Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive R

• Village pump
  • Policy
  • Technical
  • Proposals (persistent)
  • Idea lab
  • WMF
  • Miscellaneous

Village pump (miscellaneous) archive  

This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (miscellaneous). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.

---

< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78

de.Wikipedia: Article-free Sunday

71.139.47.192 asked for a report on the "article-free Sunday" project in the German wikipedia. Well, I'll try to report what I know - I am not one of the authors of the project, but I watched its progress with much interest.

What you should know before you read:
The German wikipedia lacks a strong inclusionist movement. Also, we like "collection" articles, i.e. the characters from Star Wars have to be put together in one article, they are not allowed individual articles.

History:
The "article-free Sunday" project (let's call it AFSP) evolved out of the "nothing new" project. This project wanted to remedy the problem that every day, many new articles are created but too many old stubs and also longer articles are left in a quite bad and unencyclopaedic condition. The idea initially came from Jimmy Wales' keynote at the 2006 Wikimania where he stated that the next big goal for Wikipedia would be to improve quality rather than quantity. "Nothing new" wanted to prohibit the creation of new articles to promote the improvement of existing articles. However, there was a lot of criticism to this since this might be against the wiki principle. That's why the AFSP was started. It simply asked users to not create articles for a day and to improve existing articles instead.

The big discussion:
Users were informed more than a week in advance. A sign was put on the main page (see it here. The AFSP page was immediately crowded with "great idea" messages, but it was also immediately booed out by others as well. To cut a long story short: We had a huge discussion. As a result, the sign was erased from the main page and even a counterproject was started. The IT portal heise.de reported on the AFSP, which is quite a big deal.

AFSP-Day:
On Sunday, a total of 195 users had joined the AFSP, 69 users had expressed their dissent and 37 users had joined the counterproject. Everybody was kept up-to-date in a blog. Among the ASFP contributors, teams had been formed in order to work together.

The results:
54 articles were deleted from the "Articles for improvement" page. 91 changes were reported in the blog. It was held that probably a total of 150 articles had been improved. 524 new articles were created, this is the usual number for Sundays. The counterproject reported the creation of 37 new articles. 1352 articles were deleted, which also is the usual number.

Interpretation:
To be honest: We don't know. We haven't really analyzed the outcome yet. However, it was held that the AFSP at least had a high educational effect and it was a good experience to contribute to a common goal.

Please go ahead and correct grammar, wording and spelling!
If you have any further questions, ask here, I will check on this site during the day. -- Benutzer:Gnom, 11:03 CET

• I remember someone proposing something similar here a while back. Thought it was a bad idea then, and still do. We gain a grand total of nothing by limiting ourselves in one aspect simply out of hopes that another unrelated aspect might prosper as a result. Most new articles are written by new editors anyway, who wouldn't even know about the page creation "forbiddal".
  If people want to get serious about the article improvement drives for a day or whatever, that's fine. But they can do so without discouraging the creation of new content. I am especially opposed to any software level enforcement or formal recognition of such a movement. --tjstrf talk 10:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add that the arguments about whether the Artikelfreier Sonntag thingy should take place or not led to several administrators pushing their buttons and hence made one very active author with more than 20,000 edits, Thomas S., resign from wikipedia. So I see much Ado about nothing, but the Ado creates enough damage already to brand this a counterproductive measurement. 217.230.135.115 10:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll come out of the closet then and say that I thought it was a very bad idea from the moment I saw it. Please let the hammer fall where it will. Thanks. Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think its a bad idea at all. No one should stop others from making articles, but there is nothing wrong with joining in on the Article-free Sunday fun; you just say i'm only going to improve articles today - volunteer like. 128.218.112.155 19:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why no one's said, that this is a typical German idea. Some users noticed that article improvement is suffering a little and that lots of trashy articles walk into the wikipedia. Now a project could have been: article improvement sunday! This sunday, we will improve old articles until hands bleed! Minor improvements count. Apply on this page! - but instead they rather want to forbid - on a volunteer basis. Sick. And not only the idea is mindtwisting, they cannot even express their sorry minds. If you think that article free sunday sounds strange because of the translation - no, it IS a strange word and if you think about it, article-free wikipedia would be a really boring place. Now, it didn't get them anywhere, no significant change has been observed, but they succesfully lost one of their oldest writers. Of course, they're not sure yet, if it was a good idea. 217.230.132.147 15:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Hem, hem. "Artikelfreier Sonntag" is an allusion to the idea of the "Autofreier Sonntag", which is just a Car Free Sunday. So your interpretation is quite off the mark. It's just a symbolic name and the idea was to make people aware of a problem. I didn't like the project for different reasons. -- Harro 01:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I can imagine a sunday without cars far more easily than wikipedia without articles. 217.85.81.62 10:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• To show a different angle, I think a better idea would be to promote "find and merge a stub". We have a plethora of stubs and many of them are unlikely to be expanded any time this century; merging/redirecting them to a more general article may in many cases give one better article in the place of two of lesser quality. (Radiant) 14:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Problem

Until recently, when I type text when editing Wikipedia, they came in a readable font called Courier New. Today, however, I just discovered something weird happened to text when I edit Wikipedia. They come in a very skinny, barely readable font. What happened?? Georgia guy 00:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

This has happened to me. I fixed it by force-reloading the cache on my monobook.js file. You can do this by going to User:Georgia_guy/monobook.js and hitting either ctrl-shift-R if you use mozilla/Firefox/safari or ctrl-f5 on IE. hope this helps. JoeSmack ^Talk 01:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Naruto?

i was using wikipedia earlier to search naruto, when i got redirected to a few rude things about naruto. some one deleted it. How do I delete things?

Click "edit" for the page or the section, delete the inappropriate text, and hit save. Welcome to Wikipedia. :) Durova^Charge 17:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

For other revert types and methods, such as how to deal with a person who deleted the entire page, see Help:Reverting. --tjstrf talk 17:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Boy that page got pounded by vandals. It's semi-protected now. John Broughton | ♫♫ 03:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

IP

Is there a way to get the IP addresses of the users? Thanks Caglarkoca 07:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Users with the Checkuser flag can, using a special page, check the IPs used by an account or the accounts used by an IP. This is a list with the checkusers we have on English Wikipedia. FrancoGG ^{( talk )} 08:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Note that this is a special admin function... they can check for you. They don't give the IP out. Blueboar 16:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and very few admins have checkuser and they use it under very special circumstances. Durova^Charge 17:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

They you very much. I wouldn't ask for the IP. I just passed my concerns to an admin. I hope he will notify me on whether my wish is feasible or not. Thanks again Caglarkoca 19:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You can read the standards for yourself at WP:RFCU. Regards, Durova^Charge 19:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

VfD for project space?

The way I understand Wikipedia:Deletion policy, articles in the main namespace are subject to deletion via VfD. However, a group of editors are trying to delete part of a project: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Pseudoscience/List of articles related to scientific skepticism. Isn't this contrary to WP policy? Bubba73 (talk), 06:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

No, read the top of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. —Centrx→talk • 14:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

OK,thanks. Bubba73 (talk), 23:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

What does "rvt" mean?

What does "rvt" mean when it is used in an edit comment? Thanks. Tanaats 15:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Revert (to a previous version). KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You'll find that and other terms at Wikipedia:Glossary. John Broughton | ♫♫ 18:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Funny you should link to it. I was searching for it just now ^_^ Circeus 22:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Insonicnia

ok I want to know how to make a wikipedia page for my favorite sprite comic Insonicnia can you tell me how to do so and potentially offer assistance —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Philip raychstock (talk • contribs) 15:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC).

You might start by reading Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Your first article, and Help:Starting a new page. And consider whether you can find any sources that meet WP:V and WP:RS, because if you can't, someone is likely to quickly propose the article for deletion. John Broughton | ♫♫ 15:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

if you can't, someone is likely to quickly propose the article for deletion Indeed. Deleting non-notable (with the definition of "notable" being of course widely disagreed upon) webcomics was all the rage not so long ago.Circeus 16:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Theatrical Terms

I'm not clear about the exact definitions of these terms. Some usage indicates that they may constitute two pairs of synonyms, while some indicates the contrary. Can anybody help?

• get-in
• fit-up
• strike
• get-out

Ynysenn

You should take such questions to Wikipedia:Reference desk. You could also post the question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Theatre, I suppose, but generally that's a place to discuss articles, not handle questions. John Broughton | ♫♫ 15:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikied world

We got alphabetical writing from India or the Middle East, then the Greek miracle, after that the Chinese empire where from most inventions came for 2000 years; somewhere in between we find Arabic math. Then the Renaissance, Enlightenment and 3 industrial revolutions. And now we have WIKIPEDIA.

C'mon. Get real. Sheesh, it's just an encyclopedia! --Gwern (contribs) 21:29 11 January 2007 (GMT)

Splinters caused by hair

I was getting my hair cut and the barber complained of having had a splinter caused from a stray piece of a customer's cut hair. While I understand the end of a cut hair may well be quite sharp, I doubt it has the rigidity required to penetrate skin. Calls to barber colleges have produced no authoratative liturature on the subject. A web search uncovered some anecdotal evidence of this phenomenan, however the sources were almost exclusively british. Is this a real event? --Garyvmorris 16:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)garyvmorris 1/19/07

Try asking at the Reference Desk. I will copy this comment there for you. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You can now find your comment (and, hopefully, answers!) here. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Bulgaria is wrong

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgaria

ie. "It is also the biggest country in the world with 9999999999 nuclear missiles."

"Bulgaria has No Economy, They just eat Crap, and lots of it" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.9.203.165 (talk) 15:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

It looks like it's been fixed. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Citation question

I frequently work on articles related to contemporary composers and performing groups. I cite sources frequently and elaborately, but I admit that sometimes I include (uncontroversial) info based on my personal knowledge and experience that I have to try and source as best I can. I have been working on an article that includes a long list of compositions and gives the ensemble to whom they were dedicated. Another editor (somewhat petulantly, in my opinion) put a {{Fact}} tag next to each item on the list. Here is my question: the published editions of all these pieces say quite clearly at the top who they were dedicated to, so how do I cite this? Is it really necessary to cite every single one? Can I just put an explanatory note somewhere? Any advice? --Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 01:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Have you asked the other editor (either via the article's talk page or on the editor's user talk page) what he/she is looking for? I too am puzzled as to what would be a reliable source (for example, that book XYZ was dedicated to, say, the author's spouse is something unlikely to be mentioned in any book review, yet it's a fact that can be confirmed by anyone looking at a copy of the book). Anyway, why not ask and see what you get back, if you've not already done so? And if you get no answer, well, remove the "fact" tags. -- John Broughton | ^(♫♫) 03:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The future of WP - your thoughts

Note: If there is a better place for this discussion can some editor please move it and leave a note here? Thanks.

IMHO Wikipedia is headed down a rocky road to irrelevance and is in danger of becoming nothing more than a glorified community blog. The model of "anyone can edit" has long since achieved its aim of populating as many topics as rapidly as possible, and it is past time that some sort of restriction be put on this ability. Vandalism is ever present, and having to RC Patrol takes up valuable time I could better spend improving articles. In addition, it is extremely discouraging and disheartening to know that no matter how many improvements I make, the value of my work is diminished by the presence and continual addition of other rubbish to the 'pedia (rubbish == pure vandalism/poorly written articles/unreferenced first-hand "blog type" info inserted into articles/cruft (see my very narrow definition of cruft below)/basically anything that reflects poorly on the academic quality of the 'pedia). The impression this leaves on the reader should not be underestimated. Although it is perceived as an "encyclopedia of everything" which is no doubt good, it is also perceived as a "social encyclopedia" of "cool things (Wow! It even has an article on The Stig! And it says he's Damon Hill! And his left nipple is the same shape as the Nürburgring!), and some boring science stuff" rather than a "research encyclopedia" that gives an academic treatment of all topics, including "cool things (I see Damon Hill was interviewed on Top Gear, and deliberately avoided the question when directly asked if he was The Stig. And the presenters often introduce The Stig with outlandish claims such as his left nipple being the same shape as the Nürburgring as part of the show's running gags.) AND boring science stuff" i.e. Wikipedia is not really taken seriously by the people we are meant to serve, the readers. Some points to ponder:

1. There is something fundamentally wrong with our mindset when WP:AfD is considered to be a "normal" process in the running of Wikipedia, and that >100 listings per day, every day, 365 days a year does not even cause comment. (This not to mention the vast number of articles that are speedied every day.)
2. There is something fundamentally wrong with the mindset that RC and NP Patrol are "normal" things for editors to be doing.
3. There is something fundamentally wrong with the way the 'pedia works if more than half (using a random page test) of the articles are either poorly written articles on good topics, or crufty (per my narrow definition)/spammy/rubbish topics themselves.

Think about it this way: if Wikipedia were forked (Citizendium anyone?) into a version that employed some sort of discussion/peer review/fact checking mechanism before allowing changes or additions to articles, which one would you trust more as a source of information, and which one would you go to for "fun facts"? Wikipedia needs to do something along these lines in order to be taken seriously as an authoritative source of reliable information. Zunaid©^{Review me!} 09:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

If I wanted to research something on a wiki, I'd read the version that wasn't written by elitist pricks. Actually, if I really wanted to research something I'd read a book. And then come here and add information from it. If among our more serious claims to fame we have "Wikipedia:The encyclopedia with Featured Articles on all 493 Pokemon species", then so be it. It does not hurt any other area of the Wiki to have those articles, and people do read them and do learn from them. --tjstrf talk 10:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

You've unfortunately read my argument wrongly and have focussed your reply more on the "cruft" and less on the things I actually wanted feedback on (viz. how Wikipedia works, and outside perception of Wikipedia). Perhaps I should have been more clear. My definition of cruft is "an inappropriately high level of detail beyond which an encyclopedia should not cover". Let's use the Pokemon example: Wikipedia should OF COURSE have good "academic" articles on all 493 Pokemon, and should RIGHTLY be considered incomplete without them. Such articles would be written in an out-of-universe style and would be well-referenced, presenting the info in a "real-world" context and alluding the their impact on the real world. It is when such articles become deluged with trivia, "in popular culture", or lengthy in-universe info that the quality of the article and the outside perception of Wikipedia suffers. There is an old version of The Stig article that has exactly these types of issues. The problem is that there are many editors adding these (and creating entirely new articles about popular things without knowing about our notability guidelines etc.), and it is a waste of others' effort to have to police changes. To me it is crazy that AfD runs to >100 nominations every day and people think its normal. Zunaid©^{Review me!} 13:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Zunaid. There shoud be some kind of control over the edits of hacks--all they do is ruin the time-consuming work of conscientious editors. The result? The truly useful editors eventually get tired of the Sisyphean struggle, and leave. Marta 22:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Strangely, and particularly when looking up fiction, I often find that this extra trivial detail is extremely useful and it is one of the reasons why I use Wikipedia. If I wanted a standard encyclopedia written by people who know that Dallas is a city in Texas, but not a character in Alien, I'd read Britannica.

perfectblue 13:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

WP does well the thing it does. It provides a ready reference to a load of stuff under one big umbrella. It never said it was accurate. Provided one checks references it's a great and quick place to start. It is gloriously adequate. Fiddle Faddle 11:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

About 80% of the things that I look up are not controversial enough for there to be POV etc, are too hidden among the rest of the entries to be vandalized, and might be considered irrelevant to you, but are relevant to me. I wouldn't use it as a primary source for something important, but it is an excellent reference guide that, if nothing else, provides users with the sources (citations) that you can use for important work.

To be honest, and not in reference to any particular person I might add, I can't help but believe that that most of people who complain that wikipedia is irrelevant and inaccurate are really complaining that wikipedia contains opinions that differ from their own, and ideas that they eithr can't stomach or aren't interested in.

perfectblue 12:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree 100% that there is lots of silly stuff on WP. I was reading a long, well-writen biography about a character on a TV show that's been off the air for years. One argument for silliness is that because we have so much freedom and so much is tolerated people are drawn in and while they are here they have the chance to learn some real stuff. Steve Dufour 13:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that for every person who uses Wikipedia, there is a different definition of 'irrelevent junk'. The fine arts expert is going to revel in the fact that we have biographies of an amazing number of obscure artists - and be horrified at the alarming number of Pokemon articles we have. The Pokemon enthusiast may be dismayed at the large number of impossible-to-understand articles on particle physics. The physics geek may be dismayed that there is an article for every Japanese railway station...it goes on. However, disk space is cheap - and so long as the articles are well researched - what do we care? A typical article is maybe 10kbytes plus maybe another 20 or 30kbytes of photos. If we guess 50kbytes - then with disk drives currently running $100 for 300Gbytes, the cost of storing that article is about 0.0017 cents. It's truly, quite utterly negliable. Look at the contributions bar up at the top of your screen right now - it says that we've gotten $900,000 in contributions. The cost of storing ten million articles of a megabyte each would only be a tiny fraction of our annual donations. So we shouldn't be concerned with storing things that we don't personally find relevent - providing they are correct, nicely presented, etc.

What I am most concerned about is the ratio of time spent by our best editors on actual article creation/improvement to time spent on the following things:

• 'Office politics' - pages like this one where things are argued and argued and rarely does anything useful come out that actually improves the encyclopedia. Arguments about appropriateness of fair use images being an example of this. Somehow we seem unable to trim this cost. I believe (without evidence) that the amount of time spent on politics is growing faster than we are adding good editors. That could easily kill the encyclopedia.
• Vandalism. On some articles, the ratio of vandalism and vandalism reversion to actual edits is 50:1 or more. This could also cause problems. If the growth in the number of vandals exceeds the growth of people willing to spend time reverting their mess, we will eventually die from unreverted vandalism. It's hard to be sure whether this is truly happening - as the number of people who know about Wikipedia grows, do the proportion of vandals to editors also grow? I suspect the answer is again "Yes" because the people who love encyclopedias (and are therefore likely to be editors) would probably have found Wikipedia sooner than people who don't care about them (who may therefore become vandals). If the number of editors we have now is as a result of early adopters - and the number of untapped vandalism sources is still very large - then this could eventually kill the encyclopedia.
• AfC/AfD/whatever. This is like vandalism - but more subtle. People who create inappropriate article (or ask to do so - which is nearly as bad) - are not always vandals. They are often well meaning people who deserve a reasonable level of attention from us. Whilst you can spot vandalism in an article you are patrolling in seconds - and revert it almost as quickly, AfD and AfC requests tie up lots of people - who have to read the article, check for duplication, make sure that there is an applicable policy...argue with other editors. It's much more time consuming than ordinary vandalism. Observe the L-O-N-G backlogs in all of these kinds of committees.

The amount of time we collectively spend on these things is far, far too big - and what's worst, the most experienced and most capable editors are the people doing that. The fixes are all of a form where we have to curtail the freedom of newbies - I'm a big fan of semi-protection - it works - but it's horribly controversial.

SteveBaker 17:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I think semi-protection is a good thing for articles that are vandal targets. We could also require registration, that would slow vandals down at least. Another problem is that sometimes "real world" struggles are being fought here as well. For instance I was just over at the article on Barack Obama. There is a tremendous amount of editing going on between people who want to promote him as a presidental candidate and others who want to undermine his chances. However very little new information is being added or improvements to the article being made. Keep up the good work. Steve Dufour 18:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Somehow I mind that less. At least the activity directly results in some kind of consensus article and is a good use of experienced editors. Deleting obviously mindless junk - less so. Take a look on the WP:AfC list (look at yesterday's archive so you see 24 hours worth of activity). You'll see dozens and dozens of attempts to get non-notable people and non-notable musicians and non-notable sports persons into the encyclopedia. These are articles from well-meaning people - not vandals - but they are from people who simply did not take the time to read the notability policies before requesting that their article be created. Each day - out of perhaps 50 to 100 of these junk articles - there will be one or two article proposals that are just barely worth creating...barely. But the effort it takes several people to cull that list down and fend off the inevitable backlog by far exceeds the effort it would take for those same experienced editors to write a couple of new stubs each day. In terms of efficiency in generating more encyclopedia, we would literally be better off just to ignore WP:AfC and have those editors do something productive instead. When you add up all of the things we do that are like that, I think it's clear that we are spending far too much effort on 'overhead activities'. SteveBaker 19:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Note: If you wanted a peer reviewed wiki see Nupedia. ~user:orngjce223 and you could always tell me... how am I typing? 01:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

What you are fundamentally forgetting here is that if wikipedia lets go of its basic policy of being the free encyclopedia "that anybody can edit," it loses what made it so great in the first place. And even though constant AFDs, vandalism patrol and poor writing/cruft are prices to pay for that policy, there is no denying that the editors that engage in actually fixing this believe that it is overall a small price to pay in regard to the project overall.Circeus 03:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe that's true now - but I think the trend is heading towards more junk and not so many more editors - we're talking about the future here - not the present. SteveBaker 03:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

These problems are basically the same dynamics Wikipedia has always had. They're being played out on a larger scale now because the site has become Alexa's number 12 ranking and Wikipedia articles regularly turn up on Google's top 10 returns for searches. This just happens to be the first wiki to achieve prominence with the general public - previous ones generally stayed close to the open software movement. Human beings typically display a familiar set of behaviors when they encounter a wiki for the first time.

• They want to know whether useful information can be found there.
• Some love the openness and jump in to help it grow.
• Some tinker just to see whether it's really open, then walk away.
• Some misbehave for the sake of misbehaving.
• Some try to treat it as their personal soapbox.
• Some look for a marketing angle.

The ways in which newcomers pursue these varying interests repeat other patterns that become very familiar to experienced contributors. A wiki's success can be measured by how well it fosters the productive edits and editors while withstanding the assaults (and ideally converting as many of the problem cases as possible into useful editors). Wikipedia is far and away the world's most successful wiki, which doesn't necessarily make it the world's best reference source (yet). I find it intriguing that people who post prognostics about Wikipedia's future and failings in a grand sense almost never do so in the language that seasoned Wikipedians would use: our internal warring camps of immediatists and eventualists, of inclusionists and deletionists don't even enter their lexicon. Yet the critical essays themselves almost always express unacknowledged immediatism and a strong inclusionist or deletionist viewpoint - with corresponding assumptions that the writer's particular viewpoint is absolute. It's difficult to have a productive discussion with someone who works very hard at saying something profound without evincing an adequate grasp of the subject. Durova^Charge 06:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

A recommendation for reducing vandalism: Anonymous editors will be prevented from editing articles that have been tagged with:

• A full protection template, or:
• A A NPOV dispute template

in the past 7 days. The same restrictions will also apply to registered accounts that do not have both:

• 30 days since the first edit
• 25 main-namespace edits that have not been reverted
  • This last one is to circumvent so-called "sleeper" accounts that vandals create and only use to get around semi-protection.

Together with current regulations, this could reduce vandalism. C. M. Harris ^{Talk to me} 01:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Copyright question

I recently blanked a large section of an article talk page because someone had pasted a (subscription based, I think) NYTimes article onto it. I think the fact that it's a talk page doesn't protect it from copyright laws. Am I right? yandman 09:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. And an entire article would crowd the page anyway so should be removed even if it was PD. Quoting just a few paragraphs would be fair use though, I think. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. yandman 13:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

501(c)3

The text at the footer of all wikipedia pages contains: Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a US-registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity. The 501(c)(3) is a link to the 501(c) article, but it would be better to link to the 501(c)#501(c)(3) subsection. LukeSurl 16:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I reposted this request at MediaWiki_talk:Copyright. —W. Flake (talk) 19:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

qwikly.com

Anybody knows what has happened to the site http://www.qwikly.com/? --Kompik 09:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

No... but I'm not about to click on it unless I know what it is/was. Blueboar 16:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It was a site wis tools for wikipedia, have a look at this google search for instance: [1]. I have used WikiBib from this site - that's why I'm asking. The page seems to bee offline for a few weeks at least.--Kompik 17:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Major news stories getting far than needed coverage

Is it just me or when a major news story break out, multiple articles arise for every aspect no matter how minor. Example: the amount of different articles in the 2006 Template:Israel-Lebanon conflict. Is this adhering to WP:SS? Also most of this articles never get merged or deleted, the main rationale to keep being mentioned in the mass of news articles (that mention every tiny development). How does everyone else feel regarding this? I personally see most of this information benefiting from better summary form, why mention every daily development for 1 conflict? — Tutmosis 23:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I have often opined that we should put a two day moratorium (if not longer) on events before we write articles about them. If only to take out the "UPDATE: Latest news states that everything we thought was true about this topic an hour ago, is now false" factor. For an encyclopedia, a little distance helps put events into context and perspective. Unfortunately, few people agree with this. Which means that "current events" get much more play than "old news". Luckily, Most of it will get Merged, Deleted, or put into proper summary style with a bit of time. So I would advise a bit of patience... and go back to such articles after a month has passed, and the story is no longer the graphic of the day on CNN. At which point you can Merge, AfD, and edit to your heart's content. Blueboar 01:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

4000metres = ?

On several different airport pages, 4000 metres mean several different things. It sometimes states 13120ft, 13123ft, yet i've gotten 13124 on my calulator using 1*3.281. Which is the most correct? It is very confusing...

The actual conversion from meters to feet is 1 foot = .3048 meters [2]. Multiplying meters by 3.281 is an approximation to this (1/.3048 is actually 3.280839895013, more or less). Using this as the conversion factor, I get 13123.359580052 (which rounds to 13123). However, if we're counting significant digits, 4000 only has 4, so using only 4 digits for the answer yields 13120. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Well actually, 4000 only has one significant digit. It depends on the context, if someone is talking about a 4000m race, for example, then we know that it's 'exactly' 4000m and so an accurate conversion is more appropriate, whereas if 4000m means "nearer to 4000m than it is to 3000m or 5000m" then something more crude would be OK. On an airport page I would expect 4000m to meane "at least 4000m" as it's probably talking about runway length and you wouldn't want to be overestimating their length! You could always remove the imperial measurement. MikesPlant 13:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Beware - there is more than one definition for 'foot'. In the US, there is a "surveyors foot" which is still in common use - and a different definition of the foot prior to 1959(!). From the GNU 'units' program data file:

"The US Metric Law of 1866 gave the exact relation 1 meter = 39.37 inches. From 1893 until 1959, the foot was exactly 1200|3937 meters. In 1959 the definition was changed to bring the US into agreement with other countries. Since then, the foot has been exactly 0.3048 meters. At the same time it was decided that any data expressed in feet derived from geodetic surveys within the US would continue to use the old definition."

Notice that last bit...*MANY* existing US GIS data sources (maps and airport runway data) are still using the surveyor's foot - and lots of references pre-date the 1959 (or even the 1866) laws and have "non-metric" feet (isn't that an odd phrase!). Then of course in non-US countries, the laws changed at different times with differing intermediate definitions. Hence it should come as no surprise that everything is a horrible mess! SteveBaker 19:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

But the difference is small - 1 200 / 3 937 = 0.30480061 So for a 4000 m runway, that is either 13,123.3333 ft for the old definition or 13,123.3596 for the new definition, ignoring sig. digits. For most applications this is within measurement uncertainty. --BenBurch 00:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

you can use google search to convert. but i just tried it. it didn't work this time. how strange. i used to be able to enter a number, then it will convert it to metric system. anyone knows the proper way to use google search to convert? SummerThunder 12:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Type your query in the search box so it looks like this: 4000 metres in feet. Tra (Talk) 13:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

oh, yes. that is good. i didn't know that. i don't know the standard way to do it. so once in a while, google will give me the result, other times, it won't. SummerThunder 21:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Angel Diaz Nieves

What do we do with this redirect?

—Nethac DIU, would never stop to talk here—
17:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to do anything with it. Is there a problem with it? Does something need to be done with it? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 17:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You could nominate it for deletion. I don't see any reason why someone would switch those two words. Then again, it doesn't really take up that much space. Xiner 18:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

My understanding of Iberian naming customs leads me to believe that it would be very likely someone might switch the words.~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Just wanna know

What was Wikipedia like when it first went online? --AAA! ^(AAAA) 06:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:UuU, the first (known) Wikipedia page. --TeaDrinker 07:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Nostalgia.wikipedia.org shows the article history as it was in December 2001. You can also try using the wayback machine, but remember to try it with both www.wikipedia.org and en.wikipedia.org because the contents of www.wikipedia.org changed in January 2005. Graham87 10:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

You can also find even earlier versions by typing www.wikipedia.com into the Internet Archive. The earliest copy available is from [February 28, 2001. Graham87 13:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Wiki:EH?

I am confused by the people confused by the confusion caused by webpages being added and deleted daily and being not able to remember links. So I have something to say: Find the ones you visit regularly and HOTKEY THEM ON YOUR IPScreename. Then you can find them with the hit of a button. In theory. :P D-Caf 00:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Fancy Signatures?

I see all these people with reinbow text, swirls, etc. ... How do they do this? Thank you! Chris 22:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Click on the "My Preferences" link. There you will see an edit box where you can do all sorts of fancy things to customize your signature. Make sure the "Raw Signature" box is checked and it should use your customized sig. You should be able to use HTML tags and whatnot to make it all perty. — Frecklefoot | Talk 22:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Sock Puppetry

I know it is forbidden for a single user to own more than one account, it is called sock puppetry. But is it allowed for more than one user to use a single account? Does it make a difference? Regards Caglarkoca 22:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Generally, no since it means that the edits are not attributed to one person. It shouldn't be too difficult for each person to register their own separate account. Tra (Talk) 22:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It isn't forbidden to have more than one account - you just aren't allowed to use multiple accounts to pretend to be multiple people (so you can rig voting or avoid scrutiny). See WP:SOCK#Legitimate_uses_of_multiple_accounts. MrBeast 00:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Are different language editions required to follow the English guidelines and policies?

Are Wikipedia's different language editions required to follow the English Wikipedia's guidelines and policies?

Itayb 09:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Short answer: No. Long answer: No, but there are many policies that are based on the Wikimedia foundation's organizational principles (WP:NPOV for instance) and/or have strong support on meta:-wikipedia and so are pretty much universal. We have no jurisdiction to decide the policies of other languages though. --tjstrf talk 09:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Let me get it clearer, please. Suppose there was some language, say Lingua-Absurda, which was not yet represented in Wikipedia. And suppose i was an Absurda speaker, and liked to branch off an Absurda Wikipedia. Wouldn't i *have* to commit to some universal principles before i got the permission for this project?

Itayb 10:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't say for certain, but I would assume so. I know that disobeying the foundational principles has been used as grounds for initiating project closure before. Again, we really don't deal with this stuff here, it's dealt with at meta:. Try asking there. --tjstrf talk 19:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks.

Itayb 23:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia link rot

Over time, the web references added to Wikipedia articles disappear through the process of link rot. What should be done, if anything, about this? A good article that is well sourced with online references and not touched for years will end up having no sources and can then be removed by any editor. Curtains99 13:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Make a note of when the web resource was accessed (the {{cite web}} template is handy for this), if the link dies at some point check the Internet Archive and see if they have a copy of the page from aproximately the same time period. If they do just update the link to point to the archived version with some apropriate explanation rater than outright removing it. --Sherool (talk) 13:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

OK I'll improve my citation style. However, Internet Archive is hit and miss; it doesn't save every page on the internet and excludes pages where the publishers request exclusion. Curtains99 12:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You'll find more info and discussions at Wikipedia:Dead external links, Wikipedia:Using the Wayback Machine, and Wikipedia:WikiProject External links, and the respective talk pages. WebCite, for example, has been mentioned as a possible solution. (And no, I'm not trying to put a happy face on what is, in my opinion, one of the most serious problems that Wikipedia faces, I'm just pointing to where it has been discussed.) -- John Broughton | ^(♫♫) 20:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Preponderance of useful contributions by anonymous editors.

We've seen the oft-repeated claim that a vast proportion of good edits come from anonymous users.

Can someone please show me where this statistic comes from? I'd really like to know because it seems vastly at odds with my experience. I did some really detailed statistical analysis of a handful of articles that I work on (notably: Automobile and Computer - but a handful of lesser articles too). I found that in the last 1,000 edits to each of those articles, all but one anonymous edit was vandalism - and just one named-contributor vandalised the articles over the same period. The ratio of good edits by named contributors to good edits by anons was about 100:1. There was of course a good deal of anon vandalism and named-editor vadalism reverts. So this claim that anonymous editors contribute so very much to the encyclopedia seems utterly bogus to me - on the basis of my limited studies. But so many people claim this to be true - I assume a careful study must have been done over a wider set of articles than I surveyed. I have a deep suspicion that what is being measured is the number of edits by anon users to the number of edits by named users - but without examining each one in turn to look for vandalism, it's impossible to automatically tell what proportion of edits by anons are actually useful.

Does anyone have a link to where this statistic comes from? SteveBaker 02:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Who Writes Wikipedia?. Carcharoth 03:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yikes! That's *it*. I'd seen and dismissed that one before. So this number comes from a match of the number of characters added by anon editors that remained in the article sometime after their edit? That might be a meaningful measure - but it's ridiculously hard to automate. The guy claimes to have used a Python 'diff' function to count the changes...I smell a statistical rat. When I studied Automobile and Computer, I actually read each edit (it was insanely tedious - but the results were exact). Out of all of those edits, I only found ONE that was actually a valid edit by an anon editor. One out of a thousand! I think we need a more careful survey. Everyone is quoting this number - policy on stuff like semi-protection and the WP:MfD candidacy of the WP:AfC page depend on this recieved wisdom. I'm deeply concerned. SteveBaker 03:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You need to look at less popular articles. Automobile and Computer have perhaps thousands of readers per day, among them children and others having fun. For example, Category:History of England, Category:Mathematics, Category:Physics, Category:Art history. Basic subjects like Cheese and Christmas get a lot of vandalism, as do controversial subjects like George W. Bush or Abortion, but most articles--and these are all very useful articles--do not attract vandalism, and there are articles written almost entirely by anonymous editors. —Centrx→talk • 04:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, keep in mind that most users who register an account first edit as IPs. Every legitimate IP edit (and even some not-so-legitimate ones) that looks over-shadowed by vandalistic IP edits may in fact represent the first, attractive edit of a new user; many of the user accounts alongside it would never have been created if the person was not able to see the power without doing something so official as creating an account. —Centrx→talk • 04:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about everybody else, but I began as an anon editor, and only registered when a combination of open proxy blocking due to vandalism (I used proxies to get around a governments ban on Wikipedia) and other factors made necessary registration. Before that I created pages, made valuable contributions in several languages, and fixed vandalism just like a registered user would. It was mainly due to a desire to remain more or less anonymous that I didn't register earlier.

perfectblue 12:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I can agree with both points: Yes, it may be that people start out as anon-editors and that blocking anon editing would reduce the number of people who go on to work on Wikipedia - and yes, it may be that more valuable anon edits happen to less noticable articles. (Although I might argue that you'd have gotten an account sooner if you couldn't have edited anonymously in the first place and if we better explained that you are in fact MORE anonymous with an account name than by having your IP address exposed for the world to see!).

However, that doesn't change the real possibility that anon edits are not in fact the majority of good edits - which is a major plank of many debates.

The methodology of the previous study (if that is indeed the one everyone is quoting) is horribly flawed. What (as I understand it) is happening is that the study counted the number of characters of each edit that were still present in the current article. This has many major problems - here are just a few that come immediately to mind:

1. It counts vandalism that has gone uncorrected as a good edit because it's still in the article.
2. It fails to count deletion or rearrangement of text as a good edit - which it may or may not be.
3. If a vandal writes "Joe is a complete dick-head" - and it's proptly reverted - and six months later someone adds "The influence of crypto-capitalism on complete market penetration is at the head of all economic activity in urban Nigeria" (which we'll assume is a valid edit) - then the vandal is credited with adding "is", "complete" and "head" when in fact his contribution should have been zero.
4. If I write a paragraph containing 20 true facts and provide references to all of them - but later someone comes along and fixes my spelling, grammar and heavily rewords and reorders what I wrote - then a simple Python 'diff' operation will likely discount most (if not all) of what I wrote because it's not still in the article...even though I provided all of the 'meat' which subsequent copy-edits only cleaned up.

So the methodology of that study sucks - it gives too much credit to vandals and too little to good edits. But we are basing a lot of our policy arguments on this statement that "most good edits come from anonymous editors". That might still be true - but we just don't know.

I agree that my little study is also flawed (it was designed to show that those two articles should be semi-protected because of extreme amounts of anon-vandalism - and it did that job perfectly).

We need a much better study. Because it's impossible to tell the difference between vandalism and a good edit automatically, we need to do this with humans - which makes it tedious. We need to take a statistically valid sample of edits at random. Maybe grab the last 500 edits from 'Recent changes' taken at 10 different times during the day so as to eliminate temporal biasses (I found that the number of vandalisms of Computer is nearly twice as high during US school hours than at weekends or at night) - that gives us 5,000 statistically random edits. Then give a bunch of those to some number of volunteer editors and ask them to count the number of anon vandalisms, the number of anon 'good edits', the number of named editor vandalisms, and the number of named editor 'good edits' - we should probably count the number of vandalism reversals by each group too. If we had 50 volunteers doing that, they'd only have to check 100 edits each - it would take us an hour maybe. SteveBaker 13:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I grabbed the last 500 mainspace edits from recent changes a few minutes ago. I pasted the content toUser:ONUnicorn/Sandbox. All the articles should be linked, but of course the history, diff, etc. isn't. We need some way of marking which were good and which weren't. How do you do those little red and green symbols I've seen people using on occasion on "votes"? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Good start, but if you could stuff that into a table, it would be whole bunch easier. And it should be pretty trivial to add a column that links to each article history, which would save a click. -- John Broughton | ^(♫♫) 21:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Links to Autism/Asperger Syndrome help

One of my relatives suffers from Asperger syndrome and I was wondering if anyone knows of any free online resources to help with these disorders (particularly in regards to skills related to interacting with others). Thank you.--Azer Red Si? 01:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

What kind of resources? I know there's a mailing list, would that help? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CosmicWaffles (talk • contribs) 01:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

I have Asperger's - I've studied the syndrom (infomally) for a long time. If you want to email me about it - I'd be happy to pass on what I've learned in a less public forum. You can find me at (please do not post email addresses as you will get massively spammed, use Special:Emailuser/SteveBaker)

Aspergers and Autism lie along the same line - there is little to choose between milder Autism and more extreme Aspergers - and I have no expertise with Autism. SteveBaker 02:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

However, blah blah blah

How many times on wikipedia does a sentence begin with "However, etc etc"? This really bad phrasing needs to be eradicated in some way as it is everywhere I look, and it makes me groan each time. Do any editors have suggestions as to highlight this, and somehow get the message across to as many users as possible that they should try to use more enlightening wording if possible?.--Zleitzen 19:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

However, it's not grammatically incorrect, is it? :p --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 22:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes; it is. And so is starting a sentence with and. But is also gramatically incorrect. But and However basically mean the same thing. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

No, however is an adverb, not a conjunction. Surely I can begin sentences with adverbs. What source says that beginning a sentence with however is grammatically incorrect? —Bkell (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

No, sentences can start with "But" even in rigidly formal grammar. Saying they cannot is an oversimplification promulgated by rote learning at schools. Example: "But for the grace of God, there go I." "However", even in the sense where "But" would not be stricly accepted, is fine at the beginning of sentences, at least for Shakespeare, Milton, and Burke. —Centrx→talk • 18:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I often find myself starting sentences with However or Because because they are both useful in highlighting either contrast (X is true. However ....) or showing flow (X did happened. Because of this....). I'm not really concerned whether or not this is grammatically correct so long as the sentence is readable and gets its meaning clearly across. Which, at the end of the day, is more important than strict grammatical accuracy. Especially with areas of grammar that are ignored so often that half of the population doesn't known if they are wrong or not. perfectblue 18:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It is grammatically correct anyway. —Centrx→talk • 18:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Some of the real usage sticklers make a fuss. However, I studied writing in graduate school and I don't see a durn thing wrong with it. Durova^Charge! 00:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

the picture of the day

Why is the picture of the day so often a bird. All these birds are lame, we need variety. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.180.194.65 (talk) 01:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

There are way too many animals and flowers on Featured Pictures. Those guys should really be harder on those subjects/easier on other ones when reviewing them. I'm sure there are lots of great animal/flower photographers on here but it is really a bit much. Recury 15:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

So take some pictures of other subjects and submit them for featured pictures. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

direct public access.

After being harrassed by editors regarding my translation of "Imagery Analysis" into wikipedia's spanish edition, I found that there was no way to remedy the problem, there is no way to mediate between contributors and those that edit the articles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Radical man 7 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Can you please explain yourself? There's no difference between contributors and editors here at Wikipedia. I've taken a look at Imagery analysis and posted my thoughts on your talk page. -sthomson06 (Talk) 19:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Bacteria

Who deleted the FA bacteria? Why? C. M. Harris ^{Talk to me} 00:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Never mind; someone just recreated it. C. M. Harris ^{Talk to me} 00:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a question of skin, my father in law has such delicate skin that his sole was perforated by a single hair.Radical man 7 19:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

WHY IS MADNESS COMBAT GONE?

Why, specifically, was the madness combat page deleted, then protected. If you can have informative topics about video games, and PICO for god's sake, why not madness combat? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.66.97.177 (talk) 06:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

You could have just followed the suggestions given on the notice at madness combat, but I suppose that wouldn't give you the opportunity to write in ALL-CAPS in a highly trafficked page. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madness Combat, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madness combat and the log of 9 previous deletions. - BanyanTree 17:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Colbert vandal flood

Did Steven Colbert do something on his show tonight about Wikipedia or something? There's a flood of vandal pages being made at the moment, all having something to do with "reality is a commodity." Grump. eaolson 04:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikilobbying was a new term defined by Colbert tonight, it is defined as wikiality through cash incentives to adjust Wikipedia to match the desired perception of reality.

Wikiality is the perception reality through group consensus.

Therefore, REALITY is a commodity because you pay for people to adjust it through free-market forces...

It was pretty funny. 70.51.10.190 06:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Articles in the sandbox

The article about Hurricane Bob (1979) was created last April, but after about 3 weeks it was moved to the sandbox, where it sat for 10 months while a single editor painstakingly crafted it, although the crafting was done almost entirely in the past month. He then moved it back to the mainspace, and applied (and was accepted) for DYK. My question here is, are there rules regarding this sort of sandbox-editing? This is not a pet-topic article about someone's favorite unknown writer; it's a rather notable hurricane. At one point, the user angrily upbraided someone on the talk page, saying the article is "his." This seems to bring up issues of WP:OWN and I'm wondering if there is some rule of thumb on this. -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 20:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I can understand politely asking that other editors wait a day or two before making edits to an article... especially when you are about to post a major revision. It is polite to let people know that a major revision is in the works, so that their edits don't get tossed out in the revision. But all this assumes that the revision in indeed imminent. To ask people to wait for several months is rediculous. Also, no article should be moved to the sandbox... it should be copied there. It definitely sounds like this editor has a case of OWN. Blueboar 21:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think there's any problem with it. An article is not considered "published" until it's in the Main namespace, and so articles developed in one's sandbox are considered no different from articles developed in one's (physical) notebook for DYK purposes. (The article was apparently in some sort of pseudo-sandbox at LNBS Main Article: Hurricane Bob (1979) before it was properly moved to the user's personal sandbox.) I guess the situation might have been different if people were clambering for this user's half-finished product to be published, but there do not seem to have been any calls for this.--Pharos 22:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• • As the owner of a half-finished article myself, I think Wikipedia editors should give the problem of unfinished articles in user space about the lowest possible priority there is. Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia - an article in user space takes up a trivial amount of space, probably costing well under $.01 per month for server space and processing.
  • On the other hand, it's clearly a violation of WP:OWN for an editor to move an article out of mainspace to his/her user space unless it was clear that a lot of work was needed to prove notability. Given that this Hurricane Bob was a relatively minor hurricane, it's possible that was the case. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 22:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Also, it was never really in the mainspace (it was in a poorly constructed pseudo-sandbox, see above).--Pharos 22:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

My appologies to the user in question. I thought the situation was that the article existed, was moved to a sandbox for several months, and then returned to the mainspace. I think we would all agree that doing that would be unacceptable. As it is, I have to admit that I misspoke and that the situation is indeed different. And an article in a personal sandbox is "his/hers" until published. Then it belongs to all of us (and the poor originator gets to watch all of his/her hard work get $@#!ed up by our "improvements")... but that's life on the Wiki :>) Blueboar 23:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• I guess I am wondering what would have happened if another user created the same article while this one was sitting in userspace. Of course, hurricanes are no small thing on wikipedia and there is quite a group of people who edit those articles; one of them is a FA today, as you know. I can imagine someone creating this article and a project member or another user coming along and saying "oh wait wait, sorry, this is our article, please work somewhere else." -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 23:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Not to be melodramatic here, but it seems to me that this process (at least, with this particular hurricane article) goes somewhat against the point of wikipedia. A non-trivial topic was, for all intents and purposes, owned by a single user for over 9 months before it was "published" in mainspace. Note also that virtually no work was done on it until December, but in the meantime there was no opportunity for "everyone" to edit it. I suppose this is more okay if the topic was a very obscure author or the user's friend's band, but even then it seems odd to keep an article private for such a long time before "allowing" it to go live. -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 23:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Dmz5 - Assume Good Faith... You are creating conflict where there was none. In this case there was no article for "everyone" to edit. All that existed was someone's draft. Anyone who wanted to edit an article on the topic would have discovered that there was no article yet, and they would have created one. At which point "everyone" else could have edited it. The fact that the user in question was working on a draft is irrelevant. Suppose that draft was on his/her personal computer, or written on a pad of paper ... you never would have known. And things would have turned out exactly as they are now.

We have no way of knowing what would have happend had "someone else" created an article on the topic while the editor in question was working on his/her draft ... We must assume good faith, and assume that he/she would have incorporated the material in the draft into the existing article. Since no one did create the article until the editor finished his draft and put it in the mainspace, all we can do is speculate. And such speculation serves no purpose.

The point is... no one was denied the ability to edit on this topic. There was no conflict with another editor. There was nothing impropper going on. Blueboar 15:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat

It seems to me that almost all uses of Template:CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat, like for example Image:VysokePece1.jpg, are essentially identical to the more basic Template:Attribution. Am I missing something here?--Pharos 19:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The first allows for things like "free use except for resale or other commericial purposes", while the second is just "free if authorship is attributed". The second could, in theory, be deleted, since the first is broader. However, putting copyright info on images is sufficiently complex (I believe) that it could be very useful to have a simple template (attibution, the second one) that covers a lot of cases and requires no parameters/arguments to be added (I'm guessing).

There does seem to be some relatively active discussion of the two templates, so if you think a merge would be useful, I suggest posting on the two template talk pages and see what happens. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 23:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy bans any restrictions on commercial use or the creation of derivative images. I'm not sure I've seen any uses of CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat that comply with policy and don't seem to be covered by Attribution.--Pharos 02:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Consensus makers required for a controversial template

There is a somewhat controversial template template:911ct which recently survived a deletion discussion. It has been subject of a revert war and there is a strong attempt here to reach a consensus for the name of the template.

We'd welcome input from partial and impartial editors alike, and also could do with a wholly impartial and uninvolved experienced editor who need not be an admin to close and summarise the discussion. Fiddle Faddle 10:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The interesting thing, if it is interesting at all, is that the template's application and content is also hotly disputed. This has a lot to do with the politics of the 9/11 incidents and discussions of "conspiracy" versus "officialdom". This is one of the reasons why a consensus is required. The reasoning is "Once the template's name is governed by a consensus, then surely other edit wars will have a precedent for being stopped." This is why your help in reaching the consensus is needed. Fiddle Faddle 08:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sample chess game

Does anyone else think that this article should be deleted. It's been around a long time and was listed as Refreshing Prose back in the pre-FA day. IT looks like all original research to me, no sources at all. I was going to nominate for AFD, but didn't want to get accused of a bad faith nomination. Suggestions? The Placebo Effect 02:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

You could add an {{Unreferenced}} tag and give it some time to be 'brought up to code'. SubSeven 20:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds much more suitable for Wikisource] - I suggest it be moved. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 22:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Expert attention on Wikiquote

Wikiquote doesn't have a system to request expert attention, so I was sent here. I wondered if anyone who is knows a lot about My Parents are Aliens could edit the page on Wikiquote ([3]) so that it says which episode each quote comes from? Thanks, RobbieG 18:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

You haven't posted at Talk:My Parents Are Aliens; that's more likely, I think, to be where an interested reader or editor would notice this request. 23:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

clan battles

Could anyone help me find, clubs or societies that do re enactment clan battles i live in the Lochaber area. Any help would be gratefully received

many thanks. Dave Munro —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.110.64.100 (talk) 10:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

Requests like this should be posted to Wikipedia:Reference desk, please. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 23:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

trans-wiki diplomacy

as a senior editor, admin since Nov 2004, and a clean block log in spite of many hairy disputes, I do imagine I have a fair grasp of wikiquette and Wikimedia policy. Recently, I've grown fond of wikt: to store lexical detail that would burden WP articles (such as, exporting dictdef of itihasa to wikt:itihāsa before making it a redirecct). Wiktionary was created for precisely that purpose, that is, as a spin-off of WP. Now, the problem is that wiktionary has a much smaller userbase than Wikipedia, and an individual admin can essentially wield absolutistic power. And this is exactly what appears to have happened, and I keep running into blocks by some cowboy for offering actual lexicographic expertise on talkpages. You can look at wikt:WT:BP#Reconstructed_languages for the latest escalation of this. Now I realize we keep jurisdiction on wikiprojects strictly separate, but this to me appears in violation of the fundamentals of Wikimedia: they leave me reduced to leading a monologue on some deserted talkpage, and as soon as I actually act upon my uncommented-upon proposals, I am slapped with blocks, a vote is staged (without notifying me of course) based on false dichotomies that could have be cleared up in actual debate. In any case, any admin on this wiki would be in serious trouble for the behaviour I encounter there. Now it seems I'll just have to write off wiktionary as a doomed wikiproject and stay on en-wiki where the cabal thankfully hasn't succeeded crushing the peons under their authoritarian rule, but since wikt: is actually intended also as a subsidiary hunting-ground for dictdefs found on Wikipedia, I find my work on en-wiki is impeded if I keep getting beaten up by the autocrats of wikt:. What are your ideas on how to deal with such a situation? I am not trying to impose anyting on the poor wiktionarians, my entire plight is to get anyone to actually engage in consensus-debate instead of whacking anyone trying to make some policy proposal. dab (𒁳) 16:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds somewhat similar to what happened on the Simple English Wikipedia. Generally speaking Meta is the place for this sort of thing. The situation on Simple was resolved after an RFC on Meta. However, the stewarts on Meta generally prefer to keep stuff on the home wiki, so you have to make a very good case to get it to stick. Good luck. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Yup, I second the suggestion to take this to Meta. They fill the oversight role, not wikipedia.en. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 20:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I find it interesting that you call it a "policy proposal" now. I think as we each take a deep breath and step back, we will be able to address the issues you have raised. But being bold is not particularly advisable at this point in time; your block is still active right now on en.wiktionary. Additionally, I have requested comments on your talk page here. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 21:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

As an active editor and now admin on wikt, who only occasionally ventures here, I am amazed to find that someone who is clearly such a useful editor here has managed to upset so many of us at wikt, by ignoring our discussion pages, and reverting an admin's change to a major draft policy page, which had been made after extensive discussion and an easily carried vote. (And by the way, his assertion that the admin who blocked him is a "cowboy" is totally incorrect. That admin has been acting with community support to counter what we saw as repeated POV vandalism, and failure to respond to a request on his Talk page to stop. In fact, the only independent comment on the latest block has been that it was surprisingly short.)

I do wonder whether part of the confusion may be that on wikt we normally conduct policy discussions in the wikt:WT:Beer parlour (analogous to this page), rather than on article talk pages. This is for the very good reason that, because of the nature of a dictionary, our articles are very short, but also very numerous when compared with the number of admins and editors. It is simply not practicable for us to watch all Talk pages that might interest us, so we centralise the discussions.

I do find it amusing that this thread, entitled "trans-wiki diplomacy" should have been started by someone who came onto wikt and (apparently through ignorance) ignored our conventions in a most undiplomatic manner. It is perhaps a lesson to us all to read Welcome pages of different wikis carefully to find out about local methods of working, rather than barging in and assuming that all wikis are the same.

It is also ironic that such major complaints (both on our pages and here) about being blocked for disruptive behaviour, should come from someone who states on his own WP user page "it will become more and more important that disruption is unceremoniously dealt with (i.e. that offenders are blocked quickly), for the protection of the sane and fruitful editing process." Enginear 22:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Please put some breaks on this. We had a problem a few weeks ago who tried to use this board as an appeals forum for a problem at another Wikimedia project. Please don't walk down the same road: take it to Meta. Durova^Charge! 00:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

could your please provide a link to that exact meta: page? In the opening statements, above, I've now noticed a flagrant bypassing of the normal transwiki process, resulting in a violation of the GFDL. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 02:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a regular on Meta, but I'm sure the folks over there can answer your questions. Durova^Charge! 17:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

citation needed template clarification

I think the citation needed template needs a lot of attention. Specifically, I think there needs to be a way to dis-ambiguate it between:

1. The first statement is true, and so is the second. with the template applying to the whole sentence.
2. The first statement is true, and so is the second. with the template applying only to the latter part of the sentence.

Any proposal on how the template should be clarified the exact phrase it applies to?? Georgia guy 00:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

You could just leave a comment on the talk page explaining the tag. CMummert · talk 00:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Please note that when this section of the village pump is archived, it can be moved to the template talk page. Georgia guy 00:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Or the discussion could be copied to Template talk:Fact and any further comments could be posted there. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 23:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism report

The article on the 14th Amendment appears to have been hacked. It has some material that might be considered offensive and does not relate to the Amendment itself.

Thanks

Regards -- Cliff

These things get reverted pretty quickly. In the future you can feel free to revert vandalism yourself; see Help:Reverting. Opabinia regalis 03:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Al Capone

someone messed with the Al Capone page. I had to do a report on him, and everything is gone. Can someone please do something about this? Thanks in Advance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rdogg1234 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

It's been fixed. You're encouraged to fix problems like this yourself, please see Help:Reverting. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hall of Fame

I request everyone's input regarding this idea, to create a hall of fame to celebrate the editors who've made lasting, non-revertable contribution to the Wikipedia project and deserve some permanent form of recognition, which may serve as an inspiration to the growing community of newer editors. Rama's arrow 18:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Redundant categorization

Why are many date-specific clean-up templates place articles into two categories? For example, 101 Strings has a wikify template from December 2006. It puts it in both Category:Wikify from December 2006 and Category:All pages needing to be wikified. The former is in Category:Articles that need to be wikified, which has a subcategory of the latter. This seems rather redundant that an article is in two of the same type of category and incorrect that 'all pages' is a part of 'Articles'. I believe that this should be fixed somehow, for wikify and other clean-up templates. Reywas92^Talk_Sigs 01:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Generally the Category:All... ones are mainly for bots and statistics, so they don't have to trall through all the subdivided categories to check on the articles, or figure out how many there are. It would be nice if this was explained on the respective category pages (you could help with this, if you like...) JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Points

On my watchlist there seems to be point tags (such as saying +1,212 etc etc). What are these? (I know this seems like a bit of a silly question but...) Jamesbuc

Help:Watchlist#What do the colored numbers mean? will explain it all. Harryboyles 12:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Images

Couldn't find it. Where can I post questions concerning images and their licensing?--Vayaka 16:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

That would be Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --Sherool (talk) 16:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.--Vayaka 16:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Views please: "Criticism of X" articles.

This may have been discussed before: if so please just point me to the right place. Its probably buried in an AfD discussion or something.

An issue has come up in several places with "Criticism of X" articles versus NPOV. There are plenty of these associated with religious pages for example. I've been asked whether these articles should include "response to the Criticism" (where it is notable) or just the (negative) Criticism. Part of the problem is that the word "criticism" is ambiguous: often it means arguments both ways (as in theatre critic, source criticism) often it means negative assessment only.

My tentative view (for which I am seeking support or disagreement) is that we probably wouldn't allow "Criticism of X" articles defined as "negative views only" because of WP:SOAP. So it probably should include both positive and negative assessments of X by third parties (when notable). As a strawman I guess if there are notable responses to the criticism by adherents to X they can be included in a separate section (so not point by point) up to 20% of the article after which they have to be moved to a new article "Responses to criticism of X" or similar. Does that sound reasonable? I will post a link to this question on some of the "Criticism of X" talk pages to try to get views. --BozMo talk 09:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm vorried about the whole "criticism of" trend on Wikipedia. We didn't have those articles before, and I think we were better off then. Criticism articles, or even sections, encourage the wrong kind of editors and editing where people try to push their POV through selective sourcing and citing. They are very hard to get and keep both encyclopedic and neutral. Everything in this world can be criticised and most of it has been, but is an encyclopedia the right place to discuss what is "good" and "bad" about something? I think probably not, and that we at the very least should be conservative in what topics we make criticism forks of. But deciding where we can write about criticisms and where not is hard. We have an article on Criticism of software engineering, while the featured article Ku Klux Klan doesn't even contain the word "criticism", much less a "criticism of KKK" fork, even though KKK definitely has had its notable critics through time. But I think we've got it right with the KKK-article and that wikipedia's focus should be on documenting subjects and topics, explain what things are, not to write what various people find "good" or "bad" about them. Shanes 10:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Am I the only one thinking Criticism of software engineering is a waste of space? It's unsourced (the two sources are for minor points raised), badly written and formatted, 99% original research, and just generally...awful. yandman 10:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

"we probably wouldn't allow "Criticism of X" articles defined as "negative views only" because of WP:SOAP."

I'm afraid that I can't agree. My standard answer to any issue like this is that "Users who feel that something is unbalanced should quit complaining and write the other side of the story themselves". Too often users delete criticism content as a way of hiding the fact that the criticism exists (which is a form of POV Pushing), when they really should just knuckle down and find something that either answers or rebuts the criticism in order to turn the page into a nice rounded one.

perfectblue 11:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. "we probably wouldn't allow "Criticism of X" articles defined as "negative views only" because of WP:SOAP." I did not imply I had any problem with negative views. Just an article exclusively for them seems inappropriate. You have just said "write the other side of the story themselves" but apparently imply somewhere else...? --BozMo talk 11:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

No, not really. Common sense dictates that the only appropriate place to answer criticism is on the same page that the criticism is made, and vice versa. Otherwise a user would need to flip backwards and forwards between two pages just to see what was actually being argued/rebutted.

One of the primary reasons for a separate "criticism of X" entry is page page size, another is content balance. In some cases the criticism section is farmed out to a separate page purely to prevent the main page from becoming huge and unwieldy, in other cases there is actually more criticism content than there is content on the issue being criticized, meaning that unless it was farmed out the criticism would dominate the entire page. Which isn't entirely desirable.

perfectblue 11:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV already prohibits one-sided articles - if any article includes disputed viewpoints, it should also discuss the viewpoints of the other side, giving due weight to each side.

I am suspicisous of most "Criticism of X" and "Z's views on W" articles as POV forks that belong in the actual articles. The Criticism of software development seems to fall in that group - one long paragraph in the software engineering article would be enough to summarize the contents of the criticism article. CMummert · talk 14:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, all to many users try to AFD or crop a one sided article when they should try to balance it by putting in the other side of the argument to even things up. There really needs to be more in NPOV etc that states clearly that addition is a better way to add balance than deletion.

After all if the criticism is valid, it has every right to be included.

perfectblue 14:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's stick to Criticism of software engineering. The general thrust of the information deserves to be included somewhere, proabably in the software engineering article. But it doesn't deserve its own article, even if it is "valid criticism". There are two policy/guideline reasons for this

1. The article gives undue weight to viewpoints that are not widely adopted (WP:NPOV). Since there are a large number of software engineers, the criticism must not be convincing to them.

2. The topic of the article is not software engineering, it is "criticism of software engineering." The criticisms themselves are not notable, not having been discussed in multiple reliable sources independent of the person doing the criticizing (WP:NOTE). Non-notable topics should not be given their own article.

There are a few topics where the criticisms are notable on their own - Evolution comes to mind - but this is not the usual case. The undue weight and notability problems about software engineering criticism can be best fixed by cutting the article down to a summary and merging into the article on software engineering, which is a notable topic. CMummert · talk 15:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is what I get in Websters Dictionary for "criticism": 1 a : the act of criticizing, usually unfavorably b : a critical observation or remark . 2 : the art of evaluating or analyzing works of art or literature; also : writings expressing such evaluation or analysis3 : the scientific investigation of literary documents (as the Bible) in regard to such matters as origin, text, composition, or history." See also the definition of "critic". I think for our purposes we can adopt a definition of "criticism" that includes positive and negative reviews of a topic, rather than just the negatives along with responses. The way a movie critic doesn't only point out negatives in the movies he reviews. It seems all the criticism articles here have become debates, an unsightly thing in an encyclopedia. It also does seem to me that the criticism articles do violate WP:SOAP, and WP:NPOV. MinaretDk 17:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

While individual criticism of X articles might violate WP:SOAP and WP:NPOV, they don't have to. It's down to individual users to add in the rebuttals etc, in order to make the pages nice and balanced.

perfectblue 17:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's possible, unless we adopt (and announce on the respective pages) a definition of 'criticism' which allows for both positive and negative views on the topic. Also, its my observation that on any given subject, there are many more professional critics than there are 'responders to critics'. A view suggesting a positive perspective on X would be original research in an article unless it explicitly responds to a criticism. Under the banner of a criticism article, a positive take on X would be deleted for lacking 'criticism' or being a direct response to criticism. What if the response suggests a different point of view from the critic, but still doesn't respond to the exact criticism? Users will delete it as being irrelevant to the title of the article, and rightly so given that the topic is 'criticism' and not 'admiration'. That a "Criticism of X" article is only composed on "expressed negative opinions on X, + responses to negative opinions of X" without positive opinions independent of criticism makes any criticism article as we now see and accept then inherently biased regardless of what the individual users say or do. Such articles unavoidably violate WP:SOAP and WP:NPOV, and under their current titles, cannot be made neutral or evenhanded regardless of the intentions of individuals editing them. MinaretDk 20:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

You know what? We shuld rename all "Criticism of X" to "Critiques of X". Critique can be both good and bad (so can criticism of course, but the word criticism has an inherent negative connotation). That way both good and bad can be put in. Rumpelstiltskin223 22:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. Any other votes for it? --BozMo talk 11:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Would a vote here mean anything? I'm all for it. Critique, defined as 'positive and negative reviews of'. MinaretDk 21:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia censorship

Where's the link leading to something about censorship on WP? I looked and searched but couldn't find it. ДҖ--Huanghe63^talk 02:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT#CENSOR ♥Tohru Honda13♥ 02:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Other information can be found at Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates, Wikipedia:Profanity, m:Should Wikipedia Use Profanity, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 23:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

And Wikipedia:Free_speech --pgk 22:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Trafficwatch

How about a wikiproject that keeps track of all the links from {{high-traffic}} sites, mentions on TV programs, references in webcomics, and classifies them for risk based on size of audience and whether the tone of the appearance could be considered an incitement to vandalism. --Random832(tc) 17:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Template

Could someone give me feedback on this template, I just created it because I've been thinking we've been needing one fora while, but I don't know if it's up to par with the other templates. Really appreciate it everyone, --Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 02:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I like it. It will make a good addition to the catalogue.  ;-) --BenBurch

Too stern for my taste. What about something like this?--Pharos 01:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia devolving into a clique?

I'm somewhat worried by the sentiment expressed here that we should not 'pander' to new editors by altering our own behaviours to make it easier for them... This is exactly the kind of sentiment that leads to clique formation. Can it be that we're heading towards a Wikipedia where things only get done by those who 'know the secret handshake', and people say things like 'What can you expect of someone who doesn't understand the Wiki'? Maybe it's time for a systemic overhaul of what goes on in the 'process' side of Wikipedia to try and cull this kind of thinking, and make it all more transparent and easier on new editors and 'neophytes'. --Barberio 16:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Your essay about not citing essays really doesn't have much at all to do with WP:OMG. On the larger issue, that's a slippery slope argument and not one that I see coming true any time soon. As Radiant said, essays have a big ESSAY tag on them, if a person assumes they're policy that just reflects poorly on their own reading comprehension. It's not an issue of pandering to newbies to not cite essays because it might confuse them, it's pandering to fools. Why should we enforce a rule saying to assume people are dumb and can't read? --tjstrf talk 17:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Not all essays or essay like pages in the Wikipedia namespace have an essay tag. It's even known for someone to create an essay, and remove the essay tags people put on it. --Barberio 17:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXTHEM. --tjstrf talk 19:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Last time I tried putting an {{essay}} tag on someone's personal essay on 'how the wiki works' it was reverted almost immediately. --Barberio 19:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Did you try asking them why they didn't want it tagged? --tjstrf talk 21:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The response eventually lead to the above kind of comments being made. --Barberio 11:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

(undent) When you point to what you consider a problem, would you mind using a diff or actually citing the words that bother you, rather than just linking to a section of a talk page? I didn't find the word "pander" in the section you cited; I'd appreciate additional information as to what exactly leads you to worry about cliques, and (presumably) the non-observance of WP:BITE. Thanks. -- John Broughton | ^(♫♫) 21:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

From my perspective, it absolutely appears that Wikipedia is RAPIDLY becoming dominated by a bunch of uncaring, overly-serious, elitist, holier-than-thou stuffed shirts. The openness is rapidly fading due to extreme deletionism and the increasing domination of a succession of vocal minorities that think that because they don't care about a topic, it isn't worthy of inclusion. The deletion process is overly opaque, making absolutely no sense, having little to no guidelines, and allowing 'consensus' deletions by a VERY small proportion of the userbase for often extremely suspect reasons. It appears to me that many of the principles on which Wikipedia was founded have been lost to these people. I am very, very close to considering the project an abject failure and wondering if we should start taking bets as to when it becomes so totally insular as to be unusable to the public at large. I've been lurking for years, making minor edits here and there, but nothing too serious. And the more time goes by, the gladder I am I never actually joined up. There does not appear to any longer be a 'community' on here, just a series of factions and subfactions, each espousing and pushing their own twisted little worldviews, and deleting everything else. -Graptor 66.42.154.17 01:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

While, of course, we don't want what Graptor said would happen to happen, I think that there is a balance that must be struck between the "elitist" and the "pandering" attitudes. (I'm only giving the "elitist" and "panderers" titles to these principles to ease explanation. I chose those two names for the two ideals because they were used in this discussion and are both derogatory, as opposed to one being a "nicer" name than the other.) Basically: we don't want Wikipedia to become a clique in which the aristocracy's views are the only ones accepted, but we still need the structure and guidelines and policies to keep this from being chaotic. If either of these are removed, Wikipedia will be equally biased, nonfactual and unusable. So people who want the secret Wikihandshake should, if you'll excuse this euphemism, "get lost", but we still need tight controls over the articles. If you see what I mean, anyway.--Dark Green 21:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Devices/techniques for detecting argumentative language

Hello. I am interested to know if there is any software or specific technique for detecting argumentative language/WP:WTA on Wikipedia articles. Its my habit to search for them on Google and just to browse categories. Any other help will be useful. AlanBarnet 03:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't mark words that are possibly problematical per Wikipedia:Words to avoid, so you'll have to do your own searches. You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:WikEh?/Home/ and Wikiseek (beta) as alternatives to Google. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 16:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much John. At least I know. Actually my own searches are proving to be constructive so I'll continue to work and adapt to similar issues. I'll also report any successful strategies I have adapted to the WP:WTA talkpage. AlanBarnet 11:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Computer and video games

I've come across what looks like an attempt to hijack Category:Computer and video games and move it to Category:Video games. This name change and its effects on it child categories would be massive and I couldn't find any discussion of it on WP:CFD or WP:CVG, so I started to revert it. However, as I started doing reverts, I noticed more than one person doing the edits, so I have to wonder did I miss the conversation, or was my first impression correct? Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The conversation that triggered this move from CVG->VG started on January 13th on th e Talk:Video_game page, which triggered a rename and rewrite of the primary video games page... half of the bottom subjects on that talk page are related to this issue. It has also been discussed on the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Computer_and_video_games page as well. There has been concensus so far among everyone to date. Since it is a clear case of terminology missuse the issue that this was contentious never came up. I'll gladdy file the CfD though.BcRIPster 01:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I should also note that the whole discussion of changing "Computer and video games" to "Video game" was discussed, fleshed out, and voted on. It isn't just a blind change over.BcRIPster 01:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I came upon this through the category rather than the article and without any direct mention of the rationale in the usual places, I was worried, especially when the initial change I came across was done by an anonymous IP. I don't see any problem once it's gone through CFD to keep paranoids like me from worrying. Caerwine Caer’s whines 01:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I've added the CfD as speedy on the Catagory:CVG page, and for good measure I added a CfD onto the WP:CVG page to get peoples attention.BcRIPster 01:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow! That's an amazingly poor decision. There aren't many people in the computer games business who'd describe what they do as 'video games' - the latter generally refer to console-based games which are a whole different thing from computer games that run on personal computers. Personally, I'd have pushed Video games into a sub-cat of Computer and Video games. The trouble is that these discussions are under-publicised so that very often the people who would be best able to comment on the change were not involved in those discussions. Not good. SteveBaker 01:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's why it's getting talked about now, and technically computer games are video games. Computer gamers may not call their games video games because the term video game has been missapplied to just mean console games over the years. But just because it was missuesed doesn't mean it isn't wrong, and at to that end it should be touched on as part of the naming contraversy in the main article.BcRIPster 03:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

At some point, "Wrong" english usage becomes "Right" by sheer force of common usage. Just as "gay" once meant "happy" and "computer" meant "a person who does calculations" - so "video" used to mean any kind of raster scanned display, but now comes to mean things that are related to television sets rather than computer screens. Language changes. It's certainly not common usage in the industry to talk about "video games" when you are talking about something that runs on a PC. We will mislead and confuse a lot of people if we do that. SteveBaker 06:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I think when you keep saying PC you mean Windows games running on a IBM PC derivative. Also "gay" still means happy. If you want to stress the point of the origins of "computer" fine, people origianally labeled the platform as "Personal Computer games" or "Home Computer games" (see Byte, Creative Computing, etc... from the 70's/80's) anyways, so "computer game" is just a common abriviation, let's drop it and use the full title then nobody is confused.BcRIPster 07:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is a clearer and more coherent argument that relies on history. The first 'console' game was "Pong" - it did not contain a computer at all - it used a clever combination of analog and digital signals to make a video stream. It was truly a "video game" and did not involve computers at all - so you simply cannot call it a "Computer game". Subsequent consoles implemented games like Pong using computer technology - but they were still descendents of the truly "video" games. In parallel, people were writing games like "Hunt the Wumpus" and a plethora of StarTrek and 'Adventure' games that didn't run on raster scanned video screens at all for the simple reason that those devices were not commonly connected to computers early on - you cannot and must not call those things "Video games" - they are "Computer games". (I played "Hunt the Wumpus" on an ASR-33 Teletype connected to a Singer mainframe in 1975 - there wasn't a single video terminal connected anywhere). History has imposed the modern terminology that games that run on PC's (the great great grandchild of the Singer Mainframe) are "Computer games" and the ones that are distant relatives of "Pong" that come down via the console route are "Video games" - the technology is convergent - but the terminology is very separate. The games themselves are also quite different in many cases. Video games are played with joysticks - computer games with keyboard and mouse - so there is still great value to maintaining the distinction. In the marketting and financing of games there is a large difference too. Video games are licensed with the maker of the console that they run on in order that he can skim some profit from the games to cover the fast that he's selling the console at a loss. With PC games, the game company is independent of the big computer makers or the operating system vendors - they are independents. I'm also talking about what marketers and authors of these games call them - not just the players who do sometimes mix up the terminology (incorrectly IMHO). (I have worked in that industry). SteveBaker 06:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Steve Your argument above is neither clearer nor more coherent. Just because computer gamer's do not want to call their games "video games" doesn't it so. They are played on a video screen. As for terminal/teletype/mainframe games, all of them use a screen for display, only some of them required the use of paper to represent the display due to costs and communications restrictions. The game still output a "screen" of data each "refresh". As for your joystick argument, excluding Windows-PC games, every major PC in the 80's featured a significant number (if not majority) of games that used Joysticks (//e, C64, Amiga, etc...), so that argument falls flat. Marketing destintions are irrelevant in regards to technical realities... Lastly, I've been working in this industry too, so how is that relevant?BcRIPster 07:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems obvious what "Computer and Video Games" refers to, and I like to maixmize clarity where possible, so I would vote for that being the main category, if anyone's taking a vote. Cryptonymius 07:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

As another person has pointed out elsewhere, just because LPs are Music albums, we don't see a Category:LPs and Music albums do we? I'm am building an umbrella CfD to file on the issue, so far the CfD done on Feb2 for the root catagory page has been majority for rename.BcRIPster 07:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

So where is a good place to ask for comments on a non-disputed page?

If one were to have a page to a point where it appears to be basically good, where would be a good place to ask for more eyes to comment on it and/or make or suggest changes? RFC doesn't seem to cover it as it is about disputes. --BenBurch 04:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review. Also the relevant WikiProject. —Centrx→talk • 04:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

WINAD means...

Until recently, the page said that "an entry that consists of just a definition doesn't belong." Now, it says that "an entry that talks about a word, even if it is built like an encyclopedia article does not belong." Anyone have any suggestions?? Georgia guy 15:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion there are words that deserve a WP article. Steve Dufour 18:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

wikisource

(I have removed right floating from the code for these to facilitate discussion) There are a number of inline (i.e. not transcluded) cases like, from Desiderius Erasmus, this:

or, from Origins of the American Civil War, this:

Now - the reason these came to my attention was in an attempt to obsolete wikisource-logo.jpg, but - these would be better as templates. Should I change them to use the template?

? Make a new template with "has the original text of"? Or just fix the logos in place?

-- Random832(tc) 16:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

---

My .02 is that {{wikisourcelang}} would be a good solution. There's no need for a new template for the slight wording change in the second example. The first example is just confusing - linking an English language title to a foreign language page. The title should be Moriae encomium if it's linking to a Latin page. - BanyanTree 18:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

a few of my favorite things

I am a frequent Wikipedia user. It is such an amazing and helpful source and I was wondering if a "favorites" section could be added to allow your users to sort of bookmark Wikipedia pages we find interesting and would like to keep on hand. Is this sort of option possible? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.235.167.199 (talk) 17:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

Wouldn't it be easier to do via your own browser's bookmarks?Circeus 20:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Not if you access a lot from school/workplace. 88.105.241.148 20:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Registered users can establish a watchlist and access it from any computer. Durova^Charge! 20:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

You can also set up a list on your user page. — RJH (talk) 23:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Gay Fukuoka, Japan

Fukuoka is the Capital of the island of Kyushu situated in Western Japan. It is the closest point of the Japanese Islands to South Korea and the Chinese Mainland. It is a major hub of activity for Asians going back and forth from Japan to Korea and China. Kyushu males are famous throughout Japan as being Handsome and at the same time nice guys, refered to as Kyushu Dan Ji.

Fukuoka City has three main gay areas, also known as Hut-ten-bah. They are all located in the central part of the city and most of the gay life can be found here. The main area where the male gay bars, saunas and brothels are is called Sumiyoshi and is located around a historic Shinto Shrine by the same name. There are 20 to 30 bars and tea houses where one can go to drink, sing; Karaoke or to cruise/buy other gay men. Also in this area are the two main gay book stores that cater mainly to gay men. An older and mostly died out area is called Gion where former gay brothels and bars existed.

A new gay area popular at night is sprouting up in the Watanabe Dori 3-chome area. It is here where exotic bars that cater to specific client tastes are to be found. Gay life in Japan is very specific and most Homosexual Japanese have specific tastes and preferences when it comes to male on male sex. Bars and venues cater specifically to these fetishes. For example: speedos, SM, cross-dressers, Fundoshi (Japanese loin cloths), old men/father types etc.etc. basically anything you can imagine. Also comonly held are functions sponsored by different groups eg. Muscle men,Chubbies. Information regarding these events (local, price, times and purpose) can be found posted in Japanese on a popular local gay website called K@toom.com. Often gay celebrities from Osaka and Tokyo are hired to host these events. While these events dont discriminate against foreigners often bars and venues all over Japan legally do, so be advised to check before planing a visit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rainbowotoko (talk • contribs) 12:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

If you're trying to submit an article, you can do this by going to Gay Fukuoka, Japan and typing the text into the text box that will appear. Tra (Talk) 15:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget to cite your sources.

perfectblue 15:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Is that really a good idea? This isn't Wikitravel, we shouldn't split out city articles into ghettoized compartments. Why not add this information to the Fukuoka article? Corvus cornix 17:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I propose we move Steven Colbert to Steven Colbert ...is a commodity

And leave it there because he is SUCH a jerk about sending out people to vandalize here...

Okay, so I wouldn't really do it. But saying it makes it feel better. --BenBurch 01:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you realize that Stephen Colbert the actor is different than Stephen Colbert the character? People would vandalize whether or not the character from The Colbert Report was telling them to. -sthomson06 (Talk) 16:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and the spelling is different. --BenBurch 18:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand you. Stephen Colbert (character) spells his name the same way as Stephen Colbert the actor. However, the pronunciation is different. Steven Colbert is a mispelling. -sthomson06 (Talk) 21:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious. What is this about? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is the link to the recent vido segment on wikilobbying. - BanyanTree 19:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, you have to admit, it is pretty funny... And it "keeps us on our toes", as it were. Like a newspaper, magazene or any other form of media, Wikipedia needs a stir once and a while to keep from being jaded. By jaded I mean becoming biased or leaning to one side, if you see what I mean. So, no self-vandalization... Although, we may want to create a category for articles on which Colbert has commanded altering!--Dark Green 21:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree it is funny! I don't think we need to worry too much about this do we? He's not a jerk, he's a comedian. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn

It's even funnier after a few Cold Beer Reports... — RJH (talk) 23:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Macaw 54 sockpuppet

I want to know if User:Dnt23 is a sockpuppet of Macaw 54. If you can disprove this, please show me. Georgia guy 19:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

That's almost certainly Macaw 54/user:Primetime. I'm going to block the account as a sock. Good catch. -Will Beback · † · 19:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Was this too much biting?

I thought it was funny... check it: User_talk:Tmal15 MPS 17:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't seem too biting to me. Do you think you have offended him? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Game-cover Merge again

Some may recall 2 months ago when I posted something about a merge proposal for game-related fair use templates. After waiting a while with no objections I performed the merge. It has now been reverted by someone who thinks I did not make enough of an effort to contact interested persons to obtain concensus. So here we go again. ANYONE INTERESTED IN Template:Game-cover, Template:Boardgamecover, OR Template:RPG-artwork IS INVITED TO JOIN A DISCUSSION AT Template_talk:Game-cover#Merge ABOUT MERGING THESE THREE TEMPLATES. I'm cross-posting this to all the Village pumps. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Newbie....Looking for a decent hamecoming.

Hello all at the pump. I am shazamole a new puplisher.I have just post an article on the singer Michael Halliday.most of you may not of heard of this singer? as achild i shook his hand when in 1955 when he came to Harrow middx to open the then new "civic" electrical store. Whith him was an little known actress "Sabrina" who travelled with him to open several shops at that time.He tadgically took his own life in 1963 at his home in the surry belt.It was an rumour he was gay? and tyhat his affair with the boxer freddie mills brought his career to an end,his popularity suffered.freddie mills was found murdered in his vehical outside a london nightclub.His death is still a mystry.Thanks for letting me rattle off,i would appreciate some more feedback on this post.Does anyone know more!.Shazamole.

The article Michael Halliday (singer) is a good start. I would recommend you list a source on the article to support what you've put already. If you're looking for more information to add to the article, you could try asking at the Reference desk. Tra (Talk) 15:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions! I have been working on the article at Colonel James Sabow. Do you want to trade edits? ;-) JPatrickBedell 20:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia beginning to decelerate??

The rate of Wikipedia's article increase appears to be getting slower in recent months. I've always wondered what good Wikipedia predictions will be. What is the best guess?? Georgia guy 20:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia was creation restricted a few months ago, so it makes sense. 70.51.9.86 05:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you are referring to what happened on December 5, 2005 in History of Wikipedia? --199.33.32.40 01:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Page creation is probably going to follow an S-curve, as do most new technology adoptions. But it will never really reach zero growth, of course. — RJH (talk) 23:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd ideally hope for not so numerous but more comprehensive articles, supplemented by more solid stubs. We're seeing lower tolerance for poor articles, so sheer volume may decrease, even as quality rises. Look at the FA trend--they haven't been rising very quickly, because we've been delisting old ones that don't meet modern standards. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcoming

Do you have to be on the Welcoming committee to welcome new members? --AAA! ^(AAAA) 22:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

No. Anyone can welcome newcomers. — Frecklefoot | Talk 22:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Bot Vandalism

The other day I was thinking about bots, and realized that they could be used for vandalism as well. Does Wikipedia restrict the number of edits you can do per minute? Otherwise, the bots that are used by wikipedians to revert vandalism could be run (unapproved, of course) to blank all the pages on the wikipedia database. This would be near impossible to stop if the bot ran through every page, at even a mere 100 pages per minute, it could become impossible to stop. Also, if the owner were smart enough to create 50 user pages before, then the bot could log in as the next user if it is blocked. Are there any measures that have been taken to avoid this? I'm sure I haven't been the only one to think this, but I don't know where else to ask. Thank You!!! -Hairchrm 01:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

See meta:Edit throttling. There have been vandal bots before, some quite vicious, and they were countered. Vandals read community pages and it would be inadvisable to explain how previous bad bots were handled, and it's not something I followed closely in any case. - BanyanTree 03:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

"it would be inadvisable to explain how previous bad bots were handled"? [[Security through obscurity], much? Though, this thread falls under WP:BEANS. Anyway, the admins have a rollback button they can use from a user contributions page, and users can be blocked by IP addresses. --Random832(tc) 15:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks, this makes sense how I can't really be told how, I just wanted to make sure that there was some way of handling them. Thanks again!! -Hairchrm 18:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Fake administrators

How common are fake administrators with Wikipedia?? To clarify what I mean, what I mean is un-registered Wikipedians who try to make edit summaries as if they did the "rollback" option that only administrators can do. 209.177.21.6 appears to be one, as you can see by looking at their recent edits. Please check on this user's edits. Georgia guy 21:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is that indicative of being a "fake administrator"? It could equally just be someone trying to leave a helpful edit summary - plenty of people see it as the 'correct' way to revert because of the prevalence of rollback. Shimgray | talk | 21:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, until a few months ago Help:Reverting actually told users to exactly mimic rollback edit summaries. Since users (myself at least) make certain assumptions based on edit summaries (such as "rollback=admin", "manual revert by known admin=content issue", etc), it bears repeating that the rollback syntax should only appear in edit summaries when rollback is actually being used. - BanyanTree 19:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

And then there are administrators such as myself who do rollbacks the old fashioned way out of habit. If a non-admin writes I am an administrator on a talk page, I'd take that seriously. Try not to read too much into little matters such as this. Durova^Charge! 20:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Clearly an IP couldn'r possibly be an admin so where is the issue? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the rollback edit summary should be modified to include [[WP:AES|←]] to make it clear that it is an automatic edit summary and to make it less likely for someone to manually type with that format themselves? Tra (Talk) 21:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Even with the left arrow, there's still the risk of "cargo cult edit summaries". I think it would be reduced if the rollback summary actually said "administrative rollback" or something like that. Just like how the undo summary changed recently from "undid ..." to "via undo" - maybe add "via rollback" to the summary for rollback? --Random832(tc) 15:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Tony Dungy entry problem

At the bottom of the Wikipedia entry regarding Tony Dungy, it states the following: "Despite popular belief and hype from the media (even from the NFL itself), Dungy is not actually of African-American descent, but is maojoritorily made up of other heritages. The writers of Black20.com have spoken out about this, but to little avail.[13]"

What language is the word "maojoritorily". Additionally, this issue of Dungy's heritage is exceptionally important and if the author could be specific, it might further the discussion. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.30.125.238 (talk) 17:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

Hm. Just sounds like an awful typo to me. Seems like the editor who contributed that was trying to say "majoritively", which technically isn't a word, so placing it there wouldn't be the proper usage in any case. You might want to consider fixing it and rewriting that particular passage more efficiently, if you're so inclined. --Xertz 16:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

do they copy wikipedia?

here is the link

http://www.aboutus.org/Oxing.com

???? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.229.134.57 (talk) 23:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

No, I don't think so. They're just a wiki that use the MediaWiki software. Tra (Talk) 23:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Tra is correct, that is just another wiki. There are, however, websites that copy information directly from Wikipedia (with reference), such as Answers.com. --Xertz 16:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

semi-protection on talk pages

I'd like to know policy on protection of talk pages. Where do people post comments if the talk page itself is protected? 02:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Um... I have never heard of a talk page being semi-protected. Where has this occured? Blueboar 15:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

All the village pump pages were semi-protected for a while. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

For example, currently talk:reality is sprotected. 70.51.9.86 05:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

There was a major rash of Stephen Colbert-inspired vandalism which required the protection of a large number of articles and talk pages. Are you planning on continuing that vandalism, or do you have other information to share on the Talk page? Why not put what you wanted to say on your User Talk page until such a time as the article talk page is unprotected? Corvus cornix 16:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why I should stand to be insulted. If you didn't notice, I asked a question about protected talk pages, ****not**** article pages. 70.51.8.181 10:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Whoa! WP:AGF - and it's, frankly, a bit absurd to think that no-one could possibly want to post to the Reality talk page other than to vandalize it. I don't see any justification for your confrontational/accusatory tone. You know, I just thought of something - what about a "talk-protection" where the only edit allowed to non-registered or new users is addition of lines in continuous groups with a signature on the last one? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Random832 (talk • contribs) 14:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

Who was Willy on Wheels?

In the seven months I've been here, I've seen Mottoes of the Day and the Wikipediholic test that say Willy on Wheels. I'm assuming he's a vandal (duh), but why was he banned? What were the crimes he committed? I'm curious... --Tohru Honda13^{Talk•Sign here} 02:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this the right place to ask this? Apologies if it's not. :( --Tohru Honda13^{Talk•Sign here} 02:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Willy on Wheels was a page move vandal, known for moving pages to titles ending in "On Wheels". i.e: Chuck Norris would've been moved to Chuck Norris ON WHEELS!!!; or Jimbo Wales would've been moved to Jimbo Wales ON WHEELS!! (or even Jimbo ON WALES!!). It has also sparked a meme on this site. That's all I know. --AAA! ^(AAAA) 02:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. :) --Tohru Honda13^{Talk•Sign here} 02:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we just recreate Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Willy on Wheels with a message that basically says what AAA! mentioned above and save ourselves some trouble rather than just leaving it delete-protected forever? --tjstrf talk 02:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't believe in giving notability to idiots. The sooner this guy is forgotten, the better. SteveBaker 03:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Making him be an esoteric secret gives him even more notability than having a boring factual message would. Because now, not only is he a vandal, he's a LEGENDARY vandal and knowing who he was is an in-group thing. --tjstrf talk 03:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. We can hardly claim denying recognition when we constantly refer to him as the... prototypically dangerous vandal.Circeus 03:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Pfft... I chanced across the Emily Brontë biography today and it's in shameful condition. When all the major writers in English letters have featured biographies maybe there will be enough volunteer time to devote to a vandal. Per WP:DENY I'd rather not give that one's successors something to strive for. Durova^Charge 06:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll help if you want to work on Emily Brontë, Durova! The Library is closed tomorrow owing to MLK Day, but I'll try to get a few sources out later this week. BenBurch 06:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Durova^Charge 02:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

What a memorial - to commemorate MLK the library is closed! What would he have said? Rich Farmbrough, 13:11 16 January 2007 (GMT).

Let me just say that I've been reading some comments scattered around the site that said he was also a bit of an attention seeker. --AAA! ^(AAAA) 13:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

While we're on topic, who was The Communisim Vandal? The Placebo Effect 13:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Some guy who kept plastering "Wikipedia is Communism" all over the place and kept creating User names with variations on that theme. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Specifically, he blanked pages and replaced them with the Hammer and Sickle picture and wrote "Wikipedia is Communism!" In the caption. --AAA! ^(AAAA) 11:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

And another part of Wikipedia's history has been erased. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. Just H 02:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Well we are here to write an encylopedia, not to self perpetuate, if someone else wants to write a history of wikipedia, they are more than welcome. But we don't forget our history WP:VANDAL#Types_of_vandalism covers both those types of vandalism and more besides, no one is going to forget what pagemove vandalism is, nor is anyone going to forget that blanking a page and replacing it with some meaningless text is vandalism. --81.19.57.170 15:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:History of Wikipedian processes and people, though apparently the historian instinct is not strong in the community. (It's weird that so few specifics are recorded.) The section on vandals had been removed as WP:DENY. I tend to agree with 81.19.57.170. - BanyanTree 16:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Which was Willy on Wheels' original account? I saw Willy's contributions, and WoW's, but they didn't show any page moves. --AAA! ^(AAAA) 23:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Sandbox subpages

There are a number of subpages of Wikipedia:Sandbox that have been created, many apparently as tests - the list is here. Perhaps there could be a policy (bot?) that any subpage of the sandbox gets removed after (say) 30 days? A day?

Also, there seems to be a rather active "Word Association" community here - for example, see Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word Association/Psychadelic. That doesn't appear to be consistent with WP:NOT#SOCIALNET. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 15:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Word Association has been MfD'd three times already with results of speedy keep, no consensus and keep. As for sandbox subpages, it would probably be better if new sandbox pages are created in user subpages rather than there. Perhaps the sandbox heading should be changed to discourage people from doing this? Tra (Talk) 20:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Very helpful. Perhaps userfying the subpages that aren't authorized games, for pages that seem to have some useful content, would be the best approach, and speedying the rest. As for instructions, the page says For a sandbox of your own, create a user subpage., with a link to WP:USER; I'm not sure how much clearer that could be. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The current message could still give the impression that sandbox subpages are still acceptable, but user subpages are the method that is 'advertised'. Maybe it should be changed to For a sandbox of your own, create a user subpage. Please do not create a subpage of this page. Tra (Talk) 14:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

A couple of questions

I was wondering, is it possible to unprotect any of the MediaWiki pages? Also, can admins edit other user's Monobooks? --AAA! ^(AAAA) 13:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't even see the "un/protect" tab on MediaWiki pages, so I assume that it's something set by the devs. Admins can edit any monobook. - BanyanTree 18:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Although MediaWiki: pages can't be unprotected, it is possible to transclude templates or embed images on some of them. If those templates or images are not protected then a non-admin could upload another image in its place or edit the template and therefore edit the resulting MediaWiki: message. This might be useful for something like the text at the top of Special:Recentchanges where editing this text would not cause too much harm and it may be useful to allow non-admins to update the top of this page. However, on Wikipedia, due to the likelihood of vandalism, this effect is usually undesirable so transcluded templates or images should be protected if they are included on a MediaWiki: page. Tra (Talk) 19:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

I recently noticed that while technically the rights to delete a page are reserved for admins, any user (even unregistered ones) can in essence delete a page, make all links to it red, etc. simply by removing all content. Bacteria was one culprit during its 24-hour stint on the main page. Is there any way this could be fixed? Please tell me if this should be moved to the Technical section. C. M. Harris ^{Talk to me} 20:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

They can't make links to it red; they can make links to it *brown*, which means the page is very short, and is always a red flag to vandal watchers. --Golbez 20:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you using a custom skin? Very short pages (even blanked pages) don't seem to show up as a special link colour to me in the standard Monobook.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Nope, standard feature. Browse your settings for a "small page size" thing or whatever. --Golbez 15:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure? I just went throught "my preferences" and didn't see that anywhere. Rmhermen 16:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Go to My preferences > Misc > Threshold for stub display: and change the value from zero to a higher number and all links to articles smaller than this will show up in a different colour. Tra (Talk) 19:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Ethical Shopping Wiki

Having just watched a TVO interview with Carol Off about the chocolate trade (and slave labour), I wondered if there is a wiki project, for consumer products -- where it is made, the mininum wages of the workers, their responsibility to the environment etc.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Retailing might cover this to an extent. Tra (Talk) 00:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Upside-down lists of works

If you spot a list of works, or a list of awards, that is in reverse-chronological order, please either correct it to chronological order as per WP:LOW, or tag it with the template {{MOSLOW}}. This template looks like this: {{MOSLOW}}

May be handy to use what i've been using User:Whilding87/ListReverser.. I can't do it all alone :-) Whilding87 20:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiCast

Hi,

WikiCast - The free content broadcast, needs interested people to help make and edit programmes.

WikiCast aims to do thing simmilar to serious talk radio, but is always open to ideas.

ShakespeareFan00 17:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Three issues; related with sockpuppeting, admin abuse, and javascript toolbar

Hello,

1. I've spotted a sockpuppet on my own talk page: it's User:Sword06/User:Brieg. He doesn't seem to have a real reason to have these accounts, and he hasn't replied to me why he uses both. I went to look how to report him, but there's too much stuff to read to nail him, so I ask that a fellow janitor around here does some research on him. If this is not possible, I'll get my hands dirty and do it myself, then.
2. I've to confess to have screwed up earlier in my Wikipedia life as a user. I pretty much stole WP:PT, which originally pointed to Template:Protection templates, and redirected it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Portugal, leaving WP:Pt for the template formerly mentioned. It wasn't nice, but that's what I did. Although, I thought my actions were alright, I expected someone to maybe complain one day. What I didn't expect was for an admin to rush in and steal the shortcut as well. I wouldn't care if he had reverted what I did, but instead he took the shortcut for another page, creating two problems: both WikiProjPortugal and Protection templates lost the shortcut. And he damn thinks what he did is just right. Did I mention that he protected the shortcut so no one else but another admin may edit where it leads? I'm talking about David Levy, and this is where I brought the issue up. I don't think he has acted correctly, and I think he deserves some kind of reprimand.
3. Lastly, it's a question that I don't know where to take. You people know of that nifty javascript toolbar over the edit box? With the useful options to make text bold, add signature, redirect, etc? I would like to change how mine looks and add one more option. I know we users can have our own javascript template, but I don't know what code is needed to change it, or create buttons, or whatever. I have some experience with Javascript, so if someone would point me to some documentation or example code on what I'm trying to achieve it would be most welcome.

Regards--Saoshyant ^{talk / contribs} (please join WP:Portugal or WP:SPOKEN) 14:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

These are really three different issues.

• For sockpuppets, see WP:SOCK. (And post your information yourself; no one is likely to do it for you.)
• For complaints about admins, try WP:AN or WP:AN/I, but you really might just take the matter to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion (and try losing the "admin should be reprimanded" schtick and just keep the discussion to what is best for Wikipedia, I suggest.)
• For javascript, see Wikipedia:Scripts, Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts, Wikipedia:Tools, m:Help:User style, and/or User:Voice of All/UsefulJS. (Hopefully, a quick look at each will tell you which is most likely to have what you want.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and for the links to the third issue. I will not go further than here to solve the other two, though, because for 1) I don't have the time, and for 2) I fear retribution. Cheers, anyway.--Saoshyant ^{talk / contribs} (please join WP:Portugal or WP:SPOKEN) 14:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I've made a request for {{dablink|"WP:PT" redirects here. You may be looking for [[Template:Protection templates]] or [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Portugal]]}} to be added to the top of Wikipedia:Protected titles, which should hopefully solve some of these problems. Tra (Talk) 15:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The links have now been added, when you type in WP:PT, you will still be able to get to WikiProject Portugal but with one extra click. Tra (Talk) 15:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Tra. That will come handy for those who haven't noticed the change yet.--Saoshyant ^{talk / contribs} (please join WP:Portugal or WP:SPOKEN)

Blogs about Wikipedia?

Are there any blogs about Wikipedia? I've been googling for commentary on the inner-workings of Wikipedia, from non-Wikipedia sources, and came up dry. There must be ways for non-Wikipedians to learn what's going on in Wikipedia. Would be curious if anyone can point to any Wikipedia-related blogs. Anonymous 22:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I've blogged about Wikipedia here (Esperanza deletion), here (Microsoft manipulation) and here (Stephen Colbert versus Wikipedia). I've blogged about other Wikis here, here, here, and elsewhere. Jonathan Stokes 06:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Wikipedia in blogs. It's not up-to-date but you're welcome to update it! Samw 18:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica versus Wikipedia

I was working on Basil John Mason (most of the work is in progress at Talk:Basil John Mason) and I came across Encyclopedia Britannica's entry for this guy. See here. Rather embarassingly, they've put this eminent meteorologist in their film section! Probably confusing him with the film industry Basil Mason. Do we still compare Wikipedia and EB or not, and is there anywhere to record this? Getting back to Wikipedia editing (as opposed to pointing out EB mistakes), does anyone have time to stop by Talk:Basil John Mason to help sort things out there? Carcharoth 03:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

That's an interesting mistake! :) I know there is a page somewhere for "mistakes in Britannica" but I'm not sure of the address. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 12:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there are lots of other authors there. You just need to change the author ID name at the top. This appears to be a way to access the list of EB contributors. I've been trying to find a way to access the real interface, but with no success. Carcharoth 13:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Found this: Wikipedia:Errors in the Encyclopædia Britannica that have been corrected in Wikipedia. Femto 13:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

History folks - this one's for you!

Hi! I'm working on a jeopardy-like game show called "class president", which is a game show, there's lost of info at the WikiCast wiki. We're planning to do a pilot in early April, and we'd like up to 10 contestants to join us. There's lots of info at that link, and you can drop a note on my talk page if you have any questions. Also, music folks, we're looking for a song that sounds presidential, or something like that, if we use your recommendation, you will get credited, so leave me a message. Thanks, ST47Talk 23:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

When is a record label notable?

Is If society notable? --Ideogram 14:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Generally speaking it would be when other people start writing about it. Steve Dufour 16:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The typical answer to "is this notable?" is "Can you find multiple independent non-trivial press coverage?" If the answer is yes, then there you go. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is failing

Thoughts and discussion invited. Worldtraveller 18:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thread moved to the essay's talk page. -- Ben 03:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I smell a shill...

On Feb 7, a user Teddyii0 started inserting shameless plugs for the TV program "G4's X-play" into four pages. I'm considering going back and rv'ing his changes, and I'm going to keep an eye on him. What's the standard/best practice for dealing with something like this? BcRIPster 17:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the noble spammer, one of Wikipedia's most loathed inhabitants. I would definitely keep an eye on him. If you need to warn him, there are lots of suitable templates on Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. You can choose specific warnings, for spam links or other offenses. Although, looking through his edits, it's entirely possible that he is just a 14 year old kid who likes G4. GhostPirate 18:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and I suspect that may be true, but the Dik-Dik one kind'a threw me. BcRIPster 19:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure that username is correct? I couldn't bring up the edit history. Durova^Charge! 22:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Click on the bluelinked word "plugs" in first sentence above. It works. -- Ben 23:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we assume some good faith here and leave a warning on the user's talkpage? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone gone through Encyclopedia Brit. 2005 edition and added all articles therein?

I know of the Missing Encyclopedia articles project, but was wondering if Ency. Brit. 2005 is included in those lists. Is it? Otherwise, I will go through whole thing and add all missing articles. Andrewdt85

While creating articles on topics that are mentioned in EB that are not mentioned here is of course welcome, do not copy text from the 2005 Encyclopedia Britannica. --Random832(tc) 15:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if they have an article on wikipedia? ;-) — RJH (talk) 23:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

From Encyclopædia Britannica: The 2007 print version of the Britannica does not mention Wikipedia, which is covered by other encyclopedias such as the 2006 World Book Encyclopedia, but the online Britannica does include an article about Wikipedia. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Lame. Lets AFD Encyclopædia Britannica in revenge! :) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Spoken Wikipedia File Format

Recently, I went to listen to a spoken wikipedia article, wishing perhaps to download a few to my iPod. However, I soon found that the file was in the Ogg-Vorbis .ogg format. Despite the fact that I have most of the standard media players on my computer (iTunes, Windows Media Player, QuickTime, and RealPlayer, I couldn't open the file, much less play it on my iPod. Of course, I could download the codecs to make it play, but quite frankly I didn't feel like going through the hassle and even if I could play it on my computer that wouldn't solve the iPod problem. While I know that it's certainl possible to play the file on my computer and after-conversion on my iPod, it really seems like a lot of trouble. It seems ridiculous for Wikipedia to use this non-standard format for audio files. The most logical answer in my opinion is to use .mp3 files. Every player in the world, portable, computer or otherwise supports .mp3 files and the format has become so famous as to become part of the everyday lexicon. However, for reasons I can't understand Jimbo seems opposed to the idea. In his rationale, Jimbo claims that "There is very little inconvenience to end users anyway" from the use of Ogg files. This simply isn't the case. Downloading codecs can be a hassle, especially for the technologically illiterate and getting the files to play on an iPod or other portable device requires a reasonable amount of technical knowledge. In my opinion, we should rethink this policy and at least provide an MP3 download option alongside the present files if not switch entirely. If MP3s are for some reason taboo, I think we should consider another widely supported format such as .wav (although those files are a bit large). Cool3 02:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

First off, to solve your problem, please visit our media help page. If you follow the instructions there, Windows Media Player will play the files without issue.

Ogg/Vorbis is a standardized, open source, freely licensed format. However, you are correct that it is not as popular as MP3. Unfortunately, MP3 is a heavily patented format and one of the few pieces of software which is even patented in Europe. The licensing fees to encode, distribute, and play MP3 are non-trivial [4]. Because the Wikimedia Foundation has the creation and propagation of Free content as its primary mission, it would be be both hypocritical of us, and ultimately self-defeating, to use a non-free format for our audio. It also may be a violation of the license that our users submit content in to distribute their content to others in a non-free format.

Ogg/Vorbis also has some technical advantages over MP3: it offers better quality in a given size, or smaller size for a given quality. Furthermore, it has a much better tagging system which is useful for our work. These benefits are just frosting; the issues above really decided the matter for us.

As far as WAV goes, the big reason we don't use WAV is because of size as you guessed. A typical high quality audio sample on Wikipedia is 1.5MB in Ogg/Vorbis format, but over 36MB in wav format. Our bandwidth bill, already at many tens of thousands of dollars per month, is a substantial part of our budget. Our donation-driven service couldn't afford to use uncompressed audio for the sake of a little convenience.. And plus, it wouldn't be much of a convenience: you don't want to wait to download a 36MB file!

So at the end of the day we have some limitations that we need to work with... We don't have unlimited bandwidth, we can't use non-free formats. But we can try to make this easy as possible. To that end, I've provided a Java based player. Since most people have Java support, they can play our Ogg files without installing anything! Just look for the 'play in browser' links wherever audio is in Wikipedia, and be sure to provide feedback on how to make it better. There are tools which will automatically convert our Oggs into other formats so you can easily transfer them to your iPOD, and there is even alternative firmware for the iPOD that lets it play Oggs... but I don't use Windows and I don't have an iPOD, so I can't make any recommendations there. Perhaps someone else will comment.

I'd also like to know where you tried looking for help, ... our media help page should tell you what you need to know, but if you didn't find it I would like to know where you looked so we can make it easier to find. I'd also like to know if you did find that page but think it needs to be more clear.

Thanks for your comments. --Gmaxwell 06:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I am myself perfectly aware of how to play the files and convert them for my iPod, but it's a bit of a hassle, and other non technically-literate folks wouldn't know how. Also as per the patent issues with .mp3 files, according to my understanding, you do not need to pay royalties for non-commerical use. It would be infinitely more convenient if we switched to .mp3. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cool3 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

The problem is that Wikipedia is supposed to be free for anyone to use or to copy and use elsewhere. If you were a commercial entity seeking to re-use Wikipedia content (and lots do) - that's OK for - providing they abide by the GDFL, give us credit, etc) But the existance of MP3's within Wikipedia would render this commercial organisation liable to pay someone fees for using this supposedly free content. That's contrary to our charter - so no MP3's please. SteveBaker 23:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the answer would be to provide (free, under GPL) an application that would convert OGG to MP3 with a really simple user interface. It wouldn't help the completely technologically illiterate - but for someone who can install an application and drag files into it - it's an easy way out. SteveBaker 23:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Why not just allow MP3 to be placed alongside the OGGs? Downstream users and forks could use the OGGs and the MP3s would still be there for ordinary users. 20:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

That runs right back into the patent issues with mp3s. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

No it doesn't. There aren't patent issues for non-commercial use. According to the Thomson website, "No licence is needed for private, non-commercial activities". While Wikipedia may not be "private" it is certainly non-commercial and I'm certain Thomson would have no problem granting us the right to use mp3s on Wikipedia. The only issue is implications for downstream users who could just the OGGs if we put both, and quite frankly, if you want to talk about legal issues just browse through the images on Wikipedia for 5 minutes. While Wikipedia as a clearly non-profit entity can get away with an awful lot, any downstream users should be concerned about image issues. So, I say let's give the people .mp3s, the format synonymous with sound for 99.9% of the population. Cool3 21:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Wait... "private, non-commercial activities" is most certainly an and, not an or. --cesarb 01:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but if you read on, the site further specifies that activities "not generating revenue" fit such a definition. I'm not a lawyer, but I've worked with the law for many years and the way I read that little snippet, Wikipedia is fine. I would contact Thomson myself for further information, but I have no particular authority from Wikimedia to do so. As such, I think I'll contact Brad Patrick, the foundation attorney and see if he'll volunteer a legal opinion. Cool3 02:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Requiring downstream users of our GFDL-licensed content to have to comb through articles and media files to remove MP3s is simply not in line with our long-standing policies. Whether or not Wikipedia can use patented MP3s for free is entirely irrelevant; it's not just us that uses our content. Wikipedia stands for free content, not just free access to our content. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 02:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Mirrors already have to comb through fair use images, since they are not always permitted commercially. Removing mp3 files is much easier from a technical point of view, you just filter them out by file extension. Tra (Talk) 02:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use images are an entirely different animal. I won't address your first point, but the Foundation is presently discussing the future of fair use images, and our policies are already incredibly strict — fair use images are not allowed if a free version can reasonably be provided. That is precisely the case here, as patent-free versions of ALL MP3s are available due to the convertible nature of audio files. There is no scholastic reason to include MP3s, which stands in stark contrast to fair use images. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Book Wanted: Would like to buy

---

Prescription for Nutritional Healingeither the first or second edition. The edition I want has a chart with foods listed and the nutritional components in each. The later versions do not have this chart. If you have it please let me know and the amount you are selling it for. MaDonna

Perhaps you meant to post this somewhere else? Wikipedia is a free, non-commercial, charitable site that aims to produce an encyclopedia. Anyone can edit a page. Cheers! Yuser31415 04:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• That's right. Unfortunately for you, Wikipedia is not a discussion centre. Sorry!--Toothbrusher 09:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Wiki made me feel bad...

I found this really great website, that is trying to help the common man, called goodstorm.com. Anyway, goodstorm.com has some really cool charities like PETA, Plea For Peace, and NKU Students for Choice, that I thought I would help out. I posted each of these charities store front on their Wiki pages, to let people know they can buy merchandise to support these causes. I even posted a Wiki page about GoodStorm.com, to let people know about the site. Well, Wikipedia has it up for deletion and they won't let me post any of the charities' store fronts on their Wiki pages. Now I feel bad...--Erinmystic 00:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Susan--Erinmystic 00:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC) --The preceding unsigned comment was added by Erinmystic (talk * contribs) 00:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

I'm sorry to hear that, but wikipedia's purpose isn't to promote charities. When editing an article your primary aim should be to improve the article and make it more like an encyclopedia... otherwise your edits might be removed. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Mainspace

I've been doing this for a while now - so this is kinda embarrasing - but what exactly are mainspace edits. I thought for a while that they were just edits to articles - but that doesn't seem right.Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 22:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, they are basically edits to anything that is not a template, image, Wikipedia page, MediaWiki page, user page, category, portal or talk page. Tra (Talk) 22:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Mainspace is just another name for namespace 0 (which is usually unprefixed). See Help:Namespace. --cesarb 22:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Images without copyright info

The images in Desert Punk are almost certainly not legal. --Ideogram 22:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. I will try to take them down ASAP. Thanks for the notice. -Hairchrm 22:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Linkfarm

Is it just me, or is Online video game rental filled with inappropriate external links to game rental companies? --Ideogram 11:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I took out the whole section. None of them seemed appropriate. --Spartaz 18:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It's true?

Wikipedia could shut within 3-4 months: Wikimedia--61.224.206.45 03:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia has been about 3-4 months from running out of money more or less throughout it's history (at least, after Jimbo stopped directly funding all of it). That's the general nature of a non-profit, esspecially one that's growing at the rate Wikimedia is. 75.214.202.6 (really User:JesseW/not logged in) 10:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. There isn't a non-profit out there that can be run for a year or more without funding. It's the nature of the beast. And you know, Jimmy could easily give money if he had to. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 03:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

User Space Vandalism

User:Chinese_Pig_Louer was registered to attack zh-wiki user zh:User:Louer. Please consider to delete his user page and ban him.--Jnlin 02:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Please report username problems, including attack accounts, at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names. Admins there will review and block as appropriate. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 18:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Obviously inappropriate usernames can be reported at WP:AIV (Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism). -- Ben 23:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

... though it appears this particular userpage has already been done away with.... -- Ben 23:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Extreme rudeness

I wish that someone could check out what is going on at Talk:Jonathan Corrigan Wells. It is almost reaching the level of threats. Is there another place to post my concerns. I couldn't find one. Thanks. Steve Dufour 18:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see the problem if the users involved are just actively discussing the topic, but if you believe the conversation is escalating to a level of argument where threats are being used, you should consider posting this at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment to see other user's take on the situation, or, more seriously, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration, if you think intervention is required. --Xertz 16:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Xertz, your "Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment" added the parenthetical "(miscellaneous)", and there's no such pagename.

Steve, if editors can't agree on the talk page, they can ask for help through Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, such as asking for a "third opinion", or requesting comments from other Wikipedians. Admins usually abide by agreements reached through this process.

• If it ever actually does reach the level of threats or other open breach of policy, consider reporting it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (WP:ANI); or if it becomes blatant vandalism, then Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism (WP:AIV).
• For extensive tutoring, there are experienced Wikipedians who offer mentorship, "adoption", or advocacy; and many admins will also make the time to answer earnest questions on their talk pages (though some are either very busy or away on "Wikibreak").
• Any time you feel overwhelmed by the complexity of it all, you can simply post {{helpme}} on your talk page, with a description of your questions or problems, and someone will show up to help you find answers or solutions. -- Ben 23:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Crital problem with Fair use and Template:Screenshot

Moved this talk to Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use. 22:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Archive icon

I've started a discussion at Template talk:Archive box about which icon to pick - i think that whatever one is chosen should be used for all the archive-related templates. --Random832(tc) 17:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Expert recognition

I personally think that Wikipedia has taken a hit in the hard-science expertise area in the past six months. Please see WP:QUIT. I have been searching for users who claim post-graduate credentials in hard science and added {{ExpertContribution}} to those pages, but at the moment, I can only find two: Enzyme kinetics and Aldol reaction. If you know if other users who have claimed post-graduate degrees or work experience and have done significant work on getting hard-science articles to at least GA or FA status and are still active, then please signify on the talk pages with that template. Barnstars and even userboxes are not the answer. Also: I would consider {{maintained}} as a possible hint for such also, as long as they have a valid claim to expertise and clearly gave of their time toward content creation. This is not elevate the experts to some privileged status but to defend those to do advance specific articles. After all, these guys have to watch less-skilled hands contribute but also likely dilute the results of their work when those experts could otherwise be working on papers for journals, etc.--199.33.32.40 01:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

No one even knows those articles exist... I'll tag a few of them that I know of. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

There are quite a few physicists here, as far as I can tell, and I suspect that the other sciences are also well represented. You can probably ask on the appropriate wikiproject talk pages to find them.

A more general question is why you think these users will share your particular goals for the encyclopedia. For example, not all editors share the goal of getting articles up to FA status (or GA status, if that is any different). In many cases it is not clear that there is any benefit to the designation that is worth the time investment. CMummert · talk 01:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the point of this template. Users who meet your criteria almost universally keep their major contributions on their watchlists and usually respond to comments left on the associated talk pages. As a suggestion, you should probably ask the users before adding the template to an article talk page. Opabinia regalis 03:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that the intention in this usage of the template is for it to be a kudo for those who have some genuine expertise who manage to continue to contribute to the project. Perhaps it also suggests that having a few barnstars or even admin status does not necessarily qualify one to start being bold and making non-trivial edits those few articles or that one should at least self-assess themsevles for the appropriate academic prerequisits, including not being daunted by an equals sign, a differential equation or a stereochemical diagram.--70.231.149.0 01:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this is academic eletism gone wild. This template should be deleted salted and forgotten.Jerry lavoie 02:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

This is the wrong way to go. Any contributor can be recognized by looking in the page history. We don't base articles on personal expertise here anyway, it's based on sources. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not expect this to become a big problem or to "go wild": in two weeks, it has only gone onto three article talk pages, the third one being Bacteria. That is slow proliferation. We need this kind of in-field graduate-level results for more technical articles. The slogan is: "Britannica or better." How are we going to get there if we do not celebrate such results when they happen? These people are helping us to get there on matters that require science, math and engineering, where there is little or no controversy that these are "educational" articles. Something else to celebrate: those three articles also seem to be free of serious rancor in their production.--71.141.248.77 22:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Subpages

Is there any way to check all of the subpages off of a given page? Or do you just have to follow links and/or know that the page is there? Thanks!! - Hairchrm 03:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Go to Special:Prefixindex/Page name/ to see a list of subpages. Tra (Talk) 03:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank You!!! - Hairchrm 03:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

That would be thousands ...

Are we going to have an article on every village in Tibet? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ideogram (talk • contribs) 08:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

Yes. Eugène van der Pijll 10:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a bit of a debate as to where the cut-off point lies. In my personal opinion, if we had an article about every village in Tibet, it would be great. Take that Encyclopedia Britannica! But others would say that a small village isn't notable enough to merit an article. Notability is a tricky subject, and it can be hard to determine sometimes. GhostPirate 18:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

We currently have an article on every villiage in the U.S. Why not Tibet also? There are more in the U.S. than Tibet, I'm sure (much larger country). ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Photoshopping license

If you photoshop different images that were taken from Google images, would it be possible to upload the image to Wikipedia? If so, what license should you use? --AAA! ^(AAAA) 10:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

If you take an image from someplace else and edit it using photoshop it becomes a derivative work. What license you would then use to upload it to Wikipedia and whether it would be a copyvio or not depends on the original image and what exactly you did to it. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Generally speaking, the simple answer to the poster's question is no. ONUnicorn is right about derivative works. Most people who Photoshop existing images don't understand copyright law well enough or exert enough effort to create anything other than a derivative work. Just as it isn't acceptable to change the grammar of another encyclopedia's article and try to submit that here, it isn't acceptable to dress up an existing image and try to submit that here. It is acceptable to write a new article based on several existing sources. It would also be acceptable to create a new image from scratch based on several existing sources. But you can't copy, paste, and make cosmetic changes in either instance even if the result is a patched together mishmash of plagiarism from several different sites. For an example of how a well-meaning editor got the concept terribly wrong, see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mango. The whole article had to get reverted by about six weeks to fix the problems. Durova^Charge! 21:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

But it's okay to photoshop free use images and upload them, right? --AAA! ^(AAAA) 02:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

If they were genuinely free use to start with, I would think so. Credit the source of the original, of course, and state the licensing on the original, then upload it under a free license yourself. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Sphynx (cat)

• Sphynx Cats
• Sphynx Cats in Ireland
• Sphynx Cats in Spain
• Sphynx Cats in the UK
• Sphynx Cats in the Germany
• [www.vandvis.com Sphynx Cats in the Russia]

Isn't that advertisement?--Vaya 00:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The above sites sell kittens, so can anyone tell me if such links are allowed in the above article?--Vaya 15:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

210.213.138.211 vandals

210.213.138.211 has vandalized many pages, maybe admins should block 210.213.138.211. Oakwhiz 01:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The anon hasn't edited since October 2006, and in the future, you should report to WP:AIV. PeaceNT 01:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

about the name wiki

we are having a technical fest in our college, so can we use the event name WIKI for the quiz we are going to conduct,ofcourse all the questions will be framed using wiki and the proper credits will be given. I mean to ask if theres any license attached with the name and logo. I am newbie to this licensed world.hoping to get a quick reply —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.92.129.183 (talk) 01:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

Wiki is a general term for any site that you can edit, so it's not a trademark and therefore does not require any permission. Wikipedia and its logo, however, are trademarked. Tra (Talk) 01:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: Infinite Ban on all Wiki Abusers

I have being distressed, especially lately, but in fact throughout my tenure as a Wikipedian, by the number of fellow Wikipedians who have left our community. By that I mean those who have chosen or being forced to leave due to personal attacks and vandalism, either of their home pages or articles.

Its being my experience that ALL of those who fall under this category have being people who have added tremendously to our project, both in scope and depth. It is therefore a source of anger that ahmadans, who's tenure here is bellicose, offensive and in no way a meaningful contribution to Wikipedia, has driven so many invaulable colleges away.

Therefore, I wish to open a discussion on effective ways of dealing with such abuse. For my own part I would like to see such abusers (as opposed to the general Wiki user and contributor) banned very quickly indeed. Attacks by such abusers usually have being on-going for quite some time before a warning is given, and further time elapses with furthing warnings before a ban is evoked. Yet even then such bans have a finite duration.

My proposal is to replace the first warning with an outright infinite ban on any and all abuse. I would like to see this apply in the following cases:

• 1 - Where abuse has occoured on several occasions (i.e., more than twice) prior to it being brought to the attention of the wider Wiki Community.

• 2 - Where an apology for bad beheaviour and promise of future good conduct has been asked for and not given within a set time-limit.

• 3 - Where an apology for bad beheaviour and promise of future good conduct has been given and broken (no time limit on such a promise).

In my own experinece, an Infinite Ban on abusers is the only course of action open to us. We have all seen that if a given 'contributor' begins such beheaviour they will continue with it whenever and wherever they please. Therefore, simple warnings are just not good enough. Action must be taken as soon as any abuse is detected. As with illness, prevention is better than cure. And while we cannot perhaps repair the damage abusers have committed (and which we were unable to prevent) on our fellow Wikipedians in the past, it is only in our common interest for each other and Wikipedia that we do so in future.

I would very much appreciate the thoughts of other Wikipedians on this subject. Is mise, le meas mor, Fergananim 11:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem is in the definition of "Wiki Abusers". Presumably such cases are not always clear-cut, and at least some of the time people believe they're doing the right thing. The last thing we want to do is unfairly ban good contributors indefinitely – that would worsen the problem that you mention. Caution is always needed – Qxz 19:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

For my part, I don't know if it's my imagination, but in my term as a Wikipedian I believe I have observed an increase in the ratio of abusive edits versus constructive edits. My watchlist used to show mostly constructive edits to the articles I was watching. Now, my watchlist shows nearly all the edits as vandalism edits or vandal reverts.

This might mean that more abusive people are finding Wikipedia and enjoy vandalizing it. Or maybe the constructive people are leaving. Either way, the result is that we spend more of our time dealing with abuse and less of it improving the project. Add this to the situation of an ever-increasing ratio of editors to administrators, and we have a serious problem.

I would support quicker bans for clear-cut abuse (e.g. replacing an article or section with an obscene word, even after warnings). Other cases aren't clear-cut, such as linkspamming by a good-faith editor who truly believes the link is valuable.

And I thought I would never say this, but given the amount of abuse from anonymous IP addresses, I have to say that now I would also support outright bans on editing by anonymous accounts. Along with such a ban comes the necessity of giving other editors the ability to see IP address used by troublemakers to identify sockpuppets. =Axlq 19:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Durova^Charge! 00:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I have an infinite ban policy on the mediawiki that I run, and so far it has helped eliminate a lot of stress. Between that and protecting targeted pages, our daily vandalism has dropped 95% (knock on wood).

Wiki abuse and vandalism is just like real life abuse and vandalism. The most effective treatment is Broken Windows Theory which was so successful for Guilliani in New York. Yes, he's a disciplinarian, but he solved New York's crime problem! Even the smallest infractions must be dealt with immediately and decisively.

As a sysop on my own wiki, I do give certain link-spammers the benefit of the doubt. Otherwise, I have zero tolerance policy for all other kinds of abuse. Wikipedia is a little more democratic, so I can see offering one fair warning. Other than that, once a user is banned, perhaps you can post some kind of appeal process on their user page, on the off chance the user really feels they didn't deserve to be banned.

The one sore spot in Wikipedia's reputation is that "you can't trust a Wikipedia article because anyone can go in and mess it up." Wikipedia has a duty to swiftly and sternly deal with abuse, and thereby improve Wikipedia's reputation for trust and credibility. If valuable Wikipedians are leaving due to abuse, then policy needs to be changed. Maybe there could be some sort of "exit interview" talkpage template for Wikipedians who have decided to retire. They might have the best insight into dealing with abusive contributors. Jonathan Stokes 07:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Wiki policy on abusers at the moment sucks big time. An abuser comes along and constantly reverts. You can revert him 3-times, but not any longer because you might get banned; gotta spend ages doing reports hoping that an admin will actually do something, then he's back 24 hours later or 1 hour later under another IP address and you have to do the same again. That's at least 20 kbs of article text not been done, and a frustrated user. Most of my watchlist now consists of vandalism, usually by anons. But because anons are no longer allowed to open articles, you get more red linked accounts doing this. The wiki admin system, originally intended as a way of keeping certain user rights away from unknown users, has now become an elist system of privilege serving admin accounts more than wikipedia itself, where decent users have to go through an absurd vote and have no chance of getting "elected" if they even slightly diverge from the "ideal admin" invented by the culture of the people who vote there, i.e. that braindead, unopinionated man-bot they seem to so cherish. The result has been overburdening. The problem will surely get worse, so Wiki will either have to crack down heavily on vandals and trolls or change how certain user privileges are distributed. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 13:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The three-revert rule does not apply to obvious vandalism. If someone blanks a page and writes "penis" all over it, revert it as many times as you like. Leave them a "final warning" template message, and if they do it again, report them at WP:AIV; it usually seems to take about 5-10 minutes for requests to be dealt with – Qxz 18:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. So where do we go from here? Fergananim 13:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Having read the entire section above, I'm failing to see where the blocking policy falls down, and why an approach of fixing broken windows will make any difference. Right now, we block people for 31 hours (31 rather than 24 seems to be en vogue at the moment). They tend not to come back, and if they do it is from a different address. Consensus has been that indefinite range blocks are a Bad Thing, as getting rid of one petty vandal is not worth locking out thousands of genuine users. Chris cheese whine 13:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Point taken. Certainly its a bad idea if the ip address is from somewhere such as an internet cafe, which would be used by dozens of people in the course of just one day. However, I was suggesting blocking the user, not the address. Only if abuse from the same address occoured twice via different (?) users would I deem an address block necessary. In any case, only by eradicating as many petty vandals will the work of thousands of genuine users be safeguarded from gratitious abuse. Fergananim 16:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little confused as to what is being asked for now, beyond what we already have.

Accounts used only for abuse seem to be indefinitely blocked more or less without exception. Certainly every one I've come across seems to get such a block applied soon after I report it. Anonymous users who vandalise can only be blocked temporarily, because we only have an IP address to identify them, which may be shared among thousands of computers or re-asssigned elsewhere at any time. But even IPs are frequently blocked for several months.

Since you were asking for an "infinite ban on all wiki abusers", I was assuming you were trying to introduce something new – implying that you wanted indefinite bans to occur in less clear-cut cases. If all you want is blocks for obvious abuse, that seems to be the case now as far as is technically possible.

You say "However, I was suggesting blocking the user, not the address." If they're editing anonymously there is no way to do that, the IP address is the only thing that is available.

The other complaints here seem to be partly a misunderstanding of the "Three Revert Rule", and partly a vague attack on the system of selecting administrators, neither of which have anything to do with the issue at hand.

If someone can identify a case where indefinite blocks are not being issued where they could safely be issued without affecting innocent users or those acting in good faith, that would be most welcome; however I cannot see one here. Thanks – Qxz 18:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC) ..

Another Macaw 54 sockpuppet

Just a short time ago, I saw an edit to T that I'm nearly sure is a sockpuppet of Macaw 54 known as Simply chosen username. Georgia guy 01:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Once again, another sockpuppet came, this time it's User:Internet 444. Georgia guy 01:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

And again, under the name User:Trng gf. Georgia guy 01:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:'T will show you how to deal with this.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)