Do you think any of this warrants inclusion in the article? I realized later (after another editor shut down my discussion) that I failed to state my request explicitly (though I thought it was pretty clear). In particular, I felt the statement by the Amsterdam City Council member deserved mention.
I don't think so. This person is not impartial and I have not seen this description of events in reliable Dutch sources. I believe we should follow them instead of individual accounts Dajasj (talk) 23:13, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, virtually none of the people whose statements are included in the article can plausibly be described as "impartial." --ΝΗΜΙΝΥΛΙ23:40, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi @Kvng, thanks for your comment. I try to consider them and I often turn them into references, but I see I might have been too quick with the Telecommunications in Nepal page. Dajasj (talk) 16:48, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In this edit, you removed external links that would not have been useful as references. But they had some value all the same. Here's where I've taken the article. (It's still terrible, of course.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Hoary, thanks for your reply! However, I believe this is not what notes are for and still violates WP:EL. If deemed relevant, I believe they should be placed in the External Links section. Kind regards, Dajasj (talk) 06:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's a surprise. WP:EL is a long page; but when I searched within it for the strings "efn" and "notelist", I found nothing. There are tokens within [WP:EL of "note", but none of them seems relevant here. Meanwhile, Template:Efn/doc doesn't seem to say anything relevant. Where's the problem with these notes? (Of course they are not references, they cannot be references, and the article needs references.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
#1 of WP:ELPOINTS specifically mentions inline references and citations as the only allowed external links in the body of the article. Because they are specifically excepted from the rule, I conclude that notes (when not referring to references) are not allowed.
But setting aside the rules. Do we want all external links moved to notes? Especially the Barganews one is problematic. Every entity mentioned might get a note with a link to the homepage of the company. It will create a lot of spam, which I have been trying to remove.
I truly believe we should limit external links to a small external links section and the references. Allowing more, will just create a opening for link spam and rarely help our readers. If they want to look up more about Barganews, they have the option to use a search engine. Dajasj (talk) 08:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you on the Barganews note. I added it with no enthusiasm and a few minutes ago happily deleted it. I find WP:ELPOINTS ambiguous on the matter of external links in notes. Perhaps you and I fundamentally disagree about the desirability of external links in general. But we probably have points of agreement. Certainly I have no time for "references" to articles when these "references" just provide supplementary info about the subject of the article. If the supplementary info is worthwhile, however, I'm happy if relevant, non-promotional external links appear in notes. Among my own creations, the one that has most recently been subject to examination and criticism is Stephan Vanfleteren. As you can see, this is stuffed with notes that have external links. The article has been changed quite a bit since I last tinkered with it, but the notes are mostly (though not all) mine. Now see Template:Did you know nominations/Stephan Vanfleteren. That was quite an ordeal (though it was fair). It had no criticism of the notes. Indeed, notes containing external links are common in what I produce, and they haven't yet been problematic. (Try for example Atsushi Fujiwara, discussed in Template:Did you know nominations/Atsushi Fujiwara.) .... And again, none of this is intended to defend the article on Viviano, which is most unsatisfactory. -- Hoary (talk) 09:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we fundamentally disagree on the desirability of exernal links. Personally, I disagree with how notes are used. Especially the use of links for publisher's websites, given that ISBNs are also present and link indirectly to websites that give more information about the book.
I don't think the two of us will reach consensus on this issue. I have no intention to revert it and my priorities have shifted away from external links right now. However, if we want a clarification, we could ask for more participants at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard. Dajasj (talk) 09:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you translated text from nl:Nellien de Ruiter to Nellien de Ruiter. While you are welcome to translate Wikipedia content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensingrequires that you provide attribution to the contributor(s) of the original article. When translating from a foreign-language Wikipedia article, this is supplied at a minimum in an edit summary on the page where you add translated content, identifying it as a translation and linking it to the source page. Sample wording for this is given here. If you forgot, or were not aware of this requirement, attribution must be given retroactively, for example:
NOTE: Content in the edit of 01:25, January 25, 2023 was translated from the existing French Wikipedia article at [[:fr:Exact name of French article]]; see its history for attribution.
@DreamRimmer, thanks. I should've been more specific with that article, I had not realised others had changed it as well. I also thought the template on the Talk page was enough. Besides this article, please note that I have also translated many of my own articles with no contributions by others. Dajasj (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have also seen your list, please give me a day. Most of them have been made for enwiki or are translations of my own work. Where this does not apply, I will fix it. Thanks for notifying me. Dajasj (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I've added a list to your sandbox. Please check and attribute any that aren't done yet. I did some. You can leave the articles that are solely your work. – DreamRimmer (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for notifying me and giving me time to resolve the issue. It has made clear that I should have been more precise in my attribution. I have fixed this for the articles you listed, and will double check the other articles I have made.
Fixed (one way or another, mostly extending the attribution from talk page to edit history):
