User talk:Idell/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Why revert my edits on the Brooklyn Nets page
Hi Idell. I was just wondering why you deleted my edits to the Brooklyn Nets page, adding mention of Jason Kidd in the opening paragraphs? All the other NBA pages mention their important players in the heading section. Don't really understand why you reverted that. Shivj80 (talk) 01:43, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Shivj80: You have not made any edits to Brooklyn Nets, unless you edited using this New York, United States-based IP 66.65.97.10. Idell (talk) 07:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Shivj80: Because the edit made it sound like the victories were that one person's achievement. If reliable sources which support that opinion were cited, it would be all right. Idell (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Idell: Sorry but that's being far too pedantic. Other NBA Wikipedia pages establish a clear precedent that it's okay to highlight the key players in the way that I did. For example, the Knicks page says that "the playoff-level Knicks of the 1990s were led by future Hall of Fame center Patrick Ewing." My added sentence to the Nets page was almost identical to this sentence. The Bulls page says that "all six of their championship teams were led by Hall of Famers Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen, and coach Phil Jackson." None of these sentences are cited, because it's simply not necessary. Shivj80 (talk) 20:54, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
February 2021
Hi Idell, you removed my contribution to ACCA page and stated " Information icon Hello, I'm Idell. I wanted to let you know that some of your recent contributions to Association of Chartered Certified Accountants have been reverted or removed because they seem to be defamatory or libellous. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Idell (talk) 13:53, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
I am not sure if they are defamatory or libellous, howEver, what I wrote is based on facts (I provided evidence) and if facts are defamatory or libellous, then these facts need to be changed rather then asking me to to keep quite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.235.57 (talk) 19:45, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
I apologize for incorrectly stating you were OUTING an editor, thats what I get for editing half asleep...
Edit on the Cow Protection Movement Page.
Moved to Talk:Cow protection movementCow Protection is a very contentious matter in India. And is currently being used to suppress the Beef consuming Minorities in India; especially Muslims. https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/02/19/india-vigilante-cow-protection-groups-attack-minorities
The Edit removing spurious claims about the restrictions on beef consumption in Islam is necessary in order to keep information accurate & to inform people of the orthodox & majority opinion that is held by most Muslim populations including those in India. it's ture that Islam doesn't obligate Muslims to consume beef or Meat but it places no restrictions on Beef consumption either; unlike the claims in the citations. https://islamqa.info/en/answers/2521/ruling-on-not-eating-meat-or-dairy-products-veganism
As for verse 2:68 of the Quran; then it is a well known story of the Prophet Moses. It has nothing to do with Cow Slaughter for Meat consumption. Since you seem to know Arabic; For more information Read the verses 67-73 of Surah Al Baqarah & their explanation (Tafsir).
Wikipedia is a source of information to many people including Indians. However such misinformation about cow slaughter may then be used to create actual laws discriminating against Muslims as is currently happening in India.
I can say with complete confidence (100%); That my edit is correct & the information before the editing was wrong.
by Oneuseeditor.
21 February 2021, at 21:36 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oneuseeditor (talk • contribs) 21:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks
Thankyou so much Idell, you did not let my hard work to be waste and recreate the page of Zameen (novel). Thankyou so much once again❤ 111.88.20.160 (talk) 16:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
The Signpost: 28 February 2021
- News and notes: Maher stepping down
- Disinformation report: A "billionaire battle" on Wikipedia: Sex, lies, and video
- In the media: Corporate influence at OSM, Fox watching the hen house
- News from the WMF: Who tells your story on Wikipedia
- Featured content: A Love of Knowledge, for Valentine's Day
- Traffic report: Does it almost feel like you've been here before?
- Gallery: What is Black history and culture?
DYK nomination of Zameen (novel)
Hello! Your submission of Zameen (novel) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Gazal world (talk) 09:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 16
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Zameen (novel), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Government College University.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
DS Alert
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 10:47, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Don't censor....
The word "India" on Ghalib. 2401:4900:53D7:5412:FE2C:DEAB:2921:4CEF (talk) 10:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
- My intention was just to fix the lead sentence structure and copyedit but things got messed up with that mass revert. Chill out. And don't mass revert mine or anyone else's undoubtedly good edits, make the effort of changing the particular thing that hurts your sentiments. Idell (talk) 11:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Superfluous category creations
We don't create categories about empires unless their culture was totally alien to the present day culture. Can you describe your creations of [1][2][3][4] and many other superfluous categories before I tag them for speedy deletion? Your best bet would be to self-request deletion. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 11:02, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Masjid al-Haram
A tag has been placed on Category:Masjid al-Haram requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 14:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
The Signpost: 28 March 2021
- News and notes: A future with a for-profit subsidiary?
- Gallery: Wiki Loves Monuments
- In the media: Wikimedia LLC and disinformation in Japan
- News from the WMF: Project Rewrite: Tell the missing stories of women on Wikipedia and beyond
- Recent research: 10%-30% of Wikipedia’s contributors have subject-matter expertise
- From the archives: Google isn't responsible for Wikipedia's mistakes
- Obituary: Yoninah
- From the editor: What else can we say?
- Arbitration report: Open letter to the Board of Trustees
- Traffic report: Wanda, Meghan, Liz, Phil and Zack
The Signpost: 25 April 2021
- From the editor: A change is gonna come
- Disinformation report: Paid editing by a former head of state's business enterprise
- In the media: Fernando, governance, and rugby
- Opinion: The (Universal) Code of Conduct
- Op-Ed: A Little Fun Goes A Long Way
- Changing the world: The reach of protest images on Wikipedia
- Recent research: Quality of aquatic and anatomical articles
- Traffic report: The verdict is guilty, guilty, guilty
- News from Wiki Education: Encouraging professional physicists to engage in outreach on Wikipedia
The Signpost: 25 April 2021
- From the editor: A change is gonna come
- Disinformation report: Paid editing by a former head of state's business enterprise
- In the media: Fernando, governance, and rugby
- Opinion: The (Universal) Code of Conduct
- Op-Ed: A Little Fun Goes A Long Way
- Changing the world: The reach of protest images on Wikipedia
- Recent research: Quality of aquatic and anatomical articles
- Traffic report: The verdict is guilty, guilty, guilty
- News from Wiki Education: Encouraging professional physicists to engage in outreach on Wikipedia
Nastaliq
Hey Idell. The size looks just fine from the smartphone browser, although rendered with the wrong font, however on my computer from different browsers, it was very small, though with a correct Nastaliq font. That's why I increased the size on Urdu alphabet. --Mahmudmasri (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
- Do you mean to say that usually Nastaliq text renders as the right size and font on your devices but that particular table had some problem?
- If it, as it seems, is not an exceptional case then 250% is excessive. On some web browsers Nastaliq text appears to a little bit small compared to mobile displays. But fixing that one issues messes up the text for every other device. Idell (talk) 17:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
- I meant what I really wrote: the smartphone doesn't have Nastaliq fonts, so it renders the Urdu texts in a Naskh font which looks visible on smaller sizes. On the other hand, on the desktop, where a correct Nastaliq font renders the Urdu texts, it appears small and particularly pretty small when comparing similar characters, as the case of that table. By the way, articles like Yiddish orthography render some Hebrew characters large enough to be visibly clear for comparison. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 20:05, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
- Generally the situation is the somewhat different than what you have described. Yes, a lot of desktop browsers are unable to display the right text size (that is why the font size is already set to 110% [5]), so it is legible. Good quality smartphones and browsers display the text in Nastaliq font, not Naskh, and at the perfect size (so much that even that 110% is unnecessary). Enlarging the text excessively is a trade-off not worth it and doesn't solve the underlying issue of font support on devices. It would be much better if the templates were fixed for rendering and font support issues. For example, this stale discussion could be revived. If you still want to increase the font size on Urdu alphabet, make it 200%. Idell (talk) 09:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
DYK for Zameen (novel)
On 28 April 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Zameen (novel), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Urdu novel Zameen provides a woman-centric account of Pakistan's independence? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Zameen (novel). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Zameen (novel)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Speedway
OK, I admittedly jumped the gun on placing Speedway LLC in the past tense, but there was no reason to revert the rest of the edits. 7-Eleven DID close on the deal yesterday and it was properly cited. Maybe check and READ the sources before you decide to revert the edits to a page. Thanks! Jgera5 (talk) 11:11, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
at source code page
What do you mean by Superficial reference? kindly explain! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sehga (talk • contribs) 14:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
are you understood my last send text in the English language? if yes then a reply must. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sehga (talk • contribs) 14:58, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- It means that the reference ([1]) you added served little to no purpose in verifying the phrase that preceded it, which simply read as "In computing, source code". Multiple definitions of "source code" are already available and backed by relevant citations in the section Definitions. Idell (talk) 15:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
That is already an available link: https://web.archive.org/web/20150223025837/http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/ctut.pdf
There is a big difference in source code 'or' programming in C Tutorial. Wikipedia is not to explain computer languages Tutorials. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sehga (talk • contribs) 16:02, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- There are four references in the Definitions section: [2][3][4][5]. Idell (talk) 17:37, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Then what is wrong with this reference ([6])? You don't need to verifying stuff by your side. The Wikipedia administrator verifying the stuff given by the voluntaries. it's not your duty! (Sehga (talk) 02:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC))
- The definitions including the first sentence are already verifiable. You and I both do not need to verify anything as of right now.
Idell (talk) 07:30, 26 May 2021 (UTC)Another common cause of citation overkill is simply that people want the source they've seen to be included in the article too, so they just tack it onto the end of existing content without making an effort to actually add any new content.
stop sending froggy statements again and again. Citation had helpful as per Wikipedia guidelines, editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference. consensus for the change. The arbitration committee ruled in 2006: (Sehga (talk) 07:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC))
- What was "ruled in 2006" talks only about the style of citation, etc., per our Manual of Style. Explain why the source you are insisting on is necessary to be cited on Source code if the five sentences there are already backed by four different sources and when you are not contributing anything novel to the article. You talk about Wikipedia guidelines but do not follow them. In case you were not aware of this:
Citations are often omitted from the lead section of an article, insofar as the lead summarizes information for which sources are given later in the article.
Examples of ... citation overkill include: ...
• Citations which are added only to support their own existence as citations, rather than to actually support any substantive content about the topic. For instance, a citation to The New York Times might be used solely to support a statement that "This topic was covered by The New York Times", instead of to support any actual content about the topic verified by that New York Times citation.
References
- ^ "Source Code and Object Code". UW Research. Retrieved 2021-05-25.
- ^ The Linux Information Project. "Source Code Definition" Archived 3 October 2017 at the Wayback Machine.
- ^ SCAM Working Conference Archived 29 September 2017 at the Wayback Machine, 2001–2010.
- ^ Why Source Code Analysis and Manipulation Will Always Be Important by Mark Harman, 10th IEEE International Working Conference on Source Code Analysis and Manipulation (SCAM 2010). Timișoara, Romania, 12–13 September 2010.
- ^ "gnu.org". www.gnu.org. Archived from the original on 3 July 2017. Retrieved 12 December 2015.
- ^ "Source Code and Object Code". UW Research. Retrieved 2021-05-25.
Editing news 2021 #2
Read this in another language • Subscription list for this newsletter
Earlier this year, the Editing team ran a large study of the Reply Tool. The main goal was to find out whether the Reply Tool helped newer editors communicate on wiki. The second goal was to see whether the comments that newer editors made using the tool needed to be reverted more frequently than comments newer editors made with the existing wikitext page editor.
The key results were:
- Newer editors who had automatic ("default on") access to the Reply tool were more likely to post a comment on a talk page.
- The comments that newer editors made with the Reply Tool were also less likely to be reverted than the comments that newer editors made with page editing.
These results give the Editing team confidence that the tool is helpful.
Looking ahead
The team is planning to make the Reply tool available to everyone as an opt-out preference in the coming months. This has already happened at the Arabic, Czech, and Hungarian Wikipedias.
The next step is to resolve a technical challenge. Then, they will deploy the Reply tool first to the Wikipedias that participated in the study. After that, they will deploy it, in stages, to the other Wikipedias and all WMF-hosted wikis.
You can turn on "Discussion Tools" in Beta Features now. After you get the Reply tool, you can change your preferences at any time in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion.
00:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)