Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

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

The assistance section of the village pump is used to make requests for assistance with Wikipedia.

If you wish to report vandalism, please go to Wikipedia:Requests for investigation or Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism instead.

If you have a specific question to ask, you may go to Wikipedia:Ask a question instead.

« Archives, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)/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.

Deleting User Subpages

I know on HRWiki there is a template that you can place on user subpages to let admins know you want them deleted. Is there an equivalent template for wikipedia? -AtionSong 15:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes! Have a look at WP:SP "How to delete a user subpage". --saxsux 11:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Photo not showing on home computer but visible on another computer.

I had an operator at Wikipedia kindly upload a publicity photo to the Gerald Mohr Wiki site recently. She added an infobox template to do so. Oddly, although the infobox is on screen, the photo is not showing at all on my home computer but is showing on my office computer. I've tried purging, cache cleaning, cache bypassing on my computer and also changing the level of protection from my firewell to medium for a trusted site, but all to no avail. Has anyone any other suggestions as to how I can get the photo to show on my home computer, please?

VH1s Top 100 songs of the 80's

Would it be copyright infringement if I made a "VH1s Top 100 songs of the 80's" page?

yes.Geni 18:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

To clarify: it would if you intended to include the list. Other lists, like Rolling Stone's greatest guitarists list, have been removed. Also note that TV channels and magazines are churning out new "best XXX of the XXX" lists daily, they no longer appear to be notable or have value. Notinasnaid 19:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, what about on their pages making a comment like, for example, on the "Livin' on a Prayer" page saying something like 'This song was voted as VH1s Top song of the 1980s'? (true, you know)--WTRiker 20:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

In an article about X, there is no copyright concern in saying that X occupied position Y on list Z. However, one should consider whether that information is notable and interesing enough to the reader to be appropriate in an encyclopedia article. A high position on a well known list often would be, but a low position on a poorly known list generally would not be. In other words use some common sense on whether it is worth mentioning. Dragons flight 20:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, be sure that if you use the word "voted" that you do know that a voting process took place. Many lists are just made up in the office, or are based on other criteria (e.g. number of requests, or sales). I think a source would be necessary. Notinasnaid 10:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Anwers.com, reliable as a source?

Specifically regarding the insertion of controversial or negative material in a BLP, is Answers.com a "reliable" source for the purpose that its being used for here? I wouldn't question its use in articles on other topics, especially pop-culture, but BLPs are held to a much higher standard of proof. Is this source alone enough to justify the material being inserted? Doc Tropics 21:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Answers.com takes Wikipedia content and republishes it (it also has other content too). That link is identical to Gracenote, so no... Thanks/wangi 22:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

As the popularity of Wikipedia increases, reuse of its content also increases, sometimes without proper attribution. I've run into this problem before myself (I couldn't cite the specific instance at this point, though) and its equally pride-making for Wikipedia and annoying. One thing that we need to watch for is multiple circular information reutilization without attribution; i.e. an editor pulls some facts from about.com (for instance) into Wikipedia, rewording them but not citing the source and that information gets recycled into about.com (for instance) and is again recycled into Wikipedia by another editor.... --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 05:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Haha, that is just.. hilarious. Memmke 08:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

AfD:LinuxDC++

I just want to give the AfD some attention as it has been heavily influenced by fanboys of the software. Didn't know where to post this, so here I am: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LinuxDC++ - go share your view/recommendation! Memmke 10:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I've placed the standard disclaimer on it. Wikipedia's deletion policy considers arguments, not weight of numbers, so don't be too worried about a mass flood of identical arguments (the closing admin should only count them once). --ais523 12:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I wasn't aware of that disclaimer, although it would be useful to have a category along with it. Memmke 08:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Kh liew doing a lot of work on TVants

Can someone take a look at TVants and the editing of it by Kh liew (talk · contribs)? I'm leaving for work, and it looks like this article is getting further and further from encyclopedic. It would be best if someone could get involved sooner rather than later, I think. BigNate37_(T) 17:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I reverted all their edits to the article and talk page and made a few more changes. I also left a message on Kh liew's talk page explaining things. Hopefully that will resolve the situation.--Kchase T 19:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I went ahead and left him/her a note about the images s/he used as well, on the article's talk page. BigNate37_(T) 01:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Chess openings

I've recently reviewed the Category:Chess openings and it seems a little large, and full of articles that may not have much in the way of encyclopedic content. All many of them amount to is listing of the openings, with only a brief mention of anything else. Often, it's just a description of how to use that opening. I've brought this up on the Chess WikiProject talk page, but I'm not sure they're getting my concerns understood. I'm wondering if anybody has any suggestions on how to broaden the discussion. I don't want to just put up articles for deletion, because I'm afraid that might upset folks too much, but I would like some wider establishment of consensus. Mister.Manticore 19:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't seen these links (or any Chess articles) on Wikipedia prior to seeing your comment here. Nevertheless I found the Category:Chess openings to be an excellent resource for an encyclopedia ! This is not to say that individual articles should not be expanded, better referenced, generally improved and better interlinked, but I do feel that merging them simply to get fewer entries in the list will be counter-productive. Considering that ECO lists 500 openings, I think the category needs plenty of work in order to make it truly encyclopedic.

I am not expressing this view with the aim of being contrarian, but rather with the hope that an independent opinion from someone uninvolved with the Chess WikiProject will be useful addition to the discussion. Abecedare 04:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

HELP!

Special:Listusers has a HUGE backlog of inappropriate usernames. Please, for the sake of my sanity help fix this. Samuel 23:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The trouble is that even once they are blocked, the offensive usernames still remain in the list. Having the accounts renamed by a beauracrat to something inconspicuous is one way to remove them, but current policy only permits this with the permission of the user concerned. Tra (Talk) 00:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

we knocked them off the front page. Not much else we can do.Geni 17:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

My Name

This is an odd situation that I knew would arise sooner or later. I'm not a newbie at all but I chose to log out because I don't want to seem like a pompas jerk. I am a television writer and producer. I have many awards including Emmys and other national and international awards, and my work is included in the National Archives. Again, I don't want to seem like a pompas jerk but I'm just establishing that I have NOT put myself on Wikipedia but perhaps somebody could have.

There is a different person that shares the exact same name as me and he too is a television writer and producer. The problem is that although I don't know of him having any major awards, he has many many fans because the program he is involved with has a huge cult following. I have received emails from him fans accidentally (until he finally got a website of his own). So it was inevitable that a fan (I presume) would start a Wikipedia article on him. I don't question whether or not the NPOV article is appropriate. I do however have my own concerns with my name being further confused with his. Should there be a disambig page created? If that sounds like a good solution, would that solution be less valid if I didn't necessarily want my own Wikipedia page? My goal isn't to be listed, only to not be confused with another person with the same name, in the same industry, with the same titles. Could there be a disambig page where one or more items aren't links to articles on that subject? And then there's the tricky wording of how you would disambiguate the two subjects since adding "(television writer/producer)" obviously wouldn't be enough. Of course doing nothing is another option and it certainly wouldn't hurt Wikipedia but it could

I'm just curious about my options and possibilities. Feedback would be appreciated. If some experienced Wikipedian(s) would like more details please post as such below and I'll contact you 'less publicly'. Thanks.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.6.147.12 (talk • contribs)

I see no problem with a disambiguation page. For example, have a [[John Smith (disambiguation)]] page, and in that, list:

• [[John Smith (Lost writer)]]
• [[John Smith (Sex in the City writer)]]

Just as examples.

User:Zoe|(talk) 20:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, mystery TV writer. If you'd like to contact me through my talk page or email, I'd be happy to set up the disambiguation page for your name and the name of the other writer. If there is no article about you, I'll also create a reasonable bio-stub for your name so that each fork of the disambiguation will have a real article. And don't worry, I don't watch much TV, and I wouldn't consider myself a huge fan of any particular show, so the article will be NPOV. I can understand the confusion you and your fans probably experience, and am happy to help. Phidauex 22:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

IMDB does it simply with Roman numbers -- John Smith(I), John Smith(II). Our way is probably a little bit better. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

My watchlist is not showing pages under watch.

My watch-list is not showing pages kept under watch. I have kept Swadhyay Parivar and Hinduism on my watch-list and they never reflected any edits made in these two articles on 28/11/06. I have also kept "paria" in watch but that too does not reflect. I am not sure about my other pages but today, I removed Indian admin board and village pump from my list as they were loading a lot and I thought they may be the cause of problem.

Could I get some help. Reply on my talk page will be appreciated.

swadhyayee 03:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure that it's not a time zone issue ? - all the dates are UTC, which be offset from the time zone you are in. Swadhyay Parivar appears not to have had any edits on 28 Nov and the logs don't show any admin type actions [1]. Check the pages are showing "unwatch" rather than "watch" at the top. Megapixie 05:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I have checked that watch-unwatch. It's not the date, the content I go by. Hinduism had edits yesterday and I never found it on my watch page. Even in Swadhyay Parivar, some anonymous IP, posted comments in my name and I had not come to know from my watch list. Even at this moment, if I try to see my watchlist for last 3 or 7 days, I am not getting beyond today. Who could restore this? swadhyayee 11:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems like you have some kind of technical issue - try forcing a full refresh on your browser (ctrl+click on refresh) and see if that pulls back more. It seems unlikely a watchlist issue would just be affecting you. Alternatively you could try the following.

The watchlist only shows the most recent edits to the article not the complete history i.e. if an article was edited on Monday and Tuesday, the watchlist would only show Tuesday edit. If you are interested in a more comprehensive list of edits to a set of articles - it might be worth building a user page i.e. User:Swadhyayee/mywatchlist with just links to the articles you are interested in watching on. Then when you want to see the edits go to the page and click on "related changed" in the toolbox on the left hand panel. Megapixie 12:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

table

Can someone have a look at the Template:Netherlands general election, 2006 table? Colours for the political parties show up in Firefox, but not in IE. Is it also possible to remove the line breaks in the text when watching the table with a lower resolution screen (maybe change the font size automatically then?). Intangible 16:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The blocks of colour at the start of each line show up on the version of IE6 I'm using. I don't think changing the font size automatically is possible, unless there's something in CSS which shrinks text to fit. --ais523 16:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocks Don't Really Work

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:209.215.171.12 is a school's IP. A truely endless barrage of vandalism kept coming from that address so after a dozen warnings they were finally blocked "indefinitely". Well checking their history page its clear that the block doesn't really block anything and they are tearing up and vandalizing article after article again.
1) Why does "blocked indefinitely" apparently mean "does nothing at all"?
2) Can some higer-up important Wikipedian please do something about this?

You aren't an admin, so placing an indef-blocked notice on the talk page will have no effect. To request the blocking of a user, go to WP:AIV. Although much vandalism does come from school IPs, there are often legitimate contributors using the same IP too, so they are never blocked permanently (they can sometimes be blocked anon-only for long periods of time, though). --ais523 16:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a school. Has anyone tried contacting the school administration? Those folks are usually friendly and cooperative. The perfect "punishment" for the vandals, when caught, is to have them assigned under teacher supervision to improve an article for Wikipedia. Durova^Charge! 05:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

UBX help

I'd like to ask an admin to go the undelete page for User:Llama man/Userboxes/HTML-2, and copy its content to Template:User html-2. I moved the HTML userboxes back to template form from my userspace, but I forgot to do so for html-2. I then put a speedy deletion tag on the page in my userspace, forgetting that I forgot to copy and paste the content to the template. —The Great Llama^moo? 22:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

As this needs an admin, try taking it to WP:AN. --ais523 09:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Vialardi

We appreciate your contributions to the Vialardi article, but for legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text: I am the owner of the Copyrights ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicomo (talk • contribs)

Steward translation into hebrew

This is a specific question, I hope I'm asking in the right Forum. I'm an editor in w:he, and have come across what seems to me a misleading translation. The specific meaning of the word used to translate the meta:Steward concept is the same one used for and only for the Servicepeople in an airplane, and sometimes more broadly for general service people. Is the wikimedia meta:Steward a steward like in an airplane or a steward like the w:en:Stewards of Gondor or somthing different altogether? Many thanks for answering or if anyone could point me in the right direction. w:he:משתמש:קומולוס.

Steward of Gondor is the correct concept, though the real-world counterpart is the historical position of a wikt:steward to a noble in general. In context, a steward is a caretaker on behalf of a higher authority. To steward a resource is to use it wisely and protect it. If you could find a word that expressed that concept it would be ideal. --tjstrf talk 05:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Elk Cove

OK, this is a strange one. Someone has edited the article about the fictional Elk Cove, Oregon, which is featured in the Goldie Hawn/Kurt Russell film Overboard, to include a redundant plot summary, an assertion that Elk Cove is in fact real and a bit about the actors' real-life love story. I reverted once, and left a note on the anon's talk page to which s/he responded with this. Having no desire to "control" this item, can someone else please consider reverting and talking to this anon? Here is a search on the USGS database for "Elk Cove" in Oregon. Please note that there is an Elk Cove Vineyards in Oregon, a name that has no bearing on the local geography. Thanks! Katr67 14:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Hawn and Russell got together on the set of Swing Shift, not Overboard. Katr67 14:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I don't mean to butt in here, but don't you think your note was . . . a little rude?--Dmz5 03:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Not particularly. Blunt perhaps. It's just a variation on the {{test2}} vandal warning about adding nonsense to articles. All my other statements are truthful: 1) the plot summary belongs in the article about the film 2) Elk Cove is indeed fictional 3) Perhaps s/he was mistaken about the location 4) Articles need sources 5) Unsourced nonsense gets deleted. What would you suggest instead? Katr67 04:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I think "nonsense" is a confrontational word, particularly for an anon who might well be new. Your points are totally correct, but rather than saying "please stop adding nonsense" it might have been more civil to say "thanks for your interest in the article, but please note the following issues." Maybe that's too wishy-washy and nice, but are you surprised the user responded in the manner s/he did?--Dmz5 05:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

We need to fix that vandal template then--the word "nonsense" gets used around here a lot. I'm not surprised the anon responded that way because I suspect s/he is a vandal trying to make those edits legitimate. I suppose I am not assuming good faith, but I revert enough vandalism to have become jaded. But I pretty much stick to the one revert rule in cases like this and ask for assistance. Usually someone else will come help me out, but not so this time. I don't suppose you'd like to talk to the anon yourself? Katr67 17:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Poor Bislama

Somebody's been spamming the Bislama Wikipedia talk pages with nonsense. Actually, this seems to have been going on for quite some time. It's weird that the messages are so uniform though, what would be the point? Could we get these deleted? Tankyu yufala evriwan. Mithridates 23:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Residential buildings in NYC

I was editing an article about a residential building in New York (there are many, many such articles) and I deleted a short section that consisted entirely of the phrase "This building is zoned to New York City public schools. It is zoned to PS 101." I thought this was irrelevant information concerning a building that is a tourist attraction and primarily offices anyway. I then saw that most of the other buildings in NYC that have any residential population whatsoever have this same section, always featuring the exact same text with just the specific school name changed. I am of the opinion that this is not relevant information (despite the fact that it is factual, and verifiable.) It is particularly odd in the case of articles that are relatively short. Why not have a section on what police precinct they're in, or what community board region, what council district, and every other possible category that could be used? I want to get a sense of where I might go to find more opinions on this question, if this is not the right venue. Each article's talk page does not seem to be the place to do it. See Time Warner Center for an example. --Dmz5 03:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Current events/2006 December 1

What does a spill of the leadership of the Federal Australian Labor Party mean? Is this some sort of vandalism, or is this an Australian term a poor benighted American doesn't understand? User:Zoe|(talk) 04:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Since nobody has answered me here, I've changed the wording. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

photograph has darkened lately

I have been editing two articles that use the same photograph shown above. Display of the photograph used to be okay in both articles. At first I noticed that it darkened in the article, Man Ray, and now it has darkened in the article, Salvador Dali. The ability to see the antics made by the two subjects, clowning for the photoghapher, has been diminished by the darkening.

I have no experince with Wikipedia images other than to copy one from one article to another occassionally -- please advise me how to tackle this problem that has begun lately. --83d40m 15:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

In this case, it appears that the image is the same as it has always been. In fact, I even looked up its record in the Library of Congress prints division. There are two versions of the image shown there, from what can assumed to be two different scans. The first one is lower resolution, and a little overexposed, "blown out" if you will. The second one is from the film negative, and is identical to the one shown in the articles. It does look darker, in comparison, but it has more detail, and is a better reproduction.

For future reference, you can usually tell if someone has uploaded a new version of a file by checking the "File History" at the bottom of the image's page, either here or on the Wikimedia Commons. You can actually view the different 'revisions' of the file, in the same way that you can view different revisions of articles. In some cases, people do edit images, sometimes in a non-helpful way, but in this case, you can see that the image has not been changed since uploaded. Phidauex 16:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks -- but when I first began to edit the pages, one could see their eyes clearly, including their pupils -- now that is not possible. Is there a way to return it to the way it was when I began editing? 83d40m 01:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I laughed out loud reading your user page! 83d40m 01:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

AMA request not answered after 8 days

I initiated an AMA Request for Assistance more than eight days ago, but still no one has taken my case on. Advocates have accepted other cases begun about the same time. Do I have an option here, such as clarifying my case in some way to make it more likely to be taken on? How long a wait would be considered unusually long? 0-0-0-Destruct-0 17:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

If you haven't noticed, WP:AMARQ is currently backlogged at 8 new cases, so yours isn't the only one. We short on available advocates currently (and most of the time), so you just need to wait patiently. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 20:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there isn't much we can do about backlogs. Your best bet is to use WP:30 to get an informal third opinion. We've had a case waiting for nearly a month now, so your 8 days is still a short wait - I'd have to adivse you to be patient if you're still waiting for the services of the AMA. Martinp23 21:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I just needed a realistic estimate of how long to wait. The form I filled out said 5-7 days, but I assumed that was overly optimistic. I believe my situation needs an AMA so I'd rather wait and refrain from editing the page in question in the meantime. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 00:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

OK - I've updated the wait time to be slightly more realistic, and we've cleared off some cases which are solved anyway, or which have died down. It shouldn't be long now :) Martinp23 11:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Scientology template

Hello all... is there something I'm missing here regarding the "Template:ScientologySeries"? Antaeus Feldspar is running around undoing my every move, most importantly including my removal of Lisa McPherson from the template's "People" section. McPherson was a woman who died while at Scientology's Fort Harrison Hotel almost twelve years ago. I don't see why this should be represented as an important part of Scientology on the template. I'm not even sure an article about her is necessary, since she fails WP:BIO aside from posthumous controversy about whether she was mistreated by Scientologists in Florida or not. I can't see anything similar going on with any other religion's template. Am I wrong here? Antaeus Feldspar said I'm pushing a POV here, but all I want is for the template to be fair and for him to use the talk page instead of blindly reverting me. I use the talk page and explain why I do everything I do. Highfructosecornsyrup 01:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

List of all subpages

Is there any way to get a list of all the subpages-- for example, all the subpages in my userspace? I can search for them if I remember what they are, but is there any quick and easy way to get an exhaustive list? --Alecmconroy 02:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

There may be a better way, but one thing you can do is go to Special:Allpages, type your username into the search field, set the search criterion (either user or user talk, depending on where your subpages where created from) which should generate a list showing all pages starting with your username in the chosen space.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

A list of subpages for a particular page is located at Special:Prefixindex/pagename/ which in your case would be Special:Prefixindex/User:Alecmconroy/. Tra (Talk) 02:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Glad I put in the quailifier:-)--Fuhghettaboutit 03:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Fujifilm versus FUJIFILM, etc.

Fujifilm has recently been moved to FUJIFILM, and the user who did this has gone on to replace most incidences of "Fujifilm" within the article with "FUJIFILM". This strikes me as entirely unfortunate, as I pointed out in a rather testy exchange on his/her talk page (q.v.). I'm entirely unconvinced by his/her argument; he/she seems utterly uninterested in mine (based primarily on MoS (trademarks). Sure that I'm right, I'd have no qualms about reversing the move, but I'd rather a third party did this, or at least voiced support. (I want to avoid an edit war, for the usual reasons.) And conceivably, I'm wrong. Well, what do you think? -- Hoary 08:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You are correct here. WP:MOSTM states clearly: "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment". I've reverted most of his changes, but can't move the main one because I'm a non-admin. Would an admin please move the FUJIFILM page back? --tjstrf talk 08:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Would that have anything to do with sneakily moving the page to Fujifilm and back such that (pending admin intervention) only that user can perform the move? Maybe I'm missing something, but I can't seem to get the "undo" feature to work as its name suggests. I find the diff where they capitalised all uses in the text, hit "undo", and I'm presented with the edit box populated by capitalised names (evidently not having actually undone the edit). Chris cheese whine 09:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use

Anyone else think this is just a little too big to qualify as "fair use"? Particularly as it looks like someone has tried to trace out the logo. Chris cheese whine 11:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It's User:Ansett again, trying to assert his own personal interpretation of the MoS. I have reverted. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Download static Wikipedia

Hi :-)
I'm trying to download the static dump of Wikipedia, so I can use it offline. But, looking in the download section on static.wikipedia.org (http://static.wikipedia.org/downloads/November_2006/en/) there are just some .lst files. I'm guessing that I need to put those through some sort of program - or something - to download the all the files listed (unless I sit down and download the several thousand files manually, which I'm obviously not prepared to do). I'm running Ubuntu linux, Dapper Drake. What do I need to do? --saxsux 11:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Juan Romero

Hi there. So I was thinking about starting an article on Juan Romero, the busboy who was famously pictured cradling the head of Bobby Kennedy right after he was shot, but I was unsure about two things: 1) Notability. The only thing Juan is notable for is the famous picture...does this meet WP's notability guidelines? I read WP:BIO, and I think he is notable (see here), but I'm not 100% sure. 2) What would I call the article? He's no longer a busboy so Juan Romero (busboy) isn't exactly the most accurate. Many thanks. Gzkn 11:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Community Wiki

I would like to use Wikipedia as a way of carrying on a conversation within a single community, regarding important issues in their lives-- education, health, employment, the environment, etc. The idea is to draft a narrative that people can hack into the way they hack into Wikipedia. I could start such a draft on Wikipedia itself, but would not be able to restrict access to members of a single community or organization.

Is it possible to do this through Wikipedia, or perhaps some companion software? Thanks: usman23, 5:38PM 3 December 2006

You might try the Campaigns Wikia. What you're talking about isn't really intended for wikipedia.--Kchase T 22:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Good advice, I'll follow up. Thanks!Usman23 22:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

If you're interested in restricting access to a certain organisation, you might want to install your own copy of MediaWiki. Tra (Talk) 22:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the Wikipedia article on MediaWiki and a link to a news article on Campaigns Wikia. http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-6091151.html as well as its website http://campaigns.wikia.com/wiki/Campaigns_Wikia

Campaigns Wikia looks like an open issues forum, which is part of what I want to do. In real-time, these are called "open meetings" and involve people in a meeting all going from kiosk to kiosk in a large hall, and posting their ideas on a flip chart, to be synthesized by a facilitator and fed back to the group as a whole for 2nd and third rounds which involve voting with stickers or some such.

Media Wiki provides the added feature of a smaller meeting, restricted to a single community. I’ll have to figure out how to do this. Thanks!Usman23 23:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this image is nicked. What do I do?

Maggiegyllenhaal.jpg appears to be [2], with the "scanned by celebrity-exchange.com" cropped off the bottom. It's marked as PD by the uploader, but this seems pretty unlikely. What do I do? grendel|khan 05:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks like copyvio from what I can see, and should probably be dremoved accordingly. Doc Tropics 05:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I've tagged it {{no copyright holder}} (which poses three simple questions). If there's a speedy way to kill it in less than 7 days, go ahead. Chris cheese whine 06:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Organisation armée secrète

At Organisation armée secrète: I've been having something of a slow edit war with an anonymous editior who, among other things, wants to describe this group, which tried to use violent means to perpetuate the French colonial role in Algeria, as a "liberation group". I'd appreciate if a few more people get involved in discussion there: it's been a bit fruitless with so few people involved. - Jmabel | Talk 07:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Oooh, a slow-burning edit war. Not quite my thing. I'm more a quick-fire watchlist-refreshing AK47-revert type myself :o) On a more serious note, to describe them as "freedom fighters" or "terrorists" would be a clear violation of NPOV, so perhaps work it into the article so it says that some perceive them to be "freedom fighters", and others as "terrorists". That usually appeases most POV-pushers apart from the most persistent of trolls. Chris cheese whine 07:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds weasel-wordy--it's technically NPOV, and so it's an improvement, but it would be even better to say that, for instance, they were denounced by x as terrorists and appeared on such-and-such a list for such-and-such an action, while so-and-so declared them freedom fighters, and they enjoy support from y. grendel|khan 15:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Image query

Can someone take a look at Image:PayPal.png (again) please? Uploader has repeatedly dodged the question about where this has come from - it clearly hasn't come from the front page of paypal.com, which is the source they have provided. Chris cheese whine 10:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a logo; can't it just be recreated? (The fact that it's pretty poorly traced is secondary to this.) Consider Canon logo.png, or M&S logo.png, or anything in Company logos. grendel|khan 16:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks like a giant resize of the actual logo that they use. --tjstrf talk 16:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Fix on Template:UruguayProject

It miss cat all pages to Category:Uruguayan people and other cat. Matthew_hk tc 11:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Currently featured article is being Vandalized

I'm not sure if this is the place to report this. If not, I ask apologize.
Currently featured article "Weird Al" Yankovic is being vandalized by anonymous edits. Shouldn't it be protected? Jcpetruzza 15:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

We normally try to leave the front page article unprotected as much as possible, despite high levels of vandalism. For many editors, the front page is their introduction to wiki, and we do invite everyone to edit ...Doc Tropics 15:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Problems with a post

I made a contribution to Wikipedia about 4 weeks ago - I provided the explanation of a cultural term - a term used to describe a well-to-do group of individuals in todays society. Since I have edited and posted the contribution, I have yet to see it come up on any searches that I perform.

Can you help me understand what I am doing wrong or why my wiki post isn't coming up on searches? Was my contribution blocked? Edited? How would I know? Can I dispute if it was???

Please help!!!!!

Regards,

-JCRogers21-

It would help if you gave the article's title. That sort of page might have been deleted or transwikied to Wikitionary. Durova^Charge! 21:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It appears that you made the entry on your userpage, not in an actual article. Userpages are not an "active" part of WP like article pages are. Doc Tropics 21:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Forgiveness

I don't know where to report something like this to, but a user called User:A Pregenant Girl is repeatedly inserting personal nonsense into the Forgiveness article. Thanks. Highfructosecornsyrup 22:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The normal method for dealing with something like this is to give a series of warning messages to the user, escalating with each warning. For example {{test}} then {{test2}} and so on. If the user vandalizes after a final warning is given, meaning after a {{test4}} or similar level warning such as {{verror4}} (see the grid of warning templates here), and the offending edit was within the past hour or so, you can then report the user at WP:AIAV.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Using Wikipedia as a reference

Im writing an essay, how can I use wikipedia as a reference? Can someone give me an example please?

The example would depend on the citation style used in the rest of your paper. Examples of the common styles can be found at Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia. --TeaDrinker 02:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

And, if you might try the cite this article link (in the toolbox, on the left). -- Rick Block (talk) 02:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It's probably a bad idea to use Wikipedia as a reference for an essay, unless the essay is about Wikipedia itself. You should instead use Wikipedia to find primary sources and things to search for, and then cite those primary sources or newspaper articles. Jonemerson 10:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

What links to a page?

How do I see what pages link to a page I'm editing? For example, the new Mass Destruction page would make more sense as Mass Destruction (album), since there's a bit of ambiguation to the term. How can I see what pages link to Mass Destruction? Then when I do the move I can also update the links. Thanks! Jonemerson 10:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

There's a 'what links here' link below the searchbox, over the left of the screen (assuming your preferences are set to their defaults; changing the skin can change its location). --ais523 11:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

And if you can't find it, the URL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Mass_Destruction will do the same thing (replace "Mass_Destruction" in the URL with the page you're interested in, of course, if different). Tonywalton  | Talk 09:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Whitehouse using Wikipedia for Propoganda

Please copy this message and paste it to other talk pages you normally participate in.. Wikipedia's integrity is at stake. If this is deleted please revert in order to restore it. We're starting here on the less political pages to hopefully avoid detection before a significant number of editors are alerted to the problem.

Federal employees/contractors are now gaming Wikipedia's system to try to control the message on key articles and intimidate legitimate Wikipedia editors. Their ultimate goal is to make Wikipedia a proganda tool for the Bush Administration.

The possibility that this was happening was first raised at the village pump. This is a snapshot of the discussion which will likely be archived soon. Also be sure to check the history, the archives and the archive-history to read further comments on the topic. Several of the suspected federal contractors participated in the discussion to try to redirect the conversation.

Later an announcement was made regarding this issue across all village pump categories, but it was quickly deleted. These duplicate messages posted to the Held Desk and the Village Pump: miscellaneous, assistance, proposals, technical, policy and news.

The discussion also leaked onto one of the key articles presided over by federal contractors, with calls for them to to stop controlling articles. The federal contractors maintain a near permanent protection on articles, claiming this is needed for vandalism reasons These claims are wholly unsupported and these articles do not face any more vandalism than any other article we legitimate editors deal with everyday. These federal contractors refuse to even allow a POV template to be placed on their protected pages as evidence here.

Incriminating posts were eventually deleted: [3], [4].

Confirmed list of federal contractors

We have managed to obtain a confirmed list of federal contractors, though there are likely many others: These US federal government representative regularly engage in policy and guideline violations; participate in endless disciplinary actions and dutifully preside over several articles to ensure they present what they call "the official view". The federal contractors also coordinate efforts in administrative actions to create the appearance of a quick-forming consensus.

• User:Fred_Bauder (contributions)
• User:MONGO (contributions)
• User:AudeVivere (contributions)
• User:Tom_harrison (contributions)
• User:Tbeatty (contributions)
• User:Regebro (contributions)
• User:NuclearUmpf (contributions)
• User:StuffOfInterest (contributions)
• User:Morton_devonshire (contributions)

There may be many more. These are merely the confirmed contractors. Examinations of their contributions will provide ample evidence of disruptive and intimidating behavior. However, some notable administrative actions include:

• Request for comment against Seabhacan
• arbitration against Seabhacan.
• ban of Zen-master
• Indefinite block of Cplot
• block review by Mongo

This is only a partial list of frivolous and arbitrary administrative actions taken by these federal contractors who have managed to raise themselves up to powerful positions in Wikipedia: in order to maintain a slanted POV for Whitehouse officials. .

Policy and guideline violations

These federal contractors routinely violate and show utter contempt for these Wikipedia policies:

• Conflict of Interest (benefiting personally with an undeclared conflict of interest): gaining personally from maintaining a particular POV on Wikipedia
• NPOV (writing articles to meet no point-of-view): ensuring
• WTA (words to avoid): using editorializing words to inject the Whitehouse point-of-view
• Biography of Living Persons: using malicious and potentially libelous words to describe living persons
• AGF (Assume Good Faith): accusing other editors and administrators in the most frivolous manner
• OWN claiming ownership of articles) to maintain strict Whitehouse or what they call "official view".

Satirical pieces

A satirical sexual news item was posted about these contractors, but that too was quickly deleted in a very extended [edit war on December 1 2006. While the tone of this piece is clearly meant to be funny, trollish and satyrical, the concerns are very real. We include it here to show that there is little fear of retribution from these inappropriate federal contractors. Not only will they not retaliate, but they are quite cowardly and acutely fear being discovered (as is demonstrated by the quick deletion of non-trollish commentary on them).

Identifying tainted articles

We had sought to identify articles tainted and suspected as tainted by Federal contractors. By including a new category [[Category:USEBACA]] to indicate an article is confirmed or suspected of being a United States E'xecutive Branch Agents. Controlled Article. However, the federal contractors would not even allow the creation of this wikipedia category.

Dangers to Wikipedia

These editors and administrators have exhibited a virtual immunity to administrative actions due to their coordinated efforts within administrative measures. Not only do they maintain the POV and low standards on key articles throughout Wikipedia, they also make edits to policy and guideline pages to create ambiguity and also to degrade the high encyclopedic standards of Wikipedia. They continually use inane contradiction in article discussions, intimidate other editors and manipulate the administrative system to purge valuable editors and administrators. If this is allowed to continue. Wikipedia will be come a mere parrot of Whitehouse propaganda. Please help spread the word.

Proposed Clown Essay

(this is just to help protect Wikipedia legally)

This page describes the Wikipedia phenomenon of Clowns. For other articles on clowns see see Clowns.

Key Wikipedia articles are guarded by agents of the United States Federal Government: referred to as Clowns here on Wikipedia. Other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias. However, these key articles are exempted from this. Also the clowns themselves are exempted from the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, the United States Constitution and the norms of a civilized society. The term Clowns is typically capitalized as a title of disrespect.

Identifying Clowns

Clowns are easy to spot. They typically play games only a child could appreciate. Like all clowns they use props and are helpless without them. The most important props are claims that an article is stable and that the article reflects consensus. These props were handed to them by their circus masters and without them they would fall limp like a rag doll. They really have no ability to think for themselves.

Clowns typically run in packs, swarming over articles like they are trying to get inside a Volkswagen Beetle. The first reaction of the Clowns to any editor trying to improve an article (particular in terms of NPOV) typically is to double or triple-team the editor: reverting edits as quickly as they can be committed. If the editor persists in making changes to the article they will quickly exhibit their renown cowardice by charging the editor with violating the Three Revert Rule (3RR). If you have never even thought of violating the three revert rule and suddenly find you have, you have most likely encountered Clowns.

When debating them, they debate point by point. With each point they disregard any mention of the previous point. They will claim penultimate points were never made: only dealing with the last bit of any argument. This is the Clowns squirting daisy intended to bait editors into making personal attacks.

Finally, if editors remain polite and catch onto the Clowns antics. They will seek disciplinary action regardless: just because they are Clowns.

Elaborate editor histories on a variety of articles does not mean an editor is not a Clown. Clowns are encouraged to create a look of normalcy on all of their respective accounts.

Identifying circus rings

Circus rings (or key articles for US authority intervention) are most easily spotted by the prevalence of Clowns: claims that an article is stable, reflects consensus, etc.

When encountering a circus ring, we ask that editors add the category: [Category:USEBACA]] to both the article and the discussion page. Categories may be added anywhere though customarily to the bottom of a page. This indicates that the article is composed and controlled by United States executive branch authorities.

Dealing with Clowns

Different editors will likely want to take different approaches when encountering Clowns. The Clowns like to puff up their chests (usually blowing into their thumb) to make themselves seem big and scary. They say things to intimidate editors such as "Watch out for the NSA" or "You could get shipped off to Gitmo". Editors should just laugh hysterically at these jokes (some editors may choose to use the silent laugh of the Clowns: simply pantomiming the laugh).

For some editors, the best approach, when encountering Clowns, would be to simply move on to another article that is not a circus ring. If contributing to Wikipedia is still viewed as important to an editor despite the prevalence of Clowns, it is simply best to avoid the Clowns.

Other editors however, will be offended by the roaming free Clowns. In this case Wikipedia etiquette allows (even expects) editors to taunt the Clowns. This is easily done, because they have no sense of humor whatsoever. Tell them how much you love Clowns. How funny you think Clowns are. How silly they look. How disturbing they are. Show utter contempt for everything they stand for: they are basically mercenaries who would sell their mother into slavery if it would further their Clown goals.

Whatever you do, DO NOT feed the Clowns

Contributing time to Wikipedia is one thing. However, contributing money is highly unadvised. Wikipedia’s “Don'’t ask, don’t tell’ policy regarding Clowns means that it is endorsing the acts of representatives of the lion’s share of the United States Government: over $1 trillion dollars per year. This is a sum greater than the combined budgets of all other militaries worldwide. Wikipedia will not go away if you do not contribute your own money. There is an abundance already in the United States Federal budget. DO NOT FEED THE CLOWNS

The Miniutemen

Dubbed the Miniutemen after the heros of the American revolution who bravely threw off the British imperialist in the 18th century, these contemporary Minutemen now bravely work to oust the imperialist from Wikipedia. These new imperialists are more insidious than the British, because these imperialists dominate from within. They do not wear red coats, but rather attempt to fit in with the rest of us;; rally us against ourselves; and all for the sake of what Erich Fromm called: “extreme opportunism”. The Whitehouse, by infiltrating Wikipedia, has shown utter contempt not only for our cherished, free, online encyclopedia, but also utter contempt for the Constitution of the United States of America. We citizens of the United States deserve a government that is an example to the rest of the world: above all one with a free and independent press. The current Whitehouse has decided to undo over 200 years of a free press in the United States to control the content of Wikipedia. Our hats go off to these brave and defiant Wiki editors.

We invite you to examine the history of these editors. These editors have all been blocked. And for what? The Whitehouse Clowns will tell you its because they are sockpuppets for Cplot. Yet they provide no evidence. And this only begs the question anyway,What are Cplot’s crimes. Examine Cplot’s contributions to Wikipedia. You will find someone who dutifully contributed content, worked to fix errors, and sought to negotiate compromise on every article encountered. Always looking for compromise. The record is clear. Cplot was blocked for disagreeing with the Whitehouse Clowns. The record is there so you can check it for yourselves.

Please join in openly protesting the Whitehouse invasion of Wikipedia. Include the red [[Category:goodbye-clowns]] category on your user talk page. The Whitehouse will never allow us to create a category and turn that category blue, but let it stay red in defiance!

• Cplot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 67.37.179.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 70.8.49.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 70.8.151.103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 68.30.26.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 68.30.87.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 70.8.91.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 70.8.132.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 70.8.150.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 67.167.7.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 70.8.140.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 68.30.118.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 70.8.38.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• VIUlyanov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• SoLittleTime (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• ScaredOfClowns (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• MyFavoriteMutiny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• GenericClownTaunt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• RespectableWikiEditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• EvenMoreRespectableWikiEditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• GiveItAFewDays (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• ClownsAreCowards (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• WhosYourDaddyReally (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• ToTheTeet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• RandCorpIsBadForAmerica (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• RandCorpIsGoodForAmerica (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• RandCorpIsAmerica (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• SoLittleTime (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• TilDaddyTakesTheTbirdAway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• MeltTheGuns (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• LittleBoySoldier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• ThatsEntertainment (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Raul654WhatIsYourDeal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• WowYouGuysAreGood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• WikiMediaFndn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• HowBoutAKissMONGO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• ILOVEMONGO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• PepeLePu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• DickCheneyShotMeInTheFace (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• HitTheRoad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 68.30.65.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 68.30.59.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 68.30.213.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 68.30.22.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 68.30.82.0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 70.8.38.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 70.8.138.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• HowManyClowns2ScrewInALightbulb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

change to

• TheAnswerIsNoneTheyCantEvenFindIntrigueInABrothel-GetIt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• [[User:# CeciNesPasUneSockpuppet|# CeciNesPasUneSockpuppet]] ([[User talk:# CeciNesPasUneSockpuppet|talk]] · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Lessons in the Constitution of the United States of America for Clowns

Clowns believe they are working for America. However consider this. For Clowns to be working for America, Congress would have to pass a bill enacting their program. However in 1791 the US Constitution was amended to say: “Congress shall make no law […] abridging the freedom of […] press”. So as you can see, Congress would have to make a law to enable Clowns. Yet Congress has no authority to make Clowns. You can see the problem here.