Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

• Table of contents
• First discussion
• End of page
• New post

The miscellaneous section of the village pump is used to post messages that do not fit into any other category. Please try to post within news, policy, technical, proposals or assistance rather than here. For general knowledge questions, please use the reference desk.

« Archives, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

These discussions will be kept archived for 7 more days. During this period the discussion can be moved to a relevant talk page if appropriate. After 7 days the discussion will be permanently removed.

We need a Mediawiki programmer...

I edit a site called MemoryArchive. It was originally proposed as a Wikimedia project, wasn't a good fit, and we (some members of the WP community) decided to start and run it independently. It's growing rapidly. We are ready to open non-English language versions of the site, and have editors ready to go, but we need programming help. Is there a nice programmer out there who might give us a hand? -MarshallPoe 23:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

You can search for it if... oops

Moved to MediaWiki talk:Nocreatetext.

Size of the T article

This article has been getting so big faster and faster within the past few days; it is now 92KB. I would like to think of a good way to split certain sections, but I'm sure that Macaw 54 will revert me. Anyone have a good idea?? Georgia guy 13:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Have you discussed it with him? Have you discussed in on the article's Talk page and attempted to gain consensus for your proposals? User:Zoe|(talk) 01:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I've discussed it a few times and he just doesn't accept it. He thinks it's okay (not just theoretically possible, but okay) to make articles as big as you like. Posting info on the talk page also doesn't do any help. Georgia guy 15:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I've wondered a few times just how accurate is that size value really? It seems as if it is including the size of the images as well. I've never had a problem editing an article of any size. But as for this particular issue, have you tried the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal? I'm not sure how effective it is, but it beats an annoying edit war. — RJH (talk) 21:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Amazing how much information you can squeeze out of a simple T. --さくら木 17:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I've done more than just boggle at the current article size. I've read a good bit of it and left a comment on talk. Some of the content is okay and some is just cruft. Macaw 54 (talk · contribs) is undaunted and continues to bloat the article. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information and this has gone more than far enough.

Will someone step in with a big stick before this article becomes totally useless? John Reid 17:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

T is a very-common sound inside and outside of English. In our language, it is also a common letter because it is used to form two sounds: th and t. T also has a long history. The fact that it's big is irrelevant, as it deserves a big entry. I've partitioned it into large, distinct sections with subsections, so it seems easy to navigate to me.--Macaw 54 23:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Ugh. Way too long: it took a while to load for me, and that's even with a cable modem! Maybe T (abbreviation) could be sliced off for a start? (sorry about the boldface... I couldn't resist!) --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 00:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

One way we could cut the size would be to simplify the coding for the table under "Frequency." I made it in MS Excel and pasted it into MS FrontPage. But, the latter's coding is very wordy. If someone could rephrase the HTML (not necessarily in wikiformat), then we would save about 20 kb.--Macaw 54 18:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Just for fun, I replaced the table code with a simple wikitable. The page shrunk from 123K to 101K. It's still too long though -- slicing it into related articles seems like a good idea to me. -- ArglebargleIV 19:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Another thing that I can do is replace the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;text-transform:lowercase">b.c</span>s with B.C.s. That will save more space. I used small capitals because they look better, but the tag is kind of wordy.--Macaw 54 19:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC) P.S. Although I appreciate the work on the table, isn't there a way to make it look more like the old version?

There certainly is a way to get it to look more like the old version -- but I don't think that would be a good idea, actually. It was occupying a lot of visual space on the page for a fairly simple set of data. BTW, this discussion really should continue at the the talk page. -- ArglebargleIV 19:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Then, just move it to the talk page when archiving old sections of the village pump; lots of sections get saved this way I think. Georgia guy 19:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I really can't help but admire the sheer amount of detail involved on that page. It's mesmerising, to a fashion. Lankiveil 06:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC).

Clem Cola Company?

I collect old bottles and recently came into possesion of 3 Clems Cola Company bottles. Malvern, Arkansas is printed on the bottle (embossed). I live in Hot Springs myself, so I am curious about the history of the company, and it's years of operation. Any info will be welcome and appreciated! Thanks!

Andrea Hot Springs, Arkansas

An interesting web site which can assist in dating bottles can be found at http://www.blm.gov/historic_bottles/dating.htm which has helped me date some which I own. --Gvandermeulen 23:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Matthew knowles???

Matthew Knowles a Bahamian?

User:Ligulem/work/templates using hiddenStructure

Liguem just made a check in the database, and found over 250 templates still using hiddenstructure, please feel free to help fixing it. _→AzaToth 12:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Linkspammer trying to negotiate in good faith - how to proceed?

I and others have been reverting the gettingtogradschool.com linkspam from these articles: Master of Business Administration, Business schools, Graduate Management Admission Test, Juris doctor, Law degree, and Law School Admission Test. All were spammed by the same user or sockpuppets. I reverted them all, added warnings to User talk:75.28.143.183, who acknowledged the warnings and stopped spamming... for a while.

Confirmed sockpuppets User:Jbanderson949 and User:MikeWill949, and suspected sockpuppet User:Bspear, all added the same link to various articles, and all those accounts seemed to be created for that purpose. They haven't made edits since my last mass of reversions.

Now he's engaging in conversation from a different IP address (User:71.107.251.124), trying to negotiate a way to include his site in the article. I outed him as the operator of the web site, and he admitted it on the GMAT talk page. At least this time he's now making actual contributions to the article, unlike before.

He wants to modify his site so that it would be acceptable to include a link to it. I'm not sure what to say. It seems like a gray area: on one hand, his site is a potentially useful reference and he's willing to make it more so; on the other hand, many other sites are also useful references and allowing one may invite a flood. I have to admit, his site may have relevance to the LSAT and GMAT articles among all the ones he spammed.

I don't really want to be the only other party in this conversation, and I don't want to start a reversion war. How to proceed? Should I bother starting a RFC on a talk page that few people seem to look at? Can somebody weigh in on the GMAT talk page? I'm still a relatively new user here, and I suspect this reforming linkspammer is even newer. Thanks for any advice. =Axlq 19:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

His site doesn't seem to be anything more than a shell designed to sell his product (study materials for the tests). Other than the links to his product, he has a (short) list of tutoring companies ripped from Google, a list of essays pulled from Answers.com, etc. He's essentially a marketer who just put a (very good looking) website to sell his product and is now trying to promote his site as something that it's not. In my opinion. Banaticus 20:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello all! This is Mike Williams (the one who kept spamming), please allow me to explain! I came across wikipedia and discovered ANYONE could edit the text, not understanding the necessary process and the method behind what should be posted, I instantly began posting my site everywhere (thinking it was okay). I was mind boggled when I came the next day only to find one of my four postings gone, so naturally I added it back in, thinking some other guy took it down. About a week later, I started noticing the warning letters and researched wikipedia more and now understand... since then I have been adding content to the site and stopped spamming! The tutor directory is not a google rip-off, it is unique, people have contacted me requesting they be added. I do sell 1 book that happens to be the most popular book for GMAT and don't even make enough form it to run the site. Like I said before, I am willing to change the site to have it complement wikipedia, any suggestions you have I will be more than happy to take into account. Everyone says there are a million sites just like www.gettingtogradschool.com out there... truth is, there is not; most sites are designed to sell their service or their book, I only offer it to help people! I am a recent GMAT test taker and in the interview process now, I know how hard it is to find valuable info (all in one site) that is why I created the site. Please don't look at the site like a spam site designed to sell, (honestly, I will stop selling the book if you want) I am here to provide info and help people; that is why I believe the site should be allowed! Thanks for listening to me run on with my explanation! If you have any questions feel free to email me info@gettingtogradschool.com! 75.31.68.219 15:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)(my real IP address)

Gary Paulsen Biog

I believe the statement "He is the author of more than 200 books but none are worth reading" on the Gary Paulsen biography page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Paulsen ) should probably be investigated. I'm not a Wikipedia contributor, and I have just been somewhat confused by the procedure for reporting this kind of thing. Hope I'm not committing some kind of faux pas by posting this here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isokoira (talk • contribs)

First off, Welcome to Wikipedia! The best thing to do when you come across that sort of nonsense is to remove it. Anyone can do this, you don't even have to register an account. Looking at the article now, it seems that that has already been removed.

Because anyone can edit Wikipedia without even registering an account, Wikipedia does get the occasional bit of vandalism. Most of it is caught and removed right away, and that particular article appears to be experiencing quite a bit of vandalism lately. You probably just caught it at a bad time. Articles about authors that children are required to read in school (Like Mr. Paulsen) seem to get more vandalism than other articles.

I've left a little welcome message on your talk page, it has some helpful links telling you how you can begin editing. I hope you stick around and help us! ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 20:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

definition of integrity

i need someone to help describe in a deepthy way the meaning of "Integrity"

please e-mail all ideas to (e-mail address redacted).

i figure since this is a bulliten board on an Encyclopedia someone has a decent view of the meaning.

See Integrity, or failing that, post at the Reference desk. —Scott5114↗ 14:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:1 featured article per quarter

I just moved the above to Wiki space. The idea is an informal list of people to bring articles to featured standard and a timeline to do so. I thought of talking it proposals but then decided to just add it and see how it flies. It's a fairly straightforward idea, and signees are much hoped for. Marskell 15:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Desperate help needed at the Black people article! Please get involved!!

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Village pump This article is an absolute mess. It provides no coherent well sourced definition of a Black person and just rambles on and on about various people who were labled Black in different times, places, and languages, and tries to merge them all together as a coherent ethnic group. It would be like trying to merge Native Americans and people from India into a coherent article called Indian people. It makes no sense. We had requested mediation and the mediator said we should use the census as our source. Here's what the U.S. census says:

A Black is “ a person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa. It includes people who indicate their race as "Black, African Am., or Negro,"or provide written entries such as African American, Afro American, Kenyan, Nigerian, or Haitian.”

Black Africa is a synonym of sub-Saharan Africa and all of the non-African groups mentioned (i.e. African-Americans, Haitains) are descendents of the recent African diasporas. And yet we still have editors insisting that South Asians be given equal weight in the article and be considered Black. These people provide no cited definitions or census classifications to defend their assertions, instead they cherry pick from different sources in different countries for examples of South Asians being labeled Black, often in different languages. But by the same logic, I could argue that the Black Irish are Black. The point is the people editing that article need to be forced to adheare to a coherent sourced authoritative definition of a Black person, or the entire article should just be deleted as POV and unencyclopedic.

Dictionary.com[[1]], the free dictionary online[[2]]., the U.S. census[[3]], and the British census[[4]] all emphasize the idea that Blacks are of African origin-in fact it is against the law for a dark-skinned person of South Asian or Australian origin to claim to be black in the census. An article by the BBC makes a clear distinction between Blacks and the dark skinned people of South Asian ancestry[[5]]. This article about race in biomedicines says “The entities we call ‘racial groups’ essentially represent individuals united by a common descent — a huge extended family, as evolutionary biologists like to say. Blacks, for example, are a racial group defined by their possessing some degree of recent African ancestry (recent because, after all, everyone of us is out of Africa, the origin of Homo sapiens)."[[6]]. I really need help getting the editors of that article to stick to a coherent definition, instead of just pushing their own POV. Editingoprah 06:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

You're probably not going to get a "coherent well sourced definition of a Black person" that editors agree upon. That's a political issue. --John Nagle 19:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia content being used without permission

I 'assume' that as the following page isnt showing a wikipedia credit the content from the article on Antigua has been lifted without permission. I just thought I should bring this up but it wasnt easy trying to find out where to do so.

http://www.funtripguides.com/antigua/

Adam777 00:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

What to do about such sites is listed at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Editors Who Are Vandals, and Thugs and Ferals

Have a look at what some 'editors' do on the Gundagai page. They post content with no cites, plagarise stuff, remove others posts then remove evidence of those posts from 'history' to cover up their own ineptitude and bully tactics. (Very brave to hide the evidence of their garbage isnt it. No medals for them.)

All in all, this feral gang that is doing this stuff are giving wik a very very bad name. Its not just that though. They are totally hopeless re some of the stuff they do post so the pages end up reading like something from a lower junior school project board. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.54.9.95 (talk • contribs)

The anon who posted the above is the subject of an RfC. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/203.54.*.*. -- Longhair\^talk 11:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

An Rfc. Sounds important. Whatever it is I do not want to know though I guess longhair gets its jollies off sprouting about them. Longhairs post is a prime example of what this topic is about. Its what gives wik a terrible name and its this style of garbage discredits anything to do with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.54.186.120 (talk • contribs)

That's an attempt to resolve the dispute. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment. It's more likely you'd work things out by participating there than by raising the matter here. Durova 04:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Durova, raising the matter here wont hurt u.

The above anon has shown no interest whatsoever in resolving "the dispute". They're only here to be a pain in the arse at every article they edit, and being handed frequent blocks for doing so. -- Longhair\^talk 04:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, since you're a party to the dispute, Longhair, it looks inappropriate that you issued any blocks against this user. Proper admin procedure is to seek some other admin to do that. I also find it disturbing that you repeatedly reverted this IP's posts to the article talk page. I see that other editors from that page reverted the IP's posts to the RFC through popups. This IP's posts to this board have also been reverted repeatedly by other paties to the dispute. Whatever the issue is, that is no way to go about resolving it. So I withdraw my earlier advice: I now agree that the IP did well to raise the topic here. I'd like to know what the dispute is about. Superficially this appears meritorious: accusations of plagiarism should be investigated or replied to, not deleted. The source the IP cites does look reliable. Please reply to my talk page. And since another Wikipedian complained that discussion of this matter was blanked from their talk page, I'll state in advance that I'll report any reversion of my user talk page as vandalism. Durova 13:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a party to this "content dispute" at all. I *am* the outside admin here and responded to a request from User:Golden Wattle (then AYArktos} to review the anon's edits, months ago. This rubbish has been going on forever since. When the anon steps out of line and breaches policy, I block them. This anon has received more warnings than I care to remember. They simply dial back up when blocked and begin ranting and raving under another ip, evading the original block, so they're blocked again. That's the extent of my involvement. I don't edit the articles concerned in any major way. My enforcing of policy and blocking of the anon is why I'm also copping the crap as well. -- Longhair\^talk 12:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

If I mistakenly called you a party to the dispute then I apologize. There's a distinctly non-neutral tone to your posts. Wouldn't neutral administration include defending properly sourced material and cautioning others against misuse of popups? Wouldn't it include more moderate expressions of doubt about an editor's good faith? I agree it would be better if this editor created a user account and better if this person signed their posts, but this case doesn't appear to be a clear black and white. If this matter really is as serious as you characterize it, then a formal topic ban per WP:DE would be an option - yet what concerns me is that this editor has at least tried to source an edit properly and did try to participate in RfC when I suggested it. I don't know of many articles involved, but the problem I did notice didn't seem that extensive and there weren't many efforts to bring this person on board. To the IP: I suggest you get a mentor through Wikipedia:Mentorship. A formal Wikipedia:Requests for mediation might help iron this out. Best wishes all, Durova 05:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The above content by Longhair was put here after the below ** comment by me.

Longhair seems to suggest I post on wik a lot. I have hardly ever been here. This is another reason I do not want to reg as I am too busy to be playing here daily or even weekly.

The RfC concerning you and your particular style of editing at many ips sure says otherwise. This is my last reply to you here, or anywhere for that matter. Constant lies, continual failing to sign your posts, evading blocks. I give up and would rather be off doing something more constructive. -- Longhair\^talk 00:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You would be no good as a detective then longhair. Off u go. You let yourself lose objectivity and became personally involved which was not yr role as alternate admin, so best u get out of it. Things will probably settle down remarkably if u buzz of and if Robert Myers learns to be a bit more circumspect and not throw crumpets when he is corrected on some stuff he posts. Artkos would be better to learn some humility and by remembering wik isnt about Artkos or any one editor, but about wiks content and its quality.

I'll go find jimbo in the vp ether and bend his ear re this circus.

Stuff started off fine with artkos/golden wattle till I objected to very incorrect stuff posted on wik. It then reached a situation where the multiple cited records I have re multiple aussie topics, were wanted, but ego then got involved really badly. Whatever, gundagai is not artkos' or any other editors home town so i think I might know when they put rubbish up. It seems many editors here do not know what correct and verifiable content is, or even how to cite something. Then there are others here with their amazing tools that they use to wield power over other posters with. I am not sure they realise how amazingly boring they and their juvenile power trips are. They are also incompetent ignoramuses. That all wrecks wik and makes the reasonable people here, also look pretty crook.

• • Longhair continues, giving more examples of the aggro that it uses wik to spread. The dispute is the loutish, thuggish, bullying and vandalising behaviour of some wik eds who go on like they do as part of their gang dynamics, attacking other posters. Those sort of antics cannot be "resolved" as to do so would require whoever these gangs are currently having a go at on wik, to join their gang.

Believe it or not, some decent people choose not to join in with online liasons such as that.

Meanwhile, the abberant behaviour of some eds, continues on wik, giving it a terrible bad name.

User name

Good evening folks,

I was googling a French profanity ("Mon vier", litt. "my dick") used as an interjection in Marseille, for I wanted to check its spelling—it is seldom written. I was quite surprised by the first hit: User:Mon Vier. Coincidence? Marseillan independentist making propaganda? Or a side-effect of the "Friday night contribution syndrome" (see alcoholism and drug addiction for more details)?

Cheers.

Lachaume 19:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

He seems to be a good editor...--SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 14:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

how to write essay

regarding the logistical operation in offshore platform by supply vessel and hwo to safe mony and time — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.163.84.1 (talk • contribs)

Using content from Wikipedia

I have an idea for a (hopefully profitable) website, and I'd like to use content from Wikipedia for it. About half of the content from the website will be from Wikipedia. Of course I will mention Wikipedia as a source and I will donate some of my profits to Wikimedia, but is it okay to have other content on one webpage, besides the Wikipedia-content, that is not GFDL-licensed? The GFDL is not very clear on that, and people on the Dutch Wikipedia couldn't answer this question. Anyone who knows this or a better place to ask this? Thanks in advance! Yorian 12:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't be a problem, as long as it's clear which content is GFDL, and what isn't. Wikipedia, for example, has some copyrighted content (such as the wikipedia logo that appears on every page). The important thing to remember is that the contribution histories of the pages you mirror need to also be brought over... if it's a wiki, you can just use an import tool like Special:Import. If it's not a wiki, you'll need to make sure the information is easily available. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 12:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer. If you want legal advice then download a copy of the GFDL and get your lawyer to look at it. Note that it does impose some conditions on using our content. Mixing Wikipedia content and non-GFDL content on the same page is likely to be a problem. Why don't you just license your content under the GFDL? After all the whole point of the GFDL is that you pay for using our content by letting us use your content.

I think he was asking if the entire site has to be GFDL...--SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 14:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I was asking both: does the whole site have to be GFDL, and if no (I think that's the correct answer): is it bad that GFDL-content is placed on an individual webpage that also contains non-GFDL content? :) The reason that I don't want to license all the content of my website GFDL is that I don't want to have mirrors like there are now of Wikipedia. And about that lawyer: I'm a poor 17-year old student ;) Yorian 15:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

It's probably a good idea not to have copyrighted material on the same page if you don't know what you're doing (and you'd need to talk to a lawyer to be sure). If you create a page that uses a modified version of content that was created under the GFDL, you would be in breach of copyright. However, you can "wrap" GFDL content within the frames of copyrighted content, as long as you make it clear. If you're very serious about this, you might want to bring it up on [foundation-l], where you'll get your anwsers straight from the horse's mouth.

(BTW, it's truly admirable that you've asked first, rather than after the fact... I wish you luck!) --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 15:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm an admin on the dutch Wikipedia, so I think it's very important to do this right :) I'll ask on the foundation mailing list, thanks! :) Yorian 16:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

PD-old pics of machining tools

My father has a book, William H. Van Dervoort's Machine Shop Tools and Shop Practice, which is now in the public domain in the US and maybe also where I live. It contains 673 engravings of various machining tools and equipment. Although the designs of some of them are still current, most are obsolete, usually because of the invention of compact electric motors (most use leather belt drives) or the discovery of silicon carbide.

What I am wondering is whether these drawings might be useful for Wikipedia or one of its sister projects. Would the obsolete images be useful as historical artifacts? Are there specific tools or pieces of equipment for which we're missing drawings of either historical or unchanged designs? (It'd probably take me months to upload them all during the school year.)

All the drawings are black-and-white, and they're shaded in different ways. (A few aren't shaded at all.) Some have gray backgrounds or shadows, but most don't. A few have labels; most of the labels are letters that are explained in the text (meaning the unchanged image could be used on other language Wikipedias). NeonMerlin 00:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I would expect this to be an underdeveloped area of Wikipedia. Try looking up the machines and seeing if they have illustrations. Some may be so out-dated as to not have links in the current templates (like at the bottom of the machining article.) A few at a time is better than no pictures at all. If they are public domain, you may want to upload them to Commons and not to here. Rmhermen 00:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)