Knowledge:Village pump (policy)/Archive 127

727:. It's a tough call, because we do regularly include information on ethnicity in any number of biographic articles (BLP or otherwise), as informed by reliable sourcing. However, I tend to agree that the acrimony that would result from making this field available would vastly outweigh any benefit to that small handful of articles in which it could be used without contention. As others have noted, ethnicity is a deeply complex, often non-empirical, loaded topic informed by variant social context. By and large, it's simply better, when these sensitive and contentious topics are raised, to do so in the more flexible circumstance of the prose of main article body, where proper context and attribution can be made. Further, I agree that if the field becomes available, there are some editors with strong views in this area who will simply view it as an open invitation to impose or contest these classification with every fiber of their editorial identity. The net value of adding this parameter, in terms of clear presentation for our readers and the time and energy of our contributors, make too strong an argument for avoiding this strategy. 11167:

An IP address is blocked for a short time, such as 48 hours, the vandalism returns immediately after the block expires. Several things happen to the vandalism edits: most of them are either reverted by editors who do nothing other than revert, so that nobody else is aware that teh vandalism took place, or else simply not noticed, so that some articles have false information in them for months or even years. A minority of the edits are reverted by editors who post warnings on the relevant IP talk page. Because these warnings come only for a small minority of the edits, and because warnings from a while ago are treated as stale, it can be a very long time before the vandalism is reported AIV or in some other way brought to the attention of an administrator. Consequently, what often happens is that short blocks alternate with long periods when the IP address is not blocked, and vandalism flourishes on a large scale. Short blocks are therefore of very limited use in these cases of persistent vandalism, in contrast to the situation I described above of sudden short bursts of vandalism.

5202:(again, not that there's anything wrong with that) in that, for example, I went to the University of Michigan and I'd say every tenured professor at that institution (associate and full professor) could present themselves as being just as distinguished or more (note that he's been involved in a lot of the presentation about himself here on Knowledge over several articles) but that I don't think every tenured professor at the University of Michigan is worth their own Knowledge article....if they are, Knowledge could potentially have 1,000,000 article stubs about ordinary professors that would keep growing and growing as the years move forward...I don't care about this particular person, but wondering about the philosophy more generally...is there a better place to bring this up? (but obviously listing this guy's wives/children is silly and listing what undergraduate courses he's currently teaching is silly and inappropriate.....) 5292:

discipline. A friend of mine has top scoring papers with 7500 and 2500 citations in Google Scholar - and is assistant professor, and far away from notability. The interpretation for prof Paulson's citations is further complicated by the fact that his two best scoring publications are textbooks, yet he is especially since the two highest counted citations are from a textbooks, which may be in use for student papers or in reference to a software tool, but do not impact the discipline beyond that. If you look at his Web of Science listing (which is not free for all and only includes peer reviewed articles) his highest cited paper is only cited 38 times (considerably less than my own highest cited paper). So basically, I would say that Google in this case would be a fairly reliable primary source, but not useable in any way as secondary source to provide interpretations along the requirements of

6170:(spoken by about 290 people in the world). And people, e.g. academics in the Tapei language research area. Any academic focussing on the Tapei language will almost certainly be notable within the Tapei language academic research area. Is notability among Tapei language academics enough to warrant an article about a Tapei linguist on Knowledge. Almost certainly not. So I would argue that notability of an academic within a specific discipline does not constitute automatic notability for Knowledge. That is why, in my view, the ideas of notability for those within a community; who can bring forward and interpret arguments about contribution of the academic within the community (be it Tapei language or computer science) should at least to some extent be aligned with those outside the community, who are likely better judges of whether the information is of any relevance to a broader audience. 13399:, and could have been resolved within the recommendations there, which already says "When deciding how to format a trademark, editors should choose among styles already in use by sources (not invent new ones) ..." As Frungi wrote there, "Support unless we can cite some substantial reliable sources that do not include the decorative characters. Everything I’m seeing in e.g. Google News does include them, so it seems to me like we’re inventing a style by using 'Sunn' bare." So it looks like no modification of MOS is needed to get it to agree with the result that people were looking to get from COMMONNAME. The move was supported "per MOS". No conflict. The discussion was primarily over whether plain "Sunn" is a style in use or not, and it was decided not. No "MOS regulars" objecting, as far as I can see. 11226:

nonsense and reverting it could be the next administrator, bureaucrat, checkuser, ArbCom member, or Wikimedia Foundation employee's first interaction with Knowledge, thus creating a net positive). But, three of the last 50 edits were constructive, that may have been that person's first edit, and that person may have registered an account now and could be writing featured articles now thanks to that first taste of editing Knowledge. As for /16 ranges, don't be silly, just don't. For one thing, word of mouth has gone around that those institutions were blocked from editing for the last two years while that range was blocked, so it shouldn't come as a surprise that the only edits coming from 100s of thousands of users were curious test editors. Furthermore, if you look at the last 50 or 100 edits coming from a

2692:. Whereas I fully share the sentiment and understand where this proposal comes from, I do not see any way it could be implemented. We could state in the policy that no reactions may be added to the article - but then it does not make sense, because it is reasonable to add at least reactions of involved states, and possibly unusual reactions (for example, I added to the above article the reaction of the spokeswoman of the Russian foreign ministry - she basically said that the attacks are the results of the EU double standards policy). If we allow such reactions, it can not be formalized. If it can not be formalized, people will add them anyway, and it will cost the community more time to police such articles that to let them have the lists. The situation is similar with the galleries: 8707:

there's no middle ground, in comparison to say the issue with Napster and other peer-to-peer sharing aspects which have grey zones. Those that willing infringe calling themselves pirates, the term "piracy" is used to describe this act, and its almost impossible to find where "copyright infringement" or similar is used. In other words, its not that "piracy" is used at some different frequency as "copyright infringement", but that it is nearly used exclusively. It would be confusing to readers if we discussed piracy-related issues using "copyright infringement" while sources do not use this wording but instead use "piracy" exclusively. Other industries, like the music industry, I agree are far more complicated and there, "copyright infringement" is probably the better term overall. --

8658:, a deliberate coopting of somebody else's clear private property right, in order to profit from it while denying the legal owner of the privileges of ownership. In some cases, such as setting up clandestine DVD reproduction operations and selling them on the streets in third world countries, this is clearly privacy as so defined. In other cases, e.g. a kid downloading a youtube video to play the audio of a song at a party, it is hyperbole, and any sources that say otherwise could be falsified. We speak in an encyclopedic voice, avoiding loaded terms, or siding with one camp or another in a battle to define narratives. Thus, we should avoid loaded terms like piracy, regardless of sources, unless there is an overwhelming, compelling reason to do otherwise. - 8692:...much like the misuse of "lynching" or "rape" to refer to objectionable speech. It not only artificially inflates the seriousness of the less serious behavior, it minimizes the original crime. It also, by conflating two different things, makes our language less precise. It hinders communication if we don't use the same definitions for words. Yes, you can decide to use non-standard fleemishes and the reader can still gloork the meaning from the context, but there ix a limit; If too many ot the vleeps are changed, it becomes harder and qixer to fllf what the wethcz is blorping, and evenually izs is bkb longer possible to ghilred frok at wifx. Dnighth? Ngfipht yk ur! Uvq the hhvd or hnnngh. Blorgk? Blorgk! Blorgkity-blorgk!!!! -- 4009:

reasons why a policy discussion is necessary. We've been addressing these "reaction" sections/pages on an ad hoc basis and the argument often goes "Well, incidents X, Y, and Z got reaction sections/pages, so this event should too." The reasoning becomes circular and it remains too caught up in individual events. By addressing this issue at the policy level, my hope is that we can reach a broad consensus where in future, we can dispense with these arguments because there will be an unambiguous policy in place. Now, my personal position is that that policy should be to dispense with reaction pages, but even if this discussion goes the other way, I think it will be useful to all concerned parties to have the issue hashed out.

13193:. The concern doesn't seem warranted. What's the evidence of a problem in this regard? Show us someone trying to rename the B-2 bomber article to "B-two". As for the earlier point in this sub-conversation: The vast majority of WP content is written by non-experts in the field in question. This is possible because WP is based mostly on secondary sources not primary. It takes no expertise to review the all major books on a topic and summarize what they're saying. It takes a great deal of expertise to wade through 2,000 journals worth of primary, unreproduced research and try to figure out what may have validity and what is bogus. There's a reason this is not Academipedia. Experts are of great use on WP in correcting 13057:

rather than whether any changes should be made to either. It would be nice to see COMMONNAME clarified, but the approach to doing that is probably to work it out with AT, MOS, and RM regulars, who understand the effects of nuanced changes at these policypages. Village Pump is like ANI, a pot of emotional responses with insufficient background information and experience most of the time. The "common style" issue has been discussed before, and is nowhere near resolution yet. Aa recently at Jan. 2016 it was seriously proposed (with more support that most would have expected) to merge most of AT back into MOS. I more specifically raised the narrow issue you raised here, Mandruss, in late 2015 at

11286:

is the ones who monkey around with numbers, which I see a lot of from schools, but at the same time, if a person does this from a school vandal patrols will be more suspicious of it than if the same person does the same thing from a cell phone, so the chances of it being caught and reverted are greater if it comes from the school computer vs. the vandal's cellular carrier. The most legitimate reasons I can think of to block schools are to protect the school IP user from being bit by someone assuming bad faith or being targeted for harassment by vicious trolls who have nothing better to do than harass Wikipedians. Other than that... I think we'd get farther if there were some way to

3957:

would get rid of the good content too - they say AFDs should not be used as merge proposals or content discussion, just wholesale deletion of the article. Unfortunately talk pages usually don't get the interaction or admin closure that time-limited AFDs do. All of these AFDs get lots of people who say 'this has reliable sources, therefore we can't delete it' or worse, 'there are loads of these reaction articles, therefore this should be kept too', and the fact that they often occur in the midst of a recent news event impacts how people see the article. I do not believe that the AFDs on whole articles should have any bearing on the merits of these lists of statements in particular.

3903:"Portray world leaders as unsympathetic" Yeah, right. A statement from Belize hasn't been added to the Brussels list, but I don't assume now that Belizeans don't give a darn about Belgium or terrorism. A generic boilerplate statement the same as after any tragedy is not encyclopedic, and just because a source lists it doesn't mean we're required to re-report it. This could be "trimmed and merged" by saying 'heads of government from around the world condemned the attacks and expressed their condolences', or even say 'The governments of countries A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K..... sent sympathies' to portray them as sympathetic, but repetitively quoting every one of them is unnecessary. 528:. If reliable sources clearly establish a person's ethnicity, and establish that it is a key feature describing that person, then I see no problem with it in the infobox. Though I'm not quite sure how to find the exact number, it seems that "ethnicity" is currently listed in thousands of infoboxes at Knowledge, so you're talking about quite a huge deletion here. If you're concerned about abuse of the field, you could require self-identification, but to completely ban mention of ethnicity is very silly. Being part of a social group that shares a common and distinctive culture is suitable for an infobox, and that's what ethnicity means. It also strikes me as odd that 7989:- As one of the commentators on Connor Behan's page, the issue that in some areas, the term "piracy" is strongly established as the de facto term, particularly in the video game industry (where I saw this first appear on my watchlist) where even those that engage in the activity often call themselves "pirates". I would agree that if the legality of the act is unclear or there's no assignment of guilt yet, to use caution and stick to "copyright infringement". If it's not clear what the sources prefer, it makes sense to default to "copyright infringement" but it should not be wholly replaced without considering how the sources around the issue discuss the matter. -- 9599:

settled. When that happens I have been told over and over and by administrators that when they are alerted to the dispute, whatever state they find the article in at the time they lock it against editing, is where it stays put until the dispute is settled. I guess there are always exceptions, but if the last edit was performed by the "bold editor", that's where it sits till there's an agreement. When you do finally hammer out a consensus agreement by RfC or whatever, it's a pretty strong statement of consensus and "status quo" against someone messing with it again. Just make sure you're nice to the new guy on the block and point out the previous discussions.

4768:

coordination of that information. So, some community consensus is reflected only in RfCs or simple discussions. It's often difficult, confusing, messy, and extremely inefficient, in part because (1) those discussions are usually hidden away in the archives of some talk space, and (2) there are often multiple relevant discussions hidden away in the archives of multiple talk spaces. Tons of editor time is spent just debating exactly what the community consensus is. It's a system that seems designed to drive editors completely mad, and someday we may have something better. The first step is to want to, and we haven't taken that step yet as a community. ―

11171:

IP address or addresses stands to prevent that vandalism. The argument that it is unlikely to be the same person who has patiently come back and vandalised years later is totally irrelevant, as the vandalism is the same whether it is one person or 200 people. The only possible way that I can think of that anyone could think that is relevant if they are thinking in terms of punishing the vandal, rather than in terms of preventing the vandalism. I also can't imagine why "this IP does nothing but vandalize" is described above as an "excuse" for blocking: isn't the fact that an IP address is the source of nothing but vandalism a perfectly good

2170:

possible to realise and understand what significance each of these statements has; and rightfully so: This would require in depth knowledge and understanding of each country's political landscape, its internal and external affairs and even if some of us have it, it is certainly biased by our own political stances. For all the above, I consider that such statements are notable and should be recorded in an encyclopaedia as a statement of a fact. In line with Knowledge's policy against original research, I also oppose to the selection by any group of well-intended editors to create a prose based on what they consider notable and what not.

13061:, and the response was basically "meh". That's probably because earlier in 2015 both MOS:TM and MOS:CAPS were adjusted, after substantial negotiation, to include wording that more closely aligned with COMMONNAME, in explicitly taking into account majority source usage, at the expense of some consistency. In Feb. or March of this year COMMONNAME was copyedited to stop burying its lead and otherwise being confusing, and this automatically brought it more into line with MoS (or, rather, corrected misinterpretations of it as conflicting with MoS). And so on. Incremental changing making the perception of conflict more and more moot. 4292:

the notability of an event that they feel closely connected to (likely through nationality or hatred of terrorism). Wikiquote is virtually unheard of by most people and certainly won't get seen, so I doubt anyone with the former intentions would care to compile them at Wikiquote. We have an article tag, which I frequently put up on these articles to see if it might lure people in. I guess Wikiquote is rather alien to most people, even to experienced editors. I made a proposed amendment further up in one of my comments regarding the use of Wikiquote. I could separate that off as another sub-section if you or anyone else supports it.

2763:

converting to prose, doing necessary grouping of common-themed reactions. If 20 countries all offered condolences to an event, and nothing more, you don't need 20 lines of reaction, but a single sentence. In most cases, having separate articles is unnecessary - I wouldn't flat out call them POV forks but they lean towards that since nearly all reactions to these types of events are in solidarity of the country affected. In terms of this proposal, I wouldn't say that reaction articles should be disallowed, but they should be strongly discouraged and favoring tight summary prose to avoid all other issues identified. --

4060:. It's also worth considering that AfDs will be kept if multiple users vote to redirect or merge the contents instead of outright deletion. By trying to reach a consensus on the matter here, we are trying to reduce the amount of bureaucracy involved in every single AfD (although they should still be treated individually, the same issues are frequently raised). It's also a valid point that the type of editors who post on a deletion review for an ongoing news-related story tend to be bias and less experience than those at the village pump. I would encourage you to find a non-circular reason against the proposal. 11385:

range and their IP seems to be static). I'm not as sure on the Washington as a lot of the times you'll see one edit coming from there and never see them again, so it's quite possible Washington School Cooperative has some system where users hop around the range, but I've never noticed it. If the IPs are rotating rapidly, that changes everything. However, if Florida Information Resource Network ever gets rangeblocked like this, I can attest to the fact that those IPs are static because I used to constructively edit from one (mostly logged in though; sometimes the system would hiccup and I'd get logged out).

438:. Such a parameter would get extremely messy and it really isn't something that should feature in a summary about a person (which is what an infobox basically is). If ethnicity needs to be discussed, it should be in the main part of the article. As above, its worth noting that the American fixation on ethnicity is not reflected in most of the rest of the world. There are other places where it is seen as important (for example an Arab Israeli politician), but to include an ethnicity/race parameter in the infobox suggests that it should be filled even when it isn't particularly relevant or important. 1396:) are silly because they are compartmentalizing related topics. Ethnicity and religion can be related. Our aim is to inform the reader. The Infobox is useful to the reader. We should be intelligently using the Infobox. In for instance the Bernie Sanders Infobox we could complete the religion field with "Jewish, mostly nonobservant". This covers all bases. By that I mean that it reflects reliable sources. That benefits the reader. The bottom-line-question we should be asking ourselves is how best to reflect sources. What are the salient points expressed by sources, and how best can we sum them up? 9108:. As per the BLP policy, any uncited/contentious information can be removed and *stays* removed unless it is reliably sourced or judged not to be a BLP violating issue and can be restored by consensus. Even if something is not strictly a BLP issue, it will often stay removed until consensus is formed on the talkpage to restore it due to the sensitive nature of BLPs. When editing biographies, like every other article on wikipedia, if you add material that is not already in the article and someone removes it - you need to form consensus on the talkpage to include the material. This is where 8317:. I can try to say "alleged" whenever I say "copyright infringement" but I don't think the term is much worse than "unlicensed access" or "unauthorized distribution". When I watch a torrented film, there are many reasons why it will never be condemned by a court: encryption, too many fish, privacy laws, shared wifi, interoperability exemptions, lack of evidence to support or refute fair use, and the fact that I have no money. However, it is clear that I've committed some sort of infringement against how the filmmakers hoped it would be used... whether it is legally enforceable or not. 4642:. CSDs are for things that the community as a whole, generally represented by a fairly broad sub section at an RfC or similar debate, decides a) clearly to be deleted in all cases; b) can be reliably recognized by one or two editors without any community debate being needed, and where false positives should be rare, and c) come up often enough that speedy deletion will significantly reduce the load on one or more XfD processes. Those standards are far more important than "legal issues" or "shame", in my view, although ethics have some role in the CSDs for attack pages and hoaxes. 9168:- if you think there are 'slanderous' BLP's under the control of a cabal of editors, feel free to name them there. In practice what happens is you show up at an articles talkpage, declare it is non-neutral and attempt to edit it to conform to your personal opinions (a mixture of anti-science and pro-psudoscience woo promoting) then claim everyone has an agenda (except yourself) when you get reverted. It is unsurprising your favoured anti-science BLP's seem to be under the 'control' of people opposed to you. The relevant policies which favour the 'status quo' are 988:— As others have noted, defining an ethnicity is way beyond the scope of a couple of words in an infobox, and is often irrelevant to the subject matter of the article. But even beyond that, it's clear from this discussion and others that there is no consensus on what "ethnicity" even encompasses (i.e. race? religion? ancestral nationalities? a person's self-identification with any of the preceding?) The "nationality" parameter seems sufficient for the infobox level, and anything relevant requiring discussion beyond that belongs in the article body. 1041:. There is no requirement that an RfC provide any analysis, just that it be neutrally worded (and we mostly tolerate it when it's not, anyway, though I don't think that's a good idea). What neutrality problem is there? The question asked is "The question: Should Knowledge allow ethnicity to be marked in Infoboxes?" There's a pointer to an example discussion, and it's clear that both the poster of the RfC and everyone in the linked discussion understand that the parameter already exists. It's difficult to see what the nature of your objection is. 13031:

together, but rather between the people who want to shift the balance of responsibility between them. Better to just keep on coexisting, working together toward consensus results in article style and titles. We still have no examples of where this breaks down. COMMONNAME is a strategy in support of the Recognizability criterion. Following the recommendations of the MOS is a strategy in support of CONSISTENCY among other things. All worth considering, as TITLE says. Nowhere does it empower COMMONNAME to override other considerations.

4437:. This last point is the problem with the reaction lists is that just saying "X said Y" is not providing any additional context for the reader, making it feel like indiscriminate information. These response sections are fine when they are summarized in prose, which allows editors to help provide useful context, even if the quotes are coming from the sources in the same country. Now, if a third-party, different country source goes into some analysis or criticism of a response from a nation, that's good secondary information to include. -- 5894:

more or less just list where these people got their doctorates, what their thesis was, and a general mention of their area of interest...but of course they'll also feel compelled to mention their kids and their pets....and this is all allowable because they're a member of some scholarly organization or penned a few papers that have been cited a bunch of times by other academics.....) I don't think Knowledge wants to be in this business...these professors have their own web pages for such provided by their institutions....

7246:. It would be much more useful to readers if it included an image of each species. The alternative to SIAs is to convert the pages into "List of ... called ...", e.g. "List of insects called orange emperor", and label them lists. (This is what was done for many plant common names before SIAs were used.) I fail to see how this would be an improvement. It seems to me that the internal classication into dab pages, SIAs, lists, articles, etc. is taking precedence over benefits to readers, and this is just wrong. 13446:, and may be reacting to comments by Blueboar on the talk page about that; he suggested "I don't dismiss the WP:COMMONNAME argument. When the majority of sources that are independent of the subject present the name with a comma, so should we... As that is the most recognizable variation." and "My view has consistently been that we should adopt a similar standard to COMMONNAME when it comes to issues like this." But COMMONNAME does not propose any such standard, so this idea went nowhere. And 4601:. Do away with them. Also do away with the "List of reactions" stuff. It is not encyclopedic (see caveat below), it's feelgood kind of stuff, it's advocacy (let me get my country here to show how much we care--and frequently NGOs and other organizations are listed as well), and it's typically an opportunity for flagporn--besides the fact that they are predictable cliches. Well-meaning cliches, and necessary cliches for the purpose of uniting humanity etc., but cliches nonetheless. 13699:. I removed the content on the 5th of May and revision-deleted it under criterion RD1 of the revision deletion criterion and left a short note on your talk page. While in an ideal world it would be nice to post on the article talk page first and discuss how the content should be re-worded, in reality this is not going to be possible, as there's 75 to 100 copyright violations being detected by this bot every day. The content is readily available at the source newspaper article 5647:

relaxations of General notability requirements. So I would say that when there is doubt for these relaxed guidelines we should err on the side of caution (non notable). (PS Stephan Schulz, I notice your are related to the same field as this professor. Can you honestly say that your position would be as much in favour of including a similar professor studying let's say the mating rituals of butterflies? - just to make sure there are no personal motivations in your arguments).

8678:- "Copyright infringement" is a modern-era civil matter concerned with the protection of income deriving from a created product by restricting the usage of that created product by others. Piracy is a serious criminal matter with a long history that often involved death. Those that use the latter when referring to the former are either just lazy reusers of jargon or are wanting to inflate the seriousness of the effects of copyright infringement on society in general. 2267:

where vigils were held, but a sentence stating that vigils were held all over the world would be right in line. Similarly the section on the reaction from the Muslim countries could be reduced to a handful of paragraphs. The sections about the US's reactions, which are all prose, is what I would expect from such reaction articles; the list format that many of these use is rote reiteration without any effort to summarize, which is a problem with these articles. --

2289:- I've tried to address this on specific articles in the past and usually got major pushback. Responses by world leaders are marginally notable at best during the immediate aftermath. In the long run, 99.9% are wholly unremarkable. Should one of those 0.1% of responses actually make it beyond the first two weeks of the news cycle and become something memorable, it should be included. But deal with those rarities when they occur. Moreover, they run afoul of 9499:" is a rhetorical tactic that pleads for us to govern from an emotional basis rather than a logical one. Absent a policy-based reason to do otherwise, a change that is challenged should remain absent pending discussion and consensus. So yes, in most cases, the status quo reigns. This is built upon the presumption that the status quo enjoys consensus support. That, basically, is the point of the essay: There needs to be a good reason to move away from 5662:

notable", but quite notable indeed, and one of the central figures in the field. I know nothing about butterflies, and I would not have recognised the name of any entymologist, so while my considered position would probably be the same, it's more likely that I would not have formed a considered position in that case. I think the question wether "he, as a person" is notable is somewhat beside the point, as far as current policy is concerned. Compare e.g.

1479: 297: 9270:

then to tag it with a "source needed" tag. I prefer to bias toward leaving things in rather than removing material, as many things can be the input of editors who wrote without sources but with personal knowledge and that is allowable unless challenged, and i don't like when people "challenge" all material without sourcing just because they feel like it, like they're on sort of purging mission. I find that actually harmful to the encyclopedia.

6953:. I mean, this business of using the policy to stifle discussion of whether an edit is good or bad is just intolerable, but it's totally absurd to me that you can have this process to make someone an admin, almost unanimous support for him, and someone is redacting his comments for supposed violations of policy right in the middle of his RfA when people are supposed to be reading what he says and making up their minds! It's just lunacy. 4031:, but since this proposal is not really much "milder" than AfD-type deletion in its wording (the alternative proposal below is different, although I don't particularly like that idea), it seems legitimate to object that if multiple AfDs overwhelmingly opted to keep these reactions, then consensus has been established on the matter. Do we want to establish it again anyway? Fine, but then it seems legitimate for me to say "oppose" 13308:(news style is mostly about getting the most content into the smallest columns as possible, for quick visual scanning; encyclopedic style is about maximum clarity in communication). Worse yet, much of that newsprint, especially in pop-culture topics (entertainment, sports, etc.) is often try-to-sound-hip-or-clever-at-all-costs even more than it is expediency-driven, and its clarify and neutrality terribly suffers as a result. 2978:. The usual responses are predictable and formulaic: "The King of Foobar extended his condolences to the victims and their families" etc. No encyclopedic value whatsoever. This nonsense is a waste of space and just brings out the same arguments every time there is an international disaster. Get rid of it once and for all. Significant reactions ("we will bomb the perpetrators off the planet") can be included in the main article. 12829:. It is true that AT and the naming conventions guidelines defer to MoS on style matters (they do so in over a dozen places). However, "style" is broad and diffuse without a clear definition, and this is actually also true of proper names (the linguistic and philosophy definitions of the concept diverge), and how to determine what is the most common is often itself controversial. So there is necessarily a bit of overlap. 11158:

a block for a few hours is enough, and a couple of days at the most. Obviously, if the IP address also has a history of constructive editing, then that will weigh against a block of any sort, and if a block is considered it will even more likely to be a short one. Personally, I never place any kind of IP block without first carefully checking the history of the relevant IP address(es) over a time period of significantly

2192:; they are stated and then get little coverage after the fact. Such statements don't create policy if they are not backed by any type of actual action (see my !vote above - it's one thing to send aid or offer intelligence services, its another to simply show respects). This type of information is fine over at Wikinews, but in the long term, these statements offer little understand by themselves of the original event. -- 7951:

otherwise contentious." (with three citations there). However, converting to "copyright infringement" may not always be the right thing to do; we just need to make sure we are taking sides, e.g. calling something infringement if it has not been determined to be. Piracy is sometimes defined as "unauthorized access", which may not even be illegal; so we need to be clear, about who is alleging what act, in some cases.

14318:

huge deal in American politics of the era that he was Catholic. If Sanders, as a candidate, were a self-declared, practicing Jew religiously, he might also qualify, but he's simply an outspoken, proud ethnic Jew, of indeterminate spiritual beliefs. It's not in any way part of H. Clinton's notability that's she's at least nominally some form of Christian, like most Americans (and most Westerners, for that matter).

10940: 8425:

infringement and took it down". Likewise, "found guilty of copyright infringement" clearly implies a decision by a court. On the other hand, just because the Arthur Conan Doyle estate claims that use of Sherlock Holmes or Warner/Chappell Music claims that use of the song "Happy Birthday to You" is copyright infringement that does not mean that we should accept those claims. We should report them as being claims. --

8011:

the judgement was made) But when broadly talking about the situation of copyright infringement with no specific group identified, we should review the sources and use what they use. I use video games again as many times developers can track the difference between legal sales and copyvio versions and thus it is well known there that software piracy is going on, so it is called this out directly most of the time. --

4182:

cutesy little flags and crap to showcase these sections. This may be motivated as a show of support for victims, a feel-good gesture, but it's not really encyclopedic. When they are routine, it should be enough to say that "Condolences were made by leaders of Andorra, Angola, Australia,, Austria......" Things on Knowledge tend to get out of hand when we drop out of prose and go into some constrained format.

5542:, while the examples for being highly selective are on the lines of the Royal Academy (the given example) with a membership of 80 in total - so definitely fewer than 40 appointees each year; is distinguished professor (or the German equivalent of the title) at TUM (which is a major institute) comparable to the title distinguished professor in the US? This does require some sweating for the point to be made. 4915:: Ignore All Rules. For a simple clear case, let's say the graphics on some page are unreadable by people who are colorblind. You can and should fix that problem, even if the change technically violates some policy or guideline or consensus. It is obvious that consensus wants it fixed, even though no one ever discussed it. We don't leave the page unreadable just to lawfully-enforce a dysfunctional rule. 7581:, yes there are some extreme literalists involved in disambiguation (some might consider me one, although I think I tend to argue for moderation in many cases). I think the longer Thread plant descriptions are just fine for a disambiguation page, so long as they don't have extraneous links or references. I think the descriptions can be a long as needed to allow readers to distinguish between them. 3983:, and this proposal really is about as blunt as an AfD in its terms, despite some claims. It may be sometimes needed to condense semi-identical "canned" international response into a single statement, and only give prominence to the ones with different content, and in general, to use prose for this kind of content instead of lists of quotes with flags, to comply with policies and guidelines. That 13300:

journals (or in in-universe geekery materials, or buried in technical jargon that assumes a decade of professional experience, or whatever – by no means is all "specialized", very-narrow-audience publishing of an academic character). In yet others, it may be a pop-culture topic, with most coverage appearing in low-end entertainment press publications, that use informal, efficiency-at-all-costs

3756:. To my knowledge there has never been a published list of countries to have given responses to an attack in this regard, unlike say GDP data which is frequently published by major organizations. You're essentially saying "this country hasn't given a response yet, because we haven't been bothered or able to find a source for it online" and it's generally taken to be negative about that country. 5811:

article about LP himself...because what's the utility of an article about LP himself to the encyclopedia reader?? It's possible the encyclopedia user could seek out "Isabelle" but who could possibly be seeking out LP himself (to learn such things as what undergrad classes he teaches and how many kids he has....especially if thinking about this with a long view..years and decades from now) ???

536:. Also, the Sanders controversy is not over yet, and it seems inappropriate to use this forum to advance a position in that content dispute. By the way, race and ethnicity are different concepts, and just because the US Census Bureau may occasionally prefer to use ethnicity as a euphemism for race does not make it so; laws often include "definition" sections that define words in weird ways 421:. If you include the field some editors will feel they ought to fill it. On those very rare occasions when it is relevant to the main article it should be handled there in a sensitive and culturally aware manner. Curly Turkey's comments about definitions is important. Indeed I'd go slightly further; "ethnicity" itself is open to to interpretation: is it race, culture or geographical? 1779: 7712:-- whether a redirect to an article, perhaps with a hatnote or to a disambiguation page. About Thread plant descriptions, yes perhaps the MOSDAB guidance can be better framed to allow for such cases. In practice, such a formulation is not that unusual, but you are right that MOSDAB does not clearly describe such cases. And I think I mostly agree with you that creating redirects such as 7512:, set indexes attract the same sort of cruft as disambiguation pages -- only there are no common standards for maintaining them. Some projects have guidelines (such as for ship indices), but there are far fewer people actively maintaining them than for disambiguation pages. I have to question the validity of the concept of a set index as currently applied, often simply to escape from 5049:

debate has historically had to do with articles, which are outward-facing. I don't see why in general there should be a push to get rid of drafts that are not ready for article space, except via G13, which is already there. There is bad faith on both sides, and that is not good. I do see that moving a draft into article space to nominate it for deletion is a blatant form of

187:

7553:

in Foo and the Foo River is something in Sweden whose name is a coincidence, we should have a bit of organization to explain that to people right when they look at the dab. Because the more terms there are in a dab, the more important it is to spare them from having to click them all - and the fewer terms there are, the less we have to worry about drowning them in cruft!

6641:. There is only one issue that I do not see clear. I understand that the CC BY requires that the original author is given credit and that the user is free to do what he wants with the work, including modifications; nevertheless, I do not manage to see if original CC BY 4.0 text (not CC BY-SA 4.0) is compatible and can be mixed in a text with CC BY-SA 3.0 as final license. 6407:

large number/percentage of articles such as these degrades the perception of Knowledge as having respectable standards/being of a high quality/not being frivilous 3. 99% of these articles will be orphaned/never edited properly/or made to adhere to policy (and never visited...particularly as the years go on)...I think Knowledge does care about this even if it's "not paper."

6082:? The aim of Knowledge is to provide a summary of all human knowledge, not the intersection of topics interesting to everybody (which likely would be empty). And of course there is no "right to ones own personal Knowledge article". First, there is no such right to begin with. And secondly, articles are neither private nor owned, in particularly not by the subjects. -- 8907:

themselves, but we pretty much always reject "anti-life" and "anti-choice", because that's what their enemies call them. "Piracy" is a term coined by the copyright monopoly. Yes, a lot of blatant (and anonymous) copyright infringers use the term to tweak the nose of the copyright monopoly, but it is still an innately POV term not suitable for an encyclopedia. --

7280:- a reader who reaches that page from an article about (for example) Cuba wouldn't be helped by having images on the page. However, more to the point, you appear to be assuming that there's a rule that prohibits any images on dab pages (even if it would help disambiguation, as could be the case for some plants) - afaik that isn't the case - see, for example, 11251:, about 82% of all anonymous edits are actually not vandalism. If a single IP address/range shows around 20% vandalism, that's average; if it shows around 20% non-vandalism, that's very bad. If a single sample of 50 edits shows not a single non-vandalism edit, you can be almost completely (around 99.5%) certain that at least 90% of its edits are vandalism. 14029:: Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Evangelicalism. Religion name mentioned in body, but this page is a classic case of what happens when you don't follow the self-identification rule. Someone took a reference that says "Perry now attends Lake Hills Church more frequently than he attends Tarrytown, he said, in part because it's closer to his home" 11981:

unblocked, which I think was an accident); they're very authoritarian with their webfilter. It's a big surprise to me though because the guy who runs/ran the webfilter (who I used to email all the time when I was in high school) told me that the law required them to lock things down tight like that, but maybe the laws are different in California.

11128:

sprees from them), to me, the damage caused by the type of abuse from those IPs (very minimal) is not enough to stop even one good faith edit for an extended amount of time. Additionally, what is your take on long-term rangeblocks impacting entire states, just to stop pom-pom type test editing? Seems like overkill to me. Overkill that is

4677:

awards, find out how well respected they are, discuss that amongst ourselves, etc. THAT'S why we don't use speedily deletion for things like that, it needs to be discussed. The article noted above, while it (in my opinion) should be deleted, does not tick the boxes necessary for speedy deletion, and as such, needs to go through AFD. --

14402:

references are now suddenly labelled "notes" while the further reading section (which are not references to the article but suggested further reading) is listed under references. There is no reason to assume this exception is needed for this specific article, so without a very sound and complete argument why IAR should not be used.

11823:. If a student has no internet at home, (s)he probably doesn't have an email account even if the school allows students to access email from school, so (s)he can't request an account. I'm glad there's no raging support for a policy to block schools on sight, because now I can use that in arguments against long-term school blocks. 5726:

subject of an independent book or feature-length film", "The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museum".

12617:. MOS is for WP, only. COMMONNAME is derived from everyone else. There's no way WP can impose MOS on the outside world. I suppose there might be a few cases where the common name isn't very common, and some sources "fix" the name in ways that might conform to MOS, but those will be rare exceptions, already handled by IAR. -- 1154:— Ethnicity is frequently an objective and relevant qualifier for people. Where it is (and only where it is), it belongs in the infobox. In some cases (apartheid South Africa, Spanish colonial America, the Jim Crow-era South), it's a legally defined status that determines the rights of people involved. It's somewhat obtuse that 8407:

claiming that those putting those videos up as copyright infringement and without any other legal assessment of the situation -- we'd obviously not call the users as "copyright infringers" in WP's voice, but it would be silly not to use the words "copyright infringement" to describe why the company struck down the videos. --

13240:

case style was the most common, even though for most organisms of the same kind the sentence case style was the most common. (I quickly found examples using Google ngrams: e.g. "European robin" beats "European Robin" but "Manx Shearwater" beats "Manx shearwater".) If COMMONSTYLE is to be used, it should be applied to

7629:

factor for whether something is a disambiguation page or a set index. If there are a lot of similar things that get muddled, a broad concept article that elaborates on the commonalities and the differences would probably be better than either a disambiguation page or what commonly passes for a set index these days.

5929:

are not talking about the local boyscout chapter when we are talking about highly esteemed societies like ACM, these are definitely not some obscure organization. Also penning a few papers is unlikely to gain any attention in the field. You need a visible general scope of the field to be cited more than a few times.

14266:...) don't apply to US presidential candidates. And then, of course, whatever the result of the new RfC is, it won't be accepted either. So, what to do? I could really use some help here. All I want is sources that show compliance with our policies, but it keeps turning into a quagmire on every individual page. -- 7670:...." for every potential entry on an organism common name page, making my longish descriptions even longer with the added text providing no additional value in disambiguation. I just don't see the point in opening each line with the page title on organism common name pages (it makes more sense on dab pages like 7173:

animals are probably closely related enough to belong in an index. We do have the problem of references from other articles sometimes intending all the birds (or frogs, or shrubs) known by a certain common name because they share some common characteristic like a territory or a predator-prey relationship.

378:) and they way "black" is defined in Brazil (where siblings with the same parents can be classified as different races). Knowledge draws a very international audience, and race/ethnicity/etc are extremely complicated and contentious concepts—an Infobox is a horribly inappropriate place to put this stuff. 14749:, but for various reasons, elevating it to an officially sanctioned "rule" (whatever we call it) would have a negative effect on collaboration; it opens up the opportunities to "game" the system by granting a clear advantage to one person in a dispute, rather than leaving all persons on equal footing. -- 5019:

the process needs to be fixed. Do they think that it should be changed to get rid of more drafts (either via CSD, or via MFD, or via robots, or what), or do they think that the process should be fixed to avoid getting rid of the drafts that are gotten rid of? What is the driver behind the controversy?

157:

14474:. There seems to be no such overriding reason here. The editor has a IAR banner on their talkpage but their edit summary here, where it uses its policy status as the means to the end, suggests a deep misunderstanding regarding IAR. To throw away the manual of style so willfully is half-deserving of a 14401:

Ignore all rules trumps all other policies in my view. But this goes if, and only if, it makes improvements over general practice (for example because the situation is specific to the article under discussion). In the specific case you are referring to, the change makes the matter worse as the inline

14178:

The US has never elected a president who did not profess a belief in Christianity at least to some extent. It's still relevant in American politics in a way, say, it is not in Australia, which has elected at least one atheist prime minister. Note the fascination with Obama's religion, from the Rev.

13299:

of something is not automatically used at Knowledge, but often eschewed, because the most common styling is frequently not independent of the subject, but outright promotional. In other cases, it may be a highly specialized style that is confusing to encyclopedia readers and found only in ivory-tower

13239:

Another of my concerns is picking out WP:COMMONNAME from WP:AT; stylization also bears on some of the other principles, like precision and consistency. For example, we could re-open the discussion of how to style the English names of organisms based on showing that for a particular organism the title

13113:

per Iridescent. MOS is routinely at variance with what everyone does, and its dictates are handed down by a tiny minority of people who feel like continually arguing over minutiae and then imposing their will on everyone else. Aside from general MOS provisions, such as WP:ERA and WP:ENGVAR, there's

13064:

Ok. I saw a lot of policy debate in article talk—disagreement about what the policy actually says. Not how it applies to that article, but what it means for all articles. This essentially turns article talk into dozens or hundreds of scattered extensions of this page and other community-level venues,

12220:

articles, people using them do. Ha, I remember the initiatives we launched to support libraries, and to try and attract more female users, what about the libraries we block (school libraries, college libraries, and public libraries mistaken for schools), and what about all of the girls/young women we

11793:

I'm glad you think that trying to establish some form or order here, instead of the chaos we currently have with admins doing things which affect thousands of users just as they please, is a waste of time. However, feel free to comment, support, or oppose any of my ideas individually; it doesn't have

11470:

Key word: Temporarily. I have no problem with short bans, or even long ones (six months or a year) if the IP does nothing but spew vandalism day after day after day. It seems a lot of these blocks turn out to essentially be permabans, because the IPs just keep getting reblocked for a year, two years,

11166:

Very different from the case of one sudden burst of vandalism (or several sudden bursts well separated) is the situation where a particular IP address or group of addresses is the source of endless continuing vandalism or other unconstructive editing. Very often, I have known the following to happen.

10641:

to suggest that this or that notable person did it for the amateur love of the activity. It is safer to assume that they did it for greed for the money and just report the financial figures. Any CPA would agree and just say that if it was not for greed, then apologies but we are still going to report

10612:

Almost all of the links already present that you're citing are about businesspeople, entrepreneurs, and businesses themselves. In fact, I checked the first 10 article pages and all of them are. There is long-standing consensus to include net worth in articles about businesspeople but I wish to assess

10410:

as PrimeHunter has already mentioned. In short - there are practical reasons why some sub-nations/protectorates are listed separately from their parent country. They are geographically separate and were mapped at different times. Great Britain was (generally) mapped as a whole so little benefit to be

9892:

Religion is a big deal in the US, a high proportion of US Presidential candidates have made clear and unambiguous assertions of faith. But that doesn't mean we should override our policies to create a primary source or to try to be comprehensive about something that may not be public. It simply isn't

9158:

doesn't matter by default although it's good manners to not go around messing with articles for the heck of it, without just cause. What matters is that the article is supportable an accurate according to the world of reliable sources on the topic, and gives due weight to the various subtopics of the

8439:

I agree with Guy Macon. There are contexts where we need to use terms like "alleged" (this doesn't distinguish between "piracy" and "copyright infringement"). A person may sue an other person for "copyright infringement", not for "alleged copyright infringement". A web site may remove content because

8424:

Agree. We should neither blindly accept it whenever someone makes the accusation, nor should we avoid it when, for example, it is the stated reason why Youtube says they removed a video. "Removed because of copyright infringement" seems clear; it means "Youtube decided that this video was a copyright

8010:

important that if we are referring to any specific person or group that has been accused of such copyright infringement that we should not use "piracy" unless that person or group readily self-identifies like that. (The point at the trial was that this term presumed guilt already on the action before

7552:

to look at. Also, one thing I like to see that I've run into resistance about is to have an explanation when some of the things are named after others. So if there's a town of Foo and there's the Foo Tower and the Foo Lake and the Foo River, and the tower and the lake are named that because they're

6919:

Particularly with how the removed question was asked - it wasn't trying to push any BLP issue, but asking if the report should be taken seriously or not. That easily falls under BLPTALK. If it was an experienced editor stating that we must include a contentious bit of info that can only be sourced to

6752:

Dom has a point here. First - There is a difference between what is acceptable to put in an article, and what is acceptable to discuss on a talk page. Second - the talk page edit under discussion asked whether a source was accurate or a hoax... That is an appropriate question to ask on a talk page.

5661:

Yes, I'm in the same (rough) area. I also know Larry at least professionally (we go to some of the same conferences). That is why I understand the breadth and influence of Larry's work, know how to interpret h-indices and citation numbers, and so on. For me it's a no-brainer that Larry is not "barely

4342:

News source simply state the quotes or convert them into the usual wording of "X from Y shared his condolences with the following message:" There are only so may ways or rephrasing that. If we had sources that are dedicated to the quotes and their wider impact then converting them to prose would be a

3826:

There is no need for the repetitive obligatory statements by every world leader regardless of their relation to the event. They provide no useful information to the reader and a generic statement is notable neither by itself nor with all the others. Notability of the event does not lend notability to

3751:

In regards to points number one, "Articles that contain nothing more than an extensive list of quotes from state leaders giving boiler plate condolences are generally not acceptable." seems to match my opinion and I think the intention of this proposal. If no one opposes, I hope that when the closing

2747:

I understand the sentiment, and appreciate that articles can become loaded with material of little value; but in writing about incidents in years long past, these have been extremely useful in expounding differing perspectives. Weeding out the redundant ones can be done as part of the regular editing

2266:

In taking the 9/11 article, there's three sections that are just lists of reactions (which is what most of these other articles are). Nearly all of those sections, from a first look through, could be reduced to a paragraph or two summary statements. Eg, we don't need a line item for each city/country

1994:

There is no consensus for the creation of a policy explicitly considering all responses from world leaders to be non-notable. In particular, concerns about the potential for such a policy to restrict editors from including coverage of unusual reactions or reactions that have an unusually large impact

14284:

Guy, your comments don't accurately reflect my position there, but as I'm the only one taking it I guess that's understandable. Improve the close of that RfC so that it clearly affirms a consensus on the notability point of your multi-point proposal, and I'll oppose inclusion at the Clinton article.

11627:

In cases of schools, often time the actual damage to the project by their pom-pom vandalism is very minimal; I find it's often someone being silly rather than someone actively trying to cause serious disruption. In contrast, any time someone takes an interest in becoming an editor, it's a good thing

11285:

see is anyone actually refute my arguments. 1,000 instances of obvious test editing or silly, pom-pom type vandalism does zero real damage to Knowledge, whereas 10 good faith edits actually help Knowledge, sometimes more than other times. Consider the net gain vs. the net loss. The exception to this

11170:

Blocks are supposed to be preventive, not punitive. If a particular IP address or range of addresses has been the source of thousands of vandalism edits over the course of years, with no constructive edits or only a couple of dozen constructive edits among those thousands, then blocking the relevant

11157:

Sometimes a school IP address is the source of a sudden burst of vandalism, suggesting that either a single person or a couple or more kids playing around together are responsible. In such cases a warning very often puts an end to it, and if not then a short block will usually do the job: very often

9167:

Actually articles are required to be verifiable. Not 'right'. Which is why you tend not to get on well as your definition of 'right' is quite often at odds with others. Also your comments on BLP's are laughably incorrect. The BLP noticeboard is one of the few that acts quickly on reported violations

8928:

per Masem. As opposed to what people like Od Mishehu say, "piracy" is common usage among various communities (most notably, as has already been pointed out, video games), and does not have the inherent pejorative connotation most of you believe it does. I'm actually rather surprised by the course of

7930:

Even if this were true, I think it behoves us to think of whatever combination of neutral words might be needed to describe the same thing. Looking at the content industry's response to file sharing, I do not see how there is any specificity left in the term. I've seen the label applied to all types

7201:

I fully support the view that most (if not all) SIAs should be either a dab page or an article. There may be a few cases where that is restrictive, but on a collaborative enyclopedia like this once the concept of a SIA exists some users (mis)understand it to mean that if all/most of the entries on a

6465:

Let's also agree that the article in the state at the beginning of this discussion (i.e. lack of independent reliable secondary sources discussing the person beyond merely referring to his work) was problematic in presenting the evidence for that notability (even under the specific guidelines as set

6406:

I can think of three potential reasons: 1. these articles (and the current standards) inherently invite (or even require) editing that is against policy (COI, POV, Autobiography)...whereas if to qualify was more difficult it is far more likely non-connected editors will create/contribute 2. having a

5048:

Thank you. That is as it appeared. I would then say, as my opinion, that in most cases the exclusionists are just plain wrong, because the purpose of draft space is to provide an incubator (as it was formerly called) for improving the bad material into good material. The inclusionist-exclusionist

5033:

Essentially it's the age old disagreement between inclusionists and exclusionists that has plagued Knowledge for years - only now applied to drafts instead of articles. The inclusionists think we are getting rid of potentially good material, and want fewer deletions. The exclusionists think we are

5018:

Thank you. I agree with the comments. However, I still have a question. What is the reason for the (apparently bitter) controversy about drafts and the rules about drafts? What is being said to be wrong with both the MFD process and with the CSD criterion G13? A few editors evidently think that

4619:

CSDs are a strict set of criteria, and nothing may be speedy deleted unless it meets one of these. It can be an attack page if it's purpose is to attack a policy, not only a human being. And your suggested #1 isn't completely accurate - firstly, because several of these "legal" criteria are actually

4457:

Let's just not have these bullet point lists of statements. Just because media in another country happens to note a different president's statement does not mean we should continue to list all of these. They should be summarized in prose about actual actions taken, not the generic condolences always

4319:

I have to agree that Wikiquote is rather alien to me as well; I don't think I've ever even edited it. This whole "world leaders/famous people react to current events"-dealie might actually help make Wikiquote a more well-known website? Regardless, I feel like a dynamic bulleted list should generally

4291:

The content is certainly best off over at Wikiquote and we should never forget that, but (to my knowledge) I'm the only one to ever make a transfer to Wikiquote, despite raising the issue several times. In my experience these reactions are tallied by IP or newly-joined editors in a way to exaggerate

4181:

with caveats. We should not exclude citation of world leader reactions. The problem with these sections is not that we point to this well-sourced detail about events, but that we do not properly condense it like other details of text. To the contrary, there is a little cottage industry of putting

3396:

Our articles on terrorist attacks also attract new editors who add unreferenced information or update numbers without updating the source. As far as I know, we normally revert them and leave a polite message on their talk page. I don't see why this would be any different? If it becomes that big of a

3377:

Is see the problem, but making this a policy will lead almost certainly to it being used against relatively novice editors who added such comments to share their outrage with the situation. Unless the application of such policy can be guaranteed to be polite (according to the cultural customs of all

2073:

responses, such as sending money, aid relief, police, military, or the like, or even a country's offer to help investigations - something beyond just a quote - are reasonable to include, but just a bunch of quotes condemning a terrorist attack, or supporting a region hit by natural disasters, or the

1840:

Aha - so the US census has "nationality = Jewish-American" as a possible entry? Blacks should therefore have the nationality "Black-American" and Episcopalians should be listed "nationality = Episcopalian-American"? We can have "India-England-UK" as a "nationality? Sorry - looks like that sort of

634:

Surely all that is needed is a hidden note to accompany the religion parameter stating that it should only be filled if there is a reliable source? Removing it completely (and only being able to add it if you are "in the know") means that it wouldn't be available to new and/or inexperienced editors.

186:

171:

156:

14436:

Moreover, once IAR is cogently argued to support an edit against policy, if the edit is opposed then it must get consensus in order for it to stick. Since consensus is determined by the superior argument, all IAR really says is that the better argument in a consensus discussion isn't merely trumped

13233:

I think it would be helpful to the discussion if it were spelt out exactly which bits of "style" guidance in the MoS are under consideration. I guess from previous discussions that these include capitalization, the use of hyphens and various kinds of dashes, the use or non-use of periods/full stops

13197:

incorrect assumptions about source material (including the secondary), and weeding out secondary material that does not actually reflect the consensus in the field in question. But it is true that many scientists and other specialists are not good writers, and few people at all are great writers of

13009:

We have a SNOW consensus that COMMONNAME should not defer to MOS on style. That's great; the problem is that, apparently, no one but me felt that it should do so, or that that was even a viable question. So we have made no progress whatsoever as to the problem I described in the opener. We've had a

11765:

overkill looking for a solution when no one has shown that an actual problem exists. Further we shouldn't be changing the entire blocking policy, revising template and doing a multitude of changes via a discussion at WP:VPP. Propose these separate if you'd like but I'm not going to support five-ten

11263:

If you're saying that these IPs should be blocked because they produce more bad then good, fine, but there needs to be policy on it. One of our foreign language sisters blocks all schools from editing based on a policy they created. Maybe we need that kind of policy here? Also, "test edits" are not

11108:

If the contributions on a school IP address (or mobile, which sometimes gets mistaken for a school) are a mix of good and bad edits (particularly if the ratio is typical of IP edits and it's just that those IP addresses are shared by more users) blocks should usually be shorter. Longer blocks would

10656:

That's not what I mean. The motivations of the subject of the article are quite irrelevant (unless you're suggesting the ideal would be to report the net worths of people who did it for the money, and not report for the ones who didn't, even if they have the same career?). My question is more along

9116:

come into play. They are not *policy* as per BLP, but they are best practice guidelines for collaborative work. Your question appears to have a specific target, do you have a recent example that can be looked at? Otherwise (excepting BLP's) it needs to be judged individual depending on the material

8706:

This is the problem that I have when it comes to the video game industry. There's very little half-measures if one is going to engage in copyright infringement - either you have legally acquired the game, or you have done some act to get the game without respecting the rights of the copyholder, and

8331:

To avoid using "copyright infringement" makes no sense. Regardless of the situation, if you use someone else's copyrighted work without permission, you have committed copyright infringement. Now, whether your use falls into the fair use defense, or if you have egregiously violated the copyright, or

7796:

I'd suggest that editors need to make the justification that such images and details are helpful for disambiguation and aren't just for decoration or pedantry. I suppose what is considered "useful" may be a matter of opinion. Many DAB editors are quite willing to IAR when the occasions call for it.

7623:

are better as disambiguation pages. Although it's only my opinion as yet, to me, the distinguishing factor for a SIA is that it should be possible to say something meaningful about the group as a group. If it is just a collection of things that happen to have the same name, that is a disambiguation

7301:

It looks to me like these set indexes are disambiguation pages. I don't think that disambiguation pages should be so constrained - while this can be a matter of policy, I can scarcely think of a situation where WP:IAR applies more strongly. If you can make a change that defies disambiguation page

7129:

The tight restrictions on disambiguation pages exist because disambiguation pages are merely navigational tools intended to get the reader to the actual topic of interest. Most disambiguation pages list topics that are in completely unrelated fields. Where there is a relationship between the topics

6285:

Good point; I stand corrected. Summary is the important word here. When summarising knowledge, the decision what details to leave out is the important decision. The arguments remain largely the same though. What for some is essential to a topic (e.g. the bio of a leading Tapei language researcher),

5779:

As the Anon editor mentions. This is an interesting case. This is clearly a good professor, but is good enough to claim he is notable? And are the notability guidelines under WP:PROF strict enough? And what if the actual article does not make it clear that the person matches the WP:PROF guidelines?

5291:

I am not so sure it would. Yes citation counts above 2000 are pretty imprssive, but Scholar tends to be somewhat indiscriminate in counting. Citation count without an independent analysis of what this means in the specific field of an author does not really imply significant impact in the scholarly

4559:

with caveats as above. Besides, this isn't really a meaningful restriction, because news today is very international. It is highly unlikely that any but the smallest country's condolences will not be mentioned by good newspapers around the world. I would be much more concerned about whether what

4475:

this idea. However, Wikiquote isn't really a good medium for such quotes. Wikiquote usually hosts quotes about the Knowledge subjects themselves, not the reaction to Knowledge subjects. Anyway, reliable secondary sources should be required for "condolence" lists anyway, because they're required for

3881:. This is encyclopedic information, and more often than not, it's referenced in secondary reliable sources that cover the incident's aftermath. Would people rather portray world leaders as unsympathetic by excluding all mentions of reactions? I'd much rather tone down such sections if possible, but 3178:

per Atsme. Although we can pile up a bunch of reliable sources documenting such, I think this is one case where the topic itself is not notable. Really, most of the citations for these reactions likely mention the reaction but are not about the reaction so really the subject is not notable per GNG,

2822:

we need some sort of guideline which will prevent indiscriminate lists of quotes from appearing on Knowledge. It sets a band precedent and grows out of control. Quotes and reactions articles are absolutely fine when their aim is to use prose, but such large indiscriminate lists should be the job of

2762:

If they were written in prose rather than as a list, this would make sense. And I can understand that the days/weeks right after an event, one is going to gather these all up and a list is by far the easiest way to organize them in the short term. But after some time, I would expect weeding out and

2400:

The standard condolences never change in any substantial way. Yay freedom and kindness, boo terror and death. And the reaction to those is never anything special. They're just published, republished and repeated the next time. Burn the standalone lists and limit reactions in articles to those which

2132:

and that we can have some discernment in choosing which examples to include, and which ones probably don't bear mentioning. If the president of a neighboring country, or a leader of a major world power, makes a statement, that's possible useful to include. We don't need statements from leaders of

2122:

The issue is that we're trying to fix a problem that requires a scalpel, and this proposal is using a chainsaw. It's a similar problem across Knowledge in all sorts of issues. The issue is this 1) A good, well written article will often have a few representative examples of something important to

656:

meant to ask, "Surely all that is needed is a hidden note to accompany the religion parameter stating that it should only be filled if there is a public self-identification with the religious belief made in direct speech by the article subject, and only if that religious belief is a defining factor

14317:

A position of "religion is relevant for every politician" is direct anti-consensus defiance of the RfC. The only US president in living memory who would qualify per the (essentially two) criteria (self-identification, and more importantly only if directly tied to the person's notability); it was a

12902:

And? Every essay was written by someone. Surely you realize they do not appear by magic out of nowhere. The point of essays is that they lay out once, and clearly, an argument we don't want or need to restate over and over again, and the point of referring to them is "go read this instead, so we

12211:

because too many IPs are going to be blocked in attempt to stop the inevitable from happening in an open project and the only people who are going to go out of their way to become contributors are going to be people that have something to gain from registering (POV pushers, paid editors, spammers,

12191:

The proposal to restrict blocks on IPs is deeply flawed and appears to be based on the peculiar circumstances of an individual who wants to edit from school networks regardless of what problems those networks have caused. One point that I did not notice above is that relentless vandalism is a very

12159:

No thank you. We checkusers already have more than enough to do. I will note that over the years we periodically see schools *requesting* that their IPs be blocked because they do not want their (frequently traceable) IPs misused to vandalize Knowledge. The students can still *read* Knowledge even

11384:

I'd love to see some proof that people were IP hopping in that North Carolina range. Actually, from my experience encountering IPs in that range, I think most of them are static IPs with each individual IP representing thousands at a particular district (I know Avery County Schools fall under that

11369:

Perhaps many of the non-vandalism IP editors make more edits, but from fewer IP addresses, so the average IP address will have a higher percentage of disruptive edits than that. Should it make a difference whether the same people are editing through random and constantly changing IP addresses in a

10827:

to justify including it on its own. I also think there's a scale component as well - there's absolutely no reason to include the net worth of a person if it's a few tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, even if others in the same profession have net worths included (for example, an athlete who

10542:

Let us face a reality: the world of the Internet is changing. You can now type into Google search any notable person's name with the suffix "net worth" and get some information, often in a Google-special box as the first hit. That was not the case five or ten years ago, when Knowledge was younger.

10028:

Off the cuff, I am flat out opposed to the idea of icons in histories. Since we have strict guidelines about COI edits, any that make it into articles will have to be approved by the community, and as such become implicitly not considered COI - if you catch my drift. So any indication of COI would

9252:

The bias in an edit dispute (both adding and removal of material) is always for the status quo UNLESS there are mitigating circumstances such as bad sourcing, BLP violations etc which would lead towards removal (and consensus to return it to the article). If there is no clear argument for material

7716:

purely for the purpose of artificial compliance with some interpretation of MOSDAB guidelines (especially when the redirect may be questionable as in this case) is not something to be encouraged. I'm not sure if you recall, but I had lengthy disagreement with another DAB editor on that very topic.

7707:

is known as "Grayling (genus)", though one wouldn't know that by looking at the page. However, this is getting far afield from set index versus disambiguation page considerations. These may primary topic and article title considerations, but I'm not seeing how they make any difference in set index

7071:

I would suggest that multiple species (or multiple things of any kind) should only be listed together in a set index if there is some "value add" in doing so. If the set index will merely function as a disambiguation page, only providing the reader with a way to find the article they were actually

6430:

the article and the policies/guidelines in the current state. We do not need more restrictions on what constitutes notability. We especially do not need more of the concept that if someone/something is only notable within a "niche" discipline, than they may not be "notable enough" for Knowledge in

5980:

As I said before, this professor is well above averagely notably and he is either very close, or does even pass the Knowledge requirements of academic notability. And that is, in my view, exactly why this discussion is relevant. Do we, who are not involved in computer science, think this person is

5928:

I think you are now oversimplifying it. First of all, people should be discouraged to edit their own Knowledge article as that would be a conflict of interest. So if the kids and pets appear, it should be added by someone besides themselves, making it not very likely they will appear. Secondly, we

5893:

as the guidelines stand now Knowledge is in a position to be a depository of hundreds of thousands of stub like articles (and eventually millions) about academics that are created by themselves or by people who work closely with them (ie grad students)...articles that have virtually no utility and

4922:

policy. We have endless incidents of people arguing that that sexually explicit content or images of Muhammad or whatever should be removed from articles. They fight over whatever article they find offensive, sometimes they attract a temporary local majority, but they have zero chance of reversing

4676:

and gives direct, specific examples of being recognized as such, by winning several national awards. Now, you may say "But really, are those awards themselves notable enough to make the person worthy of a Knowledge article?" See, to answer THAT question, we'd have to research something about the

4240:

I still support the original proposal, but fear that its implementation may only be confined to "Reactions to..." articles leaving the door wide open for the shit to flood on to the main article instead. It should be noted that I have some doubts about the proposal. Mainly due to the recent Lahore

3558:

includes sourced information about how the attacks spawned debate over resettlement of refuges from the Middle East and mass surveillance, resulted in an increased military presence in combat zones, and has had an impact on American law. Now, I’m not opposed to solutions that would cut down on the

3478:

is key in this discussion. More specifically, "Knowledge considers the enduring notability ..." I don't know whether world leader's reactions to large-scale terrorist attacks like Brussels and Lahore recently have such "enduring notability" on their own, even if they can be very notable during the

2127:

of that song which it is appropriate to include in the article. 2) People who lack proper discernment think that a "few well chosen representative examples" means "a complete, total, and unabridged list of every example possible." Thus, in my example above, people note "Hey, this article about a

1921:

section of that page makes it blindingly clear that those internal census results are chaotically changing and unusable. 194 options in 1926 census, 97 in 1939, 126 in 1959, 122 in 1970, 123 in 1979, 128 in 1989, 192 in 2002. HELL NO, we are not going to insert those utterly random categories into

1418:

Your comment relates to many of the reasons of the opposing editors. How can we guarantee that the infobox is used intelligently, and how can we ensure that if ethnicity is not included if it is only mentioned in a byline (i.e. is not a salient point in the important sources). The problem with the

1111:

I simply can not think of a good reason for this and the reasons against are innumerable. At best this is a kluge for the Sanders infobox issue that will lead to massive disruption on every BLP where nationalist POV pushers have an interest. It is just another non-nuanced point to battle over and

13651:

Why did you bring this here? You were specifically invited by the editor to open a dialog with them if you had any questions about the removal or thought it was in error. It appears you underestimate how seriously we take copyright violations at Knowledge and have a misunderstanding regarding the

13524:

Hundreds of other comma restylings have gone unchallenged; nobody has suggested that any of the names became less recognizable without the comma; nobody (that I can recall) has suggested looking to see what a majority of sources do (doing so would mean nullifying the MOS, which a few people would

13371:

already covers all this in quite a bit of detail.) When the sources are not uniform in a stylistic treatment, we have no reason to go with a visually aggrandizing, silly, or obfuscatory option, and plenty of reasons not to. The huge and stressy RfC about capitalization of common names of species

13138:

Personally I think pushing too hard for standards is damaging. Unless there is a clear reason otherwise I think articles should be left as they are written and not changed by people who know nothing about the topic. Yes the MoS is liberally sprinkled with exceptions like if the subject habitually

13056:

either. COMMONNAME doesn't address style at all. Negative reaction to an RfC misapproaching the issue is not consensus for an "anti-MoS" change in the extreme opposite direction, especially when many of the comments are about the erstwhile RfC itself and the lack of conflict between AT and MOS,

13030:

I'm pretty sure that's not what you have. Any assertion to that effect would draw out the defenders of the MOS, just as an assertion that it should draws out the defenders of TITLE. The problem is not a "versus" relationship between these policies and guidelines, which actually work pretty well

12395:

as proposer. 1. This is consistent with the application of MOS by other entities that have MOS. 2. Style elements are not necessary for disambiguation. 3. Style elements do not change essential meaning. 4. It does not elevate MOS to policy status if a single policy explicitly defers to it. 5. The

11127:

Then why is Florida SouthWestern State College, at 169.139.115.67, and Charlotte County Public Schools, at 204.86.170.3, subject to extended blocks? Those IPs are a mix of good and bad. Yes, there's a lot of test editing, but not an unbearable amount of it (we don't have a daily dose of vandalism

11013:

shouldn't be used. And while there is a significant amount of disruption from "grown-up places like big corporations, federal agencies, and the military", I would tend to think that such places tend to have a higher percentage of edits which are actually helpful towards Knowledge than schools do.

9269:

I think there's a bias for removal of unsupported material in BLPs especially, or anywhere that the material might do harm. If it's rather neutral but unsupported by reliable sources then my choice is to leave it in place if there is not reason to doubt it, and if there is some reason to doubt it

8972:

Of course, if using a direct quote, we must use it verbatim. The same is true of the names of organizations or the like. When speaking in "Knowledge's voice", however, "copyright infringement", "unauthorized copying", etc., are good, specific, neutral terms, and should almost always be preferred.

7628:

probably should be a disambiguation page, though it could conceivably be recast as a broad concept article about fish that may have a reddish hue that have a quality that makes the "snapper" description appropriate. I don't think difficulty in disambiguating should be a deterrent or a determining

6066:"Do we, who are not involved in computer science, think this person is sufficiently notable for an article in Knowledge?" - I think that is exactly the wrong question. Why should people who are not involved in a particular field make that decision? Should we, who are not linguists, decide if the 5841:

in the long run? Different people have different interests, and I find an article on a major computer scientist very useful - I might be asked to write the introduction to a Festschrift for him (well, not really - there are many more senior people working much closer with him), or as a speaker a

5621:

it's probably a huge underestimation...I'd be shocked if there's not 300,000 currently working in just the USA alone who would technically qualify (that's like 1 in 1000 out of the population..so certainly a quite exclusive club of people)...and that's just currently...look over past 40 years the

3805:

I would hope that we could delete the indiscriminate lists before having to go through an AFD, especially as these always have to do with current events. The problem is that someone always adds these statements in the first place despite them being unnecessary, and then someone splits the article

2052:

Previous AfD discussions should not be considered decisive here. AfD is a blunt instrument. There the question is: Should we delete this material entirely or not? The consensus from those discussions is, indeed: No, we should not delete it entirely. The present question is different. It is: given

2003:

do not qualify for inclusion. This alternative proposal effectively mitigates the concerns mentioned above, and many editors who voted oppose did indicate support for the idea that most reactions are not worth including. Very few editors supported indiscriminately listing all reactions from world

1302:

trying to summarize people's ethnicity in a word or two. Just finished reading through some arguments at the religion parameter RfC, which of course is very similar to this one. This seems like it may solve a few problems but cause a whole lot more. Unlike religion, I don't think this is one that

12174:

Some of that comes from trolls. Some of it comes from students unfamiliar with our policies. Other times it comes from administration and I would direct them to contact me via email from their district email address if I were an admin reading such request. Knowledge is having trouble with editor

11980:

Funny thing is I was going to ask you that and hadn't gotten around to it (although I was going to ask about LAUSD, not knowing any better)... This is news to me, I thought it was common place for districts to block personal email. Of course, CCPS blocks Knowledge too (again... after it had been

11838:

I don't understand that argument at all. If a user has to edit from school because they don't have internet access from home, it is extremely likely that either (a) they have an email account provided by the school, or (b) they can create an email account with a free webmail service using their

11623:

Some people may, for various reasons, be unable to request an account or make an account elsewhere. Some students or employees may not have access to email from school or work (and are very likely not to have an official email address from their institution as the block templates say to use when

11529:

involvement before placing a long term block to determine exactly how bad the collateral damage would be if an extended softblock were put in place. An IP which may appear, to an ordinary contributor or administrator, to produce nothing but vandalism could, in theory, be responsible for 100 good

11402:

As a former teacher, I applaud temporarily blocking school IPs when students vandalize Knowledge. The inconvenience of contacting an admin and getting the block undone encourages educators to pay more attention to what their students are doing on-line... To supervise the students, and teach them

11225:

in Naples, Florida. Mostly silly, pom-pom type nonsense edits, easily spotted and reverted, and even if it's not, everybody pretty much knows that Knowledge is editable, and an occasional occurrence of nonsense isn't going to destroy our reputation (in fact, someone spotting that kind of obvious

11175:

for blocking it? I also don't understand why "there's no clear sign someone is trying to sabotage the encyclopedia" is put forward as an argument: if there are edits at the rate of a hundred per day which add false information to articles, then those edits are disruptive and harmful, whether the

9343:

I will note that "Only in death" has had serious issues with me in the past, and conflicts, and seems to have it out because of my username being my username, probably not really because of what i said here, and therefore i ask them to leave personal grudges at the door and assume good faith and

8827:

Which accomplishes nothing because "theft" is also a pejorative term. If you define "piracy" and "theft" to mean "all use of a copyrighted work without permission that is not fair use", we are getting somewhere. But then we are right back at the problem of labelling an often harmless activity as

7484:

The problem is that disambiguation pages easily become magnets for all sorts of cruft - for things that don't really match the ambiguous term, but sound vaguely like it; for groups of related concepts with wholly unambiguous names; for non-notable things not found anywhere else in Knowledge. The

6575:

The change that I made as Moonriddengirl was in my capacity as a volunteer administrator, not in my capacity as Wikimedia Foundation staff. However, as the footnote advises, it was made in consultation with Wikimedia Foundation legal staff. However, every Knowledge requires that you license your

5856:

the question, of course, is whether this interest in the man himself is far too obscure to allow a stand alone article on just the man himself...as it opens up a whole can of worms....you can always find a person who's interested in anything at all...Miley Cyrus, like it or not, is objectively a

5606:

Your claim of it being safe to say that there are "1,000,000+ people " is unsubstantiated, and as far as I can tell, wrong. And both your implied assumption (if there are one million people who are notable, their articles will magically appear on Knowledge) and your math are off (we have over 5

5067:

It seems to be that the very argument that our usual deletion rules for articles shouldn't be applied to draft articles is a form of wikilawyering. I think that's an incorrect argument. But they may have other ones. And they do have some valid points. We do not need to retain drafts that have no

4839:

can give you a link to the relevant policy or vote-result to make their case. Once someone does show you the relevant policy or vote-result then you're expected to respect it. It's all very learn-as-you-go. As long as you're trying to help and you respect community consensus, then it's all good.

3956:

One of the last comments there argues that the problem is that there should be a discussion on the content, not deletion of the article. That article and others have excellent prose sections that could be merged into the main article and not deleted outright, and people are worried a delete vote

3455:

I see nothing new about this proposal. It might be a clarification about existing rules, but the base assumption is that "Knowledge is a summary of what reliable sources report". Splitting this content off is a great way to capture it in an appropriate places. There is no limit to space for such

2169:

Statements made by politicians (especially if they are leading nations) are by definition notable as they create policy. Consequently, I oppose the establishment of a blanket statement that reads "reactions of world leaders are not notable". It is true that for most of us it is not even remotely

205:

14344:

religion are not the same thing (e.g. his anti-masturbation rants would meet with agreement from lots of Muslims, etc.). There have long been some minority candidates in various election cycles that are explicitly tied to a particular religious platform, and notable specifically for this, e.g.

12571:

The problem is that this key sentence is often ignored by our fellow editors who focus on conforming articles to MOS guidance... they think of MOS as a set "firm and fast RULES" - rules that should have no exceptions. That attitude needs to change. I strongly believe that, in situations when a

12419:

this or any other proposal to make MOS compliance mandatory. The MOS is a cluster of arbitrary and sometimes contradictory proclamations written by whoever happened to shout loudest at the time the section in question was written, not a "manual of style" in any meaningful sense of the word, and

12137:

for stealing a can of baby formula. Speaking of political stances... the people screaming "school IPs vandalize, school IPs vandalize!" remind me of the liberals screaming "guns kill people, guns kill people!". No they don't, people using school IPs vandalize, and people using guns kill people.

11774:

patrol and stop vandalism, the point of the matter is we shouldn't have to waste time on this just for the abstract possibility that blocking a school will somehow hinder some great potential editor from coming here if they don't know they can vandalize articles with abandon and have to instead

11220:

with malicious edits. I would agree that if an IP produces a daily dose of vandalism sprees it's silly to mess around with short term blocks. However, I'm sure we can agree that CCPS and FSW, both under long term block, were not producing daily doses of vandalism sprees, and had some good faith

11084:

the last block. If someone is going to sit there and tell me the same person patiently waited 2+ years for a block to expire and returned to vandalize some more, and for some reason didn't use other mediums to launch an LTA campaign (and these IPs are rarely tagged for socking, it seems), their

9131:

In principle, that is true about BLPs, but in practice, i see plenty of slanderous negative things in BLPs when there is a concerted effort by a group of editors to slander that person in their bio, and all policies be damned, they'll do whatever it takes, including gang editing, filibustering,

8519:

It has come to mean a specific type of copyright infringement and is not infringement in general. It is breaking the law and there is nothing intrinsically bad about using 'loaded' terms to describe wrongdoing.. The beef I have with the SPA and MPAA is the Mickey Mouse business of extending and

7377:

page that does not require GNG sourcing or special-rule alternative sourcing on the page. So if I see a mainspace page that talks about two kinds of alders and it doesn't have citations at the bottom, then either it's an unreferenced article or it's a disambiguation page - I don't have a third

6733:

My question here is about neither the veracity nor the importance of the allegations: I was requesting others' opinions on the censorship of talk pages. I would expect a comment such as yours to have appeared under mine on the talk page: instead, the whole debate was immediately shut down. This

6128:

I think this is where we disagree. Knowledge is NOT, neither aims to be, the summary of all human knowledge. If that were the aim, all knowledge would be, by definition, sufficiently notable for Knowledge. Instead Knowledge aims to present all knowledge that is deemed sufficiently notable for a

5743:

If you want to translate this to an academic the person should either qualify as a person, or has done something that is broadly recognized as a central work outside his/her own discipline in all disciplines within academia or even outside academia. So I really do not see why this would support

5201:

does just pointing at the google scholar suffice, you think? Is this a third party source that asserts notability, or just a listing of papers? is the listing of how many times the papers have been cited by others what is creating the notability there? I'd say he's a fairly "ordinary professor"

4831:

The way it " into effect for every relevant article" is whenever someone shows up at that article and decides to make the fix. Obscure articles might not get fixed for years. If someone opposes the edit then you point to the vote-result or policy justifying why your edit should remain in place.

4008:

I notice a number of comments in this thread seem to be taking issue with the notion that this discussion is undermining the AfD's on some of the relevant articles. Now, while I certainly didn't have that in mind when I created this thread, I think it's worth pointing out that that's one of the

2941:

notable, which responds to many of the criticisms above. A selection of responses should of course be included, preferrably in prose format, but unless there's a very good reason I don't see why a generic statement from a country on the other side of the globe merits inclusion in the respective

1613:

Well, keep in mind the entire concept of "legal citizenship" is largely a modern one; people in 8th-century Venice, and millions even in the early 20th century in many places, didn't have passports and ID papers. The change you want to make could only logically apply for modern subjects in most

1524:

I'd prefer "|citizenship=United States" to "|nationality=American". "Nationality" is often used to mean something different from citizenship, and the adjectives can have different meanings as well. Think of how many ways "American" and "Spanish" can be taken—"citizen of the United States" and

1158:

infobox has the nationality of "German" but not the ethnicity of Jewish, a characteristic she described as "an indispensable datum of my life." Yes, it's subject to complications. But these complications are not best addressed by proposing to ban it from infoboxes, but rather by elaborating and

8906:

Good point. Compare how we deal with sources that use the terms "anti-life", "pro-life", "anti-choice" and "pro-choice". We pretty much avoid those terms except in direct quotes, and we tend to avoid even quoting them. Sometimes we allow "pro-life" or "pro-choice" because that's what they call

8406:

Regardless, it is silly to consider that we should not use the term "copyright infringement" when it applies, either to the results of a court case or as part of a legal case which the claim is made, making sure to keep it as a claim. Eg: a company using ContentID to strike videos from YouTube

7172:

That might be a good sign that what is needed is an SIA, not a dab. If one species is a bird and the other is a frog, they are truly ambiguous and no picture is needed to tell them apart. If there are three similar kinds of frog with the same name, then pictures are probably necessary, and the

6608:

I'm fairly certain that what you meant was "Edits using his former username" rather than "his former edits", which could be read to understand that ALL of my previous edits had the weight of my volunteer edits, which is not the case. It would disallow, for instance, actions that I took under

5810:

so for this particular guy, for example, perhaps his "Isabelle" program is itself notable and deserving of a brief article (and of course this guy would be cited and mentioned within that article..ie "Isabelle was created by LP in 19whatever while working wherever")...but then not just have an

5725:

you will see that while the work is important, the first two are about the person. From the guidelines " The person is regarded", "the person is known" and the second two are about work that are exceptionally central to broader society "The person has created ...., such work must have been the

4858:

so it's kind of messy like the American legal system with case law but with the additional problem that there's no hierarchy amongst potentially dozens of different consensus discussions etc...so the same consensus discussion might have to be rehashed over and over again for each specific case

4664:

That would be eligible for CSD#A7, since it describes a real person, but does not say how they may be important. There's no need to ask any questions. I don't even need to know anything about it. Speedy delete exists for that. On the contrary, I frequently deny speedy deletion requests for

1188:

It should not be removed just because some folks may want to remove or exclude Bernie Sanders' ethnicity from his infobox (which is an individual case and should be decided by poll on that individual article alone). Also, there are plenty of European sub-ethnicities that are not reflected in a

9598:

While I have certainly found it to be true that "a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit", it is also common during a dispute that an administrator must step in and protect the article until the dispute has been

7461:

has set out very clearly the key issue: MOSDAB focussed editors constantly prevent the creation of useful disambiguation pages when the disambiguation is complex and needs explanation. The format forced on dab pages cannot always give the reader sufficient information to understand the issues

5761:

And we do not need a biography. We need evidence that an academic as a person is notable in the world of ideas (that is the world - not the discipline they are working in). H-indices and similar listings do not provide such evidence, and nothing in the article we are currently discussing does

3696:

1. "Response to..." articles are acceptable if a number of substantial responses occurred and if the article subject meets standard notability requirements. Articles that contain nothing more than an extensive list of quotes from state leaders giving boiler plate condolences are generally not

1432:

If we can come up with an bot that can recognize and revert non-intelligent, trivia based inclusions for the infobox I would not oppose this parameter. But since it is highly unlikely such a bot can be created, I stick with opposing this field (which in my opinion is the lesser of two evils).

7950:

article that points out that it's so biased that some courts don't even allow the MPAA to use it: "... copyright holders, industry representatives, and legislators have long characterized copyright infringement as piracy or theft – language which some U.S. courts now regard as pejorative or

5426:

I suppose he's notable, but is he his own Knowledge article notable? and what does this supposed "theorem proving" category on "Google Scholar" actually signify?? again, every tenured professor at the University of Michigan, for example, is probably Knowledge notable if this guy is Knowledge

11676:

Here's some examples to take into consideration when making the decision: 69.88.160.1, 169.139.115.67, 64.56.87.252, 131.247.0.0/16, 132.170.0.0/16, 128.227.0.0/16, 144.174.0.0/16, 131.91.0.0/16, 139.62.0.0/16, 204.29.160.0/24, 129.171.0.0/16, 169.139.217.0/24, 131.247.152.4, 199.87.224.33,

8731:

No middle ground? what about situations where A) the person downloading the game previously bought the game but it was destroyed/damaged, or B) Where the downloader would happily pay, but the game is no longer offered for sale and is only kept in circulation by torrent copies? Both of these

4767:

Policy and guideline should reflect community consensus, but it would be unmanageable to try to put all community consensus on every little thing in p&g. There are very few experts on organizing masses of information like that, no central control or authority, no mechanism for site-wide

3644:

I've reread the proposal numerous times, and it seems like a pretty uniform ban on reaction type articles. My concern is that the actual language of the proposal does not make any distinction between boilerplate condolences and more substantial reactions, such as passing laws, offering aid,

2458:

I've argued thus at several articles, including that for last year's Paris attacks. They end up being lengthy lists of platitudes. If, perchances, a leader veered from the normal response then that might be worthy of inclusion but otherwise we can summarise international reactions simply by

12478:

Because I consider the MOS a pointless talking shop and have got through the last decade ignoring it without suffering any apparent ill effects, so I couldn't care less what the half-dozen people who take it seriously (it's always the same names there) happen to have it saying at any given

8078:

I agree that a formal policy is not needed. Deciding case by case, whether to use "piracy" or not, is essentially what I'm doing. And so far, "not" has won out every time. Usually when a source refers to "piracy", we may replace that with one of the multi-word synonyms without changing the

5954:

The professor we are talking about is definitely an important person in computer science. Also his textbooks on his method are extremely well cited (and to be fair - computer science tends to publish most of their work in conference proceeding which do not feature in web of science, making

5646:

This is an interesting case. The professor seems an above average professor. His work is notable. But is he, as a person, also notable? I seriously doubt that. While he may narrowly make some of the requirements as set out in WP:PROF, we should carefully consider that these requirement are

7611:

Images are OK on a disambiguation only when there is a strong case for them being helpful to distinguish terms. For descriptive minimalists, this may be difficult to grasp -- some might claim that a difference of a single letter or capitalization in the linked term is all the description

4493:- This is kind of what I was thinking when I previously said in the main discussion, "I suggest an alternative in which these reactions articles can be kept depending on the notability of the main articles, and I'm not talking about Brussels notability; I'm talking about 9/11 notability." 7900:

I may not be paraphrasing this one correctly but Masem has written "It is a fair concern to avoid non-neutral language but I think in this case, piracy has become a more neutral term by sources when discussion copyright infringement issues." I suppose there are examples of this happening

13159:

write well to excuse themselves from improving the article because they lack knowledge of the topic? That, I think, more than anything in the MOS, would be at odds with real-world practices. Also, I had to look up TLA just now and, although it took ten seconds, I think I'll be alright.

4343:

regular option, however it's pretty rare (maybe sometime they will cause controversy, which can be picked up on). This probably shows just how routine and unotable they are if even newspapers don't have much to say on them. And Knowledge tries to make itself one step above journalism.

1740:

No hits on Agnostic, Amish, Atheism/Atheist, Buddhism, Catholic, Confucianism/Confucianist, Druid/Druidry, Gnostic, Hasidic, Hinduism/Hinduist, Jainism/Jainist, Mormon, Muslim, Quaker, Scienology/Scienologist, Secular/Secularist, Shia, Sikh/Sikhism/Sikhist, Sufi/Sufism, Sunni/Sunnism,

14042:: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, but this page is a classic case of what happens when you don't follow the self-identification rule. Someone took a reference that says "Rubio... attends Catholic churches as well as a Southern Baptist megachurch." 9049: 3202:- This should probably be a guideline, not a policy. Responses from world leaders, and just about everyone else who gets on their soapbox in the wake of a major tragedy, are transparently self-serving, predictable, and utterly platitudinous. They have no enduring encyclopedic value.- 6566:- which is an important distinction. :) His former edits are as a volunteer and have the same authority as other edits by volunteer. That edit was in his capacity as senior staff at the Wikimedia Foundation and on behest of the Wikimedia Foundation's General Counsel. It links to the 510:

to understand who the person is (or was). As for the "one drop rule" I have gotten into trouble for my strongly held opinion that "guilt by association," "identification by association" and "identification by ancestry" are, frankly, intrinsically evil. And I so state here as well.

12206:

I have an account, unless there's a hardblock, I can edit from schools and other shared IPs all I want. Not that there's much use in editing something that very may well go by the wayside within 10 years as long as simple minded people are running the project. Knowledge is going to

13139:

said something else then it should be like that - but someone will go around anyway pointing to the MoS and changing it without knowing as much as the original author -and the author if still around will be beaten down by having some TLA WP refernece stuck into the change summary.

7485:

basic purpose of a disambiguation page is to act like the index in a book, which tells you with the least amount of fuss where to find the target you're looking for when you use a specific word. What might help clarify one meaning might bury another one, so we go with the minimum.

9418:

Bluntly, SageRad, I rolled my eyes the moment I saw you involved in this discussion. Only in death is not wrong here. Literally the only contribution you have made to this particular discussion is to cast aspersions and then engage in long winded whining when challenged on it.

3452:

to go in the main article. It is appropriate content, and the only trouble with it is that there is so much of this appropriate content. When something is covered in alignment with Knowledge policy, and it is undue for the main article, then it is right to split it into its own

2523:

While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia.

1341:

edit wars firing up over such a subjective parameter, ethnicity is far better covered in article prose as others have said. We're really just inventing a problem when it isn't truthfully needed - it won't improve readers' experiences but certainly causes headaches for editors.

13525:

like, but there was a big consensus to prefer the commaless style, as essentially all modern style and grammar guides recommend, so this would not fly). I see no actual conflict between TITLE and MOS here, even if Blueboar does and would prefer to throw out the MOS. As with

11533:

Require an abuse report be sent to the ISP, school, agency, company, etc before placing the long term block? This would be a courtesy to the network administrator, to let them know someone's actions are going to cause something that could adversely affect other users to take

8184:

whenever that can be done in a reasonably convenient way. I'm also a little concerned about this term causing confusion for people with limited English skills: Piracy is a maritime crime involving ships and guns, not downloading songs from the internet. I think that using

7272:) so we should be trying to simplify things - not make the situation worse. I think we can assume that readers can tell the difference between a dragonfly and a butterfly (and it would usually be clear from the context whether it's about Africa or Australia) so how would the 13174:

Hopefully these very knowledgable editors actually know or read up enough to contribute. No I'm principally worried about people who'll for instance if something is called X-3 will put in a minus sign and change the 3 to 'three' because small numbers should be spelled out.

3916:

I am not saying that every single leader's full statement should be prominently idolized in their full glory, like a trophy case of wiki-praise-awards. I agree that we can paraphrase most of the quotes. What I don't agree with is deleting any mention of condolences at all.

10700:

There's two separate questions here. First, it is appropriate to include net worth (or any other fact) in a BLP (or any biography) if reliable sources state that and it's actually relevant. For a BLP, we need really good reliable sources. For the second question, I'd say

8485:

propaganda. Shameless PoV-pushing and hyperbole. It's exactly like calling shoplifters "inventory rapists". Also agreed with 'do not use "copyright infringement" unless a court has ruled that there is copyright infringement.' We do not label subjects criminals without

9117:

being removed/added. Generally yes, in an editing *dispute* the status quo should stay unless there are mitigating policies (BLP etc), otherwise you have people ending up edit-warring. If the dispute is between you and one other person, you need to get a third opinion.

13010:

bit of constructive discussion, but it was off topic within this RfC. There is no concise alternative proposal, and we couldn't !vote on it here if there were, not without creating an unworkable mess. This RfC was a misfire, and I don't think it seems to be enough. ―

4163:

Knowledge isn't Twitter. These "reactions" sections infest every current event article and are almost all entirely pointless. Unless the reactions detail specific actions being taken that are related to or are made in response to the event, they should not be there.

14771:

was a policy and edited accordingly till someone pointed my mistake out to me. It has served me well: I have never been in trouble for edit-warring. That said, I agree that it is better seen as a "best-practice" rather than policy. I think it is fine the way it is.

14215:), it doesn't automatically become part of his notability when he declares his intent to run for US Presidency. The problem I expect the OP will run into, repeatedly, is that many editors don't realize that 'Religion' categories and fields in infoboxes are indeed 12766:. Using the common name is an important principle of accessibility on Knowledge while MOS is a guideline, something that helps editors format and structure the content they contribute. We should primarily think of our readers and only secondarily of our editors. -- 6019:

and my view is that this guy probably qualifies for his own article based on the current guidelines (though the article has problems as it stands now)...But that the guidelines should be more restrictive...for example, being a fellow of IEEE or whatever should not

7372:

Well, to me something is still a "disambiguation page" even if you provide some pictures or a bit of explanatory text. I don't know when or how a "SIA" became a thing, but to be clear, I think that the term "disambiguation page" can and should include those and

4716:

I've looked at the policy pages, I don't see anything that goes into the kind of detail like, for example, about the above discussion to do with having articles about foreign leaders responses to terror attacks...is there somewhere that lists all the policy fine

10613:

the consensus on other types of biographical articles. Athletes are another interesting case - I can see how one might make the argument that a musician or performer is a "businessperson" in it for the money too but it's a bit harder in the case of athletes no?

10518:

If you feel the template is inappropriate, you may nominate it for deletion through TFD. Personally, I find it rather useful, as traffic to google doodle related pages surges after the doodle comes out, and Knowledge is usually at the top of the search results.

12572:

significant majority of reliable sources all present a name using a particular stylization, that common stylization becomes included as part of the COMMONNAME. And if the common stylization it is contrary to what is indicated by MOS guidance... then we should

3138:

Please let's delete these sorts of articles, along with the related "Reactions" sections of shorter articles about terrorist attacks, natural disasters, stubbed toes, etc. Nobody cares that politicians routinely issue statements condemning bad and evil things.

12599:

I'm completely with Blueboar on this one. It should be the other way round if we are going to explicitly state a preference. COMMONNAME already describes the accepted standard. If it is in conflict with the MOS, the MOS either needs to be ignored or adjusted.

2440:

These articles usually include nothing substantial that is of encyclopedic value. The fact that world leaders condemned a particular terror attack can be summarized in 1-2 paragraphs in the respective article; it does not require an entire article on its own.

12107:

articles you could be editing or creating instead of doing RC patrol. No one is making you do RC patrol. The only ones who are so in favor of long-term IP blocks are RC patrols (which I do plenty of myself) who think they are Barney Fife with his one bullet.

8520:

extending the copyright period. I think Mickey Mouse should just be a trademark and early cartoons should not still be copyright. Copyright is a good thing but they are pushing and twisting it to their own ends and causing harm and turning people against it.

7860:. A sizable group of editors supported avoiding "piracy" altogether, but their arguments were not based in policy. If "piracy" is MPAA propaganda as many editors claim, then it's successful propaganda, as "piracy" has made its way into many reliable sources. 4883:

is because consensus can change depending on specifics. We do occasionally make exceptions to our own rules (if there is consensus to do so). The important thing to remember is that making an occasional exception does not necessarily make the rule invalid.

506:, and likely not even then in most cases. And, for good measure, I find this to be true for "religion," "ancestry" and "nationality" as well where there is the remotest possibility of the factoid being abused or misconstrued. Also for anything factoid not 14339:

16:23, 17 May 2016 (UTC) The religion parameter should be removed from almost all of these candidates, except those campaigning on a particularly religious platform (maybe Cruz qualifies, but I doubt it; being a moralizer and being notable for beliefs of a

13065:

with a ton of overlapping and conflicting discussion. I saw that as extremely inefficient and counterproductive. I felt that kind of thing should be done here, once. If the community is ok with that, I'll just live with it. Now, are we prepared to close? ―

3576:

That's not the proposal though. It only relates to the lists of responses. An article that contains nothing more than a list of responses would go through a deletion nomination and this proposal would be cited and it would get deleted. If an article, like

6804:

advice would be appropriate for seeking advice about a genuinely serious allegation made in a plausibly credible source. A tweet of a tabloid making tabloid allegations isn't something we should even be linking to, nor stating that it's "a pretty serious

1072:

We cannot even agree on how ethnicity should be defined (there are some people on Knowledge who confuse ethnicity with outdated racial theories). So we cannot simplify it to the level that it can be used in infoboxes without creating endless POV debates.

5981:

sufficiently notable for an article in Knowledge? And if not, should we aim to adjust notability guidelines or their interpretation? And what consequences would that have for professors we would like to include (like my fictitious butterfly professor).

10061:

With a great deal of respect to that august body of persons, I believe that we should be finding ways for admins to have less influence on content, not more; not least for their own protection against accusations of involvement. I also concur with the

7703:. It is perhaps an incorrectly named article or perhaps if it is considered to be the primary topic for "Grayling (species)", then perhaps there should be a hatnote referring readers to either the butterfly page or the disambiguation page. And perhaps 2696:

is very clear on what can be added to the galleries, and 99% of the galleries in the articles are counter to the policy, however, if you remove a gallery from the article, you can be sure in three years it would be back does not matter what the policy

12841:

and the NC guidelines, already appear to adequately account for this. E.g., use "iPod" and "PlayStation", not "Ipod" and "Playstation", because the vast majority of reliable sources use those spellings (that's an MoS rule, independent of AT). What I

9023:

of all things is some sort of neutral source. We're talking about an agency that in theory is tasked with investigating violations of federal law, but in practice, openly and despicably lobbies the legislature for its detestable policy preferences.

4988: 126: 7971:

Not a neutral, non-emotive term: it carries both historical and modern connotations. Obviously this is only relevant to the idea of copyright infringement, but I see no reason not to replace piracy with copyright infringement (when it's relevant!),

6523:

the guideline talk page would probably be a more efficient place to discuss it. In reply to your post just prior, the general reasoning behind secondary notability guidelines such as WP:NACADEMICS is to improve consistency in notability assessment.

14567:

The editing conflict cited by the OP seems to me to be a no-brainer: there are strong arguments in favor of a uniform order and format for fundamental elements of articles, particularly for appendices; and none that I can think of for variation.

11162:

than the length of the block. If constructive edits are a substantial proportion of edits in the time period involved (even a substantial minority), then I do not place the block, even if it has the unfortunate effect of allowing some vandalism to

7040: 11046:, where it says that blocks should be used to "prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Knowledge"; this means that long term blocks should only be made for an IP address or range f there is long-term disruption coming from there. 11311:

serious, because although I know blocking them would be ridiculous even if it were possible, it seems like a disproportionate amount of the pom-pom vandalism does come from cheerleaders and ball players, that's why I call it pom-pom vandalism.)

3645:

performing symbolic acts of solidarity, ect. I'd be much more supportive if the actual proposal assumed that some reaction articles can be notable, and attempted to regulate the content within them rather than essentially outright banning them.

7306:! Then make the case for changing the rule based on the improvement that is visible on that page. We should never let ourselves get in the position of making an edit where we say yeah, we know this makes the page suck, but that's the rules! 14437:

by the argument that the opposite result is required by policy. IAR isn't a death pact which automatically overrules all other policies, even if there's a fairly decent reason for it, if the policy is supported by a better reason. Regards,

11818:

I was playing devil's advocate with the proposal to block schools. Anonymous editing (or at least account creation) is just as important as logged in editing for people who solely rely on their school's internet connection (particularly in

7065: 6580:

page yourself and see that it is not compatible with older versions of CC-By-SA. Accordingly, it is not compatible with our Terms of Use to import content from a CC-By-SA 4.0 source to any Knowledge, as it cannot be licensed under CC-By-SA

13426:, but an interpretation of a blood splat over a capital I on a movie poster was taken by many editors as evidence that the lowercase i was intended. No conflict, just harmony between TITLE and MOS in this case, and conflict with fanboys. 8391:

Further, different jurisdictions, commentators, etc., have different opinions about whether a particular act of copying should be considered infringement. Even a legal conclusion, in one jurisdiction or another, is subject to dispute. -

11180:(e.g. whether one uses the word "vandalism") but there is no logical reason why a belief that disruption is not done with malicious intent should discourage one from taking what steps one can to prevent continuation of the disruption. 8987:

all those claiming that the term "piracy" is RIAA/MPAA propaganda haven't watched a movie recently. Before every American movie/DVD/Blue-Ray the following warning comes up (unless you're watching a pirated movie), courtesy of the FBI.

7241:

The solution to the problem of inappropriately created links to SIAs is for the bot to report them to editors as it does for dab pages, not to force SIAs into the same straight jacket as dab pages to the detriment of readers. Consider

7076:

a disambiguation page. On the other hand it if is possible to say interesting (and verifiable) things about their connectedness, then a set index is fair enough. After all, set indexes are meant to be articles in their own right. So I

10194:

Absolutely not, this would quickly turn in to advertising - now I might not be opposed to a single indicator like (COI) or something that would be applied - but then --someone would need to declare "this edit is a COI" to enact it? —

7665:

in parts of the world where papayas are usually called "pawpaws". I know this is getting a little bit off the direct topic being discussed here, but it again stems from MOSDAB. MOSDAB appears to want "Thread plant, a commmon name for

5154:

to clarify a particular aspect: was it proper to put those tags? even though I think technically proper? or is it kind of pointless (ie yes, we know most similar articles like this have this problem but to tag all 200,000 articles is

14249:

do not agree, and are making good-faith claims that religion is automatically a defining characteristic of every US presidential candidate. It looks like I am going to have to post Yet Another RfC because they insist that the RfC at

10928: 4245:

article being used. Fortunately, the US presidential campaign would be caught out by the rule, since TIME is a US magazine, but it still allows some to slip through. It's better than nothing and it builds upon the original proposal!

3720:

I like the idea of a colored-in map, at least as something to be made available on Commons even if it isn't used on Knowledge, though I suppose that would probably constitute to synthesis and might give more weight to countries that

1786:, and yep, the search didn't care what came after it. Lots of Jewish-Country came up. The search wouldn't have found anything like nationality = Russian Jew. Someone who knows REGEX better might be able to do a more thorough search. 12705:

a "versus" relationship at the root of the discussion. I asssume we agree that capitalization is part of style and not part of a name. Then there are two ways to decide on the wording and capitalization of an article title. (1) Use

7763:

members are usually better placed to decide how to assist readers in finding the right plant or spider article than editors who focus on other topics, but we've not been free to make these decisions or even make the case for these

1193:, and so on, and to say nothing of people's nationality/ethnicity when they are accidentally born in another country. This is an important parameter that is especially important in areas outside of the U.S.; do not let Knowledge's 10856:

I'm on the relevance bandwagon too. I could see where the issue of net worth might be relevant in the Bill Gates or Donald Trump article, but is it that relevant to say an author who wrote a moderately notable book? Probably not.

9059:

which says the same sort of thing. It is very good advice but it is not absolute, if something does not have a citation and seems very dubious then that can be a good reason for removing until a citation is provided for instance.

8887:

in favor of deprecating/discouraging using the word "piracy". FWIW, about the only reason I can think of to prefer "piracy" over a more neutral term such as "copyright infringement" is when one quotes a source using that word. --

5139:

and for someone like this too: is it proper for to have info about their wives and number of children they have (when could this be helpful to an encyclopedia user for this kind of subject??)...even if this could be verified by a

4510:

This is an attempt to bypass the community consensus at every single AFD. No credible criteria can be given to, for example, include the reaction of the US President (which will obviously be included) and exclude other reactions.

3752:

admin prepares the update to the policy page, this is also added with it. Please do not go down the route of making (or encouraging) a map of responses with or without option 1. It is rather controversial and is a clear breach of

13353:, not "Ipod", "Play Station", or "Deadmaus", which are almost unattested in RS). When a non-trivial number of the RS use one or more alternatives to an odd stylization, we use a less promotional/ridiculous/confusing option (thus 12011:

This is solution looking for a problem. All of the proposals seem to throw nuance out the window, our admins are chosen for their discretions so lets allow them to use it. Our current procedure is not broken, so lets not fix it.

8736:), and B would generally always be considered copyright violation, however most people would agree that neither is morally wrong. I agree with you that exclusively using CI while sources generally use P doesn't make much sense. 3448:. This is in line with traditional Knowledge policy. When a concept is covered in multiple reliable sources, then that concept has a place in Knowledge. The amount of coverage that "reactions" get for these sorts of incidents is 1370:- Unlike religion, where a person's self-identification can generally handle many problematic cases, ethnicity has no absolute definition and no reasonable method for handling issues. For example, what's the proper ethnicity for 1270:

I fully echo what Guy Macon, Collect, Scott Davis, SMcCandlish, and others have stated on why it shouldn't be used. It is rarely (if ever) relevant to peoples' notability, and can easily be discussed within article body instead.

364:

field! I also note that the USA census is very deliberate in making people members of black, Hispanic, Asian race or ethnicity, but does not recognise Jewish, so under US law, Sanders is probably "White, not Hispanic or Latino".

4087:, because for something to be circular, it has to go back to square one. In this case, I'm saying I say "keep" because I've said "keep" on the AfDs and most other people have said "keep" on them. The reasoning would be circular 12651:

First and foremost, decisions should be made based on the usability of the encyclopedia, hence COMMONNAME. MoS does help with usability, as a consistent(ish) style across WP can make reading easier, but it is not the priority.

4731:

Policy is also created on pages like this one. A lot of policy is based on precedent and not written up. People might just point that archived Village Pump discussion, or it might get wedged somewhere into a style guideline in

1986: 14469:

states, it is in some sense the most powerful policy. In this specific case, was it a good invocation of IAR? Absolutely not. The point of IAR is not to let policies or guidelines get in the way of improving the encyclopedia

9559:

You're just re-stating what I said. You make a bold edit, I challenge by reverting. So we examine the claim using the best reliable sources. But absent an overriding concern, we retain status quo during that deliberation.

8032:

is notable in part because though it was pirated a lot, many pirates admitted to buying the game after the fact and some players helped those buy legit copies. Now, if you go to the sources (via google news search), there is

7848: 4124:

noting international reactions is encyclopedic and notable. It is certainly something I'd be interested in reading if searching about a past event. If there are too many to be listed on the page, it is reasonable to split it

3479:

week of the attacks. I personally enjoy reading the controversial ones, issued by countries such as North Korea, though I don't think Knowledge is the right place for that kind of content, eventhough nowhere else is either. ~

14620: 11717:

Again, considering the ugliness of some of the trolling, one has to question whether someone under 18 has any business contributing here anyway. Should elementary school students be subjected to random vandals calling them

5585:

selective than the IEEE fellowship. The ACM "recognizes the top 1%" of its members, so at most 1000, again much more selective than the IEEE, which is at around 2%. So yes, I think the ACM fellowship is "highly selective".

4199:

Support ditching the "cutesy flags" and summarizing, in many cases. But, more broadly, response to some incidents that are not unadulterated tragedy is important. For example when someone is shot in a border dispute. Or

3069:

We can not have a discussion here that perhaps ends with the result that the article should be removed/merged. And then have an AfD were it seems like a majority wants to keep the article and not either merge or delete. So

1916:

census according to random and incompatible selection&definition of religion and ethnicity, and which are wholly unrelated to nationality. A Russian who happens to be Jewish is still a Russian-National. Furthermore the

14206:

field for them — just as we would for Ministers, Rabbis, Popes, Priests, Cardinals, Bishops, etc. Keep in mind that if religion is not already a significant part of Mr. Joe Politician's notability (i.e.; mentioned in the

9163:

and anyone who tells you so is full of it, and probably using policy to push an agenda, because true arguments really rely on sources and reason and civil discussion in good faith among editors. 13:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

2719:

subject. I think the spirit here is just editing out the echoes. There's no such thing as "waste", from a storage sense, but not even NSA money can buy a server that gives readers more time in a day. Every second we spend

11881:

All the schools in my area (in the UK) provide their own email accounts to students; I am very surprised to hear that this is not common in the US. IIRC, my school didn't block any of the major webmail providers either.

11861:

I don't think too many middle and high schools provide school email accounts to students, and in fact, I think many of th prohibit the use of email from the school computers (and actively block the free email providers).

14063:: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body. Many citations about him being catholic, but I couldn't find a place where he self-identifioes using direct speech. Religion name mentioned in body, 4832:

Either they accept it, or they argue it. If they argue, more editors can be called in to resolve the dispute. Someone who persists in fighting against policy can be deemed disruptive and get blocked from editing at all.

10415:

explains that nations as part of the UK are generally treated on an individual basis and in context for the article in which they are used. Which is not inconsistant with how the Google Street View table is organised.

2251:

comes to mind. I suggest an alternative in which these reactions articles can be kept depending on the notability of the main articles, and I'm not talking about Brussels notability; I'm talking about 9/11 notability.

14638: 14201:

information on a candidate's religious beliefs in their article. What we're trying to determine here, however, is whether these candidates are also so notable for their religions that we should activate the reserved

13962: 13450:

of the related recent RM discussions had anyone claiming that COMMONNAME was something to consider with respect to the comma styling question, and all closed in favor of following the preference expressed by the MOS;

8851:, right? A word can have more than one connotation. It is not the role of Knowledge to rule by rote on whether a word's usage was the result of "MPAA propaganda" or whatever. Follow the sources (as required by NPOV). 8623:. This sounds like righting great wrongs to me. Knowledge isn't the place to change how society uses a certain word. And, anyway, it's not like "pirate" is such a horrible insult. Has everyone forgotten about the 11292:

I think it's more an issue with those two categories of people taking pleasure in monkeying around with the encyclopedia than school IPs themselves, and those categories of people happen to have access to the school

8247:, but no need to add a rule; that would be instruction creep. You can take this !vote as meaning I don't want to do anything at all official, but unofficially I support Connor Behan and encourage him to continue. -- 3250:

national reaction to an incident goes beyond the scope of Knowledge. While this may contribute slightly towards readers' knowledge of how visible the event was, it can be summarized as "many leaders condemned <X:

12507:

I didn't feel the need to make it clear that there would be rare legitimate exceptions to this as with anything else. This is about a default policy. And I'm frankly surprised to see an editor with your experience,

11003:, it says "Due to persistent vandalism (see edit log), anonymous editing from your school, library, or educational institution's IP address is blocked (disabled)"; unless there in a case of "persistent vandalism", 8037:

calling this "copyright infringement". It's "piracy" through and through. Even though the term can be loaded, it's established by both the copyright owners and those that engage in it that that's the word they use.

4142:. These "reactions" quotations have always struck me as kind of pointless. What's the point in hearing from 20 politicians who all make what is more-or-less the same prepared statement? I agree that it violates 3553:

This is too wide-reaching of a decision that fails to consider the merits of individual reaction articles. A number of these response articles do contain developments in policy and foreign policy. For example, the

14669: 10593:

you will see that we already point to a lot of Forbes profiles in BLPs. I support that there is also the issue of how/why did the person become notable. For, say, professional athletes or musical artists or even

8219: 709:

because defining ethnicity is difficult and often impossible, so inevitably this will lead to edit wars and inaccurate information. Ethnicity needs to be described with a story of the person's life, not a single

12973:- Ok, it appears I asked the wrong question. As I see it now, the best approach is to SNOW fail this and start over with a new RfC (which I will leave to someone better qualified to frame this issue, I nominate 11341:

Some people are content contributors. But then we have people who do nothing but vandal fighting. It seems a lot of the RC patrolmen only do RC patrol. If that's their niche, why do you assume they will take up

10294:(I was the only one of the 4 closers of the previously linked discussion willing to take those on). More recently there was some discussion about PC level 2, someone will no doubt find that. (As a quick aside I 5626:

might be to greatly tighten up eligibility here....and of course many academics will be cited within other topics of interest but just not be eligible for their own stand alone article about them personally.....

13198:

encyclopedic material, which is a discipline unto itself, albeit a volunteer hobby for most who engage in it. That doesn't make 5 or 10 years of intensive experience at it less of an acquired and honed skill.

8127:

to use the terminology interchangeably - sometimes at best. Etymologically speaking (teh lolz), English is a hotchpotch of gibberish, with a side serving of poppycock. Although everything everyone does here is

11709:. Worst of all, a really vicious troll could get mad at someone at a school for undoing their vandalism, post harassing comments on the IP's talk page, and cause mental anguish for a totally different person. 881:

ethnicity to continue to be marked in Infoboxes. All that's required here is a reliable source (maybe even the subject of an article themselves) stating what someone's ethnic background is in the first place.

14362:, but this should not be taken seriously (I hold them myself, and in Church of the Subgenius, and as a Discordian, and I can legally do weddings and stuff in various jurisdictions, but I'm 100% irreligious). 11552:

As with the exceptions to the prohibition on long term IP blocks, any time a sysop wishes for an exceptional long term range block needs to consult with a CheckUser to see how bad the collateral damage would

7868:. Based on the arguments for and against the use of "piracy", it seems most appropriate to default to "copyright infringement" and use "piracy" only where reliable sources (preferably multiple) use the term. 6519:. This is a centralized discussion forum frequently used for more sweeping changes (ie deprecating a guideline or adding a new one). If you wished to propose, for example, removal of one of the 9 criteria at 1090:

Unlikely religion which is based on how a person believes they are, you can't change your ethnicity - that's something innate. It may be difficult to source at times, but this is far different from religion.

863:

inclusion under situations matching an argument I've made WRT military service: if its inclusion in the main body would lead a reasonable person to ask, "Why is this here?", it should not be in the infobox.

5188:. The current citation is problematic but we might want to be sensible about how to approach it. On the last point, there's nothing wrong with adding maintenance templates if you think they're warranted. — 13703:, or if you wish I could send you a copy of the removed material via email. If you feel my actions violated policy and you wish to bring them to the attention of the wider community, I suggest posting at 4840:

Reverting bad edits is quick and easy. Mistakes are easy to revert, and tripping-over-rules-you-don't-know is a harmless and expected part of the process. Just don't do things that are blatantly abusive.

14353:

kind of candidate needs a religion parameter in the infobox, because they arguably qualify as a religious leader or at least a spokesperson for a particular religion/denomination. This should be within

12744:

agree that we use sentence case for titles unless it's a proper name. I suggest using the discussion section below if you find a case where a difference between them was relevant to a title decision.

12420:

shouldn't be taken remotely seriously. If you want the MOS and Knowledge's usual practices to match with regards to a particular area, change the MOS to match our practices, not the other way around. ‑

12247:. If someone can't handle someone coming in and vandalizing their creation, only for the vandalism to promptly go away, how are they going to react to someone making legitimate edits to their creation? 12102:

I'm opinionated and unafraid to say things that may hurt some feelings. If you don't enjoy encouraging test editors to contribute constructively or playing whack-a-mole with the vandals, you know there

2022: 11471:

three years, five years, ten years, etc, and I do have a problem with that. I agree it's good for staff to recognize the importance of monitoring students activities (CCPS does that at district level,

10744: 7882: 353:

in general, but allowing for rare exceptions. I hesitate to make a universal ban, as I expect there are corner cases where it would be appropriate (but I haven't thought of one yet). On the specifics:

12539:

Style very often is an essential part of a name so the premises is flawed. We should not be trying to dictate to the world how it should work, we should just be summarizing how it actually does work.

4976: 2034:

This oppose is based on the consensus at every one of the AfDs that have taken place regarding the matter. I understand that editors don't like the lists, but if done properly with prose they do pass

764:. That template includes optional fields for citizenship, nationality and religion but not race/ethnicity. Would that then be applied to other infobox templates (presumably not this parent template?) 14659: 11903:

however have intranet stuff like KidBiz2000/TeenBiz2000 and Florida Virtual School), but the only email permitted in the network is the teachers' district email accounts. Anything else is considered

9525:"In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." 5446: 10713:. As someone who has dealt with Indian film box office numbers, there's a lot of terrible alleged sources out there and it takes time to figure out this. Separately, I find little evidence that any 8540:—for pretty much all the reasons already brought up, but also because "piracy" once had the nuance of "for profit": copied CDs sold on the black market, say, or those underground American copies of 12456:--if you have a serious concern that the MOS is not internally consistent, or that it does not follow best English practices (or best Wikipedian practices--not the same things), you should work to 10153:

Remember that companies can self host their own MediaWiki instances for example. If employees can get permission to edit Knowledge, they can likely ask about permission to use the company image. -

2128:

song has cover versions listed. I did a search at AllMusic and found 1,278 other cover versions. I should list and wikilink every one of those!" We need some balance and perspective to say that

14587:

Others have explained the meta-rule of IAR adequately, so I won't reiterate that, just chime in with agreement that BMK's edit in question is not an improvement and thus does not qualify for IAR.

14484:

warning. I've seen the editor around quite a bit and although I don't remember specifics, I have favorable overall impression of their edits. Hopefully this is just a momentary lapse in judgment.

14111:

Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Christianity. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed. Note: Citation in infobox fails self-identification requirement.

7466:

did above, is useless when there is such concerted hostility to anything beyond a page with a single link per line and the shortest possible text. I would welcome SIAs being replaced by dab pages

5513:#3 (Fellow of the ACM) and #5 (Distinguished Affiliated Professor at TUM). Not a "fairly ordinary" professor, but a highly distinguished researcher with massive influence via his contributions to 5072:

material, which are nonsense, which have been surpassed by actual articles, and several other categorizations of "junk" pages. While userspace pages are "cheap", we don't want a billion of them.

2859:

Nothing wrong with a couple of relevant statements, integrated into prose, from directly affected nations, but these lists of identical reactions from every country in the world serve no purpose.

1965:

Nationality isn't ethnicity. No one's nationality is "Jew", although in modern times it may be Israel, and in ancient times (before and shortlky after the turn of the common era) it may be Judea.

210:

material, which are nonsense, which have been surpassed by actual articles, and several other categorizations of "junk" pages. While userspace pages are "cheap", we don't want a billion of them.

7775:. And so on. I can't see how this would help readers, which should always be our main focus, but perhaps that will have to be the way forward. I would be very disappointed if this were the case. 6390:. Memory for these articles is, essentially, free. Bandwidths is only an issue if there is interest in the article. What is the argument to not have them, except from "they don't deserve it"? -- 3647:

Personally, I'd like it to be standard practices for reaction articles for a single map to be used to track which states offered condolences, and to then list out the most substantial reactions.

1563:"Jewish" as a nationality?! What drives this obsession?! Hyphenated nationalities should be disallowed—how many Canadians would thus become "English-Scottish-Irish-French-Ukrainian Canadian"? 114: 5176:

Not sure if this is the appropriate venue for this discussion, but on the specific article: the autobiography template is probably fine and the notability template is probably unwarranted (his

3939: 3445: 450:- In pluralistic societies such as the United States, this would, at the best, result in a proliferation of RFCs, about the ethnicity of each biography, and, at worst, result in edit-warring. 14160:

Arguably that is the case for US politicians at the higher levels. It is impossible for them to get elected without their religion being brought up and picked over by the pundits and journos.

8285:

The phrase "piracy" as commonly used by the copyright monopoly (even when sources parrot the phrase) is far too pejorative for use in an encyclopedia. For a nuanced discussion about this, see

4529:

A reaction from a US president is more likely to attract news from abroad whereas reactions from world leaders with little recognition worldwide would be less likely to appear in the sources.

5034:

getting rid of bad material, and want more deletions. Both sides accuse the other of gaming the MFD and CFD processes, and are trying to close what they see as being loopholes in the rules.

4964:

I strongly encourage uninvolved editors to participate in this RfC to truly gauge community consensus. At the current rate, MfD as a whole is heading toward ArbCom, which is beyond absurd. ~

2803:, largely per Sitush and Ymblanter. I don't really see a benefit to adding every reaction from every figure, but involved, directly related, and unusual reactions do have encyclopedic value. 172:

getting rid of bad material, and want more deletions. Both sides accuse the other of gaming the MFD and CFD processes, and are trying to close what they see as being loopholes in the rules.

102:

I strongly encourage uninvolved editors to participate in this RfC to truly gauge community consensus. At the current rate, MfD as a whole is heading toward ArbCom, which is beyond absurd. ~

13317:

if there is consensus to change it. If there is a consensus that we should follow source usage for stylization of names, then our "house style" should be changed to reflect that consensus.

11649: 11408:

Comments like that can only serve to encourage arguments from passion. The purpose of the blocks is in no way, shape or form to compel educators to become more involved with their students.

7924:

This is fair enough and I have agreed to stop rewording paragraphs about pre-industrial "piracy". Perhaps the scope of this activity was so large that it really did require a different word.

9449:

Your first post was to cast aspersions without demonstrating the basic integrity required to support your claim. So before you lecture, you should take a serious look in the mirror first.

4806:, especially the sections on "Background" and "Previous Discussions and related pages". I tried to pull together a list of all previous discussions and related policies and link to them. -- 8060:- Use whatever terminology seems best on a case by case basis. As Masem points out, our neutrality depends on presenting sourced information, not deciding what that information should be. 7378:

category in my head. Any such page should be, with a freer format than suggested here but with brevity, a guide to get you through to the real articles that have citations at the bottom.

4981: 4320:

be avoided in articles, and can often best be converted into more meaningful prose. In that sense "Worldwide responses" can work, but that's because it isn't plain news messages anymore. ~

4229: 2780:

Hawkeye7, I can understand, as a historian, why quotes might be useful in expounding different perspectives. However, the issue here is in large part that the quotes generally all expound

1800:

Found tons more when looking for "nationality jewish" in articles - almost all of which found infoboxes with that sort of usage - I think there is a major long-term problem lurking, alas.

12133:

RC patrol is a laudable thing to do, I enjoy doing it myself personally, but it desensitizes some people that they're like cops beating a petite young mother with a billy club outside of

11176:

intention is "to sabotage the encyclopedia" or not, and it seems reasonable to try to stop it. One's speculations as to what may be the intentions of the disruptive editors may influence

10047:

The idea would be the icon would have to be approved by the admins after submitting proof of the conflict of interest, after which they can edit Knowledge directly if the admins approve.

9954:- Can you help me out by providing a link to where this stuff is clearly outlined? I'm not being lazy, I have looked, but went 'round and 'round and 'round and still could find anything. 12935:

I am agreed with SMC just above at "support in spirit some clarification, but also reject the 'versus' premise", as well as his extended comments below and conversation with Blueboar. --

10747:. The fact that it is not is not in dispute, so I'm more interested in the first question. The "according to W, X's net worth is Y, this is important because Z" model is useful, thanks. 9358:

I notice you still have not given any evidence to support your blatant misrepresentations of BLP articles being controlled by cabals of slanderous editors. Come back when you have some.

1419:

inclusion in the infobox as is, is that it invites people to fill in the blank (which is non-intelligent) by whatever trivial source they find (which makes it non-salient in many cases).

4201: 10530: 10342:

for some advice and links. This proposal is too vague and ignores previous discussions. I suggest it's closed before a long discussion that is unlikely to achieve what others haven't.

7708:

vs. disambiguation pages. And if Carica is in fact referred to as Pawpaw (genus) in reliable sources rather than guesstimations, that should warrant discussion about what should be at

12222: 10207: 8757:

In which case we should follow what the sources say about these cases. I agree there is a small grey zone, but that's far smaller than the grey zone for the music or film industry. --

7158:

So you would support allowing images of organisms whose common names are similar in a dab page? This is of great help to readers in many cases. There are some good SIAs that do this.

3779:

I've removed the language about mapping responses, since I had failed to consider that not listing a country would imply, without sources, that the state had not offered condolences.

2715:

Can't a formal written rule have formal written exceptions? The unusual is generally noteworthy and reasonable people should want to hear from involved (or representative) parties in

7536:

People are always complaining about 'cruft' in articles ... more often than not, unreasonably. I would agree that a disambiguation page should not be burdened down with things that

119: 13652:

nature of our licensing policy. We cannot "reword" copyright violations because the violation "taints" any subsequent derivative work. Copyright-offending material must be deleted.

11915:

but I honestly don't know if they block the free email providers like Charlotte County does. Only way I can think of to accurately find out would be to pull into the parking lot at

11907:. Actually, good-faith editing of Knowledge would be a violation of the AUP, but is that our problem? I can get you a screenshot of the block page on Gmail if you don't believe it. 10167:

That's not what is the issue - we'd need to have the company agree to have their logo released in a free license, and that's not the same as simply giving permission for its use. --

5232:

This does not appear to be a discussion for policy. Google scholar is definitely not a reliable external source, as you can edit your own user page (to some extent). Have a look at

3942:

where a consensus leans towards keeping the articles. Please make this into an RfC to get a broader consensus from the Knowledge community as I see chaos going forward with this. -

1005:

This is not a neutrally-worded RfC, as evidenced by the single example chosen. It asks "Should Knowledge allow ethnicity to be marked in Infoboxes?", when there are infoboxes which

14142:

there are comments that claim that your close is consistent with a position of "religion is relevant for every politician". You may wish to either confirm or correct that claim. --

12267:

briefly tried making everybody "request an account" and I don't think we had a single account registered while we had that setup. Do you think Knowledge will fare better? I don't.

10245: 9086:. Suppose I remove an statement in a BLP, and my removal is reverted. This says, the bias is to keep the statement if it's been there for a while (whether cited or uncited). Also, 7218:(an African dragonfly or an Australian butterfly) was changed into a SIA by a user who presumably thought that was helping readers of this encyclopedia - and see this (non-animal) 14006: 10717:

source actually cares about these net worths (we need something akin to "according to CelebrityNetWorth, this person's net worth is X and this is important because of Y" to avoid

7772: 3670:

be classed as a response. If you want, we could propose an amendment which outlines the difference between the two. I think abounding the proposal would be a real disappointment.

1515: 1494:

I'd say that citizenship should list the countries that a person is a citizen of and nationality would be their identity. The two might differ slightly, eg someone identifying as

10898:

Finally make sure that you write in a neutral tone of voice, and stay away from normative statements (like "this brilliant designer") and support all facts with reliable sources.

899:- Ethnicity can be discussed in the article body or even occasionally in the lede, but its inclusion in infoboxes, which by necessity oversimply, is contentious, needlessly so. 312: 14251: 13735: 10903:

These are no guarantees you will get no criticism, but rather a lower level that needs to be met before you should even consider creating such an article. Hope this helps a bit

7462:

involved in selecting among the competing disambiguations without having to go off and read all the pages, and in some cases full disambiguation is impossible. Invoking IAR, as

7268:?... We already have a level of complexity that is beyond what many new users can cope with (e.g. a user was creating "synonym" redirects just to populate a category for SIAs - 4560:

was said was of substance - if a politician in a small country makes a routine condolence and goes on to say "this is why we're proposing a law to put cameras in your toilets."

4173: 14043: 10874: 10309: 4958: 692:. Summoned by bot. No, and I don't understand the obsession some editors have with ethnicity. I do feel that Sanders' religion should be noted, however, and have said as much. 5700:

The issue now becomes whether we can say that notability within the computer science community is sufficient for notability at global scale (ie Knowledge). The mayor of (e.g)

5099: 237: 10657:

the lines of, for what professions/types of people is it likely that the net worth will be relevant, generally available from reliable sources, and of interest to the reader?

5556:

I agree that something like this shouldn't automatically qualify a person (it's a weakness in the guidelines)...I mean a Nobel Prize, A Fields Medal, a Pulitzer Prize etc....

374:

And definitions of ethnicities/races/etc vary from country to country—an oft-cited countrast is the difference between how the US defines "black" (especially in light of the

8872:. But when speaking in Knowledge's voice, use "copyright infringement" with or without an "alleged", as circumstances may warrant, or some similar neutral descriptive term. 8687: 2912: 11962:, which has the Acceptable Use Policy in it. To be honest, I didn't even read it before I signed it, which is my fault. But that shows how much kids don't care these days. 10819:

I'm inclined to agree, though it's a bit unclear what "relevance" means. For example, is net worth relevant for a musician? What about an author? A scientist? What about a

7130:

listed, the reader may be looking for information about exactly that relationship, in which case it is appropriate to have something there other than a directory of links.

588:

one. It causes nothing but constant strife and disruption. For the few infoboxes that really need it, e.g. for religious leaders, it can be re-added as a custom parameter.

14846:

But LEAD doesn't supply this and isn't even often anything approximating a worthwhile summary - such as an A4 page might offer. How do I push this idea a little further?

10884:

conflict of interest. In other words if you have any personal or business stake with the designer (or their article) you should not create such a page, in any circumstance

10823:? Forbes tend to profile a large number of people, so I would lean towards saying Forbes should be concerned a reliable source if the net worth is to be included, but not 10536: 7017:"). Those that have expressed approval of the removal above should raise their concerns on the talk page of the policy if desired as this type of comment is allowed by it. 4155: 4018: 2885: 933:

To the extent it is even a meaningful characteristic of a person, ethnicity is often a matter of discussion and nuance that can't be conveyed in a one-word infobox entry.

11607:

IP block has the potential to create collateral damage. I would rather 500 people keep the RC patrolmen busy than lose one good faith contributor due to heavy handedness.

10411:

had by breaking down the country into its component nations where the presented info would be identical. Assuming this is an ideological issue (Scotland should be free!)

8701: 8189:

to describe intellectual property violations in pre-Internet times is particularly inappropriate. Copyright violations were very common at some points in history, e.g.,

5622:

numbers is far bigger just in USA....so if look at worldwide population and then consider how it will just keep growing over time...I think Knowledge has a problem....so

5250:

You can edit your user page but not your citation count: articles with citation counts of 2,571, 1,546, and 1,171 is pretty huge and easily enough to pass criterion 1 in

4220: 3700:

2. Articles should not contain long lists of boilerplate condolence quotes. (Note: I removed some language about mapping responses due to concerns over original research)

3568: 3559:

number of repetitive “we condemn these attacks and mourn the victims” type statements. However, I don’t think uniformly banning these types of articles is the way to go.

678: 639: 96: 12429:(adding) I'm assuming that by "style elements are not essential parts of the names of things", what you're proposing is that (for instance) Knowledge have an article on 11569:

Prohibit immediate implementation of another six month block following the expiration of a previous six month block, and require sysops to reset to short term blocks in

11499: 10486: 9329:

is the word i chose to use and you chose to attack me and characterize me as not getting on well. I get on well with all people who are not bullying and agenda-pushing.

7059: 5670:: "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas 3951: 3194: 2669: 2179: 2047: 1943:

Russian totals. Hmmm, interesting... it seems that Jews from Eastern European countries have been winning a disproportionately high percentage of Olympics medals. Those

1506: 618:

Please post an RfC about removing the religion parameter and allowing it as a custom parameter. I think that this is a good idea that will receive widespread support. --

360:

was there for a while, which seemed very strange to have put a religious epithet under "ethnicity" given the ongoing argument about whether it would be permitted in the

10792: 10683: 10651: 10628: 10607: 10584: 10556: 10477:

Apparently, the Aland islands in Finland are allowed on the Street View article. So, why can't Scotland be allowed as well? I demand Scottish recognition on that page.

3538: 3266: 3149: 10425: 10369: 10282:

was the culmination of it (which I helped close), and it has links to the earlier discussions dating back to 2009/2010. After that was another round of discussions at

8650: 5093: 5028: 5013: 3649:(I think the fact that so many states have offered condolences is significant, but I agree that actually listing out every single boilerplate condolence is excessive) 3469: 2849: 2430: 2416: 2370: 2328: 1471: 11925: 11891: 11876: 11856: 11352: 11336: 8769: 8752: 6416: 6399: 6091: 5866: 5851: 5635: 5616: 5530: 5480: 5466: 5436: 4762: 3788: 3774: 3715: 3688: 3607: 2868: 2261: 14874:-closed, because we already have a guideline which says "write a good summary in the lead", but you are always welcome to develop your idea and then propose it in a 10504: 10470: 10351: 9923: 9197: 5236:- I see nothing in the article as it currently stands that makes this professor qualify. So I would say he is probably not sufficiently notable for his own article. 5164: 5149: 4377:, but I'd prefer a stronger criterion. If the BBC mentions off-hand that someone said a thing, that doesn't constitute notability. My suggestion would be to go with 3898: 3873: 3852: 3510: 3492: 231: 166: 151: 12233:

of them could be converted if the right efforts were made to do so. We're no longer a free, open project, so I think someone should propose a change in our slogan.

12192:

big turn-off for many good content builders who wonder why they are contributing to a project which cannot take reasonable steps to defend itself against nonsense.

10762: 10730: 9909: 9608: 9262: 9247: 9126: 8979: 8613: 8591: 7281: 5062: 5043: 3746: 3369: 3287: 2824: 2706: 2652: 2450: 13283: 8732:

situations could easily be called copyright violation, but A would in most precincts not be considered copyright violation or at least considered a grey area (see

8558: 8206: 6693: 6667: 4946: 4547: 4520: 4433:, because I have seen news reports doing - maybe not as in depth as one of our articles - but still just giving out lists of responses from selected world leaders 4264: 4134: 3835: 3436: 3301: 3062: 2929: 2757: 2387: 2146: 1881:" which one editor appears to think is a proper "nationality". I am awaiting the categorization of "Muslim-Americans" as a nationality any moment now. <g: --> 1554: 1062: 11242: 11195: 10843: 10805:. If the networth has not been the subject of substantial coverage, why would we want to include it? The default position should probably be don't include. My 2p. 8596:

Many people before you tried to make the same article and it was turned into a redirect every time. So far, your draft mainly rehashes the terminology section of

8511: 6650: 6599: 4502: 3391: 3341: 3238: 3021: 2950: 2814: 2053:

that we have this material, what is the best way to present it to our readers, and how much of it, in general, is it appropriate to include in the Article space?

1511:

Citizenship should be the default. Nationality only comes in to play if it is more complicated and as an addition. Like the examples above or Curly's Canada one.

200: 181: 14452: 14169: 12339: 12317: 11393: 11379: 11320: 11258: 11148: 11122: 10814: 10447: 10412: 10401: 10387: 10339: 9671: 9536: 8804: 8277: 8149: 8088: 8073: 7479: 5115: 4815: 4485: 4361: 4333: 4310: 4282: 3965: 3625: 3097: 3079: 3038: 2682: 2468: 1710: 1676: 1635: 1537: 390: 50: 14383: 14285:

As I said there, "This user abides by consensuses they disagree with." As for "quagmire", I looked that up in the dictionary and there was the Knowledge logo. ―

13683: 13253: 12754: 12731: 12273: 12144: 12128: 12114: 11829: 11800: 11483: 11417: 11276: 11097: 11071: 11037: 11021: 10912: 10866: 9635: 9033: 8667: 8326: 8308: 8256: 6622: 6179: 5789: 5683: 5656: 5595: 5551: 5387: 4893: 4797: 4783: 4672:

The reason that THAT article should not be speedily deleted (by really, ANY CSD criteria, but lets focus on A7) is because it clearly states that the person is

4593: 3661: 2735: 2499: 2229: 2112: 2090: 2062: 1922:

countless biographies, and we're sure as hell not going to re-write them every few years whenever some bureaucrat decides to add or remove a hundred categories.

14493: 14275: 14188: 12441: 12175:

retention, and the students' ability to read Knowledge is irrelevant if Knowledge falls into disrepair because of excessive blocking chasing away new editors.

12091: 10219: 9881: 9510: 9385: 9367: 9353: 9338: 9316: 9279: 9141: 8964: 8878: 8231: 7960: 7922:

The word was meant to describe more than just copying because infringing copyright before the 1900s was only possible if one's whole career was invested in it.

7805: 7784: 7637: 7124: 6502: 6484: 6355: 6033: 5990: 5903: 5820: 5565: 5245: 5211: 5196: 4621: 4466: 3814: 3666:

The policy uses the term "responses", not "reactions". I think passing laws, offering aid (even this seems weak), performing symbolic acts of solidarity would

3168: 3130: 2987: 2078:

even if it seems the articles pass GNG. This is not to say that a few choice quotes aren't reasonable to include, summarizing such down to a few sentences. --

1604: 835: 627: 411: 253: 84: 14782: 14736: 14608: 14151: 14129: 13080: 12253: 12239: 12064: 10993:

A school is an institution where the same people will be around for a long time; and we only block school IPs where there actually are long-term problems. In

10779:

prefix then we will can ignore CNW and the other such website and just ask: when can we say the figure? Or perhaps the better question is: when is it that we

8944: 8897: 8600:

and creates the illusion that it's a well defined term. If copyright holders actually agreed that illegal sampling was something different, there wouldn't be

8447: 8110: 7500: 7357: 7290: 7255: 7188: 7167: 7145: 6533: 4744: 4421: 4389: 4191: 4044: 4000: 3415: 3209: 2966: 2204: 1575: 1329: 14525: 14236: 13569: 13169: 13025: 12626: 12201: 12018: 11987: 11975: 11457: 11439: 10889:

Secondly check whether the designer is sufficiently notable as evidenced by independent reports in reliable sources to warrant a Knowledge article following

10378:

is "Scotland is a country that is part of the United Kingdom and covers the northern third of the island of Great Britain." Do you wish something different?

8860: 8733: 8401: 6988: 6920:

a tabloid like tha National Equirer, or to Twitter messages, that'd be something potentially actionable, but not what was given in the original post here. --

6705: 4936: 4874: 4849: 3926: 3911: 2221:). If you need to do academic-level research to determine whether a political statement is significant or not, it's probably not (for Knowledge, at least). — 1405: 333:. "|ethnicity=" in Infoboxes is one box of worms I don't think we should ever be opening on Knowledge, and I would support an explicit ban on such a field. 14819: 14427: 14300: 14030: 13716: 13661: 13642: 13129: 13105: 12609: 12181: 9864: 9723: 9567: 8344: 8173: 8001: 7981: 6858: 6837: 6346:"the all human knowledge" stuff is s a total misnomer, obviously....as there's all kinds of rules about what can/can't be included/what is/isn't notable.... 5578:

example for a "highly selective membership" is the IEEE. The IEEE appointed 297 new fellows out out a membership of 345,464. It has a total of 7113 fellows

4631: 4449: 2556: 442: 14762: 14580: 14513: 14411: 13542: 13435: 13326: 13040: 12351: 12169: 10590: 10056: 10042: 9846: 9253:

being removed (or added), the status quo stays until consensus is reached on the talk page for changes. Otherwise editors end up blocked for edit warring.

9099: 9069: 8916: 8837: 8822: 8529: 7725: 7683: 7320:

Couldn't that just as easily be phrased, if the rules governing disambiguation pages are too restraining, make something other than a disambiguation page?

6762: 6448: 5171: 4726: 4711: 3639: 3140: 2279: 1757: 430: 13219: 12924: 12897: 12875: 12777: 10010: 9992: 9967: 9945: 9585: 9554: 9470: 9456: 9444: 9435:

bully. Add one more editor who lacks basic integrity to speak to content rather than to go to personal attacks and slander. Not rare here, unfortunately.

9426: 8546:. There's a huge difference between that and filesharing, regardless of whatever beliefs you hold about filesharing. Its use thus introduces ambiguity. 8101:. That doesn't require creation of a separate rule, and doesn't prohibit its use, but does flag for editors that there may be more neutral alternatives.-- 7624:

page. Or the other type of SIA would be a comprehensive and sourced list of things with similar names, regardless of whether they have an article or not.

7092: 6975:

I and BLPTALK consider the act and content of Dom Kaos's post completely reasonable, and properly making the intended use of the article talk page space.

6876: 6711:

If The National Enquirer and Twitter are all that's available, I agree it needed to be removed immediately, for the reasons given by the removing editor:

4690: 4648: 4569: 4108: 4078: 3585:

a mere list of responses. The Paris attacks can be dealt with on the talk page. To summarise, the proposal would only be used to delete article which are

2159: 1972: 1891: 1869: 1442: 14632: 13728: 13600: 13184: 13004: 12497: 12483: 12473: 12424: 10201: 8719: 8434: 8419: 8386: 5305: 5262: 4970: 4613: 3256:

if the reaction is associated with an action (such as an aid package, declaration of armed action against a terrorist group, or national/UN resolution).

2793: 1320:- It is not needed, there are no ongoing problems that genuinely need this as a solution, and to have it would cause an endless supply of more problems. 14887: 14855: 14841: 12965: 12794: 12369:

Snow close. Nobody thinks that the concept of COMMONNAME deferring to MOS makes much sense, and no evidence of any actual conflict has been presented.

11491: 10274: 9997:

Oh yes, I've been there. I guess I am lazy after all! I hope you won't mind me coming to your talk page to continue a more specific discussion. Thanks.

7829: 7524: 7232: 6901:. The doggedness of censors to cover up what everyone already knows is outright inexplicable, but it is one of their universal and distinctive traits. 6787: 6753:

The question did not repeat the allegations made by the source, it merely pointed to it and asked whether it was accurate. No BLP violation occurred.

6295: 6240: 3322: 2775: 2625: 1850: 14698: 14681: 14518:

One case where you know IAR is inappropriate is when, without major privacy issues being relevant, you find out that consensus is against your action.

13148: 12992: 12689: 12589: 12527: 12411: 12039: 11959: 10562: 10112: 9761: 9743: 6910: 6814: 6743: 6728: 2611: 1809: 1795: 1771: 908: 782: 566: 549: 459: 108: 13123: 12817: 12643: 12221:

block with schoolblocks and anonblocks, poking that silly looking schoolhouse in front of them almost like some sort of insult? What about all of the

11589:

administrative intervention, such as a vandalism spree or block evasion, not just because there's been a handful of editing tests over a months time.

10637:

they did to become notable. Was it for both fame and fortune? It is easy to say so for businesspeople. But for these others, we might be engaging in

10179: 10162: 10148: 10135: 10121: 10095: 10074: 8098: 1956: 1835: 1312: 11847:

cannot gain access to an email address, it would be fantastic if you could support that point, because in my experience that is not at all the case.

9176:

which governs the use of info added/removed that would affect the neutrality of the article (an article that is already considered neutral which has

8050: 8023: 7387: 7315: 7034: 6286:

for others is an irrelevant detail that can be summarised with a single mention in the larger Tapei language article, or can even be omitted at all.

3862:

International reactions are only deemed notable enough for inclusion if they are covered by reliable secondary sources outside of their home country.

2588: 1033: 719: 12672: 12386: 7562: 7407: 7335: 5607:

million articles in en:, so with a million extra bios those would make up closer to 15% than to 25%, even assuming no other articles are written). -

3589:

made up of responses and very likely to be used on article talk pages when proposing to cut down such a list within an already well formed article.

3581:, were proposed for deletion then it would not be deleted (or at least not because of this proposal), because a reasonable amount of the content is 1206: 997: 701: 345: 14847: 12944: 12548: 6962: 6932: 5454: 979: 873: 855: 790: 609: 407:) might have turned out to be one of my exceptions, but he "...insisted that Judaism was a religious identity and not a national or ethnic one." -- 286: 13509: 10495:. We are not going to make an official Knowledge policy with details like whether Scotland should be included in a specific list about a website. 10360:

Unlikely. Unless you actually have an idea for a policy that has a chance of passing - 'Pretend Scotland is not part of Great Britain' is not it.

8283:

Do not use "piracy" when no ships are involved, do not use "copyright infringement" unless a court has ruled that there is copyright infringement.

5102:

effort looks like the groundwork for some kind of funding proposal – a straw man of problem to get paid to solve. It is certainly not about draft

4835:

You don't need to know all the rules, you are invited to boldly make good-faith efforts to improve articles. If someone disagrees with your edit,

3612:

Relatedly, this discussion could be used as an argument to remove bulleted lists of random world leader responses from regular articles as well. ~

1381: 369: 240:

effort looks like the groundwork for some kind of funding proposal – a straw man of problem to get paid to solve. It is certainly not about draft

14418:

Can IAR "overrule" MOS? ... Yes. Does it "overrule" MOS in every case... Nope. Should it "overrule" MOS in some specific case... probably not.

11726:? Should middle and high school students be subjected to cyberstalking by vandals? Is this a liability for Knowledge or the Wikimedia Foundation? 8868:

except in direct quotations, or where it has become part of the accepted and well-known name for a particular event or controversy, in line with

8349:

Nonsense. There are multiple ways to "use someone else's copyrighted work without permission" that are not copyright infringement. For example,

7548:, make a redlink for the one we're missing and provide an external link to a good source after it so the people looking in the encyclopedia have 6231:: "Knowledge seeks to create a summary of all human knowledge in the form of an online encyclopedia." The key word you are missing is "summary." 1262: 945: 748: 480: 13514: 12556:- If anything, the conflicts between COMMONNAME and MOS should be resolved in the other direction. Our MOS guidance should defer to COMMONNAME. 12378: 12119:

I was referring to Conservapedia, but if you want to denigrate and slur RC patrollers who can barely keep Knowledge safe as it is, be my guest.

7902: 7608:-- I don't see much of a case for the genuses of the other non-Asimina species being commonly known as the Pawpaw genus or the genus of Pawpaws. 2920:: World leader reactions are entirely predictable; the entire section could be replaced by "the usual people expressed the usual sentiments". -- 2423:

My support also applies to mass killings (usually shootings or earthquakes) that aren't called terrorism, but evoke the same general responses.

1362: 1290: 1146: 1123: 808: 773: 13484: 12263:

All of these people harping about how one can create an account, just stop talking or find something you are more knowledgeable to talk about.

11085:

obsession with maliciously using the school computers maliciously is probably something they should see a a doctor about. Otherwise, following

10117:

With respect, given that all responding editors have been opposed to the idea, filing a bug would seem to be more than a touch presumptuous. -

9694: 7211: 6897:, and is necessary for regular editing. It is amazing and depressing that people are arguing to cover up the basic citations to cover a story 4989:

User talk:Robert McClenon/Inside-Facing and Outside-Facing § At least 4 different concerns (from vital to bogus) about userspace article drafts

3864:. Otherwise Knowledge is essentially just pasting PR releases by politicians who issue these PR statements to "show" "how much" they "care". 1245: 1082: 925: 891: 520: 127:

User talk:Robert McClenon/Inside-Facing and Outside-Facing § At least 4 different concerns (from vital to bogus) about userspace article drafts

14102: 12042: 1176: 494: 14391: 11839:

school internet access. If you believe that there is a significant number of people who can only edit wikipedia using school-based internet

11730: 11327:

The net loss is that our editors spend time fixing preventable disruptive editing when they could be improving the encyclopedia elsewhere...

9855:

Guy Macon—in fact "Jew/Jewish" is not a "special case". We abide by the findings of reliable sources. We do not engage in original research.

4381:

and strengthen it to "receive significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, including sources outside of the speaker's home country". —

3399: 2674:

This does not label all responses non-notable, it says that indiscriminately listing all of them is not an appropriate topic for an article.

2405:

something (legislation, bombing, concerts, so on). And call that section "Aftermath", to not suggest it's a place for that hollow stuff. I'm

1223: 1103: 14358:

bounds. I'd bet good money that quite a number of Libertarian Party candidates have held pseudo- or quasi-religious "credentials" with the

11234:/16 at the wrong time of the day (not any specific time, just wrong place wrong time) you'll probably find nothing but vandalism there too. 4657:

could still look at the article and tell unambiguously should be immediately deleted. For example, if someone started an article that said:

13489: 12356: 11133: 10229:

Re 1): You seem to have missed the epic debate about "pending changes"/"Flagged revisions" extension. Take a week off and start reading up.

8743: 6590:

notes, neither the Wikimedia Foundation nor the authors of content can provide legal advice. However, the link I gave above may help. :) --

6539: 6475:

I have said everything I wanted to say about this, and notice that I am merely reiterating arguments. A good moment to call it a day. Best

5343: 4908:

Perhaps the best way to define it is: We are ruled by consensus, and general consensus is that policies and guidelines should be respected.

3578: 3555: 2959:

Or on the other side of the border, for that matter. But if a giant fish swallows Aruba, it would make sense to hear from the Netherlands.

1465: 324: 14223:

of their religion; instead, editors wrongly believe that as long as a subject's religion is known and sourced, go right ahead and use the

13888: 12298: 10512: 10022: 8129: 7046:

Notifications, like the section title of an RfC and the explanation also need to be worded neutrally. Otherwise it's a clear cut case of

6439:

of Knowledge article subjects, but that cannot mean that all those articles are unwarranted, or Knowledge has failed its existence goal.

557:- the other opposes said it well, especially Guy Macon. Talk about it in the early life section with supporting links is much better imo 13832:: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism Religion name mentioned in Body? Yes, but all links cited are dead. Discuss on article talk page. 11673:

Do we treat colleges, universities, libraries, and military basic training facilities different from high schools and school districts?

10710: 10591:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:LinkSearch&limit=500&offset=0&target=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.forbes.com%2Fprofile%2F

1498:(nationality) but having UK citizenship. There's also people who hold multiple citizenships but identify with only one nationality; eg, 14121:

As the closer of the RFC in question I don't think it would be appropriate for me to offer opinions on its implementation, but pinging

12396:

project would benefit greatly from the elimination of this vast battleground, which diverts and distracts from more important issues. ―

10303: 7674:

that also include non-organism uses of the term, but even then, using parenthetically dabbed common name redirects can be misleading).

6889:. It is not and should not be a violation of WP:BLP to ask about a source on a talk page. That is not a statement that the source is 4750: 14197:

I don't think anyone disagrees that religion is still relevant in American politics. For that reason, there is likely to be at least

13533:

makes allowance for exceptions if a name is found that is consistently styled one way in sources; but no such have been found so far.

13094:: Echoing Blueboar and everyone who followed in assent that this is entirely backwards. COMMONNAME must not be held hostage to MOS. 11748:

Blocking schools just pushes the vandals onto other mediums, such as cell phones. Vandalism is, frankly, easier for RC patrols to spot

11291: 5833:

and note that Paulson's books on Isabelle have been cited several thousand times alone. What's the value of having an article on, say

1214:

In the rare cases where it is relevant, ethnicity is much better dealt with in article prose rather than simplified infobox labeling.

13900:: Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Christianity. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed. 9929:

Non-commercial use is considered non-free for en.wiki's purposes. This means while they can be used they must meet the criteria for

8482: 8133: 1918: 1686: 13750:

Inclusion is permitted in derived, more specific infoboxes that genuinely need it for all cases, such as one for religious leaders."

13494: 13395:

to the stylized trademark (still pronounced "Sun") was given as "COMMONNAME". Personally, it looks to be squarely in the domain of

12036: 11896: 11788: 11736:

These blocks could prevent someone from making their first edit, and they may not bother (or may even be unable) to make an account.

11109:

still be appropriate in some cases - persistent disruption by the same user, multiple edits suitable for revision deletion criteria

10335:

where it belongs. One article with its own specific issues like different dates for Netherlands/Aruba but the same for the whole UK

2484:

is also generally spotty. A part of the problem is that Wikinews seems to be mostly dead, so all the news stays here on Knowledge. —

1483: 14798: 13469: 13408: 11043: 8813:

still shows up at the beginning of most films, and it clearly uses the phrase "piracy" to mean "theft of this copyrighted work". --

7915: 7207: 6942: 6493:

right, but the idea is to require academics to meet something closer to general notability guidelines to have a personal article...

3518:

This is too broad-brush. Each case needs to be decided on its merits. A guideline on how to make such decisions may be beneficial.

9372:

It's not a statement that needs "proof" though i could if i cared to. It's a reckoning by one person. And then you responded with

2213:) require "in depth knowledge and understanding" of the political landscape of Santa Lucia to understand... ? Knowledge is not an 13464: 12563:"... it is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and 11268:, but "silly vandalism" is. How do you differentiate between the two of them? I still think these blocks do more harm than good. 9105: 7856:

There is consensus to generally prefer "copyright infringement" over "piracy", but this should not be interpreted as any sort of

7115:". So unless more flexibility is allowed in disambiguation pages, I strongly support keeping these lists as something different. 5184:#1 easily). Details on personal life can be added on a discretionary basis, as long as they're supported by reliable sources—see 3085: 2210: 1456:, no, nein, negative, negatory, I vote against it, denied, קיין. I hope that's enough reasoning behind my pretty obvious choice. 14614: 13499: 13454: 11064:

And admins who use templates for block reasons should know what the template says - in this case, "Due to persistent vandalism.

10491:

This is a page to discuss general policies and guidelines for an encyclopedia with five million articles. Keep the dicussion at

9325:-- i mean correct according to the best reliable sources, and representing them well. That includes "verifiable" in a sense but 6455:

Chomsky easily meets general notability guidelines, which are much stricter than those for academics. Not really a good example.

14101:

Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Evangelicalism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as "born-again Christian".

14092: 13422:, both COMMONNAME and MOS:CT were invoked. Both lost to the lack of consensus. They were both on the same side, of moving to 11248: 10918: 7901:

historically, but I don't see how "piracy" can be neutral when the copyright debate is far from over. It was not long ago that

2999:". Obviously if the reaction was the subject of multiple, reliable sources then the article can exist in its own right through 1131:

for reasons given above. However, for some people ethnicity is a defining characteristic: WP has a massive category tree under

67: 7864:

is certainly important, but NPOV requires us to be neutral in presenting the information within reliable sources, not neutral

7260:

Having a bot report "inappropriate" links to SIAs would lead to further complexity e.g. would we have INTSIALINK like we have

7081:

in these cases, and in any other cases where the set index consists only of a listing of articles with a cursory description.

3349:

Not only is the content of the flagged bulleted list entirely predictable every time something atrocious happens, it violates

1013:. No analysis of the current use is provided, and no link given to the discussion where it was decided to add that parameter. 12282:

Intentional disruption by the very editor who is apparently making a good-faith proposal in this very section is not useful.

10299: 9729: 8955:

except in articles that discuss copyright issues as part of the conflict. Elswhere, the term is non-neutral and ambiguous. --

8478: 6516: 2248: 2209:

How does a statement like "Prime Minister Kenny Anthony has expressed his shock and sadness at Brussels attacks" (taken from

13954:: Infobox Religion: Lutheranism. Religion name mentioned in body, but citation is a dead link. Discuss on article talk page. 13575: 13459: 11712:

This could result in Knowledge being completely blocked out by the institution, meaning people couldn't even read Knowledge.

9461:

My first post in this section, beginning with "In principle, ...", did not cast aspersions to anyone here. Do you disagree?

8006:

One other aspect to add in re-reading the bit on the court order that prevented MPAA from using "piracy" during a case - it

5830: 13155:

What about the scores of very knowledgeable editors who lack the writing skills to create a quality article? Are those who

10784: 10643: 10599: 10548: 10336: 9050:

On Knowledge, is it true that "During a dispute, until a consensus is established to make a change, the status quo reigns"?

817: 14901: