Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive V

Imperial conversion
	█ Average max. and min. temperatures in °F
	█ Precipitation totals in inches

	█ Average max. and min. temperatures in °C
	█ Precipitation totals in mm

Buenos Aires
Climate chart (explanation)
	█ Average max. and min. temperatures in °C
	█ Precipitation totals in mm
Imperial conversion
	█ Average max. and min. temperatures in °F
	█ Precipitation totals in inches

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This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (miscellaneous).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

What is the proper response to something like this?

I have a mental disability. I also have been involved in a long running dispute with a user. In a recent comment he made a snide reference to my disability. What do people recommend I do about this? --Ideogram 13:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Leave a message for the user in question, asking them not to do this again, or if you feel unable to do this, ask someone you respect and trust to have a word with that user. Carcharoth 13:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

This user has requested that I stay away from their talk page. He has a number of friends on Wikipedia who always rush to his defense in any dispute; I have been trying to talk to one of them but his only response was to try to smear my name. There is an admin who is trying to intervene, but these people are giving him hell. Can people really get away with this kind of thing on Wikipedia? --Ideogram 13:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Keeping off each other's talk pages is fine, but you will encounter each other in other places in Wikipedia. If conversations between you two end up like this, it might be best to avoid each other in other places as well. Sorry if this isn't very helpful. Hope something gets sorted out. Carcharoth 13:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

These users, all of whom have problems with me, are very active in many policy discussions. If I were to follow your advice, I would be unable to participate in any of those policy discussions. I suppose that would be no great loss to Wikipedia, but it seems quite unfair. --Ideogram 13:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Ideogram, I'm sorry to hear that you have a mental disability. I think you very accurately describe it as a long-running dispute. And it seems to include more than just yourself and one other user. I would like to gently point out that your two diff's, related to Geogre, are not in the same conversation, and I don't believe Geogre was responding to you in the 2nd diff.

I'd also respectfully note that your own remarks seem to be a bit snide on occasion. I don't know you but I'm sure you're a very good editor.

Personal remarks, especially referencing handicaps, are completely uncalled for. And, in my experience, those types of remarks are generally the result of a deeper frustration. Treating only the symptom will not make the problem go away. And, leaving, isn't the right answer either. My suggestion is to identify what the frustration is, and see if you can do anything to help eliminate it from your end. And, at the same time, pursue the advice (above) and make it clear that you are offended by the pointed remarks about your disability. Peace in God. Lsi john 14:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. I admit to having a short temper and accept some of the blame. To be honest, I grew up in a family where anything could be said in anger but would be forgiven once the fight was over. I thought I could address the problem by making another attempt to AGF, but I have concluded that the problem cannot be solved. Thanks again for your support. --Ideogram 14:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

If you grew up in a family where anything could be said, and then be forgiven, then why not simply forgive him and move forward? note: I am not condoning poor conduct. I am addressing what you said about forgiveness. It seems contradictory to say you grew up with a pattern of forgiving after fights and then to imply (in your post above) that his snide remarks are offensive.

Again, I am not condoning poor conduct, and at the same time, his remarks seem to be rather subtle, because it requires an inside knowledge of your situation to know that is what he meant. Knowing the details now, I'd agree it was in poor taste, and I think you would agree that he could have been much more pointed about it.

I don't agree with your conclusion that the problem can't be solved (unless you are intent on making sure it can't be - and I assume that is not the case). My questions to you are: What resolution would you like? What do you want to happen? What outcome would make you happy?

Lsi john 15:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

And, if you can answer it: what do you think your contribution is (if any) to the source of his obvious frustration? Lsi john 15:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps its also important to add here, that saying snide things to our families, and being forgiven, is quite a bit different than saying snide things here. Our families love us and, in fairness, are stuck with us. Our fellow editors don't really even know us, let alone love us, and they certainly don't feel stuck with us. So, if we say snide things to them, it is only reasonable to expect snide things to be said in return. And, once we jump into that game, we no longer get to complain about who was more snide.

And I'd like to be clear that I'm not addressing your remarks specifically. I'll let you do that for yourself. I'm addressing your question about "what can you do?". And, my answer is, you can only control your own actions and remarks. You are responsible for yourself. So, refer back up to my previous questions, in the context of your contribution to the situation, and you will have an answer about what you can do. Lsi john 16:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid Ideogram stalks me wherever I go, inspite of my nest attempts to ignore him. In the latest encounter with him, he popped up with this edit [1] in a matter with which he was completely uninvolved. One can only ignore so much. Giano 16:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Giano, your information, while relevant and seemingly on-point, is very poorly delivered, which only obfuscates the message and diverts the negative attention back to you. In fact, showing up here, and claiming stalking, is a bit of an oxy-moron. Lsi john 16:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Before accusing me of stalking ideogram, check your facts, it was linked from this thread in which I was involved. [2]. Believe me, by choice, I give Ideogram as much space as possible. Giano 19:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

"If you grew up in a family where anything could be said, and then be forgiven, then why not simply forgive him and move forward? "Lsi john

I can easily forgive him, but there are two prerequisites: he must be able to admit there is something that needs to be forgiven (i.e. that it is not entirely my fault) and he must be able to forgive me. --Ideogram 17:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your reply. True forgiveness does not require anything from the other party. Forgiveness is completely unilateral and does not even require communication with the other party. Lsi john 18:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I suspect you meant your family all apologized and accepted each other's apologies. From that context I understand. However, true forgiveness, does not require an apology.

All right, I forgive him. --Ideogram 19:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

"note: I am not condoning poor conduct. I am addressing what you said about forgiveness. It seems contradictory to say you grew up with a pattern of forgiving after fights and then to imply (in your post above) that his snide remarks are offensive. "Lsi john

Actually, I was asking a question about Wikipedia policy, since it seems I get blocked every time I try to say something snide. --Ideogram 17:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a very simple solution to that problem. Don't say anything snide. That is something you have 100% control over. Lsi john 18:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't expect me to be perfect. --Ideogram 18:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

"I don't agree with your conclusion that the problem can't be solved (unless you are intent on making sure it can't be - and I assume that is not the case). My questions to you are: What resolution would you like? What do you want to happen? What outcome would make you happy? "Lsi john

I don't know what he wants. He engages in behavior that seems counterproductive. Not just towards me, either. I would like him to stop the counterproductive behavior. The best way to accomplish that would be to understand what he wants and suggest more productive ways to get what he wants. But I can't do that as long as he thinks attacking me is productive. --Ideogram 17:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't ask what he wanted. I didn't mention him at all here. I asked what you want. This is about you, about what you want, and about what you can do to get what you want.

As for him, thinking attacking you is productive, I'd submit that posting here helped support that conclusion (as does your giving up at the bottom). I'm not suggesting that you don't post here, but I am suggesting that you consider your reactions. (perhaps refer back to forgiveness and simply ignore him?) If he gets absolutely flagrant, someone will block him even if you don't respond. Lsi john 18:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

"And, if you can answer it: what do you think your contribution is (if any) to the source of his obvious frustration? "Lsi john 15:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I think he and his friends display a pattern of viewing anyone who doesn't agree with them as an enemy. I want to understand them, but that doesn't mean I will agree with them. If they require that I agree with them, I cannot comply. --Ideogram 17:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Again here, you are making it about them and what they want and what they require. You can't control them. You have no power over them. You only have power and control over yourself. Step into it and own that power. Stop worrying about them and what they want. What they want is irrelevant. It is the position of helplessness and victim. Own your power and decide what you can do to change the situation. What do you want? How can you react differently? How can you change your edit summaries? How can you stop showing that something bothers you? What can you do to achieve what you want?

Are you seeing my pattern here? Stop worrying about them. There are other admins and editors who will worry about them for you. Start looking about yourself, and your choices and your actions and your contributions to the situation. Lsi john 18:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

In the larger context, this is a fight about who gets to do what they want on Wikipedia. If they get what they want, I cannot get what I want. So we fight. Forever. --Ideogram 18:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

He can't get what he wants, so he gets frustrated. That frustration boils over into unproductive behavior. I cannot give him what he wants, and I can't make him stop wanting it. Now I have what I want. --Ideogram 19:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

"Perhaps its also important to add here, that saying snide things to our families, and being forgiven, is quite a bit different than saying snide things here. Our families love us and, in fairness, are stuck with us. Our fellow editors don't really even know us, let alone love us, and they certainly don't feel stuck with us. So, if we say snide things to them, it is only reasonable to expect snide things to be said in return. And, once we jump into that game, we no longer get to complain about who was more snide. "Lsi john

Believe me, in my family snide words were often said in return. Again, I was mainly asking a question about policy. I have trouble adapting to an environment where saying snide things gets me sanctioned. --Ideogram 17:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see where you ask a question about policy. What policy are you asking about? I'm unaware of any policy that dictates a response from you. Are you asking where you can officially report it? Do you want him reprimanded? Do you want him blocked? Do you want him gelded? If so, you should say that. If not, then I'm not sure I understand what your original question has to do with policy. Lsi john 18:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that I get blocked for violating policy while he does not. Are you asking me not to be bothered by that? --Ideogram 18:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

"And I'd like to be clear that I'm not addressing your remarks specifically. I'll let you do that for yourself. I'm addressing your question about "what can you do?". And, my answer is, you can only control your own actions and remarks. You are responsible for yourself. So, refer back up to my previous questions, in the context of your contribution to the situation, and you will have an answer about what you can do. "Lsi john 16:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

What I can do is wash my hands of the situation. I am sorry to say it. --Ideogram 17:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Then you have peacefully surrendered to the situation? You will no longer be affected by his snide comments? You are willing to allow them to continue and you accept them as okay? Is this really a peaceful surrender to something you cannot control, or did you simply decide to be a martyr and give up? Either way, understand that 'giving up' only works once. So choose carefully before you claim to quit. I'm sorry if this seems harsh, but from my perspective, it appears that I care more about this than you do. Peace in God. Lsi john 18:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I cannot surrender. --Ideogram 18:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You're the one who said you were washing your hands, I just asked what that meant to you. Lsi john 19:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I cannot promise to avoid every page he posts on. Let's take this one step at a time, OK? --Ideogram 19:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You're the one who is suggesting avoiding pages. I'm certainly not. And, as you have pretty much ignored every one of my questions, I'm not going to respond any more. When you are ready to discuss what you can do to help yourself, and what your contribution to the current situation is, I'll be around. Lsi john 19:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Spell check abuse

Is it possible that a company, like Google (with "did you mean ___?"), changes the spelling of words in Wikipedia articles to find out what people most likely think a word should be spelled like, because it seems like a good idea and they have so many computers, each with a different IP address, it would seem hard to catch them at it. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 11:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

What? --Golbez 22:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying that a company (like Google) can go through words that are entered frequently but don't have many search results (I'm calling that word "x"), then they go through all possible other spellings that have more search results and find them on a Wikipedia article, then they use one IP address to vandalize the article and then with a different IP address they change it back without the undo button (to make it look like an unprofessional undo), however, when changing it back they misspell the target word (which is a more common variation of "x", e.g. "cheese" has 71,600,000 search results however "chese"("x") has only 217,000 search results) to see if people will consider that variation of "x" to be the correct spelling of "x".

And the reason that I say this is because Google almost always guesses right with the "did you mean ___?" and I know that they might just have good programming (companies with worse programming could be doing this) but I heard that spam people offer "rewards" after typing in the words in a picture box that is originally from an e-mail service to create e-mail addresses to send spam from and this would be the same thing just without any rewards but a lot more people. Do you understand now? Jeffrey.Kleykamp 00:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm still not sure I understand. Is it possible? Possibly. It's also possible that I'm a hyperintelligent zebra, but I'm not sure where such baseless accusations get us. So far as I know, not one single article has been vandalized in this fashion. --Golbez 00:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying that they are careful to make it look like innocent spelling errors, and I'm not accusing Google, I'm simply saying that a company with enough computer power could do this as long as they have a motive like optimizing search spell checking. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 00:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

You kind of are - you didn't say "they could be careful", you said "they are careful". And as Emmaneul said, there's far, far cheaper and faster ways to do this. And again, there is zero evidence of this happening, so it still has the same footing as me being a genius hippotigris. --Golbez 02:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Impossible, there are far more effective and intelligent ways to find out "alternate" spellings than this. Emmaneul ^(Talk) 11:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

WTF? --tjstrf talk 01:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Complaint

Why is the Vince McMahon article is protected??? Shkarter1985 21:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

My guess is that his recent kayfabe "death" keeps getting put into the article. I can therefore imagine that people are saying he is dead, when he obviously isn't - but his wrestling persona is "dead" (but knowing professional wrestling, he's bound to be reincarnated somehow). But unfortunately, people keep doing so and it is quite difficult to keep reverting, so protection is easiest to stop the edit war. x42bn6 Talk Mess 00:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your comment, this is suppose to be the Free Encyclopedia not the Unfree.Shkarter1985 20:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I know, and protection is unfortunate. However, there are times when vandals and people introducing BLP problems overwhelm users trying to keep that off the page. Which is where protection comes in. See the protection policy for more information. If you would like to request something to be changed, then the talk page allows for discussion of potential changes. x42bn6 Talk Mess 23:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

English Wikipedia visible in China again

like it says... m.e. 03:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Any bets on how long that will last? hbdragon88 03:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, at least those Wikipedians in China can legally edit Wikipedia without violating WP:NOP for a while. Why is Wikipedia censored in China anyway? It doesn't seem to do much harm, does it?--Kylohk 19:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

It includes information censored in China. Atropos 00:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocking of Wikipedia in mainland China. I didn't know we had an article on it. hbdragon88 01:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a Chinese search engine company, Baidu has launched its own wiki Baidu Baike. As of now, its got over 700,000 articles, cover 6 times that of Chinese Wikipedia! This censorship really is bad for Chinese Wikipedia, since its quality definitely will lag behind a lot now without 20% of the world's population contributing.--Kylohk 09:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and now, the WP:NOP is inconsistent with WM:NOP, the one on Meta being less strict, and showing that they don't want to punish users who used open proxies but have not caused any trouble.--Kylohk 14:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

XKCD references Wikipedia

I thought this was pretty hilarious. âDarkâ¢Shikari^[T] 15:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Ooh, vandalism, please protect. x42bn6 Talk Mess 20:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes! That was a hilarious Wikipedia in-joke. Someone should approach him to upload the image to the Wikipedia Commons. ;) His comic has also done spot-on parodies of other web phenomena, such as inane YouTube comments. --IanOsgood 16:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

xkcd has mentioned Wikipedia before, like in this comic. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

A bit of irony for the day

The Reference article is sporting an "unreferenced" tag. Videmus Omnia 15:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. --The Raven's Apprentice ^{(PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 16:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Similarly, the Manual of Style has been tagged as requiring copy-editing for grammar, style... for at least a month... Joe 17:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Would {{contradict}} be helpful here? --tjstrf talk 17:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Good to see the bad humour in Self-reference has been removed. –Pomte 17:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Advertising

It seems to me that people with little experience and with strange formats to their edits are creating large edits to Wikipedia, what I really want to say is that I think that advertisers are editing Wikipedia because of the increase in use from institutions, e.g. [3] has a summary section but no beginning section, and it's linked to Advertising#Optimisation which used to have the {{advert}} tag (that is before I edited it). I don't really know what to do about this, other than creating a anti-ad force that systematically goes through all articles linked to the {{advert}} tag, finds the user that created the bad edits, then warns them, and fixes the article, and finally fixes any articles that got edited by him/her but that's hard work (and Wikipedia is so big that it wouldn't wonder me if that already exists). I thought I might mention it either way. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 00:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to note that copy testing also mentions Young all the time, just like Advertising#Optimisation used to, and, to me at least, the way that the person uses it as a reference is bad formatting and proof of what I'm saying above (that inexperienced advertisers are editing certain things to make institutions end up thinking that they need their form of advertising, it could even be a scheme to make Wikipedia surfers end up on a particular article). Jeffrey.Kleykamp 00:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Freckles.10.6.2005 is the one that made all the edits, he admitted to working for one of the companies that he wrote about [4], not that that's a problem, but if too many people do that then it will probably become one. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 00:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Please report that kind of problem (and chip in with the volunteers who address it) at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/noticeboard. Durova^Charge! 17:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I moved the conversation to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Advertising. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 19:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Things that honestly I need to tell

Peace be upon you. How are you guys. Is everything okay? I hope you guys are in good condition. By the way, honestly I need to tell you guys something, can any admins here block my multiple account which is User:Lokey3310 and User:Aeonimitz. I do that because honestly feel like I m a nobody. I would like to say is that I m sorry for my multiple account wrongdoing which is considered a sockpuppet here and for everything. So goodbye and peace. — Imran Al-Sahih 14:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Aeonimitz has made a number of contributions with no warnings. It's not clear to me why the account would need to be blocked. — RJH (talk) 22:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

BAG Joining

Hey, I have been asked to post a notification of my request to join the Bot Approvals Group on here. It can be found at Wikipedia talk:Bots/Approvals group#Joining. Thanks! Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 02:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Less Vandalisim?

It may be just me, but over the last few months it seems there is getting to be less and less vandalism. Whenever I filter, there's almost nothing. Is this really a trend or is it something else? Dfrg.msc 05:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Not sure. I don't keep a careful eye on the infamous Wdefcon template, but there are a number of factors to consider. First, the bots are getting better at catching the obvious vandalism, so there's less for us to do. Second, it's possble for the quantity of vandalism to stay about the same even as the overall number of edits increases with the increasing number of edits; that may be what's happening. Third, the vandals may be learning how to contaminate the wiki with conflict-of-interest crap that isn't actually vandalism. That's a problem that just won't go away by itself. YechielMan 06:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- COI and NPOV entries in articles often get detected and reverted by people watching it anyway. However, I don't have problems reverting vandalism before the bot does it.--Kylohk 13:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Observation

I am Elaine, and I will be observing this community of "wiki writers" as part of the requirements for an online-based writing course for the Center for Talented Youth, or CTY. I will not disturb this community significantly, but I do want to ensure that this can happen. (I have to have permission, by the way.) So just drop a note here so I can link my teacher to this page to check permission. Thank you, Elaine--03:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free. We all watch each other all the time, so one more watcher won't cause us any trouble. I suggest that you register an account though. That way we can tell that it's really you and not some troublemaker pretending to be you. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think anyone's ever asked us that before, but you have to do some pretty nasty stuff to get on our nerves. :) Yechiel Man 06:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Elainew246 21:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:CHU backlog

What does one do about the huge backlog at Wikipedia:Changing username? Only interested, I'm not awaiting a change.--Rambutan (talk) 21:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Run for Bureaucrat and pass.

...Wait, you wanted options that were actually possible? --tjstrf talk 22:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Haha, you can ask at WP:BN. That'll usually work within a few hours. But I've decided to wait just to see how long it takes. :) Yechiel Man 07:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Apice.Italy-info

I am in the process of finding relatives of my grandparents who came o this country from Italy. From what I have found, they are both from the area of Campania and sailed from Naples in 1905-arriving in New York possibiy on the Citta di New York.(Ship) I would like to go there and meet any one who is left. Their name was Racioppi-they were not married when they came. Her last name was Pastore. Any info at all would be appreciated.

Garbardeen

Um, we're writing an encyclopedia here, not running a detective agency. Wikipedia doesn't have every bit of information that exists in the world! Sorry, The Raven's Apprentice ^{(PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 05:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Open Call for Editors to Participate in Research Project

Hi

My name is Jim Sutton and I'm undertaking research in the School of Library, Archive, and Information Studies, UCL.

My research involves studying wiki usage, the reasons why individuals use wikis and the benefits/disadvantages of using wikis to manage knowledge.

I was wondering if you would agree to my analysing your contributions to Wikipedia. This will basically involve calculating how many times you've contributed to Wikipedia within the time period of a week.

I was also wondering what your reasons are for using/contributing to Wikipedia. I'd be extremely grateful for any feedback you can provide.

If you agree to my analysing your contributions then please email me with your Wikipedia username and any feedback you have. My email address is james.sutton (at) ucl.ac.uk

I also have a survey online which I'm using as part of my research at:

http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/stqa7937/survey/

My Wikipedia username is Sutton4019 and my research is being carried out jointly with Melissa Terras at UCL. Her email address is m.terras (at) ucl.ac.uk .

If you have any questions please let me know and thank you for your time. Thanks! --Sutton4019 12:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Will discuss on talk. --h2g2bob (talk) 18:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Portal:Roman Empire

Hello there. I recently created a portal, The Roman Empire Portal. It is still under construction, and I could use volunteers to help build it. Thanks. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 20:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  Rome was not built in a day.  (sorry, couldn't help myself) Fristenskyk 22:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Forte, a music encyclopedia

I dunno if I can do this, and if not then just delete this. Like... I just want some help. I dunno.

Well, I've started a music wiki encyclopedia. It's called Forte. I have me and another friend to help me, and we've got things set up. We have about 50 albums and 10 artists, and we NEED to expand.

And that's where Wikipedia comes into play, hopefully people in WP:ALBUM and WP:BAND I'm trying to get friends to help, but I also need people who already know how to edit on a wiki. I can understand if you guys don't want to help, I wouldn't blame you - it is a big job. But I'm begging you guys, to please help me. Most things are set up - the wikifarm it's currently on uses an outdated version on MediaWiki so you can't do everything, but you can do most things - I've just been running into trouble with different template stuff. But other than that, all you really need to do it just add articles. It has an album, song, and band infobox, and i'm going to make the genre infobox and instrument infoboxes soon.

I posted this in the WP:ALBUM talk, but an admin said it was just vandalism that had nothing that Wiki doesn't have except for ads. I'm sorry I can't buy my own servers or understand the code. I kinda find it pretty crappy that wikipedia has a list of places you can host wikis on, but then when somebody goes to one in a goal to start an encyclopedia, they get turned on by the people who run it.

Thanks for any type of help you can give. If not, though, it's ok... -^Violask8₁₉₇₆ 21:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

As your wiki is GFDL licensed, you can use Special:Export and download music-related pages from Wikipedia, and Special:Import on your own Wiki to import these pages. This way, you can make a progressive fork of Wikipedia. (If you intend to do this for over 300 pages, please use the database dumps).

Your wiki stands the best chance of success if you make it distinct from Wikipedia in style and content - for example you could allow a non-neutral point of view (ie, make it a form of blog), provide recommendations (like Amazon), or discard the notability guidelines (like MySpace). If it's the same as Wikipedia, people will just post here and join our music wikiprojects instead. --h2g2bob (talk) 18:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The no notability guidelines sounds the best. It's like Wiki merged with encyclopedia mettalum.-^Violask8₁₉₇₆ 16:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem

User:Badlydrawnjeff and User:Rama's Arrow have left wikipedia this week. Both featured article contributors. Why? well no one knows for certain why great contributors are leaving wikipedia, apprently on a weekly or atleast monthly basis but few can take a guess.

It is of my personal opinion that the utopia ideology of wikipedia is destroying it. Everything needs to be discussed, no one can curse or show any sign of a negative emotion, long processes to fix simple problems like blocking vandals, extremely long process to get rid of or at least stop opinion pushers, no one/group has the authority to make general decisions based on a "no consensus" discussion, everything can be interpreted if enough people stand by the interpretation and ofcourse "anybody" can edit as if "only a few" can register. Why? In 2001 Wikipedia needed contributors and readership. Today it has plenty of both. Most policies are pretty straigh forward and correct. No policy is pushing personal opinion or bullshit information to be placed here, none of which has any place on wikipedia. You can't really write an encyclopedia in "creative" ways. So why does everything need to discussed and everyone gets leeway as to not hurt their feelings or someone else's. Wikipedia needs to finally stand to its policies and enforce them strongly, so everyone who follows the rules knows that the project is behind them while people who don't agree with something can get the hell out. The policies wikipedia was built on are fine, its time to stop interpretation and finally put your foot down and enforce them. Why is that so hard? Can someone tell me. 99.244.236.210 18:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I can definitely tell you that another editor I know well left for harassment issues, and I stopped using my original ID for the same reason. The polices do need to be enforced in full, and personally I agree we should stop this BS about hurting peoples feelings. If they're not following policy, then that is it... it's not a personal attack, it's fact. The problem of off-wiki harassment for volunteering one's time and being proud to be associated with the project (i.e. making one's true ID known), is not only getting out of hand, but frankly, dangerous. Why would anyone volunteer their time anymore to a project where if they piss the wrong person off by upholding policy, they get harassed, threatened, and stalked? There are a lot of things that need to be worked out, and it's not just the concept of discussing every thing. Rider of the Storm ^Aftermath|_Thunder 18:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Also I want to note how this rant relates to "Village pump (proposals)". I'm tired of adminstrators who are usually great contributors who are given extra tools bombarded with complaints about blocking and so forth. If somone doesn't get the picture after being warned about breaking policy/guideline he needs to be blocked. Why do adminstrators need to justify all their actions with one exception of "vandalism blocking"? No action is "too quick" if someone is a clear disruption. Not every dumbass need to be given the privalage of talking to arbcom. Mediation is not full from 2 rational contributors disagreeing but a normal user and a swarm of idiots who want to push their opinion or how things should be done, ofcourse with few exceptions. Everyone is afraid to block people who aren't clear vandals. We need a policy or change in policy to stop some of the adminstrators having to justify all of their actions to the "mob" (people who do minor contributions but are very vocal). Sure some admin actions are questionable but majority aren't. I'll go as far as to say if 1 or few people question every administrator action without gaining any interest from the wider community, this is blockable disruption. Adminstrators do not need to respond to every "puzzled" user who doesn't understand why something was done and wants to go into a big discussion into why "User:Death to China" was blocked for adding information sourced to "evilchina.com"-example. Opinions? 99.244.236.210 18:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you, but there are plenty of Wikipedians who do not. For example, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Armedblowfish and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/CharlotteWebb are both cases in which the candidate violated Wikipedia:No open proxies. Though they failed, there was a great outrage at those who opposed them. I will try not to start an arguement involving those RfAs, but in both cases, the rules of Wikipedia were violated by those candidates. There are plenty of those out there who are not so rule-enjoying as us. Captain panda 00:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Didn't User:ScienceApologist leave in the last few days as well? --tjstrf talk 00:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Wikipedia has serious problems. Those who write articles are not appreciated, so they leave. You can start a discussion at Wikipedia:Reform. --Kaypoh 00:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

On a slightly different note, with regard to harassment issues I've posted at WT:Username policy, proposing some sort of disclaimer on the "create account" screen, suggesting to think first before registering with one's real name. —AldeBaer (c) 14:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

While a warning when registering is fine and dandy, it really does not solve the problem and somewhat compounds the ability for editors to work freely and openly on Wikipedia. For example, any photos I would upload would be CC Share-Alike with Attribute. I'm certainly not going to have them attributable to a pseudonym, but my real name. However, this would reveal my identity to anyone searching through my history. Normally, I would not have a problem with this, and would usually make this information readily available, but Wikipedia has seemed to attract many people who are emotionally and psychologically unstable, and gives them a free pass by not only allowing them to either hide behind a dynamic IP, but also a Pseudonym. When people have been Identified as committing off-wiki harassment, the issue is dealt with a light touch, as to 'not piss off the offender'. So a good editor is now not able to contribute content that it would like to remain attributable to them, but those that do break the rules (and frankly, the laws) not only go unpunished but when it is brought to the community, it's handled in a manner that does not support the established editor, instead of dealing with the psychologically unstable anonymous IP/Pseudonym that viciously attacks anyone who disagrees with them. The community has not done well to ensure that harassment is not acceptable, and when cases of harassment are noted, have not done enough to assist the editor-in-good-standing. Wikipedia wants good editors, but does little to support editors when they have issues, and does little to back editors up on their upholding the policies. And when someone gets pissed with an editor for upholding those policies and takes it to the next level, the community says "You're screwed buddy. Have fun with that.". I'm not sure what the community as a whole can do, but, it would be especially helpful if there was more support, and more willingness to side with an established editor. Personally, I think the best way to prevent this level of degradation of the project is, and I know some hate this idea, but stop anonymous editing and require editors to have their true identity on file, but that's just my opinion. Rider of the Storm ^Aftermath|_Thunder 16:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I would very tentatively endorse the idea to abolish anonymous editing (which would include abolishing IPs first!). But for other reasons enirely (more to cut down on cruft-producers and kooks) and on somewhat different terms (involving for example a commitment scheme stored on a secure Wikia server instead of openly using your real name). I don't think requiring people to register their real name would increase the security, quite to the contrary: Every anonymous reader could then see your real name without even digging for it. Many people -some of them high-profile contributors- prefer to edit anonymously for a variety of reasons, and those would definitely be driven off then, as opposed to stalkers looking for victims. —AldeBaer (c) 18:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, I did not suggest making the real name public, but merely having it on file with the foundation. Rider of the Storm ^Aftermath|_Thunder 18:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

As I said, that's not something I'd object to. One possible consequence that might meet some resistance would then be what the foundation should do in cases of, for example suspected COI editing? Should they reveal the users identity? If such a user got blocked, everyone would then know they were editing their company's article or, even worse, their own BLP. —AldeBaer (c) 18:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

COI would have to be handled as it is now in cases where COI is not blatant. The fact of having to identify oneself to the foundation might deter some cases, other cases they would use non-obvious usernames and work around it. There's no magical fix, but COI is much lighter thing to deal with than having good editors scramble to find legal protection against unstable people worldwide. Rider of the Storm ^Aftermath|_Thunder 18:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

But to that effect, it won't help if everyone used their realname, since you don't even have to register to simply view the contents of WP. Having to identify yourself to the foundation would not help in such cases. —AldeBaer (c) 18:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

But, what it would do is set up a method for, lets say User:X starts harassing User:Y, user Y could report this to the authorities who could then subpoena the foundation for the identity of the offending user. This in all may not be a realistic implementation, and there may be a better solution, but the point was is that more needs to be done to curtail harassment issues and to stop this "Play nice" attitude with those that commit such harassment. Rider of the Storm ^Aftermath|_Thunder 19:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I believe on-wiki harassment can rather effectively be dealt with, if you're talking about "wikistalking" etc. (but I agree that abandoning IP editing may work wonders to that effect). However, the far greater problem is cases where stalking and harassment spill over into real life. And, as I said, stalkers need not register / give away their identity at all. —AldeBaer (c) 19:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't heard of many (or any, actually) cases where a user was chosen at random with no prior interaction by a stalker. Most cases I've encountered involve a dispute on-wiki where the editor in good standing was enforcing policy when another editor decides that the best way to end the argument and get "their way" is to take it off wiki. Rider of the Storm ^Aftermath|_Thunder 19:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

But that would certainly lead to witch hunts. —AldeBaer (c) 19:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I unfortunately do not understand your response, since I made no suggestions, only clarified something. Rider of the Storm ^Aftermath|_Thunder 20:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it was rather a question: Couldn't it also lead to witch hunts if the foundation had all real names? —AldeBaer (c) 20:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily. The key there would be the subpoena. In order for me to get someone else's real name, I would either myself go to a judge and provide evidence as to why I would need that information (such as to file a lawsuit), or, a law enforcement agency themselves could request a subpoena. Either way, it's an extensive process that the casual user wouldn't go through, and unless you have good reason for the subpoena, a judge is going to point you to the door and tell you to not let it hit you in the ass on the way out. Rider of the Storm ^Aftermath|_Thunder 21:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

#vandalism-en-wp

Does anyone know about this channel, and how I can be removed from its blacklist? Thanks.--Rambutan (talk) 14:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit#IRC channels. –Pomte 23:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Just a question

Why are you Americans so box-minded? You should write articles about people independently of where they were born or raised. For example I saw a list of Russian Americans. Why don´t you also make a list of Chinese Americans, Japanese Americans, French Americans, French Brazilians, Black Jews, Mexican English and Swiss tennis players? Those kind of lists are totally arbitrary and don´t make much sense. No wonder there´s so much segregation in the US. You could start by getting rid of some of these lists.

The lists are only a collection of links to articles, the articles are already written at the time of creation of the list, i.e. the people aren't written about because of their nationality but they're added to the list because of it, therefore it isn't a real problem. I would also like to say that the lists are useful for example if you wanted to write about a Russian American then you can look at that list to find someone to write about. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 13:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You can think of these multi-criteria categories as Wikipedia's Venn diagrams. Such as German artists or Canadian racecar drivers, to name just two. Adrian M. H. 18:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Bear in mind that few individuals who live in the United States can trace a significant portion of their ancestry to any of the land's native peoples. Pride and interest in one's own background doesn't necessarily mean denigration of other heritages. In some professions a given heritage has a significant impact on the individual's work. For example, students of literature may use this type of list to narrow down their seletion for a "compare and contrast" term paper assignment to Ralph Ellison's Invisible Man and Walter Mosley's Devil in a Blue Dress. In other situations, where prejudices traditionally limited or closed a career field to persons of a particular background, these lists can be a starting point for a different type of research. Durova^Charge! 18:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok thank you for sharing your opinion.

Thanks for the ignorant stereotypes. — RJH (talk) 18:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Text of Wikipedia talk pages hidden in HTML of other sites

I promised not to edit in June, but something is puzzling me so much, I'm suspending my wikibreak for a day.

Out of boredom/curiosity, I googled my username. In among the various pages I expected to see were several like this:

[5] [6] [7]

Note that:

All appear to be based on the same template;
None of them have my username in the visible text;
If you view the HTML source code, there are entire threads from Wikipedia talk pages embedded in the code, but hidden from view.

My theories:

Boring: This is some lame attempt to trick a search engine into visiting the sites in question. However, since the Wikipedia content has absolutely nothing to do with what the pages are selling, that doesn't make sense to me;
Dramatic: I've stumbled on a secret underground Wikirailroad that is smuggling Wikipedia content into China, past clueless censors (until I blabbed about it and ruined everything);
Most likely: Some far simpler explanation that I'm too dumb to figure out.

Is it really just a case of search engine gaming? --barneca (talk) 23:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

This is search engine gaming, and the reason they use Wikipedia text is because they need text to fill up the page that statistically resembles "real" English text in order to make them look more like a real website. They figure because Wikipedia content is "free", it's less dangerous to use than random English text from other sites. They're also fond of using the contents of public domain novels for the same reason. This is my theory. Dcoetzee 02:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Well at least they're better then spammers then. They seem to use bizzare passages from a large variety of sources and don't usually seem to particularly care about copyright. Of course, given most spam is advertising something illegal (even if the spam itself is not illegal in all countries) I guess this isn't surprising. Why care about the copyright of the text when you're trying to sell pirated software, counterfeit viagra or rip someone off in a Nigerian scam or via phising Nil Einne 05:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Rats, I was hoping for something more interesting. I guess explaining something based on the existence of weasels is always a good first guess. Thanks to both of you for your comments. Now that the stress of not knowing something has gone, I'll resume my wikibreak. --barneca (talk) 11:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Notibility Issues

Ok, Im thinking on making a page on a local politician Logan Martinez. Here is the problem he ran for office (39th Ohio House District) three times and lost. Im afriad since he hasnt been in office the page will get deleted if I make one. I read the Info, and Bio rules and I think he might have what it takes. But I just wanted to get and outside view on if the page will be ok if I make it............... This person is listed in the Ohio Green Party and talked about, Talked about in the Dayton Daily News. And is a very well known person throughout the Ohio Green Party. If want to look it up yourself go to google or roadrunner and type in Logan Martinez. Thanks and Please Leave your thoughts!!! MarkDonna 14:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

People love to try to delete articles on guys like that to save precious disk space, but at a glance I think a well-written article could survive here. Just cite some of the sources from [8] or whatever published sources you can find. --W.marsh 16:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Nothing to do with saving disk space. It's fairly obvious that we're not a paper encylopaedia since we have a lot more stuff and cover stuff in a lot more detail than any paper encyclopaedia. Even the most avid deletionist is not trying to reduce us to a paper encylopaedia. However many of us believe that for wikipedia to be useful, we need to have some sort of quality control which includes ensuring that we only have articles which can be written to a minimally acceptable standard and which at least a resonable number of people would be interested in reading about. Amongst other things this minimises spam. Also bear in mind not everyone wants to have a wikipedia article (although most politicians would), especially if the only reason they have an article is because they did something or it was claimed they did something with minor noteability which they would rather forget. As for this the specific question from mark, I concur with Blueboar largely. One of the key things to remember is that you have to establish notability in the article, not tell people they can establish notability by Googling. It is not the readers job to fill in what you've left out Nil Einne 04:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Does anything make him notable other than his unsuccessful runs for office? If so, make sure you establish this aspect of his notability. If not, you may find it nominated for deletion. Also, do your research before writing the article... if your sources are solid and properly cited from the get go, the article has a better chance of surviving. I would suggest drafting it on a user sub-page and only transferring it to main space when fully ready. Blueboar 17:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

He doesn't sound very notable to me. Consider expanding the Green Party of Ohio article instead, which sounds like it could probably include some coverage of his campaigns.--Pharos 00:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

A bit of irony for the day

The Reference article is sporting an "unreferenced" tag. Videmus Omnia 15:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. --The Raven's Apprentice ^{(PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 16:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Similarly, the Manual of Style has been tagged as requiring copy-editing for grammar, style... for at least a month... Joe 17:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Would {{contradict}} be helpful here? --tjstrf talk 17:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Good to see the bad humour in Self-reference has been removed. –Pomte 17:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Images on Template:Ph:Edit toolbar

I added the table to Template:Ph:Edit toolbar a month or so ago (appearing on Help:Edit toolbar), but can't find any images. I could save the ones from the toolbar, but I have only limited time on Wikipedia, and can't. Could somebody help here? (P.S. No "requests" page seemed to fit this requers.) This, that and the other _[talk] 06:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales

Jimmy Wales only made 3,119 edits and 628 in the mainspace and if you look at the bottom, the most edits (18) in the mainspace were made to the article on Jimmy Wales (COI) compared to the second best of 13 edits to Marc Lemire, see [9], and yet we treat him as a god. Think about it, 'cause I don't have an opinion, Jeffrey.Kleykamp 15:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, you're right... we should ban him immediately!--Isotope23 15:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Heh. The word is, I think, editcountitis :). ck lostsword • T • C 15:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Isotope how about we start a discussion on WP:CSN then! Then we can watch as it is put WP:BJAODN! FunPika 17:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's possible to accurately measure his contribution to the project as a number of edits. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, he'd never pass RfA. Which is more a deficiency of RfA than Jimbo. Dcoetzee 20:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Well if he wasn't Jimbo and was just another user, I would probably oppose because of the large lack of activity in many months. Also, I am not joking when I say this. Captain panda 23:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Repent, heretic, before the god-king brings forth his unearthly wrath upon you!

Seriously though, Jimbo's authority doesn't derive from his ability to write stubs or revert vandalism. The philosophical framework of the site, as written in core policies, is his doing. So we collectively agree to give his word extra weight since he was nice enough to start Nupedia/Wikipedia out of his pocket and then give it away for free so we have a neat encyclopedia to play with. He almost never actually uses his authority, which is partially why we give it to him, though people use his name in vain a lot. There's also the commonsense argument that we really do need an appeal of final resort to stop arguments on the policy level that deadlock and would go on interminably, and he's a better choice than all other options I've heard. A lot of his interaction with the community is done off wiki, e.g. via the mailing list, so edit counts aren't really a good measure of how involved he is. - Banyan Tree 00:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

On another serious note -- since he doesn't regularly participate in the gruntwork of building the encyclopedia I often wonder how much he knows what really goes on around here. As opposed to the party line about a "harmonious editing club." 71.214.249.249 15:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

That's the problem with upper management these days - instead of spending time in the trenches, answering phones and waiting on customers, and micro-managing every new initiative to make sure it goes correctly, they "delegate" day-to-day stuff, and only step in when they absolutely have to. Lazy bums. If someone like Jimmy won't take the time to learn to do everything at Wikipedia better than any other editor, including having a higher edit count than anyone else, why should we give his opinion any weight? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Editcountitis problems here. And, unlike other Upper Management guys, he doesn't murder people for stealing his userpage design. :) Jimbo's someone we trust, not 'coz of his gargantuan edit count, or the position he's attained on Wikipedia... We trust him 'coz he's the one who gave us the Wiki to play around, 'coz his will always be the voice of reason even if irrationality becomes the Wikipedian consensus, 'coz he'll always embody our principles even if we forget them. That's why he's deified-- coz he represents our ideals, whatever we're working for, even if they're unattainable ideals, even for him. Think of what you're saying-- What kind of argument against Jesus is it to say "Hey, I've never seen him attend Mass!" ? --The Raven's Apprentice ^{(PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 16:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

We're getting goofy after 6 years on the web. I think Jesus would get blocked on sight for a violation of our overzealous username policy. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 23:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

In all seriousness the deification of Jimbo is creepy as hell to me. --P4k 23:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

"Make us a king to judge us." --tjstrf talk 01:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

In all seriousness the deification of Jimbo is creepy and sacreligious. But he's a good guy who's good at ignoring the rules, so he would probably get supported if he wasn't a founder. bibliomaniac 15 ^{BUY NOW!} 02:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

People who think I am not active in Wikipedia simply don't know what I do. Ask the ArbCom, and the Oversight group, and they will tell you how deeply involved I am in day to day matters. People who think that edit counts are a good measure of activity really don't understand Wikipedia very well. --Jimbo Wales 02:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

You should stand for rfa. lots of issues | leave me a message 08:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

He doesn't need to, he's got already got more power than any bureaucrat. Cheers, The Raven's Apprentice ^{(PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 08:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, considering the foundation matters and other management tasks, I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't have that many edits to the mainspace itself.--Kylohk 11:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

As noted by others, if Jimbo himself says "People who think that edit counts are a good measure of activity really don't understand Wikipedia very well." then I would posit that WP:RFA needs some serious overhaul. /Blaxthos 13:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

As does the Holy See. But nobody cares for either. --The Raven's Apprentice ^{(PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 14:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

RfA doesn't need overhaul, it's the people who vote. –Pomte 14:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Neither does the Holy See, it's the Christians. But the Christians don't have a statement from Jesus, which puts them as a disadvantage compared to us. But what do we do? Editcountitis isn't policy, do we maybe put one of those Talk Page tags with this message from Jimbo on top of the RfA page? (Don't forget to put this image on the tag and link Jimbo's name to this page.) --The Raven's Apprentice ^{(PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 14:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Jeffrey Kleykamp just took a different approach at showing us how stupid editcountits is, especially in RfAs. If so, good work! Of course this deification is stupid, but what's even more stupid is measuring a Wikipedians worth (or admin worthiness) by counting his edits per month. A perfect editor, who contributes greatly to 1 article and 4 wikispace discussions or backlogs every evening would never pass an RfA, because he could actually do that in 5 edits per day. Malc82 19:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Jimbo has Legitimate-use sockpuppets, doppelganger accounts, and maybe IP Addresses that he uses to edit with so that he could participate without being revered as "a god". Just a thought. J-stan 00:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikicity

I'm a member of the Dutch Wikipedia and some friends of me made a new Wikia: Wikistad (or Wikicity in English). I'dd like to invite you to take a look. Most of it is in Dutch, but we also have English helppages and articles.

> Wikicity

DimiTalen 18:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Things that honestly I need to tell

Peace be upon you. How are you guys. Is everything okay? I hope you guys are in good condition. By the way, honestly I need to tell you guys something, can any admins here block my multiple account which is User:Lokey3310 and User:Aeonimitz. I do that because honestly feel like I m a nobody. I would like to say is that I m sorry for my multiple account wrongdoing which is considered a sockpuppet here and for everything. So goodbye and peace. — Imran Al-Sahih 14:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Aeonimitz has made a number of contributions with no warnings. It's not clear to me why the account would need to be blocked. — RJH (talk) 22:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

same day month year

Wondering if there was term for 07/07/07 (July 7, 2007). I know live earth is scheduled for this date but I have been wondering if there is a term for such a date? I was hoping my daughter was born on 05/05/05 (May 5, 2005) but she was late by 2 days. however, i think that now that my 2nd child was born on the same day as my first child may make more of interesting party topic...

Any assistance would be great.

Thanks, greeniusj@gmail.com

Numerology? — RJH (talk) 22:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I was about to call it a "palindromic date"... but that isn't quite right. A palendrome reads the same backwards and forwards... something like 01/11/10 - which, depending on whether you use the US or UK dating system will be be either January 11, 2010 or 1 November, 2010... both systems will agree about a year later - on 11/11/11... and of course all this is moot if you write the year in full. In which case the next palindomic date falls on: 01/02/2010.

Perhaps "sequential date"? 38.105.193.11 18:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Numerical patterns? — RJH (talk) 22:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

wiki reveals magic effects

As an avid magician, I have to protest the revelation of these effects. Such effects as King Rising, Balducci, and elevator are revealed here. It is very unhelpful to the magic community. Please help us and protest the exposure of these effects. ThanksBirdy2011

WP:NOT censored. Sorry if it spoils the trick, but I see no valid reason to withhold information about smoke and mirrors just because magicians like keeping them secret. --Nintendorulez talk 23:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

See this link, section "Request for removal of methods from magic effects". Dcoetzee 20:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

About reactive hypoglycemia -traslating a really important page from english-

Hi, I've seen your Wikipedia has an article about hypoglycemia. In the english and in the italian version of the article, there are some important information about a disease called "reactive hypoglycemia" . Many physicians don't recognize this disease, maybe cause of his unspecific symptoms, and probably there are a lot of case of reactive hypoglycemia still untreated. Although the term "hypoglycemia" entered in the american folk medicine, the existence of reactive hypoglycemia, also called postprandial hypoglycemia, is founded on solid scientific basis;for example:

So, it's important to enhance the knowledge of this disease, and, of course, it would be a good improvement for Wikipedia! I've translated part of the Italian article about reactive hypoglycemia in English;I really hope you can translate the english article in other language through other wikipedias, in order to make people around the world acknow this disease, which some of them can have untreated. It's just a page(this page) , translate it would be quite easy, wouldn't it?

Thank you very much 84.222.152.219 04:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

New Proposed WikiMedia Project

I have recently proposed a new WikiMedia Project, WikiThesis. WikiThesis is a place to write essays about any topic you like, in a more or less scholarly format. WikiThesis does not use the Wikipedia rules about neutral point of view and has a modified policy on original research. For example, a WikiThesis article could be titled "The Treaty of Versailles caused World War II". There is a functioning demo of WikiThesis located at http://wikithesis.scribblewiki.com/index.php/Main_Page. Feel free to go there and take a look. If you like, you can start contributing and begin forming a community, or you can just go over to Proposals for new projects and say what you think. Additionally, WikiThesis does accept most college and high school term papers if you have any you'd like to put onto the demo site to jumpstart our growth. Thanks. Cool3 21:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Changes newer than X seconds may not show here

What does the given value of X at this statement that I keep seeing when I study contributions depend on?? Georgia guy 15:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Server load, I suppose. Adrian M. H. 16:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

After seeing a ton of portals not updated today, I have created a template called {{portalwarning}}. If you place the template on your user page for a portal that interests you, you can get an automatic warning that a monthly portal page doesn't exist. It will warn you if either this month's article or next month's article is missing. Example:

{{portalwarning|portal=College football|page=Selected article}}
{{portalwarning|portal=College football|page=Selected picture}}

Enjoy! --BigΔT 00:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Move format

I would like to enqure why the Special:Whatlinkshere was removed so that you can no longer check for double redirects?

This is the current format.

What happened to the old format and can it be incorporated in the current format? Simply south 20:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, but when I moved a page yesterday (29th), the link was still displayed. Adrian M. H. 16:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know either, and I have seen the new format. Obviously someone altered the Mediawiki pages, so the place to ask is the administators' noticeboard, since only admins can do that. Shalom ^Hello 09:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, i'll do so. Simply south 11:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-English Wikipedias

Are all these just assumed to be notable or what?--P4k 00:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the question. — The Storm Surfer 03:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

List of Wikipedias. Most of these probably would have been speedily deleted if they weren't about Wikipedia sites; a few of them have been. I'm wondering if they still exist just because nobody's noticed them or if there's some consensus that simply being a Wikipedia makes a site notable or something.--P4k 03:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Consider it somewhat self-referential, like having the late articles on Angela Beesley and Brad Patrick. Yes, being a Wikipedia makes it notable for Wikipedia. --Golbez 03:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Well yeah, Brad Patrick's article was deleted because he isn't notable enough.--P4k 03:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but after he ceased being associated with Wikipedia. ;) (OK, not entirely, but that certainly applies to Angela) --Golbez 03:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks like it was redirected while he was still an employee. Anyway, whatever; I probably shouldn't have started this topic.--P4k 03:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Eh, there's no problem with the topic, and you're probably dead on that these sites, were it not for their association with Wikipedia, probably wouldn't be notable enough for inclusion - but then again, they are articles about Wikipedia sites, so... --Golbez 03:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Articles on individual Wikipedia language editions may be of interest. Adrian M. H. 15:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the non-english Wikipedias are what the thread starter was asking about, whether they're assumed to be notable enough for English WIkipedia articles. AFDs have found swarms of support for the claim that they are, I personally argued against that on at least on occasion. As the above link to one of the many AFDs shows, a few have been speedy deleted for not asserting importance... a lot were pretty much substubs with a few templates. --W.marsh 01:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
To directly answer the question: no, Wikipedias do not automatically merit inclusion via their affiliation with the project. This would violate some of the principles behind Wikipedia:Avoid self-reference (for example, a derivative version not affiliated with WMF would lack this motivation for emphasizing these topics). They must stand on their own, and there has been much discussion on whether they do. Some of them clearly do, which forces us to treat them on a case-by-case basis. Dcoetzee 02:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

IMO, that List of Wikipedias should be in the Wikipedia: namespace. Corvus cornix 22:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Sick of Wikipedia

^{NB: standard message for various users.} I feel that I've been persecuted on Wikipedia, and have thus decided to take a long Wikibreak. I do not feel that Wikipedia can ever really succeed when users are picked on for applying policy and admonished from warning vandals. On this point, I agree with User:RickK. There's a full explanation on my userpage, and I'd appreciate any comments anybody has.--Rambutan (talk) 05:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes a vacation can be good for the perspective. Good luck. — RJH (talk) 22:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Please don't come here ranting about "how you are being persicuted", when quite clearly you broke the 3RR rule repeatedly, and accuse the blocking admin (who done the right thing) of wikistalking you, grow up, and read up on 3RR. Meateater 10:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Anhedonia needs to be added to the schizophrenia page which is locked.

Anhedonia, a negative symptom of schizophrenia, is not listed on the schizophrenia wiki page. This is a serious flaw in the article and reflects a lack of complete research on the topic of schizophrenia. The page needs to be unlocked and available for editing again.

I have been diagnosed with schizophrenia and anhedonia as one of my symptoms and I have read much about schizophrenia so I know what I'm talking about.

Please unlock the schizophrenia webpage.

Make sure you have reliable sources to back anything you add to the article... I would hate for the material you add to be dubbed "Original Research" (ie based on nothing but your personal knowledge) and deleted. After all, while you may know what you are talking about, others have no way to verify this unless you can back up what you say with sound citations. Good luck. Blueboar 14:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

That article is not fully protected, but if it was, you would have to place a request at RFP, which is also the place to request protection. Adrian M. H. 16:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

wiki reveals magic effects

As an avid magician, I have to protest the revelation of these effects. Such effects as King Rising, Balducci, and elevator are revealed here. It is very unhelpful to the magic community. Please help us and protest the exposure of these effects. ThanksBirdy2011

WP:NOT censored. Sorry if it spoils the trick, but I see no valid reason to withhold information about smoke and mirrors just because magicians like keeping them secret. --Nintendorulez talk 23:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

See this link, section "Request for removal of methods from magic effects". Dcoetzee 20:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Hey, this seems like an appropriate place to post, if not then please remove this post, I will not complain.

I am currently doing a study on the RfA process, and I am running a survey at http://wpsurvey.100webspace.net/index.php?sid=1. I am requesting that anyone familiar with the RfA process (especially recent candidates) fills out the survey - I am going to post the results etc on-wiki, and I am using it for various studies regarding the RfA process, and how we vote.

I apologise in advance for the ads - I would have used my dedicated however it has been really slow lately, so I had to resort to free hosting *shiver*.

Thanks! Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 11:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It's back online, host got it sorted out. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 04:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Local, Regional, National

An issue that has been stirring a little storm in a teacup amongst Wikipedians from the tiny island of Jersey is whether the criteria for notability in microstates are any different to those in major nations.

One faction, not mine, have been creating pages for minor parish and ward functionaries, on the pretext that they equate to regional politicians. For those who like to think with metaphors, it's not the size of the fish, it's the size of the bowl. As the faction include a few ward officials, but no top-level politicians, they get to give themselves namechecks by taking this view.

I, however, hold that in a place too small to have regions, politicians of the apical government are still notable, but local parish and ward officials remain non-notable. that they are the next tier is irrelevant; no regions means no regional politicians, and that's that. Or, if you prefer, a small fish is still a small fish in a small bowl. As my faction have top-level politicians, but no Roads Inspectors, the other party resent this view. A bitter edit war is brewing up over my attempts to deflate their pretension, as an embarrassment to Jersey politics, so it would be nice if we could have some guidance from the wider Wikipedia community over which approach should prevail. Clicking on my contribs list will bring up a nice range of examples to look at.Daverotherham 15:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Without looking into this too deeply, I would support your view. It should be more about the size of the fish, not solely the size of the bowl. (Good metaphor, by the way). But one opinion won't carry much weight in this case, so you might want to consider RFC or something. Adrian M. H. 17:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The one article I've seen this at doesn't involve a "bitter" edit war. While I agree with Daverotherham that such areas should not be really labeled "regions", I see nothing wrong with the appelation "national"—Jersey is a nation more than Wales, Scotland, and Catalonia are. The Jade Knight 08:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The criteria for notability must include such things as press coverage and renown in the local community, it is not simple enough to base it on electoral success or otherwise as many elected members of the national government get little to no coverage and thus do not merit their own page on wikipedia. There is no bitter edit war, the only Jersey person trying to get things removed, against the concensus of Jersey resident editors is yourself. On your criteria would such countries as Andorra, Monaco, San Marino or the Vatican City merit coverage of their politics and politicians? They are full nation states and yet are also smaller than say the United Kingdom. You also make the claim that there are no regions, we not only have regions but smaller administrative districts such as vingtaines and even smaller cantons. However a full 'name only' list is being compiled at List_of_politicians_in_Jersey. Also please note that People_from_St_Helier and Saint_Helier both exist as categories on wikipedia so your assertion that it is insignificant is obviously not a concensus opinion. I too worry about the impression you are giving of Jersey to readers around the world by trying to pursue party political games on wikipedia. I beleieve that Wikipedia:Notability_(people) is a good guide basing itself more on press coverage than actually getting elected. RichardColgate 16:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

My project has been to stamp out Jersey party political games on Wikipedia. If the Centre Party had not vandalised the JDA entry last year, we would never have looked at theirs and discovered the web of free advertising that should not be here. I hold to the view that there are no regions in Jersey, and I think your idea makes us look Lilliputian.Daverotherham 03:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Seven New Wonders of the World

For those who haven't heard about it on, 7th July a foundation unveiled Seven New sites that 100m people consider to be the top candidates for Seven New Wonders of the World [BBC News Report].

The sites named are: The Great Wall of China, Machu Picchu, Statue of Christ Redeemer, The Colosseum, Petra, Chichen Itza and The Taj Mahal.

Some editors have added the details of the named sites on relevent articles but some of the details have been removed by other editors. Either the details should be on all the articles or none at all. If Wikipedia is to be consistant, editors should roughly agree what should or shouldn't be on the articles. Mike33 16:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)·

See discussion on Talk:New_Seven_Wonders_of_the_World - DavidWBrooks 21:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

"Kyoungjong Yang"

I have heard of this guy named Kyoungjong Yang and that he was in 5 armies or something like that and some of the stuff I read even said that they are making a movie about him called "A POW in Normandy",but I can't find any more info on the movie or any of the other soldiers who were with him during all the capturing, so I just wanna know, does anyone have more info on him or the movie, and if so, where can I find it?

And I think that someone, if they get enough information about him that they should make a wikipedia entry about him and/or the movie.

President stickface 01:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Why not do some research and write it yourself? Blueboar 17:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)