User talk:Barte/Archives/2016/November

Forbes citation under Shiva
Thank you for contributing to the article on Shiva Ayyadurai today.

When I follow the link you added to Forbes magazine, it does not lead me to an article:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/mattdrange/2016/11/02/gawker-media-close-to-reaching-settlement-with-hulk-hogan/#1c0704a9278c

Instead Forbes seem to have jiggered their website to lead to a "welcome" page full of ads, with a multisecond timeout before the user can proceed to see the actual article. In addition, it does not ever show the article if the user does not accept cookies from forbes.com (it keeps looping back to show the ad page), and it requires that the user click on a second "Proceed to Article" link even when cookies are enabled. You may not be seeing this behavior if you already have Forbes cookies set. Since there is no URL that leads directly to the article, can you find a better source that we can cite, that actually exists at the URL we can provide to Wikipedia readers? (Sometimes Forbes' stuff is syndicated and is published elsewhere on less manipulative websites.)

(Also that URL has a binary gibberish tag on the end of it (#1c0704a9278c), which is probably a user tracking thing -- tracking everyone who follows it, back to YOU who posted that link. Following the link without the tag also leads to the same behavior and eventually the same article, so the tag should probably be removed.)

Gnuish (talk) 22:13, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing this out. I do see the behavior, which it weren't so, but I think the Forbes source is one of the best I've seen, particularly in regards to Biddle's response,  and don't think the intermediate step disqualifies it.  Indeed, no URL is actually needed for a cite: the date, pub, title, etc. is sufficient.  Barte (talk) 22:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I subsequently removed the gibbrish suffix from the URL, then plugged it into Google in incognito mode. That went directly to the article.  And so I altered the cite accordingly. See what you think, and thanks again for noting. Barte (talk) 22:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. The cite is better without the giberish tag.  I agree that the author, date, publication, and title are sufficient for a citation, though having a working online link certainly helps.  It still produces the same repetitive ad behavior for me when my browser doesn't allow Forbes cookies.  It goes directly to the article when I have a prior Forbes cookie.  I'm not sure what Google Incognito mode (do you mean Chrome Incognito mode?) is intended to do, but it is not apparently declining to store or send cookies.  I am using the Firefox plugin Cookie Monster 1.0.3.5 for this.  No need to reply if you consider this "beating a dead horse".  Gnuish (talk) 23:23, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oops--right--Chrome Incognito mode. I think we're good here.  But while I have you on the line, are we irreconcilably at odds re: the "Known for" field in the infobox? Per my comments on the Talk page, I'm concerned about WP:NPOV and WP:BLP.  How about this as a compromise: "Known for	" incorrect Claim to have invented email"?  Barte (talk) 01:24, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * We agree he has a claim. All the reputable  sources say his claim is incorrect.  He has a minority of one that claims he invented email (most recently in this week's primary source press release).  That extreme minority view is discussed in the article, but doesn't belong in the infobox.  Gnuish (talk) 19:28, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Shiva Ayyadurai again
Lest I violate WP:3RR, could you take a look at what YatesByron is up to, please? ... richi (hello) 22:24, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Everybody is invited to the November 30 Bay Area WikiSalon
Please join us in downtown San Francisco!



Details and RSVP here.

See you soon! ,, and | (Subscribe/Unsubscribe to this talk page notice here) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)