User talk:Zazpot

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Barnstar

The Original Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

A cookie for you!

Please accept this internet cookie for being a brilliant human being and offering lots of support for those learning Wikipedia and Wikidata skills! RollerLibrarian (talk) 15:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@RollerLibrarian: Thanks for being a brilliant host! zazpot (talk) 15:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Teahouse logo

Hi Zazpot! You created a thread called Need counter-vandalism assistance at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Delivered by Tigraan-testbot, an automated account. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Tigraan-testbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page.
This functionality is currently being tested. If you received this notification by error, please notify the bot's maintainer.

Facto Post – Issue 2 – 13 July 2017

Facto Post – Issue 2 – 13 July 2017

Editorial: Core models and topics

Wikimedians interest themselves in everything under the sun — and then some. Discussion on "core topics" may, oddly, be a fringe activity, and was popular here a decade ago.

The situation on Wikidata today does resemble the halcyon days of 2006 of the English Wikipedia. The growth is there, and the reliability and stylistic issues are not yet pressing in on the project. Its Berlin conference at the end of October will have five years of achievement to celebrate. Think Wikimania Frankfurt 2005.

Progress must be made, however, on referencing "core facts". This has two parts: replacing "imported from Wikipedia" in referencing by external authorities; and picking out statements, such as dates and family relationships, that must not only be reliable but be seen to be reliable.

In addition, there are many properties on Wikidata lacking a clear data model. An emerging consensus may push to the front key sourcing and biomedical properties as requiring urgent attention. Wikidata's "manual of style" is currently distributed over thousands of discussions. To make it coalesce, work on such a core is needed.

Links


Editor Charles Matthews. Please leave feedback for him.

If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

bare refs

Instead of inserting the bare references tag, why not just use the ReFill tool or learn how to do a full ref? it's easy. I made a tutorial in image form if you're interested.--Jennica / talk 04:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jennica: thanks for your message! ReFill is clearly intended as a labour-saving device, but my personal experience has been that it is not sufficiently reliable to be worth using. It seems to take a similar amount of time and effort for me to use ReFill as it does for me to manually make a full ref, and I have higher confidence in the latter. But making a full ref still takes me an age, and other than the satisfaction of adding durable verifiability to Wikipedia, I do not enjoy it.
Editing Wikipedia is WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, so if it feels unenjoyable, then editors are liable to reduce or cease contributing. I am not immune to this effect. But I also think that verifiability is crucial, so I will not forego refs.
My solution is simple: sometimes, instead of doing something I do not enjoy, I delegate it (which is fine, because there is WP:NORUSH). That is, instead of only ever adding full refs, I sometimes add bare refs and tag them for cleanup by those who would enjoy turning them into full refs. (Based on their edit histories, I believe there to be several such editors on the English Wikipedia, and some of them are very active.) This way, I get to make edits I enjoy, others get to make edits they enjoy, and Wikipedia articles gain verifiability. Triple win! zazpot (talk) 11:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because of you I am a staunch reFill convert. Now, how to write a script so a.m. and p.m. reign supreme...? kencf0618 (talk)
If you still refuse to add full refs or use refill, there is still no need to add a bare url banner for the one bare link you add. People will clean up after you on the heavily edited pages, but are less likely to be cleaned instantly on those that aren't. Consider using the inline template, or better yet, with all due respect, just fill them in or use the dang tool—the amount of time it takes you to paste the bare url template in a second edit, you would've been done filling in the citation by then! Also, I don't think anyone enjoys filling in references, it is just a task that must be done (perhaps to satisfy an editor's "OCD") to prevent link rot, but the time of those editors' could be put to much better use if the problem did not exist, and the problem definitely should not be exacerbated needlessly by an experienced content editor. Thanks for your consideration, Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 22:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Vaselineeeeeeee:, I just tried reFill again, and this time it didn't work for me at all. Literally. It seems to rely on JavaScript, which I don't use. (The Visual Editor doesn't work for me either, for the same reason.)
As for the template, I used to use {{bareurls|section}} in the relevant section. However, MarnetteD requested that I use {{bareurls}} instead, so that is what I have been doing recently. Now you are asking me not to do that.
I don't much mind which template I use to tag an article as having bare URLs, but I'm not usually content to leave such articles untagged as that truly could lead to link rot. So, I would be grateful if both you and MarnetteD will chime in here in order that we may find a mutually acceptable solution.
MarnetteD: would Vaselineeeeeeee's suggestion of {{Bare URL inline}} be acceptable to you? If not, then Vaselineeeeeeee: can you think of a better suggestion?
Thanks, Zazpot (talk) 23:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No please do not use the inline one. It is difficult to find even in small articles and a real bear to locate in big ones. Also it does not allow access to refill the way the regular template does. It does not matter what section or sentence has a bare url. Placing the simple template at the top of the article gives those of us who work on them a quick and simple start on putting bare refs into cite templates. Everything else slows that work down. Also, I can't tell you how many times I've seen the section or the inline template used on articles that have bare urls in other parts of the article as well. The basic one at the top of the page lets us get all of them at the same time. For years now (even going back to before I started working on them) there is a small group of editors who fix bare urls on a daily basis so the template rarely stays on the article for more than a day. One exception is when there are dozens or hundreds of bare urls in an article. Refill (and the late lamented reflinks) stop after a certain point so, in that situation, I have to format them in sections. Even then it usually doesn't take more than a few days. Z I don't know why refill isn't working for you but if it starts and then just stays on the "Pending - waiting for available worker page" just hit ctrl-F5 at the same time and that usually gets it going. Also, if an article has only one or two bare urls Citer is always available. Now it only works on one ref at a time so I wouldn't ask anyone to use it on an article with numerous bare urls. As to whether it is enjoyable or not that is up to the tastes of each individual editor. There are time I enjoy the task and times that I dread it. If an article with a dozen or more PDFs as refs they have to be done manually one at a time and that can be a pain in the patoot; Regards to all. MarnetteD|Talk 00:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MarnetteD, that's a good point about using the banner. I bet it's more enjoyable when refill fixes 10+ links, but when it's just one link, it's like come on, man. Zazpot, I think MarnetteD gave you some good suggestions there, hopefully they work for you. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 00:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You got that right V. A year or so ago someone but over 20 inline tags on one article. After I recovered from my nervous breakdown :-P I got to work but it most definitely was NOT fun :-) MarnetteD|Talk 00:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Vaselineeeeeeee, MarnetteD, thank you both.
It seems there is consensus now against using the section or inline variants of the template. So, on occasions when I use a template, I will continue to use {{bareurls}}.
Re: tools, as I say, unfortunately reFill really does not work for me (even with Ctrl-F5), but I am grateful that there are several editors (including MarnetteD) who make great use of it.
MarnetteD: thanks for suggesting Citer. I think I tried it previously, but ultimately found it hit-and-miss so stopped using it. I am happy to give it another go. If it works well for me, great.
Also, I understand your frustration with PDFs. With those, I normally aim to either find an HTML alternative (e.g. with scientific papers) or else to fill the references manually.
Thanks again to both of you for following up, Zazpot (talk) 00:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Glad I could help. Reflinks could format many PDFs which is one of the reasons I miss it. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 01:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata is a language

Last month I gave a talk at the WMUK AGM about understanding Wikidata as a human language and I thought you might be interested in this topic. The slides are available at c:File:Wikidata is a language.pdf. Deryck C. 21:50, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Join the Months of African Cinema Global Contest!

Greetings!

The AfroCine Project invites you to join us again this October and November, the two months which are dedicated to improving content about the cinema of Africa, the Caribbean, and the diaspora.

Join us in this exciting venture, by helping to create or expand contents in Wikimedia projects which are connected to this scope. Kindly list your username under the participants section to indicate your interest in participating in this contest.

We would be awarding prizes to different categories of winners:

  • Overall winner
    • 1st - $500
    • 2nd - $200
    • 3rd - $100
  • Diversity winner - $100
  • Gender-gap fillers - $100
  • Language Winners - up to $100*

We would be adding additional categories as the contest progresses, along with local prizes from affiliates in your countries. For further information about the contest, the prizes and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. Looking forward to your participation.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 19:22, 22nd September 2020 (UTC)

Ýou can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

Welcome to the Months of African Cinema Global Contest!

Greetings!

The AfroCine Project core team is happy to inform you that the Months of African Cinema Contest is happening again this year in October and November. We invite Wikipedians all over the world to join in improving content related to African cinema on Wikipedia!

Please list your username under the participants’ section of the contest page to indicate your interest in participating in this contest. The term "African" in the context of this contest, includes people of African descent from all over the world, which includes the diaspora and the Caribbean.

The following prizes would be recognized at the end of the contest:

  • Overall winner
    • 1st - $500
    • 2nd - $200
    • 3rd - $100
  • Diversity winner - $100
  • Gender-gap fillers - $100
  • Language Winners - up to $100*

Also look out for local prizes from affiliates in your countries or communities! For further information about the contest, the prizes and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. We look forward to your participation.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 23:20, 30th September 2021 (UTC)

Ýou can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

Wikidata weekly summary #608

Wikidata weekly summary #609

Wikidata weekly summary #610

Wikidata weekly summary #612

Wikidata weekly summary #619

Wikidata weekly Summary #620

Wikidata weekly Summary #621

Wikidata weekly summary #622

Wikidata weekly summary #623

Wikidata weekly summary #622

Wikidata weekly summary #624

Response edits on Vondel

Do you realize that I'm the one who wrote the entire article? The text I removed at the Vondel article contained errors and the lead contained simply too much puffery. 213.124.169.92 (talk) 14:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@213.124.169.92: this shows the majority (46%) of the article's edits as having been made by 213.124.169.240. That IP address is in the same range as yours, but it is not the same as yours. Moreover, there could be any number of users on those IP addresses. So, I simply have no way of knowing whether you are the author of the Joost van den Vondel article. If you want to establish authorship of your edits, you should sign in before making them.
As for your unexplained removal of content, Wikipedia's guidance is clear: "Unexplained content removal (UCR) occurs when the reason is not obvious; the edit is then open to being promptly reverted." As such, I will revert your deletion of that content. Zazpot (talk) 15:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you serious? So there's an IP that's almost as close as this one that is coincidentally also editing the article of a very specific author. But apart from that, didn't I just gave you my explanations? Still you reverted it back. What's the meaning of this? 213.124.169.92 (talk) 15:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@213.124.169.92: Are you serious? Yes. What's the meaning of this? The meaning of my reversions was explained in the discussion above, and in the edit summary of the reversion edits themselves: 12.
Please, in future, explain your own edits in the edit summary. I am glad to see you have now done this for your deletion of text from the article's lede. Thank you. Zazpot (talk) 16:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't understand the added value of this. It seems to me you are writing on matters you know next to nothing about. Why? Even if I gave you an explanation, what is your expertise on the work of Vondel? In other words: can you assess the edit I just made? I could give a summary that made no sense whatsoever, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
Another example, you just reverted the edit of another user on Spinoza's page, even though the original edit seems to be a perfectly reasonable one. What is the idea behind your actions? An anonymous user cannot make valuable contributions to Wikipedia? 213.124.169.92 (talk) 16:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@213.124.169.92: What is the idea behind your actions? ... I really don't understand ... this. Then please read the guidance linked above. An anonymous user cannot make valuable contributions to Wikipedia? Absolutely they can, but they cannot expect other editors to treat earlier edits as necessarily having been made by them, because more than one user might share an IP address. They especially cannot expect such edits to be necessarily treated as theirs if those edits were made from a different IP address. (And even if those edits could somehow be tied to them, WP:OWN applies.) Can you assess the edit I just made? Yes: as previously mentioned, it was an unexplained removal of content, in breach of Wikipedia guidance. Subsequently, an edit summary was provided with a reasonable rationale was provided for the removal. Thanks for the chat, we're done here. Zazpot (talk) 16:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about the edits themselves, not in connection to previous ones. If you would've had the slightest amount of knowledge on philosophy or Dutch literature, you wouldn've have made the edits you just made. It seems you are commenting and editing on everything you feel like reacting to, which is absurd in my view. You're not considering the content at all (how can you, you don't know what you're talking about). Instead, you're only following certain Wikipedia guidelines in which you're so entangled that you ignore whether the edits contain actual facts or not; this is really a worrisome development: people who are writing about things they know nothing about. 213.124.169.92 (talk) 18:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are making a lot of assumptions here, and sadly they are not correct. I'm sorry you feel aggrieved, and I hope that with reflection and study you will understand why I made those edits. Goodbye. Zazpot (talk) 18:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Assumptions that are - unfortunately for Wikipedia and its readers - logically derived from your actions. What makes you think I feel aggrieved? I'm just baffled that some people feel the need to revert edits made on subjects they evidently don't know anything about, why would you do that? Unless the entire article on String Theory is vandalized, I wouldn't dare participating in the discussions/edits that are being held on those pages. "In der Beschränkung zeigt sich erst der Meister"; it wouldn't be a bad idea for you to reflect on that. 213.124.169.92 (talk) 18:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inicir cleanup

@Deryck Chan: @Edward: @Charles Matthews: I hope this finds all of you well!

As you may have noticed, I needed a multi-year wikibreak: from January 2021 until now. I recently had a few days when life was calm enough to let me edit again - but that was just a brief window, and I will need to log out and stop editing again now for at least the coming weeks, maybe months.

I've pinged to ask your help cleaning up Inicir's edits. Inicir has now thankfully been blocked. However, many of Inicir's edits remain live.

I considered simply using the mass rollback tool, but Inicir was a subtle vandal: some edits were fine; some performed subtle vandalism such as breaking references or altering cited passages; and some contained both helpful and unhelpful changes. Mass rollback would throw out the baby with the bathwater. So, I have hand-reviewed all their edits from the most recent back to 10:37, 30 March 2024 diff hist +2‎ Live Erleben. Unfortunately, I need to log back out now, so won't be able to do this with Inicir's earlier edits.

You are all experienced admins, so I would be grateful to leave it to you to decide what to do with those edits. Mass rollback, or something else? Sadly, WP:SVT seems to be deserted or I would have asked there.

I suppose that if in doubt or short of time, mass rollback would be a reasonable thing to do. Thank you, and hope to maybe see you in person before long. Zazpot (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zazpot: I'll have a look. Thanks for the alert. Charles Matthews (talk) 04:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zazpot: I've now worked over the rest of the edits. Diverse issues. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Am a bit late to the party - Thanks Charles for the cleanup, and welcome back Zazpot! Thank you for sharing the joy of your positive life update with us. Deryck C. 15:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]