Jump to content

Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 66.167.77.164 (talk) at 14:33, 26 February 2007 (→Firefox and Wikipedia: Fixed! Thanks.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 
Shortcut
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.


Wikipedia:Esperanza

Hi! I would like to request for assistance regarding the now inactive project Esperanza. There has been some recent discussion that now can be viewed on this archive regarding edits made to this following section on WP:EA:

A month later, Esperanza was once again nominated for deletion. Noted complaints included:

  • The overhaul, which was allegedly done to prevent the deletion of Esperanza rather than to actually fix it, was unsuccessful in reforming Esperanza.
  • Esperanza had a "holier-than-thou" belief that without Esperanza, Wikipedia would melt into the ground. Likewise, there had been noted complaints that non-Esperanzians were treated as inferior.
  • Esperanza had set non-Esperanza members apart through their activities, such as Esperanza Collaboration of the Month.
  • The bureaucracy at Esperanza is anti-Wikipedia; the council made binding decisions through off-wiki conversations which were only made available after the event.
  • Esperanza was a nice idea but impossible to implement; additionally, a large project isn't needed to spread hope and good cheer.

Here's a little background on our situation. There was one edit made on Febrary 8 2007. Editing on this page was scarce until this point in time, since that one edit ignited an edit war. The edit in question attempted to fix some biased statements in the essay currently present on Esperanza. As you can see, the edit was eventually reverted, and I then unsuccessfully tried to reach some middle ground on the situation. I was then reverted, then an edit was made again in which the information in question was removed, then another reversion was made, in which I attempted to introduce my edits again.

A meaningful edit was made in the purposes of calming down the edit war by adding unbiased language. (see following minor edit if needed) All edits have been reverted due to claims that consensus wasn't reached because discussion was not held on the Village Pump. Another edit was made to the page, which was then reverted. I then reverted in the hopes of stopping the edit warring, but was then reverted.

As you can see, we (over at WT:EA) simply cannot reach a decision on how we are going to word the essay currently on WP:EA. I have sent a note to one of the participants in the edit war ([1]), but no replies have been made to that comment as of now. We are clearly in a deadlock, and I just want to resolved this matter right here in the interest of gaining a further consensus. Should we edit WP:EA in the interest of keeping an unbiased page (WP:NPOV), or shall we keep the essay in its current form?--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 01:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to keep the project, or are you trying to create an article for historical purposes? If you're just looking for historical reference, the article could be edited a little to make it more informative, but perhaps should be done by someone with NPOV regarding Esperanza? It seems to me, from what I read, that the project was quite controversial. However, since it seems to have spawned several projects, an article by the name is relevant as a historical reference. If it were me, I'd ask someone not involved to rewrite it, then protect the article so the edit wars don't continue. (I'd be happy to help, for what it's worth.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TomXP411 (talk • contribs) 06:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The essay was composed through consensus editing. I personally feel people should just move on, and that perhaps protection is the best bet. The biased statements Ed refers to are indeed biased, since they refer to complaints made at the mfd. Now I'd aver that removing or rewriting such complaints would be a POV. Esperanza was criticised, it was criticised in such a way and I think we need to accept that and move on. Maybe the page should simply be protected. Let's just clarify what is said at the mfd and what is said in the essay. I think it is unfair to state the dispute is " simply cannot reach a decision on how we are going to word the essay currently on WP:EA". The essay has already been written, it's been fairly stable for a month. The dispute is over changes to the essay.

Picking it apart

So let's have a look at the disputed text then, and the basis for each bulleted point within the essay.

The overhaul

In the second mfd:

The Esperanza essay states: "The overhaul, which was allegedly done to prevent the deletion of Esperanza rather than to actually fix it, was unsuccessful in reforming Esperanza."

Holier than thou

In the first mfd:


Referenced in the second mfd:




The Esperanza essay states: "Esperanza had a "holier-than-thou" belief that without Esperanza, Wikipedia would melt into the ground. Likewise, there had been noted complaints that non-Esperanzians were treated as inferior."

Set apart

In the second mfd:

The Esperanza essay states: "Esperanza had set non-Esperanza members apart through their activities, such as Esperanza Collaboration of the Month."

Bureaucracy

In the second mfd:

The Esperanza essay states: "The bureaucracy at Esperanza is anti-Wikipedia; the council made binding decisions through off-wiki conversations which were only made available after the event."

Nice idea

In the second mfd:

The Esperanza essay states: "Esperanza was a nice idea but impossible to implement; additionally, a large project isn't needed to spread hope and good cheer."

Fair summaries?

The question, therefore, is whether the essay correctly summarises criticisms, since all the above listed criticisms are introduced within the essay as follows: "A month later, Esperanza was once again nominated for deletion. Noted complaints included:" Are complaints therefore summarised fairly, or unfairly? Is it a POV to include these criticisms, or to not include them. Ed writes: "Should we edit WP:EA in the interest of keeping an unbiased page (WP:NPOV), or shall we keep the essay in its current form?"

I put it to people that the essay in its current form is unbiased in its presentation of the criticisms and that the criticisms are of note in an essay which should describe "its history, philosophy and its fate". Thoughts appreciated. Steve block Talk 10:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand the rationale behind discussing this on the village pump (to get broader input), are we going to bother the folks at the village pump every time someone proposes a change to the essay? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is the essay something that's going to need changing a lot? I'd hope not. I hate to say it, but I can see a point where the essay itself gets listed for deletion if it ends up generating debate here every week. Steve block Talk 19:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it's protected, and it asserts is own importance as a progenitor of other active projects, do you think that will happen? -- TomXP411[Talk] 21:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. Really, I don't know. How long has it been since it was closed down and we're still discussing it. Steve block Talk 22:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is nobody's fault that this edit war began. However, I agree with Steve block's opinions stating "I put it to people that the essay in its current form is unbiased in its presentation of the criticisms and that the criticisms are of note in an essay which should describe 'its history, philosophy and its fate'". Well, that makes sense, but the other side of the arguements (counterarguements) were not presented. In order to preserve Wikipedia's reputation as an unbiased source and in the interest of satisfying both sides of this immense debate, I think that we must be able to present material to our future readers and editors in an unbiased tone. Yes, the anti-Esperanza opinions are dominant in Wikipedia society today; do we need to rub that information in to other editors? We must "Let the facts speak for themselves", and allow future visitors to WP:EA to form their own opinions about this group. Therefore, I think that the essay should be edited for the above reasons.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 00:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What about abbreviating the whole thing? Instead of giving a blow-by-blow, just state that "Esperanza started out as a way to accomplish several goals, xxx included. Since the original group encompassed too many goals to be effective, new projects were created that focused on specific objectives." Simple, concise, and not gonna offend anyone. Bringing up bad feelings and arguments isn't necessary and is probably counterproductive. -- TomXP411[Talk] 02:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ed, what does this section do if not establish the project and which the complaints counterpoint:
You can't counterpoint criticisms which counterpoint the points already made. Maybe it would help if you could explain why you feel so aggrieved. What is it that upsets you here? The essay basically does this: Here's what Esperanza was set up for, here's what it hoped to do, here's where the wider community felt it went wrong and it was decided to shut it down. Now we can do that, as Tom above notes, very briefly. We can say Esperanza was a project founded "to support the encyclopedia indirectly by encouraging a sense of community". However it proved contentious, with two deletion debates eventually decentralising the project as it had become "overly hierarchical". But that doesn't satisfy the close, so to me feels like the wrong thing to do. What do you want here? What more do you need the essay to say? Let's cut to the chase, say you had two sentences to address all of the above, what would you write. And don't dicker about only having two sentences, work with me here. Let's try and put this to bed. What exactly is the issue. Do you not agree that Esperanza was shut down because the community felt it had gone wrong? What's your take? Steve block Talk 09:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, I find it absolutely extraordinary that Ed is basically trying to whitewash Esperanza's history by downplaying the criticisms and emphasising the good points given he voted to delete and co-nominated Esperanza with me. I just don't get why everyone can't leave this alone. The essay was fine and stable for a month until Quadzilla came along and removed a sentence that no-one else had a problem with until Quadzilla decided that WP:OR applies to the Wikipedia namespace and rmed it. Unsurprisingly, he got reverted, but Ed and Natalya used it as a catalyst for all kinds of changes that no-one agreed on and then accused me of starting an edit war. Ultimately, none of the suggested changes bring any benefit to the essay with the exception that it fudges the reasons why Esperanza was deleted - if you were to read Ed's final version, you would not understand why it had been deactivated at all, that the community apparently took the decision to shut down a thriving and successful organisation at random. But that's not what happened, what is described in the essay is what happened, and it seems to me that Ed and his fellow ex-Esperanzans really don't like that and have been trying repeatedly to change it to make way for a possible future Esperanza II. Note Ed's change of " Esperanza was a nice idea but impossible to implement" to " Esperanza was an excellent idea but very difficult to implement" here - what exactly did this do to improve the essay besides downplay the criticism and "big up" the positive points? It's been like that throughout this debate. The essay as it stands is fine and gives due weight to both sides - obviously the criticism is given greater hearing because it outweighs the good; that's why Esperanza was deleted in the first place. Ed's only credible argument is that the essay needs to be "neutral" - which it is. Ed et al keeps stirring up this entire thing over and over again, and I think everyone, certainly me, would appreciate it if they would stop, because it's only wasting everyone's time. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(session data lost):*You keep complaining that Esperanza has been recently edited after weeks of inactivity and should be left alone; this, however, happens all the time in the real world. Would we leave a cold case alone, or would we still try to pursue the case in order to bring justice into this world? No, or else the legal justice system would become unfair to those who hasn't received justice yet. Would we cease to update Wikipedia articles as time passes? Of course not, since doing so will give readers inadequate information in the present time. Likewise, it is beneficial to our editors to continue to edit Wikipedia pages as our encyclopedia evolves.
  • I also don't appreciate the fact that you seem to be attacking me in your previous post. If you oppose anything in this discussion, please oppose the topic being discussed, not the person discussing the topic.
  • Editing WP:EA in the interest of neutrality is not a waste of time. Consider the following: There are 3 million editors with accounts along with several more anonymous editors. There are 1.6 million articles, most of which belong to a certain WikiProject. Numerous editors would have worked on a particular article 1 year after its creation. Therefore, editing a page not in the main namespace is not a waste of time.
  • Nice is generally weasel-wordy and should be removed from Wikipedia pages in order to give the encyclopedia a more professional look. You should have learned in 5th grade that you should never use the word "nice" when writing something.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 23:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice is a direct quote, and content policies don't apply to Wikipedia space content. At some point can we not let Esperanza go? I mean, the comparison with a murder inquiry? Is that a realsitic comparison? Yes, it is beneficial to keep editing our articles, but not this one essay which shouldn't matter. Is it not possible to close this chapter and move on? Steve block Talk 23:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If we can directly quote statements against Esperanza, can't we directly quote statements in favor of improving the community? The statements don't necessarily have to be pro-EA, but it would be nice if there were statements still encouraging editors to reach out to the community.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 00:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All this back and forth is another reason I think the article should be edited to a bare summary, as per my above comment. -- TomXP411[Talk] 02:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or we can delete the essay itself. That can end this dispute.-Ed ¿Cómo estás? 04:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think it's a good idea to simply erase parts of Wikipedia's history, even if it's bad history? If enough people are throwing the term around, it might be good to have something around to give people context. Make it a simple article, don't list all the drama. Just state what the group was and name the groups that were created in its downfall. -- TomXP411[Talk] 05:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, we cannot delete the essay. It was part of a close endorsed by deletion review. And you'd never get consensus on what to replace it with. The idea was to use the essay to let people know what went wrong and why such organisations are a bad idea. I'd be happy to let this back and forth go, seriously. But that takes two. To answer Ed's point about including a direct quote about improving the community, I have to ask again, why? Why are we still arguing about Esperanza this long after it was shut down for being divisive. Why do we still need to be divisive about it? What more lessons do we need to learn about divisiveness? How is this helpful to the encyclopedia? Steve block Talk webcomic warrior 12:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This debate is not a question of divisiveness; it's a question of whether it's ok to edit WP:EA! What is wrong with changing an essay that hasn't been edited for a month? Is that not healthy to the encyclopedia, since it encourages improvement in all areas of Wikipedia? To me, it seems that the other side of this debate is not open to change! It seems like they love to revert edits that actually do no harm to the essay! For example: this edit was reverted because of the following reasoning, "it wasn't an excellent idea - it's been months, please move on". Well, if it wasn't an excellent idea, then why insist on calling it nice? Also, since when did time become a valid arguement for keeping a page in its previous version??? Over time, things change! Society changes! Civilization around the world evolves! Our expectations of things adapt to new technology. Therefore, why is that editors are not accepting the WP:BOLD edits to the essay and keep reverting the versions to those of January when it's February???
To answer Steve's question about divisiveness anyway...I think that this is helpful to the encyclopedia. Think about it: what would the world be like today if there were no debate, criticism, inquiry, doubt, change (oh! that word again!), skepticism, dispute, or uncertainty? If that were to happen, this would turn into a very boring world that does not evolve and follows the same boring daily routine that follows the same boring tradition that has never change for thousands of years...my point is: this debate is healthy to the encyclopedia.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 14:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ed, if you are going to keep ignoring the points put to you, I feel I mustr withdraw from debating the issue with you. The reasons why Esperanza was to be shut down, to be replaced as an essay and to be left alone and moved on from were made at two mfd's and a deletion review. There's nothing more to be said. Give it up. Article policies apply to the article namespace. Here we are in the Wikipedia namespace. We decided what to do. We did it. Let it be. Steve block Talk webcomic warrior 14:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Steve, I would like to point out the edits you and Dev made during this debate in the interest of trying to keep the essay at its current state:
[2][3][4][5][6][7]
Likewise, I would like to point out the edits that other users (Quadzilla99/Ed/Natalya/Richardshusr/User:Chris is me/EWS23) have made to improve the essay to a certain point:
[8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]
As you can see, you and Dev are the primary editors trying to revert changes made to this essay. These changes have been made by 6 editors which outnumber the reverters by 4. Clearly, there is a desire by other editors to change this essay to reflect opinions about this organization in an unbiased manner. This biased essay would put ideas into future readers who never even hear of Esperanza. The essay would give the impression that helping the Wikipedian community is a bad thing. As I said before, Let the facts speak for themselves! I propose that we just add basic summaries of the MfDs and the DRV and the pre-deletion conflict, and then we'll be done! No opinions are needed, nor are statements supporting a particular point of view needed.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 17:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we are. Why? Because these changes you suggest do not improve the essay. They attempt to skew it to talk about how marvellous Esperanza was and what a pity it was shut down. That you said "The essay would give the impression that helping the Wikipedian community is a bad thing." is very telling, as it says no such thing. It says that Esperanza is a bad thing: surely you have learnt by now that Esperanza != community? The community made it very clear where it stands on Esperanza, and the essay reflects that. It is you who insists that the essay needs to be unbiased - unbias does not equal equal weighting. Due weight is given to the feelings of the community, the community which DELETED Esperanza. They didn't say "Oh look, what a spiffing idea Esperanza is, I know, let's close it for fun.", they made strong and valid criticisms that are listed. Read your comments, you are chafing against the reverts themselves, not your edits that have been reverted. You don't have anything to say about WHAT changes you would like to introduce, just that we won't let you. And that, I think more than anything, demonstrated that you are just replyng now to wind everyone up than because you actually want to make meaningful, constructive edits. You just want to whitewash. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already established a few examples of changes that I want to introduce! [18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27] These changes were already proposed by 6 editors! This is why we are here to discuss the essay. We cannot reach consensus on the matter!
Let's take a closer look at the close of WP:MFD/EA:
Note how the closing admin wants the essay to describe the history, philosophy and fate of Esperanza. Now, let us break down each paragraph of WP:EA one by one:
This paragraph is mainly history, but touches lightly on philosophy
That's most likely about philosophy
This probably might talk about history.
History or Philosophy?
Probably history
This is most likely history
The first sentence touches on history, but do the bullet points discuss either history, philosophy, or fate? No, these sentences only discuss criticism, remarks, opinions, and arguements from various editors.
This discusses EA's fate.
This discussed either fate or history.
As you can see, this essay is already a violation of the MfD closure! I recommend that we replace this section:
with this sentence:
The suggested change above would still encompass the first 4 bullet points. IMHO, the 5th bullet point is merely opinion and cannot be supported by multiple arguements. Basically, the change I'm proposing sort of "tones down" the comments against Esperanza. It both helps the essay with the MfD closure while trying to satisfy the arguements of everyone in this debate. Any ideas?--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 19:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you admit your stated intention is to whitewash the essay. Right. Well, sorry, but I'm not interested in dialoguing with you anymore when you clearly have an agenda to push. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, what exactly are you interested in? Everyone involved in this conflict wanted to discuss here, so here we are! Why is it that you and Steve no longer have an interest in discussing this topic? Does this mean that you want to have an edit war again on WP:EA? This is what it sounds like to me. I don't see the problem with my edit. It is both harmless and satisfies both sides of the debate for the following reasons: it tones down the arguements against Esperanza, but it still criticises EA for its faults. This is an attempt to make the essay more neutral; I would not call this an agenda. I don't see why you're all so hesitant to welcome edits in this page!--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 19:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to get on with improving Wikipedia. You want to keep "discussing" and edit warring. Steve and I have made it clear why we do not wish to allow your "improvements" to stand, and you are simply ignoring us so you can continue to whinge. I have wasted enough time trying to engage you in a dialogue you are not interested in, and thus I withdraw. I will repeat myself on final time: the essay is fine as it stands, it was stable for a month until one user decided to remove stuff he disagreed with, Esperanza is DEAD, please move on. Even if you still cry over Esperanza's demise every night, I hope you will have the decency to allow the rest of us to get on with our work instead of having pointless discussions like this. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The condition of the current essay is not "fine". That is merely your perception. You have not made any counterarguements with my proposal above. You (and Steve) are the ones who are ignoring the suggestions of 6 other editors so that you can further your own plans. You have not responded to my arguements stating that the essay already violates the MfD closure; although it was stable, we need to edit the essay to satisfy a consensus established on the MfD and a DRV supporting the MfD. That is why the essay should be changed.
Why don't we just delete that particular section in its entirety? If we're going to keep going back and forth in this debate, why not remove it?--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 21:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bye bye Ed. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion

This edit war is pointless. Esperanza is inactive, and it shouldn't be wasting any more time. I suggest doing the following:

1. List notable arguments given in favour of Esperanza from its MfDs. 2. List notable criticisms of Esperanza, again, taken from the MfDs.

Please stop this edit war. If anything, it only serves to illustrate how divisive an issue Esperanza became, and continues to be. --Kyoko 00:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, that would in effect be the essay we have right now then? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now, as in which revision? I thought that the bulleted list of criticism was a good idea. Match it with a bulleted list of pro-EA arguments, and maybe everybody will be satisfied. In order to counter possible charges of POV, maybe these bulleted points should all come from the MfDs. I think the list of criticisms was directly from the MfDs, and the comment about not needing a large project to spread hope was said by User:Tohru Honda13 on the EA talk page, in January 2007.
I was perfectly happy with the essay as it stood for a month, though. --Kyoko 01:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict with Kyoko; God do we think alike!)::Not exactly...the essay right now doesn't quote any pro-Esperanza statements; I do like Kyoko's idea, however. Perhaps we should explain in details the arguements for keeping Esperanza in the first MfD. Then we can explain, in detail, the arguements for deleting EA in the second MfD. The version of the essay that we have been debating over was like a big glob of jelly! How can we outline the criticisms against Esperanza if we don't provide the reasoning of those who wanted to keep Esperanza?--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 01:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had been thinking of something a bit simpler: say that Esperanza was a project with a certain founding intention, list the programs it started and what happened to them, list a few (maybe 4 or 5 at most) arguments for and against Esperanza, quoted directly from the MfDs, and say that as a result of consensus, Esperanza was made inactive. I don't think that the arguments should be explained in detail, because that opens the door to bias for or against Esperanza. --Kyoko 02:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HElp

help! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by រ (talk • contribs).

What do you need help with? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Choosing a readable username, by the look of it; his name just appears as a question mark to me – Qxz 08:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see a square. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikistalking

Could anybody please investigate the case of alleged wikistalking (WP:STALK) of User:Biophys and me (User:Colchicum) by User:Vlad fedorov? Vlad fedorov has been harassing Biophys for two months (since December 18, 2006, when the Vlad fedorov account had been created) and me for several days (since February 14, 2007), being quite disruptive, and I am almost sure that he has never tried to touch an article that hadn't been created or edited by us shortly before this (see Special:Contributions/Vlad_fedorov). Colchicum 02:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the full list of the articles User:Vlad fedorov has contributed to since December 18; Without any exception, it exemplifies wikistalking against User:Biophys and sometimes against me.

Active measures
Alexander Goldfarb (microbiologist)
Alexander Litvinenko
Anatoliy Golitsyn
Anna Politkovskaya
Boris Stomakhin
Central Intelligence Agency
Chechen suicide attacks
David Satter
Dedovshchina
Disinformation
FAPSI
Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation
Galina Starovoitova
Glasnost Defence Foundation
Human rights in Russia
Izvestia
Mitrokhin Archive
Moscow Serbsky Institute
Moscow theater hostage crisis
Platon Lebedev
Putin's Russia
Russia and the Arab-Israeli conflict
Sergei Ivanov
State-sponsored terrorism
Union of Councils for Soviet Jews
Vladimir Putin legislation and program
Yevgenia Albats
Yulia Latynina

Here are some talks:

User talk:Alex Bakharev#Vlad
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive74#Boris Stomakhin article and inciting of ethinic hatred
Talk:Active measures
Talk:Alexander Litvinenko
Talk:Anna Politkovskaya
Talk:Anti-Russian sentiment/Archive2
Talk:Anti-Russian sentiment
Talk:Boris Stomakhin/Archive 1
Talk:Boris Stomakhin
Talk:C2 domain
Talk:Chechen suicide attacks
Talk:David Satter
Talk:Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation
Talk:Glasnost Defence Foundation
Talk:Human rights in Russia
Talk:Mitrokhin Archive
Talk:Moscow Serbsky Institute
Talk:Putin's Russia
Talk:Union of Councils for Soviet Jews
Talk:Yevgenia Albats
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive37#Boris_Stomakhin_.28Result:Action_done.29
Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-02-10 Boris Stomakhin
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive190#Please review my block
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive36#User:Biophys reported by User:Vlad fedorov .28Result: Biophys commended.29

Colchicum 13:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not tell the mediators? I'm in a bit of a rush so can't provide a link, but it should be easy enough to find the page. If you can't find it, drop me a line at my talk page tomorrow.--84.9.74.52 20:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, wasn't logged in at the time. My talk page can be reached by clicking on 'Man' in the signature. Hope you sort it out.--CarrotMan 20:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"high traffic" template?

Where is that template for talk pages of articles that have been linked to by a high-traffic site? Joyous! | Talk 17:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{high-traffic}} – Qxz 08:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture removal

User:Durin keeps removing a picture off my webpage that is of my son. He says my use of it is blatantly false and has said some very nasty things about me, apparently obsessed that I am really a user called User:Husnock. He has called me a liar and one of his friends threatened me by saying that he had a "friend of a friend who lived in my area" and that he'd "been in touch" [28] seeming to state that I was in for trouble if I didn't remove these pictures from my page. I've done nothing wrong on this website and have reviewed the policies about images. Durin's personal opinion about an image is not reason to delete it and because he is involved in a dispute he shouldn't be deleting the material himself. Durin has dropped hints about blocks and bans if I don't do what he says and I don't want to trouble. I just don't think he can simply remove this picture just because he wants to. I ask permission to re-upload this picture and ask that Durin be told not to delete it. Thank you. -Pahuskahey 18:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An addition: I obviously have more than one picture of my son. If I upload another one would that be acceptable? Whatever Durin may think of this one picture, I don't think he would have the right to delete any and every picture of a family member I uploaded. -Pahuskahey 18:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. I have no friends on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a social networking site, and I do not use it as one. How someone else decides to act is no reflection on me. They are responsible for their own actions. Period.
  2. I don't care if you are a sockpuppet of Husnock or not. It matters not to me so long as you are not disruptive to Wikipedia. Having sockpuppets is not against policy.
  3. You originally posted the image making a claim that your son died in Afghanistan. Investigating the source of an image is not violating your privacy. Further, since I do not know your name, there can be no violation of privacy. I simply investigated the claims that the image was of a soldier who died in Afghanistan. Using a variety of sources, this is provably false. My stance on this image is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact. Even so, I did not act in isolation but sought confirmation that I was correct. Two other people came to the same conclusion as I did, independent of my own work on this I might add.
  4. I have no intention of blocking you or banning you.
  5. I have now noted to you on your talk page that "Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site" and "Wikipedia is not a general hosting service" (see WP:UP). While there is nothing inherently wrong in posting a free license image on your userpage, it contributes no value to the encyclopedia. That is afterall what we are here to do. These claims regarding your son are, at best, contentious. At worst, some of the claims you have made regarding this individual break the laws of the United States. I fail to see that the juxtaposition of placing an image on your userpage that places the project in a less than desirable position vs. the net gain of no value to the project is a situation we should place ourselves in. If this were an image going onto an article, perhaps there would be better legs for this dispute to stand on from your chair. However, it isn't. It's an image that is intended solely for your userpage. If you have such a strong desire to post images of your family, there are plenty of hosting sites out there that will quite happily give you the webspace and provide hosting for you. --Durin 22:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having seen some of the evidence that links Pahuskahey to Husnock (who is in his early thirties and can not possibly have had a son who died as an adult), I concur with Durin, and urge Pahuskahey not to persue this any further. We hope that you will continue to edit Wikipedia, and I am sure nobody will mention Husnock to you unless you make it necessary by insisting on uploading pictures of which the source is very dubious. There is no need to have those images on your user page, or, indeed, anywhere else on Wikipedia, and it seems that this issue will simply cause more pain and stress for you if you continue. Musical Linguist 22:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My response on the matter

My apologies for not writing sooner, things picked up a bit where I am and for reasons I will go into in a moment, I no longer edit this site from my home or office, only public computer locations.

First off, after reviewing the website policies, I am more than happy to remove family pictures from my page. I was experimenting with the site and if someone had POLITELY explained it to me, I would have complied. Instead I was called a liar and accused of being someone else. About that, I challenge most strongly that Durin, or anyone else for that matter, would ever be able to prove that I am in fact another person or that I don’t really have a son. I have explained numerous times that I was drawn to this website by postings on a newsgroup of the Husnock affair and that the case against him was bookmarked in a public computer lab. So, of course I knew who he was and looked at some of the articles he edited.

As to the sockpuppet issue, I say again when I first joined this site I didn’t know what that term meant and thought it was actually a vulgar saying. I apologize now for my initial reaction. But, now that I know what that means, I don’t see how it can be applied to me. I have not used multiple accounts to edit the same articles nor have I ever even defended Husnock. Indeed, I am rather neutral on the subject and feel he probably did go over the line on several policies and most likely had multiple accounts. I am just unfortunate enough to have edited from the same area as he. On that issue, I say again that these edits which so many people said were one person came from multiple areas across the Middle East with Husnock himself making a post from apparently the United States. Is it at least within the realm of possibility that these were really different people? Or is Husnock somehow capable of posting several messages, from at least three different countries, within hours or minutes of each other?

The issue with my son has become somewhat upsetting and I do not wish to go into it any further. I will only say to Durin that it was a low blow going after my family like that and it is impossible that some mysterious source confirmed that my son isn’t a real person. Durin never had any details about my son, not his name, where he was stationed, where he died, or anything like that. What Durin did have was a string of assumptions. He assumed my son died in Afghanistan, which I never actually said (Yes, I said he didn’t come home from Afghanistan but never confirmed or denied an actual place, cause, or country of death); he assumed he was in the Army when he died, which I never actually said; and he assumed he was a posthumous recipient of the Silver Star in the rank of Staff Sergeant, which I certainly never said (And experimenting with a Shadow Box graphics program doesn’t mean I ever said those things). And, even if I did post those things on my user page, which I didn’t, I have not been able to find any regulation of this site that states material posted on a user page must be proven as being true. If I put that I am a vampire and President of the U.S. on my home page, that is obviously not true but wouldn’t get me in trouble with Wikipedia as far as I know.

So I will never confirm or deny any of these things about my son and am happy to let the matter drop as many have suggested. I just say that it is apparently a fact that Durin contacted agencies of the Army and researched records to find out who my son was and thus find out who I am. That alone is a gross violation of my privacy and very hypocritical unless Durin is going to every single user on Wikipedia, who claims to have received a high military decoration, and researching them as well. I think I can safely say he is probably not.

My final matter to discuss is that I am now scared to death of this site and will probably seriously curtail my editing. I bring to everyone’s attention that I was openly threatened and nothing was done to the person who made the threat. This Charlesknight stated he had a friend of a friend who lived in my area, stated that he’d been in touch, and commented that this friend had my picture and I better think twice about being on Wikipedia [29] . Whatever his intention by saying that, I saw that remark as very clearly implying some kind of real world retaliation and I do not appreciate it and think that this user should be spoken to by Wikipedia authorities. Especially after Husnock, was lined up against the wall about a similar comment, and was brought before an arbitration committee for making it.

I’ve said my bit and I hope this clears it up. I will remove my family pictures since I don’t want any trouble. It would be nice if Durin and his allies admitted that there is at least a slight slimmer of possibility that I am in fact a different person and stop posting that I am alternate personality for this naval officer which you apparently hate. Thank you and good night. -Pahuskahey 11:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • First, this isn't a response to Pahuskahey. It is to anyone else who is reading this. I have long had debates with this person and have no wish to continue debating with him. I made no assumption that the person was a staff sergeant. That piece of evidence came from the image that Pahuskahey generated which can be viewed (by admins) at [30] (see rank insignia on bottom of image). Second, I did not make an assumption he had been posthumously awarded the Silver Star, only that he had been awarded that medal. Referring to the same image, it's the upper left medal. By way of this image, Pahuskahey stated these things as *fact*, and I made no assumption. Further, the rank insignia he associated with this person is from the United States Army, thus again I did not make an assumption that this individual was in the US Army; it was stated as fact by Pahuskahey. Another bit of information that I had was the statement by Pahuskahey that this individual was born 1977 and died 2004, making them 26 or 27 years old at time of death (see caption on deleted photo at [31]. Further, as Pahuskahey notes, he did indicate that his son was in Afghanistan as a member of the US Army in December of 2003 (see [32], which shows him in uniform, in Afghanistan). Pahuskahey indicated this person died in 2004, and was serving in the war on terrorism from which Pahuskahey himself said he did not return. Thus, he was serving in Afghanistan at the time of his death in 2004. I did not contact the US Army to ascertain the veracity of the information about this person. There are multiple public records available online of the military deaths in Afghanistan. Comparing what information we have; staff sergeant, serving in the US Army, age 26 or 27, against the list of casualties it becomes trivial to conclude there was no such person who died in Afghanistan in December of 2003 or all of 2004. Even allowing for +/- five years in age reporting problem and +/- one rank in reporting deaths, there is still no match. Nobody matching this description, or even close, died in Afghanistan in that time period. Since the source of the image is therefore dubious, we can not be certain of its copyright status. As such, and especially given that the image would never be used on an actual article, the value to the project of having this questionable image is zero. Lastly, the image was tagged as {{pd-self}}. This was inaccurate; Pahuskahey indicated the image was received via e-mail; he didn't take the image. He does not hold rights to it. The photographer, whoever that was, does. The image was unusable here on Wikipedia and as such it was deleted.
  • As to "gross violation of (Pahuskahey's) privacy", I made no attempt to ascertain Pahuskahey's name. I acted solely on the information he provided regarding the image. Further, I do investigate a large number of images on Wikipedia; several thousand to date.
  • Lastly, as I have indicated several times, I don't care if Pahuskahey is a sockpuppet of Husnock. Sockpuppets are permissible under our policies here at Wikipedia. I do get concerned when users act in ways that serve to disrupt Wikipedia. That is my focus. Posting an image with highly dubious source, and then reposting it after being informed of the problematic nature of the image begins to be disruptive behavior. --Durin 15:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Durin, what “long debates” are you referring to? You’re first edit to me ever was to state that you had nothing to say to me [33] and then after that you’re comments were confined to accuse me of being another person and other infractions against this site. Regarding the image that you state is a smoking gun, it was a shadow box graphics program and I never confirmed or denied any of the information in that image. As far as you know, I could have just been experimenting with a graphics program and posted it to this site to see what it would look like. I’m not saying that one way or the other, just that this is a possibility. It is also a possibility that my wife and I could be working with a congressman to get our son promoted posthumously and awarded the Silver Star after the fact and wanted to see what a shadow box would look like in that case. The point is who knows? What does matter is that I posted a picture of my son and you called me a liar and stated I was falsely saying he was a Silver Star recipient as a deliberate attempt to defame Wikipedia. [34] You would be hard pressed to find an actual edit where I stated any of the things you are saying. The only edit that I recall making was that my son didn’t come home from the war on terrorism. And what about my other concerns? About your refusal to admit that I am not this person for which you have such a hatred? And what about this ally of yours who came to your aid [35] and then posted that he had friends in my area and that he had been in touch [36]? When all is said and done I’ve done nothing to harm this site and have done my best not to break any rules. I have tried to clear the air but now you are saying that you will not even respond to me. Is that how a Wikipedia Administrator should behave? I think not. I guess we will agree to disagree and go our separate ways. Farewell. -Pahuskahey 16:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not wish to file any complaints against you. In fact, I’ve updated my user page to remove my family pictures. I’ve done this more for my own safety than complying with your demand, but I do admit after reviewing the policy it is clear this site does not like user pages used as webspace/homepages. Even so, my main reason for removing such photos is that you and others have shown an indication of taking this business into real life. I never got an answer about what (if anything) was said or done to the person who so openly threatened me. If I said, “Durin, I have friends who live in the same town as you and I’ve been in touch” I would probably get banned from this site. But, it seems okay when someone says that to me because they think I am another user that they don’t happen to like. In any event, none of this has anything to do with editing articles so it is a foolish thing for me or you or anyone else to continuously pursue. It would be nice if I got some kind of acknowledge that there exists at least a chance that I am in fact a different person from this Husnock, since I would like to keep on editing here without a label or tag above my head following me around wherever I go. I also would hope that the individual who said he has friends in my area is spoken too since I truly believe that this comment was highly inappropriate and actually frightened me, making me fear for my safety. Lastly, whatever source you read or person you talked too about my son, I simple ask you to please leave my family out of this. There is no reason for you to be checking with government agencies or conducting a background investigation on my relatives and that too is a very frightening and disturbing thing. With that said, I bid you farewell with the pictures you were so concerned about removed from this site. -Pahuskahey 10:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC) P.S.- Still hoping for some neutral comments from outside observers; this is one of the reasons I posted to this page. -Pahuskahey 10:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I made no demands you remove the pictures from your userpage that you recently removed [37]. I made no attempts to take any of this into real life. I have done no such thing nor would I. I will repeat myself a thousand times if necessary; the sources I used were available on the web. I did not contact any government agencies. I used information provided by you and compared that information against publicly available, on-web resources. I am sorry you are apparently frightened at the prospect of people surfing the web to verify the authenticity of a photograph. However, this is routine business at Wikipedia. --Durin 15:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black pot

For WP:KETTLE, we request an image of a black pot. >Radiant< 14:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I've been having some difficulty with this code here, whenever I enter it to my homepage (which is where I want it), it doesn't automatically hide the template I've put in - unless I say style="display:none" in the navcontent - but then the hide/show starts out as hide even though the content is hidden. Any ideas?

<div class="NavFrame">
<div class="NavHead">User Talk Templates</div>
<div class="NavContent">
{{User:Pilotguy/Warnings}} </div> </div>


Thanks for any help you guys can give (oh and note: if I use {{Hidden}} and say 2={{User:Pilotguy/Warnings}} for the second parameter - it works, strangeness.Daniel()Folsom T|C|U 21:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lemma Ridley

I just stumbled upon the article about Ridley (a fictional figure from a videogame). There are many more disambiguations for that name and I simply have a feeling that the current standard article seems to be the wrong choice. On the other hand I don't know what other Lemma should be choosed as the direct article. Any ideas on that? --87.167.218.146 11:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the disambiguation page should be the direct destination. I'll move it and see how long until it gets reverted. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 15:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I changed my mind and decided to suggest it on the talk page first. It's been suggested. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 15:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial articles?

A person is creating articles for sites all over his hometown in Iran. The thing is, these are all minior tourist attractions, but I'm not sure whether they qualify for their own articles. I think that maybe they they could be in one article, or merged in to the existing article on the province.

One of them is Khaja Barookh's House. Another is Sarab Niloufar. The user in question is Rahman Amiri.

What is the criteria for geographical sites? Is a house, with no significant history, notable enough for its own article?

-- TomXP411[Talk] 16:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LOCAL seems to be what you're looking for. I'd say a merge for those is in order. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That gave me exactly the info I needed. Is there a "short list" of these kinds of things? It would greatly help editors if there was an index to these guidelines. It would also help if newcomers were linked to these when they create a new account. -- TomXP411[Talk] 18:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTE is the main notability guideline, and it has a "short list" of some of the more accepted individual guidelines on the right sidebar, but WP:LOCAL isn't on there because it's still in the proposed stage. Getting consenus to change the main welcome template is neigh impossible, but several people (including me) have made variations with different links. Personally I'd add links to the notability pages to Wikipedia:Your first article, which is linked from Wikipedia:Article development, which is in the welcome template. Frankly this place is a confusing maze for newcomers. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 19:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Summary style is failing

This is not the announcement of an essay praising the German Wikipedia :) Instead, as a bewildered newcomer, I'm asking if there are any projects that deal with synchronization, merge and redundancy issues. The closest I could find was WP:ʃ, but I'm more concerned with keeping subarticles in sync with the main article, where they are supposedly "summarized". In many cases, the subarticles deteriorate (the first "main article" link from Evolution currently looks like this), but in some cases the parent article suffers (God has lost very important material to its subarticle Conceptions of God). Maybe this project called Wikiproject Modular Articles is what I'm looking for? Anyway, I'm also very interested in any thoughts on the problems of summary style and redundancy in general, and if there is anything I can do about it. --Merzul 02:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a question about searching

can i get a list of the top twenty most "controversial" posts?208.188.56.203 04:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it. If you want to see naked controversy, you might start with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 05:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm new and probably doing things wrong.

I have been a reader of wikipedia for a long time now, and I sometimes see vandalism and remove it. I decided to make a userpage and participate more, but some of my methods may not be correct.

For example, when explaining how to deal with vandalism, it says to "revert" the vandalism, but when I cleaned up vandalism prior to starting a userpage, I would "edit" the vandalism out, by selecting "edit this page" and simply removing it by hand.

Is this bad for some reason, or does it make things difficult for other Wikipedians in some manner?


Thank you for your help. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SeriousCat (talk • contribs) 04:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Welcome SeriousCat. Besides being tedious and hard to do, that is error prone: you might miss some vandalism. See this article for step-by-step instructions to revert. At first that won't seem any easier than a manual edit. But after three or four reverts, you should find it quite straightforward. After getting the hang of that, install a tool like popups for even easier reversions.
By the way, don't sweat making mistakes: we all do it. As a regular user (versus an administrator), there's nothing you can do that breaks anything that can't be fixed by a revert or two. Just be nice and most editors will cheerfully fix anything they see needing it. —EncMstr 05:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The simple way to revert a page is to use the page history (click the history tab at the top) and then click the last revision before the vandalism. Then click Edit this Page, type "removing vandalism" in the summary box. Then click "Save Page".

You should also go to the vandal's talk page and leave a warning. Vandals won't be banned until they've been warned, so even though you don't have the power to block a user, you can warn them. Template:Vandalblock has templates that you can include to warn vandals. Here's an example:

putting the text {{subst:uw-vandalism2}} in their talk page will display:

Please do not add unhelpful and non-constructive information to Wikipedia. Your edits could be considered vandalism, and they have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

I hope that helps.

You can also create a test user page to use as a sandbox. Read Wikipedia:Subpages for more info on that.

Also, remember to sign your posts on talk pages. To do that, hit the ~ four times, like this: ~~~~

-- TomXP411[Talk] 05:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Seriouscat! The problem with just editing out the vandalism is that sometimes the vandal will have deleted some important text as well, which can cause problems later. I mostly notice that they delete the "External Links" and "See also" sections, or categories, but other article sections are sometimes deleted. Reverting back before the deletion is the easiest way to restore the text. If someone vandalizes a page by deleting a section, and then a well-meaning editor just deletes the vandalism without restoring the section, other editors could come to the page and not realize that those sections were deleted. -sthomson06 (Talk) 15:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks everybody. SeriousCat 18:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Old image version delete

Not sure where to ask for this but could an admin delete the older version of the image Image:Argon ice 1.jpg ? It contains exif data that I do not want published. Thx.--Deglr6328 07:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the proper thing to do is place {{db|don't want to publish private data in EXIF information}} on the image's talk page. —EncMstr 07:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ah, well whoever did it, thanks!--Deglr6328 08:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was done quickly. I was about to do it, but when I clicked the deleted link it was already gone, and that was a couple of hours ago. ViridaeTalk 08:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firefox and Wikipedia

I installed Firefox yesterday, and now Wikipedia seems broken. Monobook skin has all the left sidebar stuff and top stuff collected and appended in a section at the end of the page called "Retrieved from " and the page URL. Classic skin approximates the look I was used to, but is not quite right either, since the language variants list doesn't appear in the sidebar. It is possible that I might have triggered something by typing "ALT-END" into Firefox just before going to Wikipedia, but a boot of my system hasn't fixed it. Help! I want the real Wikipedia back! 66.167.77.201 14:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help! It is still broken after another reboot. I allow cookies from Wikipedia. What could be making Wikipedia broken in this way? Doesn't anyone have any suggestions that might even help diagnose this problem? 66.167.77.164 22:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is likely at your end. Other than ctrl F5 I'm not surewhat yuo could do.Geni 22:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! That fixed it! Brilliant! I looked up ctrl F5 and it seems to force a refresh of the cache. I guess somehow one of the skin files got corrupted or something. Ctrl F5 is one of those small things that if you don't know how to look for it is very hard to find. Many thanks! 66.167.77.164 14:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate User and Discussion Pages

This user is using their discussion page and talk page as a message board for their friends. I know this is a violation of Wikipedia not a messaging service but I did not want to delete the content on someone else's user space. As a result, I put up this tag {{notaforum}} on both pages. However, no one seems to be responding to the notice. I am unsure of how to proceed. I believe an admin should be the one to delete the content. --Cyrus Andiron t/c 15:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you just put the notice on today. You don't expect instant responses, do you? The user in question does not seem to have edited since the 17th. Give them some time to respond. Perhaps add a politely worded personal note welcoming them to Wikipedia and letting them know that Wikipedia is a encyclopedia to soften the touch of the big orange box. If the behavior contiues you could go to the admin's noticeboard or miscellany for deletion. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced the banner with a more personalized message. I'm also going through some related accounts and informing them of the relevant policies and guidelines.--Isotope23 19:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I created an MfD for the page. He deleted the warning, so he's obviously been here. He also apparently hasn't actually contributed anything. -- TomXP411[Talk] 05:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

help: transform an article because of copyright

Hello, I am on the french wiki. I was about to traduce the article Singidunum when I so that it came from a copy of this website(especially in this part of the wiki article: Pre-Roman influence): http://www.beograd.org.yu/cms/view.php?id=201172. Winona Gone Shopping was the author of this extract. So, I try to join this user but this user have been banned. Please transform this extract or join your patroller. Thanks. Bashar-fr 00:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC) (Bashar on the french wiki)[reply]

I looked the article over, and I looked at the web site in question. The two pieces of text don't look anything at all alike. Are you sure you linked to the correct web site? -- TomXP411[Talk] 02:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting Hebrew names and dates

In several articles about Israeli figures, there is a formatting problem in the first line with the name in Hebrew and the date of birth. The use of double square brackets round the date of birth, immediately following the double brackets round the name in Hebrew, causes the line to break incorrectly, like this: Moshe Dayan, DSO (Hebrew: משה דיין), (May 20 1915).

After much experimenting, I have noticed that it will display correctly if there is at least one English character (not a space or punctuation) between the two sets of brackets. In several such articles, I have placed a letter in white font: <font color="white">a</font> between the two. This works, but it is clumsy. Does anyone have a better solution? So far, I have seen and corrected Moshe Dayan, Yitzhak Rabin, Rafael Eitan, Rehavam Zeevi and Moshe Sharret]]; I assume that there are many more. RolandR 11:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just add the word "born" so that the line reads: Moshe Dayan, DSO (Hebrew: משה דיין), (Born: May 20 1915). Blueboar 14:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do I do when someone copies GFDL content without crediting the author?

See the March 14, 2005 "I Drew This". The left-hand panel is pretty derivative of Image:Villainc.svg. What's proper protocol in this instance? Ask him to include a thank-you to J.J. and a link to the image page? I shudder to think of writing one of those high-handed doomy cease-and-desist letters; is there a better alternative that preferably doesn't involve thundering that someone is in breach of copyright, even if they are? grendel|khan 14:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. That does bear a striking resemblance. Might I suggest you drop the artist a quiet note and point the similarity out? Knowing the artist, he shouldn't react poorly. (For reference, it's actually at Image:Villianc.svg) Tony Fox (arf!) 19:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks. That'll teach me not to preview before commenting. And to assume that the original uploader could spell... grendel|khan 19:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


My Wiki-Stalking

Alright....

this user has been a thorn in my side for a LONG time. The user is User:Silicondirect/User:24.103.242.178/User:Sonysnob (the first account is named after a place i work for), and posts my work place, real name (spelled both correctly and incorrectly), and continually trashes and blanks my pages, and even comprimises them at times.

The user also used user:nullified1 to do the hacking, and continually tries to comprimise my hotmail and yahoo mail accounts. The wikistalker in question probably knows me in real life, as i do not tell those things to people i know online or in real life, which is even more puzzling as to how it's getting out. He currently uses User:Sonysnob


I am 90% sure this user's real name is <Removed>, a person taht has been having a 2-year-long grudge with me.

Here are the following accounts used:

I'd like to see these accounts permanently banned or blocked, as they've become quite annoying, especially since i had to move accounts twice.

I've also been around to several different pages that tell me to "go see <page>", and then i go there, and i end up at another one that says the same thing. please help! RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 23:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried requesting Admin assistance at WP:ANI? Blueboar 16:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. they sent me here. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 19:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Denny Klein

This article is in need of attention, an AfD has had very limited outside comment. Without suggesting anything (certainly not meant as votestacking!) could someone take a look and freely give their opinion on the matter? Nomen NescioGnothi seauton

Norman, I don't think the article needs to be deleted, but it does need to be cleaned up and the title needs to be changed. Perhaps you could take it on yourself to figure out what the title should be and propose a move in the talk page? -- TomXP411[Talk] 16:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Family

Hello my name is Jack Wifladt my father was born in Honefoss feb. 28 1904. But I do not seem to be able to find any thing on him or his brothers or sisters. I have one Dapsattest of his brother Gustav from Norderhov Ringerike but even finding this any were I am at a loss. <e-mail adress removed>—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.179.247.97 (talk) 19:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You don't really want to put your e-mail address out for everyone to see like that. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geographical / Town article layout questions

I just started an article on a vacation spot where I have visited several times, Chacala, and am unsure exactly how to lay it out. I looked at articles on different 'places' and they seem to vary as to how they're laid out. I checked the manual of style and didn't see anything. San_Diego,_California seems like a good article. Is this the preferred format? (obviously not all the catregories would apply to a beach town of 300!) Would Flora and Fauna be a subsection in Geography, or a separate section? Any other places on Wiki where issues regarding Geographical / City / Town articles and their formatting would be discussed? Can a small spot like this that has only a 2-3 significant small hotels, all of which are notable for their luxurious accomodations or cultural reasons have the names of those hotels and even links to them, or is that 'endorsement'? Note that I didn't even 'name' the hotel of Laura del Valle over these concerns. Thanks ! - FaAfA 01:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Im not (yet) a good enough editor to ....

I noticed Jubei Yagyu (disambiguation) has only a single entry on it. I thought it would be better as a Redirect. I followed the dierctions on Help:Redirect but got hung up on 1 part. The title of the page STILL contained (disambiguation) ??? I reverted myown work ... but would appreciate anyone directing me how this would be corrected. exit2dos2000 05:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jubei Yagyu (disambiguation) shoudn't exist. Jubei Yagyu should be turned into a disambiguation page. Currently, Jubei Yagyu redirects to Yagyū Jūbei Mitsuyoshi. According to guidelines, a (Disambiguation) page is only appropriate if another major article is taking the "main" name. In this case, the other name is a redirect. What I would do is move the content from the (Disambiguation) page to Jubei Yagyu (include the link in the existing redirect) and then mark Jubei Yagyu (disambiguation) for speedy deletion. including {{db|not needed}} at the top of the page should do the trick. Make sure not to remove the single entry that's already in there. -- TomXP411[Talk] 06:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go ahead and to it... take a look at the pages after I'm done, and you'll see what I did.
Also, remember to use the "What links here" link over on the left side of the page. Navigate to those pages and fix the links to point to the correct page. -- TomXP411[Talk] 06:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Although ... everything past "Jubei Yagyu (disambiguation) shoudn't exist." lost me. I knew it was more than I should be biting into. one day... but not today. ;-) exit2dos2000 07:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User removing context

Dcandeto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is removing context, like the country from Jacksonville Skyway, and claiming that "Wikipedia norm" is to not include it. Please assist. --NE2 08:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikitables

Hello, I have a question, how do you create wikitables? Do you type them directly or use a program? Do you create them easily or not? I visited a page in Internet which converted HTML tables to Wikitables. But I don't know how to make HTML tables. I make tables with MS Word, but they aren't HTML, and in Frontpage codes have many surpluses and they'll corrupt Wikipedia. So what do you suggest? Thanks a lot --♥MehranVB♥ ☻talk | ☺mail 17:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk: L. Ron Hubbard

Background: see Talk page history, starting with 17:12, 23 February 2007 edit by 217.87.112.138 address. Since the edits were immediately repeated by User:Conqaxxx, I'll presume they're the same individual.

Obviously, any number of policies apply to indicate that Conqaxxx's remarks were inappropriate and unproductive, as well as at the border of (but not conclusively) libelous. The question that has arisen is how the remark should be treated. Antaeus Feldspar merely gave a polite response, trying not to scare the newbie. Justanother removed remark and followup, in the apparent belief that the libel and accuracy issues of the remark per WP:BLP governed. I attempted to revert to restore the discussion, believing that WP:TPG governed without formal invocation of WP:LIBEL, especially due to the problems I percieved from the "actual malice" and "reasonably believable" requirements for libel of public figures. Justanother, in an apparent attempt to find a middling postion, removed the name of the living party; I felt adding an indicator that text was removed by other parties might make that a reasonable response. Antaeus Feldspar did not agree, based on prior actions (unspecified) by Justanother, and reverted back with further remarks. Justanother inquired over at the BLP Noticeboard, to which WilliamThweatt responded by removing the whole discussion — a response I would consider more sensible if there wasn't (from where I sit) an abundance of good faith in trying to determine the best response, and if that hadn't already been tried.

Obviously, the best-of-all-possible worlds would be Conqaxxx striking his own offensive remark, or removing it while indicating that it had been removed. I ain't holding my breath.

I believe all parties (aside from Conqaxxx) are acting in good faith. However, it indicates that the relative priorities of the policies are unclear. I'd appreciate if a couple of administrators (so as to indicate as consensus exists) could follow up with all concerned, to clarify what policies should take priority in responses made by editors and administrators to remarks on talk pages that may be some mix of unproductive; insulting; libelous or possibly so, in whole or only in part; of editors or non-editors; and/or of public or non-public figures.

That the error would happen among parties of good faith also seems to imply that revision of the relevant policies should be made to increase their clarity in such currently ambiguous situations. However, that's a problem to be addressed on a longer timescale. Abb3w 19:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for an admin to edit a template

Hi, I don't know who has this template on their watchlist, so I'll just place a pointer to the request that I made in the talk page for the {{hang-on}} template. The template is protected, so I can't make the change myself. Template_talk:Hangon#Awkward_wording Sanchom (talk) 22:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- Rick Block (talk) 20:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism on page Connetquot School District

A lot of this page seems to be obvious vandalism. Not being familiar with the subject matter, I can't figure out where the real information stops and the vandalism starts. I'm not sure how to handle it. Maybe someone else could have a look and try to figure it out. --Coppertwig 19:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone whacked the article with a really big revert-stick. Vandalism's gone, but the article may fail WP:NOTE unless other information is added. --FunnyMan 22:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. The article looks OK now, as far as I can tell. --Coppertwig 04:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted: Alert observer

Could someone please keep an eye on Bushism#Other_famous_Bushisms and Talk:Bushism#Explanations_of_Bushisms for me? I don't spend that much time editing Wikipedia, and I tend to lose track of my old edits. It took me two months to notice the explanations get deleted the first time. ><

I'd really appreciate it if someone could let me know by email or on my talk page if something happens that I should notice. Replying here won't work well, I'll probably forget about this post in a couple of days.  :(

Thanks! --FunnyMan 22:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed your e-mail address to stop you getting spam. Tra (Talk) 23:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I've put it back because I don't care. According to Gmail, I got over 6,750 spam messages in the last month, of which I saw next to zero. A little more won't hurt. Besides, the address is on my user page as well. --FunnyMan 23:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Table of Contents help

I just dont get table of contents! Anyway, an article I've done a minor edit on needs TOC to be moved so it "flows" with the text Manga cafe, if anyone could do this for me I would be thankful! -- Librarianofages 01:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The help you seek is at Help:Section. The TOC in Manga cafe is not extremely long or anything - why must it flow? -- Rick Block (talk) 03:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(assistance)&oldid=111078390"