Administrators using the mobile web interface can now access Special:Block directly from user pages. (T307341)
The IP Info feature has been deployed to all wikis as a Beta Feature. Any autoconfirmed user may enable the feature using the "IP info" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features. Autoconfirmed users will be able to access basic information about an IP address that includes the country and connection method. Those with advanced privileges (admin, bureaucrat, checkuser) will have access to extra information that includes the Internet Service Provider and more specific location.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
The article McLaren MCL35 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:McLaren MCL35 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AirshipJungleman29 -- AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:02, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed you removed a large part of part describing Quran desecrations in Denmark. You did that with the vague reference: "Source from Facebook". Can you elaborate on why you question the authenticity of the videos linked? I have seen Rasmus Paludan in person, and it is clearly him in the videos. The dates also corresponds to the dates Hard Line had scheduled protests at the time.
Do you think the videos are deep fakes? Or is there something else that makes you believe this did not happen?
@Tange: Hello Tange, thank you for your message. I am more than happy to elaborate. There is no suggestion in the edit summary (which is not vague) that I doubt the authenticity of the videos or the events they depict. However, Facebook is almost always an unacceptable source on Wikipedia – WP:RSPFB. The only situation in which it can be used is an uncontroversial self-description, which this is clearly not. Additionally, videos of burnings are primary sources, so citing them requires you to interpret the video and what claims can be made from it, which would be original research – WP:PRIMARY (Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.). In short, the authenticity of the videos is irrelevant to whether or not Facebook videos are an acceptable source for an encyclopaedia. They are not. If you want to discuss these events you will need to find a secondary source that makes the analysis rather than analysing it yourself. 5225C (talk • contributions) 23:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that burning of Qurans is controversial, and people disagree on whether it should happen or not.
But how is it controversial that Hardline *did* burn the Qurans? Who would disagree with that given the evidence? If you want to argue this is controversial, please elaborate on who would find it controversial. I have found no one who disagrees with the fact that it happened. You will have to find at least one person who claims it did not happen before you can call that claim controversial.
The reason we do not use WP:PRIMARY sources is because it is easy to misuse them: Any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources. But that is not the case here: There is no exceptional claim in stating the dates where Hardline burned Qurans.
On the contrary the information is covered by section 3 (WP:PRIMARY):
"A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source."
What I am doing is pretty much citing the discographies: What dates did Hardline burn Qurans.
I assume you speak Danish (which is hardly specialized knowledge) and thus can understand what is being said in the videos.
The only interpretation I can find in my text is "Quran burnings is a regular happening of the party Hard Line". If you want to change that into "the party Hard Line has burned Qurans on multiple occasions" it will be fine by me.
Apart from that I see no analyzing, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesizing in my text. If you still feel this, then please explain what in my text qualifies as that.
Also you removed all the referenced that were *not* from Facebook including DR.dk which is the Danish Broadcasting Corporation. Please explain why you removed those.
Tange, that edit will not stand: I counted 14 Facebook videos, sorry, 28 Facebook videos--how did you ever think that this would be acceptable? No: you cite a reliable source that verifies the claim, and not in a WP:SYNTHy way. Drmies (talk) 04:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are not addressing section 3 (WP:PRIMARY) and {WP:SOCIALMEDIA}. Please explain why you feel this does not fall under that.
If you feel this falls under WP:SYN please be explicit. I do not see that the edit: "combines material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source."
You are not addressing section 3 (WP:PRIMARY). Please explain why this does not fall under that.
You still need to answer:
Also you removed all the referenced that were *not* from Facebook including DR.dk which is the Danish Broadcasting Corporation. Please explain why you removed those.Tange (talk) 07:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are two references to DR.dk, mixed in amongst dozens from Facebook and the Swedish Democrats, neither of which is an acceptable source. You can't appeal to WP:PRIMARY when the primary source you are trying to use is explicitly and clearly labelled as unacceptable. This is a very, very simple matter: find a secondary source or leave the content out. 5225C (talk • contributions) 08:38, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have read your answer multiple times. I really cannot see you answering why you removed the DR.dk link. Can you please write a clearer answer?
The reason why Facebook is a questionable source is when there is a claim about something other than yourself. E.g. that the earth is flat. But Facebook is explicitly mentioned in WP:SOCIALMEDIA and the list of dates adheres to the 5 points:
Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they are published experts in the field, so long as:
the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
it does not involve claims about third parties;
it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and
the article is not based primarily on such sources.
This policy also applies to material published by the subject on social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, LinkedIn, Reddit, and Facebook.
Yes, quite easily. Point 5: the article is not based primarily on such sources. The content you are adding is entirely sourced to Facebook with the exception of a sole citation to DR.dk. I am quite happy for you to restore the content from DR.dk since that is the only reliable and acceptable source you have provided. I will again repeat: provide a reliable secondary source or do not include the content. 5225C (talk • contributions) 09:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article has 13 headings and 25 paragraphs. This change would add 1 paragragh under an existing heading. So no, the article is not primarily based on such sources. This single paragraph is.
Can you find source that supports that an article is a single paragraph on a Wikipedia page?
I understand you are OK with me adding back the DR.dk citation. This, however, does not answer why you removed it in the first place. This is the 4th time I ask you to explain this. So as you can imagine I am puzzled - it almost seems as if you do not want to answer that. Tange (talk) 13:02, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tange, I have answered all your questions and am not interested in repeating any of my answers again. To put it quite bluntly, if you restore this content using Facebook sources, I will remove it again (assuming someone else doesn't). Since we are now going in circles, I will not continue to entertain your questions, and if this is an unsatisfactory conclusion than escalate it further and I will deal with it at whatever forum you choose to take it to. I would respectfully suggest that if this content is important enough for you to commit to several days of discussion here, then might I suggest it is also important enough for you to find actual sources for it? 5225C (talk • contributions) 13:20, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
