User talk:Pigsonthewing/Archive 48

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

→

Archive 55

Wikidata weekly summary #96

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

• Discussions
  • Discussion over the naming of people
  • Discussion over population
  • Successful RfA: Sjoerddebruin
• Events/Blogs/Press
  • See the office hours logs at meta
• Other Noteworthy Stuff
  • See the FOSDEM slides
  • Thiemo joins the Wikidata development team
• Development
  • More work on badges by Bene*
  • Lots of Lua improvements by hoo (separate announcement with details soon)
  • Created backend Time parsers (yet another necessary step towards doing more in the backend instead of in Java Script in the frontend)
  • Automatic builds created, tested and deployed to beta labs every day!
  • Investigate Elastic Search as possible backend for queries
  • Made Wikibase Query work with our new component structure
• Monthly Tasks
  • Fix a format or content violation for the belongs to jurisdiction (P1001) property
  • Hack on one of these.
  • Help develop the next summary here!
  • Contribute to a Showcase item

Read the full report · Unsubscribe · John F. Lewis 22:37, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Personal Acquaintances: you are confirmed!

Hello Pigsonthewing, You are now confirmed! Welcome!

• You can add this box to your userpage: {{User:Romaine/Persönliche Bekanntschaften/box}} This works on de-wiki, en-wiki, fr-wiki, nl-wiki, Commons, Meta, Wikidata, WMBE-wiki, WMNL-wiki and can be requested on other wiki's.
• At the moment the list of English participants is on User:Romaine/Persönliche Bekanntschaften.
  • To stay informed, add this page to your watchlist.
• For a complete overview of all participants, see here.
• You can confirm others at: de:Wikipedia:Persönliche Bekanntschaften/neue Anfragen.

Romaine (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Style guidelines for disambiguation hatnotes

Hi there,

Thank you for expanding the Film Programme redirect into a full article in its own right.

I notice that you included a disambiguation ("dab") hatnote at the start, which was useful, but please note that- to the best of my knowledge- such dab lines should follow similar rules to the full disambiguation page style, i.e. only link variants of- or items likely to be confused with- the "The Film Programme" itself and not (e.g) Claudia Winkelman, since that name doesn't require disambiguation there.

Hope this explains things. All the best, Ubcule (talk) 17:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Enough of this nonsense

You have been here more than long enough to know not to create them (Csaba Sógor the latest), please can you add some sources? GiantSnowman 19:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC) (watching) So you say? I added one to the one already there. Don't you think you confused source and inline citation? For all members of the European Parliament, there's an entry. - Please, if you catch an article I wrote with edit summary "start", - give me some time for sourcing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC) (talk page stalker) See also WP:DONOTDEMOLISH. Montanabw(talk) 21:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC) Again, creating unreferenced articles about living people is not on - Franck Proust and María Muñiz de Urquiza the latest. If I see it again I will have to block you for violating WP:BLP. It's not hard to add one quick reference while you build an article, is it? There's really no excuse. GiantSnowman 19:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC) You won't have to do anything of the kind. Your alternative is to not be a dick, read the sensible replies given to you above, and wait for work on those short stubs to progress (as indeed it has in each of those you cite). Meanwhile, do please feel free to point out any defamatory or otherwise harmful (to the subject or the project) content in those stubs. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC) BLP clearly says "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" - the fact the content is not "defamatory or otherwise harmful" is irrelevant. "John Smith has a massive penis" is not necessarily defamatory or harmful, would you allow that to remain? Sourcing new articles is both very important and very easy, and the fact you fail to recognise or accept either of those two facts is highly concerning. GiantSnowman 13:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC) (still watching) The key word in what you quote is "contentious". Your failure to see that is discerning, so is your choice of example. Wikipedia has problems. A stub being without a reference for a short while is not one of the serious ones, if you ask me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC) Because I actually care about BLP I view all unsourced material as contentious. I wonder how many seconds it took to make this edit, and I again question why that could not be done before clicking 'save' for the first time. GiantSnowman 13:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC) I have no time to answer because I left a new article without inline citations. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC) C'mon, Gerda, Giant Snowman isn't confusing inline citations with sources. The articles he pointed out had zero sources, not even a bare url external link, and remained so for hours after creation, e.g. [1], [2], [3], and no doubt many more. His initial request was entirely reasonable. Voceditenore (talk) 15:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC) I didn't say he was confusing anything. I said that my priority was sourcing. I have almost no time today, please understand, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC) Yes you did. When Giant Snowman first mentioned this here, your reply was "So you say? I added one to the one already there. Don't you think you confused source and inline citation?". In fact, when he posted here, that article had zero sources despite the fact that it asserted that the subject was a pastor in the Reformed Church in Romania (information pulled out of nowhere?) and remained so until another editor finally added one. The same applies to the other examples. I repeat, Giant Snowman's request was perfectly reasonable. I too consider rapidly creating a series of unsourced stubs about living people with zero sources and expecting someone else to provide them to be not only bad practice, but also a completely unnecessary violation of our policy on BLPs. Voceditenore (talk) 16:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC) The assertion about the reformed church was not added by me. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC) Such irrelevant discussion of pudenda is not welcome here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC) That's exactly my point - where is this information coming from? If you are so pushed for time that you cannot provide even a basic reference then do not create the article. If this continues then the matter will be raised elsewhere. GiantSnowman 17:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC) Actually, I've just seen that Salvatore Caronna was created this morning. The sole reference is so poor that it constitutes no-sourcing at all. I will be taking this matter to ANI. GiantSnowman 17:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC) There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. GiantSnowman 17:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC) Where your hysterical attempt to generate drahma (a topic ban, indeed!) has been rebuffed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC) My Two Cents: Andy, you need to either (a) hang a { { construction } } template on the top if you're coming back to source out the microstubs you are churning out; or (b) take another 30 seconds to add one source. That's really pretty much a mandatory minimum for BLP, is it not? Hell, it's a minimum for anything at WP these days. Don't get your backhair up, just do what we all know needs to be done for each and every new start. Carrite (talk) 05:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC) Such a template would discourage collaborative editing, which is what neither I nor Wikipedia are about. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC)