User talk:Faizan/Archive 8
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Faizan. 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. |
| Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
The Signpost: 25 September 2013
- Traffic report: Look on Walter's works
- WikiProject report: Babel Series: GOOOOOOAAAAAAALLLLLLL!!!!!
- Featured content: Wikipedia takes the stage
October 2013 AFC Backlog elimination drive
WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from October 1st, 2013 – October 31st, 2013.
Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1800 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!
This newsletter was delivered on behalf of WPAFC by EdwardsBot (talk) 15:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 02 October 2013
- Discussion report: References to individuals and groups, merging wikiprojects, portals on the Main page, and more
- News and notes: WMF signals new grantmaking priorities
- Featured content: Bobby, Ben, Roger and a fantasia
- Arbitration report: Infoboxes: After the war
- WikiProject report: U2 Too
Wikimedia Highlights from August 2013
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.
IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.
Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:
- Views/Day
- Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
- Quality
- Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.
The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:
- Content
- Is more content needed?
- Headings
- Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
- Images
- Is the number of illustrative images about right?
- Links
- Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
- Sources
- For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:45, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 09 October 2013
- Traffic report: Shutdown shenanigans
- WikiProject report: Australian Roads
- Featured content: Under the sea
- News and notes: Extensive network of clandestine paid advocacy exposed
- In the media: College credit for editing Wikipedia
- Arbitration report: Manning naming dispute and Ebionites 3 cases continue; third arbitrator resigns
VisualEditor newsletter on 16 October 2013
You can create and edit multi-level lists in VisualEditor. The first two icons let you set or remove list formatting.
The last two are used to increase or decrease the indentation level. This can also be done from the keyboard, by using Tab ↹ to indent the list and ⇧ Shift+Tab ↹ to outdent it.
For more information, read Wikipedia:VisualEditor/User guide.
VisualEditor is still being updated every Thursday. As usual, what is now running on the English Wikipedia had a test run at Mediawiki during the previous week. If you haven't done so already, you can turn on VisualEditor by going to your preferences and choosing the item, "MediaWiki:Visualeditor-preference-enable".
The reference dialog for all Wikipedias, especially the way it handles citation templates, is being redesigned. Please offer suggestions and opinions at mw:VisualEditor/Design/Reference Dialog. (Use your Wikipedia username/password to login there.) You can also drag and drop references (select the reference, then hover over the selected item until your cursor turns into the drag-and-drop tool). This also works for some templates, images, and other page elements (but not yet for text or floated items). References are now editable when they appear inside a media item's caption (bug 50459).
There were a number of miscellaneous fixes made: Firstly, there was a bug that meant that it was impossible to move the cursor using the keyboard away from a selected node (like a reference or template) once it had been selected (bug 54443). Several improvements have been made to scrollable windows, panels, and menus when they don't fit on the screen or when the selected item moves off-screen. Editing in the "slug" at the start of a page no longer shows up a chess pawn character ("♙") in some circumstances (bug 54791). Another bug meant that links with a final punctuation character in them broke extending them in some circumstances (bug 54332). The "page settings" dialog once again allows you to remove categories (bug 54727). There have been some problems with deployment scripts, including one that resulted in VisualEditor being broken for an hour or two at all Wikipedias (bug 54935). Finally, snowmen characters ("☃") no longer appear near newly added references, templates and other nodes (bug 54712).
Looking ahead: Development work right now is on rich copy-and-paste abilities, quicker addition of citation templates in references, setting media items' options (such as being able to put images on the left), switching into wikitext mode, and simplifying the toolbar. A significant amount of work is being done on other languages during this month. If you speak a language other than English, you can help with translating the documentation.
For other questions or suggestions, or if you encounter problems, please let everyone know by posting problem reports at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback and other ideas at Wikipedia talk:VisualEditor. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Alishan Bairamian
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Alishan Bairamian. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 16 October 2013
- News and notes: Vice on Wiki-PR's paid advocacy; Featured list elections begin
- Traffic report: Peaceful potpourri
- WikiProject report: Heraldry and Vexillology
- Featured content: That's a lot of pictures
- Arbitration report: Manning naming dispute case closes
- Discussion report: Ada Lovelace Day, paid advocacy on Wikipedia, sidebar update, and more
Nomination of Sanaullah Haq for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sanaullah Haq is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanaullah Haq (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.
IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.
Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:
- Views/Day
- Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
- Quality
- Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.
The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:
- Content
- Is more content needed?
- Headings
- Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
- Images
- Is the number of illustrative images about right?
- Links
- Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
- Sources
- For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 23 October 2013
- News and notes: Grantmaking season—rumblings in the German-language community
- Traffic report: Your average week ... and a fish
- Featured content: Your worst nightmare as a child is now featured on Wikipedia
- Discussion report: More discussion of paid advocacy, upcoming arbitrator elections, research hackathon, and more
- In the media: The decline of Wikipedia; Sue Gardner releases statement on Wiki-PR; Australian minister relies on Wikipedia
- WikiProject report: Elements of the world
Wikimedia Highlights from September 2013
The Signpost: 30 October 2013
- Traffic report: 200 miles in 200 years
- In the media: Rand Paul plagiarizes Wikipedia?
- News and notes: Sex and drug tourism—Wikivoyage's soft underbelly?
- Featured content: Wrestling with featured content
- Recent research: User influence on site policies: Wikipedia vs. Facebook vs. Youtube
- WikiProject report: Special: Lessons from the dead and dying
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.
IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.
Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:
- Views/Day
- Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
- Quality
- Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.
The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:
- Content
- Is more content needed?
- Headings
- Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
- Images
- Is the number of illustrative images about right?
- Links
- Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
- Sources
- For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Pakistan User Group
| Wikimedia Community User Group Pakistan | ||
|---|---|---|
 |
Hi Faizan! We are currently in the process of establishing a User Group for Pakistani Wikimedians with the following objectives;
As an approved User Group, we will be recognised by the Wikimedia Foundation and officially supported by the Wikimedia movement. If you reside in Pakistan or actively work on Pakistan-related topics and can help in functional activities of the Pakistani User Group, please join the official planning group mailing list. For more details about the proposed user group, please visit the official page at http://pk.wikimedia.org. |
|
You are receiving this message because you are a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Pakistan. This message was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 17:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 06 November 2013
- Traffic report: Danse Macabre
- Featured content: Five years of work leads to 63-article featured topic
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Accessibility
- Arbitration report: Ebionites 3 case closed
- Discussion report: Sockpuppet investigations, VisualEditor, Wikidata's birthday, and more
FYI
Hi Faizan, regarding a couple of reverts you made (don't worry it's nothing you've done wrong): WP:ANI#Rangeblock may be required. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:37, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking it to ANI Callanecc! They ought to be blocked. I have posted my comment. Faizan 12:45, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Edits to Prime Ideals
I think you made a mistake. I wrote "iff," meaning "if and only if," because that is the correct statement for a definition. The current statement is an implication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.19.84.64 (talk) 13:14, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- Oops, I took it as a spelling mistake. I regret! Faizan 13:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- I have corrected my mistake. Thanks for pointing it out. Faizan 13:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Faizan: this is a slightly altered version of something I posted at this user's talkpage reposted here for your benefit.
- Actually, I re-reverted that change because there is more to this story. The WP math manual of style recommends that "if" is correct when defining a term, and recommends not using "if and only if." The reasons can be debated philosophically, but the main thing is that it is considered wrong within the culture of mathematical writing. Actually, the idea that it is a biconditional or conditional is a bit silly, since definitions are not assertions with truth values. The if at use here is a linguistic if. "IF a ring is defined to be a local ring, it has a unique maximal ideal" sounds dumb as a logical statement because it makes "definition" part of the antecedent.
- So it turns out that the edit you made was OK, but not for the reasons you initially thought :) If you find more usage of "iff" in a definition this way, feel free to change it to an "if", or if that seems dangerous to you, just send me a message and I'll evaluate it. Thanks! Rschwieb (talk) 17:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hey thanks Rschwieb. I am grateful to you. Faizan 11:12, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Wikimedia Highlights from October 2013
- Wikimedia Foundation highlights
- Data and Trends
- Financials
- Other highlights from the Wikimedia movement
The Signpost: 13 November 2013
- Traffic report: Google Doodlebugs bust the block
- Featured content: 1244 Chinese handscroll leads nine-strong picture contingent
- WikiProject report: The world of soap operas
- Discussion report: Commas, Draft namespace proposal, education updates, and more
Notification
This is to let you know that your recent confrontational edits to the page Bangladesh Liberation War have been a great disappointment to me personally. Your recent semi-retirement now seems to be at an end, but your attitude and patience do not appear to have improved in the meantime. If you do not withdraw yourself from editing Bangladesh-related pages, and remove the userbox that states that you are a member of WikiProject Bangladesh, then I intend to proceed to proposing a topic ban. Please tone down your edits and withdraw yourself from this contentious area. Please also either remove or clarify what you mean by the superscript "Al-Badri" next to your name on your user page. As you may be aware, a partisan group known as Al-Badr participated in the Bangladesh Liberation War, and having someone editing Bangladesh-related pages under that banner is not conducive to a harmonious editing environment within Wikipedia. Thank you. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the "Notification". What's this "confrontational edits"? I just made a point there at Bangladesh Liberation War, I did not start or take part in any edit-war. You are no one to decide which Wiki Projects I am going to participate. What problem you have with "Al-Badri"? "Al-Badr" is not merely a name of the cited "partisaan group", it has a vast Islamic perspective; for example, the Battle of Badr, otherwise it is merely over-exaggeration of the facts. I use "Al-Badri" as my surname, and that has nothing to do with the "harmonious editing environment" Welcome. Faizan 14:54, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
- It is OK to comment on and discuss about article-content and user-edits, but it looks awkward to comment on what a user prefers as their user-name and which project a user chooses to edit. A group's alleged taking of any specific name should not devaluate that very name. It is the issue with the group, and not with the name. As Faizan noted, "Badri" often involves some Islamic use. So, no question about that name. -AsceticRosé 15:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, I accept that Al-Badri is your name. That is an unfortunate situation if you intend to continue editing pages related to Bangladesh, and I urge you to withdraw yourself from that area. Someone named Goebbels would have to withdraw themselves from editing pages that have to do with Nazi Germany for the same reason (and that is rather sad, because there are some very decent, humane, people who share that surname, but it is a fact of life that they would have to withdraw from editing in that area).
- From looking at your recent edits, I see two other patterns that contribute to making your activities appear quite aggressive, and these have no doubt contributed to my perception of you. These are:
- Biting the newbies, for example this person who made exactly two edits. A newbie is likely, when immediately reverted, to try again. You and a colleague came down very hard on that person, accusing them of unconstructive editing, and then of edit warring. What the person actually did, was to make a finer division of headings, to separate two periods of history rather than leaving them lumped together (yes, they deleted two photos, but you could have put those back rather than make a blanket reversion). And yes, your "welcome" messages are not without an implied threat. A new editor who offends nobody, usually doesn't receive one of those "welcome" messages.
- Possibly responding to all edits from anonymous IPs as if they were vandalism, and templating the talk page of that IP, possibly every time that you revert an edit. Anonymous IPs are an extremely valuable resource to wikipedia. There are many people who have never edited before, but who have real, valuable knowledge to contribute. They often try a single edit as an experiment, and if immediately slapped over the wrist by you are unlikely to try again. Slow down! Think first about whether you have really understood what the anon did and possible reasons for it, even if they have made a mistake. A good rule is to never template someone on their first edit.
- Ok, I have removed "Al-Badri" from my userspace. That does not mean that I agree that "Someone named Goebbels would have to withdraw themselves from editing pages that have to do with Nazi Germany". I totally disagree. Similarly you cannot stop an atheist from editing "religion-related articles". Just being an atheist does not mean that the person is not eligible enough to edit Religion-related articles.
- Reply to the the two proposed "patterns":
- I did not bite the newcomer. A newbie is not exempted from edit-warring. Is he? he reverted 3+ editors in the article Partition of India, could not he give an edit summary? If he made a constructive edit, his reverts did not seem to be "constructive". The person ought to use edit summary, or the talk pages of the article or the users, at least he could reply on his own talk page, and I just gave him a "general note".
- That's not it. I have said before too that newbies and the IPs are not exempted from templates or warnings. Have you used Twinkle>? You know they provide a whole list of templates for the IPs, I used templates from that list only. And better see my contributions(which you already saw), only those IPs which were vandalising were given message for their "unconstructive editing". The IPs which contribute are no doubt, a valuable resource. Why don't you suggest Huggle and Twinkle to remove the templates for anonymous IPs? I hope this will be a big step towards preventing the biting of the newbies. Faizan 11:34, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hello again Faizan. It is gracious of you to remove "Al-Badri" from your user page. I will now respond to various points that you have made:
- It may seem unfair to you that someone could find your name frightening, and it is certainly unfair that a group of people have used a phrase that happens to be your name as the name of their murderous group. However, it is necessary to take into account that terrible happenings cause permanent terror in the victims of those events. To see a name that they associate with those events is an added cruelty to people who have already suffered too much. I'm sorry, but editing Bangladesh-related pages requires special tact. In withdrawing yourself from those areas you can think to yourself "They think I'm evil, that isn't fair, I'm not evil", but you owe it to victims to take their fear into account. Yes, someone named Goebbels is carrying a terribly unfair burden, but that should not prevent them being mindful not to cause suffering in others. The atheist example that you cite is rather different in that POV edits are something that is dealt with in other ways.
- Newbies need to be treated with special consideration. To accuse someone who has made exactly 2 (two) edits of edit warring is not measured, thoughtful, considerate behaviour. So in short, yes, such newbies *are* excempt from rules about edit warring. To quote Wikipedia:Edit warring with added emphasis: "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion." When a person has made 2 (two) edits, it is not possible for them to have repeatedly overridden another's contributions, it is only possible that they have overridden once.
- A newbie is a newbie. It is not reasonable to demand that they make eloquent edit summaries on their first 2 (two) edits.
- I doubt that you really believe of someone who was attacked in the way that User:Ct205 was attacked that "at least he could reply on his own talk page". It seems far more likely that a newbie would be still trying to recover from shock and surprise. Besides, you've blocked them now. I newbie probably would think that means they can't edit their own talk page.
- "Why don't you suggest Huggle and Twinkle to remove the templates for anonymous IPs? I hope this will be a big step towards preventing the biting of the newbies." Now really, surely you don't think that wikipedia editors intent on attacking someone would be in the least slowed down in their attacks if they had to use different text? Surely you don't think that the text would be better (more polished and appropriate) if people were getting it from non-standard sources?
- If you suspect that someone is a sockpuppet, the way to proceed is to request a checkuser. Only after the checkuser has been performed and has demonstrated beyond a doubt that the person is a sockpuppet is it appropriate to revert the edits if they are constructive edits like the ones under discussion here. There is no need to apply multiple templates to the user's page, and if you believe them to be a sockpuppet then the disingenuous "welcome" message doesn't belong on their user page either.
- I'm not at all sure that user:Ct205 is a sockpuppet of anyone who is trying to do damage to wikipedia. What I've seen so far looks like "maybe" they are a sockpuppet of someone. I'm making inquiries about whether the evidence is convincing, and whether the person can be unblocked. The "sockpuppet" cry that you and User:AsceticRose have raised is, however, quite damaging to wikipedia. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:04, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hello again Faizan. It is gracious of you to remove "Al-Badri" from your user page. I will now respond to various points that you have made:
Secondly the innocent User:Ct205, whom I and another user "bited" was an experienced "Sock puppet", and he has been blocked. Faizan 13:13, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- So Mr. Sminth was shedding tears for this Sock puppet without knowing anything! -AsceticRosé 17:13, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- Please see reply to Faizan, above. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:04, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- Well he is a confirmed sock puppet, investigations. Both the sock and master have been blocked indefinitely. As he was a sock puppet he could reply on his talk page regarding the dispute on Partition of India. Faizan 11:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- No, that is not true. See discussion here. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:15, 16 November 2013 (UTC)