be followed.
- Traffic report: Look on Walter's works
The saga of Walter White, chemistry teacher-turned-drug kingpin, as told in the critically adored television series Breaking Bad, has been a water-cooler necessity for years, and now, as it nears its end, audiences are feverishly following every plot thread to guess what the finale will reveal.
- In the media: Fox News: Wikipedia abandons efforts to purge porn from online encyclopedia
Fox News writer Perry Chiaramonte published an article detailing Wikipedia's alleged abandonment of its fight to remove pornography.
- News and notes: Last call for Wiki Loves Monuments; Community–WMF tension over VisualEditor
On 30 September, Wiki Loves Monuments (WLM), the Wikimedia community's global photo competition, will reach to the end of its submission period. The proceedings have been underway since the first of this month; national juries will start reviewing submissions for the first round of selections after it closes ... Community aggravation with one of the Wikimedia Foundation's signature initiatives, the VisualEditor, came to the fore again this week with the announcement and implementation of code blocking the tool.
- WikiProject report: Babel Series: GOOOOOOAAAAAAALLLLLLL!!!!!
This week, we continued our exploration of other language editions of Wikipedia by visiting the Spanish Wikipedia's Wikiproyecto Fútbol (WikiProject Football).
- Featured content: Wikipedia takes the stage
Twelve articles, six lists, and five pictures were promoted to "featured" status on the English Wikipedia this week.
- Recent research: Automatic detection of "infiltrating" Wikipedia admins; Wiki, or 'pedia?
A conference paper makes a rather serious claim: "We find a surprisingly large number of editors who change their behavior and begin focusing more on a particular controversial topic once they are promoted to administrator status."
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 10:52, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
October 2013 AFC Backlog elimination drive

WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from October 1st, 2013 – October 31st, 2013.
Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 4100 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!
This newsletter was delivered on behalf of WPAFC by EdwardsBot (talk) 15:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 02 October 2013
- Op-ed: Commons medical diagnostic images under threat from unresolved ownership
Medical images have transformed many aspects of modern medicine. Over the past two decades the increasing sophistication of MRI, CT-scanning, and X-ray techniques has made these technologies the cornerstone of diagnosing a range of conditions, replacing what used to be largely guesswork by doctors. They can be the difference between life and death for a patient, and their importance is underlined by the tens of billions of dollars spent on them annually just in North America. For Wikimedia Foundation projects, advanced images are now a powerful tool for describing and explaining, and educating our worldwide readership of medical articles.
- Discussion report: References to individuals and groups, merging wikiprojects, portals on the Main page, and more
Current discussions on the English Wikipedia include...
- News and notes: WMF signals new grantmaking priorities
In what will be remembered as a game-changing week for Wikimedia grantmaking, the Foundation's executive director, Sue Gardner, published a forthright and in places highly critical statement, Reflections on the FDC process, and grantmaking staff revealed that the WMF will significantly strengthen its targeting of optimal impact in funding.
- Featured content: Bobby, Ben, Roger and a fantasia
Six articles and two pictures were promoted to "featured" status on the English Wikipedia last week.
- Arbitration report: Infoboxes: After the war
Editor's note: To go beyond the mere facts of cases, the "Arbitration report" invited several editors who participated in the recent Infoboxes case to comment on infoboxes: what they are, where new users can go to find out about them, specifications and protocols, best practices, and how the upcoming community discussion recommended by the Committee in the case decision should be framed.
- WikiProject report: U2 Too
This week, we revisited the enthusiastic editors at WikiProject U2. Started in June 2007, the project has grown in spurts, resulting in a collection of 8 Featured Articles and 24 Good Articles. The project maintains a to do list, portal, and a list of references.
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 05:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Wikimedia Highlights from August 2013

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.
| Views/Day | Quality | Title | Content | Headings | Images | Links | Sources | Tagged with… |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 74 | |
Project-706 (talk) | Add sources | |||||
| 23 | |
Ataullah Mengal (talk) | |
|
|
Add sources | ||
| 303 | |
Bangladesh Army (talk) | |
Add sources | ||||
| 545 | |
Handicraft (talk) | |
|
Add sources | |||
| 178 | |
Bangladesh Armed Forces (talk) | |
Add sources | ||||
| 53 | |
Six point movement (talk) | |
|
|
Add sources | ||
| 3 | |
Abdullah Fakhruddin (talk) | |
|
|
Cleanup | ||
| 72 | |
Gohar Ayub Khan (talk) | |
|
|
Cleanup | ||
| 2 | |
Hasan Badruddin (17th Dai) (talk) | |
|
|
Cleanup | ||
| 1,154 | |
Louis Farrakhan (talk) | Expand | |||||
| 1,613 | |
Emblem3 (talk) | |
|
|
Expand | ||
| 8 | |
2011 in Pakistan (talk) | |
|
|
Expand | ||
| 75 | |
Ali Gomaa (talk) | |
Unencyclopaedic | ||||
| 51 | |
Ghulam Azam (talk) | |
Unencyclopaedic | ||||
| 189 | |
Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami (talk) | Unencyclopaedic | |||||
| 245 | |
Ahmadiyya Muslim Community (talk) | Merge | |||||
| 5 | |
Defence of KamalPur (talk) | |
|
|
Merge | ||
| 13 | |
Pakistan–Soviet Union relations (talk) | |
Merge | ||||
| 92 | |
Noakhali District (talk) | |
|
Wikify | |||
| 277 | |
2010 Pakistan floods (talk) | Wikify | |||||
| 6 | |
Noor Mohammad (talk) | |
|
|
|
|
Wikify |
| 8 | |
Jafar us Sadiq Mufaddal Saifuddin (talk) | |
|
|
|
Orphan | |
| 3 | |
Md. Tofazzal Islam (talk) | |
|
|
Orphan | ||
| 3 | |
History of printing and publishing in Dhaka (talk) | |
|
Orphan | |||
| Vrishanana yogini (talk) | {{{CONTENTSTUB11}}} | {{{HEADINGSSTUB11}}} | {{{IMAGESSTUB11}}} | {{{LINKSSTUB11}}} | {{{SOURCESSTUB11}}} | Stub | ||
| 1 | |
Badshahi Road (talk) | |
|
|
|
|
Stub |
| 6 | |
Battle of Kushtia (talk) | |
|
|
|
Stub | |
| 3 | |
Manjula Anwar (talk) | |
|
|
|
Stub | |
| 1 | |
Thrash, West Virginia (talk) | |
|
|
|
|
Stub |
| 7 | |
Mansôa (talk) | |
|
|
Stub |
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) 23:45, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 09 October 2013
- Traffic report: Shutdown shenanigans
If you're living in the United States, what did you do during the government shutdown? Well, it seems most people watched the final episode of Breaking Bad.
- WikiProject report: Australian Roads
This week, we moved to the esoteric world of Australian roads.
- Featured content: Under the sea
Seven articles, six lists, and twelve pictures were promoted to "featured" status on the English Wikipedia last week.
- News and notes: Extensive network of clandestine paid advocacy exposed
An investigation by the English Wikipedia community into suspicious edits and sockpuppet activity has led to astonishing revelations that Wiki-PR, a multi-million-dollar US-based company, has created, edited, or maintained several thousand Wikipedia articles for paying clients using a sophisticated array of concealed user accounts.
- In the media: College credit for editing Wikipedia
The University of California, San Francisco attracted substantial media attention over its new course offering that will give credit to fourth year medical students for editing Wikipedia articles about medicine.
- Arbitration report: Manning naming dispute and Ebionites 3 cases continue; third arbitrator resigns
A proposed decision has been posted in the Manning naming dispute. The workshop phase of the Ebionites 3 case closes 13 October. Arbitrator NuclearWarfare has resigned.
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 18:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
VisualEditor newsletter on 16 October 2013
VisualEditor is still being updated every Thursday. As usual, what is now running on the English Wikipedia had a test run at Mediawiki during the previous week. If you haven't done so already, you can turn on VisualEditor by going to your preferences and choosing the item, "MediaWiki:Visualeditor-preference-enable".
The reference dialog for all Wikipedias, especially the way it handles citation templates, is being redesigned. Please offer suggestions and opinions at mw:VisualEditor/Design/Reference Dialog. (Use your Wikipedia username/password to login there.) You can also drag and drop references (select the reference, then hover over the selected item until your cursor turns into the drag-and-drop tool). This also works for some templates, images, and other page elements (but not yet for text or floated items). References are now editable when they appear inside a media item's caption (bug 50459).
There were a number of miscellaneous fixes made: Firstly, there was a bug that meant that it was impossible to move the cursor using the keyboard away from a selected node (like a reference or template) once it had been selected (bug 54443). Several improvements have been made to scrollable windows, panels, and menus when they don't fit on the screen or when the selected item moves off-screen. Editing in the "slug" at the start of a page no longer shows up a chess pawn character ("♙") in some circumstances (bug 54791). Another bug meant that links with a final punctuation character in them broke extending them in some circumstances (bug 54332). The "page settings" dialog once again allows you to remove categories (bug 54727). There have been some problems with deployment scripts, including one that resulted in VisualEditor being broken for an hour or two at all Wikipedias (bug 54935). Finally, snowmen characters ("☃") no longer appear near newly added references, templates and other nodes (bug 54712).
Looking ahead: Development work right now is on rich copy-and-paste abilities, quicker addition of citation templates in references, setting media items' options (such as being able to put images on the left), switching into wikitext mode, and simplifying the toolbar. A significant amount of work is being done on other languages during this month. If you speak a language other than English, you can help with translating the documentation.
For other questions or suggestions, or if you encounter problems, please let everyone know by posting problem reports at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback and other ideas at Wikipedia talk:VisualEditor. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Alishan Bairamian
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Alishan Bairamian. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 16 October 2013
- News and notes: Vice on Wiki-PR's paid advocacy; Featured list elections begin
Media coverage on Wiki-PR, the multi-million-dollar US-based company that has broken several policies and guidelines on the English Wikipedia in its quest to create and maintain thousands of articles for paying clients, continued this week with a feature story by Martin Robbins in the British edition of Vice magazine.
- Traffic report: Peaceful potpourri
A slow week, with low overall views and the Top 10 dominated by longstanding pages. Gravity, Alfonso Cuaron's outer space-set action art film, not only held its position at the top of the US box office but climbed to the top of the Wikipedia chart as well, showing that it has become a major talking point.
- WikiProject report: Heraldry and Vexillology
This week, we studied coats of arms and flags with the folks at WikiProject Heraldry and Vexillology. Started in September 2006, the project has grown to include 20 Featured Articles and nearly 50 Good Articles. The project maintains a portal, a list of resources, and a variety of images and templates.
- Featured content: That's a lot of pictures
Six articles, two lists, and thirty-three pictures were promoted to 'featured' status on the English Wikipedia last week.
- Arbitration report: Manning naming dispute case closes
The Manning naming dispute case has closed, with a strong and unanimous statement by the Committee against disparaging references to transgendered persons. Sanctions were enacted against six editors.
- Discussion report: Ada Lovelace Day, paid advocacy on Wikipedia, sidebar update, and more
Current discussions on the English Wikipedia include...
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 02:54, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Nomination of Sanaullah Haq for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sanaullah Haq is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanaullah Haq (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:10, 20 October 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) 11:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 23 October 2013
- News and notes: Grantmaking season—rumblings in the German-language community
The next twice-yearly round of Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) grantmaking is soon to close for community questioning and commentary. Ten nation-based Wikimedia chapters and one thematic organisation are asking for a total of more than US$5M of donors’ money from the Foundation’s renamed annual plan grant process. Aside from Wikimedia UK ($708k), the three biggest asks are from the German-speaking chapters: Wikimedia Germany is asking for $2.4M and Wikimedia Austria $311k; and the German-language-related Swiss chapter is applying for $500k.
- Traffic report: Your average week ... and a fish
Media, sports and Google Doodles dominate, though a very odd fish decided to crash the party.
- Featured content: Your worst nightmare as a child is now featured on Wikipedia
Twelve articles, four lists, and four pictures were promoted to "featured" status on the English Wikipedia this week, including the article on cabbage.
- Discussion report: More discussion of paid advocacy, upcoming arbitrator elections, research hackathon, and more
Current discussions on the English Wikipedia include...
- In the media: The decline of Wikipedia; Sue Gardner releases statement on Wiki-PR; Australian minister relies on Wikipedia
MIT Technology Review published a long article on what it called "The decline of Wikipedia". Editor involvement has decreased since 2007; according to the article, this has had an adverse qualitative effect on content, particularly on issues pertinent to non-British and American male geeks.
- WikiProject report: Elements of the world
This week, we headed to an elementary subject with WikiProject Elements. Founded by Mav in 2002, this project has grown to have 19 featured articles, 2 featured topics, and 68 good articles. The project also has a list of templates, and a periodic table of elements filled with pictures.
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 07:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Wikimedia Highlights from September 2013

The Signpost: 30 October 2013
- Traffic report: 200 miles in 200 years
The top 10 encapsulates the history of human aviation; at #1, a Google Doodle celebrating the 216th anniversary of the first parachute jump; at #10, the enduringly popular scifi film Gravity, a paean to human spaceflight. It's odd to think it's taken us 200 years to travel about that many miles up.
- In the media: Rand Paul plagiarizes Wikipedia?
While giving a speech on behalf of a gubernatorial candidate, Paul advocated his pro-life position, and compared allowing unrestricted abortions to the film Gattaca. He went on to use strikingly similar language and phraseology in his speech to what the Wikipedia page reads. The Washington Post's article conceded that Wikipedia is a widely used source for trivial information, but mocked the fact that a politician would view it as a reliable source.
- News and notes: Sex and drug tourism—Wikivoyage's soft underbelly?
In January we raised several potentially troublesome issues for the Wikimedia movement in taking on Wikivoyage, including the apparent inadequacy of the English Wikivoyage sex-tourism policy, hurriedly strengthened against mention of child sex after our inquiries. However, both sex-tourism and illegal-activities policies remain equivocal about how the site should treat entries about sex tourism more generally, and drugs that are classed as illicit in almost every country. Yet the Signpost has found it remarkably easy to locate material in Wikivoyage that violates both the spirit and the letter of the policies.
- Featured content: Wrestling with featured content
This year's WikiCup competition has finished, while three articles, five lists, and six pictures, were promoted to "featured" status on the English Wikipedia last week.
- Recent research: User influence on site policies: Wikipedia vs. Facebook vs. Youtube
Laura Stein, a researcher at the University of Texas at Austin, has concluded that, based on her comparison of user policy documents (including the Terms of Service) of YouTube, Facebook and Wikipedia, Wikipedia offers the highest level of participation power overall.
- WikiProject report: Special: Lessons from the dead and dying
With Halloween, the Day of the Dead, and other gloomy celebrations this week, we're taking a look at Wikipedia's dead and dying. For some dead WikiProjects, the sole purpose of their life was simply to serve as a warning to others. Some of these projects may still be salvageable, but for most, a revival is unlikely. Here are some projects that never got off the ground and the lessons that can be gleaned from their follies
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 02:23, 3 November 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) 12:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Pakistan User Group
| Wikimedia Community User Group Pakistan | ||
|---|---|---|
| Hi Faizan! We are currently in the process of establishing a User Group for Pakistani Wikimedians with the following objectives;
As an approved User Group, we will be recognised by the Wikimedia Foundation and officially supported by the Wikimedia movement. If you reside in Pakistan or actively work on Pakistan-related topics and can help in functional activities of the Pakistani User Group, please join the official planning group mailing list. For more details about the proposed user group, please visit the official page at http://pk.wikimedia.org. Together we can promote free knowledge in Pakistan!
|
||
You are receiving this message because you are a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Pakistan. This message was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 17:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 06 November 2013
- News and notes: Alleged "outing" of editor's personal information leads to Wikipedia ban
As part of the second major "outing" controversy to hit the English Wikipedia in less than a year, the Chelsea/Bradley Manning naming dispute was dragged into the spotlight yet again when the English Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee ruled by motion to remove the administrator tools from and ban long-time Wikipedia contributor Phil Sandifer.
- Traffic report: Danse Macabre
It's fair to say that commemorating death was a strong theme this week, with Lou Reed's passing generating interest, as well as a Google Doodle celebrating the costume designer Edith Head. And of course, the world's greatest celebrations of the dead, Halloween and the Day of the Dead, were also popular this week.
- Featured content: Five years of work leads to 63-article featured topic
HMS Hood, one of the most famous warships of the Second World War, was a battlecruiser and therefore part of what is now the largest featured topic on Wikipedia: "Battlecruisers of the world". The topic was promoted to "featured" status on the English Wikipedia last week alongside eleven articles, three lists, four pictures, and two other topics.
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Accessibility
This week, we spent some time with WikiProject Accessibility, a project that strives to make Wikipedia accessible for users with disabilities. The project improves Wikipedia's guidelines and Manual of Style, collects useful templates and scripts, and provides support to impaired Wikipedians.
- Arbitration report: Ebionites 3 case closed
The Ebionites 3 case has closed with an interaction ban for the two editors involved in the dispute.
- Discussion report: Sockpuppet investigations, VisualEditor, Wikidata's birthday, and more
Current discussions on the English Wikipedia include...
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 10:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
FYI
Hi Faizan, regarding a couple of reverts you made (don't worry it's nothing you've done wrong): WP:ANI#Rangeblock may be required. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:37, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Edits to Prime Ideals
I think you made a mistake. I wrote "iff," meaning "if and only if," because that is the correct statement for a definition. The current statement is an implication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.19.84.64 (talk) 13:14, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Faizan: this is a slightly altered version of something I posted at this user's talkpage reposted here for your benefit.
- Actually, I re-reverted that change because there is more to this story. The WP math manual of style recommends that "if" is correct when defining a term, and recommends not using "if and only if." The reasons can be debated philosophically, but the main thing is that it is considered wrong within the culture of mathematical writing. Actually, the idea that it is a biconditional or conditional is a bit silly, since definitions are not assertions with truth values. The if at use here is a linguistic if. "IF a ring is defined to be a local ring, it has a unique maximal ideal" sounds dumb as a logical statement because it makes "definition" part of the antecedent.
- So it turns out that the edit you made was OK, but not for the reasons you initially thought :) If you find more usage of "iff" in a definition this way, feel free to change it to an "if", or if that seems dangerous to you, just send me a message and I'll evaluate it. Thanks! Rschwieb (talk) 17:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Wikimedia Highlights from October 2013

- Wikimedia Foundation highlights
- Data and Trends
- Financials
- Other highlights from the Wikimedia movement
The Signpost: 13 November 2013
- Traffic report: Google Doodlebugs bust the block
The numbers this week are beyond anything that has been seen since this report began. The top view count beats the average by an order of magnitude. Usually the appearance of numbers this big on the list is due to spamming, but in this case it seems they are due to honest interest; more specifically, Google Doodles, which for the first time claimed all five top slots. This column has raised numerous times the power of a Google Doodle to shine light on Wikipedia, but the wattage has never been as high as this.
- Featured content: 1244 Chinese handscroll leads nine-strong picture contingent
Five articles, two lists, one topic, and nine pictures were promoted to 'featured' status on the English Wikipedia last week.
- Special report: FDC staff raise the benchmarks for activities, impact, planning, and governance
The supporting staff of the Wikimedia Foundation’s powerful volunteer Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) have released their assessments for the third half-yearly round of funding applications. The applications for the newly named annual plan grants were submitted by affiliated entities on 1 October, and comprise a total of more than US$5M in bids.
- News and notes: Trademark at issue again with the Italian Wikipedia and wikipedia.it
The Italian-language Wikipedia community has overwhelmingly voted to request the Wikimedia Foundation's assistance in recovering wikipedia.it, a website that has been frequently confused with the Italian Wikipedia.
- WikiProject report: The world of soap operas
This week, we followed the intricate storylines of WikiProject Soap Operas.
- Discussion report: Commas, Draft namespace proposal, education updates, and more
Current discussions on the English Wikipedia include...
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 12:11, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Notification
This is to let you know that your recent confrontational edits to the page Bangladesh Liberation War have been a great disappointment to me personally. Your recent semi-retirement now seems to be at an end, but your attitude and patience do not appear to have improved in the meantime. If you do not withdraw yourself from editing Bangladesh-related pages, and remove the userbox that states that you are a member of WikiProject Bangladesh, then I intend to proceed to proposing a topic ban. Please tone down your edits and withdraw yourself from this contentious area. Please also either remove or clarify what you mean by the superscript "Al-Badri" next to your name on your user page. As you may be aware, a partisan group known as Al-Badr participated in the Bangladesh Liberation War, and having someone editing Bangladesh-related pages under that banner is not conducive to a harmonious editing environment within Wikipedia. Thank you. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the "Notification". What's this "confrontational edits"? I just made a point there at Bangladesh Liberation War, I did not start or take part in any edit-war. You are no one to decide which Wiki Projects I am going to participate. What problem you have with "Al-Badri"? "Al-Badr" is not merely a name of the cited "partisaan group", it has a vast Islamic perspective; for example, the Battle of Badr, otherwise it is merely over-exaggeration of the facts. I use "Al-Badri" as my surname, and that has nothing to do with the "harmonious editing environment" Welcome. Faizan 14:54, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
- It is OK to comment on and discuss about article-content and user-edits, but it looks awkward to comment on what a user prefers as their user-name and which project a user chooses to edit. A group's alleged taking of any specific name should not devaluate that very name. It is the issue with the group, and not with the name. As Faizan noted, "Badri" often involves some Islamic use. So, no question about that name. -AsceticRosé 15:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, I accept that Al-Badri is your name. That is an unfortunate situation if you intend to continue editing pages related to Bangladesh, and I urge you to withdraw yourself from that area. Someone named Goebbels would have to withdraw themselves from editing pages that have to do with Nazi Germany for the same reason (and that is rather sad, because there are some very decent, humane, people who share that surname, but it is a fact of life that they would have to withdraw from editing in that area).
- From looking at your recent edits, I see two other patterns that contribute to making your activities appear quite aggressive, and these have no doubt contributed to my perception of you. These are:
- Biting the newbies, for example this person who made exactly two edits. A newbie is likely, when immediately reverted, to try again. You and a colleague came down very hard on that person, accusing them of unconstructive editing, and then of edit warring. What the person actually did, was to make a finer division of headings, to separate two periods of history rather than leaving them lumped together (yes, they deleted two photos, but you could have put those back rather than make a blanket reversion). And yes, your "welcome" messages are not without an implied threat. A new editor who offends nobody, usually doesn't receive one of those "welcome" messages.
- Possibly responding to all edits from anonymous IPs as if they were vandalism, and templating the talk page of that IP, possibly every time that you revert an edit. Anonymous IPs are an extremely valuable resource to wikipedia. There are many people who have never edited before, but who have real, valuable knowledge to contribute. They often try a single edit as an experiment, and if immediately slapped over the wrist by you are unlikely to try again. Slow down! Think first about whether you have really understood what the anon did and possible reasons for it, even if they have made a mistake. A good rule is to never template someone on their first edit.
- Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, I have removed "Al-Badri" from my userspace. That does not mean that I agree that "Someone named Goebbels would have to withdraw themselves from editing pages that have to do with Nazi Germany". I totally disagree. Similarly you cannot stop an atheist from editing "religion-related articles". Just being an atheist does not mean that the person is not eligible enough to edit Religion-related articles.
- Reply to the the two proposed "patterns":
- I did not bite the newcomer. A newbie is not exempted from edit-warring. Is he? he reverted 3+ editors in the article Partition of India, could not he give an edit summary? If he made a constructive edit, his reverts did not seem to be "constructive". The person ought to use edit summary, or the talk pages of the article or the users, at least he could reply on his own talk page, and I just gave him a "general note".
- That's not it. I have said before too that newbies and the IPs are not exempted from templates or warnings. Have you used Twinkle>? You know they provide a whole list of templates for the IPs, I used templates from that list only. And better see my contributions(which you already saw), only those IPs which were vandalising were given message for their "unconstructive editing". The IPs which contribute are no doubt, a valuable resource. Why don't you suggest Huggle and Twinkle to remove the templates for anonymous IPs? I hope this will be a big step towards preventing the biting of the newbies. Faizan 11:34, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hello again Faizan. It is gracious of you to remove "Al-Badri" from your user page. I will now respond to various points that you have made:
- It may seem unfair to you that someone could find your name frightening, and it is certainly unfair that a group of people have used a phrase that happens to be your name as the name of their murderous group. However, it is necessary to take into account that terrible happenings cause permanent terror in the victims of those events. To see a name that they associate with those events is an added cruelty to people who have already suffered too much. I'm sorry, but editing Bangladesh-related pages requires special tact. In withdrawing yourself from those areas you can think to yourself "They think I'm evil, that isn't fair, I'm not evil", but you owe it to victims to take their fear into account. Yes, someone named Goebbels is carrying a terribly unfair burden, but that should not prevent them being mindful not to cause suffering in others. The atheist example that you cite is rather different in that POV edits are something that is dealt with in other ways.
- Newbies need to be treated with special consideration. To accuse someone who has made exactly 2 (two) edits of edit warring is not measured, thoughtful, considerate behaviour. So in short, yes, such newbies *are* excempt from rules about edit warring. To quote Wikipedia:Edit warring with added emphasis: "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion." When a person has made 2 (two) edits, it is not possible for them to have repeatedly overridden another's contributions, it is only possible that they have overridden once.
- A newbie is a newbie. It is not reasonable to demand that they make eloquent edit summaries on their first 2 (two) edits.
- I doubt that you really believe of someone who was attacked in the way that User:Ct205 was attacked that "at least he could reply on his own talk page". It seems far more likely that a newbie would be still trying to recover from shock and surprise. Besides, you've blocked them now. I newbie probably would think that means they can't edit their own talk page.
- "Why don't you suggest Huggle and Twinkle to remove the templates for anonymous IPs? I hope this will be a big step towards preventing the biting of the newbies." Now really, surely you don't think that wikipedia editors intent on attacking someone would be in the least slowed down in their attacks if they had to use different text? Surely you don't think that the text would be better (more polished and appropriate) if people were getting it from non-standard sources?
- If you suspect that someone is a sockpuppet, the way to proceed is to request a checkuser. Only after the checkuser has been performed and has demonstrated beyond a doubt that the person is a sockpuppet is it appropriate to revert the edits if they are constructive edits like the ones under discussion here. There is no need to apply multiple templates to the user's page, and if you believe them to be a sockpuppet then the disingenuous "welcome" message doesn't belong on their user page either.
- I'm not at all sure that user:Ct205 is a sockpuppet of anyone who is trying to do damage to wikipedia. What I've seen so far looks like "maybe" they are a sockpuppet of someone. I'm making inquiries about whether the evidence is convincing, and whether the person can be unblocked. The "sockpuppet" cry that you and User:AsceticRose have raised is, however, quite damaging to wikipedia. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:04, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hello again Faizan. It is gracious of you to remove "Al-Badri" from your user page. I will now respond to various points that you have made:
Secondly the innocent User:Ct205, whom I and another user "bited" was an experienced "Sock puppet", and he has been blocked. Faizan 13:13, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- So Mr. Sminth was shedding tears for this Sock puppet without knowing anything! -AsceticRosé 17:13, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- Please see reply to Faizan, above. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:04, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- Well he is a confirmed sock puppet, investigations. Both the sock and master have been blocked indefinitely. As he was a sock puppet he could reply on his talk page regarding the dispute on Partition of India. Faizan 11:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- No, that is not true. See discussion here. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:15, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
