- 1 The Beatles Invite
- 2 Racist?
- 3 Charlie Hebdo
- 4 Vote counts in Chopra RfC
- 5 Marie Antoinette
- 6 Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
- 7 Pope's Indian daughter
- 8 Your signature
- 9 Your closure at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters
- 10 Egypt Economic Development Conference has been nominated for Did You Know
- 11 TWL HighBeam check-in
The Beatles Invite
- The content insinuates a link between a growth in, specifically, the immigration of Muslim people to Europe and the development of social tension in France. This is simplistic and is not a link which is supported by the source. The content is decontextualised at the very start of the body, giving it undue weight and seeming to imply that Muslim immigration is the sole causal factor of the events described in the article. Formerip (talk) 13:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Why did you revert the whole thing if only the religion is being discussed ? Mustapha Ourad is an Algerian national (he became a French citizen about a month ago), which essentially makes him a French-Algerian or Franco-Algerian, as mentioned by RS. Please revert the part that's not being discussed. MoorNextDoor (talk) 16:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- According to the source, his application was in process ("he was about to receive French citizenship"), which means that he was not a French citizen at the time of his death. Formerip (talk) 16:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Vote counts in Chopra RfC
Hi, I had hoped the closer of that RfC would take into account the widespread confusion about lead vs first sentence. I count no less than four editors showing a misunderstanding. One other editor was confused about MOS:BLPLEAD, thinking it endorsed "doctor" and post-nomials, contra WP:CREDENTIAL. (And the one IP was a likely sock of a recently blocked Chopra SPA, sharing the precise geolocation of other IP socks.)
Discounting the confused votes would only increase the majority, so this isn't about the outcome of the RfC. However considering the article has been the focus of COI editors and off-site canvassing this past year, I would have preferred to have seen a clearer majority for the purpose of citing the RfC in the future. Manul ~ talk 01:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Manul. I agree that it is possible that some people who responded in the RfC were confused about the question. However, I did not see strong evidence for this. As a closer, I can only make a determination that there has been widespread confusion as to the question if that is totally clear. But it is not easy to tell the difference between somebody who is answering the wrong question because they have misunderstood and somebody who is simply giving a bad answer to the right question. I can't read their minds.
- You will note, though, that I have given reduced weight (very considerably reduced, in fact) to votes that offered nothing more than "because it's true". AFAICT, this includes any vote that might have resulted from the confusion of an editor. So, regardless of whether I actually declared them to be confused or not, their votes have not counted for much.
- I'd also draw your attention that the main reason the result went the way it did was not numbers (even though the numbers went the same way). Editors who supported inclusion lost the argument. Not everything they said was idiotic, but no reason for inclusion that was supported by policy was put forward. I'd say that's the thing for you to take away - if anyone wants to re-open the issue in the future, they should really come up with a new argument. If they do, then that is, of course, fair enough. Formerip (talk) 11:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- We are on the same page, except that I do see strong evidence of mis-votes. See e.g. Cwobeel's statement, "[if he] is a doctor, he is a doctor. e.g. Rand Paul was an ophthalmologist, and that fact is in the lede". Not only is the confusion explicit, but the anti-example of the Rand Paul article is cited, which does not have "ophthalmologist" in the first sentence. There are other cases as well. I appreciate your closing and your response above, I would just quibble on that one point. In all, it's probably not worth quibbling about. Best, Manul ~ talk 18:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoorNextDoor (talk • contribs) 13:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Pope's Indian daughter
- I guess it's been that way since before the dawn of ping, and I've never really thought about it. Formerip (talk) 12:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Your closure at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters
Egypt Economic Development Conference has been nominated for Did You Know
|Hello, FormerIP. Egypt Economic Development Conference, an article you either created or significantly contributed to, has been nominated for WikiProject Did you know consideration to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 16:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)|
TWL HighBeam check-in
Hello Wikipedia Library Users,
You are receiving this message because the Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to HighBeam. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:
- Make sure that you can still log in to your HighBeam account; if you are having trouble feel free to contact me for more information. When your access expires you can reapply at WP:HighBeam.
- Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. For more information about citing this source, see Wikipedia:HighBeam/Citations
- Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let us know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.
Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.