This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Malik Shabazz (talk | contribs) at 17:59, 24 July 2016 (→POV accusations: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 17:59, 24 July 2016 by Malik Shabazz (talk | contribs) (→POV accusations: reply)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) |
|
 Search the Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
John Brown link to 2nd Cavalry Regiment
Could the link be to "2nd", and then that redirect to "5th"? ZackTheCardshark (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- Hi ZackTheCardshark. I think the link as it is is correct. In Brown's time, it was called the 2nd U.S. Cavalry Regiment, which is what our article about Brown's raid calls it. The Misplaced Pages article is located at the regiment's modern name, 5th Cavalry Regiment. So we have a piped link that displays as "2nd U.S. Cavalry Regiment" but sends readers to the "5th Cavalry Regiment" article, like so: ], which displays as 2nd U.S. Cavalry Regiment. Are you suggesting something different? — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 18:03, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Malik, I'm thinking of making the link actually 2nd U.S. Cavalry Regiment—but then set that page to redirect to 5th Cavalry Regiment. So then, clicking that link would get to the same page (5th Cavalry Regiment), but with the message "Redirected from 2nd U.S. Cavalry Regiment." Does that make sense? ZackTheCardshark (talk) 18:38, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- It definitely makes sense in the historical context, but by the principle of least astonishment, that redirect should probably go to 2nd Cavalry Regiment (United States) or 2nd Cavalry.
— Malik Shabazz /Stalk 18:59, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- It definitely makes sense in the historical context, but by the principle of least astonishment, that redirect should probably go to 2nd Cavalry Regiment (United States) or 2nd Cavalry.
- I see, this is the definition of a can of worms. Better leave it as it is. Thanks! ZackTheCardshark (talk) 14:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Contests
User:Dr. Blofeld has created Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Africa/Contests. The idea is to run a series of contests/editathons focusing on each region of Africa. He has spoken to Wikimedia about it and $1000-1500 is possible for prize money. As someone who has previously expressed interest in African topics, would you be interested in contributing to one or assisting draw up core article/missing article lists? He says he's thinking of North Africa for an inaugural one in October. If interested please sign up in the participants section of the Contest page, thanks.♦ --Ser Amantio di NicolaoLo dicono a Signa. 01:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for the notification, Ser Amantio di Nicolao. I'm not sure how much direct help I can be, my knowledge being mostly limited to the United States and my ignorance being global, but I'd like to assist any way I can. It looks like you've already notified the relevant WikiProjects. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 02:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Any time - every little bit helps. Happy editing! --Ser Amantio di NicolaoLo dicono a Signa. 05:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
The Signpost: 21 July 2016
- Discussion report: Busy month for discussions
- Featured content: A wide variety from the best
- Traffic report: Sports and esports
- Arbitration report: Script writers appointed for clerks
- Recent research: Using deep learning to predict article quality
POV accusations
Malik, how are you? Having heard a few lectures lately about Malcolm X, I had to think of you. :)
I saw you reverted this edit with the edit summary "Rv POV pushing". I really think you are being too harsh on him (her). First of all, because there really isn't much difference between "Israel built a wall" or "Israel unilaterally built a wall". Both say that Israel built a wall alone. If anything, the word "unilaterally" adds a stress that might be perceived as pushing some POV. The word is not taken from some source, in this specific sentence, so there really is no imperative that it stay. Secondly, because we really should assume good faith on Misplaced Pages. Especially from an editor who past the 500/30 editing restriction. I did notice that they edit much in the IP-conflict area, but not exclusively, so let's be nice to this guy, okay? Debresser (talk) 11:14, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Debresser. I started off assuming good faith about Kamel Tebaast, but when they announced their intention to push a POV in their first edit related to Israeli West Bank barrier, my assumption of good faith went out the window. — MShabazz /Stalk 12:53, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- He stated a certain point of view, which is a legitimate and sourced point of view in this issue. The way I read his post, he didn't say he was going to make his agenda POV pushing. At most he said he will defend the legitimacy of his POV. Which is allowed. I think he still is entitled, as all editors, to a good faith assumption. Especially since I see he makes good edits, and engages in discussion.
- Please also notice that several editors agree with his point of view at Talk:Israeli_West_Bank_barrier#Lede_edits. That shows that his is not some extreme POV he alone is pushing, rather it is a legitimate concern, shared by 4 editors already. Debresser (talk) 13:12, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'm really not interested in debating, Debresser. My opinion is shaded by the fact that seconds after Kamel Tebaast posted their screed on the talk page, they started POV pushing, changing a link to an article into a link to a disambiguation page. I'm going to join the discussion at Talk:Israeli West Bank barrier. Sincere thanks for the reminder that I should try harder to assume good faith. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 17:59, 24 July 2016 (UTC)