User talk:LocalNet/Archives/2017/April

Questionable sources

Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable sources. Erkinalp9035 (talk) 20:52, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Erkinalp9035: Thank you for sending me a message! It appears that you are indeed correct about the use of questionable sources in that matter, so thank you for letting me know here! I also searched for the issue in search of secondary sources, which are preferred on Wikipedia, and found a few. I will re-add the issue, reworded for neutrality, first in the Reception section, and then possibly add a summary of the Reception section in the lead. :) LocalNet (talk) 04:53, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

"Thank you for trying to contribute"?

Really? You'd rather ignore WP:BRD and restore a typo than trying to discuss this first? Also, you might want to check the wording of your edit summaries when reverting users who are more experienced than you. Personally, I could care less but I've seen quite a few users, even other admins, taking offense for being treated like a newbie. Regards SoWhy 14:21, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi @SoWhy: Thank you for the message! First off, let's take a deep breath. Ready? *breathes* OK :) So. I didn't notice the typo, and that should be corrected. I still don't agree that having examples is necessary in the infobox. It might not even be relevant in the article. It appears promotional. Also, please note that I am not targeting any kind of user with my edit summaries. "Thank you for trying to contribute" is supposed to be a friendly way of saying that I value the time and effort people make, but that the contributions may not always be perfect. I certainly would never discriminate and only use it on certain types of users. I like it when EVERYBODY tries to contribute, whether they're an IP newbie, registered newbie, more experienced than me, or even an administrator. Also, this is the first time I have ever encountered someone being offended by that language, but I have been complimented for being polite in the past, so I think I'll stick to that language :) I might also say that I don't particularly like your condescending "you might want to check the wording of your edit summaries when reverting users who are more experienced than you" statement. Maybe I haven't been here for as long as you or others. Is that supposed to make me "careful" around certain types of users? Keeping in mind that I have no idea how long you've been here. I haven't checked your profile, and I don't intend to check the profile of every person I revert based on the fact that they *might* have more experience than me. I care about the content. That's why I'm here. And may I add that some of the wording in your own message to me here appears confrontational, almost as if you're trying to "scare" me into agreeing with you? Because that's the kind of thing I would watch out for ;) I want Wikipedia to be a friendly, open, great place of knowledge, where everyone is treated equally :) Have a lovely day! :) LocalNet (talk) 14:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

As I said, I couldn't care less about such things. Just because I've been here for 13 years or have been an admin for almost 9 years does not make me a better editor per se. More experienced, yes, but still not perfect. And I understand perfectly well that this project only works when anyone can edit anyone else's contributions, be it experienced admin or new user. Unfortunately, not all experienced editors have such a relaxed approach and you might find yourself in unnecessary battles with such editors if you use language that can be perceived as treating them like newbies; and "thank you for trying to contribute" has a certain ring to it, like "well, you tried but failed". Friendly or not, it's unnecessary. Politely saying "I don't agree because..." is perfectly fine and friendly without taking such risks. That was all I wanted to advise you about and I apologize if you perceived me as being confrontional.

As for the matter at hand, I disagree with the edit you restored, not only for the reason I mentioned but also because all relevant policies guidelines advise editors not to restore an edit without discussion when someone else objected. I won't edit-war over it and I think it's trivial but again, this is oftentimes the first step how many, even experienced, editors become involved in edit-wars. Regards SoWhy 14:48, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi again @SoWhy: That's great feedback! I didn't realize it could be taken in a negative way, and this is the first time I have encountered troubles because of it. Hmm... Would it be acceptable to write something like "Thank you for your edit, but..." instead? I really do want to thank people, because in my early days on Wikipedia, not being positively acknowledged for having made any editing attempts discouraged me for a while. And regarding the current edit, I was under the (perhaps wrong) assumption that if another user quickly reverts the edit, a discussion isn't necessary because consensus would already have been made? That is also something I haven't thought properly about, and I apologize if I broke the guidelines. But since you mentioned "all relevant policies guidelines advise editors not to restore an edit without discussion when someone else objected", can you link me to the relevant pages? I couldn't find the actual text on WP:BRD, but I did see that it states "BRD is not a policy, though it is an oft-cited essay", which I actually didn't know before this moment. I want to learn and follow Wikipedia's policies or guidelines as much as possible, but there's a lot of them, so it's easy to lose track sometimes. LocalNet (talk) 15:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

No worries, just trying to help. Your revised example does not really address the problem although it's better than "trying". It's fine, as you say, to be friendly and trying not to WP:BITE new users but experienced users may still feel ridiculed if you thank them for their edits. Remember, sincerity does not transform well into short texts (like edit summaries). Basically, you would want to use your text when reverting new or inexperienced users and avoid using it when reverting experienced users. If the main problem is that you can't check every users' page first, may I suggest enabling pop-ups? Not only are they a great way to preview articles without having to open them, they also display useful information when hovering on linked username, such as date of registration, user groups and editcount. That way, you can quickly check whether you are reverting a new user who will feel elated that you thank them or an experienced user who might feel kidded.

As for reverting, see the diagram at WP:EDITCONSENSUS which covers it. I also find Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary a really helpful essay. Basically, disagreements should never be settled by reverting and relying on edit-summaries but by discussion because the first way will sooner or later lead to edit-warring. Take our Android example: The change was made with this edit in January first. No one disputed it for three months, meaning that per WP:EDITCONSENSUS (and WP:SILENCE) consensus can be assumed in favor of this revision. Silentpage's edit here was a new WP:BOLD edit to change consensus which I reverted to restore the previous consensus. Your reversion of my reversion restored a change to the page that you knew someone opposed to without discussing it first; thus my note on your talk page (since I follow a personal WP:0RR rule whenever possible). Regards SoWhy 19:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@SoWhy: Thank you for the extensive reply! First off, after being made aware about the potential downsides of thanking users, I now acknowledge that can be interpreted wrong. It's odd how humans interpret things so differently, because it was never intentioned to make anyone feel bad, but I now realize it could have that effect anyway. Sort of how this conversation started. To me, it felt like a major confrontation, but later replies have revealed that was not your intention. And obviously it was a misunderstanding regarding the use of those edit summaries for specific types of users, because my initial comment was directed to feeling like you were making yourself or others superior to me, when in fact the logic you used in your reply above about experienced users not needing thank notes makes complete sense. :) I now regret doing those edit summaries in the past, but better to change later than never. :) I think I'll start making edit summaries that stick to the relevant content change. That can't be interpreted wrong, it'll allow for more characters to express myself, and hopefully it won't have the effect of making anyone feel offended of a reversion. Your tip about pop-ups might solve several issues for me in this regard too, though, so I'll read about it and see if it's useful :) I also regret my reversion of you on the Android article. I was not aware of the policies in that regard, and it's never my intention to break any policies, but the good news is that I will use the new knowledge I just learned to improve my personal editing and collaborative contributions in the future :) Thank you for writing to me with all this info, I really appreciate the feedback! :) LocalNet (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

You are most welcome. Feel free to contact me anytime if you need some help. PS: I'm sure you'll find pop-ups useful. I've been using them for ten years now (it was actually the first script I ever activated) and I wouldn't want to miss its usefulness. PPS: In general, user scripts are extremely useful when navigating Wikipedia and you should check them out (feel free to browse my monobook.js and common.js to find some that are also useful for non-admins). Regards SoWhy 20:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Just activated pop-ups, as well as a few other things. Will be interesting to test out :D Thanks! :) LocalNet (talk) 20:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thanks for your edits. Emphrase - 💬 | 📝 12:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Emphrase: Thank you so much for the star! I hope it's okay that I attach this to my front page :) LocalNet (talk) 14:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Sure! Emphrase - 💬 | 📝 06:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

You are invited to WikiProject YouTube

Hi @Jamesjpk: Thank you for the invite! I really appreciate it! Unfortunately, I have to be honest and say that, at this time, I'm not interested in regularly making major contributions to YouTube's Wikipedia articles. I did make a few edits over at YouTube to get some facts and references in order, but in general, YouTube is outside my interest area. That may change in the future, so it's great to know that a WikiProject exists for it, but as of now, I want to stick to other topics and articles that I have a greater interest in :) Thanks again for the invite, though, I wish you all the best in editing and have a great day! LocalNet (talk) 05:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know @LocalNet:! Have a nice day! Jamesjpk (talk) 06:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Re: Samsung Galaxy S8

Please do not wholesale revert legitimate changes to an article without you, yourself, explaining the exact problems.

• There is no rule saying all edits on Wikipedia must have a singular focus.
• Content that is instructional is not allowed on Wikipedia, as Wikipedia is not a how-to guide.
• WP:NFC (not to be confused with WP:NFCC, which is policy) discourages extensive quoting from copyrighted texts. The same facts can be explained using cleaner wording.
• What are the grammar issues?

ViperSnake151  Talk  17:17, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi @ViperSnake151: I did explain the exact issues, but did not have space to provide examples. Grammar examples: "Samsung stated that the red tinting this purely" and "stated that the Galaxy S8 "built with an adaptive"". You have now corrected those, however, so that's good, at least! When reading your edit, I was unable to figure out what content was breaching a how-to guide, because you didn't specify. But I did eventually see that the settings instructions was what you were referring to. That, however, was part of a quote and not my own writing. That said, the rewording you made was okay. Regarding quotations, the policy you cited states that "Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited", whereas the Reception section quoted individual sentences and sometimes only words, not whole paragraphs. And finally, please note that I am fully allowed to revert you if I believe your edit does not constitute an improvement to the article, especially when your reasons in the edit summary does not adequately address all significant changes. And on a personal note, rather than making massive changes in the matter of one edit, it's just a lot more organized to make them in separate stages, thereby also giving you more ways to express your thoughts in the edit summary. My reversion of you might have been entirely unneeded had the edit been done in stages where you properly explained the changes, because I have a feeling that it's confusion and misunderstanding driving this dispute. Also, please be aware that you now reverting me again without even waiting for me to reply is a great example of aggression and how edit wars are made. I am not opposing you or your edit, I just want edits to be made with a clear and concise explanation, so as to avoid entire articles or major elements suddenly being changed with only generalized descriptions, as happened here. But agreements will only happen through discussion and clearly explaining thoughts, not by edit-warring. LocalNet (talk) 17:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Pay to play

Hello, I reviewed your notes and you mentioned Billboard but billboard was not mentioned once in my section. Also this is for a class project so if you could just leave it up until May 13th that would be great! Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casper2less (talk • contribs) 21:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Casper2less: While your text on Spotify didn't reference Billboard, the first source in your text did. Furthermore, it was a WP:QUESTIONABLE source, which was reason enough to remove it. And unfortunately, no, we can't keep this on Wikipedia until May 13, sorry. 1) That's quite a long time, and lots of people will have read it by then. 2) Wikipedia isn't suitable for making changes that can be presented for personal purposes. And 3) If I can offer you some advice: Maybe don't use Wikipedia as a source or part of a class project. Use the sources we reference themselves, if possible. Coincidentally, I just read two days ago about people in school or universities using Wikipedia and failing their assignments. Wikipedia is awesome as a general reference source, but for big and serious projects, dig into the sources. You can make sure Wikipedia has the info right, and on the plus side, it'll appear more serious that you actually went digging for individual sources of info and not just one page. I don't see exactly how this information needed to be on Wikipedia for you to have it as a class project. If you must use the questionable info found, you could use the sources you found directly and present those. Unfortunately, though, it can't be on Wikipedia. Sorry about that! Good luck with your class project! LocalNet (talk) 06:58, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your insights. The project is to add or update wiki page. I replaced the music digital news with the billboard citation. Any other edit suggestions are more than welcome. Casper2less (talk) 23:41, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@Casper2less: Now this is interesting. The new Billboard source was not the same as the one found in the previous article. This one we actually can use. I had to rewrite the section for clarity and proper information, but thank you for adding a good source! Also, please be advised that Wikipedia has a policy called WP:WAR, meaning that extensive back-and-forth of edits can result in a ban. In the future, if your edit is reverted on an article, go to the Talk page and discuss it before reverting back. :)