Template talk:Connected contributor/Archive 1

Objections
A similar attribution, category:Wikipedians with article, was nominated for deletion May 16, 2005 and deleted a week later. The deleted page says:
 * This is a category of articles (in the main namespace) that are biographies of wikipedians, both active as well as retired.
 * Wikipedians with articles has been created with the intention of replacing this self-referential category.

Isn't this self-referential too? -Willmcw 05:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * See the CfD discussion here: -Willmcw 05:58, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

TfD debate
This template survived a TfD debate. The discussion can be found here. -Splash talk 16:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Note: reading the TfD debate, it seems agreed that the template should go on talk pages, not article pages. - Andre Engels 08:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

This template survived another tfd debate. The discussion can be found here. — freak([ talk]) 05:25, Nov. 9, 2006 (UTC)

Sortkey
I've added a new parameter. 2 is a sortkey for the category. Dread Lord C y b e r S k u l l ✎☠ 15:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Subst
Should this template be subst'ed? The example code seems to indicate not, but I've seen some other wikipedians explicitly subst'ing it. -- Bovineone 21:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If a template is anything more than just boilerplate text, it's best to transclude. The developers have said let them worry about performance. Templates were designed to be transcluded, after all. --kingboyk 14:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

How do we verify the identity of a Wikipedian who claims to be the subject of an article?
If you can answer this question or if you have related knowledge on the topic, please join the discussion here. (Please do not answer here, let's keep the discussion in one place.) Thank you! Joie de Vivre 16:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep
I like this template, but it seems like it's been under discussed. Mathiastck 15:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Overly negative implications?
Someone notable I know has this template on the page about them because they corrected one fact in the article. They feel that they've now being branded forevermore as the dreaded auto-biographer, and that the presence of the template implies that their motives were bad to anyone who reads the talk page.

As a result they have not only stopped editing the article (which I suspect was an objective for the template's authors), but have no intention of helping to improve it on the talk page either. Indeed, it has soured them on the project. They fear that any edits to any articles they make will now be viewed with a negative light simply because of who they are, regardless of their value. I don't entirely agree with them about all of this, but I can see where people would get that impression. It's like "oooh, they edited their article, they must have been hiding/boasting about something." They also think this system encourages editors to simply hide their identity when editing the article and others related to them, which I agree is quite likely.

Can we try to ameliorate this negative effect of what is otherwise a positive warning to users? Maybe show links to the diffs of edits that they have made to the article? After all, five years later, nobody's likely to know what their edit was - but it's still a black mark on their record. A diff would mean people could see for themselves that the edit was actually a reasonable one. . . if it was. The contribs link is insufficient because they may well have made other edits in that time (plus non-editors - the people who are most likely to misinterpret the template's meaning - won't know what it is or how to use it). GreenReaper 21:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:NFCC and copyrighted Wikipedia content on Wikipedia
The idea behind NFCC is to keep us from violating the copyrights of others, this means work not copyrighted by Wikipedia (Wikimedia) must meet the NFCC standards to be on Wikipedia. This is to prevent lawsuits. Material copyrighted by Wikipedia (Wikimedia) is an exception since we aren't going to sue ourselves. Anynobody 03:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Multiple accounts question
If a notable Wikipedian has used multiple accounts should we expand the template beyond 2 parameters, or use the template repeatedly on a talk page?? Thanks, --Solumeiras talk 12:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you give an example of where this is needed? It would also depend on the accounts - if one is linked to from the other, or one is a 'minor' account, I don't think it's necessary. Richard001 (talk) 04:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Talk:DD-WRT with Special:Contributions/84.179.77.53, Special:Contributions/84.179.92.94, Special:Contributions/84.179.91.207. --Voidvector (talk) 13:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Earl M. Washington has editted "E. M. Washington" anonymously, from various IP numbers. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 09:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * IP addresses should not be noted in this manner for a few reasons, the most practical being that IPs are frequently re-assigned and/or otherwise shared by multiple people. — CharlotteWebb 00:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I would agree with you as far as typical practice goes. However, in this case the IPs are stable for an extended period (longer than at least one Wikipedian keeps his registered accounts in use), there have been no edits by others from the same accounts, and the Notable Wikipedian in this case is reported by Forbes and other “reliable sources” to have engaged in criminal activities, such that his edits are designed to erase reference to those activities (as well as to turn the article into a paean to his talent).  Thus, the tagging serves to index a programme of unconstructive edits.
 * In another case, where the tag has been used with an IP, the IP number has for many years been directly assigned to a firm (that is to say that the firm is its own ISP) at which the Notable Wikipedian is a major figure. All of his edits have been constructive — some especially so — but the point is that the assignment is especially stable. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 17:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

When should this be used?
I don't follow the usage intentions here. Should this be used whenever it appears anyone with an article has edited Wikipedia, even if they have only made a single edit? Example: Carl Zimmer has made a single comment on his talk page, the only edit he has made at all. I doubt this would warrant placing this template there - it's kind of like shining a spotlight on someone who tries to point out a small mistake or omission. So I think we need some clear usage guidelines on the content page. Richard001 (talk) 05:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's a proposal: We only use this when the subject is either a regular contributor to Wikipedia (not just a one-edit wonder) or they have made contributions of a controversial nature (e.g. trying to cover up facts about their organization). Richard001 (talk) 23:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't require it to be used in situations where there isn't anything to warn, such as the Zimmer article you mention. I agree that if the editor were to edit the article himself, or were to start editing other articles, then the template would be clearly warranted. However, it's a bit of instruction creep to state that it has to be used in certain situations and not in others, and I would leave it to a case-by-case basis as it is now. Remember, that any activity where an editor is editing an article about him/herself is a WP:BLP situation, and requires special handling. Often times, the template serves as a declaration of interest . -- RoninBK T C 15:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

What about the subject's wife?
I am hesitant about placing   on the Talk:Jan Valentin Sæther page. Ofteland is the wife of Sæther. Could it be construed that she is then "significantly related to this article"? Or would this be a misapplication of the banner? If this is not appropriate should we not have a banner for this type of relation, other than simply placing a caveat lector section on the talk page, which I did when I wrote and article about my great grandfather? __meco (talk) 08:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The template was originally designed for high-profile Wikipedians who happen to have articles - it's not a general credits list for people who might know the subject in real life who happen to have edited an article on said person. If there's reason to believe that the edits in question are controversial then use COI on the article itself; if not, probably best just leaving it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. I have no reason to suspect anything inappropriate. I simply figured it might be a good idea to have some kind of declaration when someone very close to the subject, except for the subject themself, had been editing the article. Perhaps somebody will pick up on this thought later. __meco (talk) 16:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Multiple editors
On Talk:DBpedia there are 6 of these templates.

A new template needs to be created which allows for multiple users to be added to one single template. Ikip (talk) 20:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

A major contributor to this article
This template should only be applied when the user is a a major contributor to the article it's on, or to wikipedia in general. Accordingly, I propose these text changes: This (the talk page) would need appropriate editing at the top as well. These edits would bring the template in alignment with the wording of Template:COI.
 * "... has made significant contributions to Wikipedia" (not "has edited Wikipedia")
 * "included significant contributions to this"(not just "included this")

Is the word 'contributions' more appropriate than 'edits'? I think so — I'm not sure we would want to note edits that weren't contributions. Other thoughts? --Elvey (talk) 02:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Template:Connected contributor
Template Connected contributor has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion, the outcome of which may also affect this template, at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Merger
Per the closing of this TFD, this template was merged with. I made a first stab at a merger, but the language could probably use some tweaking. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Outing?
Simple question: how does the use of this template fit with the policy WP:OUTING? Surely publicly identifying a given Wikipedia user as a particular real person is a violation of our policies? Robofish (talk) 00:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Good question. We already tag articles with COI, and I suppose the outing question would be moot if the subject has already outed his/herself.  Most of the instances that I have seen, the editor in question identified his/herself as the subject of the article (or an employee of the company). But, I do agree, that one should be careful to not out people. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  02:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, another example then - an IP editor tweaks an article about a particular company; examination of his DNS PTR record shows that the edits were made from the head office of company in question. Socrates2008 ( Talk ) 09:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I would say that could be considered outing. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 13:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

doc error
The example

Should instead say something like:

or whatever the subject's name is.

71.141.88.179 (talk) 06:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)