User talk:Zad68/Archive 2014 May
This is an archive of past discussions about User:Zad68. 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. |
The Signpost: 30 April 2014
- News and notes: WMF's draft annual plan turns indigestible as an FDC proposal
- Traffic report: Going to the Doggs
- Breaking: The Foundation's new executive director
- WikiProject report: Genetics
- Interview: Wikipedia in the Peabody Essex Museum
- Featured content: Browsing behaviours
- Recent research: Wikipedia predicts flu more accurately than Google
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "water fluoridation". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 06:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
The Signpost: 07 May 2014
- Traffic report: TMZedia
- WikiCup: 2014 WikiCup enters round three
- In the media: Google and the flu; Adrianne
- WikiProject report: Singing with Eurovision
- Featured content: Wikipedia at the Rijksmuseum
The Signpost: 14 May 2014
- Investigative report: Hong Kong's Wikimania 2013—failure to produce financial statement raises questions of probity
- WikiProject report: Relaxing in Puerto Rico
- Featured content: On the rocks
- Traffic report: Eurovision, Google Doodles, Mothers, and 5 May
- Technology report: Technology report needs editor, Media Viewer offers a new look
Notification of a June AfC BackLog Drive
Hello Zad68:
WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from June 1, 2014 to June 30, 2014.
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 1000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!
The Signpost: 21 May 2014
- News and notes: "Crisis" over Wikimedia Germany's palace revolution
- Featured content: Staggering number of featured articles
- Traffic report: Doodles' dawn
Removal of POV tag at Electronic cigarettes
Since when does WP:NPOVD demand consensus for such a tag? In fact it is rather clear, if you think about it, that if there is consensus about the tag, then the problem is already half resolved. There is active discussion on talk about this tag, and the problems are not limited to a single section of the article, thus an articlewide tag is what should be there. But as usual, those that are willing to edit-war, will get their will, i'm not one of those. Nb: Several editors have noted their view that the article is slanted, and they are just about as many as those who protest. --Kim D. Petersen 15:31, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- Perfect. That means that we have a healthy balance of editors from different viewpoints, and therefore the purpose of the tag is already fulfilled and therefore the tag is not needed. An article-wide tag is content like everything else in an article and consensus rules apply to whether it should be kept or not. Please see the advice I have left at the article Talk page.
Zad68
15:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)- No, actually it doesn't. Since several prople are unwilling to discuss at all. Combine this with them being willing to edit-war. Well ... --Kim D. Petersen 15:40, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- As a side-note: I really dislike using the POV tag myself... i've been editing several articles, where it has been used in the "badge of shame" fashion. I used the POV tag here, because the article became more and more systemically weighted towards a single reviews viewpoint, and every attempt at slowing down/discussing this, was ignored by some editors. --Kim D. Petersen 15:46, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- Agree with you there. I have never seen a productive use of the tag. Not saying it isn't possible, but I have never seen it. There are always pathways more productive.
Zad68
15:48, 27 May 2014 (UTC)- Since we've tried slowing the inclusions of the Grana2014 review down. A review that btw. even an editor on WP:MED considered as "use with care"[1]. And despite active discussions ongoing about the problematic nature of this, nothing slowed down (WP:DR fail)... then the POV tag was imho the way to go.
- Note that i'm not saying we shouldn't use Grana - it is a legitimate WP:MEDRS review and thus can, and probably should, be used. But not without considering the general weight given to the usages in other WP:MEDRS compliant reviews. --Kim D. Petersen 16:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- Pursue it at the article Talk page please.
Zad68
16:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- Pursue it at the article Talk page please.
- Agree with you there. I have never seen a productive use of the tag. Not saying it isn't possible, but I have never seen it. There are always pathways more productive.
Request for comment
Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)