Thank you for registering! We hope that you find collaborative editing enjoyable. Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia that started in 2001, is free for all to use and edit within the guidelines and principles users have established and adhere to. Many of these principles and guidelines are listed below. Click on the link next to the images for more information. REMEMBER - each policy and/or guideline page has a discussion you can join to ask questions, add input and contribute your voice towards any current policy or guideline change underway! Join the discussion by going to the talkpage of the article. Please take a minute to view a number of quick start pages for an overview of how to work within these guidelines and more information to help you better understand the practices and procedures editors are using. These include: The Newcomers Manual and User:Persian Poet Gal/"How-To" Guide to Wikipedia.
Sometimes new editors become frustrated quickly and find their experience on Wikipedia less than enjoyable. This need not be. If you are having a difficult time for any reason, please feel free to ask me for assistance!
This is being posted on your Talk page where you can receive messages from other Wikipedians and discuss issues and respond to questions. At the end of each message you will see a signature left by the editor posting. This is done by signing with four ~~~~ or by pressing or in the editing interface tool box, located just above the editing window (when editing). Do not sign edits that you make in the articles themselves as those messages will be deleted, but only when using the article talkpage, yours or another editor's talkpage. If you have any questions or face any initial hurdles, feel free to contact me on my talk page and I will do what I can to assist or give you guidance and contact information.
The court case has yet to run, we do not assume guilt until the end of the court case - which might take ages yet, there is no assumption to be made on wikipedia until the court case is completed. JarrahTree09:38, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If the Claremont killer is not to be removed because the case is still in progress, then why has the Golden State killer been removed? Braintic (talk) 10:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Your recent editing history at Deaths in 2024 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Renewal6 (talk) 14:47, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
If you have specific questions about the block, I am willing and able to answer them—please let me know if you have any.That being said, I’m a bit confused as to what you mean by “superhero bullshit”. I don’t think that I’ve done or said anything particularly special relating to this block, and I don’t think that I have engaged in any sort of gravedancing or the like. I’m open to feedback, but I would need to know what you’re specifically referring to. Are you willing to explain what you mean here or, alternatively, strike the comment?On a separate note, I would kindly ask you to strike your comment as it pertains to sildenafil, as it’s plainly uncivil.Cheers, — Red-tailed sock(Red-tailed hawk's nest)14:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you're basically wanting to follow WP:IDHT? Especially after you got blocked in January for 72 hours, I pointed to you to stay cool and User:Jonesey95 warned you now that personal attacks are clearly not allowed. If you plan to continue ignoring the policies and guidelines, then I'll have no choice but to report you to the administrators. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 20:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That link is about "getting the point". As I have not made any similar edits since, I clearly get "the point". And "Pfft" is an indication that I although I disagree, I didn't see the point in arguing any more. That one was not a personal attack.
I am triggered about this issue because I recently had someone do multiple (baseless) reversions on my edits without checking whether they were also reverting other edits that they weren't challenging. Although that didn't happen here, I wonder if he checked whether he was also reverting something that was valid. I would mind less if people posted a message asking me to fix errors instead of blindly doing it themselves. Braintic (talk) 22:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your being triggered is all the more reason to slow down, avoid personal attacks, and assume good faith. It's rarely a good idea to respond or edit when you are in an emotional state. Doing so can lead to inadvisable responses that can get you blocked or worse. Many of your edits have been productive; getting yourself blocked will deprive us of those productive edits, which nobody wants. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yet you have no advice for those people who do mass reversions, that they should take my advice and first REQUEST others to make changes instead of stomping all over them.
Hi Braintic,
I noticed the ongoing work you are doing regarding Deaths in 1988. Tasks that take long(er) should be done in a draft page. I created this page for you containing your work in your user space: User:Braintic/Deaths in 1988. When the work is completed you can copy it to the real article. A published article should never look like it is under construction. That's why I reverted Deaths in 1988 to the last correct version. Regards, Mill 1 (talk) 22:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By the way: when you perform the copy in the future be sure to change the format of the three categories (at the bottom of the page) by removing the first semicolon. Example: [[:Category:1988 deaths]] should become: [[Category:1988 deaths]]. Cheers,Mill 1 (talk) 22:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Criteria for inclusion of entries in deaths lists
Hi Braintic, Sorry for the spam but just out of curiosity: how do you determine who gets to be listed in the Death in [YEAR]-lists? As you can read here I use a pretty specific algoritm to decide whether a dead person/animal is 'notable' enough to be listed. Clearly you are not putting everyone with a wiki bio in the list. That's why I was wondering how you determine the group of deceased and what kind of filtering you apply to that group before you add them.
By the way: I processed the dates 1 - 8 Feb. 1989 using my software and compared the results with yours: there seems to be a 60% overlap between yours and mine. Not bad! Cheers, Mill 1 (talk) 20:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not including all such people. I am including people with at least 35 links to their page. That is about half. If you find a particular person in the list with less than 35 links then they were already there. Braintic (talk) 21:04, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: My 35 links criterion keeps about 30% of individuals.
Another editor of these pages (I think he was the one responsible for adding November and December 1989) claims to use a threshhold of 50 links.
That other editor was actually me :) I was unhappy how the initial pageslooked so a year ago I processed every day of Nov. and Dec. 1989 again. Since you processed them again last month I'd say these two articles have had sufficient attention ;)
I think it is great we both more or less apply the same criteria for inclusion. The number of links to the bio works although I agree that the number is arbitrary. I also take into account the number of other wiki's the person is stated in. One thing: the 'What links here' page gives wrong results when a template is present on the 'linked-to' page. It is explained here (don't let the title 'Link Count tool also counts template wiki links' fool you).
"I'm still wondering how you determine the people who died on a specific date."
I create an excel file from the alphabetical list (Category:1986 deaths) then sort it by date.
BTW, I really don't understand any of the technical language used here. Your link re 'link counts' doesn't mean anything to me. It looks like a foreign language. I don't know what api means (and don't think I want to know). I don't know how to even begin breaking down the sentence " 'Direct' in Link Count means 'not through a redirect', not 'not through a transclusion', which is not retrievable without parsing the source page by page." All I see is "#### means #### not #### which is not ###." Braintic (talk) 12:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaha! Sorry for that. What I tried to explain is this: We both use the number of links to the biography of the deceased as a criterium for inclusion. So for instance take Sam Melville (actor). On that page, under Tools, you can click on 'What links here'. It leads to this page.
If you select '(Article)' in the Namespace dropdown and then click 'Go' it will show you the links to the actor like this (34 links, the 'link count'). I assumed that's how you determine if someone has enough links to be listed.
Anyway, there's a problem with that method: if you take Kudrat Singh according to above method he has hundreds of links to his bio. However this is not the case: most links originate from the template called 'Recipients of Padma Shri in Art' at the bottom of the bio! Templates mess up the percieved link count. If you want the real number of links to Kudrat Singh you have to perform this query. Only 2 links to him. Quite a difference. Mill 1 (talk) 15:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two questions:
(1) What is the difference between "linksto" and "insource" in that query, and under what circumstances would you want them to take different values? And are they both needed in the query?
(2) Based on your experience of how much this reduces the link counts on average, do you have a feel for what I should drop my threshold of 35 to using this method, in order to get approximately the same number of people as before? Braintic (talk) 22:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need both "linksto" and "insource". I am not really sure why since I was given this query in the topic I mentioned. I know that "insource" searches for the value in the wiki source text. I think you are safe with keeping 35 as a threshold. I use 50 (actually 48) and I have double your entries with this method. This is also because I use the number of wiki's a person is present on as a multiplier. Mill 1 (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Linksto makes a massive difference to the counts.
I have just started compiling individuals for 1986. There are currently 74 who pass my threshold of 35.
Of those, only 26 would survive that cutoff of 35 if I used linksto. So the number of individuals who make the list of deaths would be only about one-third as large as if I stayed with my current system. I feel I would need to drop the threshold to 20 or less to keep the list as large.
BTW, I am not sure about the validity of simply multiplying the two link counts as you do. When the two data sets are highly correlated, as they would be here, such a bi-linear mapping creates a huge bias towards individuals whose two counts happen to have similar percentiles, even if those percentiles are low.
A more appropriate function for highly correlated data would be a linear combination of the two link counts, ie. aX + bY, where the weightings a and b are chosen in inverse proportion to the average values of X and Y, thus giving aX and bY the same average contribution to the function. Braintic (talk) 00:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now it is my turn to admit I don't understand; my mathematical education is lacking I fear! I'm happy you agree some kind of filtering needs to be applied. I spent a great deal of time thinking about this filter (see f.i. paragraph 'Rethinking notability' on my project page). In the end I think it is not possible to come up with a perfect definition. That's why I take into account a couple of other things that cannot be put in an algorithm:
The quality of the corresponding bio also serves as a secondary criterium for inclusion. You check the corresponding bio anyway to double-check the death date and to look for citations and the cause of death, I presume.
Apart from that there still a huge system bias; women and Third World individuals are underrepresented, men and Americans are hugely overrepresented in the lists (at some point I even considered adding a multiplier to non-US entries but decided against it :)). So if there is a female Ugandan writer who falls just outside the threshold I tend to include her.
One of the goals of my project is to find deceased for every day until the eighties. Every date should list at least two referenced entries. A consequence of this requirement is that regarding some dates the threshold is lowered.
Regarding the heavily discussed subject of notabilty a major reason of being allowed to have a bio at all is being covered in reliable and independent sources. If so a reference to such a source (stating the death date) should exist. If you can't find one you should ask yourself if inclusion is warranted (I stated this also at the end of my creation procedure).
So in my view there are no hard rules but I'm happy with how my filtering works. I've processed 195 Months-articles by now. Using my filter I always end up with a number of worthy entries between 200 and 230. I did notice that from the early nineties and earlier the number of bio's seems to drop which means less entries to list. I guess you'll have to play around with your threshold and taking my pointers into account look at the number of entries for a particular month you end up with. Maybe not the answer you were looking for but I hope it helps. It's not mathematics! Regards, Mill 1 (talk) 08:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am doing my bit to reduce the number of Americans by excluding college sports players (unless they have a very high link count). No other country gets to count second-tier players. In other words, I am counting only the highest domestic competition.
You say the other figure you use is "the number of other wiki's the person is stated in". Is that simply to account for pages that give a mention without actually linking, or does it mean something else? In any case, how do you access that figure? Does it require software?
Not sure if you understand the concept of percentiles. If you do:
0.1 times 0.9 is 0.09. 0.3 times 0.3 is also 0.09. So by multiplying, a person who is at the 30th percentile for each category will equal a person who averages at the 50th percentile.
Thanks for the explanation. About college sports; I do the same. I also include them when a college football coach has a obituary in the NY Times for instance. With other wiki's I mean wiki's other than the English wiki. Like the German or Spanish wiki. Mill 1 (talk) 07:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Braintic,
I noticed work is progressing steadily on User:Braintic/Deaths in 1988. Nice! If you're planning to process another year, say 1987, it's quite easy to create a draft page for it yourself:
In your web browser enter next url in the address bar containing the new year (or click on the link below): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Braintic/Deaths_in_1987
A page is shown stating "Wikipedia does not have a user page with this exact name etc.". Now on the right click 'Create': A blank page in edit mode is shown. Now copy the contents of Deaths in 1987 into the blank draft page. Important: Regarding the copied content: be sure to disable the two categories (at the bottom of the page) by adding a semicolon to both of them. Example: [[Category:1987 deaths]] should become: [[:Category:1987 deaths]].
Finally in the Edit summary enter 'Created draft page' and click 'Publish page' to create your first page. Good luck! Mill 1 (talk) 17:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Hopefully this will make sense when I get around to trying it. Not sure yet whether I will start 1987 or start collecting links for 1989 earlier than I stated. Braintic (talk) 20:57, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why were those asterisks at two different heights? Are they different symbols? Or is it just an illusion caused by the shading of one? (In which case, perhaps you're not seeing what I see.) Braintic (talk) 21:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you mean. The error shows the diff regarding the fix edit you did. Off topic: I see you are including Australian rules footballers: I exclude them all from the deaths lists. They are hugely overrepresented and have a high link count because they all point to one another. Moreover it is a very specific type of sport. The same is true more or less regarding hurdlers. Mill 1 (talk) 07:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am simply seeing the two asterisks at different heights. I think it is probably an illusion.
I certainly don't agree with excluding AFL footballers. The same logic could be used to exclude people from pretty much any sport ... rugby league players, North American ice hockey players, ...
The highest domestic tier of any professional sport should be included where the country in question is recognised as a top-level player of the sport. What is true is that many other sports are under-represented. For example, I haven't seen any volleyballers or handballers, and very few water polo players. And cricketers are under-represented in comparison to baseballers.
I don't think it should be our role to make such universal decisions. I can guarantee that AFL players are better known in Australia than a Turkish-language poet is known in Turkey. Braintic (talk) 08:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good points. I agree. I remember adding a few volleyballers and water polo players but only because they won Olympic medals. In all fairness, I did add some AFL players but only if they were regarded as the Tom Brady (or Johan Cruijff) of Australian rules football.Mill 1 (talk) 12:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just wondering ... have you considered whether the number of Page Views might be a better assessment of notability than the number of links? Braintic (talk) 03:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I suspect I'm dealing with an Aussie here! Now I really regret bringing up the AFL subject... Anyway, I have considered page views but at the time when I was implementing the software it wasn't possible to access that data automatically (by means of an API). I am not going to implement it now since I'm approaching the end of my endeavour: just 25 articles to go (Dec. 2003 - Dec. 2005) . I do think the number of page views is a strong indicator regarding the filter we're discussing. Perhaps even as strong as incoming links and having an obituary in big newspapers like the NY Times, The Guardian or The Sydney Morning Herald. So, yes I would take that information into account as well. Mill 1 (talk) 07:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry ... I live in a Rugby League state. We hate Aussie Rules here. We refer to it as "aerial ping pong". Go Manly!
As I don't know to automate anything, collecting page views is actually somewhat faster for me than collecting link counts. I can manually collect about 270 per hour. What is worrying is the number of individuals with single-digit link counts who have more page views than individuals with a few hundred links. I'm thinking of all the people I should have included and all those I should have left out in 1989 and 1988. And I've already collected my list for 1987, so looks like I'll have to switch for 1996.
Perhaps at some point I will count page views for Aussie Rules players to see if there is anything in what you say. But I need to get a large enough baseline first. I don't yet have a feel for what is the "right" number of page views. Braintic (talk) 08:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like you have a plan! I recognize that realization: people who should be included and excluded because of new insigths regarding the filtering. It is one of the reasons why I decided to reprocess all the dates 2.5 years ago. In the end it's never going to be perfect. I comfort myself with these two thoughts: if we forget someone who is that important, in time someone else in the community will surely add him/her to the list. Also, in the future other wikipedians will add individuals who have no business being on the list. I have no intention in watching the changes to all the Deaths per Month articles in order to guard the quality of the list entries. Therefore I accept that over time some unnotable entries will start polluting the lists. Oh, and with 1996 I presume you mean 1986. Mill 1 (talk) 14:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Braintic,
I just completed splitting Deaths in 1989 into 12 articles. I noticed that your work on User:Braintic/Deaths in 1988 is progressing nicely. When should I split that article up into month articles (including the NY Times references)? Mill 1 (talk) 21:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for doing that. I meant to tell you earlier to feel free to replace the few links I had found for early January 1989 with New York Times links if you think they are better. I was just experimenting there.
I note that the links to months on this page Lists of deaths by year are duplicated. I am worried that people who exclusively use the first set of links might not realise that 1989 has been done, as it is lumped under "earlier years". Is it possible to show the months for 1989 in the same format as the other years?
For 1988 I have finished entering the individuals, and am now doing the photos. As the photos don't concern you with regard to splitting, I guess that you can split this any time now if you wish. However, it is still a few weeks before my holidays, when I start adding links to 1989, so I suspect it will be at least my following holidays in July before I can start doing links for 1988 (if not the following ones in September-October). It is up to you, based on whether you see leaving it for so long with insufficient links as an issue.
(The reason for leaving the links until my holidays is that I believe it will require thinking, and at my age I can only cope with mind-numbing repetitive work while I am working. In fact, editing or collecting data is my way to switch off from work.)
It will be a while before I start editing 1987. I am still collecting page view stats for 1986, and I think I might do that for 1987 when done. I am collecting page view counts specifically for the three-year period Jan 2021 - Dec 2023. It is looking like the cutoff for inclusion (assuming I want similar numbers to before) would be around 2000 to 3000 views in that period. That is, roughly 60 to 80 views per month. Some of the individuals who are included in the 2024 list have ridiculously low page view counts ... one or two views per month. Braintic (talk) 22:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! Some feedback:
I improved your 'experimental' links in Deaths in January 1989. I'll give you some advice on citations once you start but now you already have an example. Pay attention to the points (full stops) and the location of the second square bracket (']'). This is the format:
Regarding the splitting of 1988: I can start the splitting now and add the NY times citations. I don't see as an issue leaving it for so long with insufficient links. One thing: you state that you are now working on the photo's: these photo's will not be part of the Month articles. After the splitting process the page Deaths in 1988 will become a redirect (a link) to Lists of deaths by year. That's the agreed structure. This has already happened to Deaths in 1989. Since you're working on 1988 in your draft page User:Braintic/Deaths in 1988 there's no point in adding photo's; the Year article will seize to exist after the splitting is done.
Regarding your last point: we both agree that some kind of filtering is needed regarding the lists but 'officialy' anyone with a wiki bio can be added. In that regard it is possible that persons are added that are quite unnotable. There is also a difference between the 2024 lists and the eighties lists: the 2024 lists are compiled 'in real time'. If someone dies sometimes they are put on Deaths in 2024 within minutes. No filter applied. That's why the page is so popular. That's not true for the eighties-lists. We're creating yesterday's paper in a way. That's why we're able to apply filters at all I think. Regards Mill 1 (talk) 17:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK - I'll stop adding photos. In that case 1988 is ready to go.
I've finished collecting 1986 ... there are 2262 individuals with a page view count of 2K plus. That's 188 per month - less than you but more than my 1988 and 1989 lists. But I haven't collected their dates of death yet, so that number will fall after eliminating those which give only the year of death and no date. I've started collecting 1987 again based on page views - it will be interesting to compare to the other list based on link counts.
For those individuals who are mentioned only due to their death, for example they were murdered, I am going to include only the absolutely highest profile cases where there was uproar at the time and the victim is now known better than the killer. For example, in Australia I will include Anita Cobby which has 560,000 views in my 3 year window and 1.8 million views overall. Everyone remembers her but few will recall the names of the low-life who killed her. But I won't be adding the victims of Ted Bundy, regardless of how many views they have received, because the focus there is Bundy. Braintic (talk) 02:54, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should compare the outcome based on page views with those based on link count. Could be interesting how strong the correlation is! By the way, I created the User:Braintic/Deaths in 1985 - User:Braintic/Deaths in 1987 for you. I also started splitting up 1988. Regarding future (past) years: there is no need to copy the contents of your draft pages to the Year page. I can do the split using your corresponding draft page as a source. Saves me some work. Mill 1 (talk) 07:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I wasn't going to copy the draft page across, but then I assumed you hadn't replied because you were waiting for me to do so.
BTW - are you a moderator? Whether yes or no, are you able to give advice re a bit of a conflict I had with another editor?
I'm only half way through collecting page view counts for 1987. Then I need to collect death dates for those I decide to keep. So it might be some time before I start editing 1987.
Also, I have more than one big project, and I typically cycle through them every few months as I get bored with one. So I might disappear at some stage and not reappear for a number of months. Braintic (talk) 08:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a moderator. One of the reasons I'm active in this obscure part of Wikipedia is that I don't want to be caught up in disputes that take up a lot of my time and energy. On the other hand I'm always willing to give advice.
How do I make the text of those links appear in my comment? When I type them directly I get an actually citation, and when I try to mark them as a comment they don't show at all. Braintic (talk) 01:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now I'm confused because your last comment doesn't have a 'reply' link to click, so I found another one to click.
Re (2), thanks - my issue was that I hadn't seen the point of that part of the citation, and was just copying your example without thinking.
There is actually nothing wrong with the citation you made! For the past half hour I've been trying to figure out what you tried to do but that's difficult since I don't know the type of editing tool you're using. Two things:
You state: "when I try to mark them as a comment they don't show at all". Why would you want to do that? Marking it as a comment means that the text is made hidden; it is shown as a comment in the wiki text but is hidden in the actual page. This is done by putting codes around the text you want to hide. Format: <!-- text you want to hide -->. I noticed you turned two citations into comments regarding 3 January 1989: Eddie Heywood and Jim Lawson. I corrected Eddie Heywood by removing the comment codes surrounding the citation. Can you correct Jim Lawson?
The fact that the link for "The Pro Football Archives" comes out red is because the text "The Pro Football Archives" is surrounded by two square brackets: [[The Pro Football Archives]]. This turns the text into a 'wiki link' and makes Wikipedia look for the Wikipedia article 'The Pro Football Archives' which does not exist. So if you remove the brackets surrounding "The Pro Football Archives" the citation is fine. In the other citation the Los Angeles Times is stated is a source. Since Los Angeles Times does have a wiki article the citation does not say "the page does not exist".
At WP:FOOTBALL we have a rule - if nationality is ambiguous, do not put it in the opening sentence (see e.g. Riyad Mahrez or any other player who were born and raised in one country but represented another at international level). If you think a different rule should apply to this article, please make your arguments on the article talk page. GiantSnowman11:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rule of three is to keep the amount of credits to a reasonable amount. As for which ones are used, I’m not that precious about what gets listed. I don’t really see the ones that had been there as being his best known or widest reaching credits, they just look like the ones that were named in his wiki pages lead section. I included Any Given Sunday on that basis, it was a big Hollywood movie, Oliver Stone directed. Seemed to be a decent selection. Perhaps The Sheltered Sky should also be included, as he won a Golden Globe for his work on it. Rusted AutoParts07:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't be based on how big the movie was. It should be based on the contribution to the movie by the individual under consideration. Horowitz won a Best Score award for Tobruk. Braintic (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. 1987 is finished. Some stats, but only for January:
(1) One-third of the individuals who would have made the list using a link count did not make it using a view count.
(2) Conversely, about 45% of those who did make it using a view count would not have made it had I used a link count.
(The difference is due to the fact that my cutoff for the view count allowed through about 25% more individuals than my cutoff for the link count. But I really felt like I was scraping the bottom of the barrel by the time I got down there. The biggest losers in switching seem to be sporting identities. So it seems your feeling about Australian Rules players actually extends across all sports.)
I have been neglecting the links for 1989 that I promised. To motivate me to do that I have been collecting view counts for 1989 and wish to edit the page to reflect the new counts. The issue is whether to delete individuals who no longer qualify. I suggest:
(1) Any individuals who have been added by others since you created the page should remain regardless of view counts.
(2) Any individuals who existed on the old page before I started editing should be subject to a lower cutoff of about 50% of the view count that I use for new individuals.
(3) Any individuals who I have added (ie. who weren't added by someone else) will be deleted if they don't meet my view count cutoff.
Any comments about this? And if I run with (2), where can I find the original list of individuals on the old page?
Re your NY Times links, your automated tool seems to be missing quite a lot. I've only done links up to Jan 7, but already I've found 3 NYT links that weren't found by your tool. Braintic (talk) 05:09, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting stats! In my view it proves that there is no perfect way to determine who qualifies to be on our lists.
In reply to your three suggestions; I wouldn't delete existing entries. The quality and notablity of them is sufficient. Also: the total number of entries in the new Deaths per month pages (1988 and 1989) seems to correspond with what I would expect in terms of notabilty. And again: in the future entries will be added to the pages that fall below our critera of inclusion. So be it. I am not willing to watch hundreds of pages to guard the notability of added entries. By the way, no entries have been added by others to the new pages (1988 and 1989) as far as I can tell. And I wouldn't go with your suggestion (2): the Deaths in 1988 and Deaths in 1989 pages also contained many entries with very low view counts and link counts.
Regarding my NY Times references tool; I am aware it's not perfect. I miss references for three reasons:
The Wikipedia page title and NY Times subject name of the obituary sometimes differ; if I can't match the two I cannot find the NY Times obituary belonging to an entry.
The NY Times Archive API itself sometimes is faulty labeling their articles which causes me to miss out on information when filtering data. For instance: I couldn't find Joop den Uyl in the archive because in the keywords metadata someone at the NY Times labeled the article as glocations:Netherlands instead of persons:UYL, JOOP DEN.
My tool uses a 'notability' setting itself so I don't get all the matches between Wikipedia bio's and NY Times biographies. Since you apply different criteria for inclusion sometimes an entry is skipped by the tool when it evaluates the notabilty of your entry as being too low. I'll decrease the value of the setting and see what happens.
No perfect way indeed, but I think views is better than links.
I am hoping to add new entries to 1989 based on views (ones that didn't qualify previously using link counts), and I don't want the list to get too large, so I was really wanting to delete entries for individuals that have received hardly any views, especially if they are near the bottom of my link count threshold. I figured if they're only there because I put them there then no one can really complain. I don't think their notability is particular great if they've received less than 1000 views in three years, which was half the threshold for making the 1987 list. I'm happy to leave the ones that were there on the old page before I started editing.
BTW - I received a notification for another post on my page by you an hour ago, but I can't find it. And I received 11 notifications for your message above. Are there any message here that I have missed, and why doesn't the notification take you straight to the message? Braintic (talk) 09:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you; feel free to delete entries you deem not notable enough and add the missing ones based on view count. I would keep entries that have references though. Be sure to let me know when you re-processed the 12 pages regarding 1989. I'll run th pages through my NY Times tool again to hopefully add some more references.
And as you say, the lists shouldn't get too large. After processing a month regarding the nineties I always ended up with about 200 page entries give or take. Tip: you can count the entries by looking for *[[ in the wiki text (try Ctrl+F in the Chrome browser).
About the 11 notifications: as you can see in the page history I improved on my answer a few times. It's the way I work I'm afraid. I didn't expect Wikipedia to send a notification to you after every single edit. I thought it would be smarter than that. Oh well, good to know Mill 1 (talk) 10:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mill 1 I've finished re-editing January 1989. Is it too much to ask that you add your links one month at a time as I complete each month? If I have to complete the whole year before I can add my own links I will probably again lose my motivation for adding them.
How much effort would it take to amend your link-adding tool so that it is searching through all names in my list rather than names ranked high by the tool? (I have no feeling for how long it would take to do this.) Braintic (talk) 11:16, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not too much to ask to reprocess the pages you re-edited. Just let me know when you've finished a page and I get to it when I find the time.
I've already amended my link adding tool the way you described; I simply lowered the value of the setting that evaluates the 'notability-value'. Having said that I will only be able to match part of the (new) entries to NY Times obituaries. There are reasons/causes why the tool cannot match entries to obituaries (which I already explained in this section). I even found two additional reasons: 1. not all obituaries state the actual day/date of death. Example. 2. The obituary states an incorrect date of death: exampleMill 1 (talk) 18:52, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
I added some more NY Times references to Deaths in January 1989. When checking the page I noticed the entries are getting awfully long again. Although arbitrary I prefer shorter entries in which not every feat is mentioned. The fact that someone was co-founder of the Williamstown Theater Festival or Poet Laureate of the District of Columbia should not be in the entry in my view.
I also limit the stated positions/roles of the deceased to three. Sometimes in the opening section of the corresponding bio sometimes numerous positions/roles are stated ("... was an American singer, actor, dancer, fashion model, visual artist, calligrapher, painter, writer, and theatre and gas pump owner") but they shouldn't all be listed in the entry. Please see the edits I made in the page history of the January 1989 to see what I mean. Regards, Mill 1 (talk) 19:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I have to strongly disagree. Michael Behrens is KNOWN because he was the owner of the Ionian Bank. Claude Hudson is KNOWN because he founded the Broadway Federal Bank. Robert Kelly is KNOWN for evacuating Douglas MacArthur. Without these facts, these people don't have the notability required to appear in this list.
My entries are no more dense with information than the current 2024 page. I counted words and lines using Word, and 2024 has more words per line than January 1989. As long as they are generally no longer than a line, I'm not sure what would make them "too long". Braintic (talk) 02:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point but personally I still favour entries with short(er) descriptions. I would like to see many 2024 entries being shorter but alas. Again, it's an arbitrary matter based on personal preference. There are no rules except that the description should state the "reason for notability" which you pointed out. Mill 1 (talk) 10:15, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to reduce the list of occupations in most cases, especially when those occupations don't add to notability. I'm also prepared to reduce the lists of works (songs, novels, etc) to two instead of three (except for the most notable individuals). But I would like to revert your edits, because I have spent some time reading through profiles to determine the primary reason for notability. Sometimes that will be their occupation. Sometimes it will be a particular job or appointment associated with that occupation, or a particular feat they have performed (such as evacuating MacArthur), but the occupation associated with that appointment or feat still should be listed. Braintic (talk) 10:27, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's good to have these kinds of discussions. I agree with your reasoning and have reverted my last edits to January 1989. Mill 1 (talk) 10:39, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll get back to revising January before doing any more editing on February. That will include adding links, but I already know I won't be able to find suitable links for many of them, especially those for non English speakers. Braintic (talk) 11:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have recently edited a page related to discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
@Daniel Case The rules clearly state that parents and children should NOT be included in the infobox unless they are independently notable. What is contentious about that, and why have you reverted the edit in contravention of that rule? The other person was the one causing the disruption by continually reverting a correct edit, and failing to justify his reversions (unlike me). Braintic (talk) 02:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't revert any of your edits nor take any action other than full protection (indeed, we cannot make a revert before imposing full protection because this discussion inevitably ensues even if we don't do anything, so it's just better to not do anything). Being right on policy grounds, save for some very limited reasons, does not give you the right to edit war. The talk page is often a better tool for convincing people than edit summaries. Daniel Case (talk) 02:48, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel Case Would you please explain why theother person was NOT "edit warring", and why he did not have an equal responsibility to take the discussion to the talk page.
Would you also explain how, when and by whom a decision is made regarding whose edit stands, and where I should look to see this discussion evolving. Braintic (talk) 03:55, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Initiate a discussion on the talk page, and ping Modernist (Or they can do this too). If you are able to reach a consensus, you can ask for the protection to be lifted before the three days are up and make whatever change you have agreed to.
"Edit warring" is simply the reason I protected the page. It does not assign blame to any specific editor. I left warnings on neither user talk page.
Yes, he did have an equal responsibility to take it to the talk page. But, if I may say so, you will forgive an administrator for thinking, when they see an editor with a redlinked username who uses edit summaries like this, that that's the first person who needs talking to? Especially when their recent edits show no sign of having used the talk page? Daniel Case (talk) 04:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I then asked that person to take it to the talk page. They also did not do so. Neither of us used it as an "invitation" ... we both issued it as a demand, and neither of us took up the other's suggestion.
And what does "redlinked" mean for my user name? I have no idea what that signifies re my user name, nor why it should indicate an issue. WHY is my name "redlinked", and what have I done wrong for it to be so? Please explain using language that would be understood by a 60 year old with no experience in computing, not the indecipherable young-punk language that I see on help pages here (eg. "barnstar" ... WTH is that??). Braintic (talk) 08:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Usually when we see redlinked usernames, indicating that the user for whatever reason does not have a userpage at that point, it indicates that the user is a more recently created account that may not be aware of our editorial policies yet, an impression that your intemperate edit summaries did nothing to dispel. If you were to create a userpage, that link would be blue.
As for the other person not taking you up on the talk page, that still does not justify edit warring. Nothing, as far as I can tell, was stopping you from going to the talk page at any point and opening a thread. See this; it covers a lot of what happened here.
I don't understand how a desire to keep my private life private should be an indication of anything but that. I cringe at people who feel the need to post their life story online for strangers to see.
Anyway ... it seems this is more like a game that a desire to seek consistency in Wikipedia. Talking would serve no purpose as neither he nor I have any intention of giving in. If you had any interest in the stated objective of seeking consistency, you would have jumped in to make a ruling, and if you cared about the stated rules the ruling would have been in my favour. A professional encyclopedia would not permit such inconsistency in their rules. Braintic (talk) 04:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You wouldn't need to go full Facebook on your userpage. Plenty of established editors have very low-profile user pages that tell us nothing about them.
When two editors don't agree and don't seem likely to, we do have processes to bring other editors into the discussion so that some form of consensus can emerge. The onus is on the involved editors. Of course, given that neither of you opened a discussion on the talk page (and it seems neither of you have since) ...
It is not my job as an administrator, nor any admin's job, to settle content disputes by "making rulings". I do that enough this time of year reffing lacrosse. Editors are supposed to work these things out. If we left it up to admins we'd have less consistency, especially given that some policies specifically allow that different situations may call for different interpretations of policies.
Progress status regarding re-processing month articles of 1989
Hi Braintic,
Just like I did here I'd like to write up status info regarding the 're-processing' of 1989. I created this topic so we can both track the status here.
Correct me if I'm wrong but per article the re-processing consists of three tasks:
Entries: Add/remove entries based on your altered criteria for inclusion.
NYTimes refs: Add NYTimes references using my tool because of the added entries.
More refs: Add references to the entries, if available.
I'll be taking care of the 2nd task.
Per month I'd like to track the status of the three tasks like this: [ ] = to do [x] = done
If you update task 'Entries' below as being done I get a notification that alerts me to start adding NYTimes citations for that month.
Great job on citing the January 1989 entries by the way! I removed the 'More citations needed'-tag at the top of the article. Mill 1 (talk) 08:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still doesn't make it your business to delete the individual. Instead give a heads up that another link is needed, assuming you can't be bothered to make the effort to find a replacement link yourself. After all, you DIDN'T delete his date of death from his profile where the link is broken. What is the difference? Braintic (talk) 02:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then I strongly suggest you take some time to familiarize yourself with the verifiability policy. The burden to demonstrate that material is verifiable lies with the editor who adds or restores it, by citing a reliable source. Where that burden is not met, as is the case here, the material may be removed on that basis alone. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please also familiarize yourself with the guidelines on the the assumption of good faith. I see you've been blocked in the past for edit-warring with blocking administrator also raising concerns about incivility. Fail to take that guideline to heart, and you are likely to repeat the mistakes that to that block. Regarding the verifiability policy, challenged material must not be re-added without providing a reliable source, as you've just done with Deaths in February 1989. Don't do that again. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is certainly proving something ... that religion makes people neither "good" nor happy, despite what it's adherents try to pretend. Least of all THAT religion. I'd trust a muslim over one of them.
Looking at your "contributions", you are clearly an unhappy individual who gets pleasure out of targeting people instead of being constructive. ALL of your edits are that way ... target people in order to make them react. When they do, "punish" them some more. Braintic (talk) 23:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
List of solar cycles: 13 Oct 2023 edit of "brackets" to "parentheses"
This relates to your use of "()" and referring to them as "brackets". I changed the word to "parentheses", as at least in North America the aforementioned symbols are called "parentheses" ("brackets" are "[]"). You reverted the edit, writing, "There was nothing wrong with my word. This is not about imposing personal preferences". I did a bit more digging and discovered that in the UK "()" are often called "round brackets". My edit wasn't based on personal preference but a good faith belief that you had simply mislabelled the punctuation symbols. Just wanted to clarify that. Cheers. Mainemce (talk) 19:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
