Alarob

I've started 71 of Wikipedia's 6,907,618 articles. These days I'm mostly copyediting or doing gnomish tasks.

I recently revised:  Federation of Damanhur : : Monroe Alpheus Majors : : Kenneth M. Stampp : : B : : Voiced bilabial plosive : : Enjoining good and forbidding wrong : : Alfred E. Jackson : : Johannes Kelpius : : Gunpowder Plot : : Socorro, New Mexico : : Moses Cleaveland : : Hayy ibn Yaqdhan : : Killing of David Ben Avraham

Articles I've started:  American Farmland Trust : : August Wenzinger : : Avinash Sachdev : : Bartram's Travels : : Bernard Gregory : : Buckdancer's Choice : : Burnt Corn, Alabama : : City of Basel Music Academy : : Contraguitar : : Cusseta, Alabama : : Elko, Georgia : : Farid Esack : : Flintridge Building : : Folkwang Academy : : Frederica (given name) : : Georg Schäfer (industrialist) : : Gesellschaft für das Gute und Gemeinnützige : : Heutelia : : History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America : : Huntley Project : : J. Gordon Coogler : : James R. Osgood : : John Harvard Library : : John Pope (travel writer) : : Lauren Newton : : Lukas Vischer (theologian) : : Mamma Haidara Commemorative Library : : Mathias Rüegg : : Montgomery Symphony Orchestra : : Museum Georg Schäfer : : Museum of Cultures Basel : : Poarch Creek Indian Reservation : : Ring shout : : Sankt Georgen Graduate School of Philosophy and Theology : : Schloss Ebenrain : : Schrammelmusik : : Spanish West Florida : : Suum cuique : : Vienna Art Orchestra : : Vischer Ferry, New York : : William and Mary Quarterly

Disambiguation pages ("dab pages" for short):  Arts and letters (disambiguation) : : Available Jones : : Ballantine : : Benjamin Porter : : Frederika : : Fredrika : : James Douglass : : Luke Field : : Northridge High School : : Lukas Vischer : : Romano-Germanic : : Standard Oil (disambiguation) : : VAO

These are still stub-class:  Al-Mu'tasim, Iraq : : Benjamin F. Porter : : Big Warrior : : Cappella Coloniensis : : Cherokee War of 1776 : : Cusseta tribal town : : Hadron collider : : The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution : : Johann Spies : : John Harvard Library (series) : : Lucerne School of Music : : Lukas Vischer (collector) : : Pompey's Pillar, Montana : : Tukabatchee : : Wheeling, Louisiana : : William H. Miles : : WVSU-FM

Templates:  Unicode support notices for Canadian Aboriginal syllabics and Cherokee syllabics (now handled differently) : : Some ISO 639 support templates for Native American languages: Alabama (akz), Algonquin (alq), Chickasaw (cic), Chippewa (ciw), Chitimacha (ctm), Choctaw (cho), Dakota (dak), Kiowa (kio), Koasati (cku), Mikasuki (mik), Creek (mus), Central Ojibwa (ojc), Eastern Ojibwa (ojg), Northwestern Ojibwa (ojb), Severn Ojibwa (ojs), Western Ojibwa (ojw), Opata (opt), Ottawa (otw), Unami (unm), and Yuchi (yuc).

Did you know? … that the Mamma Haidara Commemorative Library in Timbuktu in Mali houses a collection of manuscripts begun more than 500 years ago? (30 May 2013)

Babel boxes:  Appalachian English : : Middle English (basic, intermediate, fluent, advanced)

Other pages in my userspace:  Userboxen : : Languages : : Travels : : 10 Random Pages : : References : : Workspace

(Updated infrequently.) As of August 2017 I had made over 11,390 edits to more than 3,630 pages.

• 2.6 average edits per day
• 3.1 average edits per page
• My latest contributions

Some of the more unusual articles I keep an eye on:

Chang and Eng Bunker : : Dictionary of Received Ideas : : Frick and Frack : : Guadalcanal Diary (band) : : List of fatal alligator attacks in the United States : : Mike the Headless Chicken : : Muslimgauze : : Pylon (band) : : St. Marx Cemetery : : The real McCoy : : Why did the chicken cross the road?

Wikipedia does not contain the truth. Articles in Wikipedia, at their best, reflect the general state of human knowledge, or (to put it even less precisely) what most qualified people these days believe to be true. I reserve the right to believe that most people are wrong about some things. But I do not have the right to make my opinion prevail in Wikipedia. (See: Wikipedia: Verifiability.)

From "observations on Wikipedia behavior" by Antandrus:

• Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The primary job of Wikipedians is to write it. Everything else is secondary.
• The very existence of Wikipedia is a massive proof that there are more people in the world wanting to build than to tear down. Were that not true, vandals would have overwhelmed and destroyed us years ago.
• The best way to continue as a writing Wikipedian for many years is to be, as the Buddha recommends, "indifferent to both praise and blame." Indifference to praise is a hard task for mere humans, but millions of potential anonymous readers demand it of you…. And remember this: you are allowed to take your work seriously here, and think highly of your own efforts; but be advised, don't talk about it.
• A common insult hurled at dedicated Wikipedia editors is that they "have no life." If you write extensively in an out-of-the-way area, you may well become the most widely read writer in the world on your topic. There are worse ways of "having no life", such as abusing the few actually useful people on the internet, but those who deliver such insults are invariably tone-deaf to irony.

From some advice by William Pietri:

‘’Wikipedia's articles are no place for strong views. Or rather, we feel about strong views the way that a natural history museum feels about tigers. We admire them and want our visitors to see how fierce and clever they are, so we stuff them and mount them for close inspection. We put up all sorts of carefully worded signs to get people to appreciate them as much as we do. But however much we adore tigers, a live tiger loose in the museum is seen as an urgent problem.’’

The typical Wikipedian is a relatively privileged white male "knowledge worker," student, or professional from the so-called First World who has easy access to the Internet and a high comfort level with geekery. This imposes an unintended but inherent bias on the encyclopedia's coverage of topics — a bias that militates against the ideal of Wikipedia as a universal repository of human knowledge. Overcoming that bias is an interesting challenge.

To date, most of my articles have been located in the American South (especially the Deep South, where I'm from) or in Europe, and most of my editing of biographies has been about men. I'm trying to branch out more.

• Third opinion disputes

Third opinion (3O) is a means to request an outside opinion in a content or sourcing disagreement between two editors. When two editors do not agree, either editor may list a discussion here to seek a third opinion. The third opinion process requires observance of good faith and civility from both editors during the discussion in order to be successful.

The less formal nature of the third opinion process is a major advantage over other methods of resolving disputes. For more complex disputes that involve more than two editors, or that cannot be resolved through talk page discussion, editors should follow the other steps in the dispute resolution process such as the dispute resolution noticeboard or request for comment.

Before making a request here, be sure that the issue has been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page. 3O is only for assistance in resolving disagreements that have come to a standstill. If no agreement can be reached on the talk page and only two editors are involved, follow the directions below to list the dispute. Otherwise, please follow other methods in the dispute resolution process such as the dispute resolution noticeboard or request for comment. 3O is usually flexible by allowing a few exceptions, like those involving mainly two editors with an extra editor having minimal participation. Further guidance is available in Third Opinion frequently asked questions.

It is recommended that the filing editor notify the second editor about the post here. If the second editor disagrees with this process, the first editor still has the right to receive a third opinion; however, since this is non-binding, the second editor is free to ignore the third opinion if they wish to.

In cases involving long discussions or topics requiring prior technical knowledge, editors are requested to present a short summary of the dispute, in plain English and preferably in a new subsection below the main discussion, so that 3O volunteers may find it easier to respond to.

Some disputes may involve editor conduct issues as well as issues regarding article content. In such cases, the third opinion request should be framed in terms of content issues, even if the conduct of an editor is also at issue. For disputes that are exclusively about an editor's conduct and are not related to a content issue, other forums may be more appropriate such as the administrators noticeboard. If in doubt, post your request here at third opinion and a neutral editor will help out.

No discussion of the issue should take place here—this page is only for listing the dispute. Please confine discussion to the talk page where the dispute is taking place.

Follow these instructions to make your post:

• Edit the following "Active disagreements" section on this page to begin a new entry in the section. Your entry should be at the end of the list if there are other entries, and the first character should be a # symbol to create a numbered list. This preserves the numbering and chronological order of the list.
• Your entry should contain the following:
  • a section link to a section on the article's talk page dedicated to the 3O discussion.
  • a brief neutral description of the dispute—no more than a line or two—without trying to argue for or against either side. Take care (as much as possible) to make it seem as though the request is being added by both participants.
  • a date, but no signature. You can add the date without your name by using five tildes (~~~~~). (Note: your name will still be shown in your contributions and the page edit history.)
• Be sure to provide a notification of your request on the page where the dispute is occurring.

Requests are subject to being removed from the list if no volunteer chooses to provide an opinion within six days after they are listed below. If your dispute is removed for that reason (check the history to see the reason), please feel free to re-list your dispute if you still would like to obtain an opinion—indicate that it's been re-listed in your entry. If removed a second time due to no volunteer giving an opinion, please do not relist again.

If you are a party to a dispute and another party has requested an opinion it is improper for you to remove or modify the request, even if the request does not meet the requirements for a third opinion or because you do not want a Third Opinion. If you feel that the request does not meet the requirements for a third opinion and should be removed, post a request on the Third Opinion talk page to be evaluated by an uninvolved volunteer.

<onlyinclude>

1. Talk:W. S. Gilbert#Wikilinks in "Later Years" section Dispute regarding interpretations of MOS:REPEATLINK. 08:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
2. Talk:International Committee of the Red Cross#Removal of 'Criticism' section Dispute regarding whether or not to remove a criticism section. 18:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
3. Talk:Genocide#Methods_section. Dispute about removal of information in methods section. 14:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Respondents appreciate feedback about the outcome of the dispute, either on the article's talk page or on their own talk page. We want to know whether the outcome was positive or not, helping us to maintain and improve the standards of our work. If a respondent's third opinion was especially helpful or wise, you might want to consider awarding {{subst:The Third Opinion Award|your message}} on their user talk page. It can also be given once for diligent service to this project which is generally any volunteer who has more than 50 edits to this page. For more information see its documentation and Wikipedia:Third opinion/Service award log.

When providing a third opinion, please remove the listing from this page before you provide your third opinion. Doing so prevents other volunteers from duplicating your effort. Please mention in the edit summary how many disputes remain. Example of summary message: 5 items remain on the list

• Third opinions must be neutral. If you have had dealings with the article or with the editors involved in the dispute that would bias your response, do not offer a third opinion on that dispute.
• Read the arguments of the disputants.
• Do not provide opinions recklessly. Remember that Wikipedia works by consensus, not a vote. In some cases both sides may have presented valid arguments, or you may disagree with both. Provide the reasoning behind your argument.
• Provide third opinions in the relevant section of the disputed article talk pages following the discussion of the dispute. Sign your comments with four tildes, like so: ~~~~.
• Write your opinion in a civil and nonjudgmental way.
• Unless there's a clearly urgent problem, don't make immediate article-content changes of your own which affect the ongoing discussion.
• Consider keeping pages on which you have given a third opinion on your watchlist for a few days. Often, articles listed here are watched by very few people.
• If it's not clear what the dispute is, put {{subst:third opinion|your_username}} on the talk page of the article. This template will post sections for the disputing editors to summarize their opinions.
• For third opinion requests that do not follow the instructions above, it is possible to alert the requesting party to that fact by employing {{uw-3o}}.

• The {{3OR}} template is handy for providing a third opinion on the talk page. For a shorter alternative, {{3ORshort}} can also be used. Usage (either):

{{subst:3OR|<your response>}}
{{subst:3ORshort|<your response>}}

If you remove a dispute from the list for any reason, it is good practice to also leave a message on the dispute talk page explaining what you have done. The message should have the following characteristics:

• It should be civil and assume the request was made in good faith.
• It should explain why the request was declined (e.g. "There are too many people involved already.")
• It should suggest alternatives (e.g. "Perhaps you should try WP:Requests for Comment, the dispute resolution noticeboard, the talk page of a Wikiproject or one of the other WP:Dispute resolution options.")

Active contributors who watchlist the page, review disputes, and update the list of active disagreements with informative edit summaries, are welcome to add themselves to the Category:Wikipedians willing to provide third opinions. If you support this project you may wish to add the {{User Third opinion}} userbox to your user page, which automatically adds you to this category.

Adding {{Third opinion}} to your dashboard or userpage will produce or transclude only the active disagreements for viewing. Sample code with additional links:

Third opinion disputes {{Wikipedia:Third Opinion}}<small>[{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Third opinion|action=edit&section=3}} update], {{purge}}</small>

update, Purge

Bonnie Blue flag (takes sides rather than reporting the debate) : : Benjamin Hawkins (mere storytelling) : : Cherokee-American wars (mistitled IMO, but there's no obvious alternative) : : History of Alabama (needs rewrite, begun here) : : Islam in the United States (a bias magnet) : : William McIntosh (needs rewrite, begun here) : : Zheng He (sprawling, confused)

Adopt-a-typo is a Wikipedia project for quickly identifying and correcting a spelling or typing error that recurs constantly in English.

I have adopted the relatively obscure typo of "Alabaman" for "Alabamian." It occurs frequently in direct quotations that must be left untouched. "Alabaman" is acceptable when referring to the language of the Alabama people, but the more common name for the language is "Alabama."

Besides the other Wikimedia projects shown above, I'm a contributor to:
ArchivesWiki (the moribund AHA resource) : : BhamWiki (excellent) : : Papers of the War Department, 1784-1800 (very buggy) : : Wikivoyage

I've made minor contributions to the German, Spanish, French, Italian, and Bengali Wikipedias.