Jump to content

User talk:Callinus: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Sparkzilla (talk | contribs)
1,996 edits
Line 202: Line 202:
</div></div>
</div></div>
<!-- Message sent by User:LivingBot@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Tools/Spamlist&oldid=669720748 -->
<!-- Message sent by User:LivingBot@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Tools/Spamlist&oldid=669720748 -->

== Wikipedia: Encyclopedia or News Archive? ==

Hi, I saw your additions to Victoria Taylor pages, and I think you will find a lot of frustration -- if you haven't already -- with Wikipedia's rules for notability when dealing with marginally notable people. As you know, Wikipedia's standard of notability varies page-by-page. This is due to the difference between ''notability'' and ''newsworthiness''. The distinction between these two levels of inclusion is ambiguously defined in Wikipedia, and the application of the rules depends on the strongest forces on the page. Some pages will include a lot of news, while others are short summaries, and few people can tell why. The problem arises because Wikipedia's software is confused about two roles: ''News archives'' add every newsworthy item about a topic; ''encyclopedias'' summarize topic according to notability. A page like Taylor's, which you have written as an extensive news archive, will almost certainly be deleted because it is not notable enough to work as an encyclopedia article, ''even though there is lots of news about her.''

If you get tired of the confusion, or are looking for an alternative place to add information about marginally ntoable people, then I'd like you to have a look at my site, [http://newslines.org Newslines], which is a purpose-built news archive and has a far lower standard of inclusion. Due to our software design you will not encounter most of the problems that occur when adding information: harassment, bias, censorship are all lessened due to our format. In fact, it may be too easy for you to add information. Depends how much of a masochist you are for the wiki, I guess. Anyway, feel free to check it out. Feel free to drop me a line if you want to discuss or need more info. -- [[User:Sparkzilla|Sparkzilla]] <small>[[User_talk:Sparkzilla|talk!]]</small> 03:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:52, 5 July 2015

The Signpost
22 July 2024

References

Under the Dome

Information icon Hello, I'm FunkyCanute. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Under the Dome (film) because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks!

Thanks

Thanks for expanding Junaid Hussain. I enjoyed reading your additions. Thanks again. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 15:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Thanks for reviewing Mexican Satellite System (MEXSAT), Aronzak.

Unfortunately Appable has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

Great article! Certainly needed given the recent Proton-M failure of the Mexsat-1 satellite, and I'm surprised it wasn't covered earlier. Satellite company coverage on Wikipedia in general could use some improvement, though. Thanks again!

To reply, leave a comment on Appable's talk page. — Preceding undated comment added 20:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Appable: you hit the wrong button? -- Aronzak (talk) 20:13, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, I'm not actually sure what happened. I did the same thing I did with every other page. Hmm. Sorry about this, I didn't mean to. I think it's marked as reviewed now, as it should be. Appable (talk) 20:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Appable: That's all good, it should really be the responsibility of admins and the WMF to get it together to create proper tools that aren't confusing and prone to mistakes. -- Aronzak (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do like Page Curation for the most part. Sometimes, though, it can have a few unexpected bugs that cause things like this. Feel free to remove this discussion if you want. Sorry again! Appable (talk) 20:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

help me

--Rawlings fawler (talk) 07:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC)Rawlings Fawler[reply]

Salad Machemba (born 27 July 1991) is a Zimbabwean professional footballer and is currently plying his soccer trade in (South Africa)training with Mamelodi Sundowns F.C Born in Harare, he played as a striker from 2009 until present {2015}.

He spent time playing in England, where he appeared in the Premier League for Manchester City U-21. He also played for Gunners F.C. Playing career Gunners F.C Machemba was originally spotted by Thanks Tengwe, prior to his official signed at Gunners F.C U-20. He made an immediate impact by scoring away at Rufaro stadium on a Harare derby and then became the toast of Castle lager premier league with a thunderbolt winner against Dynamos in March 2010, endearing him to the Chando Kupisa fans.[1]

Although he would go on to play a major role at several clubs in the second tier, it is his time at Gunners he is particularly known for given the club's top flight status at that time. He would play a significant role in two major teams,Thanks Tengwe's attacking team of the U-20 and Moses Chunga's of the winning league champions squad. In June 2010 Machemba had flew to England visiting his guardians,who still lived in Manchester.However during his stay in England,he was scouted by Rawlings Fowler and took him to Manchester City youth team,where he had made an impact scoring during training session,and City keen in signing him on a one-year deal worth £5000/ week,However during his stay in England,his manager denied to renew his contract with City because he had many request from Italian giants in 2011-12 season AS Roma F.C which the deal haven't been successful,unexpectedly he returned home {Zimbabwe}where he was found training with his former team Gunners F.C before he had gone to ply his soccer trade in {South Africa} where he happened to appear in his trainings at Chroolokop training grounds with Mamelodi Sundowns F.C {0ctober 2014}until present{May 2015}.....

The Signpost: 20 May 2015

Need cite for "Tim D. White has argued"

Your changes to Australopithecus deyiremeda included

Tim D. White has argued that more evidence is needed before concluding that the variation in fossils is not merely diversity within Australopithecus afarensis.

That sentence is not referenced and will likely be removed. Please add a citation. Thanks. 67.100.127.22 (talk) 20:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Serols

Barbarian Invasion

Not sure why The Barbarian Invasions of the Roman empire by Germanic peoples is now being labelled as a 'migration'? You only have to read Gibbons history to see that it is commonly held in academic belief as an invasion.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_History_of_the_Decline_and_Fall_of_the_Roman_Empire

The only reason for re-labelling the Germanic invasions as a migration would be a revision of history with very political overtones that would see to re-cast an invasion as a migration. This would only be of political benefit to those with an agenda similar to that of Hitler, who looked for such justifications for the horrific 'invasions' of his own armies.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludwig7 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 03 June 2015

The Signpost: 10 June 2015

Throwing every source possible

Please stop adding sources unrelated to the subject as you did at Charlie Charlie Challenge, and sources that aren't reliable.--JacktheHarry (talk) 18:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JacktheHarry: thank you for your contributions, please discuss on the talk page so the discussions over sourcing are centralised. Thanks. -- Aronzak (talk) 18:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 15 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

COI for Muslim Public Affairs Committee

You recently left a note on my talk page - No I do not have any associations or receive any payment from any organization. I watch most of pages I edit and try to introduce a NPOV. I do edit Muslim Public Affairs Committee and many other page depending on the activity level and how many people are involved in editing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asifkhanj (talk • contribs) 12:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations

There is an RfC that you may be interested in at Template talk:Infobox country#RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations. Please join us and help us to determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 June 2015

Talkback

Hello, Callinus. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wombshifter 1.
Message added 12:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Vanjagenije (talk) 12:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: The Interview (2014 film)

Hi, Aronzak. The Interview (2014 film) is currently under a GA review. As such, the standards for articles are a bit higher due to the article improvement process. Your restoration of unrelated material to the see also section threatens this process, particularly in regards to criterion 1b (Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Layout#See_also_section) and 3b of the good article criteria stipulating that content "stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail". If you feel strongly about these links, please respond either on the article talk page or in the section labeled Talk:The_Interview_(2014_film)#Discussion where I have addressed it. It would help greatly if you have supporting sources drawing a direct connection to The Interview and the links you propose to include, namely, Innocence of Muslims, Death of a Princess, Death of a President, and the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. I honestly do not see any connection between this film and those issues. You apparently do, and you seem to be arguing that this "material also raises free speech and censorship issues", which is why it should be in the see also section, but I see this argument as lacking good evidence. There are many, many films that raise "free speech and censorship issues", as you put it, but they are not connected to this topic. Further, we should not be editing articles without good sources showing a connection between these topics and The Interview. Therefore, I suggest you self-revert and remove the off-topic links so that the article improvement process can continue. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 19:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue the other films with free speech issues are relevant to readers (wikipedia serves the info needs of users - not political correctness).

Great. Per WP:BRD, please make that argument on the talk page, using good reliable sources about the film. Please do not, however, make that argument in edit summaries based on only your opinion sans sources. You are holding up a Good Article review by including this material, and you could be responsible for it failing. To my eye, at least, you are engaging in original research. Viriditas (talk) 23:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Presidential candidate comments on Charleston church shooting

Since you commented in the discussion at Talk:Charleston church shooting, I invite you to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Presidential candidates reactions to the Charleston church shooting. Thanks, Reywas92Talk 00:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Kabul Parliament attack

Shall I merge this article to War in Afghanistan (2015–present)? --George Ho (talk) 08:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and then merged the article. Sounds fine? --George Ho (talk) 09:07, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho: I was away from my computer - reverted. The part about Kunduz being contested looks like it was dropped in the merge. Maybe discuss on talk? -- Aronzak (talk) 09:12, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I added Kunduz in the 2015 War page. If we discuss the merge, then a bold merge will become impossible. Shall you accept another bold merge? --George Ho (talk) 09:18, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let me add sources to the was in afghanistan 2015 article then I'll do the merge -- Aronzak (talk) 09:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be patient then. --George Ho (talk) 09:53, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@George Ho: that's done - there's more sourcing on the target page about the followup coverage.

The Signpost: 24 June 2015

Copy and paste

  • Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

Art LaPella (talk) 17:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:CWW above, the only attribution needed to "paste" from within wikipedia is a wikilink in the edit summary

"When copying content from one article to another, at a minimum provide a link back to the source page in the edit summary at the destination page. If substantial, consider posting a note on both talk pages"

@Art LaPella: content is from my changes to Bushmeat - see my contribs and history: Bushmeat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I'll add a wikilink when undoing your removal
-- Aronzak (talk) 17:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Art LaPella: also did this trigger an edit filter with "paste" in the title? -- Aronzak (talk) 17:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I noticed because the word "paste" caught my attention as a human, not an edit filter. Most of your text is identical to the BBC article, in addition to the Bushmeat article, and I don't know of a legal way for that to happen. The BBC article doesn't credit Wikipedia, so did you copy word-for-word from BBC into the Bushmeat article? If so, there is a problem with both articles. However I'm no copyright expert, and others will presumably fix this. Art LaPella (talk) 17:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a close paraphrase of one paragraph from this edit. I'll try and change that paragraph. -- Aronzak (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I could have sworn I found identical sentences in three paragraphs, but I sure can't find them now. Must be my fault. Sorry. Art LaPella (talk) 18:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--

The Cambridge ref seems to be what the BBC is basing some coverage on. -- Aronzak (talk) 18:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 01 July 2015

Wikipedia: Encyclopedia or News Archive?

Hi, I saw your additions to Victoria Taylor pages, and I think you will find a lot of frustration -- if you haven't already -- with Wikipedia's rules for notability when dealing with marginally notable people. As you know, Wikipedia's standard of notability varies page-by-page. This is due to the difference between notability and newsworthiness. The distinction between these two levels of inclusion is ambiguously defined in Wikipedia, and the application of the rules depends on the strongest forces on the page. Some pages will include a lot of news, while others are short summaries, and few people can tell why. The problem arises because Wikipedia's software is confused about two roles: News archives add every newsworthy item about a topic; encyclopedias summarize topic according to notability. A page like Taylor's, which you have written as an extensive news archive, will almost certainly be deleted because it is not notable enough to work as an encyclopedia article, even though there is lots of news about her.

If you get tired of the confusion, or are looking for an alternative place to add information about marginally ntoable people, then I'd like you to have a look at my site, Newslines, which is a purpose-built news archive and has a far lower standard of inclusion. Due to our software design you will not encounter most of the problems that occur when adding information: harassment, bias, censorship are all lessened due to our format. In fact, it may be too easy for you to add information. Depends how much of a masochist you are for the wiki, I guess. Anyway, feel free to check it out. Feel free to drop me a line if you want to discuss or need more info. -- Sparkzilla talk! 03:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Callinus&oldid=670003360"