User talk:Fathoms Below
|
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. | |
 | This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics:
|
 | This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
Question from Elliottmde (16:06, 6 September 2024)
[edit]Hey man! I was wondering, Is the editing pipeline here similar to the pipeline on Github? thx!
-Elliott --Elliottmde (talk) 16:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) @Novem Linguae: Maybe you'd have an idea of how to answer this one? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- The editing workflow here is edit first, check it later. The workflow on GitHub if you're using pull requests is more like check it first, then edit if approved. So I'd argue the workflow is different. Hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:07, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Ah ok! thx mate! Elliott (talk) 11:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- The editing workflow here is edit first, check it later. The workflow on GitHub if you're using pull requests is more like check it first, then edit if approved. So I'd argue the workflow is different. Hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:07, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
[edit]
because awwww kitties!
Elliottmde (talk) 18:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Question from Elliottmde (16:38, 11 September 2024)
[edit]Hey, I've got another question for you! If I wanted to cite something on an article, but there wasn't really a relevant place to put an In-line citation. Where would I put it? thx! --Elliott (talk) 16:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Elliottmde. Could you give me some context as to the information you wish to include in the article and the source you wish to use? Usually in-line citations should be included for most information in articles whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged. Fathoms Below (talk) 16:46, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- Np! Im trying to edit the article, "Rocket Separation Motors" Verifiability has been flagged, and im trying to add an inline citation as a source, But i cant find a place to put it that is relevant to the source i have. Is there a way to put a source without making it an inline citation? thx Elliott (talk) 16:55, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- Sure @Elliottmde. It sounds like you want to include a general reference. General references should be included at the end of the article on a list. If both cited and uncited references exist for that article their distinction can be highlighted with separate section names for each source list, e.g., "References" and "General references" sections. I haven't used general references before so you might ask at the teahouse if I'm getting something wrong about their inclusion and how they can be used. Fathoms Below (talk) 17:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, thx! Elliott (talk) 17:16, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- Sure @Elliottmde. It sounds like you want to include a general reference. General references should be included at the end of the article on a list. If both cited and uncited references exist for that article their distinction can be highlighted with separate section names for each source list, e.g., "References" and "General references" sections. I haven't used general references before so you might ask at the teahouse if I'm getting something wrong about their inclusion and how they can be used. Fathoms Below (talk) 17:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- Np! Im trying to edit the article, "Rocket Separation Motors" Verifiability has been flagged, and im trying to add an inline citation as a source, But i cant find a place to put it that is relevant to the source i have. Is there a way to put a source without making it an inline citation? thx Elliott (talk) 16:55, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Question from Truth4India (19:54, 13 September 2024)
[edit]Hey :) Thank you for being my mentor. I edited my first page yesterday. The page https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Suresh_Prabhu was flagged as having a lot of issues and here's what I did to address them:-
Issues:- This article may be written from a fan's point of view, rather than a neutral point of view. (November 2023) This article may need to be rewritten to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards. (August 2020). This article may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may interest only a particular audience. (August 2020). This article contains wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information.
My actions:- I removed all verbose and promotional material that had no links to any verifiable or credible sources. The edits appeared to be the personal views of the previous editor/page creator.
To provide some balance to the matter that was overly promotional and highly subjective in nature, I added information that was tangentially opposite. I was very mindful of the BLP policy and therefore made sure this information was sourced only from credible and well regarded news sources (Business Standard, BBC, The Hindu, Times of India, NDTV, India Today, Outlook and Mumbai Mirror)
The page has since been vandalised post my edits - i.e. all the promotional and subjective material reinstated. My additions to provide some balance have been completely removed without assigning any good reason.
The page obviously needs to be monitored for vandalism so that any edits would need to be authorised by a moderator. I have now left the page as is since I don't intend wasting my time going back and forth editing/re-editing it every time it is vandalised.
What steps would you suggest be taken to address the obvious problems this page has?
Regards, T4I --Truth4India (talk) 19:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Truth4India. I'm assuming that DreamRimmer reverted your changes because they were concerned that the material you added did not follow the manual of style, and that you added external links to source your information instead of inline citations. DreamRimmer's reverts were not vandalism, which are edits made in bad-faith to deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose. Did you reach out to DreamRimmer on their user talk page here to discuss your concerns? Asking them exactly why you had your changes reverted might help you get a deeper explanation and a potential resolution for why they reverted your changes. Fathoms Below (talk) 20:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- And in addition, I'm concerned about some of the content that you added in your edits to Suresh Prabhu I'm really mostly unfamiliar with BLPs since I mostly edit video games and other media topics, but from a look at this edit here says that with the section "Failure of timely infrastructure upgrades" that Prabhu had delayed the expansion of a foot bridge, leading to a "tragic stampede" (in the article's own words) and even "The tragedy highlighted the failure of timely infrastructure upgrades despite clear warnings of overcrowding risks under his ministry" It seems to be implicating Prabhu with a tragedy. Someone more familiar with addressing neutrality problems might want to take a look at that article since it seems like there might be issues with how those edits present the subject. Since I'm unfamiliar with the subject matter someone else might want to take a look at that. Fathoms Below (talk) 21:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Noted - the link had the actual picture of the letter signed by Suresh Prabhu, delaying allocation of funds for the proposed upgrade. Perhaps someone familiar with BLP could review it :) Truth4India (talk) 21:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, let me look up manual of style and make sure I add "inline citations". The reason I used the term vandalism is because this page had been flagged as having issues. Therefore by simply deleting my changes and reinstating the same problematic matter that have neither links nor citations definitely defeats the project's purpose and can therefore be termed vandalism. Am I wrong? Truth4India (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Truth4India Vandalism has a very specific definition. The malicious removal of encyclopedic content is a form of vandalism. DreamRimmer has not shown malicious intent and has even reverted your content with an edit summary. We should always assume good faith that editors are not editing maliciously unless there is clear evidence to the contrary. Please see WP:VAN for what vandalism is or is not. Your content additions might have problems on their own separate from those identified in the cleanup banners and that might be why they were reverted. Did you reach out to DreamRimmer on their talk page with your concerns? Fathoms Below (talk) 21:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks for the clarification. I am listing my concerns and hopefully will reach out later in the day. Truth4India (talk) 21:53, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, I looked up the link WP:VAN. This is just what the reverts appear to have caused (in bold and underlined)?: "core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia."
- I don't have any issue with deleting my content - which can be reviewed by a moderator. But I definitely take issue with the reverting back to the very issues that were flagged on this page.
- Thank you for your time, as you can see I am new to all this. So it will take me a while to figure out the finer details of editing in Wiki :) Truth4India (talk) 22:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- It says "The malicious (key word) removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia." The editor has not shown clear malice in that revert so it is not considered vandalism. Please assume good faith and pay attention to the "In a nutshell" section on that page that I just linked. An edit might be harmful to the encyclopedia, but it is not considered vandalism unless there is clear evidence of malice. Editing that harms the encyclopedia might be considered disruptive editing, though disruptive editing is not always vandalism and might be entirely unintentional. But in these circumstances, I don't think DreamRimmer's reverts were disruptive. If you are reverted, please consider discussing the matter with the editor that reverted you to potentially hear their side of the story and come to a resolution. Does this make sense? Fathoms Below (talk) 22:34, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Truth4India Vandalism has a very specific definition. The malicious removal of encyclopedic content is a form of vandalism. DreamRimmer has not shown malicious intent and has even reverted your content with an edit summary. We should always assume good faith that editors are not editing maliciously unless there is clear evidence to the contrary. Please see WP:VAN for what vandalism is or is not. Your content additions might have problems on their own separate from those identified in the cleanup banners and that might be why they were reverted. Did you reach out to DreamRimmer on their talk page with your concerns? Fathoms Below (talk) 21:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- And in addition, I'm concerned about some of the content that you added in your edits to Suresh Prabhu I'm really mostly unfamiliar with BLPs since I mostly edit video games and other media topics, but from a look at this edit here says that with the section "Failure of timely infrastructure upgrades" that Prabhu had delayed the expansion of a foot bridge, leading to a "tragic stampede" (in the article's own words) and even "The tragedy highlighted the failure of timely infrastructure upgrades despite clear warnings of overcrowding risks under his ministry" It seems to be implicating Prabhu with a tragedy. Someone more familiar with addressing neutrality problems might want to take a look at that article since it seems like there might be issues with how those edits present the subject. Since I'm unfamiliar with the subject matter someone else might want to take a look at that. Fathoms Below (talk) 21:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)