Xqxf
Your account has been upgraded to confirmed status. Please be sure to take care to edit semi-protected pages carefully. Introducing non-verifiable information could result in you getting blocked. Below are some general links that may help as well. — xaosflux Talk 05:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Welcome Xqxf! edit
Hello, Xqxf, I'm xaosflux and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date, and use edit summaries whenever you change a page. If you have any questions, need help or assistance, check out Wikipedia:Ask a question or contact me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Enjoy Wikipedia!! |
Ebola virus edit
I think your recent edit to Ebola virus: "Remove hatnote per Wikipedia:Hatnote and for consistency with Ebola virus disease..." does a disservice. The point about hatnotes is to provide redirection to readers who are likely to have landed on the wrong page. In today's climate, it is likely the vast majority of readers who end up at "Ebola virus" are actually looking for information about the current outbreak. Consistency in hatnote application is less important than providing detour signs for those who are likely lost. Once the current hoopla dies down, it might be worth removing that hatnote again, but I think it still has a useful place today. Regards, Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 18:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Tarlneustaedter: I agree it's useful to try to redirect readers, but there are many pointers and search results into the Ebola outbreak articles (including a prominent link on the main page.) I removed the hatnote following the discussion at Talk:Ebola (disambiguation), which also references the discussion at Talk:Ebola virus disease#Disambiguation, which are probably the best places to discuss this issue. Unless there is consensus to put the hatnote on Ebola virus disease itself (since Ebola redirects there), I don't think we can justify it on Ebola virus. Xqxf (talk) 19:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Page move by admin edit
An admin saw a request to move the U.S. ebola page and went ahead and moved it to Ebola virus cases in the United States. I opened a section on the talk page. Per our discussion, I like it and think it should stay. What do you think? SW3 5DL (talk) 22:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
- @SW3 5DL: Thanks for the heads up. I'm honestly a bit annoyed that the page would be admin-moved as "uncontroversial" when there's an ongoing move request and active discussion. In any case, I made my objection known... (My issue is that "cases" is like "disease", in that it doesn't cover the response, etc.) But if few people object, I'm not going to argue the point there; this isn't a bad title, just not great. (And as you say, perhaps people will get back to editing the article.) Xqxf (talk) 22:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
- Well, my first thought was to have the admin revert himself because I could justify that with a link to the page move discussion. And maybe I should have, but then I thought, it seemed a less controversial title. My concern is that the political types will show up and that would be very disruptive for the article. Should I ask the admin to revert himself? SW3 5DL (talk) 23:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
- @SW3 5DL: Thanks for handling all of that and requesting the revert, despite being less annoyed with the change than I was. (It also looks like the user making the request was given bad advice at WP:AN, [1] or the request probably wouldn't have even been made.) I wonder what the CDC and WHO will do at the end of the 42-day waiting period for declaring an outbreak over...maybe they'll finally declare it an outbreak then. :) Xqxf (talk) 13:57, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- Well, my first thought was to have the admin revert himself because I could justify that with a link to the page move discussion. And maybe I should have, but then I thought, it seemed a less controversial title. My concern is that the political types will show up and that would be very disruptive for the article. Should I ask the admin to revert himself? SW3 5DL (talk) 23:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
title edit
Your title suggestion might be the one. That does cover it best. I'm not going to comment until the end. I want to see where this is at. Thanks for commenting. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- @SW3 5DL: Thanks. I agree your request to simply state opinions will work well if people follow it; I don't intend to comment myself. We have plenty of other open discussions for that. Xqxf (talk) 15:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
straw poll edit
Xqxf, it looks like Ebola virus cases in the United States is the most likely. What do you want to do now? SW3 5DL (talk) 23:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- @SW3 5DL: I'm not entirely certain what to do...I don't have much experience with contentious moves like this. I reread the original move discussion, and there's basically nobody arguing for "disease" rather than supporting the move in order to remove "outbreak". In fact, "cases" was repeatedly suggested during the move discussion. The editor who made the move request also endorsed your logic about the proposed title. So I now feel like the closing admin really should've addressed the fact that the move caused a content dispute, rather than just saying "use a hatnote" after the fact.
- There are two users opposing another move, one being the closer, so I don't think we have consensus without a full RM. I'm wondering if I should go back to the closing admin and ask him to reevaluate (but I get the sense he won't), or if maybe I should start an RfC asking whether the hatnote is appropriate rather than having the article match the title. Suggestions? (I guess I could ask for a move review, but I don't know if that would be productive, or if it'd just waste people's time.) Xqxf (talk) 17:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- (e/c)I noticed the same issue with the word 'outbreak' on the RM discussion. The nominator of that discussion now realizes his error, and supports the move. I think what will settle it is if a new RM is opened, or even a proper RfC with a template and the bot notifications, etc., and make a statement straight off that alerts editors to the stable version versus the problems with the word disease. I'll go take a look at the talk page. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:10, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
straw poll discussion edit
I see you've not been around in a few days, but I wanted to drop you a note to let you know that the straw poll you got going has some helpful comments. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Halloween greetings! edit
Hello Xqxf:
Thanks for all of your contributions to the Ebola country articles. Have a fun Halloween!
– SW3 5DL (talk) 16:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)