User talk:Infogapp1

This user may have left Wikipedia. Infogapp1 has not edited Wikipedia since November 15, 2020. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Greetings, you and @Dolphyb have both added File:Master Musicians of Jajouka led by Bachir Attar.jpg, which depicts The Master Musicians of Jajouka led by Bachir Attar, to the article The Master Musicians of Joujouka. They are two different groups -- both articles describe the schism between them, over which there had been a very long, but hopefully still dormant, edit war (hence my concern about the edits). What caught my eye is that both of you used "#WPWP" in the edit summary. I, for one, had no idea what "#WPWP" is or means, and the only place on English Wikipedia where it seems to mean anything is WP:WPWP (which, as far as I can tell, is completely uninvolved). Finally I found meta:Talk:Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos where I have left a comment. Not sure it makes much difference as that campaign will end in a few days. Long story short (and which I've mentioned at the meta discussion): the "#WPWP" isn't particularly helpful, and this photo depicts a different group from the article where it's been added. Thanks -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:51, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gyrofrog:Hiya! Appreciate your vigilance on this subject. As you've pointed out, the #WPWP campaign simply aims to revitalise topics that didn't have any in them. I didn't notice the history and I personally didn't intend to edit war with anyone. I understand the nature of the topic (band) maybe a little closer to some than others, and you probably knew the topic more than others). With that said, my apologies for the confusion and thanks for bringing the issue to my attention. Hope you enjoy the rest of your weekend. --Infogapp1 (talk) 21:42, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for understanding, and my apologies as, in hindsight, I think I came off as too accusatory. Let me also clarify that I certainly appreciate the motive behind the campaign. It's clear to me you were following the campaign's instructions -- my issue, I think, is with the instructions themselves (and like I mentioned, I've already made a note to that effect on the campaign's talk page). Hardly anyone might've known this in advance, but this Jajouka/Joujouka topic area has been very problematic in the past (which is not a reason for others to stop editing there altogether -- just wanted to make sure someone else was apprised after seeing the two similar edits). Thanks again. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 00:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologise. You meant well, and to be honest, I should have been more careful and looked through edit history. If I were in your shoes, I would have been worried as well. I also looked at your report on the contest's talk page and agree with your sentiments. Perhaps even allowing for the hashtag to be linkable to the project's details would have given other users who were not aware of the program heads up (not sure how technically possible that may be at this point). First time I saw it on Simple Wiki, I had to ask an admin what was that all about. About the topic: so funny my gut feeling was telling me earlier I shouldn't edit the music topic, (and glad you've spotted an honest mistake!) Something about the nature of the information. I guess I need to trust my gut more often, haha. Thanks again, take care --Infogapp1 (talk) 00:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Dan arndt. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Sirinivasa have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. Dan arndt (talk) 02:27, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi@Dan arndt: Appreciate the heads up and for leaving relevant edit summary. That's always helpful. Many thanks. --Infogapp1 (talk) 12:08, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Kozojedy (Rakovník District)

added links pointing to Smilovice and Kozojedy

Khánh Vĩnh District

added a link pointing to Cai River

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kozojedy (Rakovník District), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Smilovice and Kozojedy.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware of these two policies on section naming: 1 policy 2. Koncorde (talk) 18:16, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Infogapp1 (talk) 16:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I adjusted the ones you did recently, but if you have made an earlier ones please take a look and see if you can clarify them. Thank you. Koncorde (talk) 17:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that content added is irrelevant to his father per WP:UNDUE unless: 1. He died, in which case we might mention he had a son that died in a crash under personal life (and that's it). 2. There is an accusation his father was involved in some fashion or it reflects upon his father in some fashion (like he was the head of a drink driving / drive safely campaign) in which case even then we'd be careful what we would include to ensure it was about the father and not the son. Koncorde (talk) 22:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link to UNDUE and for reverting the new editor's entry. What's an easy way to find these guidelines? Do you search for them on a case-to-case basis, or is there a father of all guides somewhere that you could refer me to please? Many thanks. --Infogapp1 (talk) 22:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You just have to make yourself aware of them but there are some shortcuts In the top right of the WP:NPOV there is a little box with links to key sections and a larger box at the bottom of the page with all the rules linked to. I have added them to your User:Infogapp1/sandbox for you to look at (your Sandbox is a page you can play with as you like, so delete it at your own leisure). Within those sections are lots of sub-rules, guides and policies. There's no easy way to really sum them all up, you just kind of have to take a glance through.

In general the main rules around people are focused on WP:BLP, the final paragraph at the top is quite succinct;

Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.

So for instance his son may fall under WP:BLPGOSSIP, or WP:BLPBALANCE or WP:BLP1E as a result among other considerations.

In this case however I asserted WP:UNDUE because Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3] and his sons conviction is neither significant, nor proportional, to Demetris career. However say there were dozens of news articles critising Demetris for the crash (somehow), that then may be relevant.

Also Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements and use of imagery where the information was being presented within his "Political Career" section created an obvious issue by equating a single event with a 29 year political caree. WP:PROPORTION would have been valid also for instance.

In the end, people use sections like "Personal Life" and "Controversy" to insert a lot of stuff that wouldn't stand on their own within a biography, so if you see things being added there it's always best to have a think about what might be particularly relevant. Koncorde (talk) 02:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will add your talk page to my watch list. If you have any questions, either leave them here and I will check back periodically, or leave a message on my talk page and I will help as best as I can. If anything is unclear (WP can be confusing) let me know and I will try and simplify any statements with some examples if I can. Koncorde (talk) 02:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Phenomenal stuff, thanks very much :) --Infogapp1 (talk) 11:06, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]