User talk:M4gnum0n/Archives/2011

Flint

As you removed for some unknown reason when there was a lot of uncited content in the BLP ( 33% of it - long term uncited ) I have been forced to remove the content - feel free to cite it and replace it, please do not replace it to the BLP again uncited, why you did a drive by removal of a useful template can you please explain? Also if you are doing this in other articles - if you remove a template citations required it is your resposibility to add the cite required tags and not just willy nilly suggest other people should add the tags, either leave the template alone or add the tags yourself is the way to go. Off2riorob (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I "drive by" removed the template because I think it is not appropriate in an article with 66% sourced content. It has already moved from the state of problematic article to article with problematic sentences. Every contentious statement - minus one - was already sourced, in my opinion that is, so I was suggesting others to add tags where I would have not, to pinpoint eventual problems. On the other hand, I do not understand why you feel forced to either add a cn tag to every uncited sentence or delete all of them, nor why you chose the second option. Surely a template at the top of the article should not allow contentious material into a BLP, so if you feel so strongly about it why didn't you remove it earlier?

I don't think your extreme definition of "contentious material" is the right way to go, but this is only my opinion as the concept is inherently subjective. In the end, if you think the article seems worse now than before just do not put the blame on me, you could have just reverted but instead pressed the big red button.--M4gnum0n (talk) 19:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Well , drive by it was your only ever edit to the article. I think the article is better now as it is fully cited. Content that is removed is just as easily replaced, those BLP templates tell readers that there is uncited content in great big letters, if you had removed the template and added the citation required templates that would also have been fine but you didn't - you removed it and left untagged uncited content in the imagined position that some one might just come along and add six or seven citation required templated, a job actually that that a bit more time than just removing a single template. I didn't even say it was contensious - I said - it was long term - over a year uncited and was covered by a uncited article content that you removed and whent on your way leaving it untagged and uncited - you expect someone to follow you along and do what you expect but they don't always do that. Do you still think that removing templates uncited content templates from a BLP and leaving uncited content in it is a good idea, well I don't and it was unnecessary completely. Off2riorob (talk) 19:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I still think that I can remove a BLP template if I see no uncited contentious material in it, and will do it again in the future, unless you point me to relevant policy. You can challenge the move on specific concerns, but not on the basis that every sentence in a BLP must end with a ref or cn tag. Seriously, where did you get this idea from? And why do you remove material you do not deem contentious? It has little sense. --M4gnum0n (talk) 20:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

About the "drive by" thing... I thought it meant "edit done without reading the article". If the right - or your - meaning is "first edit on an article" then we had a misunderstanding, but I have to tell you that the term is often used in a derogatory fashion. --M4gnum0n (talk) 20:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

No I didn't meant anything derogatory by it, anyway, user Ninetyone has replaced it and added new cites which is great. If you think it is a good thing to do then that is up to you, personally IMO removal of a template and leaving uncited content is not an improvement but you think it is so we can agree to differ, I will leave you to it - I am not big on linking to this essay and that policy, its up to you, if you do it on another of the 8500 articles I am watching I will likely just replace it and not bother discussing with you, take care - bye. Off2riorob (talk) 20:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

In continuation to what I saw on Template:Intro-toolong, I had a good look at Template:R from other template, and please see Template_talk:R_from_other_template#Mistake. Debresser (talk) 05:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Second time

Could you perhaps visit this discussion again. I'd like to have a follow up on your opinion. Debresser (talk) 07:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done --M4gnum0n (talk) 10:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Humor

I like to bring a little humor to Wikipedia now and then. Please see the edit summary of this edit. Debresser (talk) 19:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, nice one :) --M4gnum0n (talk) 19:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Template:R to section

Hello. I reverted your revert on Template:R to section. The template is working fine. Perhaps you couldn't see the category because you don't have hidden categories turned on? McLerristarr | Mclay1 06:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I noticed the category wasn't appearing anymore and thought it was the template's fault. Now I see that the reason of its hidden status is another edit of yours at {{Redirect category}}. I looked up the relevant policy and it seems to me that hidden categories apply only on articles, so why did you hide a redirect category? Moreover, if you are attempting to standardize this way, a discussion at the category page or at WikiProject Redirect might be in order.--M4gnum0n (talk) 00:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Redirects are in the main namespace and normal article categories can apply to them. It seemed appropriate to separate the content categories from the administration categories. Feel free to start a discussion if you feel it necessary. McLerristarr | Mclay1 14:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

overtagging

Hello. I don't think it's very useful to place huge banners at the top of every page with minor editorial defects (see Wikipedia:Tagging pages for problems#Constructive tagging, Wikipedia:Tagging pages for problems#Over-tagging, Wikipedia:Responsible tagging etc.) Perhaps you could considers placing a {{todo}} on the talk page instead? Also, in the case of there being insufficient references, it's probably more useful to add {{citation needed}} to specific claims you think need to be referenced instead of a very non-specific banner at the top. Cheers, —Ruud 16:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I do not "place huge banners at the top of every page with minor editorial defects". Remove "huge" and "minor editorial" and you get more or less what I normally do. Since you are questioning my editing style, I'd really like to be pointed to some examples of mistagging and/or overtagging to highlight the perceived problem. As can be seen from my editing history, if the problem is indeed minor I usually just fix it instead of tagging. If your concerns are about a specific case, it would be better to just refer to it, instead of inferring general misconduct. Discussion could then advance on that article's talk page.

About WP:OVERTAGGING, the rule of thumb I follow (directly from Too many tags) is: "It is very rare that more than two or three tags are needed". In fact, in the articles in which we interacted I never placed more than two, so I don't think it is appropriate for you to point me to that essay. And the very purpose of {{Refimprove}} is avoiding {{cn}} tag-bombing. See also this discussion for similar arguments. Regards, --M4gnum0n (talk) 18:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

For example [1]. This is a small stub containing little more than a mathematical definition, of which I have little doubt it is actually stated as such in that one reference. Adding a template would in my opinion only be useful if you have reasonable doubts about the factual accuracy of the article and want to warn the readers. In most cases a more specific {{citation needed}} template would more useful. To request other editors to improve the article, the talk page is in my opinion a better place. —Ruud 18:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

One does not a pattern make. Nonetheless, I am going to expand upon this particular case. I know placing a big cleanup banner on a stub is not generally considered good form, but the article was not marked as such (IMO it is start-class indeed), so I did not see a problem with that. Cleanup templates like {{One source}} do not only warn the readers that there could be reliability problems, but also point to the editors concerns about verifiability and notability. An article with a lone source has both problems, barring exceptional circumstances. I am now going to add some {{citation needed}} tags to highlight the sentences which would benefit from inline citations, since you contested the template on the basis that there were none. I hope this explanation has shed some light on my actions. --M4gnum0n (talk) 18:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Information on change to article "List of optical character recognition software"

Hi M4gnum0n,

I have a question that might be a tad hard on your memory, but I still hope you can help me with this.

On 21 May 2010, 12:31, you made a change to article "List of optical character recognition software": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_optical_character_recognition_software&diff=363365438&oldid=341929099

More exactly, you added the remark "Uses OmniPage" to the row for Microsoft Office Document Imaging. I'd be interested to know what your source of information is. I'm asking this because I'm about to research the differences between both programs.

Thanks, Edwin

Edwinek (talk) 14:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

That change was actually part of a WP:MERGE operation from OCR Software, as explained in the edit summary. The information you refer to was added to the source article by User:Jerome Charles Potts with this edit, replacing the prior statement "Uses ScanSoft OCR engine". Maybe you can ask him for clarification. --M4gnum0n (talk) 21:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Project Euler

Hi M4gnum0n,

you've placed a notability tag at said article some time ago. In the meantime there have been some changes to address the issue. Please feeld free to give feedback there indicating whether at least you think that the issue might be resolved. --Daniel5Ko (talk) 21:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Template:Urls listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Urls. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Urls redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Alpha Quadrant ^talk 20:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)