| Revision as of 01:18, 23 November 2010 editVsevolodKrolikov (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers5,238 edits →RfC regarding User:Otis1017← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 01:27, 19 March 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| (195 intermediate revisions by 54 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{retired}} | |||
| {{Archive box | ] }} | |||
| == '''The Olive Branch''': A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1) == | |||
| Welcome to the first edition of ''The Olive Branch''. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in ] (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are ], but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to ]. | |||
| == ] nomination of ] == | |||
| ] | |||
| ]An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for ]. The nominated article is ]. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also ] and "]"). | |||
| In this issue: | |||
| * '''Background''': A brief overview of the DR ecosystem. | |||
| * '''Research''': The most recent DR data | |||
| * '''Survey results''': Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey | |||
| * '''Activity analysis''': Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums | |||
| * '''DR Noticeboard comparison''': How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August | |||
| * '''Discussion update''': Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate | |||
| * '''Proposal''': It's time to close the ]. Agree or disagree? | |||
| <div style="text-align:center; font-size:larger;">]</div> | |||
| --''The Olive Branch'' 19:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to ]. Please be sure to ] with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>). | |||
| <!-- EdwardsBot 0345 --> | |||
| ==Population update project== | |||
| You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the ] template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. | |||
| Hi. The 18th edition of ''Ethnologue'' just came out, and if we divide up our language articles among us, it won't take long to update them. I would appreciate it if you could help out, even if it's just a few articles (5,000 articles is a lot for just me), but I won't be insulted if you delete this request. | |||
| A largely complete list of articles to be updated is at ]. The priority articles are in ]. These are the 10% that have population figures at least 25 years old. | |||
| '''Please note:''' This is an automatic notification by a ]. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --] (]) 01:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Probably 90% of the time, ''Ethnologue'' has not changed their figures between the 17th and 18th editions, so all we need to do is change "e17" to "e18" in the reference (ref) field of the language info box. That will change the citation for the artcle to the current edition. Please put the data in the proper fields, or the info box will flag it as needing editorial review. The other relevant fields are "speakers" (the number of native speakers in all countries), "date" (the date of the reference or census that Ethnologue uses, not the date of Ethnologue!), and sometimes "speakers2". Our convention has been to enter e.g. "1990 census" when a census is used, as other data can be much older than the publication date. Sometimes a citation elsewhere in the article depends on the e17 entry, in which case you will need to change "name=e17" to "name=e18" in the reference tag (assuming the 18th edition still supports the cited claim). | |||
| ==Please edit my Russian translation == | |||
| Hello VsevolodKrolikov, | |||
| Happy to contact you. Could you go through my Russian translation ] of the original English article ] , and correct it ? ] (]) 13:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Remember, we want the *total* number of native speakers, which is often not the first figure given by ''Ethnologue''. Sometimes the data is too incompatible to add together (e.g. a figure from the 1950s for one country, and a figure from 2006 for another), in which case it should be presented that way. That's one use for the "speakers2" field. If you're not sure, just ask, or skip that article. | |||
| == ] nomination of ] == | |||
| Data should not be displayed with more than two, or at most three, significant figures. Sometimes it should be rounded off to just one significant figure, e.g. when some of the component data used by ''Ethnologue'' has been approximated with one figure (200,000, 3 million, etc.) and the other data has greater precision. For example, a figure of 200,000 for one country and 4,230 for another is really just 200,000 in total, as the 4,230 is within the margin of rounding off in the 200,000. If you want to retain the spurious precision of the number in ''Ethnologue'', you might want to use the {{tl|sigfig}} template. (First parameter in this template is for the data, second is for the number of figures to round it off to.) | |||
| <div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>An article that you have been involved in editing, ], has been listed for ]. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at ]. Thank you.{{-}}Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.<!-- Template:Adw --> ] (]) 10:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Dates will often need to be a range of all the country data in the Ethnologue article. When entering the date range, I often ignore dates from countries that have only a few percent of the population, as often 10% or so of the population isn't even separately listed by ''Ethnologue'' and so is undated anyway. | |||
| ==Karl rove religion thing== | |||
| You were previously involved in a discussion involving the removal of a few paragraphs on the Karl Rove page regarding his religious affiliation. I'm just notifying you that the same user removed the content again and I thought you would want to be involved in the discussion since you were previously.] (]) | |||
| If ''Ethnologue'' does not provide a date for the bulk of the population, just enter "no date" in the date field. But if the population figure is undated, and hasn't changed between the 17th & 18th editions of ''Ethnologue'', please leave the ref field set to "e17", and maybe add a comment to keep it so that other editors don't change it. In cases like this, the edition of ''Ethnologue'' that the data first appeared in may be our only indication of how old it is. We still cite the 14th edition in a couple dozen articles, so our readers can see that the data is getting old. | |||
| == ] archived talk page is inaccessible. == | |||
| The articles in the categories linked above are over 90% of the job. There are probably also articles that do not currently cite Ethnologue, but which we might want to update with the 18th edition. I'll need to generate another category to capture those, probably after most of the ''Ethnologue'' 17 citations are taken care of. | |||
| {{tlx|help me}} | |||
| The talk page for ] has been archived (by a bot), but does not appear to to be accessible from the talk page - except tortuously (through an index search or edit history). Can someone fix this, or point me to where I can find out how to fix it? ] (]) 16:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :You can just link them from the main talk page using {{tlx|archives|]}}. The bot's edit summaries tell you where it's archived the content to. ] | ] 16:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :: Thanks for your help. Actually, I have a feeling that cluebot is doing something odd to the indices page (effectively blanking it after each update). I'll take it up with cluebot. Thanks again.] (]) 13:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Jump in at the ] talk page if you have any comments or concerns. Thanks for any help you can give! | |||
| == Multiple reverts == | |||
| — ] (]) 02:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Hi, you have twice in two days exceeded the 1RR restriction on the WUWT article. I don't disagree with your last change, but you may want to be more careful, or even self revert. ]<sup>]</sup> 15:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| : Many thanks for the heads up. To be honest, I don't think I have broken 1RR even once - in my understanding, 1RR is about reacting to other editors' recent (i.e. just done) changes more than once in 24 hours - i.e. edit-warring. I haven't done that. I've changed two edits in the past ''48'' hours - yours and ]. No other edits relate to recent changes by others as far as I can see. Indeed, the only other major change I've made was done after no opposition was expressed on the talkpage for over 24 hours after I proposed it (others were typos, clearly irrelevant links etc.). If I'm mistaken, could you point me in the direction of diffs, or a policy page that explains how what I've done has broken 1RR twice, or even once? Cheers. ] (]) 15:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :: See ''"A "revert" in the context of this rule means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. It can involve as little as '''one word.''''' | |||
| :: A "major change" or changing "material recently changed" is not required to qualify as a revert. I myself once thought otherwise, but several admins have explained the policy clearly. ]<sup>]</sup> 15:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I've had it clarified that correcting typos (and presumably source formatting too) is not part of any revert count. Could you provide diffs of the reverts that you are counting? ] (]) 04:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Come on now, you can count as easily as I can. Correcting a typo or cleaning up vandalism isn't counted; they're specific exceptions in the revert count policy. Neither of which were what you were doing in the article. ]<sup>]</sup> 10:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: I asked for diffs in ]. It's a common courtesy that people levelling accusations of disruptive editing provide diffs when asked, otherwise the complaint is ignored as a matter of course. You are now specifically claiming that none of my edits can be considered exempt from "reverts". Here correcting typos or improving source formatting. Here is a removing a that was not even about the subject or point in hand (presumably left over from a previously removed edit) - but not altering the content one jot. It's really important when you make accusations against other editors that you check the facts and be prepared to back up what you say. Three of the other edits over a 48 hour period are changing a source (improving sourcing) without changing content and re-wording two edits (not reverting). Not one of any of these edits has been met with any objection by any editor. And then one edit, as it was potentially contentious, I had discussed on the talkpage. I waited for objections, of which there were none. So I put in the edit. This seems to be in line with policy. Interestingly, it's this one edit you object to, and it's the edit that you want me to revert on the basis of what honestly looks like a mistaken accusation of breaking 1RR. If you want to carry on with this, then please do so formally, but I should point out that an admin has already advised me that I don't appear to have done anything wrong. Instead you might perhaps respond on the talk page about that specific edit. ] (]) 13:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| {{outdent}} I specifically didn't make a formal accusation in order to stay friendly and avoid a battleground mentality. You seem to want to kick things up a notch. If you want actual diffs of the latest violation, here you go: | |||
| Hi,<br> | |||
| * Sept. 16. | |||
| You appear to be eligible to vote in the current ]. The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages ]. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to ] and submit your choices on ]. For the Election committee, ] (]) 13:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * Sept 16. | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=692071653 --> | |||
| Whether or not a specific edit has "met with objection from any editor" in no way prevents it from being classified as a revert, and in fact the first of those two edits was still under talk page discussion (not that this is even relevant). I meant my original post only as a friendly suggestion; you are of course free to take it however you wish. ]<sup>]</sup> 13:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| : Perhaps you're not aware of this, but accusing someone of making false statements without evidence raises things "a notch" (not apologising when given counter-evidence doesn't help matters either), as well as refusing to follow normal courtesy when asked for diffs to explain disruptive editing. As for those two diffs you have just provided, one is not a revert, it's a re-word, something specifically mentioned in ]. Given that you explicitly do not object to that edit, you're hardly in a position now to argue that it was "undoing" your work. The other edit, as I keep explaining, was made after no opposition was raised when it was proposed on the talkboard, and as such is contestable as a revert. Then again, it would be the only revert (btw your claim of ''two'' 1RR violations in two days seems to have disappeared), so in any case there's no 1RR violation. It really would be much better for you and for the encyclopedia to put forward your substantive reasons for opposing that edit on the talk page rather than try to have it taken out through dubious procedural means. Isn't that what you're ] for? Let it lie and go back to the talk page, or raise the matter formally.] (]) 16:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :: Shrug, you can think what you like, but when you change phrasing that's being discussed on the talk page, it's a revert, not a reword. If you disagree, you are of course free to continue reverting the article to your heart's desire. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::: So you agree it's one revert only and therefore no violation at all. Good. By the way, I am not free to revert the article to my heart's content, and have not done so.] (]) 17:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ==Thanks for your comments on the discussions of Russia as a superpower== | |||
| I will review the thought but also I may add I have found over 110 articles from 2004 to now on Russia being a superpower in some fashion (many are media articles), I have one affirmed acedemic report here. Let me know what you think. --] (]) 00:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| : I genuinely think you misunderstand how[REDACTED] works. ] Finding one academic source that says something is not enough. Where there is debate, we present the debate, not choose one side as "correct". It's the case that you personally believe Russia to be a superpower, and that you have arguments and evidence for this. But none of that matters on Misplaced Pages because as an editor, ]. You also ]. As for the Rosefielde book, it was written in 2004 about what might happen thereafter. It was a prediction. It will not do as evidence for Russia's status in 2010, just as a horse-racing tip that came true would still not be evidence of the result. I don't like your version of "superpower or not" because it does not reflect the debate - which is about regional power/greatpower/superpower and in general/militarily/commodity-wise, and has significance not only in terms of Russia's status, but in Russian nationalist discourse. The English sources have this range, and so do the Russian sources. My position on what the article should say is nothing to do with my own views on Russia's status, which are simply not relevant. | |||
| : And finally, please ]. Do NOT ever, ever, delete someone else's comments from an article talkpage. It is vandalism. If you carry on with your approach so far, it's highly likely you'll be blocked or topic banned at some time in the near future. Put your passion for the subject into improving the encyclopaedia, rather than using the encyclopaedia to promote you personal views.] (]) 01:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't remember removing any talk discussions but if I did it was an accident on the editorial copy & paste function but trying to reply to the subject at hand. If one asks a question of me I sometimes will ask the same vice versa question back. For example if one says Russia is a great power and they ask me to find sources on superpower status, I will ask what sources they have to say it is a great power but no response is provided; I am left clueless on my part versing theirs - many times editors will only comment each and everytime without sources. I have provided tons of articles and editorials on these media sources just may refer Russia as a superpower but maybe no evidence in the article but then you connect the media dots you see a pattern of these Russian superpower quotes on journals and media sources. Not all articles are perfect but I am providing the facts at least on a media stand point; these articles are perfectly acceptable for college research material for example. Not all articles on Misplaced Pages are all supported by only acedemic sources it is impossible as you need some media articles if acedemic articles are not available or not current. I refuse to use blogs though even media blogs are ok on Misplaced Pages but I scout for media or any acedemic sources I can find and I post the information for editors to read my findings. It is time consuming reading and reading these sources if they are good enough but with this subject matter with Russia as a superpower I take very seriously. I have articles I can provide but if not all the evidence is acedemic sometimes you have to accept the media regardless in my opinion.--] (]) 07:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :: Read policy on ]. That's what your "connecting the dots" is. ] (]) 08:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ==Request for sources on Russia as a great power== | |||
| :: Because the article has changed from superpower to great power under the ] article I am now going to question the article as a great power as it stands as you have been actively involved in this discussion. I want to read sources from you that says Russia is a great power and not from ] article (not the table in the end) (that is not an effective source) because contributing editors who have denounced edits in the ] is not the accurate source of information when there has been conflicting contributing editors that denounced the sources on there. There should be a weight of sources to have this article state it is great power so I am seeking that information as you have said Russia is a great power so I want to ask you for your sources please. Provide these great power acedemic sources please.--] (]) 23:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Why are you posting this on my talkpage? You've put the same thing on the Russia talkpage. ] (]) 02:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ==Russia article edit removal== | |||
| Can you explain to me why you removed these important sources on ]'s article? | |||
| When they are pointed to the term as its specific definition does not make much sense to erase valid information to the article. Each source tells a specific editoral of Russia being a superpower. I disagree you erasing it so I think maybe this should go on the discussions page to debate this further.--] (]) 04:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| : Each "source" describes the '''same event''' - a head of government (Netanyahu) visiting Russia and saying nice things about Russia to Putin's face. You do not need to source the same information three times, and in any case this event does not add anything to the point being made. One can only surmise that you didn't read the material, which just reflects poorly on you. There are enough sources already, and we are trying to cut down the size of the article. This may have passed you by as you continue with your ]y ]. No one agrees with you, you're breaking all sorts of guidelines and policies, so move on. ] (]) 06:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ==Talkback== | |||
| {{talkback|Airplaneman|ts=02:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)}} | |||
| ==GA reassessment of ]== | |||
| I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the ]. You are being notified as you have made a number of contributions to the article. I have found a number of concerns which you can see at ]. I have de-listed the article but it can be re-nominated at ] when these concerns are addressed.. Thanks. ] (]) 22:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ==A telling off== | |||
| Shut up you atheist!!! Depart from me... <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 07:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ==Citations== | |||
| Please be careful when removing viable citations as they may be used multiple times within an article due to the <nowiki><ref name= (whatever)></nowiki> formatting. Thanks.--] 04:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| : I didn't. You should have checked my edit more thoroughly. I put the full ref elsewhere in the article where the security council statement is also cited. I replaced the security council citation in that part of the lede because it is not a good source for the fact of the attacks by al Qaeda. It was put out only a day after the attacks. That is not good sourcing.] (]) 04:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Please discuss any major citation changes before making them. Thanks....I'll recheck your edit.--] 04:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Perhaps you should have checked before responding here. You are showing signs of ]. I raised these citations earlier, but you archived my comments as "conspiracy theory gibberish". I pointed out that I had raised valid sourcing issues - and you archived them again. I understand that there are a lot of truthers out there, but that's no excuse for poor sourcing.] (]) 04:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Chill out. The talk page had an example of you offering assistance to a CT time waster...and that sort of thing if repeated often enough can lead to discretionary sanctions being implemented. Feel free to post anything that isn't CT nonsense and refrain from offering an audience to CTers...providing "assistance" (aiding and abetting) to CTers can be viewed by many as contrary to writing a fact based account of the events. I have written 10 featured articles and started over 600 others, all referenced, so I think I have an idea of what good referencing is.--] 04:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Heh. All I did was tell someone that the material's already on wikipedia, and the main 9/11 page isn't the place for it, as it's conspiracy theory. I haven't been the one placing NOTICES on the talkpage, or deliberately archiving fresh discussions of sourcing. If my response to another editor is the reason for reverting my sourcing changes without due attention, it's not the best reason one could think of. Out of interest, could you point to the decision that would allow someone to be put under discretionary sanctions for doing what I did? It sounds like an extraordinary policy decision, if it's actually been made. btw, it's great that you've done all that article work. ] (]) 05:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::One of the reasons the UN cite for calling the 9/11 event an act of terrorism was put there was because for a long time, that term was a bone of contention...so by adding a UN reference that detailed what the vast majority of other countries called 9/11, it didn't have the air of being US centric...it's ridiculous to expect you to examine ancient and not so ancient talkpage articles where pages and pages of text were committed to this argument that 9/11 wasn't an act of terrorism..so when I saw you remove that cite and place it elsewhere, it sent up a red flag for me...so what I am trying to say here is that I would prrefer to place the UN cite back where it was only so we don't run into the same old tired argument down the road. Otherwise, I want to apologize for upsetting you about this..,I was wrong to jump the gun and be a little hyperactive about this...I hope you accept my apology. Best wishes!--] 18:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: No problem :-) I can only imagine the lunacy of a few years that would have turned up on that page. (I've edited a fair bit on ], which has its own CT devotees.) To be honest, I think we're safe now from such arguments about terrorism, but if you want to insure against the argument returning, why not add the cite to the word, rather than to the whole sentence? My objection was it was not a good source for the whole sentence, and being a source from Sept 12, it allows CT people fun with confused reporting in the days after the event. ] (]) 23:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Signatures == | |||
| I should just give up, shoudn't I :-) In attempting to correct my original error of not signing my post, I made a much larger error (edited the version of the page at the time of my post rather than the current one). Thanks for spotting it and sorting it out. — ] (]) 07:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| : That's what I guessed. No problem - we all do stuff like that. (well, I do, anyway).] (]) 07:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Reviewer permission == | |||
| ] | |||
| Hello. Your account has been granted the "<tt>reviewer<tt>" userright, allowing you to ] on certain flagged pages. ], also known as flagged revisions, underwent a ] which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use. | |||
| Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not ] to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only ], similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at ]. | |||
| For the guideline on reviewing, see ]. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found ], and the general policy for the trial can be found ]. | |||
| If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.<!-- Template:Reviewer granted --> ] | ] 17:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Hi there, regarding your comment on ]. I have no intention of ], but would you think merging is a better idea? After all, the ] has already covered the Commonwealth Games Village and the concerns and controversies across two sections already. ]] <sub>]</sub>] 12:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| : Hi AngChenrui. Don't worry - I don't consider this canvassing, as I'm aware of the discussion already. As I suggested, my vote for keeping a separate article is based on an intuition that there should be (or at least it's valid to have) separate games village articles. I can see your argument as I understand it, that "venues" ''can'' include the village and so obviate the need for a separate article. It is, in one sense, tidier. However, I'm of the view that games sporting venues and athlete villages are qualitatively different aspects of the games. My feeling is that from a user's point of view, someone doing research into venues would probably separate the issue. It's also true that athlete accommodation gets RS coverage as a matter of course these days. For me, this is a good example of the advantages of ]. Consolidation on Misplaced Pages is necessary when there's a mess of repeated and disorganised information. I don't see that issue here. In this case, having a separate article will probably attract more information, rather than simply more flab.] (]) 13:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Noted, I understand. Thank you, ]] <sub>]</sub>] 14:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Welcome to the Climate change denial page. == | |||
| If you've been around for some time, my apologies for not noticing, but I've seen several very thoughtful posts, and excellent sources added by you recently. --<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">]]</font> 13:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| : Aw, thanks! You're not wrong - I've not been on the climate pages until recently. I had a wikibreak between last year and this, during which I found myself arguing a lot about climate change with some (ahem) "interesting" people on another internet site, during which I learnt quite a lot about both the science and the politics of the whole thing. It's a relief to be on[REDACTED] actually sifting through sources properly; the pointless slanging matches and ]s were getting tiring. It looks like I've joined in at a good time, when the arbitration committee has enforced a calmdown. Let's make progress in creating good stable articles! ] (]) 13:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Thanks for the redirect help! == | |||
| Of course I wouldn't expect you to keep this on your page, but I have another question. While I've created the redirect and have it working to where someone who searches "Skye Champion" will be redirected to the I'82 page (and thanks to your correction, down to the Characters section), I'm still having a problem on ]'s page. I added an entry there to note her voicework in the game, but putting in "'']''" still only works as a red page-does-not-exist link. What do I need to do to correct it?] (]) 04:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| : No problem. The problem was that the original redirect you created was ] (note the small c) not ]. I created ] and added the redirect. Apart from the enforced first capital, titles for[REDACTED] articles are case sensitive (See ] and ] as an example). So your redlink appeared because it was actually pointing to a page that hadn't been created yet. But it's all solved now.] (]) 04:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Much appreciated!] (]) 04:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == "Linen" article on[REDACTED] == | |||
| Hello, | |||
| Recently you have deleted my addition to the article "linen" which was the link to the excerpts from the book "Flax and linen". First of all I am not the owner of this website. I only a web designer and I placed this link as I found this material is interesting for anyone who wants to learn more about linen and flax. Second why is this link more promotional than others under this articles that lead to the e-commerce web-sites? I would greatly appreciate your answer. | |||
| Thank you | |||
| Juliady <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 05:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| : As the designer of the page, you have a ] in adding it - see also ]. I reverted it on sight, seeing that you were the web designer, and there was a bunch of credit card symbols at the bottom. However, I've looked at the other links (removed a couple that were clearly bad), and I think you have a good point. I've asked a question at ] about this, as I'd like clarification on what should and shouldn't be included.] (]) 05:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Hello VsevolodKrolikov, | |||
| Thank you very much for your answer. I do appreciate your response and I do not wish to violate any Misplaced Pages rules whatsoever. I have read very carefully the articles about COI and I did not find anything saying that if you are the web designer of the web site in question you cannot place a link to this web site as it will be the violation of the rules. | |||
| As far as I understand the external link should lead to the material which adds to the article in question. I also understand that the link should be provided with a clear neutral explanation why this link is here. | |||
| I think you would agree that absolutely every web site was created by someone and heretofore any link to any site can be classified as “promotion” or “advertising”. | |||
| I do appreciate that you have decided to clear out this matter by addressing ]. Please let me know if you will get the clarification. | |||
| Thank you once again | |||
| Best regards | |||
| Juliady <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 18:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| : Hi Juliady. The conflict of interest issue in this situation is most clearly explained in the external links policy ]. But basically, if you were involved in the production of material, or in some way might benefit personally from wider exposure of that material, then there's a conflict of interest when you yourself add it to the article. This doesn't mean that it shouldn't go in, it's just putting it in yourself is not encouraged. Instead you should normally ask someone else to assess it. I took it out because at first glance it ''looked like'' someone merely trying to promote their own business (this happens a lot on wikipedia), but after you asked me to reconsider, I looked again, and I think I was too hasty in doing so. I'll wait to get more input from others at the External links noticeboard (they don't agree either). I apologise for appearing bureaucratic; this is simply a chance for me (just another volunteer like yourself) to get a better grasp of policy, so that I don't have to hum and hah in the future.] (]) 08:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Hello Vsevolod, | |||
| I am grateful for the opportunity to learn more about rules on Misplaced Pages. As per the article in question let’s wait till there are more opinions from others. | |||
| I know that this company plans to publish lots of materials about Russian Linen which can add more details to the article. History of growing flax and producing linen in Russia is not in any way less interesting than, for example, history of Irish linen. | |||
| I understand now the point of adding links to the articles and will follow those rules in future. | |||
| Thank you again | |||
| Best regards | |||
| Julia <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 13:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| == Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot == | |||
| ] predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun! | |||
| {|cellspacing=10 style="background-color:transparent;" | |||
| |- | |||
| |valign=top| | |||
| ;Stubs:<!--''']:'''--> | |||
| :] | |||
| :] | |||
| :] | |||
| :] | |||
| :] | |||
| :] | |||
| :] | |||
| :] | |||
| :] | |||
| :] | |||
| :] | |||
| :] | |||
| :] | |||
| :] | |||
| :] | |||
| :] | |||
| :] | |||
| :] | |||
| :] | |||
| |align=top| | |||
| ;Cleanup | |||
| :] | |||
| :] | |||
| :] | |||
| ;Merge | |||
| :] | |||
| :] | |||
| :] | |||
| ;Add Sources | |||
| :] | |||
| :] | |||
| :] | |||
| ;Wikify | |||
| :] | |||
| :] | |||
| :] | |||
| ;Expand | |||
| :] | |||
| :] | |||
| :] | |||
| |} | |||
| SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Misplaced Pages better -- thanks for helping. | |||
| If you have '''feedback''' on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on ]. Thanks from {{User0|Nettrom}}, SuggestBot's caretaker. | |||
| P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on ]. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- ] (]) 18:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ==Stanley Lewis fashion brand== | |||
| Hello VsevolodKrolikov, | |||
| I have just added some content about my fashion brand Stanley Lewis. But unfortunately it was got deleted may be due to looking like promotional. We have only added information about our brand and not promoting the brand at wiki pedia. | |||
| Thanks | |||
| Satyendra <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 06:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| : Hi Sayendra. There are a few issues you need to overcome before inclusion of material on your company can get onto wikipedia. The first, as you noticed, is that we don't do advertising, and no PR push to make the company sound special - your text still did that, for example: "Stanley Lewis believes men need to focus more on finding an equilibrium in all aspects of life. This is demonstrated not only in the collection of accessories the brand produces, but also in the website." The second is the use of ]. Most of what you used as sourcing were blogs, press releases and the company's own website, which I'm afraid are not at the level of independence and quality we like to have. A third issue is that you have a clear ]. This means you should avoid directly editing material on matters with which you have a personal or professional connection - instead you should ask other editors to include material. The last problem is the biggest: ]. I did a quick news archive search for your brand, and it looks like you haven't really made enough of an impact yet to pass our requirements on notability (one article in ] appeared to be it). Misplaced Pages only covers things already receiving decent coverage in independent sources; it shouldn't - inadvertently or deliberately - be a means of increasing visibility for a product. All the best, ] (]) 06:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ==Your Great Comment on the Causalities of 9/11 attacks Page== | |||
| Greetings, VsevolodKrolikov! | |||
| I wanted to thank you for your very useful comment regard total causality count for the 9/11 attacks (this page - ]. I added a possible link to your query and wanted your feedback on using this page. I put a brief quote from it under the NYC 9/11 causalities section but we can remove it if we decide there's a better source elsewhere. Thanks for your interest - are you involved in the September 11 attacks wikiproject? There's not a lot of people active in it lately so it would be helpful. Give me some of your feedback if you get a chance! Thanks... ] (]) 22:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| : Hi WiiAlbanyGirl. Thanks for your comments. I actually found a very good source, from the NY office of the chief medical examiner, and posted the link on the main 9/11 talk page, and made a promise to insert the figures where needed - which I haven't kept. (sigh) . I like that link best of all because it's the people who get to decide the official figures. Please go ahead and add it, if I don't do so first. Although you've helpfully reminded me, I can't today as I'm editing from an iPad and it's rubbish at keeping editing windows open when switching between windows. As for the project - I really should focus on other stuff first that I know more about, as wiki time is a little limited. But thanks for asking anyway..] (]) 05:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Southern Europe == | |||
| The editor who made edit is in Finland, which may explain why they would think of the UK as being "southern". This aside, I think he has a point: there's not much pro-life activism in northern Europe. Is there a way we could state this accurately? ] (]) 01:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| : That might be the source of the confusion, although I would personally never consider Germany Eastern Europe because I'm British. Do we have sources that say there isn't much going on in the Nordic countries? Or perhaps it's Catholic countries plus the UK? (There'll be stuff in Ireland too, I'm sure).] (]) 01:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's not easy to source. The best I've come up with are articles that talk generalities, such as . Can you do better? ] (]) 05:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::: , which goes into some nice detail, although it would change what the article says. If you don't mind, I'll transfer this conversation to the Pro-life talkpage, so that other people can chip in.] (]) 05:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Do you have access to ... ? == | |||
| Book Reviews: Radical, Religious, And Violent: The New Economics of Terrorism By Eli Berman. By Michael Mcbride. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Volume 49, Issue 3, pages 575–576, September 2010? The reason I didn't separate the refs myself is that I couldn't find this one, so I couldn't tell what's based only on it. ] (]) 07:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Perhaps a section on his book and reception thereof should be added as well. Insofar the article only summarizes Berman's research. ] (]) 07:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| : I can't get at it (it's so new it doesn't even appear on google scholar). My institution doesn't subscribe to it, so I'm probably not able to see it even in a couple of months time. I agree we need secondary commentary. His work seems to be cited a lot, so he's clearly getting attention.] (]) 07:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :: But has reviews. It doesn't help much, as we don't know how faithfully they are reproduced, but it's a pointer to where to look.] (]) 08:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Siberian nationality == | |||
| Do you think, given the sources available on this topic, an article about siberian nationalism / the small movement would be justifiable or meet wiki standards of notability? --''']''' <small>(])</small> 04:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| : Hi. There's an article called ] already. I think that would be the best repository of information. It has nothing on modern-day movements, and the material about the census could go in there.] (]) 04:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == POV == | |||
| Hi ... I missed how the ref-supported reference you removed at Hellfire was POV. You can respond here. Tx much.--] (]) 05:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| : Hi. POV can occur in different ways, and one of those ways is what one does and doesn't mention. The way that "targeted killings" was used in effect gave a particular emphasis and legitimating interpretation of the use of the missiles that is in dispute (The Israelis claim careful, rational, legalish use, the Palestinians dispute this general characterisation). I was choosing a no-sides (let's not go there) rather than a both sides approach, appropriate for an article that should not be a fork for I-P issues.] (]) 05:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::I hear you, but I'm not sure I see it. The use is the use by the UN (as they question it). The IP's point was, as I mentioned on the tp, IMHO akin to an article on what cars are used for saying "used for drunk murders" -- even though that's not the intention of the user. For targeted killing, I believe we have RSs (I can collect some) that say some countries have used it in Targeted Killings. This becomes important, because the level of the charge of the missile will ultimately related to proportionality, an issue for targeted killing (under Israeli, UN, Palestinian, etc. approaches). The article loses IMHO if we censor it out.--] (]) 08:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::: It's not censoring. It can hardly be censoring if I think it's a coatrack/fork (ie this material belongs elsewhere). Furthermore, "targeted killing" is a contested term. It doesn't matter if you find RSs that use the word without comment as if it is neutral. There is, as I am sure you are aware, other RS that questions targeted killing as a euphemism for assassination, and other RS that challenges the assertion that "targeted killing" is carried out with the precision and oversight that the term implies and as is claimed. You might want to compare it with "unlawful combatant" and "enhanced coercive interrogation technique", which are terms propounded by one side. I fail to see how a simple statement to the effect that Israel has used them in the ongoing conflict in Palestine - which no one disputes - is POV. ] (]) 10:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| *It goes beyond that. The U.S. uses all sorts of weapons in its ongoing conflict on the AfPak border. It is known for using Hellfire missiles in TK, specifically because of the collateral damage issues. As I've pointed out at the Hellfire talkpage. Calling it "in the AfPak conflict" hides the ball from the reader. I have no reason to believe that people think TK means no collateral damage -- that's clear in the article, and in all manner of discussions by those who use the term, including the UN. It has to do with the killer having a target, but does not speak to the issue of collateral damage. And all manner of RSs, countries, the UN, law books, etc. use the term, not just fringe ones or two.--] (]) 12:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| The article is not about the propriety of the use of such weapons. That kind of discussion belongs in articles that cover the actions of governments. To try to introduce such a discussion here is coatracking. Your understanding of source use also appears to show a belief that[REDACTED] should tell "the truth", which it avowedly does not. Misplaced Pages does not take sides in substantive disputes. ] (]) 13:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| *Yes -- I'm familiar with the fact that our goal is to reflect what is verifiable (i.e., what is reflected in RSs), rather than truth. That is understood in my comments. Of course it is not about the propriety of use of the weapons. Nobody said it was. But the features of the weapons are of moment, not at all coat-racking. The fact that they bear on issues relative to their use does not make it coatracking, concealing the focus of the article from view, anymore than it would be coatracking to have features of cars (safety being one of them, or their usefulness for certain purposes such as all-terrain vehicles) "coatracking". It's core to the functionality of the subject of the article, quite far from coatracking. Coatracking is where a nominal subject gets hidden behind the sheer volume of another subject, leaving the reader with a thoroughly incorrect understanding of the nominal subject, which of course isn't at all what we are talking about here.--] (]) 14:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :: if you can link to the section in the instruction manual of the weapon that's entitled "when using as part of a 'targeted killing' political-military strategy" then I'll listen to your suggested editions. Otherwise, let's leave it, shall we?] (]) 19:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well, yes, there seems little use having a conversation with you if rather than applying wiki guidelines you are applying personally constructed ones.--] (]) 23:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::: So far you haven't actually cited any wiki guidelines here. I gave you what seems to be a fair criterion for establishing intended use, which we both agree is the salient issue here - and you're welcome to challenge it. I think it always is better to have one's editing guided by principles, rather than justifiying one's edits by whatever principles can be found. How about you?] (]) 01:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Use:Tornadofan == | |||
| Hi, | |||
| You greeted User Tornadofan to Misplaced Pages for his intervention on ]. It looked as an invertion of an IP vandalism but this edit was not a good thing as it eliminated the title of a section. I just wanted to let you know that I'm not so sure that this Tornadofan is a good editor. It seems to me an account created by the IP to confuse the situation and I had to return to the last good version of Weather radar. I will keep an eye on his future behaviour. ] (]) 15:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi Pierre - and whoops, I missed ]'s overenthusiastic deletion. (I was browsing the user creation log checking for vandals, thought s/he'd registered to remove vandalism, and so hit "welcome" on twinkle). My apologies. There's no evidence that this user is anything other than someone trying to remove vandalism who cut the whole line the vandalism was on instead of just the expletive, so I wouldn't worry about anything covert at the moment. I've warned the IP in question. All the best, ] (]) 15:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ==Bindhyabasini Jagaddhatri== | |||
| Hi, requested text is ] <font face="chiller"><font color="red"><b>] - </b></font></font><font face="arial"><font color="green">]</font></font> 14:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Re:Creativity and intelligence == | |||
| My understanding is that while there's been much effort to expand the definition of intelligence to include e.g. personality traits, these efforts have not generally been accepted by intelligence researchers. Creativity and genius often suggest high intelligence, but they invariably also imply traits that are not cognitive abilities in the sense that most intelligence researchers use the term.--] (]) 15:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| : Creativity isn't a personality trait. Most commonly it's defined as divergent thinking - which is unquestionably a cognitive ability. I feel you're pushing for the "truth", but[REDACTED] represents the balance of RS. I'm fully aware that some researchers (and it's not true that "intelligence researchers" have a clear view as a body of people) would exclude divergent thinking from "intelligence". My point is that enough researchers explore the Otconnection/interrelation for it to be justifiable for creativity to be part of the "human intelligence" template. I also think that emotional intelligence should be part of the template. That may not accord with the views of some intelligence researchers, but that's what the articles can explain. Otherwise we have a template that is there to push a particular POV which does not have the consensus support of RS.] (]) 15:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| The following quotation from the "]" statement explicates the difference between intelligence and other traits: | |||
| :1. Intelligence is a very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings -- "catching on," "making sense" of things, or "figuring out" what to do. | |||
| :2. Intelligence, so defined, can be measured, and intelligence tests measure it well. They are among the most accurate (in technical terms, reliable and valid) of all psychological tests and assessments. '''They do not measure creativity, character, personality, or other important differences among individuals, nor are they intended to.''' | |||
| Of course, the statement reflects the psychometric approach, but it is the dominant perspective among intelligence researchers.--] (]) 15:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| : Yes, that's what some researchers say. Are these people experts in creativity research? No. Are they the clear majority of all researchers in intelligence-related topics, rather than those concerned with psychometric testing? No. And that's the issue. Misplaced Pages is not about "truth". There are far and away enough respected researchers in appropriate fields who consider creativity part of the general issue of cognitive ability to include creativity in this template. To exclude is to take a definitive, narrow position. To include, but have caveats and disputes listed in the articles themselves is NPOV. That's the principle you need to address, not which POV is "correct". ] (]) 15:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| : I should check {{Cite journal |doi=10.1037/0003-066X.42.2.137 |last1=Snyderman |first1=Mark |last2=Rothman |first2=Stanley |year=1987 |title=Survey of Expert Opinion on Intelligence and Aptitude Testing |journal=American Psychologist |volume=42 |issue=2 |date=February 1987 |pages=137–144 |issn=0003-066X |url=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6WY2-4NDP4RN-4/2/8d3cfa782f6835cd7cf051026de78cd2 |accessdate=15 August 2010 |ref=harv }} and some of the citing secondary literature in the next day or so to clarify this interesting issue. I'd love to hear from you what you think about what this source says. Of course, there are quite a few other authors who write about this issue, and I'm still developing a sense of what their consensus is. -- ] (], ]) 03:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Creativity and genius are undoubtedly related to intelligence, but I think it's problematic to say that they are subcategories of the umbrella term 'human intelligence'. For example, if someone is a great painter or sculptor, most researchers would not regard them as highly ''intelligent'' just because of that. Perhaps someone like Howard Gardner would, but we must not privilege the controversial views of one or two researchers. | |||
| To make the template "inclusive" by adding all sorts of controversial constructs and hypotheses to it is not necessarily a ] approach. Rather, it may favor those that support particular novel views and disfavors those that think that intelligence should be defined in a stricter manner. ] should not be given to marginal views. | |||
| However, I think it's OK to list genius, creativity and emotional intelligence in the "Related" section of the template as long as we don't include the template in those articles.--] (]) 16:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Terminological distinctions == | |||
| I was searching for something else, and came across a new book on psychology | |||
| with some discussion of the conceptual issues that you have brought up with your thoughtful comments on article talk pages and here. I may be able to circulate the book from the main research university in my town, my source for many of the books now in my office, in a few days. I'm trying to gather some quotations from standard sources on narrower (psychometric) or broader (common language or cognitive science) definitions of "intelligence." I think there are some straightforward ways to distinguish the broader and narrower senses of the term in Misplaced Pages article text through further editing based on reliable sources. See you on the articles. -- ] (], ]) 03:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| : Thanks - I'll have a look a bit later.] (]) 07:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Second language learning merge proposal == | |||
| Hi, and thanks for commenting on my proposed merger of ]. This is just to let you know that I moved your comment to the talk page at ] as I didn't want it to get left out of any discussion. I hope I haven't caused too much confusion. <font face="Palatino"> — ] <small><i>(])</i></small></font> 07:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| : That's fine. Thanks for notifying me.] (]) 07:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == RfC regarding ] == | |||
| Hello, | |||
| I noticed that you have been involved in the low-level edit war taking place on ] and was hoping that you would take the time to weigh in on an RfC related to the dispute: ]. Best regards, ~~ ] (]) 23:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| I'm afraid I haven't been watching that page at all. Sorry.] (]) 01:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 01:27, 19 March 2022
Retired This user is no longer active on Misplaced Pages.The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
In this issue:
- Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
- Research: The most recent DR data
- Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
- Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
- DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
- Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
- Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?
--The Olive Branch 19:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Population update project
Hi. The 18th edition of Ethnologue just came out, and if we divide up our language articles among us, it won't take long to update them. I would appreciate it if you could help out, even if it's just a few articles (5,000 articles is a lot for just me), but I won't be insulted if you delete this request.
A largely complete list of articles to be updated is at Category:Language articles citing Ethnologue 17. The priority articles are in Category:Language articles with old Ethnologue 17 speaker data. These are the 10% that have population figures at least 25 years old.
Probably 90% of the time, Ethnologue has not changed their figures between the 17th and 18th editions, so all we need to do is change "e17" to "e18" in the reference (ref) field of the language info box. That will change the citation for the artcle to the current edition. Please put the data in the proper fields, or the info box will flag it as needing editorial review. The other relevant fields are "speakers" (the number of native speakers in all countries), "date" (the date of the reference or census that Ethnologue uses, not the date of Ethnologue!), and sometimes "speakers2". Our convention has been to enter e.g. "1990 census" when a census is used, as other data can be much older than the publication date. Sometimes a citation elsewhere in the article depends on the e17 entry, in which case you will need to change "name=e17" to "name=e18" in the reference tag (assuming the 18th edition still supports the cited claim).
Remember, we want the *total* number of native speakers, which is often not the first figure given by Ethnologue. Sometimes the data is too incompatible to add together (e.g. a figure from the 1950s for one country, and a figure from 2006 for another), in which case it should be presented that way. That's one use for the "speakers2" field. If you're not sure, just ask, or skip that article.
Data should not be displayed with more than two, or at most three, significant figures. Sometimes it should be rounded off to just one significant figure, e.g. when some of the component data used by Ethnologue has been approximated with one figure (200,000, 3 million, etc.) and the other data has greater precision. For example, a figure of 200,000 for one country and 4,230 for another is really just 200,000 in total, as the 4,230 is within the margin of rounding off in the 200,000. If you want to retain the spurious precision of the number in Ethnologue, you might want to use the {{sigfig}} template. (First parameter in this template is for the data, second is for the number of figures to round it off to.)
Dates will often need to be a range of all the country data in the Ethnologue article. When entering the date range, I often ignore dates from countries that have only a few percent of the population, as often 10% or so of the population isn't even separately listed by Ethnologue and so is undated anyway.
If Ethnologue does not provide a date for the bulk of the population, just enter "no date" in the date field. But if the population figure is undated, and hasn't changed between the 17th & 18th editions of Ethnologue, please leave the ref field set to "e17", and maybe add a comment to keep it so that other editors don't change it. In cases like this, the edition of Ethnologue that the data first appeared in may be our only indication of how old it is. We still cite the 14th edition in a couple dozen articles, so our readers can see that the data is getting old.
The articles in the categories linked above are over 90% of the job. There are probably also articles that do not currently cite Ethnologue, but which we might want to update with the 18th edition. I'll need to generate another category to capture those, probably after most of the Ethnologue 17 citations are taken care of.
Jump in at the WP:LANG talk page if you have any comments or concerns. Thanks for any help you can give!
— kwami (talk) 02:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)