User talk:Slatersteven/Archives/2018/December
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Poland collaboration, again
Why do you constantly insist on keeping every out of place detail when it comes to the Poland topics? Do you not understand that just because there is some side fact it should be evaluated for impact on event(s). This organization, was almost completely useless and consisted of 4 main individual and lasted for only a couple of months, yet it was prominently displayed in this short summary text as if it had large support, and competed with the Polish Government in Exile. That's like trying to elevate the Jefferson (proposed Pacific state) separatist movement which is a joke and a political caricature, to the Catalan independence movement, which is a political force supported by a sizable segment of the population. Also, this statement was not in the section text when the new article on Poland was created, and a new Poland section text drafted. --E-960 (talk) 20:24, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
- National Radical Organization, this is the link to the organization, other than being a bunch of anti-Semitic thugs, this tiny organization, did not accomplish anything to warrant such a prominent reference is a summary text, which should only cover the most important and significant facts. If you want to add this side note to the Collaboration in Poland article that's fine, but this is too small a fact for this summary section. --E-960 (talk) 20:32, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
- You said there had been a discussion, I saw none.Slatersteven (talk) 20:44, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
- If you recall, when the separate article on Poland was created, it was agreed that this summary text in the axis collaboration page, should be brief and only contain the significant facts. --E-960 (talk) 20:47, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
- That was months ago, and I do not recall what was said about what should be removed from this article. perhaps you woulds provide the diffs?Slatersteven (talk) 20:55, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
- If you recall, when the separate article on Poland was created, it was agreed that this summary text in the axis collaboration page, should be brief and only contain the significant facts. --E-960 (talk) 20:47, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Slatersteven, I can’t imagine what you were thinking when you tagged this article as WP:A11, "something invented by the article’s creator", one minute after it was created. Even in its very first incarnation, it was obviously not something invented. It was a list article, with a link to the main article pamphlet wars. Even then it had seven highly relevant references, and many more have now been added. Yes, there were individual items that needed fixing, and I see you have been working with the author to improve the article, including a good suggestion for the title. But A11?? Was this a slip of the keyboard or something? -- MelanieN (talk) 22:02, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
- No just a bad decision made after looking at (what I felt) was way too much OR. As I said on the talk page, I did not think the subject was invented I just felt there was way too much OR, so that the content largely was (I was wrong in that, mostly, some of my concerns were valid)). What I did not do was look at the time stamp.Slatersteven (talk) 09:55, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Quotes
Yes, I know, but it's common practice on Wikipedia to leave leading and trailing ellipses out of the quotes unless they serve a semantic purpose (indicating hesitation, or speech broken off, etc). We don't, for example, write: The critic found the film "... moving ...", yet found it nonetheless "... flawed ..." in ways that "... ultimately spoiled ..." it. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:27, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
- Is it, I am not aware of that.Slatersteven (talk) 11:31, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
- It is, and I hope you can see from the example I've given why it would be. Now this: MOS:ELLIPSES is clear that we use three dots, not four—if you insist on keeping the ellipses (which I obviously recommend against), I hope you can at least fix that. I'm not going to editwar over something so trivial. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:40, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
- So then replace it with three, no zero.Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
- Excuse me? Could you at least give a rationale for this? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:55, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
- Your the one who pointed out that MOS requires us to use three dots, not four should be used. I asked where does it say that not using ELLIPSES is common practice, you then linked to a section saying that we use three.Slatersteven (talk) 11:58, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
- I gave you a rationale for why it's common practice not to use ellipses that way. Do you find my explanation flawed? I'm trying to understand why you want to maintain these ellipses—I've never had anyone revert such changes before. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:11, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
- No, I just do not see how it is a justification for removing them, rather then altering them to conform to the MOS.Slatersteven (talk) 12:15, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
- So you don't see a flaw in the rationale, but you reject it anyways? If the MOS needs clarification, I could bring it up there, but it would be nice if you could give some rationale for this style first so I know how to frame the discussion. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 13:11, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
- What? It is common practice everywhere you put ... before and after a partial quote to denote the fact it is a partial quote. I see nothings that indicates that this is also not the case on Wikipedia. I have no idea (other then that) what rationale you are talking about.Slatersteven (talk) 17:11, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
- I'm talking about the rationale I gave you above—the one with the quote highlighted in red. Do you see a flaw in it? Do you find the red-highlighted sentence an example of an acceptable style on Wikipedia or elsewhere? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:04, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- Then why did you go on about the one that had four, if you were talking about a different edit?. It would have avoided confusion if you had just stuck to the one issue. As to the issue, well A. again I see nothing in policy that says doing it that way is fundamentally wrong. Moreover you "example" appears to be from a signal source, whereas the edit you made was to material from different sources.09:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- I didn't "go on" about the four dots—I brought it up a single time when you made that revert, and every other comment I've made has focused on the other issue. I can't follow what the last sentence of your comment is supposed to mean. How would it be different if my example were:
- Critic A found the film "... moving ...", while Critic B found it nonetheless "... flawed ..." in ways that "... ultimately spoiled ..." it.
- The number of sources not irrelevant—why on earth would they be?
- Like I said, I'll be bringing this up at TALK:MOS, and I was hoping to get a rationale from you to better frame it. If you'd reather I gave only my own perspective, fine, but I can't understand why. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:35, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- Because I do not agree this is how we should do it. Also these are fairly lengthy quotes on a very controversial topic. Thus we need to show great care to not give incorrect impressions as to intent or meaning. Thus making it clear these are partial quotes is improitant so as to not give an impression of trying to mislead the reader.Slatersteven (talk) 11:39, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- What does "fairly lengthy quotes on a very controversial topic" have to do with styling? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:17, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- Nothing, but it has everything to do with the way we present statements in controversial topic areas.Slatersteven (talk) 10:38, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- What does "fairly lengthy quotes on a very controversial topic" have to do with styling? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:17, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- Because I do not agree this is how we should do it. Also these are fairly lengthy quotes on a very controversial topic. Thus we need to show great care to not give incorrect impressions as to intent or meaning. Thus making it clear these are partial quotes is improitant so as to not give an impression of trying to mislead the reader.Slatersteven (talk) 11:39, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- I didn't "go on" about the four dots—I brought it up a single time when you made that revert, and every other comment I've made has focused on the other issue. I can't follow what the last sentence of your comment is supposed to mean. How would it be different if my example were:
- Then why did you go on about the one that had four, if you were talking about a different edit?. It would have avoided confusion if you had just stuck to the one issue. As to the issue, well A. again I see nothing in policy that says doing it that way is fundamentally wrong. Moreover you "example" appears to be from a signal source, whereas the edit you made was to material from different sources.09:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- I'm talking about the rationale I gave you above—the one with the quote highlighted in red. Do you see a flaw in it? Do you find the red-highlighted sentence an example of an acceptable style on Wikipedia or elsewhere? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:04, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- What? It is common practice everywhere you put ... before and after a partial quote to denote the fact it is a partial quote. I see nothings that indicates that this is also not the case on Wikipedia. I have no idea (other then that) what rationale you are talking about.Slatersteven (talk) 17:11, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
- So you don't see a flaw in the rationale, but you reject it anyways? If the MOS needs clarification, I could bring it up there, but it would be nice if you could give some rationale for this style first so I know how to frame the discussion. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 13:11, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
- No, I just do not see how it is a justification for removing them, rather then altering them to conform to the MOS.Slatersteven (talk) 12:15, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
- I gave you a rationale for why it's common practice not to use ellipses that way. Do you find my explanation flawed? I'm trying to understand why you want to maintain these ellipses—I've never had anyone revert such changes before. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:11, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
- Your the one who pointed out that MOS requires us to use three dots, not four should be used. I asked where does it say that not using ELLIPSES is common practice, you then linked to a section saying that we use three.Slatersteven (talk) 11:58, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
- Excuse me? Could you at least give a rationale for this? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:55, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
- So then replace it with three, no zero.Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
- It is, and I hope you can see from the example I've given why it would be. Now this: MOS:ELLIPSES is clear that we use three dots, not four—if you insist on keeping the ellipses (which I obviously recommend against), I hope you can at least fix that. I'm not going to editwar over something so trivial. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:40, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Why wait [[1]].Slatersteven (talk) 11:43, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- Well, that was unhelpful and unlikely to produce a fruitful, focused discussion. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:19, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- It is not the gist of this, is it common practice or not to use elipses to denote partial quote?Slatersteven (talk) 10:38, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
It appears I was wrong, so go ahead and revert.Slatersteven (talk) 10:45, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
You may be interested here
based on your recent comment at AN, I thought you may be interested here Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard#Administrators'_noticeboard/Votes_for_sanctions. Regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 14:51, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Nominations now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards
Nominations for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards are open until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2018. Why don't you nominate the editors who you believe have made a real difference to the project in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Why would mobsters NOT commit electoral fraud?
Please tell me why mobsters would have zero part in it. (Chuck E. Cheese the Handsome (talk) 17:20, 5 December 2018 (UTC)Chuck E. Cheese the Handsome)
- The page is about interference by governments, not criminals.Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLII, December 2018
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
I have unreviewed a page you curated
Thanks for reviewing 1951 in Italian television, Slatersteven.
Unfortunately Insertcleverphrasehere has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:
If you were not aware of the recent change, PRODed and CSD tagged articles should not be marked as reviewed, per recent consensus here Cheers,
To reply, leave a comment on Insertcleverphrasehere's talk page.
— Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 00:44, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 13
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of cryptids, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Salon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:42, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
NPR Newsletter No.16 15 December 2018
Hello Slatersteven/Archives/2018,
- Reviewer of the Year
This year's award for the Reviewer of the Year goes to Onel5969. Around on Wikipedia since 2011, their staggering number of 26,554 reviews over the past twelve months makes them, together with an additional total of 275,285 edits, one of Wikipedia's most prolific users.
- Thanks are also extended for their work to JTtheOG (15,059 reviews), Boleyn (12,760 reviews), Cwmhiraeth (9,001 reviews), Semmendinger (8,440 reviews), PRehse (8,092 reviews), Arthistorian1977 (5,306 reviews), Abishe (4,153 reviews), Barkeep49 (4,016 reviews), and Elmidae (3,615 reviews).
Cwmhiraeth, Semmendinger, Barkeep49, and Elmidae have been New Page Reviewers for less than a year — Barkeep49 for only seven months, while Boleyn, with an edit count of 250,000 since she joined Wikipedia in 2008, has been a bastion of New Page Patrol for many years.
See also the list of top 100 reviewers.
- Less good news, and an appeal for some help
The backlog is now approaching 5,000, and still rising. There are around 640 holders of the NPR flag, most of whom appear to be inactive. The 10% of the reviewers who do 90% of the work could do with some support especially as some of them are now taking a well deserved break.
- Really good news - NPR wins the Community Wishlist Survey 2019
At #1 position, the Community Wishlist poll closed on 3 December with a resounding success for NPP, reminding the WMF and the volunteer communities just how critical NPP is to maintaining a clean encyclopedia and the need for improved tools to do it. A big 'thank you' to everyone who supported the NPP proposals. See the results.
- Training video
Due to a number of changes having been made to the feed since this three-minute video was created, we have been asked by the WMF for feedback on the video with a view to getting it brought up to date to reflect the new features of the system. Please leave your comments here, particularly mentioning how helpful you find it for new reviewers.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Voting now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards
Voting for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards is open until 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2018. Why don't you vote for the editors who you believe have made a real difference to Wikipedia's coverage of military history in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Daily Mail RfC
You have introduced demonstrably false evidence in the Daily Mail RfC. I have asked you to correct this false info and have pinged you regarding it, but never sure that pings work, I wanted to contact you directly here, so there is no way you can deny being aware of the actual facts concerning the fact that en.wp was wrong as a result of prejudice against the Daily Mail. — 🍣 SashiRolls t · c 22:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- How was it false?Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- The Daily Mail broke the story on the 16th, prompting the Dubai police to claim she jumped from another building. The three papers you cited copied the DM reporting and recycled the Dubai police's story which later was disproved with the coroner's report. The entire story was removed from wiki in August on the basis that DM was unreliable, which, as it turns out, it wasn't. This is not complicated. What is specifically false is that you claim the other papers' stories appeared on the same day, when they clearly did not. — 🍣 SashiRolls t · c 12:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- From the mirror (dated the 18th) "Laura Vanessa Nunes lept from the 148th floor of the Burj Khalifa in Dubai after finding out her boyfriend "didn't love her as much as she loved him"". That is not (by my books not reporting she jumped form the building.Slatersteven (talk) 08:59, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- The Daily Mail broke the story on the 16th, prompting the Dubai police to claim she jumped from another building. The three papers you cited copied the DM reporting and recycled the Dubai police's story which later was disproved with the coroner's report. The entire story was removed from wiki in August on the basis that DM was unreliable, which, as it turns out, it wasn't. This is not complicated. What is specifically false is that you claim the other papers' stories appeared on the same day, when they clearly did not. — 🍣 SashiRolls t · c 12:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)