Jump to content

User talk:Sander.v.Ginkel/Fram

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Semi-automatic article creation

[edit]

Hi, I noticed you a lot during new page patrol. It looks to me a sif you are doing some kind of semi-automatic page creation, it certainly is very high-speed page creation. I checked out Nike Winter (because of the strange name).

  • [1] doesn't mention her
  • [2] doesn't mention her.

This means that you have baiscally created an unsourced BLP. Now, Nike Winter exists, although the information you include is way, way outdated (by 5 years, give or take). According to de:Nike Winter, she has played 21 timùes for the national team (not 4 times), and hasn't played for Kärnten since 2011.

I don't see the benefit of creating unsourced articles with information that is seriously outdated. Fram (talk) 14:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reading some other topics on this user talk page, I came across a message from late October: "Another, much more serious, issue is that a whole lot (more than 20 at least, probably closer to 30) of these BLP articles have no references at all that actually mention the people the articles are about. Practically speaking, they're unreferenced BLPs." So this isn't a new problem. You really need to fix this. Fram (talk) 14:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, reference fixed. See Nike Winter. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 14:06, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you do now have a reference for her. However, it doesn't seem to reference the bit you use it for. That link doesn't list or mention her national team appearances, only her club matches, but in your article it is used as reference for her start at the national team... Fram (talk) 14:24, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Unsourced BLPs

[edit]

Kristi Hausenberg is another example of your recent contributions. None of the Etsonian players you created stubs for have functioning links, they all link to the generic page instead of a specific one. However, while at least some do have an entry in that directory, I can't find an entry for Hausenberg[3].

Your articles must be based on "something", as they contain some detailed information, but for some reason you don't list the source of your information. If it is Wikidata, then I have only one advice: stop. Wikidata is not a reliable source and should not be used as the source for automated or semi-automated article creation. If you do use a reliable source, then list your actual source (with the correct page, not a generic one) in the article. But please don't continue creating further similar pages which are in essence unsourced BLPs. Fram (talk) 14:43, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Same issues with Evelin Harjakas, Berle Brant, Anzelika Ahmetšina, ... They all are missing from the single source you added to the article, and thus are unsourced BLPs. Fram (talk) 14:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Nonsense. These four(and probably others) were not in the source given, not just in the direct link but not anywhere on that website. You didn't forget to copy part of a link, you provided a link you now wisely removed as it had no page about those persons. Please tell us, what is the source you actually base these page creations on? Fram (talk) 15:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, we now finally have your admittance that you don't check your sourtce before creating an article (nor, as you did today after all this started, when you copy sources from dewiki, so it doesn't seem like much has changed). What you still haven't said is where did you get your information from? There has to be some source you actually got your info from (like date of birth and so on), but you haven't indicated this. Why not? Either it is a reliable source, and then you should simply add that source to the article at the time of creation and you could have avoided most of this afternoon. Or it is an unreliable source, and then you simply shouldn't create articles based on it. So please, for the last time, tell us what your source was! Fram (talk) 16:51, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most of this data I imported from the German Wikipedia. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 09:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a reliable source (and as in these cases can be seriously outdated as well). You shouldn't be creating articles (certainly not BLPs) without at least one reliable source you have actually checked. And you definitely shouldn't create an article with information from German Wikipedia, but replace their source with one you just hope will have some information on the subject. Fram (talk) 09:28, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well that is the thing that Wikidata is doing. It imports information from Wikipedia, and naming as reference "German Wikipedia". And more and more information from Wikidata is used in Wikipedia articles. And if data is related to a specific data I name it, so readers can see it might not be up-to date or it can be uodated easily. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 09:30, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So what? Wikidata is not a reliable source, and shouldn't be used to base new articles on either. You are creating articles with "sources" you have never read or checked, which may not even contain any information on the subject or return 404 errors at the time you add them. Whether this comes from Wikidata, German Wikipedia, or your local pub is irrelevant. It is your responsability to create BLPs with sources which you have checked, which support the information they reference, and which are about the subject of the article. If you can't guarantee that, then you should stop creating BLPs. Your actions at Mariann Mortensen Kvistnes are just the latest example of what is wrong with your approach here. Fram (talk) 10:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

False sources

[edit]

Could you please refrain from using false sources like you did at Heleri Saar, Geit Prants and I fear on other articles? BLPs should be sourced with reliable sources. The Banner talk 14:45, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3 out of 20 checked. (rather randomly chosen, nr. 81 t/m 100 on the list of articles you have created, as of today.) This not accidental anymore... The Banner talk 18:03, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We are all talking about the same bunch of players. The names of the first and third were listed between the German players in the reference I gave. The second link was literally imported from the German Wikipedia. I improved it. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 09:06, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is the source I imported that is linked to this data, according to Wikipedia. You can beter see it here. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 09:11, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again, "according to Wikipedia" is the wrong basis to start articles from. Start from a reliable source, or don't create these articles at all. Fram (talk) 09:28, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What Fram says is correct. We write based on what reliable sources say, not what Wikipedia articles which may or may not be based on reliable sources say. When are you going to fix all the unreferenced BLPs you've created? It is not fair to leave that kind of work to other editors. There's also a lot of info which you couldn't have gained from the Wikipedia article you listed just now. Where does this info come from? Manxruler (talk) 11:54, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BLP prods

[edit]

You can claim that my BLP prods were nonsense, but the fact is that you again created multiple BLPs without a single source about them. Just check these three, in each case the source given was either about a different person or didn't return any results. This happens all too frequent with your creations and doesn't seem to improve one bit. Please take your time to create basic decent articles instead of rushing to create as many as possible without checking if even the most basic things are correct and work. From the policy WP:BLP: "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources." Fram (talk) 09:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Fram:, Yes I didn't see someone else changed it yet, as I thought all references were correct. For about 50% of the original links were not working. I openened every single page, and I added the original name and place of birth from Sports-reference (cannot be found somewhere else). But I think for these 4 I forgot to change the link in the article. Happy days! Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 09:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • You make too many mistakes of that type... The Banner talk 10:05, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you mean, "cannot be found somewhere else"? For Javier Sanchez Toril, the information can be found in [4]. The same goes for Gabriel Hernandez. For Ahmed Badr, you could equally have used [5]. By the way, Badr was born in 1977, not 1983. I presume you got the date from another Wikipedia article like Water polo at the 2004 Summer Olympics – Men's team rosters instead of from a reliable source. Again, don't use Wikipedia as a source. Get your info from reliable sources only. Fram (talk) 10:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's clear numerous editors are watching the contributions + will continue to edit and expand on them in the future. If there are issues on some with references or small bits of content in the articles, you can absolutely add or edit them yourself - just as you would with any other article. To attempt to delete articles that very clearly meet notability guidelines is a waste of everyone's time. Hmlarson (talk) 17:19, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Fram: I use sports-reference as my source, that's naming the original names And place of borth. In the second source you are listing has not the date of birth and original name. The fist reference also don't has his original name. And in addition, Sports-reference is also listing the family relations I'm adding to the articles. I don't use for this articles Wikipedia as a reference, that is your assumption. You can see here about this person I even fixed the wrong person on Wikipedia!! And @The Banner: what do you mean with too many mistakes? 4 articles were listed with a typo in the reference while the whole articles were a well written and informative with many info. Are four Typos too many when I'm responsible for >10% of the new articles on Wikipedia? Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 17:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • You better start reading your own talkpage. The Banner talk 21:27, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • What's all about in this section, that's 4 typo's from all the articles I created yesterday. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 22:44, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
              • Sander, why do you lie? "I don't use for this articles Wikipedia as a reference, that is your assumption." Then why did you have the exact same error in the year of birth as the Wikipedia article I listed had? Just a coincidence? Please stop making up excuses, they don't stand up to closer scrutiny. Fram (talk) 13:07, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                • @Fram: if you can tell me where I can find all the info to create the articles with only Wikipedia as reference.. I can't. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 13:19, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                  • "Again, don't use Wikipedia as a source. Get your info from reliable sources only." Read what I said. I did not say that you only used Wikipedia as a source, I said that you also used Wikipedia as a source, while you should only use reliable sources instead. You routinely add dates, or participations and results in other championships, to articles without a source, but where this information just happens to match other Wikipedia articles. Don't do this. It has caused many of the problems highlighted the last few days. Fram (talk) 13:23, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

\Ahmed Badr

Sander, what are you talking about? Of course you added Ahmed Badr to Wikipedia, that's why I'm complaining here and not at the talk page of some other user. The problem is, and I'll try to explain it as simple as possible as you otherwise don't seem able to comprehend it, that you gave him a birth date in 1983, which doesn't match the source you supposedly used for all information on this page. However, that wrong year can also be found at Water polo at the 2004 Summer Olympics – Men's team rosters, which is the Wikipedia article you used as the basis to create these articles. You didn't create or edit that team rosters page, you just copied information from it, thereby propagating Wikipedia errors further. Nothing in your reply addresses this issue (I don't know what it is supposed to address, if anything).

  • Stop using Wikipedia as a source. Don't hide behind strange responses, just don't do it anymore.
  • Always add your sources. Don't add an URL or other link which you hope will contain the necessary information, don't add sources you have never seen but which another Wikipedia article or version (or Wikidata) provides. You must go to a reliable source, use the information you can find there, and add that source to your article. Otherwise, don't bother writing articles. Fram (talk) 09:48, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Fram:, after reading your plea including You didn't create or edit that team rosters page, I see you don't really understand what I did. As I said I added him here. And that is also transcluded at Water polo at the 2004 Summer Olympics – Men's team rosters. So yes, I did add him to that page, so again no I couldn't have used Wikipedia as the source for creating him. So again, before my edit you couldn't even find his name on Wikipedia. I thought an administrator woud know how these transclusions of templates works, but you are even saying: I don't know what it is supposed to address, if anything. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 10:26, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
...and the 1983 year was already there[6] before your change. You copied the 1983 year from Wikipedia, you did not add it. Which is what I have been saying all along. Fram (talk) 11:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Fram:, good you understand what I did, so you understand my point. And yes, I made a typo, funny coincidence the same as my predecessor. See WP:Honesty: Editors are reminded that while you may expect an assumption of good faith, this is based on the counter-assumption of honesty in your actions. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 11:26, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe in funny coincidences when you have shown time and time again that you base parts of articles on other Wikipedia articles and not on reliable sources. Fram (talk) 11:30, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing problems, again and again and again

[edit]

Today, you created Maria Averina. You have a source for her nationality and date of birth, that's it. The other source doesn't even mention her. Now there's a surprise. And who would have thought that Diana Klimova would have the exact same problem. Fram (talk) 13:18, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram: thanks and sharp for noticing! It's horrible with these Tissot timing URL's with only numbers. An error is easily made.. See the difference
http://www.tissottiming.com/File/Download?id=00030D0002021901FFFFFFFFFFFFFF02 and
http://www.tissottiming.com/File/Download?id=00030D0002021601FFFFFFFFFFFFFF02.
Like the tiny error made by MediaWiki message delivery (talk · contribs) of the message that was sent to users with the title User group: New Page Reviewr instead of User group: New Page Reviewer ;) (see above, while I already got this message earlier)
Cheers, Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 18:49, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you ever 'type URLs? You go to a source, use the information and copy the URL. That way, you would also notice when a source doesn't exist (like with some of the Estonians and so on). No, a typo in a text which doesn't change the meaning one bit, and a typo in an URL which has as result that it no lnger works and is indicative of the fact that at least in some cases you never visited that source but just hope it exists, are not comparable at all. Fram (talk) 09:41, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Fram: Yes, I type URLs, or at least the crucial part of it. That's because I'm working different then you're doing. And of course you are going to say now: don't do that. But also, like before if I explain it, you don't understand how I'm working. Nothing wrong with that. But as you can see, not everybody is working the same way. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 10:35, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care that not everybody is working the same way, as long as it doesn't lead to to many errors. Your approach clearly does lead to numerous problems though. And no, I don't understand how you are working, that much is true. You are adding sources you have not checked and which sometimes don't even exist. That's something I will never understand, nor accept. And it is something you will need to change. Fram (talk) 10:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Fram: Again and again and again (speaking in your teams) you are still making your point with these Estonian footballers. If you want to make your point keep it in that section, and don't repeat it in every single section you started afterwards. See WP:Honesty: Being honest does not mean being perfect. An honest Wikipedian may make honest, good faith mistakes. And did I change my mistakes: Yes. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 11:30, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Changing your mistakes" is one thing. "Canging your approach" seems to be something else though. You have had complaints about creating articles with incorrect sources for quite a while now, but you simply continue doing the same things. You now try to defend yourself with "Oh, I type URLS instead of copying them" which of course doesn't explain why you had the same typo in the URL in two articles in a row. Oh, perhaps you did copy it, but from one article to another instead of from your actual source? You may quote wp:honesty as much as you like, you have made too many bogus explanations here in these discussions to be believable. When I look at older articles you create, I see the exact same problems, and the exact same inclusion of information you grabbed from other Wikipedia articles, not from the source you give in the article. Fram (talk) 12:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Fram:: You have had complaints about creating articles with incorrect sources for quite a while now. The first on was on 23 October 2016. Not even a month ago. I don't know how long you're on Wikipedia, but for me this is called recent. No issues of incorrect sources for the ~16.500 articles I created before a month ago. The other thing, why the typo happend in two the same articles, because the two persons were notbable of the same thing (they did the women's madison together), so the same source. You say yourself: "I don't understand how you are working, that much is true." so please don't complain about how you think I'm working, again and again and again. Believe me, getting references from Estonian footballers, is really different from getting them for the (Olympic) water polo players and track cyclists. While this section is about Maria Averina and Diana Klimova, please tell me where these wrong sources, according to your Wikipedia-copying-theory, are coming from? And the other thing, please say what you think are my bogus explanations that does not meet wp:honesty? My third thing, please read Wikipedia:REPEAT. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 13:04, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have indicated in earlier explanations ad anuseam all explanations I don't buy. Your second and third thing are a bit hard to combine though. But I'll keep complaining about problems with the results of your methods of working, whichever they are, and will point out when your explanations are rather farfetched or not matching the facts. Fram (talk) 13:16, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Fram: I don't know what you're talking about. You never indicated somewhere I was not honust. Maybe you thought I was not honust. So if you could please list the too many bogus explanations again, would be appriciated this time. Or otherwise don't say something in general without refering to something (funny: that's what you are complaining for to me..). And regarding to your announcement/threat: it sounds like a proper battle plan to me, good luck with it :). Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 13:31, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

E.g. your explanation above for the Estonian source: "Yes I saw it, there was some part of the link not copied from the template." That's a totally bogus explanation, no part of that template would have helped here: these persons didn't have an entry in that encyclopedia, so you could not have found the info there. In the "BLP prods" section, you claimed "I added the original name and place of birth from Sports-reference (cannot be found somewhere else)." Again, nonsense, that information could easily be found on other reliable sources. Then there was the endless battle to get you to admit that you didn't have reliable sources for some articles, but just copied data from German Wikipedia and/or Wikidata, which was obvious from the start but apparently to hard to honestly admit. Fram (talk) 13:42, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram:, I was right you thought I was not honust. The first on is the template I'm working with on my computer. Not a Wikipedia template. The part of the template with the crucial info of the reference was not selected to be included. For the second one, you didn't copye the complete sentence. I wrote I added the original name and place of birth from Sports-reference (cannot be found somewhere else). And indeed, the combination of these two can only be found at sports-reference. After you asked where I got the information from (wat not a battle at all), I said I imported it from the German Wikipedia. See #Unsourced BLPs. So please stop with saying something in general, that is also not true at all! You're complaining to me about it, but you do it yourself even worse. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 13:50, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"The first one" is about Estonian articles like Evelin Harjakas[7] and the others I listed. You included a source which doesn't have an entry on them. How can this be explained by "there was some part of the link not copied from the template." no matter where the template is located? There was no way you could fix that link to be correct, you had to totally remove it and replace it with totally different links. Your explanation was and is utterly bogus. The second one, same story: I replied with "For Javier Sanchez Toril, the information can be found in [8]" which has, surprise, both his date of birth and place of birth. So your "And indeed, the combination of these two can only be found at sports-reference." is not correct, as you should have realised by now. You complain that I am repeating myself, but it seems to be the only way to get through to you (eventually and partially, but still). As for your explanation that you used German Wikipedia as a source, everyone can read the section above and see how easily and quickly that explanation came. "After you asked" is technically correct, but it was hardly "immediately" after I asked, nor was it the first explanation you tried. Fram (talk) 14:02, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia del Soto

[edit]

Patricia del Soto, your finished version[9].

  • "(born goalkeeper 12 16)" That's a very weird place and date you have there.
  • "most recently" Source?
  • NC Vouliagmeni (infobox and two navboxes): source?
  • Category:16 births That would make her very, very old...
  • Omgega Timing is a typo, these can happen.

If you had a source for the two "source?" indicated items above, why didn't you add that source? And if you didn't have a reliable source, why did you include the information? Fram (talk) 13:18, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OMEGA, not OMGEGA. You have now added the same typo to a whole bunch of articles, one of the reasons why semi-automatic article creation is such a bad idea, certainly with someone who doesn't seem to care about improvements too much. Fram (talk) 13:46, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And drop the "Most recently" in those articles, will you? It is based on nothing. E.g. for Laura Esther it is wrong. Fram (talk) 13:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram: I know, I'm still working on the Spanish ladies. The year was a mistake made in the self-made template, it also happened to a few other pages and other info data points (like the position). It's fixed :) Most recencly is true. It's stupid to add a reference with all the recent squads without her. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 14:07, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You were wrong about the "most recent" in at least one case, so why would I trust ~that you are right on others. And do not remove fact tags from unsourced claims (like her club) again, you are really getting disruptive there. Fram (talk) 14:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Fram: You were wrong! Why did you redirect Laura Esther to Laura Ester, without a reference!? It's another name and another date of birth. You should have added to Laura Ester after doing it on the first sentence "also written as Laura Esther " Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 14:21, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was wrong? They aren't the same? References are not added to redirects. Fram (talk) 14:46, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Fram: Like I said: You should have added to Laura Ester after doing it on the first sentence "also written as Laura Esther " with reference. I can also say to you, the date of the reference is not correct, and the publisher is not correct etc. so you did it al wrong... see here. But no, thank you for adjusting the wrong date of birth. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 14:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You re-reverted me because "If a statement sounds plausible[...]" There is no reason why any club would be more plausible than any other club for a particular player. "PLausible" and "Possible" are not the same thing. In any case, you added this information only today, so it would be much, much easier if you added the necessary source than have someone else look for it instead. Or didn't you have a source for this and did you again just add it because you could find it in another Wikipedia article? Fram (talk) 14:46, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram: If these and these kind of edits without giving a reference are realy bothering you, you should not work on Wikipedia. Such clear information is added to 1000s articles every day. See for example the great contributions of ThiagoSimoes (talk · contribs) who add all these medal templates to gymnasts. I can give you loads of other examples. These kind of contributions should be stimulated, not snubbed. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 15:04, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When someone who routinely uses false references and adds incorrect information does such things, then yes, it bothers me. I'm sure there are plenty of others doing the same, just like there are better or worse ones. But you are one of the most prolific contributors, so all damage you cause is much more widespread or frequent. I wouldn't call something like Victor Rostagno a "great contribution", neither of the sources given supports any of the more important facts of his article, his actual achievements. Such articles are acceptable from newbies, but once someone has some experience here, they should do a lot better than this. Fram (talk) 15:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Fram: Can you please tell/show what you mean with that I routinely adds incorrect information. Even if you dislike certain things, don't start stating wrong generalizations and nitpicking. My points was that his addition of adding medal templates to articles are great, I don't know what you with Victor Rostagno wants to say. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 19:41, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've always assumed that when people want information about the results of a given competition, they can click on the link to the article about the competition and check the information there. The article about Rostagno leads to the articles about the competitions mentioned previously, and you can check the results (and sources) there. The article about the 2016 South American Championships is about a competition which is still ongoing, so give it a couple days and it will be fully sourced. Now, if we are to add sources on biographies for every medal earned by athletes, articles would suffer from Wikipedia:Citation overkill. -- ThiagoSimoes (talk) 19:50, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's not citation overkill (an essay, and not really a widely used one) by a wide margin. Citation overkill is about having too many citations for a single fact: what is asked here is one reliable source per fact (one reliable source which list the palmares of someone is perfectly acceptable of course). Like I said at your talk page, the 2016 SA Championships article is not reliably sourced for the individual event medals, so even if I would buy the "it's sourced in a linked article" solution (which I don't), in this case it's not sourced there, so these claims aren't reliably sourced anywhere (well, they weren't yesterday, I haven't checked whether the articles are improved since). Fram (talk) 07:32, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Replied on my talk page, where you asked the same question. "My points was that his addition of adding medal templates to articles are great, I don't know what you with Victor Rostagno wants to say." is a bit hard to understand, but adding unsourced, unverifiable, possibly wrong medal tables to articles is not "great", it's a very poor practice. Fram (talk) 07:32, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Fram: please go and ask for references in (medal) templates. Otherwise don't bother people with it. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 08:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
...says the man who removes all "facts" tags I add to his articles without bothering to add references in its place. Fram (talk) 09:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Fram: I did it according to the Wikipedia policies, so don't say I was wrong. I reply to you, you are complaining of templates without references. So I say make work of it. Do what you say yourself: Please don't repeat your plea over and over again, once is more than enough. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 09:58, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Which policy says it is fine to remove fact tags from unsourced facts in BLPs? Wikipedia:Citing sources? Not really, no. WP:V? "[...]any material challenged [...] must be supported by inline citations." seems pretty clear cut. WP:BLP doesn't really support you either, to say the least. (The remainder of your reply is irrelevant, as my post didn't repeat any plea, it just commented on your volatile attitude). Fram (talk) 10:08, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't act like a kid by saying I don't know. I stated it in the description, and you even replied to me about it. But I'll copy it here for you again. WP:CITENEED: If a statement sounds plausible, and is consistent with other statements in the article, but you doubt that it is totally accurate, then consider making a reasonable effort to find a reference yourself. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 10:29, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nice example of staying kind there. So, WP:CITENEED, that page which states at the top "It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines."? Stupid me not to realise that that would be the "policy" you refered to, and how childish to then ask for an actual policy and list two policies and a guideline which are relevant. Never mind that the quote you give does not give any indication of "it is fine to remove fact tags without providing a reference". Fram (talk) 11:21, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between men and women...

[edit]

Igor Racunica to Boris Letica (7 Macedonians), Italian Federico Lapenna, Gergely Katonás and László Baksa (2 Hungarians), and German Sven Roeßing have, according to you, all played at the women's championship. I somehow doubt that.

Igor Racunica even played at the 20102012 championship apparently.

And of course, all information about clubs or having played at other championships is unsourced in all of these. So it would be nice if the one sourced thing was correct at least... Fram (talk) 13:12, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Fram: tank you for noticing! I created 11 articles of men of the European Championships and they all had this mistake as they were made with a kind of copy-paste editing. I fixed it, thank you and it will not happen for up coming articles.
The information of the clubs and other championships I got from Wikipedia cross linking or from the references I have of other European Water Polo Championships. And I have good reasons to do that. If it would become a standard to have a reference for every single competition a person competed in, it would cause WP:OVERLINKING. Adding templates like Template:Hungary squad 2003 Men's European Water Polo Championship and Template:HAVK Mladost squad 2011/2012 Croatian Cup are done without a reference. All the information that I added is basic data and not defamatory for the person at all. I checked the articles where I got it from. If it is realible and about this person I add the information to the article, otherwise I tag that article. And even, in the very unlikely event that a contributer points that the info is wrong, it would be a good thing. The error would be fixed in every article, including the articles where it probably otherwise would never have been noticed. It helps to solve contradictions on Wikipedia, but never happened in one of my articles so far. And my last thing I would add is that it becomes a normality that obvious data is added to Wikipedia (from Wikidata) without references. See for instance Template:Cycling race/teamroster used for instance at Vitalogic Astrokalb Radunion Nö and List of 2014 UCI Women's Teams and riders or Template:Cycling race/listofstages used in 2016 Ladies Tour of Qatar. Also that is a good thing in my opinion. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 14:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please reread WP:OVERLINKING. It's about adding too many bluelinks or redlinks to articles and has nothing to do with referencing. Adding such templates should never be done without adding the information in the body, the text of the article, and there you should always add a reference. Wikidata is not a reliable source, like I already explained to you. Other Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources, also already explained. What you can do is look at the references used in those articles (or on Wikidata), and if they are reliable and support the facts, add them to the articles you create or expand. But not referencing facts because they are referenced in other articles or at Wikidata is wrong. Fram (talk) 14:29, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was meaning WP:Citation overkill; that makes sense. I can't look into Wikidata as no references are listed there. Well it uses Wikipedia as the reference of these information. I know you are realy into that everything must have a reference, but not every plausible statement needs one. Do you think all the team info from 2010 Men's European Water Polo Championship squads must be deleted? I didn't do it because I checked some of them and it was done by a reliable editor. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 14:58, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As said before, "citation overkill" is an essay, and even then is mostly about adding multiple references to a single fact in an article. For non-controversial facts, a single reference is sufficient. So not only is it not a policy or guideline, it isn't even about the issue we are discussing here. Nothing on that page is about "it is sufficient if another article has a reference for the fact". Even Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue is not about facts like the palmares of a sportsperson, but about things obvious to everyone and/or not relevant to the article as such. When stating that Eddy Merckx is a male cyclist, you don't need to add a reference for the "male" part. When stating that someone is born in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, you need a source for Amsterdam, you don't need a source that indicates that Amsterdam is indeed in the Netherlands. When you have a date of birth, you don't need another source for the age, that's a calculation anyone can do. But when you write an article about a sportsperson, his palmares is not an obvious fact, it is the essential fact of his notability, the reason hy we have an article, and should always be sourced in the article. Just take a look at some sports-related featured articles (e.g. Henrik Sedin or Faith Leech: while you don't have to write such articles (I usually don't), the general idea behind them applies to all articles. Every fact (except the really obvious as explained) needs sourcing once (not in the lead, not in the templates at the bottom, but in the body of the text). Fram (talk) 15:19, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point of view. But also WP:CITENEED tells us If a statement sounds plausible, and is consistent with other statements in the article, but you doubt that it is totally accurate, then consider making a reasonable effort to find a reference yourself. That means, not every plausible statement is required to have a reference. Our opinion in this issue is different. The information I'm adding is correct. To continue with it, it would be good to have a general discussion about it with many contributs involving in it about how I work and many, many other editors I know. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 15:38, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But I have the feeling it´s also a bit personal against me, as you said I'll leave you to it to the editor making these kind of edits. I don't see the difference. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 15:48, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That editor seems to make less errors (and less articles at first glance). And I can't deal with everyone in any case, dealing with the people creating the greatest number of articles can have the greatest impact. As for your reading of CITENEED, "That means, not every plausible statement is required to have a reference.", that's not what it says at all. What it means that instead of tagging, one can look for a source instead. Which is fine if one encounters an uncited statement in an article, but is useless when one has an editor adding such unsourced statements by the dozens every day. Please see WP:V and WP:BLP and read it completely, not just the bits that may seem to support your position at first glance. Fram (talk) 16:04, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The errors I make is with the original article. The men-women error I would have noticed at some point. But I never made errors with the issue you are raising. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 16:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

[edit]
  • There is no formal requirement that everything is sourced. The minimum requirement for BLPs is one reliable source about the subject. However...
  • Wikipedia and Wikidata are not reliable sources.
  • Adding info which you haven't checked in reliable sources is a bad idea and leads to errors.
  • Adding sources which you haven't checked (and which in some cases don't even mention the subject) is a serious problem, as it gives a false impression of the article being sourced and you using reliable sources when this is (in those cases) not true.
  • When you add things in categories, navigational templates, infoboxes, ... it should also be included in the body of the article. The actual article is where all information should be contained, the other areas are derived from it.
  • You should almost never remove tags from articles without addressing the issues raised. If a statement gets a fact tag, either leave the tag where it is or source the statement. If an article gets tagged as "needs more sources" or something similar, either leave the tag or add more reliable sources.
  • Check for duplicates before creating articles. Too many of your article creations are about subjects we already have an article on.
  • Check your creations more thoroughly. Normally, a typo or error occurs once. With your template based semi-automated article creation, an error can reappear over many articles.
  • Make sure that you only create articles for notable subjects. Looking for reliable, indepth sources about the subject (not just some database entry which is evidence of competing but little more) will increase the likelihood of writing solely about notable subjects, increase the reliability of your articles, and increase the usefulness of the articles for our readers (what you did with the Dutch water polo players seems like good examples of this approach)
  • An article should be a basic summary of the major aspects of someone's career (and life if possible). Creating one-fact articles gives the readers severely incomplete and sometimes slanted information (the one fact you give in articles often isn't the most important fact of the career). This issue goes hand in hand with the previous one of course.

If you can take these things into account wherever possible, we will end up with much better articles, fewer AfDs, less errors, and less acrimonious discussions. Fram (talk) 08:31, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As an example of the final point above, consider 2015 Women's LEN Super Cup. The article you created was useful for you, as a list of players with some redlinks to create. But for a reader, it was frustratingly incomplete. It didn't note when and where it was played, or who won and by what score. Having the list of players is a bonus, but not the essence of that article. Please, when you create articles, think about the readers and about what is the essential information for them. Fram (talk) 09:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Fram: As for all the players at water polo club teams, there are in (almost) all places no references given. That is the issue you raised yourself before. Because of that I started creating the squads in the major European Leagues. (LEN Super Cup, Women's LEN Super Cup, LEN Champions League, LEN Euro League Women and LEN Euro Cup). I finished creating the squads for the 2016-17 season back to 2014. Tournament with larger squads I created seperate pages, like 2016–17 LEN Champions League squads. For other, like the 2015 Women's LEN Super Cup you're mentioning, that is not necassary. Note that the pages are not created for the creation of the players, as most of them doesn't meet WP:GNG. In my opion it's better to start a page with usefull information instead of having a red link. People are also stimulated to start editing the page, like already happened at 2015 Women's LEN Super Cup, and pages are linked to foreign wiki pages. Otherwise they should be moved to 2015 Women's LEN Super Cup squads. It tooks me many hours to create these pages. But as you event can't say a positive thing about these kind of information on wikipedia , and even saying stop creating them (while you were also bothered about missing references for this kind of information), I stop creating squads for the older editions. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 10:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't understand your reply here. I am not saying "don't create squads pages" or anything similar. You only address tangential points though and fail to discuss the essence, namely that you create pages with "many hours work" to add the squads, but can't be bothered to work ten minutes to add the essential information about the subject. Do you really think people going to the 2015 LEN Super Cup page will want to now which players are 188cm or 185cm, but don't care about which team actually won? "pages are linked to foreign wiki pages." is not an excuse, most people come here because they can understand English and not e.g. Greek (and 2015 Women's LEN Super Cup has no interwikilinks anyway). "People are also stimulated to start editing the page". Frustrated, not stimulated. Fram (talk) 10:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Serbia vs. Yugoslavia

[edit]

Didn't you wonder whether these two were the same?[10] Especially considering the fact that you claim that Miloš Marković (Serbian water polo) competed for Serbia at the 1972 and 1976 Olympics, at a time when Serbia wasn't an independent country and didn't compete as one at the Games: players from Serbia competed for Yugoslavia instead... The one source in your article correctly identifies him as having played for Yugoslavia, not Serbia. Fram (talk) 13:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.. yes I see. I thought in 2000 he would have been retired, but it's also an award for his whole career. Yes, I think they might be the same. Will change it. Thanks for noticing :) Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 13:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I first removed a section from 2020 Summer Olympics opening ceremony as being written in a POV style. Upon further investigation, it turns out that you copied the text nearly literally from [11] (or from another source which had the same text). This is a clear copyright violation. Fram (talk) 10:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for placing it on my talk page, while having said it already somewhere else and anouncing to place it on my talk page. :) Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 10:44, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Helping banned users?

[edit]

[12] Not only is every editor free to remove posts from his talk page, even from editors in good standing; but that message was posted by a sockpuppet of an indefinitely banned user (the sockpuppet has been confirmed and blocked by other admins). Readding that section was proxying. You are rapidly approaching a WP:ANI discussion about your actions if you continue like this. Fram (talk) 10:46, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sander.v.Ginkel/Fram&oldid=752632909"