Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous): Difference between revisions

**Beware**

ROBOTS ARE CLEARLY SUPERIOR — Omegatron 01:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
INDEED. SUPERIOR TO BOTH PIRATES AND NINJAS (WHILE STILL INFERIOR TO ROBOTS) WOULD BE THE PIRATE NINJA. - Robovski 00:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
The answer is perfectly obvious: given that ninjas and pirates are both good, it surely follows that pirate ninjas (such as Chris) are better than either one. -- AJR | Talk 17:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Puh-lease.  Just picture the Pirate/Ninja stealthily sneaking into the bedroom under cover of darkness - clinging to the ceiling with tiny bamboo-leaf sucker cups attached to fingertips and toes - and assasinating your enemy with a single drop of lethal poison by trickling it down a fine thread lowered into his mouth....with an eye patch, one wooden leg, a hook for a hand and a damn great red and blue parrot on his shoulder incessantly yelling "PIECES OF EIGHT!! PIECES OF EIGHT!!" ???  I didn't think so. SteveBaker 23:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pirates, DUH!A7X 900 21:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Given that there are likely far more actual pirates than real ninjas in the world today, I'd say pirates are more popular, even though I personally find ninjas more interesting. But piracy a more popular occupation, judging by acquaintances I have who sail in tropical seas. I've met more people who have encountered real pirates than people who have encountered real ninjas. =Axlq 22:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's because nobody who meets a ninja lives to tell about it! Deco 09:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ghost pirates!(i've posted too many times here >.<)--Kar_the_Everburning 14:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a need for more practice of Piracy. Ninjitsu is an overrated and loathesome past time that need not be afflicted upon the peoples of the world. Someday the pirates wil be up in arms and all the Ninja will do is a pretty backflip onto some roof in the horizon, then prance about with flashy stars and I will be in my house laughing and consuming the maids latest affrontary on the consumable medium. May Satan save us all.--R.A Huston 08:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dude! Ninjas all the way! Kyo cat^meow! 06:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ninjas Clearly way cooler than pirates --Fittysix 03:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ninjas...for obvious reasons... ;) --さくら木 11:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
20 legit reasons that pirates are better (from a Facebook group; I'm not responsible for any contraversial points as I didn't make them):
Ninjas don’t choose to be sneaky, they have to be. The only way that they can kill anyone is if they sneak up and stab them in the back and then run away. Pirates basically announce that they are coming because they know that no one can stop them.
Ninjas have poor social skills. That is why they are such loners. Do you ever see a loner pirate? No.
Pirates get all the booty.
Famous pirate movie: Pirates of the Caribbean (Johnny Depp is a pimp)... Famous ninja movie: 3 Ninjas (enough said) (What? did you say "what about Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles?" Well see #10 below duh.)
Pirates get pet monkeys and parrots. Ninjas get nothing.
Pirates eat meat off the bone. Ninjas eat low fat yogurt (it’s the only thing that is transportable enough for them to carry in their black clothes or whatever the heck they wear).
Pirates get to use cool words such as “Yo Ho,” “wench,” and “argh.” Ninjas don’t talk (poor social skills, remember?).
84% of ninjas are homosexual. Look it up. It’s a fact.
Pirates speak English. People who speak English are BETTER THAN EVERYONE ELSE. Plus, they have cool accents.
One might say, “Well, what about the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles?” Now, I will admit that the Ninja Turtles are awesome. Unfortunately, they are NOT ninjas. According to TheFreeDictionary.com, The definition of a ninja is “a person skilled in ninjitsu.” The definition of a person is “a living human.” Therefore, a ninja is “a living human skilled in ninjitsu.” Since they are turtles, they are not ninjas.
George Washington was a pirate.
Pirates have been known to eat up to 70 pancakes in one sitting. Can a ninja do that? No sir.
Pirates have a universal symbol: the Jolly Roger.
Ninjas have no famous Disney characters. Pirates have Captain Hook.
Pirates sing pirate songs. Ninjas just read Cosmo.
No one can make artificial limbs look cool like pirates can.
Pirates get to pillage. Pillage...what a freaking cool word.
Shakespeare prefers pirates. There are pirates in The Tempest. Are there ninjas in any of Shakespeare's works!? No!
In the song "That's Life", Frank Sinatra sings, "I've been a puppet, a pauper, A PIRATE, a poet, a pawn and a king." Frank Sinatra is a pirate, FRANK SINATRA. Beat that, ninjas.
Ninjas don't get to keep the stuff that they steal, they give it to their government. You know what that means?, Ninjas work for the man, that's right, THE MAN. Nobody likes the man.
--Vic226 03:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vic226 make's a great point.A7X 900 19:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dural: has everyone forgotten about pirate ninja mimes? they are the best thing imaginalbe! not only can they do everything pirates and ninjas can, they can also use invisible weapons, deflect anything with their glass boxes, and "fly" using invisible staircases! :poseted by Dural (who is currently NOT a member... but that will change within a week)
Kim Arhee: Now lets stay on task here- this is a popularity contest.
The constant bickering over these two classic predatorial archetypes has emerged in recent years due to a combination of media campaigns. Notice how the two most popular Shonen Jump (tm) titles, One piece to piracy as Naruto is to Ninjitsu, and their relatively recent introduction to western popular culture. Admittedly One piece does conincide with the fanatical following of Pirates of the Carribean in a very timely fashion, but Ninja have been supremely popular with the youth of the past generation- Power Rangers, the 3 Ninjas franchise et al. Of course we could go into lots of petty disputes over the romanticizing of oriental assassination in various literary texts and how pirates dress not for practice,but how well the aparell catches the fellow sailors' amourous attention, however im sure we can come to an agreemnt on the "more important" facts like who Frank Sinatra referenced in an obscure song. Focus people, this is not a Johnny Depp character portrayal popularity contest, this is to decide which career is the best for toy companies to market as a fad for all 6 year old children in 1st world countries.
Hey everybody, please stick to my topic question because me and probably every one else are getting confused about what this discussion is really about. I would really appreciate it.Gogoboi662 19:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is it with Wikipedia and Hurricane articles?

--Ideogram 04:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Context goes here. --tjstrf talk 04:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ideogram, tjstrf was pointing out that your comment requires context. Please provide some. | Mr. Darcy talk 04:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Everything I meant to say was said in the header.  --Ideogram 04:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't tell if you're saying we have too many, or not enough, or that we have the right number but they all suck, or that we're vehemently opposed to articles about hurricanes, or that they're are best group of articles and you can't figure out why, or... CONTEXT! --tjstrf talk 04:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying.  I'm asking.  Which of those statements do you believe?  --Ideogram 05:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Har har, Socrates. --tjstrf talk 05:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not quite my intent, but that's a philosophical issue impossible to discuss here.  --Ideogram 05:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...I'll be going somewhere else now... If you ever feel like actually asking your question, I'm sure someone else will be able to help you. --tjstrf talk 05:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has 7 featured lists about hurricanes and tropical storms.  Whatever it is about Wikipedia and hurricanes, I hope it affects more pages. Durova^Charge! 05:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'll second that! We have tens of thousands of articles that could benefit from that kind of quality and attention to detail. --Doc  Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 05:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Count a third vote for the condition that has affected our hurricane articles to spread to the entire encyclopedia! ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 16:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do wish someone would standardize the Hurricane article names.  --Ideogram 18:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take it up on WP:TROP then, an outside view would be valued. I think there is an issue in the article names of the older storms (pre-1950). With more recent storms there is as much consistency as there can be; I really don't think Hurricane Katrina should be at Hurricane Katrina (2005) for example. Which article names do you have a problem with? (disclaimer: I'm a wikiproject member)--Nilfanion (talk) 18:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware there was a good reason for this.  It's not important enough to me to pursue.  --Ideogram 19:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um, they are standardized. Retired tropical cyclones have their name on the "main", disambiguated article page; the rest of the articles have a year disambiguator on them. If there's only one occurrence of a name ever used, then that page gets the main article page as well. Also, storms that reach hurricane or typhoon intensity get their name from the basin in which they first reach that intensity; for example, Hurricane Ioke formed in the North-central Pacific Ocean, so it receives the "hurricane" designation for our purposes, in spite of it being known as Typhoon Ioke while on the Northwestern Pacific. Titoxd^(?!?) 20:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Autogenerated edit summaries

Lately I've seen a lot of edit summaries by IPs and new users that say things like, "Replaced page with 'u r a turd'" or "Blanked page" or "Created page with 'blah blah blah'".  This seems... odd.  I know there had been some talk about autogenerating edit summaries and I'm wondering if that has now been implamented and if that's what I'm seeing.  Especially since almost every thing on new pages now has an edit summary that reads like that...  When did this happen? And if they are autogenerated, why don't all edits now have some sort of edit summary? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 17:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Got an example diff you can show us? | Mr. Darcy talk 18:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure.  Here are some pulled from recent changes and new pages in the last few minutes:
a diff with an edit summary of "Blanked the page"
a link to the history of a new article with an edit summary of "(←Created page with 'Elsewhile (n) (EHLS-wyle) - 1. a rarely used coloquialism used to mean "some other time" or "another time". (Derived by the same linguistical logic in which "elsew...')"
link to history of new article created with no edit summary (go quick, it could be deleted at any time)
[2] a diff with an edit summary of, "(←Replaced page with 'For other people named Andrew Johnson, see Andrew Johnson (disambiguation).
 {{Infobox_President | | name=Andrew Johnson FAG')"
~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 19:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-11-20/Technology report, second bullet item. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So this is a new feature, but only for changes that affect 90% of the article or new articles of 500 words or more.  That ought to make life easier for RC and NP patrollers, and anyone looking at their watchlist!  Cool. :) ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 20:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Until the vandals figure it out and start circumventing it. :-) But anything that makes their work harder is good. Deco 17:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update: they do seem to be figuring this out; I've already noticed a drop-off in the Edit Summaries. It sure was nice while it lasted : ) Doc  Tropics 20:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A new wikipedia

just a suggestion...
why not create a site 'wikipedia people' dedicated to profiles of people? Firstly a great number of people would use it and secondly i think that it would stop a lot of vandalism on the general wikipedia site if people can write about themselves elsewhere...
cheers

A project like this has been considered before but the main problem is that if anyone could have a page about them put in, there would be problems with privacy breaches and a lack of acceptable sources for the information Tra (Talk) 17:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just use user pages? -Elmer Clark 05:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah... that's kind of what your user page is for. Or a blog. Or your own personal website. If you want to tell the world about yourself, a userpage works fine. As does the thousands of other mediums for self-publication on the web. -Monk of the highest order^(t) 14:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would ease the pressure of vanity pages. Maybe call it Wikiography? Who's Wiki Who? Any good project needs a good name. Robovski 00:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mena, Arkansas

Somebody put a really long section into the Mena, Arkansas article regarding a local Yu-Gi-Oh tournament, including multiple external links to its website.  Now, I'm not familiar enough with that local area or the Yu-Gi-Oh scene to know for sure if it's notable enough to deserve mention, but certainly this seems to be excessive prominence and detail for what seems to be a very minor event.  I removed it but was reverted, and don't want to get into a revert war over it; perhaps somebody else should take a look. *Dan T.* 02:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My opionion ... This is too much as included.  A couple of sentences noting that a 'festival' like this exists is more than enough, but the remainder should be off-loaded to it's own article, thence to be judged for survival via standing notability guidelines.  The extended passage reads not unlike an advertisement by one of the tourney's organizers.  Out-right deletion will lead to a revert war, so work at reducing it to it's notable core and create an article for the rest ... which you might even put into the deletion stream if you feel that is warranted. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't look like the anonymous IP who has obviously written this is happy to see it reduced to a notable core, he is persisting in re-inflating the section with plainly unencyclopaedic detail.  Any other ideas other than revert warring on how we can solve this?  Lankiveil 12:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Banning always works. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 21:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone noticed that Wikipedia doesn't work any more?

I'm increasingly noticing that Wikipedia is loosing the battle against vandalism. When I started editing here a couple of years ago, there was a FAQ somewhere saying something like

But if anyone can edit, isn't Wikipedia open to vandalism
to which the answer was
Sure, Wikipedia is vandalised all the time, but it always gets reverted by the many other editors who want the encyclopedia to improve
This isn't really true anymore.
Last night I went over to look for a photograph that I had added to the Guy Fawkes article and was only mildly surprised to find that it had disappeared. Whilst checking to see whether someone had had a valid reason to remove it (they hadn't) I trawled through a large number of diffs and found that the article had steadily degraded over the last month. During that time there were still plenty of reverts, but when there were several bad edits in a row it was often only the last bad edit hat got reverted. 
In the same article I noticed that a whole section on 'language' had disappeared, and a sentence in the opening paragraph which used to read 'a group of Roman Catholic conspirators' had been vandalised to 'a group of Roman Catholic' which was then just corrected for grammar to read 'a group of Roman Catholics'.
I think the problem isn't just a rise in anonymous users making random bad edits, but rather an attrition of top flight editors. As a result articles are left with nobody taking a full time active interest in them - some vandalism gets corrected but plenty gets overlooked. It is not feasible (or desireable) for an editor to take ownership of an article and maintain it for the next 20 years, so the system only works if there are enough new good editors coming along who can keep up with the flow of detritus and outweigh the influence of the bad editors. Unfortunately I think the tide started to turn about six months ago. 
This isn't an isolated case. I've got several thousand articles on my watchlist that I don't watch avidly, but if I compare an article with its version a week ago, many of them show signs of creeping deteriation. Of course it is much harder to repair an article once bad edits begin to build up, you can't just revert to an earlier version.
The good news is that the Guy Fawkes article is still significantly better than it was a year ago. -- Solipsist 09:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's strictly anecdotal evidence at this point but I've been having the same feeling. Haukur 09:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep.  Things that worked when we were small won't work as well when we get big. — Omegatron 15:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, the most interesting thing about being involved in wikipedia over the years has been watching the change in its highest-level problems (from 'not enough articles' to 'too much crap' to 'increasingly bad incompetence-vs.-editing ratio') and seeing how (or whether) the system adjusts. I think it's possible it will stop being useful in a couple of years, in which case its Google ubiquity will become a serious liability to the Net; but then again, I've thought that for a couple of years, so what do I know?  - DavidWBrooks 15:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is definitely a real problem.  A similar thing had happened with the Network topology article last spring, with half-reverted section blanking vandalism resulting in the article steadily shrinking to less than a third of its original size over the course of about three months.  (Since I reverted it in May, there have been over 150 edits to the article.  What has changed?  Not much.)  The only positive side to this is that, once you do notice something like this happening, it's not that hard to go through the history and restore the article to its original glory.  But still, there must be hundreds if not thousands of articles like this around, slowly eroding away because no-one is watching carefully enough.  Ironically, it's the controversial articles with constant edit warring that never suffer from this problem, since those always have editors who are quick to spot any changes they dislike.  What I feel we really need is some kind of a technical solution.  Stable versions and/or patrolling might help.  So would some way of hiding reverted edits from the edit history.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The term for this problem is edit creep.  One way to deal with edit creep is to check the page history for the last known reliable version and delete harmful changes that occurred during the interim.  The German language Wikipedia is experimenting with a stable versions option that would help address edit creep. Durova^Charge! 17:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can only add my own feelings of frustration to the mix.  While it is annoying to discover, for example, that a few weeks ago, a count of the then last sixty edits to Cape Verde showed that all but two were either vandalism or reverting of such, what's worse is the editors who believe that they can add a contradictory statement to the end of an article with no context (and usually no grammar and no capital or space after the previous fulll stop).  If I had a dollar for every time I've seen an article that read something like "Smith died of lung cancer in 1958, survived by his wife and two daughters.in 1933 he scored a century for England against austalia." (sic throughout)
Honestly, have people who add this type of edit ever read an encyclopaedia before?  How difficult is it for them to add the piece of information in the right place in the article?  If the answer is "too difficult", don't do it. The sooner wikipedia restricts the ability for anons to edit, the better.  --Roisterer 23:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it all a part of the love/hate that is Wiki? I love that anyone can edit and contribute. I also absolutely hate that anyone can use that edit to misinform, pervert and vandalize. How can we have our cake and eat it too? Robovski 00:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the only thing able to restore Wikipedia's health in the long term is (1) better antivandal bots and (2) running these bots to analyze the entire history of a page, not just watch recent changes. Once a bot finds a historic vandalism that was never reverted, it is feasible to automatically revert it in the current version without affecting the useful edits that were made in the interim. 
Surely no bots can catch all bad edits. But such bots are getting better all the time, and we can rerun them on page histories again and again to fix what was missed last time. It's reasonable to expect that bot intelligence will keep slowly approaching human intelligence - and once it gets close enough, Wikipedia may be considered officially out of danger. Perhaps the main reason for why AI hasn't (largely) happened yet is that so far, it's been something from the "would be nice" category. And Wikipedia is now pushing it into the "essential for survival" category. Trapolator 05:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as a fairly new editor (I guess it's fair to call myself that now), I can say that there is a pretty steep learning curve to getting the hang of editing--especially editing well. Maybe a series of beginner how-to articles should be linked to in strategic places. For example, when editing an article, when looking at a page history or diffs, etc. The articles should be a mix of how to edit well, and why editing is important and the goals behind good editing. Something like an ethics for Wikipedians or how to be a good citizen of Wikipedia. I am sure that not everyone will read the articles, but it might help those who have the "spark" have an easier time becoming good editors. Otherwise, only people with actual "fire" are likely to push through the frustration and become editors. --Willscrlt 06:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has the makings of a wikipedia:essay. Part of me wonders whether the apparent change happened because of the the "No anon IPs can make new articles" decision or if the sheer number of articles is outpacing the number of editors. I have heard that Jimmy Wales has asked that people work more on the quality of existing articles. I also wonder if there has been an increase in vandalism simply due to the increase in publicity for wikipedia in recent months. Maybe we have reached a tipping point of some sort. MPS 07:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In response to your question: No. Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 21:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
US Authorities on Wikipedia?

I posed the following question which began a thread on the help desk and someone suggested the village pump would be more appropriate venue for this discussion. So if there are any further thoughts or views on this, I'd appreciate hearing them. I've purposely avoided naming specific editors/administrators in this because it's more concern based on a pattern of practice. This sinking sense I got by starting with the linked article through to its talk page and then uncovering repeated administrative maneuvering and contemptuous  and intimidating encounters with other editors and administrators it  made me want to stay clear of this article. However, I was worried about the reputation of Wikipedia in general. --70.8.49.7 01:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering whether the US government is granted special permission to as editors and administrators on Wikipedia? I ask that because many of the articles associated with the September 11th attacks read like press releases from the Whitehouse instead of encyclopedia articles. Also reading through endless discussion pages reveals they look more like usenet newsgroup discussions than discussions about writing wikipedia articles. A core group of administrators and editors pretends to be ignorant of Wikipedia polices and uses they're administrative powers to be disruptive, and intimidate other editors and administrators. They seem to be immune from any disciplinary policies.
I thought about jumping into these discussion, but I do not want to get in any trouble with the authorities. From looking at the history any dispute reolution measures look futile. If these articles are only intended for US authorities to edit, why doesn't wikipedia simply place a notification on those articles to indicate such special treatment. I think we're losing good editors and admins who just don't know these articles are off limits. --68.30.94.147 22:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that a better place to discuss this would be the Admin's Noticeboard, the village pump, or even the mailing list. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, no special rights are given to the US authorities. The reason many articles tend to agree with the official line on things is that, well, the official line on things often tends to agree with reality... Shimgray | talk | 22:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are not given those. It would compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia, and its Neutral-Point-of-View Policy. If you think an article too strongly leans toward one direction, you can change the article (explain why in the edit summary), but better yet, bring it up on the talk page, and cite specific examples. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Shimgray, you raise a good point. However, I didn't realize Wikipedia had an official line that tends to match reality. These are the sme type of bizzarre arguments I see these privileged aditors and administrators make.
Royalguarfd11 I will try to take this to the village pump. Thanks for the suggestion. --68.30.94.147 23:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't have any kind of an "official line" on topics - what I mean by this is that when our articles tend to agree with what the White House says, or what Number 10 says, this is because what those people are saying happens to be vaguely right, not because we're letting them control the articles. Much to my astonishment, it does sometimes happen that government spokespeople make statements that describe the real world... Shimgray | talk | 23:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's true of every press release every issued. They always "make statements that describe the real world" Unfiltered press releases have no place on Wikipedia IMHO. --70.8.49.7 23:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...I think you and I are completely talking at cross purposes here. Perhaps I ought to go back to the beginning -
Wikipedia does not give editorial control to government agencies.
Wikipedia does not give special rights to representatives of government agencies.
Wikipedia does not take its editorial line from government agencies.
Wikipedia does not place articles "off limits" on behalf of government agencies
Hope that clarifies things. Shimgray | talk | 00:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll butt in with a hypothetical question of my own here.  What if a really high ranking official, say the President, demanded adminship on Wikipedia.  Are you obligated to give it to him?  DoomsDay349 00:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...why on earth would we be obligated to give it to him? that's a bizzare concept. Shimgray | talk | 00:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Shimgray, I don't know how you or any editor could be so confident of what you're saying. I mean as a fairly new editor to Wikipedia I would say I would think Wikipedia doesn't grant special permission. However,

when you look at the articles I'm talking about;
when you follow through with the editors and administrators who maintain them; when you see the mockery they make of other editors other administrators and Wikipedia policies;
when you see the selected topics of the articles they preside over;
when you see the contempt they hold for every other editor they encounter (remember these are mostly administrators); and
when you see how it seems to be a coordinated effort on 24-hour watch,
it really makes you wonder. I know I said I'd take this to the village pump and I will do that now and stop posting here. --70.8.49.7 01:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

end of Held Desk Thread
Given the articles that you're discussing,September 11th attacks, I suspect the answer is relatively straightforward...completely unrelated to any government activity at all, those articles are heavily edited by U.S. citizens. Americans may be a bit schizophrenic on some topics, but we can largely agree that blowing up our skyscrapers is not something we take kindly to. Any bias in the articles almost certainly relates to this, rather than a semi-conspiratorial government intervention. Doc  Tropics 01:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)   PS - the cabal made me say that!
[reply]

I work closely with the Foundation. I answer their email, and correspond with all sorts of people on their behalf. I follow most parts of the project's overall operational activity. I know what's going on as well as I can without being actually paid to work here. This isn't my assumption, this isn't my belief, it's a factual statement - there are not any articles "only intended for US authorities to edit", nor do we grant those authorities "special permission" in any way. It's not done from the bottom-up by the community, and it isn't done from the top-down by the Foundation
In your specific case, these articles attract strong-willed editors - some of whom are admins, some of whom are not - and attract a vast amount of "drive-by" criticism; they represent a carefully developed and fragile consensus on what constitutes a neutral and balanced article. It is inevitable that these articles are watched heavily and that attempts to make major alterations are usually reverted on sight in favour of long meandering debates on the talk page - and that they will attract... how can I best phrase this? ...attract those of our editors who are least capable of playing well with others. Unfortunate, but there you go. It doesn't help that most attempts to alter these pages want heavy and sweeping changes, generally aiming for a completely different tone and conclusion, not something likely to get productive results.
These "selected topics" aren't selected for heavy watching because they're politically sensitive; being politically sensitive means they get high traffic and thus the heavy watching develops, rather than being externally imposed.
As to "making a mockery of policies", well, it's often claimed but rarely substantiated. If you have detailed and clear examples of a coterie of users forcing a particular point of view on an article against community consensus, we'd love to hear it so we can do something, but accusations of heavy-handed cabalism are ten a penny. Shimgray | talk | 01:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that conspiracy theories aren't looked upon too highly in Wikipedia, which is the other situation that the IP may be speaking of other than simple pro-American systematic bias. --tjstrf talk 01:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[[User:Shimgray|Shimgray], again I find your confidence on this matter quite disturbing. The example of the September 11 2001 attacks article is a glaring example. That article says precisely what a small group of admins want it to say. Reading through the discussion (including 17 pages of archives), no one has been able to add any balance to the article. It really does read like a press release for the Bush Whitehouse. The admins deciding what this article can say repeatedly take disciplinary measure against anyone they can, while playing fast an loose with any policies open to interpretation. Other unsuspecting administrators have found themselves disciplined just for trying to step in and provide balance.
I've been participating here long enough to know disputes are common on Wikipedia. But nowhere else on Wikipedia have I encountered such a vitriolic group of administrators attacking other administrators (and even newly registered editors) and with seeming immunity. And I am not speaking of conspiracy theories which I too disdain. I concerned about what's going on here that I worry could be like a cancer that's discouraging and chasing away good administrators and editors just to protect this one group (the Bush Whitehouse) This is about one particular entity in America. It's not particularly a pro-american bias. That's a bit like saying that anything pro General Motors is pro-American (or the opposite). --70.8.49.7 01:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah - so that's why Karl Rove was too distracted to pay attention to the mid-term elections!
Considering that the offices of Congress got collectively blocked for vandalism less than a year ago, I regard it as highly unlikely that any special privilege has been granted with regard to this article.  If any credible evidence exists of this thread's alleged exception to site policy, and if an editor who has such evidence fears reprisal, e-mail me off site and I will look into the matter.  As a matter of full disclosure I cannot call myself neutral on this issue: I never edit that family of articles because my nearest relative survived the World Trade Center disaster on 9/11 from a high floor and I joined the armed forces and went to war as a result.  However, I am now a private citizen and am not beholden to anyone.  As one of roughly 5% of administrators who list themselves at Category:Administrators open to recall I welcome scrutiny for fairness from other Wikipedians.  My e-mail address is available through my user talk page. Durova^Charge! 02:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify: wouldn't it be better an editor anonymously posted the evidence to your talk page to avoid reprisals? Emailing someone would remove the anonymity. Or are you suggesting those seeking reprisals would be able to get around the anonymous posting? I'm just trying to understand this stuff. --70.8.49.7 02:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I treat e-mail as confidential (unless of course someone were to admit to child pornography or something like that).  Editors are welcome to set up an anonymous e-mail account to contact me or to post to my talk page through a proxy server - it's unclear to me what type of reprisal this editor fears but I'll accommodate anything reasonable. Durova^Charge! 02:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. You had brought up fear of repraisals, but I didn't want someone who might be afraid of repraislas to midunderstand the technical issues involved. Obvoiusly we're only talking about Wikipedia here, its not like they're going to face a grand jury or something like that. --70.8.49.7 02:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the NSA had that much control over Wikipedia, the first thing they'd do would be to stop people from harassing a certain admin who works for them. And Jimbo has too much of a beard to be working for the government. yandman 13:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NSA!? Jimbo!? You're aiming way too high here. A friend of mine who works near the program says it's just a bunch of grunts like him with no career potential. They shunt these pawns off to this program just to give them something to do. They're only roll is to be as ddisruptive as they can be and make sure Wikipedia says what it's supposed to say. We're not talking Ethan Hunt types heree. These guys couldn't find entrigue in a brothel. 67.167.7.187 19:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still waiting for the e-mail with the eye-popping evidence.  Come on, brighten up my day here...otherwise it's back to WP:RFI where I get to play Sherlock Holmes over linkspam and Spanish street slang.  I'd much rather blow an NSA operative's cover story. ;) Durova^Charge! 22:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that Wikipedia gives any undo authority to government officials, but when I read stories that say the military is tightening rules on military bloggers and then I read the Pentagon creates a rapid response team, and then I look at the discussion pages mentioned here, I start to wonder if US authorities are on Wikipedia.  In fact, I'm sure they are, and that isn't really bad.  What would be bad is if people, in the government or not, are paid to guard or edit articles.—Slipgrid 22:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's even a better article.  It says, "the Pentagon's latest recruits are not soldiers, spies or scientists but spin doctors, bloggers and YouTube DIY filmmakers as it prepares to launch a vigorous new media campaign in support of its ongoing military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan."  Now, stopping the troops from blogging is one thing; recruiting people to covertly blog or create YouTube films is another thing.  And, if they are doing this, it isn't a far stretch to think they are recruiting, and perhaps paying, people to edit Wikipedia.  And, if this is happening, that's a problem.  And, if it's happening, then it's would be on the mentioned articles that this would happen.  Wacky?  I hope!  But, when I look at the archived talk pages on the mentioned articles, it seems that some admins are not acting in good faith.  I've had some users, who may or may not be admins, tell me that homeland security is monitoring the pages, and I'd end up in Gitmo for suggesting some changes.  And, I think if I've ever said anything outlandish, it's only after dealing with admins that are not acting in good faith.—Slipgrid 22:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Show me the diffs.  Vague speculation and allegations mean nothing.  Evidence counts.  And it's very easy to tell who's a sysop: just compare the username to Wikipedia:List of administrators. Durova^Charge! 23:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If there really are secret plants among us trained to write high-quality Wikipedia articles, get along with people, and conform to Wikipedia policy, I think we should be thanking the US Government and asking them to send more over. --tjstrf talk 23:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you didn't look at the article's in question. They're history and talk pages do not show high-quality Wikipedia writters conforming to Wikipedia policies and getting along with others. Just a cursory glance of these articles would show quite the opposite. And it's not easily apparant how many of these disruptive editors are administrators, but if you follow through on that it turns out ther's a lot of them.  Yet most of the time they act like: <prancing around like a sissy> "Wikipedia policies... Oh dear I didn't know Wikipedia had policies. </prancing around like a sissy > Basically these administrators act like they never read the policies before.. I've senn them knowingly and defiantly add liebe3lous material to biographies of living persons. They just don't give a shit because sites like Wikipedia are a threat to national security in their way of thinking.. --Cplot 02:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! the article that Slipgrid points to is very disconcerting. I can just imagine the profile of someone they might recruit for that. Some patsy who thought the answer to these attacks was to join the military to fight for Haliburton in Afghanistan. Clearly such a person wouldn't have the skills to think through serious intelligence matters,, but they'd be perfect for an assignment like this. Wikipedia should really take steps to prevent this sort of attack. Its integrity cannot withstand an attack like this..--Cplot 00:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

22 hours after my call for evidence I still haven't received one darn thing. Durova^Charge! 01:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All I can say is i'm devestarted. this is not supposed to happen :=( --12.2.23.146 01:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence is right above in the posts above. Are you just plugging your ears and saying "I'm not listening" --67.37.179.61 03:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would add to this discussion that I had been wondering how such behavior could continue unchecked for so long. This would be a good explanation. I've been trying to think of others but so far I draw a blank. I know some may say that's just how a decentered, democratic site works, but that wouldn't explain how so many disruptive editors could also rise to administrator positions. Any other thoughts about explanations?  --Cplot 02:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After having read oodles of postings to innumerable web forums, over the years, I'm only surprised when people take a rational, moderate, open-minded approach to any discussion on any subject.  And some years ago Forbes (I think) published an article about corporate America paying folks to create and maintain stoogeblogs to battle criticisms from indie blogs, and since the government lately seems to be mostly about spin, rather than action, in the real world, as opposed to the fake world of television, I'm hardly surprised to hear suspicions raised about government employees sneaking in and editing things...especially since perception is reality.  Cryptonymius 04:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an example, just posted to Craigslist.  $5 a post.  Good money.

Do you own a few Blogs?

If you do, we pay $5 per post for you to write about our clients if your blogs qualify. You must be reliable and must do your assignments on time. Please send us your blog urls along with a contact number and we'll call you if your blog qualifies. 
Wonder how long after you take that job, before they ask you to start editing the wiki.—Slipgrid 04:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just reading through this stuff starting from September_11,_2001_attacks and just following through from one link to the next. Read the talk pages of these editors. Read the administrative actions they've taken. There's so much questionable behavior it's stunning. Right now there's a group of them going after User:Seabhcan. These repeated frivilous administrative actions typically involve the same group of editors/admins and just seems to be playing the system without regard driving away decent editors or fueling animosity. No good will or assumptions of good faith whatsoever. Even if they aren't paid professionals they're certainly overtaxing the administrative processes of the wiki. When you see how they engage editors before taking administrative it's stern and not quite civil, but almost. But from the pattern, as anon mentioned, you can see how they just seemt to be trying to evoke a personal attacks or violations of the 3rr from those they disagree with. Once they have these personal attacks and 3rr violations in hand they begin more frivilous disciplinary pursuits. It definitely looks like a full-time gig for these folks considering hos much time they devote to the wiki. It's astonishing. At first I thought they just didn't no how to compromise on the talk pages, but when you keep following through and it looks really bad. This is not good. It's hard to tell how many articles have been tainted by this. And sorting through all this evidence would take a full-time staff. --67.37.179.61 04:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you create an account?  It's hard to follow your points with difference anonymous IP's. --Tbeatty 04:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yah...seriously...if there are paid webspammers, it would be the conspiracy theorists trying to misuse Wikipedia to promote pet theories about the events of 9/11. They have more incentive for profit by being able to get their word out here and surely Wiki isn't considered a threat by the U.S. Government as a whole...all higher level governement officials are far more worried about whistle blowers and the press and than the "offical government" facts related to 9/11 being severely tested by misrepresentations in a Wikipedia article. Besides, the little pet theories do have an article here...9/11 conspiracy theories...and their ripoff books and other spam advertising are listed at the bottom of that article. Buyer beware.--MONGO 05:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um, looking at the archives, I think you, MONGO, are one of the people they are talking about.  You are the first to post on this topic to point the finger the other way.  Your post above reflects your post on the talk pages in question.  You admit their is a large number of people with a different point of view, but you allow the pages to call people who question the official White House version of events anti-semitic, which isn't the case.  You claim to know what "higher level governement officals (sic)" are thinking.  You are so certain that people with evidence to the contrary, that is document in the main stream press, are "webspammers" working for profit, that you respond to their good faith request for simple and basic edits to move the articles to a NPOV with nothing more than a "No Thanks."  You may be some of the problem.—72.49.187.83 07:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mongo, you make a good point. This would be a problem no matter who was doing it. However, the evidence points to people pushing a very pro Whitehouse position. And certainly high government officials have much more pressing matters to attend to. However, as someone said above,. these are not high government officials, but some sort of hardly tie their own shoes types of grunts involved. The US military budget is something like $1 trillion dollars (best spoiken with Dr. Evil's voice). Somewhere I read recently, this budget was greater than all other military budgets worldwide cobined. Surely that hires a lot of thugs at minimum wage. Take a look at the articles Slipgrid posted. They're quite telling.. --Cplot 05:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simply not likely...there have been times that we are well aware of that staffers have edited articles about U.S. Representatives and Senators, but the "need" for a disinformation campaign regarding the events of 9/11 seems really just more of the type of thing a conspiracy theorist would be prone to believe. The feds don't give a hoot about Wikipedia as a whole, though individual persons may sometimes be very worried about misrepresentations in their biographies. In all seriousness, there is little profit margin for the feds to hire people to defend the improperly labelled "government story" on wikipedia, whereby, with books to sell and conferences to charges tickets to, the 9/11 Truth Movement and related entities do have a potential profit realization that may be enhanced by being seen as "mainstream" as far as the worlds largest web based encyclopedia is concerned.--MONGO 08:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Simply not likely, but support by evidence in the mainstream press, as well as evidence on the discussion pages, as well as your actions.  Where's the evidence to support your conspiracy theory?←72.49.187.83 10:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cplot says, "the US military budget is something like $1 trillion dollars (best spoiken with Dr. Evil's voice)."  But on September 10, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld said that "according to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions."  I don't believe that should go in the article, but a section of foreknowledge should be part of the article.  Users have asked for that for many months.—72.49.187.83 07:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mongo, you're really not helping make your case. This idea that the hundreds of billions of dollars Haliburton and other defense contracts have made off the war on terror is "nothing compared to what these conspiracy theroists make selling their books and DVDs" is a talking point used on Fox News. Fox News reporters have revealed off camera that these talking-points come from the Whitehouse. I've seen you use this same talking-point numerous times. It's thoroughly lauphable. Aren't you a little embarrased to make such claims? BTW, I think we should try to avoid rehashing discussion of the article here at the village pump.  --Cplot 09:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also Mongo, throughout the debates you have defined "conspiracy theory" as anything that disagrees with the Bush administration. That's quite telling in my view. --Cplot 18:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide some specific edits that you think were made by US authorities...either article edits or talk page edits. If you can't do that then this is all a waste of time. The path of the righteous is followed by those that talk about edits and not editors. Raising suspicions of this kind and not providing any evidence is the taking bad faith to it's extreme. Rx StrangeLove 21:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence has been pointed to, again and agin in this post. Talk about bad faith. You don't even bother to looki n to it. It's just not worth your truble I guess. --70.8.56.126 01:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I now see, they're vageuly admiting to it and just saying "so what. as long as we follow the rules" which is specifically what's at issue. They're using the rules to bully other editors and admins with ridiculous and repeated disciplinary actions. I thought it was considered cowardly around here to turn to disciplinary action everytime someone says the slightes disagreeable statement. So it's not even conjecture at this point. There's a group of admins who blieve it would be OK if paid US authorities were disrupting articles, intimidating editors and other administrators and basically lower the standards of Wikipedia in general. Now they're welcome to their opinions, but I think maybe this is a discussion that should be made much more explicit. What policies should exist around government authorities (from any government), pushing a specific agenda onto Wikipedia in a very disruptive way? --70.8.56.126 01:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No one's pointed to a single edit to any article/talk page in this section, until someone shows some some specific edits that are done by suspected US authorities there's nothing here. And just to repeat something, anyone is allowed to edit here as long as they stay within policy. In the meantime point out something specific or stop making these accusations. Rx StrangeLove 02:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Omegatron is right:  ROBOTS ARE CLEARLY SUPERIOR!!!  Cryptonymius 06:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You want evidence take a look at the history of the village pump. You'll find these messages deleted across every category of the village pump. Check the log, of the IP reporting the Feds inappropriate inovlement and you find it is now blocked. This one will likely be blocked now too. And all that IP did was post to the village pump something that should concern every legitiimate member of the Wikipedia community. There's clear evidence that something is going on here. Sure this evidence either shows inapprorpriate involvement of Federal Authoritieis or it could just be a prank by some editors and administrators trying to fuel "conspiracy theories": so they make it look like that by deleting "controversial" claims. If so then I'm likely in on it too. However, I have knowledge that it's the former (inappropriate Federal involvement)), but even if it's only a prank, it's inappropriate behavior. Something should be done about it. --70.8.132.79 21:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some targetted editors
67.37.179.61 brought up User:Seabhcan as one of the targets of these admins. Tom Harrison also pointed me to  User:Zen-master as another casualty  of these friviolous disciplinary measures. Maybe Village Pump isn't the place for this, but perhaps we could set aside another page to compile the issues together. That way If anyone knew how to reach these lost editors, they could be encouraged to reeturn and appeal or simply return if they were just frustrated away. Obviously it takes a carfeul reexamination of each disciplinary case to see if it fits in this pattern. I don't pretend to know about these cases in extreme detail. But from a first look at them they seem to fit the pattern..
As somewhat of a novice here I had been reading blog rants against Wikipedia complaining it doesn't stand up to its mission and my first thought was: you just don't understand how it works. After reading through this stuff , though I'm thinking: maybe this seemingly crazed blog ratner was one of those editors targetted --Cplot 06:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I guess CPlot should be added to this list of targeted editors. He now faces an indefinite block without any clear allegations. I should also note that he was one of the only ones who did not post to this thread anonymously: aside from Federal agents (Clowns) pathetically trying to redirect the discussion. They're tactics are so transparrent. Is this some kind of junior high recruitment? program? --70.8.150.242 21:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is why you can't win against conspiracy theorists: If you oppose them, you're part of the conspiracy. If you don't oppose them, you become part of the "silent majority" that they claim to represent. If you prove them wrong, they just make more junk up to explain away your objections and claim you're repressing The Truth(tm)! CPlot is being blocked for disruptive behaviour and paranoid accusations towards other editors. --tjstrf talk 21:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"If you prove them wrong"

I'm still waiting for that part.  That's a big if.—Slipgrid 04:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am also being Bullied by  User:FisherQueen

He makes my articles feel rubbish. Taking the mick out of anything i do and i dont seem to be the only one complaing. I have no connection with Hammersmith123 but he's absoloutly right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stone not Wood house (talk • contribs) 

Either you are a sockpuppet - or you've had your Wikipedia account for less than 24 hours.  Either way, it's a bit premature to be complaining about FisherQueen. SteveBaker 22:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Possible vandalism

On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculus, there's a jpeg, Human_Feces.jpg, exactly what it says.  Not surprisingly, it doesn't fit its caption.  Not sure how else to report it - and the possibility that this may have been done to other pages -, so I've done it here.
82.138.216.205 21:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)Barbara Sutton[reply]

The vandalism has been reverted, and the perpatrator blocked. Thanks very much for bringing this to our attention. Also, note that you can revert vandalism yourself by selecting the previous, unvandalised, version in the article's Edit History, then Saving it. Thanks again : ) Doc  Tropics 22:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What's the proper way to request people to help an Editor Review?

I admit I have one up for review, but I just realized that this otherwise great idea (general input and/or RfA pre-screening) isn't getting a whole lot of help.  Would it be proper to start placing some requests on a few talk pages, or should I do that to people who regularly vote on RfAs?  --Bobak 06:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of deleted articles

Why is it that the history of deleted articles is removed too?  It seems like no matter what, history should be preserved. Goaty 07:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted articles are often deleted because they're false, defamatory, offensive, or otherwise libelous, which is why the history is hidden (to non-admins). yandman 08:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Disturbing pictures.

I was trying to read the section on gangreen, but was immediately turned off by the images. Although they do fit well into the article, is there any chance wikipedia could have a feature that lets disturbing/graphic images be uncovered by a mouse click? To be quite honest I'm happy to read article on surgery without having to see surgical gore :o/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swyp (talk • contribs) 

But then who would say what is "disturbing"? Surgery? A penis? Muhammad? I'm afraid this would cause more problems than it would solve. What you can do is turn all images off on your browser. yandman 13:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some sites allow ALL images to be turned off, through an option either in the users profile or with a cookie (I like the first better). Some people prefer plain text browsing. -sthomson 16:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Linkimage, which puts the image one click away from the article's main page, has been used very succesfully in articles containing graphic images of sex, sexual organs, and occassionly, human corpses. While linkimage is an excellent compromise for images that might be considered "disturbing", there hasn't been any consensus to apply it to images in medical articles. Doc  Tropics 16:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I didn't know about Template:Linkimage; interesting. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 05:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, many browsers provide the option of turning off automated image downloads, though this would be a generally undesirable personal shield to have to erect.  This option was originally designed to facilitate rendering of graphics-heavy pages over slow internet connections. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 05:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My Complaint Letter to Wikipedia

This is my complaint.
Thank You --Martenal0001 11:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring for the nonce the supercilious verbage in the above discourse (diatribe?), I might suggest that you take a gander at Wikipedia talk:Expert retention, a more WP:CIVIL attempt at discussion; formulation of suggested recourse; and co-operative amongst concerned editors. In addition, if Wikipedia is not to your liking, perhaps you may wish to look elsewhere for ways in which to eke out your continued existence. In any case, I do wish you a plethora of brightly-hued sunrises : ) - jc37 11:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone mind if I move this to Martena'a userspace and replace it with a link? By the way, Martena, the most effective way of writing an essay is to structure the language around the ideas, not the other way around... yandman 12:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that the account would seem to have been created for just this message, I think moving it to the user's userpage would be a good idea (and feel free to delete/not bother to move my comment). We may also wish to consider the user's latest two edits, for further action. - jc37 13:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize, of course, that once you remove all the highblown, badly over-idomized, and histronically grandeloquent phrasing that this message basically says "Waaah! You're bad!" I suggest the user spend several hours learning Simple English and learning to say what he means instead of demonstrating his ownership of a thesaurus. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 14:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize, of course, that his essay is a joke - probably created by a complaint letter generator? 131.107.0.73 23:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. yandman 14:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, this looks like someone was playing with the Complaint Generator again. These seem to be popping up in a few places right now; the hallmark would be huge amounts of verbosity and absolutely no meaning, message or sense. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I stopped halfway through the first paragraph.  Why bother, when they obviously are bloviating without any other purpose?  User:Zoe|(talk) 21:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
West_Cheshire_College

Hey, I'm not sure where else to post this, so I came here. Could some of you guys add West_Cheshire_College to your watchlist? There's been unchecked slander sitting on the page since early July, and the author has continuously returned to add more. I'm fairly sure he's not done yet. Thanks. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for the heads-up. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone up for an interview?

I need to write an "ethnographic reasearch essay" for my university english course.
I thought wikipedia would make a great paper, but I need someone to interview...
If there are any takers, just email me and I'll send you a small list of questions.
Thanks!
ColinDC 03:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User complaint about History of erotic depictions on main page

I was thoroughly disappointed to see the Wikipedia main article today on 'History of Eroticism'. The links that the alleged 'scientific' article brazenly provided leads one to explicit pornographic pictures! 
What were the editors thinking??? Is this to improve your readership?
I always tell children to use Wikipedia for the wealth of knowledge it provided. But unfortunately one has to be on guard now. 
The sad thing is Even Net Nanny would not stop displaying such pages since they are coming from the trusted Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.173.58.13 (talk • contribs) 05:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not censored. If you wish for your children to not encounter such things, they should probably not be allowed on the internet unsupervised at all. --tjstrf talk 21:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is definately not safe for children, nor did I ever think it was.  I encourage my kids to use it for research all the time, but only with me supervising.  Perhaps check the featured article of the day from now before letting your students use it on any given day? — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's important that we retain the right do this kind of thing if we have the need - but I think we should be more circumspect about how we use that privilage.  So - yeah - Wikipedia needs to have the freedom to write about whatever we want and publish it without people hassling us about age-appropriateness or censorship.  We have that freedom - and if we need to use that power for the good of the encyclopedia - we can certainly use it.  However, we didn't need to put this kind of thing onto the front page - and we shouldn't have done so because it will definitely upset a good fraction of our readership - and that will harm us in the long run.  It's not like we don't have plenty of other FA's to put there. SteveBaker 23:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To me, the main page of any Website, not just Wikipedia, should remain appropriate for all ages. I saw the article, and the picture attached to the article was a tasteful depiction of naked people from antiquity. It was not at all offensive to me, but then I see nothing wrong with taking children to see classic works of art in museums, even if they contain nudity. It's a matter of opinion and taste. The problem is that by placing articles like that on the main page, parents are not given a choice about whether they feel it is in their children's best interest to see the articles or not. They are exposed to it regardless. While I oppose censorship, I do think that people should be given the option of viewing controversial issues or not. And Eroticism is not the only controversial topic that should probably be kept off the front page. The tricky thing is trying to strike a balance, because once you say one topic is inappropriate, all topics people ovject to come under scrutiny. There is no perfect solution, but the people selecting main page topics could probably have made a better choice for yesterday. --Willscrlt 01:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The main page was appropriate for all ages. The featured article may not have been, but the main page was kept clean. Anyone who saw the objectionable content knew exactly what they were reading an article on, and chose to view it. --tjstrf talk 02:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with the details of filtering software, but don't most "concerned" parents and public school libraries make use of such things and adjust the threshold to suit their comfort level? It seems a bit unbalanced to let concerns about children drive a debate about an encyclopedia. What the children view is the responsibilty of the parents, however they choose to handle it. Many reasonable parents don't regard this material as problematic at all, so it's clearly a personal and very subjective value. Doc  Tropics 02:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As 205.173.58.13 pointed out, many filtering programs filter exclusively based on the domain name, not the content of individual pages. I'm sure you can understand how trying to keep track of all the pages at WP could be a nearly impossible task for any filtering product. More sophisticated filtering programs also check contextually, but the article might still have passed unnoticed. I did not mean to imply that I felt the main page was inappropriate for children, and I agree with tjstrf that people who visited the article should have known what they were about to see. My comment was more to point out that with the millions of articles available, why could the topic selectors not have picked a different topic. I am sure a kid-friendly welcome page like Yahoo's Yahooligans along with a filtered search engine has been discussed before. This would be a good example of how that type of page could be helpful. --Willscrlt 03:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with tjstrf - there was one image on the main page, a graphic from a Roman fresco that's no different from what tourists giggle at in Pompeii. There are certainly more explicit images on that page, but that required a click-through. There is a line somewhere - would a porn-star bio really be an appropriate article to feature? - but I think this one was on the safe side of it. | Mr. Darcy talk 03:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Porn star bios of the featured level would almost certainly involve porn stars with substantial notability outside of porn, so it probably wouldn't be as big an issue as you suggest. A more interesting question would be if a porn star bio could be a DYK? feature. --tjstrf talk 03:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a priori clear to me why Jenna Jameson couldn't eventually get featured. There's obviously enough material about her to make it feasible. I'll resist making any puns on the topic although they come readily to mind. JoshuaZ 04:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dammit! That wasn't deliberate! JoshuaZ 04:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LMAO! It's just going to happen, no matter how hard you try...Doc  Tropics 04:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, but its so easy...JoshuaZ 05:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You'll notice that there actually aren't any pictures in that article which could be inappropriate for minors. Like I said, it wouldn't be as big a problem as you might think. --tjstrf talk 05:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but that depends upon your point-of-view. I agree with you, personally, but I'm thinking in terms of some of the parents I've known and their proclivities with respect to what they would want their children exposed to. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 05:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is pretty clear to me that this article being a featured article will make its way into the popular press as something like 'Wikipedia's encyclopedic treatment of porn' and will be misinterpreted by many as it was by the original poster in this thread.  The statement "alleged scientific article" says it all, frankly; many many people in the general population believe that erotica and science are like oil and water - 'if it has to do with sex how could it possibly have any intellectual or scientific value'.  I'm wondering if we (articulate wikipedians, that is) are prepared to defend the article, its ilk and the principles that abet its existence in op ed pieces in the newspapers where the inevitable news-for-shock-value will appear. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The argument that parents should be careful about what their children see online is a valid one - unsupervised browsing is not something a responsible parent is going to allow small children to do - no more than you'd want them walking through the worst parts of a city at night.  I consider myself a responsible parent - and I'm not prissy.  (I don't supervise my son who is now 15 - and I know damned well from his browser logs that he visits "certain sites" that I might maybe would have stopped him from going to...but I'm broad-minded - so I pretend not to notice).  But let's think about a 4 or 5 year old child.  In this case even the closest parental supervision wouldn't have worked.  Let's work through the most likely scenario:
So let us suppose that I don't want my 4 year old asking: "Why that lady is sitting on that man's lap and what happened to all of their clothes?"...that's NOT an unreasonable thing for me to wish to avoid...trust me - it's embarrasing to have to answer that question at that age.  But I'm a good parent - and I'm going to supervise my little kid so he/she doesn't click on something inappropriate...so I sit with my little kid in front of a blank browser window.  Little child says "Daddy - can we read about Elephants?" - "Sure!  Let's go to Wikipedia and type in 'Elephants' at the search window."..."Now let me just blindfold you because I don't know what'll be on the front page today"...
Surely we can all agree that this should NOT be necessary.  I'm happy to sit with my kid and make sure they don't click on links to "Porn Star" or something - I'm happy to treat the Internet as a dangerous place where you don't want your kid to go unsupervised.  But I really ought to be able to visit the Wikipedia front page without having to worry.  I don't in the slightest bit mind that this article exists - it definitely SHOULD exist - it's a really well written and illustrated piece and it's worthy of FA status.  But it doesn't have to be featured on the front page...really, truly...it's not necessary.  We *WANT* children to read Wikipedia - it's the best site on the entire Internet for them - they can ask any question - ask for a picture of anything - and we can provide it for them - with appropriate supervision, sure.  But there shouldn't be surprises like this.  If you are heading into dubious terratory - you need fair warning - and putting it right there on the very top of the front page is a nasty surprise that no parent, even one who is trying hard to be careful, could have avoided.  You can't duck out of it by demanding that parents take more care.  It was a stupid, unthinking decision...period.  SteveBaker 05:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, we can't agree there. From a merit perspective it's a scholarly subject, far more traditionally encyclopedic than a front page article of Bulbasaur. I've seen literally dozens of articles on eroticism in scientific (archaelogical) journals, nary a one on Marilyn Manson. If the front page picture had been a high resolution shot of some porn stars bust, then I agree we might have a small problem, but the picture was sufficiently historic to meet any standard of encyclopedic propriety, and indeed quite small in its presentation on the front page. Anyone who decides to murder us in the press for that particular article will have their work cut out for them if they wish to assault its scholarly integrity or encyclopedic worthiness. Call me if autofellatio becomes the front page article. --tjstrf talk 06:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Main Page also contains a picture of a swastika at the moment, which I'm sure would offend some people. Wikipedia is not censored. Moreover, the featured article's Main Page image was quite tame and unobjectionable - if you click the featured article, which is called "history of erotic depictions", you can quite reasonably expect to see erotic depictions. The contributors went out of their way to hide some of them when it was totally blindingly obvious anyway that they'd be there - I think the images should have been displayed inline. Use some common sense here. Deco 05:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite simple: a fifteen-year-old son is the parents' responsibility; a four-year-old child is the parents' responsibility.  Wikipedia is getting blocked in Tunisia - in China - and otherwise rational Wikipedians want to validate the principle of censorship?  No no no.  What part of that is unclear? Durova^Charge! 05:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Two responses to this "controversy".  1) The article is quite an academic, NPOV treatment of the subject.  It is definately worthy of featured status.  2) I am speaking as a parent: Censorship is not the solution to the wish of some people to abdicate their responsibility as parents.  Merely because you don't want to have to supervise your children while they do Activty XXX does not mean that they don't need supervision.  Watch your children as they use the internet if you care about them viewing objectionable content.  They are children.  They need supervision.  There is a word for people that don't need this kind of supervision.  They are called "adults".  --Jayron32 06:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jayron32: Please go back and actually read what I wrote...yeah actually read it.  As a parent of a 4 yr old who does not wish to abdicate his responsibility and who most certainly does supervise Internet use with younger children - please tell me how I could use Wikipedia responsibly when there is material on the front page that is without doubt unsuitable for a 4 yr old.  Even with supervision - I can't even go to the Wikipedia front page without risk of presenting my child with an image I'd prefer not to show.  I'm not advocating censorship.  Censorship would be preventing people from seeing something when they want to see it - I would never suggest that.  This is not a matter of censorship.  I'm not complaining that article exists - I'm not complaining that you'll find it linked from various places - I'm simply saying that it would have been better not to have chosen it for the front page.  I'll agree that we must have the right to put it onto the front page - but with rights come responsibilities.  As a free man, I have the right to do all sorts of horribly antisocial things - but as a rational person I realise that society will be a better place if I restrain my behavior in ways that help society rather than hindering it.  The Wikipedia front page is uniquely sensitive - everyone goes there - everyone goes there first - it's the starting point for close to 100% of actual users - it's the starting point for people who are responsibly supervising small children who are looking for pictures of elephants.  To all intents and purposes it's unavoidable - and consequently we should choose to be more sensitive to the needs of our readers - in that one single place and nowhere else. SteveBaker 16:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Steve, I think that "watching your children" includes not clicking on the link to the article in question. The part of it shown on the main page had little offensive content (unless you have really good eyesight). Just tell your kid it's a picture of two pigs or something...yandman 16:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure - there is no way I'm going to click on the link...duh!  But the image is only small on a high res screen - little kids have really good eyesight - and telling them that it's two pigs or something is just going to get you into a whole world of hurt with a smart 4 yr old!  Fortunately, my 4yr old is now a 15yr old...but I've been there. SteveBaker 16:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to equate supervision with isolation.  My son is likely to see more objectionable things than the one that appeared on the Main Page in any number of venues.  At question is not how do I isolate my child so that no objectionable images ever reach their eyes, it is how am I present to deal with the problems when they arise.  If the public library lies in a bad neighborhood, I am likely to expose my child to things I don't want them to see.  If the children's room is in the back of the library, there is a likely chance that they will observe things even walking through the adult sections of the library that could be objectionable given my son's age.  Magazine covers that appear in the Periodicals Rack contain images that are more objectionable than the one that made the main page.  That doesn't mean I never take him to the library.  That means I am prepared to handle the situation should it arise that he see something I don't want him too.  While I would never intentionally expose my child to images such as the one that appeared on the main page, I am also prepared to be there to handle the situation when it arises that he does see it.  I do not have the expectation that the entire world is "nerfed" for the protection of my child.  --Jayron32 17:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look, there are offensive images all over the internet. It is the responsibility of parents to protect their kids, not random internet users. If you are afraid of objectionable content from uncensored sources (like Wikipedia.en), then Firefox offers a general image blocker that will hide images unless clicked on. Problem solved, for you. -sthomson 18:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I personally have no problem with this article on the main page. Wikipedia clearly states that it is uncensored and I agree with Sthomson, just put up the Firefox general image blocker and your kids will be fine.A7X 900 23:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this is a silly "what if", and an editor above alludes to it jokingly, but what if autofellatio ended up getting featured status?  Stranger things have happened.  There isn't much choice there - yes, the erotic depiction article had a tasteful image on the main page, but what if you opened wikipedia innocently one day and the word "autofellatio" was slapped right on the top in bold letters with a the first paragraph right there?  And what if the erotic depiction article had not had such a tasteful picture?  Blindly citing policy and saying "parents should do a better job supervising their children" seems to me a rather arrogant and dismissive response to this question.--Dmz5 06:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is not dismissive.  The concern is real.  One SHOULD care if their children are viewing objectionable material.  The solution, however, is not to create a policy that is unmanagable at wikipedia.  The question must arise: Objectionable to who?  As a parent, a person might not want to see an article on autofellatio.  As a single adult, with no kids, a person might not care.  Why does the parent have a greater right to set obscenity standards than does the single adult?  Why does the most restrictive standard have to apply?  The solution is not that wikipedia should be censored.  The censoring needs to be done at the consumer level, not at the producer level.  Any solution enacted institutionally at wikipedia to "protect the kids" is unsatisfactory as an unmanagable policy.  --Jayron32 06:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is important to note that this is a concern for the front page - only the front page - which even a supervising adult will find to be hard to avoid (yeah, yeah - I know - "just browse with images turned off" - that works really  well - just try it for one day and see how truly impractical that is!).  But we already have policies that work like this: Take a look at WP:U - there is a list of censorship rules for usernames under Inflammatory usernames that say things like that you can't have Names that refer to or imply sexual acts, genitalia, or sexual preference including slang, innuendo, and double entendre.  This is much more widespread censorship than I am proposing because it doesn't only affect just one very prominant page.  If we are so very, very liberal minded, why can't I have User:penis? SteveBaker 16:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because there's nothing encyclopedic about you calling yourself penis, while there is something encyclpedic about depicting penes. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ever notice a common theme with this type of thread?  The opening poster does not begin with I'm a concerned parent who wants to shield my children from certain content on Wikipedia.  Please tell me some ways I can accomplish this without interfering with anyone else's experience.  Instead it begins with Change Wikipedia to suit my convenience and the discussion's initiator usually remains locked on the same point.  That's the censorship impulse, pure and simple.  Here's someone who proposes a segregation system for Wikipedia articles in which certain pages could never get front page attention no matter how good they are.  Who says what goes onto that list, does someone else add AIDS because they aren't ready to explain that reality to a small child?  How about if a Chinese government official added Tiananmen Square protests of 1989?  People might name Roe v. Wade because of what it represents or 1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?) because of its title.  Every one of these articles got featured because some people cared enough about them to contribute a great deal of unpaid work.  One of the few compensations for that labor is the satisfaction of seeing its result on the main page.  I spent months improving Joan of Arc to FA, which wouldn't be likely to get sent to the back of the Wikipedia segregaton bus, but I'll fight like hell for the editors whose efforts would get singled out for second class treatment.  Go write a featured article, then make your case. Durova^Charge! 21:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, what she said. --Jayron32 04:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If we were even to begin to censor Wikipedia, it would open a whole new can of worms. Some people are offended by almost anything, others nearly nothing. Some parents don't care if their five year-old sees a naked person, others consider it a sin for even an adult person to see such a depiction. This is a global encyclopedia, and cannot set up some kind of censorship or rating principle. Just look at how some movies that restricted to adults in some countries are acceptable for kids in others. -newkai t-c 17:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's all condemn the hell out of Chinese Wikipedia editors

[3]  What horrifying appeasers.
lots of issues  | leave me a message 08:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus of zhwiki seems to be "what a horrifyingly bad article", for what it's worth... Shimgray | talk | 17:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lets just condem communism in general, as a load of bullshit 
†he Bread 08:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The IHT was inaccurate and misleading. We've been discussing it on the Chinese Wikipedia, and frankly most people are disappointed at this complete misrepresentation of what the Chinese Wikipedia really stands for. After all, we've been blocked three times by the Chinese government, but have never made any concessions to them. zh:User:R.O.C has sent an email to the foundation-l mailing list: [4], listing the inaccuracies in the IHT report. -- ran (talk) 23:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The IHT did a poor job in research, which could have revealed more corrupted entries, more damning facts of zhwiki, and how it gets where it is. --Uponsnow 15:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This can be partly due to zh.wiki's small number of active contributors. Not every wikipedia has the luck that en.wiki has enjoyed having so many contributor from all over the world (or, at least, most parts of the world) to make sure NPOV is achieved. On the contrary, zh.wiki does not enjoy such a luxury of a diverse backgrounds of contributors, especially since the PRC's been blocking zh.wiki for such a long time. In fact, only some very controversial articles (which IMO is very few) can receive adequate discussion/editing to achieve NPOV while the majority of articles are mainly done by one person. In that case, I think a certain degree of nonadherence to NPOV policy is expected since NO ONE can have absolute NPOV (IMHO, a person w/ NPOV does not exist), and no one can avoid that and thus are guilty of not adhering to NPOV to some degree. However, finding a non-NPOV point and not changing it is just as bad as writing something that's non-NPOV. In the end, a wikipedia won't be a wikipedia if its contributors which includes everyone, active members or just passers, stops caring about righting the wrong (or alleged non-NPOV, in this case).-- Nikopoley✪尼可波里  ✏Got Something on Ur Mind? 17:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See also the blog entries by Chinese Wikipedia editor Roadrunner, who was interviewed and then found his remarks misrepresented: [5]. -- ran (talk) 23:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose a picture wouldn't hurt. brought to you by the Chinese Wikipedia. -- ran (talk) 23:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ran, you can still entertain other fellow wikipedians with this misleading report. Admirable. China (that's the PRC in the "western" context) contributes much more to the world than a reminiscence of the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989. :) Ktsquare (talk) 19:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You bet. Now they even have African's blood on their hand, through Janjaweed militia - a fact you won't see in zhwiki (because of their editorial policy). Meanwhile, they insist Slobodan Milosevic never died, but 'passed away', to show their respect, in NPOV style (Chinese context).--Uponsnow 06:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, what do you know about zh.wp's editorial policy? Saying "they" don't follow the standard NPOV is a serious accusation, and you better to have plenty of evidence on your hands to back yourself up (FYI the link is http://zh.wikipedia.org).
And who's this "they" anyway? Attributing one single opinion to all of the zh Wikipedians is so convenient. --Lorenzarius 13:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uponsnow: what zh.wiki editorial policies are you talking about? Currently the Chinese Wikipedia is the only Wikipedia to have begun a translation of the Nangpa La killings article that you've been working on; does that conform to what you believe are zh.wiki's editorial policies? As for Darfur, if you or anyone else wants to write something on the zh.wiki, conforming to the same standards of NPOV as the English Wikipedia, please go ahead, no one will mind. -- ran (talk) 16:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, I merely want to bring a point across. It's one thing for the IHT to publish a misleading article, which Slashdot promptly spun out of proportion in its discussions. At least you can say that they don't know how Wikipedia works. It's another thing for fellow Wikipedians to misunderstand our community as well. We're already been blocked for over a year, and yet we didn't yield... it's horrible to be accused of doing exactly what we've refused to do all this time. -- ran (talk) 20:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you folks already did a good job to appease Chinese Communists. Look at the entry "Hu Jintao": "His modesty impressed 2 Chinese leaders. ... After assuming the post of Secretary-in-general of the Communist Party politburo, Hu visits economically challenged central and west provinces for quite a many times, showing a more open minded and equal-footing image and more concerned with those have-not in reform era." What a eulogy! Need to read further? --Uponsnow 06:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uponsnow, I believe u have misunderstood my point. I meant China becomes or is becoming a nation of global influence, not a global bloodaxe, which IMO your interpretation was. Ktsquare (talk) 13:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wished your way, but reality beats me, squarely. --Uponsnow 15:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uponsnow: If you want to NPOVize those please go ahead. -- ran (talk) 16:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but no thanks. Leave it as is, as an epitome of Chinese Wikipedia under Shizhao and other fanatics in disguise of wikipedians. --Uponsnow 15:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To Uponsnow: Since you've translated and quoted the Hu JinTao article on zh.wiki so well, why didn't you just change the sentence where you consider it is not NPOV. Isn't it also one of wikipedia's basic function that EVERYONE CAN EDIT; therefore, if you didn't like it, you should've changed it or bring it up to its discussion page so that other people can change it. As of your comment on zh.wiki's NPOV policy, I can guarantee you that most people on zh.wiki adheres to this policy strictly. As a contributor to Chinese Wikipedia, I take this policy seriously whenever I'm editing an article. BTW, I have slightly changed those sentences in "Hu Jintao" article. Thank you for bringing it to my attention ALL THE WAY here at En.Wiki.-- Nikopoley✪尼可波里  ✏Got Something on Ur Mind? 15:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your attention. There are 2 reason: 1.Don't you think I have tried, not once, but twice? You just can't beat a determined oxymoron. 2. How many Chinese-speaking people would try to get to know who is Hu by reading Wikipedia? For readers it can result no harms. But it harms Wikipedia! In case you are really concerned. --Uponsnow 16:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's my pleasure to NPOVize it. First of all, I'm glad that you actually did try to change it , and it's unfortunate that you met a determined editor on zh.wiki. Nonetheless, it shouldn't have stopped you from NPOVize it. Changing it directly isn't the only way. There is always other routes, and you just need to give it a try. Second of all, I agree with you that non-NPOV can definitely harm Wikipedia, and that's why we need to change it. Wikipedia is about accumulating any knowledge that all people share. In this case, it does not matter the number of readers for Hu's article now, because, if not now, someday there will be someone who's unfamiliar with Hu JinTao and decided to find out some more about him. By then, that will be the true value of Wikipedia.-- Nikopoley✪尼可波里  ✏Got Something on Ur Mind? 17:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nikopoley: Thanks for changing it.
Uponsnow: Please don't let one edit war mar your opinion of Wikipedia. Shizhao may come off as being confrontational sometimes, but he would never intentionally dig up the NPOV policy. Nor is zh.Wikipedia ruled by one person: out of 83 sysops, just 29 are from Mainland China, and a quick glance through their user pages reveal diverse political stances. As for the Hu Jintao article on the Chinese Wikipedia, I'll help keep an eye on it, if you prefer. -- ran (talk) 18:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ran, I fear that you could be easily overloaded. For instance, Chinese Wikipedia claims that Tibet was peacefully liberated by Chinese in 50s. Yet the opinion of how peaceful it was from those on the receiving end of the liberation, is conspicuously missing, as a result of dodged edit war. Like in almost every time, the Russian-speaking Zhwiki Czar won the battle, by design. You can insist that Tibet was peacefully liberated, like your fellow Chinese do, but it's shame for silencing others who do not subscribe to your version of truth and still claim that Chinese Wiki adheres to high standard of NPOV. Shizhao cannot fool all the people all the time. 
--Uponsnow 18:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I never suggest that the bias came from sysops' national origin. The most senior sysop from Taiwan once claims that Taiwan has 'no legal ground to be independent from China'(sic). That ends the story. He played a key role to delete dissenting views to ensure his interpretation of NPOV. You need to imagine what it is? --Uponsnow 18:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since this thread is still running, I'd just like to say how honored I felt the day I discovered that a Chinese language editor translated my work at Joan of Arc.  Thank you.  I'd love to see more Chinese biographies become featured articles in English.  I'm an admirer of Chinese poetry (which must lose a great deal in the versions I'm able to read).  I realize we're all volunteers, yet may I make a request for Li Bai?  Regards, Durova^Charge! 04:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Template locations

What happened to the Wikipedia:Template locations project page? I see this page has been changed for the last time in July 2006. Should it be marked as historical? BTW, someone should close the debates there. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alt-V response

With Firefox, when I look at the history of a Wikipedia page and it doesn't do what I want it to do; it simply opens the view menu. Anyone know how to fix this so that I will have a keyboard shortcut for doing what I want when I am at a Wikipedia history page?? Georgia guy 17:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shift+Alt+V seems to do it.  Check this for more info:)—Slipgrid 04:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming it's Firefox 2.0 you are asking about.  It seems like access keys have always been a problem.  But, I think that's how Firefox 2.0 is doing it.—Slipgrid 04:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An idea

Hello everyone,
I was using my gmail and while trying the google-talk feature, I asked myself whether or not it would be a good idea to have the same type of pop-up shown in wikipedia when someone clicks in a word within an article. I mean while you are reading something and there is a word you don't know with a link to another article, wouldn't it be nice if you just clicked and had an pop-up just like in gmail-googleTalk with a brief piece of information about that word just so you can continue reading without moving to the new article? Inside the pop-up could be the link for the full article besides the brief description.
What do you guys think?
See ya
PS: I have just signed in, so I am not sure how I will be albe to see reponses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruminante (talk • contribs) 

Popups will do this for you, where you can hover over a link and it will give you the first paragraph of the aticle it links to. Tra (Talk) 19:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The munchies

I wrote an article on "the munchies" on one of the effects of marijuana that I thought wasn't to bad. I haven't done much on the Wikipedia and I figured it was a relatively easy topic. I added several cultural references to the term and wonder what was wrong with it. I fully understand if I broke a set standard I was unaware of but The article wasn't changed or improved whatsoever, it was just redirected to Cannabis(drug) almost  as soon as I wrote it. I understand getting rid of it if their was something wrong with it (which there very well might have been, it wasn't all that long though the movies I mentioned did reference the term). I would say that if it was a terrible article that needed deletion it should have redirected to Cannabis culture.--Colin 8 06:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your article was probably moved because there's only so much to be written about "the munchies", and it really should be covered as a subsec within a larger article. However, a redirect to Cannabis culture sounds much more reasonable than Cannabis(drug). You could certainly request a change to the redirect. Doc  Tropics 07:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is crap. It properly redirects to Cannabis(drug) because it refers to a specific pharmacological effect and not something that is culture based. WAS 4.250 07:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Joke article?

Please check out Yukon Wild Ass.  Thanks. Steve Dufour 23:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found a source for it and removed a copyvio. Tra (Talk) 15:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing that.  I see now that the animal was real.  However I still wonder if it is the same species as the domestic donkey, as it says in the WP article but not in the original source article.  Steve Dufour 23:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "problem" now seems to be solved.Steve Dufour 17:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
meta:Ku.wikipedia inquiry

There is an ongoing debate on meta about problems in ku.wiki. I hereby invite all experienced wikipedians to comment there. --Cat out 17:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal Spotted

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=199.120.31.19
Most of these contribs are juvenile.
136.176.88.82 00:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

linkspam botfeed

wikipedia-spam is getting pretty overwhelmed and needs more volunteers to help with reverting linkspam and vandalism. linkspamming external links has recently gotten pretty crazy, and the botfeed simply reports anything with a http://, as well as some other nifty obvious vandal triggers. we could really use the help; this is the associated talk channel - pop in. JoeSmack ^Talk 02:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting articles

2 Suggestions: 
1. Please provide and publicize a way for users to propose new articles without having to log in and create them. Your volunteers can review this list and decide which are worthy, then either write them or create stubs. 
2. Please add a new article for "Prima Nocta", the “right” of rulers to sleep with brides on their wedding night as referenced in “Braveheart”. If it is fictional then state that otherwise elaborate on it. 

Thank you 
WBFromNJ@aol.com

Wikipedia:Articles for Creation already exists to perform this function. Also, I'm positive we already have an article on that, seeing as I've read it before. Check your spelling. --tjstrf talk 04:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Droit de seigneur is, I think, what you're looking for in point #2. --Stormie 06:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also Braveheart#Historical_accuracy - the two articles are somewhat contradictory and both are under-referenced.  It's well-established that the practice did not exist in Scotland in the early fourteenth century: Mel Gibson even admits on the DVD commentary that this was one of the film's artistic liberties.  Whether it existed at all is harder to determine. Durova^Charge! 21:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Page that copied the info from here, say their content is copyrighted

This is self-explanatory: [6]
A website shows content copied from here (how do I know? because I wrote most of it myself) and they have the nerve to say their page is copyrighted. Thosehere that are in the know aboutthese things perhaps should send anemail to those guys. Anagnorisis 04:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say you have a strong case for complaining.  On 7th Nov 2005 you changed the distinctive sentence:

 "She was trapped in the Antarctic ice in the Weddell Sea for 281 days,..."

...to read...

 "Endurance drifted for months while remaining beset in the ice in the Weddell Sea and drifted with it."

...which is verbatim what it says here: [7].  According to the www.archive.org site (the wayback machine), the solarnavigator site didn't have an article about the HMS Endurance at that time (although the remainder of their site looked pretty much as it does today).  Even as recently as TWBM's most recent archive, (April 2006) there was no article about the Endurance.
It's pretty clear then that SolarNavigator.net (a) Violated the GFDL by not giving us credit for the article and (b) is illegally claiming copyright on text they don't own.
Naughty, naughty.  There is a WP: page somewhere for reporting this kind of thing - I don't recall where it is. SteveBaker 05:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These might help: Wikipedia:GFDL Compliance and Wikipedia:Standard GFDL violation letter and Wikipedia:DMCA takedown notice and Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content and Wikipedia:Request for copyright assistance.  From, these, you might be able to find what you are looking for.  --Jayron32 05:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
MOVIE HELP!

This is a long shot, but it's been bugging me for a while. There was this really good movie on tv a while back. The problem is that a while back was when I was 6-8, and I didn't care much about things like movie names unless it was a cartoon movie that I wanted to own. I think it was around then that I got tainted. That movie dealed with a lot of heavy stuff, and now that I'm old enough, I really want to know what movie it was. I don't know who played in it, or what the name is. I thought the kid was the kid from The Sixth Sense, but I was wrong. And he's aged horribly! And I'm not saying he looks old... He just... He used to be so cute!...Maybe it's the hair... But that's not the point...
All I know that may be helpful is that it might have been a "tv" movie, but I doubt it, because it was a true story. Everyone likes a good dark true story, so it was probably in theatres and on video and stuff.
The only thing I really remember is the story.
Sort of.
This lady killed this man. The man may have or may not have been close to her or her family, I can't remember. But she killed the man because he raped/molested her son. Now I was around 8, so the concept of a man raping a boy was more than just a little scary.
Still is.
But I think I repressed it because I can't remember if that's why she did it. But she killed him for her son, and that was the only scenario that came into my mind that made sense.
So she kills this guy, and she goes on trial and argues that it was all for him and stuff. And the female officer who actually looks fimiliar but I can't put my finger on it said to the lady "You're my hero!" It was nice. But what wasn't nice was that her son decides that somewhere close to the end of the movie is a good time to put a revolver to his head. He was supposed to be around my age!! Well, my age at the time. He puts in one bullet, and decides to play a nifty game of Russian Roulette by himself and on himself. Someone stops him, and they cry. Then that scene is over and he's watching TV and sees his mom's trial on(or at least I think so) and he turns off the tv with a look of pure evil in his eyes and the screen goes black. Writing comes up saying that he grew up t be a killer of some sort. Or I'm pretty sure that's what it said...
It's just really bothering me that I can't remember much from the movie. And as you can see the things that I do remember are blurry and only may be true. So... If this sounds fimiliar to anyone, then please tell me what movie it is!
Thanks for your time.
I really hope that my typos are readable, because it's 4:01 and this insomniac is more than a little tired.

Try moving the question to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous and including some facts to help pin this down, such as the year and country where this aired. Durova^Charge! 20:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
New users

Roughly what is the rate of new account creation here on the 'pedia?  Chris cheese whine 09:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About 5 a minute right now. yandman 10:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rather randomly, in that list, I spotted a "DarthSquidward" near the top.  Anyone up for a bit of blocking?  Chris cheese whine 10:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does it ever seem as if 400,000 of Wikipedia's accounts are owned by the same twelve people? Durova^Charge! 20:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you are couting Willy, Communism guy and Blu_Aardvark; probably yes. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 13:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Request for someone to check sources on James Allason

I'm hoping that an uninvolved someone can look into this issue. I've had a disagreement with User:Balliol over the biography of intelligence historian Rupert Allason (aka Nigel West). I noticed that he'd also edited the biography of Rupert Allason's father, James Allason, in October, and that he'd referred to a forthcoming publication (due this month) of the memoirs of Allason senior[8]. The publishers are said to be Blackthorn Press of London. Googling, I could only find reference to a Blackthorn Press of Pickering, who, when telephoned, told me that that they are not the publishers.
I think the references need to be checked for soundness (we can't cite unpublished work, for example) and would appreciate someone who could have a look into this. I don't want to dig in myself, as it would likely inflame bad feelings. — Matt Crypto 14:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a biography of a living person so I've deleted the disputed material. Durova^Charge! 20:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AFC

The backlog on this is turning into a real shame. Often over half the articles are completely ignored, even articles that appear to be legit; User:Kuru appears to be the only one, until me yesterday, making any regular contributions. Could more people take a crack on this regularly? It's WP:GNOME work if it ever existed, but it really needs to get done. It's absolutely awful form to tell people to create an article, and then ignore it. -Patstuart^talk|edits 05:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm really surprised that someone with the expertise to document the article that they want created wouldn't just create themselves a login and do it themselves.  Weird.  I'll take a crack at helping out though. SteveBaker 14:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I just found out about it too. But, weirdly enough, sometimes the articles actually are pretty well written, with categories, wikilinks and all (perhaps they're using another article as a copy-and-paste template). Patstuart^talk|edits 14:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Temple garment

Just a note to let the community know that a group of editors is attempting to have the photograph in this article removed. They claim it should be removed because is it offensive to members of their church and doesn't add anything to the article. It has been pointed out that the mere mention of Xenu is offensive to Scientologists and that other photos some people find offensive can be found at Penis also because Wikipedia is not censored for any religious or "moral" veiwpoint. While the photo is admittedly, not a thing of beauty, no editor involved has found or is willing to provide a replacement yet. (The fact that a better illustration could be used is about the only thing everyone agrees upon, but we don't have one.) The whole thing has become a nasty mix of people accusing others of being "pro-Mormon" and "anti-Mormon" and worse, while some editors on the page seem to think that if they get "consensus" to remove the only free image available, that that will override our anti-censorship policy. If anyone is a skilled hand at drawing or has access to a better illustration, please let this talk page know. Anyway, be aware. I suspect this issue will be seeping out into the larger community soon. Oh wait...i just did that...pschemp | talk 06:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What? That thing is still going on? Stand by for multiple iterations of WP:NOT.  Doc  Tropics 06:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have a bit of misinformation; possibly gross misinformation.  It is true that there are several LDS that are offended; garments are considered sacred.  However, what is the crux of the discussion is does a picture of two people wearing underwear improve an the article.  pschemp obviously feels it is; I don't and for the life of me I don't see why a picture of two people in underwear imrpoves any article.  I am not concerned about anybody's religous issues or lack thereof, but I am concerned about producing excellent articles; the picture does not fall into that achievement.  Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is a perfect example of switching the removal strategy from "its offensive to our religion" to "its not encyclopedic" in an attempt to skirt WP:NOT. I've no doubt the editor honestly has convinced himself that it is unencyclopedic, but I think the larger community would disagree. Even if the picture isn't perfect, it still is illustrative. Again, why not spend your time looking for or creating a replacement you like better? It is a simple solution to the problem. pschemp | talk 14:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"The above is a perfect example of switching the removal strategy from "its offensive to our religion" to "its not encyclopedic" in an attempt to skirt WP:NOT". That is it in a nutshell. "To show pictures of two individuals wearing garments demonstrates a lack of respect by Wikipedia and I think that it is a distortion of policy". has gone to this: " ... the crux of the discussion is does a picture of two people wearing underwear improve an the article". The sands keep shifting. Duke53 | ^Talk 17:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Without looking too deeply into it, I think I'd support pschemp - it shows the subject of the article. Provided it's an accurate depiction, what could be more relevant than that? Deco 07:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is about underwear then it's appropriate to show the underwear. See G-string, Jockstrap, etc. There's nothing prurient or disrespectful about the photo itself. -Will Beback · † · 08:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure - the photo is 100% relevent.  It's a picture of the thing we're talking about - and it's much easier to understand the nature of the thing from a photograph. SteveBaker 14:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Storm Rider, don't accuse others of "gross misinformation". There is a photo of people wearing a garment in an article about the garment, just as there is a photo of people wearing G-Strings in the article about them. Where is the problem? yandman 14:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are MANY other "offensive" truths about the LDS - should we not write about those, either? --BenBurch 14:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would amend Storm Rider's comment to say "misunderstanding" rather than "misinformation", but I do think that the way the controversy is portrayed by pschemp above unduly casts the LDS editors in a negative light.  I do not accuse pschemp of bad faith in this regard, that is probably just the perspective that pschemp has taken from the discussion.  But please understand that the debate at Talk:Temple garment is a bit more nuanced than a band of LDS editors trying to censor any depiction whatsoever of Mormon garments.  There are objections to the photo currently used as an illustration, sure.  Its offensiveness to Mormons is not grounds for removing it from the article; most involved in the debate actually do agree on that.  But there are a lot of questions about whether the photo is appropriate for other reasons NOT based on whether it offends Mormons.  There are questions of provenance and verifiability, of educational value, of what might constitute a more acceptable replacement image and whether one can be found, of the photo's ties to anti-Mormon sites, and so forth.  Now that people here at the Village Pump have been alerted to the debate, I respectfully suggest that opinions and commentary be continued at the talk page instead of here to minimize confusion and duplicated comments. alanyst ^/talk/ 18:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes analyst, there you go with the switch to the "its not encyclopedic" argument for removal. The "other reasons" have been manufactured because the "offensive to Mormons" argument tried at first has been shot down. There is no question about the copyright or subject of the photo. If it wasn't really temple garments, why are some many Mormons offended by it? People may comment wherever they wish btw. pschemp | talk 22:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"There are questions of provenance and verifiability", "..the photo's ties to anti-Mormon sites". The owner of the copyright has released it for any use; feel free to E-Mail him and ask. That this image might be displayed elsewhere is inconsequential to its use here. You say "anti-Mormon sites" as if they are a bad thing and somehow are dishonest ... they aren't a bad thing for many, many people. Duke53 | ^Talk 19:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. Again, feel free to provide a different image, with clarity and resolution at least equal to what we have now. I would welcome seeing one.Duke53 | ^Talk 19:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anti-religious sites are not bad things in MY book.  And given what I know of the history of the LDS, well, I'd say they are particularly fair game. --BenBurch 20:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is not helpful or civil. I view it as an unprovoked insult and request that you remove it from this thread.
As a temple-going member of this church, I do find the precence of the photo very uncomfortable, but I also accept that there is no reason under Wikipedia policy why it should not be allowed. I therefore cannot support its being removed. However, I do support the finding of a better image. If the existence of such a photo must be included despite its distastefulness to church-members, some effort should be put into finding one that at least triggers fewer alarm bells. (And no, I won't supply one.) --Masamage 06:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Off topic Mormon bashing removed.- Discuss the image or don't make incivil and hateful comments. pschemp | talk 18:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I just reviewed the page's history [9]. I'm missing where known, registered LDS editors have removed the image in question. Rather they are discussing the issue and many are undecided on how they feel from a wikipedia perspective, as the current image is not as descriptive as they'd like it to be. Rather what I see is LDS AND non-LDS editors reverting non-registered editors' removal of the image (and new user's removals), and in at least two cases, LDS editors supporting the image being in the aritlce. Clearly LDS editors are not unified as to the inclusion of an image in the article as it is. Even in previous discussion on the page, COGDEN and Visorstuff (me) said that they thought linking to an Anti-Mormon portrayal of Garment changes was a good addition to Wikipedia, although neither sought permission from the copyright owner to pull the image into wikipedia, as has the person who has apparrently obtained copyright permission for the current image from the rightful copyright owner (which I'm not sure Packham owns the copyright, but that's another issue, as that is where the usage approval is said to come from him, ie, I'm not sure how an Austrailian activist obtained the copyright for an image that elsewhere is said to come from a California couple taking a picture of themselves in garments, but I'm not questioning the permission granted). (long run on sentence). It is ludicrous to claim Mormon eidtors are trying to censor, when no long-term mormon editor seems to have removed the image. -Visorstuff 19:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've been involved in this a bit.  The picture isn't great, but it's the one we have.  Some people have asserted that it's sufficiently bad as to be worse than no picture at all.  That is the only relevant question, in my opinion.  If anti-LDS sites use the picture, we cannot help this- it does not make it an "anti-LDS" photo.  It's a photograph, pure and simple.  Unless people are asserting that it's not a photo of Temple garments, the relevance to the article is obvious.  Friday (talk) 22:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Persuasive Essay Outline for College

I have to do an outline, and I am not to sure what is meant by sub-details in reference to supporting details. Can someone please explain this to me. I would greatly appreciate it. Thankyou

Aggresive User

At of this moment I am having problems with a rather agressive user in the Wrong Turn 2 article. is there anything I can do against his agressive behaviour? Jamesbuc

Which user, and what exactly does the aggressive behavior include? If you can show us diffs (that is, specific edits by the user in question), it will help us work out the problem. Thanks. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question about vandalism

i've found something lewd on a page , how do i contact someoen to fix it? and its only there every 5th refresh or so, it'll be there then i'll refresh and it'll say something else, but if i come back its there again, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.240.75 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What page? Sounds like garden-variety vandalism. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good Evening from WikiCast!

Hi.
I am involved with WikiCast , and would like to say hello
If anyone is intrigued as to what WikiCast is see  #Wikicast
on freenode.
ShakespeareFan00 22:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Undue Mormon influence and excess of LDS content on Wiki

I am astonished at the amount of Mormon content on Wiki. Please see this list:
List_of_articles_about_Mormonism
Every minute aspect of the Mormon Church, its history, and mythology has its own article. While these topics are undoubtedly important to Mormons, many of them are not notable enough (or based on anything but Mormon mythology) to be included in a general interest encyclopedia.
Many Mormon myths are also written as 'fact'.

Journey to the Promised Land - Mahonri_Moriancumer
Moriancumer was then instructed to build "barges" or boats. [4] After building the boats, Moriancumer worried about how the insides of the boats would be lit during their journey across the sea. The Lord told Moriancumer he should figure out a way to light the boats, and so he produced sixteen stones from molten rock, two for each ship, and they were white and clear, just like transparent glass. [5] Moriancumer then asked the Lord to touch each stone he had made so they would shine in the darkness.
The Mormon church was just busted for editing one of their own articles as well. I am concerned that Wiki is being misused by well-meaning Mormons whose membership in the Mormon Church  colors their sensibilities as to what content is sufficiently notable to non-Mormons to merit inclusion. Isn't the Wiki software available free if they want to create the definative encyclopedia on Mormons, instead creating it on Wiki?
Thanks - F.A.A.F.A. 02:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least we can categorize these things as myths, and cite some of the historical debunking of Mormon claims. --BenBurch 02:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are several possible solutions to this. One is tagging articles with problematic content with {{verify}} or {{pov}}. Another is trying to improve the articles yourself by identifying some of that content as church doctrine rather than historical fact - but if you choose to do so, please be considerate of other editors who may object, and try to avoid shifting the article's POV to an anti-Mormon one. | Mr. Darcy talk 04:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am supportive of making any article better on wikipedia.  This interest is focused upon making Wikipedia better.  If articles have merit they should remain; if they do not they should be deleted.  This happens daily on WIkipedia, no? Mr. Darcy's counsel is both wise and helpful for all editors.  I also appreciate that what is good for the goose, is good for the gander.  I anxiously await each of you editors going to the Jesus and Christainity articles, just for starters, and labeling them mythology.  After I see that successful effort I will lead the charge with you.  If you are not willing to do that, I would appreciate having a more indepth conversation on individual motivations.  It would strongly improve the assumption of good faith that I possess.
Please tell me what "busted" means and how it applies. Who got "busted", how were they "busted", and who was the "buster"?  I would encourage you to drop this quality verbage from your lexicon when referring to other editors or groups; it engenders hostility and contention. Please also show me any article where NPOV does not come into play given the diverse caliber of participating editors.  Citing one example becomes almost laughable given the daily editing that goes on.  Please set down the axe and just help to make articles better wherever your expertise and interests rests.  Cheers.  Storm Rider ^(talk) 08:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Jesus article has been so-categorized.  As will all of the Mormon myths. --BenBurch 16:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with MrDarcy. Let wikipedia process work for itself - improve articles that are junk - whether Mormon-related or not. Don't just censor articles because you don't agree with their religious beliefs. 
I see no verbiage in the Mahonri Moriancumer article that is not found in Hermione Granger, Uncle Tom, or Huck Finn or other "character"-type articles. I think most wikipedians are smart enough to understand and recognize faith-based and religious articles discussing people - from Xenu to Job (Biblical figure) to Jesus - especially where there is a question of historicity. 
As for the claim that Mormons have too much influence on Wikipedia - that is discrimination at its best. No other segment of people are singled out - from Star Trek fans to Blacks to Catholics. Wikipedia editors can (and should) write about topics of interest to them. Latter Day Saints, including those who are not LDS or Mormon can write about any topic of interest to them, and if the community thinks that it doesn't meet standards, articles are removed. However, the bulk of articles about Mormonism and the Latter Day Saint movement are not only encyclopedic and well-written, but most editors go out of their way to get non-LDS folks to help balance any possible NPOV that could creep in to the articles. The WP:LDS has been very good at recruiting non-Mormons to help and have had a history of doing so since 2003 (and I'd venture to say that about half of the editors who contribute sigfinicant content on LDS-related articles are not LDS). LDS editors have also supported their fair share of deletions of Mormon-related content that is not appropriate for an encyclopedia or cited at wikipedia. For sure, not "Every minute aspect of the Mormon Church, its history, and mythology" is included at Wikipedia. Not even close.  
I would also like more information about "The Mormon church was just busted for editing one of their own articles as well." I've heard nothing of it, and think this is a myth. Not even their PR firm (edleman) has bandwith to worry about wikipedia. -Visorstuff 19:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see here LDS church involvement in editing? - F.A.A.F.A. 00:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for posting the link. respectfully, I believe your conclusions are incorrect, however. And I should have guessed how that was dug up. According to these two sites, Geobytes, ip2location and the IP address accused of being from the Church (216.49.181.128) is located in Iowa. Another locator says its in Salt Lake here- so there is some question about location.  In any case, even if it was someone working at church headquarters, that doesn't make their edits non-valid. Nor does it make their edits official. Is everything you post from your office official from your company? Most of the users edits have been spelling and grammar changes [10], and the editor has been warned about the perception of their editing [11]. Church public affairs is done by Edleman public relations, and this editor would be not be officially clarifying anything, as that is not a job of church employees, other than the Public Affairs dept, which responds to criticism via their newsroom (see the hundreds of releases at LDS.org) or to reporters, as general policy. Organizations such as FAIR or FARMS do apologetics online of their own choice and is not official (neither would be coming in from this location. I wouldn't say that is any evidence that the church was "busted" for editing their own articles. In any case, the user has only had one post since the warning of the perception appeared. On the other hand, I think this accusation shows a lack of understanding on how the LDS church works. just my $0.02. -Visorstuff 01:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did a bit more digging around. The IP address is owned by the church - the address comes from the offices of "property reserve," the group that manages all church real estate (its counterpart is Intellectual Reserve which owns church copyrights and communications equiptment). I doubt property managers decide church responses to wikipedia. -Visorstuff 02:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, this Wikipedia whois report [12] says just the opposite: the address resolves to NameServer: NS1.INTELLECTUALRESERVEINC.ORG. Duke53 | ^Talk 02:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I shouldn't have said 'busted for editing their own article'. My apologies. - F.A.A.F.A. 02:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would have been fairer to say that someone from that location was making edits; some of the edits went far beyond "spelling and grammar changes" ... they were simply wholesale deletions of content, without comment. Duke53 | ^Talk 02:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, someone please explain how Visor stating that the IP address is owned by the LDS church, works under "property reserve" with a counterpart of Intellectual Reserve is the opposite of which states it is owned by "IntellectualReserve".  Anyone please explain how the same thing is the opposite of itself?  I love this type of logic it makes for stories where truth becomes strange than fiction.  Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Number of edits

How can I find out how many edits I've made to Wikipedia?  I've been marking a lot of pages as {{db-bio}} and similar lately, and they don't show up on my contribs.  It'd be nice to know the total number of edits including pages that have been deleted.  Thanks! Jonemerson 07:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like this one a lot. --Masamage 07:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aww, that's pretty sweet, but I can tell it's still leaving out articles I've edited but have since been deleted.  My edits should be around 750 including {{db-*}} but it's showing 686. Jonemerson 07:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Once a page is deleted the edits won't show up in your contributions anymore. See also Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits Rmhermen 14:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Karl Nagel & Company, LLC starts up business controlled Wiki

"Centiare is an online reference directory. It supports advocate points-of-view (APOV) within protected "user-owned" commercial, non-profit, government, personal, and property Directory listings, and features advanced semantic tagging capabilities to organize, search and report information."
See here.  --  Zanimum 14:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP is NOT for advertising. --Wolf530 (talk) 15:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm fully aware of that. I was bring it to people attentions so they could know what sites were trying to compete with us, through wacked and naïve ideas.  --  Zanimum 18:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Advocate-point-of-view?  Is that like distorting the truth to promote your or your client's agenda by striving to deceive people and then rationalizing what you've done to cover your lapses in morality?  Cryptonymius 16:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So basically, it's an online advertising service. How new... yandman 16:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticing, MyWikiBiz is working there now.  --  Zanimum 20:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to have pasted in some pieces of text from Wikipedia, such as under city names, without giving credit as required by GFDL. *Dan T.* 18:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Come to think of it, that's true. That's quite illegal.  --  Zanimum 20:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A blatant rip off attempt. I wonder what ought to be done with it. Or just let the stupid lawyers deal with it. -Patstuart^talk|edits 20:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It appears the only thing copied was the main page - the articles themselves are empty. Patstuart^talk|edits 20:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This one seems to have content from WP. *Dan T.* 22:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know there are those out there like this...

This is going to sound odd.
I know some of the people who read this are like me. You have a huge thirst for knowledge. You spend your days learning new things on wiki sites etc., you spend your nights trying to remember the stuff you learned during the day. You want to be well read, well versed, scholarly. You can't stop taking in everything. So what is your method for organizing and attacking this desire? What is your method for figuring out where to take the quest next? Is there a place for people like me that I don't know about? Anybody understand what I am getting at? 192.156.58.34 21:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is future destruction of current Wikipedia content pre-programmed?!

See Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#practical_problem:_destruction_of_verifiability_by_third_parties. 
In short, when sources get lost also the articles must be in part deleted accordingly. 
I can see one way to prevent that (but there may be more): 

Add a verification appendix to Wikipedia for, when needed, the conservation of facts as required by policy, that happen to be essential for parts of articles.
Of course, this is just one idea as an incentive to brainstorming. It seems rather stupid to put a big effort in something that is preprogrammed to auto-delete for no good reason. Harald88 22:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is only a problem for internet-based sources, which should be used in moderation anyway (only for the little details: the main text of any article should always be from something published). yandman 08:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Description meta tags

Anyone else noticed that meta-descriptions for Wikipedia article pages are now showing up in Google searches?  I did a search on Google for "Symbian OS", and the Wikipedia link that appears in the results has the description of "Article discussing the operating system, its history and devices that use it."  How did this become possible, and how could I add meta-descriptions for some of my favourite articles? --  Denelson83  06:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stable versions: what's the current situation?

A while ago, I came across the discussions came up regarding stable versions. Though I never participated in the discussions, I was a supporter of the idea (specifically the idea that the stable versions should be the ones displayed by default, as proposed by User:TidyCat). Someone created a nice graph showing the variation in article quality over time, shown right, and I thought that stable versions would be a great way of ensuring that featured articles remain at least at the standard they were when first featured. But I never really kept up with the discussions, although I did notice a while ago that there were processes in place for proposing which versions of an article should be the reference one, but it all seemed somewhat disorganised.

I was surprised to discover when I recently visited Wikipedia:Stable versions that the whole thing seems to be inactive. So could someone bring me up to speed on what's going on with the idea? I heard that something similar has been implemented at the German Wikipedia; could someone decribe what system they use, and how it compares to those old proposals I've linked to above? --Nick R^Talk 13:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I've never posted at the Village Pump before, so apolgies if this is the wrong section. :) --Nick R^Talk 13:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was a brief mention at this week's issue of the the Signpost.  You'd probably have to search through the wikien-l mailing list archive to find more details. - BanyanTree 19:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
List of programs broadcast by Jetix - The most-problem article

In List of programs broadcast by Jetix, there's a mess section: Keys Of Number Which Means In Any Countries. Contributors of that article didn't show any efforts: They added programmes. However, they didn't confirmed "what country airs that programme on Jetix". Instead, they added this useless note: "This programme airs in OOO station in US or UK". I posted a "clean up" idea in Talk:List of programs broadcast by Jetix. Please Help! -- JSH-alive^{talk to me}_{see my works}^{mail to me} 14:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mass art and mass art

I was browsing wikipedia for mass art, and I was redirected to Massachussetts art. It seems there should be a disambiguation page, since mass art also refers to a new theoretical approach to global art forms (see Noël Carroll (A Philosophy of Mass Art, 1998). I wish I could do it myself, but I'm afraid I don't know how to. Help anyone ? Thanks --Anne97432 15:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would replace the mass art redirect with the content of the article on mass art the form, and add a note about the alternative use to the top.  To get to the mass art article, click the mass art link, then click the highlighted link directly below the title which reads "redirect from mass art".  This will take you to a page that has a bent arrow and Massachusetts College of Art.  Edit the page (use the tap at the top of the screen) and replace the #REDIRECT ... with your content about the philosophy.  Add {{For|the college|Massachusetts College of Art}} to the top of the article (as first line) and save.  This will add a note to the top of the page which reads for the college see Massachusetts College of Art.  Feel free to write again if this doesn't make sense.  --TeaDrinker 17:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 772: / Line 772: @@
 ::: It would have been fairer to say that <I>someone</I> from that location was making edits; some of the edits went far beyond <I>"spelling and grammar changes"</I> ... they were simply wholesale deletions of content, without comment. <font face="raphael" color="green">[[User:Duke53|Duke53]] | <sup>[[User talk:Duke53|Talk]]</sup></font> 02:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
+::::Hmm, someone please explain how Visor stating that the IP address is owned by the LDS church, works under "property reserve" with a counterpart of [[Intellectual Reserve]] is the opposite of which states it is owned by "IntellectualReserve".  Anyone please explain how the same thing is the opposite of itself?  I love this type of logic it makes for stories where truth becomes strange than fiction.  [[User:Storm Rider|Storm Rider]] [[User talk:Storm Rider|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 03:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 == Number of edits ==

Revision as of 03:44, 9 December 2006

4000metres = ?

Ninjas or Pirates?

What is it with Wikipedia and Hurricane articles?

Autogenerated edit summaries

A new wikipedia

Mena, Arkansas

Has anyone noticed that Wikipedia doesn't work any more?

US Authorities on Wikipedia?

Some targetted editors

I am also being Bullied by User:FisherQueen

Possible vandalism

What's the proper way to request people to help an Editor Review?

History of deleted articles

Disturbing pictures.

My Complaint Letter to Wikipedia

West_Cheshire_College

Anyone up for an interview?

User complaint about History of erotic depictions on main page

Let's all condemn the hell out of Chinese Wikipedia editors

Wikipedia:Template locations

Alt-V response

An idea

"The munchies

Joke article?

meta:Ku.wikipedia inquiry

Vandal Spotted

linkspam botfeed

Suggesting articles

Page that copied the info from here, say their content is copyrighted

MOVIE HELP!

New users

Request for someone to check sources on James Allason

WP:AFC

Temple garment

Persuasive Essay Outline for College

Aggresive User

Question about vandalism

Good Evening from WikiCast!

Undue Mormon influence and excess of LDS content on Wiki

Number of edits

Karl Nagel & Company, LLC starts up business controlled Wiki

I know there are those out there like this...

Is future destruction of current Wikipedia content pre-programmed?!

Description meta tags

Stable versions: what's the current situation?

List of programs broadcast by Jetix - The most-problem article

Mass art and mass art