Jump to content

User talk:Zazpot

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

Barnstar

[edit]
The Original Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.
[edit]
Please accept this internet cookie for being a brilliant human being and offering lots of support for those learning Wikipedia and Wikidata skills! RollerLibrarian (talk) 15:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@RollerLibrarian: Thanks for being a brilliant host! zazpot (talk) 15:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

[edit]
Teahouse logo

Hi Zazpot! You created a thread called Need counter-vandalism assistance at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Delivered by Tigraan-testbot, an automated account. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Tigraan-testbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page.
This functionality is currently being tested. If you received this notification by error, please notify the bot's maintainer.

Facto Post – Issue 2 – 13 July 2017

[edit]
Facto Post – Issue 2 – 13 July 2017

Editorial: Core models and topics

[edit]

Wikimedians interest themselves in everything under the sun — and then some. Discussion on "core topics" may, oddly, be a fringe activity, and was popular here a decade ago.

The situation on Wikidata today does resemble the halcyon days of 2006 of the English Wikipedia. The growth is there, and the reliability and stylistic issues are not yet pressing in on the project. Its Berlin conference at the end of October will have five years of achievement to celebrate. Think Wikimania Frankfurt 2005.

Progress must be made, however, on referencing "core facts". This has two parts: replacing "imported from Wikipedia" in referencing by external authorities; and picking out statements, such as dates and family relationships, that must not only be reliable but be seen to be reliable.

In addition, there are many properties on Wikidata lacking a clear data model. An emerging consensus may push to the front key sourcing and biomedical properties as requiring urgent attention. Wikidata's "manual of style" is currently distributed over thousands of discussions. To make it coalesce, work on such a core is needed.

[edit]


Editor Charles Matthews. Please leave feedback for him

If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

bare refs

[edit]

Instead of inserting the bare references tag, why not just use the ReFill tool or learn how to do a full ref? it's easy. I made a tutorial in image form if you're interested.--Jennica / talk 04:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jennica: thanks for your message! ReFill is clearly intended as a labour-saving device, but my personal experience has been that it is not sufficiently reliable to be worth using. It seems to take a similar amount of time and effort for me to use ReFill as it does for me to manually make a full ref, and I have higher confidence in the latter. But making a full ref still takes me an age, and other than the satisfaction of adding durable verifiability to Wikipedia, I do not enjoy it.
Editing Wikipedia is WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, so if it feels unenjoyable, then editors are liable to reduce or cease contributing. I am not immune to this effect. But I also think that verifiability is crucial, so I will not forego refs.
My solution is simple: sometimes, instead of doing something I do not enjoy, I delegate it (which is fine, because there is WP:NORUSH). That is, instead of only ever adding full refs, I sometimes add bare refs and tag them for cleanup by those who would enjoy turning them into full refs. (Based on their edit histories, I believe there to be several such editors on the English Wikipedia, and some of them are very active.) This way, I get to make edits I enjoy, others get to make edits they enjoy, and Wikipedia articles gain verifiability. Triple win! zazpot (talk) 11:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because of you I am a staunch reFill convert. Now, how to write a script so a.m. and p.m. reign supreme...? kencf0618 (talk)
If you still refuse to add full refs or use refill, there is still no need to add a bare url banner for the one bare link you add. People will clean up after you on the heavily edited pages, but are less likely to be cleaned instantly on those that aren't. Consider using the inline template, or better yet, with all due respect, just fill them in or use the dang tool—the amount of time it takes you to paste the bare url template in a second edit, you would've been done filling in the citation by then! Also, I don't think anyone enjoys filling in references, it is just a task that must be done (perhaps to satisfy an editor's "OCD") to prevent link rot, but the time of those editors' could be put to much better use if the problem did not exist, and the problem definitely should not be exacerbated needlessly by an experienced content editor. Thanks for your consideration, Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 22:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Vaselineeeeeeee:, I just tried reFill again, and this time it didn't work for me at all. Literally. It seems to rely on JavaScript, which I don't use. (The Visual Editor doesn't work for me either, for the same reason.)
As for the template, I used to use {{bareurls|section}} in the relevant section. However, MarnetteD requested that I use {{bareurls}} instead, so that is what I have been doing recently. Now you are asking me not to do that.
I don't much mind which template I use to tag an article as having bare URLs, but I'm not usually content to leave such articles untagged as that truly could lead to link rot. So, I would be grateful if both you and MarnetteD will chime in here in order that we may find a mutually acceptable solution.
MarnetteD: would Vaselineeeeeeee's suggestion of {{Bare URL inline}} be acceptable to you? If not, then Vaselineeeeeeee: can you think of a better suggestion?
Thanks, Zazpot (talk) 23:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No please do not use the inline one. It is difficult to find even in small articles and a real bear to locate in big ones. Also it does not allow access to refill the way the regular template does. It does not matter what section or sentence has a bare url. Placing the simple template at the top of the article gives those of us who work on them a quick and simple start on putting bare refs into cite templates. Everything else slows that work down. Also, I can't tell you how many times I've seen the section or the inline template used on articles that have bare urls in other parts of the article as well. The basic one at the top of the page lets us get all of them at the same time. For years now (even going back to before I started working on them) there is a small group of editors who fix bare urls on a daily basis so the template rarely stays on the article for more than a day. One exception is when there are dozens or hundreds of bare urls in an article. Refill (and the late lamented reflinks) stop after a certain point so, in that situation, I have to format them in sections. Even then it usually doesn't take more than a few days. Z I don't know why refill isn't working for you but if it starts and then just stays on the "Pending - waiting for available worker page" just hit ctrl-F5 at the same time and that usually gets it going. Also, if an article has only one or two bare urls Citer is always available. Now it only works on one ref at a time so I wouldn't ask anyone to use it on an article with numerous bare urls. As to whether it is enjoyable or not that is up to the tastes of each individual editor. There are time I enjoy the task and times that I dread it. If an article with a dozen or more PDFs as refs they have to be done manually one at a time and that can be a pain in the patoot; Regards to all. MarnetteD|Talk 00:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MarnetteD, that's a good point about using the banner. I bet it's more enjoyable when refill fixes 10+ links, but when it's just one link, it's like come on, man. Zazpot, I think MarnetteD gave you some good suggestions there, hopefully they work for you. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 00:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You got that right V. A year or so ago someone but over 20 inline tags on one article. After I recovered from my nervous breakdown :-P I got to work but it most definitely was NOT fun :-) MarnetteD|Talk 00:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Vaselineeeeeeee, MarnetteD, thank you both.
It seems there is consensus now against using the section or inline variants of the template. So, on occasions when I use a template, I will continue to use {{bareurls}}.
Re: tools, as I say, unfortunately reFill really does not work for me (even with Ctrl-F5), but I am grateful that there are several editors (including MarnetteD) who make great use of it.
MarnetteD: thanks for suggesting Citer. I think I tried it previously, but ultimately found it hit-and-miss so stopped using it. I am happy to give it another go. If it works well for me, great.
Also, I understand your frustration with PDFs. With those, I normally aim to either find an HTML alternative (e.g. with scientific papers) or else to fill the references manually.
Thanks again to both of you for following up, Zazpot (talk) 00:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Glad I could help. Reflinks could format many PDFs which is one of the reasons I miss it. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 01:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata is a language

[edit]

Last month I gave a talk at the WMUK AGM about understanding Wikidata as a human language and I thought you might be interested in this topic. The slides are available at c:File:Wikidata is a language.pdf. Deryck C. 21:50, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Join the Months of African Cinema Global Contest!

[edit]

Greetings!

The AfroCine Project invites you to join us again this October and November, the two months which are dedicated to improving content about the cinema of Africa, the Caribbean, and the diaspora.

Join us in this exciting venture, by helping to create or expand contents in Wikimedia projects which are connected to this scope. Kindly list your username under the participants section to indicate your interest in participating in this contest.

We would be awarding prizes to different categories of winners:

  • Overall winner
    • 1st - $500
    • 2nd - $200
    • 3rd - $100
  • Diversity winner - $100
  • Gender-gap fillers - $100
  • Language Winners - up to $100*

We would be adding additional categories as the contest progresses, along with local prizes from affiliates in your countries. For further information about the contest, the prizes and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. Looking forward to your participation.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 19:22, 22nd September 2020 (UTC)

Ýou can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

Welcome to the Months of African Cinema Global Contest!

[edit]

Greetings!

The AfroCine Project core team is happy to inform you that the Months of African Cinema Contest is happening again this year in October and November. We invite Wikipedians all over the world to join in improving content related to African cinema on Wikipedia!

Please list your username under the participants’ section of the contest page to indicate your interest in participating in this contest. The term "African" in the context of this contest, includes people of African descent from all over the world, which includes the diaspora and the Caribbean.

The following prizes would be recognized at the end of the contest:

  • Overall winner
    • 1st - $500
    • 2nd - $200
    • 3rd - $100
  • Diversity winner - $100
  • Gender-gap fillers - $100
  • Language Winners - up to $100*

Also look out for local prizes from affiliates in your countries or communities! For further information about the contest, the prizes and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. We look forward to your participation.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 23:20, 30th September 2021 (UTC)

Ýou can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

Wikidata weekly summary #608

[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #609

[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #610

[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #612

[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #634

[edit]

Wikidata Weekly Summary #647

[edit]

<languages/>

Wikidata weekly summary #648

[edit]

<languages/>

Wikidata weekly summary #649

[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #650

[edit]

Invitation to participate in a research

[edit]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #551

[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #652

[edit]