Forum:CAIR entry, other changes needed to be made
I'm new here, and not entirely sure how things work either software-wise or procedurally. Last nite I spent many hours making critical changes to the "CAIR" entry at the top of the "to do" list. My edits show at the entry itself but not at the blurb on the to do page. I see there is some sort of voting going on and I don't know how to do that.
CAIR is an organization I know a great deal about, and the contributor trying to impugn it with Hamas links is doing so with recourse to a wingnut report. Islamophobia is a dealbreaker for me. I have much time, and plenty of energy to tweak and write entries. (I'm politically networked, well-read and current on many important issues of the day, and as Glenn Greenwald's friend and former law partner I have access to various people and entities some do not.) But if RW entries violate some of my core values that's a problem.
Not a threat or demand, just saying I'm unsure of the lay of the land here, and if we don't fit I can move on. ---Mona- (talk) 16:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- If you see irrational content, change it. Just because somebody is a registered editor it does not make their opinion valid. You have the ability to correct false information. TheAtheistComrade (talk) 16:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- RW is generally critical of religions, but also supports the right to freedom of thought/belief and is very much opposed to any discrimination or stereotyping of ethnicities, including ethno-religious groups. So if you see something written with an Islamophobic tone, feel free to correct it. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 17:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict w/ below) I'd echo what he said; I'd also add that approaching these kinds of disagreements with (a) reputable/credible sources that back your points and (b) explanations of why any less-than-credible sources of information are so is always helpful. As for this specific case, the already exists an article on CAIR here; I would direct your efforts there. Discussion of any disputes/inaccuracies/such should take place on its talkpage, Talk:CAIR. As for the to-do list in general, removing entries outright is frowned upon unless they're substantially into negative numbers on the voting, but beyond that there isn't really hard and fast etiquette on adding to/correcting suggestions that I know of, though again sources are always nice. WalkerWalkerWalker 18:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm also largely critical of religion in the sense that I do not accept as literally true supernatural claims and do not regard faith as a proper way to know about the natural world. But I also accept the cultural and sociological, as well as political, aspects of religion, all of which can all be good, bad or neutral. Anyway, what is this "vote" thing on the new article stubs? The stub has different text than the actual CAIR entry I edited last nite; my edits are not reflected at the "to do" stub. Will my edits remain at the entry unless someone changes them at the entry itself rather than the stub? Sorry to be such a helpless infant about these issues.-Mona- (talk) 18:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- The to-do list entry will remain as it is, though it will in due time be removed from the recently created list, since we keep some finite number of those. It's written by an editor when making the suggestion to serve as a brief summary of why he/she thinks we should have an article on whatever (here CAIR, of course). I'd focus on making the article accurate instead of messing with a suggestion that cited incorrect reasons, since ultimately the suggestion/to-do list entry is there simply to suggest an article be created. WalkerWalkerWalker 18:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- I added a little bit to the list entry to show the Hamas-connection isn't undisputed fact. Either way, what's important is that the article contains the right information. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 18:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh! If you're wondering why you can't add a vote to the little "to make a CAIR article or not to make a CAIR article" poll, it's because we close the polls once an article is made, since their point was primarily to gauge interest in an article. WalkerWalkerWalker 18:34, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you all for the patience and info. It seems I don't have to pay any particular attention to the "to do" list text if there already is an entry on the topic I want to edit. That is good to know. I do have a topic for the to do list, but can't figure out how to get it posted there. (I am a whiny problem child.)---Mona- (talk) 19:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- So when you go to the todo list, there isn't an edit link up top. That's meant to encourage people to edit individual sections rather than the page as a whole, and cuts down on the risk of someone (I probably would, given my affinity for oops! moments) accidentally borking the formatting. What you want to do is scroll down to the heading Recent suggestions and click the little [edit] link off to its right. (alternately, this link will take you straight to the edit screen) Add your suggestion at the top of that section with this formatting:
<vote poll=todo1389>[[Title of the article-to-be]]: brief summary of the subject/why it should be a RatWik article, preferably with links to sources of info on it</vote>
Yea, the first part of it is actually, direct quotes: "New Articles" "These former suggestions have been created recently. There may be plenty of work left to do." They were already created so no further voting. You were not able to do it before because the protection on the page was auto- which I have granted you only recently. You will now be able to edit it. TheAtheistComrade (talk) 19:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- If you're autoconfirmed you should be able to edit the list through this link. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, Kosterortiizbrock, the page protection is edit=autoconfirmed,move=autoconfirmed. Autoconfirmed is a group automatically assigned to user accounts which are at least one day old and have at least ten edits. It nixes the captcha and of course allows editing of pages protected at that level. Autopatrolled is the user rights group that people assign manually to user accounts, which gets rid of the little red exclamation marks sysops see on Special:RecentChanges and allows uploading images and maybe some other goodness. WalkerWalkerWalker 19:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- You're right. I know this information, I genuinely do. I'm quite slow today- BONS are doing better and more edits than me. TheAtheistComrade (talk) 19:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- :P 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC)