User talk:Zawl: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
Duckmather (talk | contribs) Notification: listing of Astonishing at WP:Redirects for discussion. |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{WMF-legal banned user}} |
|||
== "[[:Astonishing]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] == |
|||
== Speedy deletion nomination of Gene Noble == |
|||
[[File:Information.svg|30px]] |
|||
The redirect <span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Astonishing&redirect=no Astonishing]</span> has been listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|redirects for discussion]] to determine whether its use and function meets the [[Wikipedia:Redirect|redirect guidelines]]. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 23#Astonishing}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> [[User:Duckmather|Duckmather]] ([[User talk:Duckmather|talk]]) 20:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Hello Rizhopper, |
|||
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged [[Gene Noble]] for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia. |
|||
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can <span class="plainlinks">'''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title={{urlencode:Talk:Gene Noble}}&action=edit§ion=new&preload=Template:Hangon_preload&preloadtitle=This+page+should+not+be+speedy+deleted+because...+ contest this deletion]'''</span>, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. |
|||
You can leave a note on [[User_talk:Ueutyi|my talk page]] if you have questions. [[User:Ueutyi|Ueutyi]] ([[User talk:Ueutyi|talk]]) 18:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC) |
|||
== April 2016 == |
|||
[[File:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Hello, I'm [[User:SummerPhDv2.0|SummerPhDv2.0]]. I noticed that you made a change to an article, [[:Daft Punk]], but you didn't provide a [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources|reliable source]]. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to [[Wikipedia:Citing sources|include a citation]] and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the [[Help:Referencing for beginners|referencing for beginners]] tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on [[User_talk:SummerPhDv2.0|my talk page]]. Thank you. <!-- Template:uw-unsourced1 --> <span style="color:#D70270;background-color:white;">Sum</span><span style="color:#734F96;background-color:white;">mer</span><span style="color:#0038A8;background-color:white;">PhD</span><sup>[[User talk:SummerPhDv2.0|v2.0]]</sup> 16:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
== INDEX and NOEDITSECTION == |
|||
You gave no edit summary on your revert [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Martin_Garrix&oldid=prev&diff=734297738 here]. <nowiki>__INDEX__ has no effect in article space, and __NOEDITSECTION__</nowiki> is rather abnormal in an article. Was there some reason for the revert? [[User:Alsee|Alsee]] ([[User talk:Alsee|talk]]) 11:55, 13 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:{{ping|Alsee}} Hey there! I reverted your edits because you enabled the "edit section" on the articles. If that is enabled, there will be more vandalism because it'll make them notice the edit buttons. It is not encouraged to allow potential IP vandalism on high importance articles like Martin Garrix. One can click on the edit source button on the top if they want to edit so "edit section" will not be necessary. Do not take it the wrong way but I think "edit section" should remain disabled to reduce vandalism. I do not see the importance of it being enabled as it doesn't bother anyone so why do you mess with it? -[[User:RizHopper|<span style="color:#fa0;font-family: sans-serif;">'''Rizhopper</span><span style="color:#000080;font-family: helvetica"></span>]]<sup><span style="font-weight: bold;color: #fa0; ">([[User talk:Rizhopper|Talk to me!]])</span></sup> 13:18, 13 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::I certainly enjoy his music, but I hope you'll forgive me (grin) for not considering it a "high importance article" compared to articles like [[United States]], [[Malaysia]] and [[Barack Obama]]. (All of which do have section edit links). |
|||
::If the idea is that it would reduce vandalism then an RFC could be opened at [[WP:Village_pump_(proposals)|Village pump (proposals)]] to have all articles default to NOEDITSECTION mode. If it got consensus then we'd submit a [https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/ Phabricator] request for WikimediaFoundation programmers to change the software default. I don't think it would get consensus though. Most editors find it helpful to be able to open a single section in the editor, and we explicitly do want to encourage people to notice and try the edit links. That's how we get new editors. |
|||
::Individual pages generally shouldn't have non-default settings unless there's some reason specific to that page. It can be confusing when someone tries to click the link and it's strangely missing. [[User:Alsee|Alsee]] ([[User talk:Alsee|talk]]) 08:27, 14 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
I waited for a reply from you, but now I see you're adding even more NOEDITSECTION[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Martin_Garrix_discography&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=734603489&oldid=734177319] after I explained why it was inappropriate. Please stop. You can see [[Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_475#Unable_to_edit_individual_sections_within_an_article|here]] that it does create confusion, and you can see [[Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback/Archive_2016_1#Stop_adding_various_magicwords_FORCETOC.2C_NOEDITSECTION.2C_INDEX_and_NEWSECTIONLINK|here]] an entire discussion objecting to Visual Editor having any option at all to add these unwanted changes. [[User:Alsee|Alsee]] ([[User talk:Alsee|talk]]) 09:21, 19 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:{{ping|Alsee}} I still think that without the edit links on each section, it will cause lesser vandalism. As these EDM stars have lots of fans of very young age they might not act wisely and start to vandalize. So if they don't see the edit buttons then it's likely that they don't edit. I suggest you stop worrying about this as it's all for the goodness. Those buttons will not be any disturbance to you. Agree to disagree. -[[User:RizHopper|<span style="color:#fa0;font-family: sans-serif;">'''Rizhopper</span><span style="color:#000080;font-family: helvetica"></span>]]<sup><span style="font-weight: bold;color: #fa0; ">([[User talk:Rizhopper|Talk to me!]])</span></sup> 05:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::''if they don't see the edit buttons then it's likely that they don't edit'' - that goes completely against the wiki concept. We ''want'' people to edit. The expectation is that most people will edit to improve the article. If someone does vandalize it's just a quick click of the undo button to fix it. |
|||
::In any case, it should be clear that having random articles one way and random articles the opposite way makes no sense. Aside from Wikipedia's [[Main Page]], there are currently 124[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&profile=default&fulltext=Search&search=insource%3A%2F__NOEDITSECTION__%2F&searchToken=b993tti57ogq33ip7bg1qwaq7] mainspace pages with nosectionedit out of 5,219,317[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Statistics] articles on Enwiki. That is 99.998% of pages having section edit links. It's clear that Community Consensus is that NOEDITSECTION does not belong in normal articles. Almost all articles that do have NOEDITSECTION also have nonfunctional or erroneous INDEX/TOC/NEWSECTION keywords as well, because they were all added by new users playing with a Visual Editor menu they didn't understand. (That's what my edits were cleaning up.) Please abide by clear community consensus. I'd rather not waste people's time establishing a formal consensus to firmly resolve ths. Perhaps a random [[Wikipedia:Third_opinion]] will help. I'll post a request there and see what they say. [[User:Alsee|Alsee]] ([[User talk:Alsee|talk]]) 19:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:{{ping|Alsee}} When vandalism takes place there needs to be active editors to revert the changes and if it slides through without getting reverted, the data will be invalid and that's not what we need in Wikipedia. Yes, I agree that we should encourage people to edit but having few extra edit links isn't called encouragement. They can easily get into edit mode by clicking the button on the top. If the potential Wiki contributor is not a vandaliser then they should be smart enough to get into edit mode without the edit section links. Also, is there some kind of tradition, that all articles are required to have the edit section links? I don't think so. There's no harm in having the edit links disabled and it's for the best as it potentially prevents vandalism rather than to discourage potential contributors. -[[User:RizHopper|<span style="color:#fa0;font-family: sans-serif;">'''Rizhopper</span><span style="color:#000080;font-family: helvetica"></span>]]<sup><span style="font-weight: bold;color: #fa0; ">([[User talk:Rizhopper|Talk to me!]])</span></sup> 15:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::After my misunderstanding on [[In the Name of Love (Martin Garrix and Bebe Rexha song)]], I was going to leave you a message, Rizhopper, but instead saw this. Having edited several of the pages you have done this to, it has really bugged me. In my over 10 years on Wikipedia, I have not seen use of the NOEDITSECTION very often at all. The pages you're talking about have had hardly the amount of vandalism that would necessitate disabling section edit links. My opinion probably won't dissuade you, so personally I wish {{ping|Alsee}} would get a formal opinion because it doesn't help the majority of users to have section edit links disabled. It's like you're trying to do this as a form of edit control, and to be blunt, that's not up to you to decide. If you're worried, request page protection so IPs cannot edit it or watch the pages so you can monitor changes to it and revert quickly if it's obvious vandalism. Also, your reasons are rather contradictory, as you just said "they can easily get into edit mode without the edit section links", yet your argument ''for'' including NOEDITSECTION is it discourages ease of vandalism by IPs. Additionally, it doesn't help on long pages, as by disabling edit section links, you are requiring every user to load all the data on that page even in order to edit one minor thing. For users on slower connections—and as we don't know how many are out there, nobody should be assuming "it's 2016, everybody has an ultra-fast computer"—this slows a lot of things down. <b><font color="#FF6347">[[User:Ss112|Ss]]</font><small><font color="#1E90FF">[[User talk:Ss112|112]]</font></small></b> 22:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
{|style="border-top:solid thin lightgrey;background:transparent;padding:4px;" |
|||
|[[Image:Searchtool-80%.png|15px]] '''Response to [[WP:3O|third opinion request]]''': |
|||
|- |
|||
|style="padding-left:0.6cm"|Rizhopper, I sympathize with your concern about vandalism and desire to save editors the time and effort of reverting it. But at the same time, adding NOEDITSECTION has negative effects on good-faith editors. It can make it harder for them to start editing and, even worse, prevent them from saving time and bandwidth with section editing and throw them off when the edit links they always expect to see are suddenly missing. When faced with balancing acts like this, Wikipedia usually takes the route of making things easier for good-faith editors and trusting that the vandalism is a surmountable problem. I agree with Alsee that this case should be the same, unless there is a strong community consensus for the opposite decision. If vandalism to these pages is a major problem, I agree with Ss112 that [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|page protection]] is the proper way to address it. —[[User:Neil P. Quinn|Neil P. Quinn]] ([[User talk:Neil P. Quinn|talk]]) 06:11, 20 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
|} |
|||
:::Thanks everyone for your opinions. I have changed mine on this to agree with all of you because as SS112 said, the edit section link doesn't require one to load all the data on that page. I also agree with Neil that good-faith editors should be prioritized over vandalisers. Besides that, I guess Alsee is also right about reverting vandalism quickly. I will not add NOEDITSECTION to any articles again unless it would make a significant positive difference. <b><font color="#FF6347">[[User:Ss112|Ss]]</font><small><font color="#1E90FF">[[User talk:Ss112|112]]</font></small></b> 22:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
Latest revision as of 20:24, 23 May 2024
 | Consistent with the Terms of Use, Zawl has been banned indefinitely by the Wikimedia Foundation from editing all Wikimedia sites. Please direct any questions to ca  wikimedia.org.
Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth |
"Astonishing" listed at Redirects for discussion
[edit]
The redirect Astonishing has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 23 § Astonishing until a consensus is reached. Duckmather (talk) 20:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)