Jump to content

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ais523 (talk | contribs) at 11:24, 1 March 2007 (→‎Language bar: How to make a proposal; this can't be done using MediaWiki-space). 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 proposals section of the village pump is used to discuss new ideas and proposals that are not policy related (see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) for that).

Recurring policy proposals are discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (perennial proposals). If you have a proposal for something that sounds overwhelmingly obvious and are amazed that Wikipedia doesn't have it, please check there first before posting it, as someone else might have found it obvious, too.

Before posting your proposal:

  • Read this FAQ page for a list of frequent proposals and the responses to them.
  • If the proposal is a change to the software, file a bug at Bugzilla instead. Your proposal is unlikely to be noticed by a developer unless it is placed there.
  • If the proposal is a change in policy, be sure to also post the proposal to, say, Wikipedia:Manual of style, and ask people to discuss it there.
  • If the proposal is for a new wiki-style project outside of Wikipedia, please go to m:Proposals for new projects and follow the guidelines there. Please do not post it here. These are different from WikiProjects.


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

Redirect on Contribution pages, "redirect=no"?

uhh....i think people just don't really have an opinion on it. I, for one, have almost never encountered the situation you've outlined. On the offchance i do click on a contribution that's a redirect, i just click the history or diff links instead to see what changes the person made. I suppose a better place to ask would be the technical section... --`/aksha 02:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this is definitely a good idea. `/aksha is right - move this to a technical section and it'll get noticed and maybe even implemented. Good luck. Nihiltres 18:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea (found it annoying myself before), but yeah this may have been better on the technical pump. -- nae'blis 19:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Infinite Ban on all Wiki Abusers

I have being distressed, especially lately, but in fact throughout my tenure as a Wikipedian, by the number of fellow Wikipedians who have left our community. By that I mean those who have chosen or being forced to leave due to personal attacks and vandalism, either of their home pages or articles.

Its being my experience that ALL of those who fall under this category have being people who have added tremendously to our project, both in scope and depth. It is therefore a source of anger that ahmadans, who's tenure here is bellicose, offensive and in no way a meaningful contribution to Wikipedia, has driven so many invaulable colleges away.

Therefore, I wish to open a discussion on effective ways of dealing with such abuse. For my own part I would like to see such abusers (as opposed to the general Wiki user and contributor) banned very quickly indeed. Attacks by such abusers usually have being on-going for quite some time before a warning is given, and further time elapses with furthing warnings before a ban is evoked. Yet even then such bans have a finite duration.

My proposal is to replace the first warning with an outright infinite ban on any and all abuse. I would like to see this apply in the following cases:

  • 1 - Where abuse has occoured on several occasions (i.e., more than twice) prior to it being brought to the attention of the wider Wiki Community.
  • 2 - Where an apology for bad beheaviour and promise of future good conduct has being asked for and not given within a set time-limit.
  • 3 - Where an apology for bad beheaviour and promise of future good conduct has being given and broken (no time limit on such a promise).

In my own experinece, an Infinite Ban on abusers is the only course of action open to us. We have all seen that if a given 'contributor' begins such beheaviour they will continue with it whenever and wherever they please. Therefore, simple warnings are just not good enough. Action must be taken as soon as any abuse is detected. As with illness, prevention is better than cure. And while we cannot perhaps repair the damage abusers have committed (and which we were unable to prevent) on our fellow Wikipedians in the past, it is only in our common interest for each other and Wikipedia that we do so in future.

I would very much appreciate the thoughts of other Wikipedians on this subject. Is mise, le meas mor, Fergananim 11:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are already Community bans for people judged harmful to the community. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to remind, regarding this proposal, that no one is without the potential for reform. People can grow out of ridiculous vandalism, and the reason Wikipedia is successful is because of the diversity. Aceholiday 17:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a blanket policy is needed when we have a forum for discussing these things. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I, too, suspect that a blanket ban would end up (1) not solving the situation and (2) giving the real trouble makers (who know the rules and how to exploit them) another weapon to use. semper fictilis 17:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

etymology field to the anatomical entries

I would like to suggest adding an etymology field to the anatomical entries of Wikipedia which are in Latin. For example: "latissimus dorsi" Etymology: New Latin, literally, "broadest (muscle) of the back"

Practical jokes in "new message" boxes

See also: WT:UP § JOKE, and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/UI_spoofing

Not sure if this is the right place for this, but here goes. Are there any restrictions on off-site links - and if not, should there be? Many editors have probably seen the practical joke imitation "new message" banners that redirect to the Wiki article on practical jokes, or something similar. However, yesterday I came across one that redirected off-site to a blog page. I asked the editor to reconsider the setup, since there was no indication to a casual user that such a jump would occur. He appreciated my concerns, and reworked his pages accordingly. However, at the same time, he pointed out another user's "joke" nm banner, advising me to "Make sure your anti-virus is up to date." I didn't actually click the link, but found that it linked off-site to a CGI titled "brain.cgi" - which apparently has some reports of virus activity connected to it. Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 09:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Malicious links have no place on wikipedia. (even articles like shock site need to make it explicitly clear what lies on the other side.) Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it were up to me, I'd ban every single one of those silly immature new message joke banners. It isn't funny, the joke wore thin ages ago and they are just plain annoying. But, it isn't up to me. pschemp | talk 09:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Concur. Let's get rid of them. There is a page somewhere saying that userpages are for the purpose of writing the encyclopedia (not an exact quote). I always took this to mean that anything off-topic can be brought up for discussion and possible removal. Along with userboxes, this seems to be a prime example. Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've disabled the external link in question [1]. I didn't dare look at the link in question but a peek at it through on online web checking tool confirms the presence of a script. Very naughty. Megapixie 10:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hah he reverted it back. On closer inspection it is harmless - but it's very naughty disguising an external link as an internal one. Megapixie 10:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So everyone agrees that it is acceptable to delete fake "you have new messages" boxes? CMummert · talk 12:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think all we need to do is adopt wording in policy somewhere that spoofing the MediaWiki UI is not allowed and it will be open season on the little buggers. —Doug Bell talk 13:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added a paragraph at Wikipedia:User page (here) and pointed discussion this way. CMummert · talk 13:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have never supported a change more than this one. Said elements are annoying. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would also agree with disallowing this sort of practical joke. I think there was a situation in which one of the userbox migration bots kept stopping because it came across fake new-messages banners and thought they were real, so this is more important than just the annoyance value. (It's kind of ironic that users sporting such banners had their userboxes gradually degrade due to the bots not being able to replace them, but this interfered with other users too.) --ais523 15:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the fake 'You have new messages' banners should be banned. However, with the bots, if they come across a false-positive new-messages banner, they can always check http://en.wikipedia.org/w/query.php?what=userinfo&uihasmsg to see if they really do have messages. Tra (Talk) 15:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The annoyance factor certainly high, but I didn't think about the potential for username phishing and other fraud before this morning. Since these fake messages have no positive function, the easiest thing is just to make them deletable on sight. CMummert · talk 16:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not all UI changes are disruptive or confusing. This wording needs to be rethought. Take a look at User:Coelacan, where I have a username overlay. Nothing wrong with that. — coelacan talk — 21:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not everything is disruptive. The sort of page the wording is intended to cover is User:Drahcir (this version). It isn't going to be possible to define "disruptive" objectively, so some common sense will be required in applying the policy. I don't expect an automated "user page bot" to go around scanning for unsuitable user pages. CMummert · talk 22:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Faking the UI is intentionally creating confusion where something looks like clicking on it will give you one thing when it gives you another, or producing a page that looks like something it isn't (like creating a user page the looks like the page you get when there is no user page by that name). Decorative changes that don't impact how someone interacts with the UI wouldn't meet this criteria. As CMummert points out, however, trying to define this too narrowly leaves the definition open to abuse. —Doug Bell talk 22:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lone voice of dissent here. I think declaring open season on a harmless joke (I'm only talking about the harmless versions, like the one that was just removed from User:Certified.Gangsta's userpage) is unkind and petty. It sorts oddly with the next sentence, which has been there for a long time, and which I really like: "As a tradition, Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit." The new suggestion also fits badly with all the other matters under the heading "What can I not have on my user page?", because those all have very good reasons. For instance, putting extensive personal information, or fair use images, on userpages is readily seen to be actually harmful. The fake New Messages box thing is the only single one that's merely based on irritation. I ask people to please reconsider. What happened to "The Wikipedia community is generally tolerant"? Also, it seems illogical to bother to say "please", if the jokes are actually going to be vigilantly removed and "should" not be put back. That's not "please", that's an order. If y'all want to include advice against joke messageboxes in this guideline, OK, but could we please at least leave it as advice, rather than encourage other users to go on removal rampages? Because that's going to upset people. Bishonen | talk 01:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I agree, as annoying as I think they are, I think it's better to mention it as advice not order. It's not THAT annoying. If they are disruptive (linking to a virus/script) yes, then obviously they have to go. Garion96 (talk) 01:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We tolerate silly user page content up to the point at which it becomes harmful. Deliberately misleading people in this manner impedes their efforts to build an encyclopedia. These pranks are flagrantly harmful, and I would have attempted to outlaw them long ago if I'd realized that so many others agreed. —David Levy 16:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Bishonen here. I find the fake messages stupid and annoying but I don't see much gain in outlawing them. I do however see one serious concern- there are occasional new editors who don't click on new message links since they think that the links are some sort of spam. This may be more likely if they were to click on one of the fake links before getting any new messages. However, this circumstance seems unlikely. JoshuaZ 01:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the two reasons the reason that I support the change in the User page guideline.
  1. Suppose that user A makes a fake UI that points to external site X. Then the person who controls external site X can, without the help of user A, turn site X into a phishing attack by making it a copy of the "You are not logged in" page.
  2. There is no positive, or even good-faith, reason to put fake UI on your page. Its only purpose is to harass other users. Given that it is also a potential security risk, we might as well say that it "may" be removed.
It is true that there is great lenience about user pages, but it seems reasonable that the guideline can ask users not to engage in behavior that is broadly offensive to the community. This is underlined by the potential phishing risk of fake UI - it should not benecessary to doubt every UI link when editing a user's talk page. CMummert · talk 01:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further reflection, I realized the issue is already covered by WP:DICK. CMummert · talk 02:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, it's hard to think of things much worse to put on your user page than things that undermine the trust we expect people to have in the UI of the site. Much more disruptive than a nasty statement on their user page that we wouldn't allow. Why oh why we want to tiptoe around letting people spoof the UI so that we don't cut into the freedom of expression allowed on their user page I don't get. It's a small curtailment of what people are allowed with a better reason than much of what is on the current policy. —Doug Bell talk 02:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEANS is always a Catch-22: if there is no written guideline, then it is much harder to argue in favor of removing things, but every guideline in oppositon of some behavior violates WP:BEANS. Still, when I wrote the current wording, I made it as vague as possible because I respect the idea behind WP:BEANS. Can you rewrite it to be even more vague while still being comprehensible to the average editor? CMummert · talk 03:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point; struck. (I guess I was hoping there was a solution to that, which I just hadn't thought of. ah well) --Quiddity 06:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is one useful benefit to the practical joke you have messages. It lets the reader know that the user whose page they're looking at is, more than likely, a dick. I don't think they're worth banning on that ground alone, there are plenty of other cases of things that are rude and stupid but legal. And so there should be, because creating thou-shall-nots all the way to the border of good behaviour will inevitably mean that we overshoot sometimes, and ban some good behaviours. But given that the messages will cause some bots to stop, I agree with the prohibition, at least until there is another equally simple way for bots to know that they really have message. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a simple way for bots to find out if they have new messages. In fact, it's even simpler than screen scraping as it's an api. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/query.php?what=userinfo&uihasmsg will show if the bot has messages and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/query.php will document this function. However, a down side of this is that an extra server request must be made every time the banner appears to check if it's legitimate. Tra (Talk) 11:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that a fake new-messages bar is worth complicating bot programming for. I also don't think that there's a query.php uihasmsg check built in to the popular bot frameworks, so it would mean changes to existing bot code (which can be a bad idea; imagine if a new-messages banner was confusing an adminbot, it would have to go through a new RfA so that the uihasmsg check could be implemented!). By the way, Tra, you probably want to change the output format of that query.php check from the human-readable xmlfm, which has to be screen-scraped, into something more useful for bots. --ais523 11:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
you probably want to change the output format Yes, I know it would need to be changed; I just left it as xmlfm for this discussion, which is being read by humans, and not bots. Tra (Talk) 12:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still amazed by all the angst this proposal is creating in the name of freedom on user pages. We're not "creating thou-shall-nots all the way to the border of good behaviour"—we're talking about a very specific, practical and non-content-based prohibition on spoofing the UI. There's not lots of gray area here or some dangerous slippery slope. Even without the bot issue I would think this is a no-brainer; with the bot issue this should be a slam dunk. —Doug Bell talk 12:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bots, slam-dunk. Off-wiki links of any sort, slam-dunk. On-wiki practical joke type links, I don't like them. But it feels heavy handed to ban them just because they're childish and annoying. Regards, Ben Aveling 12:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DOWN with fake MediaWiki UI elements!!! HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an issue with the existence of the joke as it wasn't funny when I didn't click on it the first time. However, shouldn't hiding a malicious link be a bannable offense? MLA 17:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think purposely hiding any external link is a punishable offense. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I consider that this div class (usermessage) has been abused, and that its abuse should be curtailed by enforcement, not by a “please don’t” message on WP:UP. Most importantly, the community is able to be elastic about interpretation of WP:UP in murky cases. If consensus is against such orange user messages, which appears to be the case, then they shall be removed. There may also have to be an MFD for all of the user subpages of the general note “Sign here if you’ve been fooled, lol!” GracenotesT § 18:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "please don't" message is unlikely to curtail the fake boxes without enforcement. Having the wording in the policy guideline just makes it clear that there is consensus against them. —Doug Bell talk 19:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Policy.. ? You're talking about "enforcing" a guideline. If what you want is "banning" the boxes, and sending in the marines to aggressively remove them (which seems to me quite counter to the wikipedia spirit, and you, Radiant, may wish to flee in terror in an orderly manner round about now), perhaps you should in fact propose a policy to that effect. Bishonen | talk 19:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
In this case, however, this proposal and common sense line up very well. Guidelines should not be ignored unless there's a relatively good reason or exception. Enforcement... would be troublesome, yes. Editors might feel insulted if they were compelled to follow it by force. Blocking someone else as a preventative measure, from putting a usermessage on his or her user page, is ridiculous and pernicious. Overall, that this issue appears light ignores some relatively significant consequences.
There is consensus against deceptive usermessage class use, but the enforcement of consensus is not required for general circumstances. I'm still wondering about whether a policy is worth it or not. Please fill in the following table as you see fit:
Pros and cons of false new message boxes
Why to prohibit Why not to
  • Users often click on them without thinking, resulting in possibly downloading a virus or being directed to a malicious site. A user may also find him or herself in the security-threatening situation described by CMummert
  • People don't like it, find it annoying
  • Many bots are coded in various languages to look for this div and possibly desist functioning until further instruction is given
  • An editor may be doing a systematic task (like reverting vandalism or tagging talk pages) when they are interrupted to consider a false talk page message
  • The Wikipedia community is tolerant, and shouldn't crush jokes just because they're irritating
  • The bot issue can be worked around, with some extensive recoding (?)
This table can also be completed for other UI elements, some more significant than others, others trivial compared to some. GracenotesT § 21:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it would be helpful to have a policy to point to. I disagree that the prohibition of deliberate trickery that interferes with the encyclopedia's construction runs counter to the Wikipedia spirit. —David Levy 21:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a proud owner of the practical joke banner, I firmly believe that outlawing the joke banner is against the true spirit of wikipedia. If we decide to censor everything on userpage, talkpage, and subpages, there are things such as User:Markaci/Nudity, which some people consider to be disruptive. It is basically a breach of individual freedom on userspace. I have removed the joke banner on my talkpage couple of months ago after a bitter dispute with User:Centrx who blocked me for 1 second for doing so despite strong opposition from the community and later refused to apologize. Since I believe talkpage is the main source of meaningful conversation on wikipedia, as a compromise, I removed the banner from the talkpage. However, subpages, archives, and userpages are different. Userpage is more about being creative, at least in my opinion. And just because I have a banner on my userpage doesn't automatically make a WP:Dick or a sockpuppeter.--Certified.Gangsta 02:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The one second block was for your habit of egregariously removing valid warnings because you viewed them as "a mark of shame", and unrelated to the banner. --tjstrf talk 02:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those warnings are not valid, obviously. That guy is abusing the system and admin priviledges. Anyway, I could've build a case to desysop him but I don't have time. The reason he blocked me seems to start from the banner dispute which he interpret as deception. Then things escalated from there. Then he randomly framed some unjust accusation to make me look bad out of personal vendetta obviously. The other thing is, if wikipeida is only for editing, we might as well remove userpages altogether since only talkpage is relevant to actual editing.Certified.Gangsta 02:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We allow user pages to contain practically any type of content that doesn't cause harm. Deliberately interfering with people's attempts to improve the encyclopedia is harmful. —David Levy 03:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They were valid warnings for delivering incivil threats of ban to other users. And you're continuing your disruptive behaviour along the same lines now[2] by removing anything you don't like and saying that well-grounded warnings from admins are invalid. I suggest you drop both the vendetta against Centrx and the unfunny disruptive banner. --tjstrf talk 03:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're reincarnating the favorite straw man used against this proposal—censor everything. This isn't about censoring anything, it's about not mucking with the user interface of the site. There's no slippery slope involved with censoring content associated with this proposal because it has nothing to do with content, only with form. —Doug Bell talk 02:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "true spirit of Wikipedia" does not include deliberately deceiving fellow users in a manner that impedes their efforts to improve the encyclopedia. —David Levy 03:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First user already blocked over a guideline which is still being discussed.David Levy, you have now removed the banner three times from Certified.gangsta's userpage, and threatened to block him if he restores it again. This is exactly the kind of behavior I was worried about when I saw the proposed new paragraph, and I don't mean CG's, I mean yours. Would you consider walking away for a few hours, please? Sleep on it, and think about it? I'd also be interested to know if this type of conflict escalation is what other people were envisioning when they expressed approval of the new paragraph? I have reverted, by the way, removing the bit about how users "should not put it back", which you had re-inserted with this edit summary. I've got to ask, why are you so angry? P.S. Breaking news: and now I see you HAVE blocked him. This is too, too bad. Please unblock, or I will. :-( Bishonen | talk 03:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
1. I suggest that you re-evaluate your opinion that users should be permitted to forge software messages for the purpose of deliberately confusing and misleading others (thereby preventing them from improving the encyclopedia).
2. I removed these banners from more than 90 pages, and this is the only user to edit-war over the matter so far.
3. I did unblock Certified.Gangsta as soon as he/she promised to cease the disruption. He/she then explained that this promise is valid for 24 hours, so I'm prepared to re-block if the disruption resumes. —David Levy 03:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This makes me want to add it to my userpage, even though I think it's stupid. But I won't, and only because I don't edit to make a point. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two cents here... when I was a newbie, I clicked on those joke "new messages" banners. Now that I've been around a while, I get the joke and don't click on them. Heck, I can go in my monobook.css and make my real "new messages" appear some other color or whatever. But, for the sake of newbies (per WP:BITE), these practical jokes should not be allowed. --Aude (talk) 03:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've got yet another con. When I'm on a slow computer (read: public one) and am just logging in for a few minutes (you know, just to make sure no one is calling for my head, maybe copyedit something, maybe make a follow-up comment on some talk page) these fake message bars can be really disruptive and time-consuming. They serve no positive purpose, yet they serve multiple negative ones. Luckily, I'm seeing consensus to remove them based on this thread, and will do so. Picaroon 03:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll invoke a wider consensus, as the matter of the guideline addition, and of this block in particular, is now on ANI.[3] Bishonen | talk 04:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Get rid of all of them. They've been annoying for a long time now. --Cyde Weys 04:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of stuff is annoying. It's just a little joke, and it allows editors to feel human. We're not unfeeling content-generating robots - at least, those who are either have accounts ending in -bot or are not welcome anyway. Dehumanizing editors does not help build an encyclopedia, and I think that those who think it does are misguided. --Random832(tc) 04:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Am I the only one who sees the irony in this statement coming from someone with the user name Random832? :-) —Doug Bell talk 05:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's plenty of potential user page content (including humor) that causes no known harm. Is it so much to ask that people not waste other users' time by deliberately tricking them via forged software messages? —David Levy 06:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S., David Levy, can you defend your characterization of these as "deliberately confusing and misleading others (thereby preventing them from improving the encyclopedia)."? --Random832(tc) 04:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In case it wasn't clear, the word "deliberately" applies strictly to the "confusing and misleading others" part. The time wasted (which prevents the editors from improving the encyclopedia) is an unintentional (but nonetheless harmful) side effect of this joke. —David Levy 06:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Folks common sense needs to apply here. To make a blanket rule that's going to block everything resembling MediaWiki functionality including lame "new message" joke alerts is just draconian. There are no doubt legitimate concerns about users spoofing certains functions of MediaWiki but I'll be hard pressed to agree with those who want to inlcude the Practical joke "new message" alert amongst those concerns. (→Netscott) 04:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, there are worse examples, but that doesn't mean that this one isn't bad. —David Levy 06:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Levy, where did you get the impression that there is strong consensus for your block?--Certified.Gangsta 05:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made no such claim. Evidently, some people believe that I overreacted. I disagree. You deliberately violated a guideline (which you knew existed to prevent disruption) after being warned not to. You also removed the warning. —David Levy 06:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an understatement to say over 95% of wikipedians believe you overreacted. The guideline is deliberately added by you and active discussion is still ongoing here, with various minor edit war on the guideline page. Unilaterally removing the banner, harssing me on my userpage, then intentionally warning/blocking me after you nearly break 3RR on my userpage is definite no-no for admins. The banner is not even disruption. I consider your warning to be one-sided, subjective, and an invalid threat. Basically, an abuse of administrative priviledge.--Certified.Gangsta 06:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1. You're right. That isn't an understatement; it's an overstatement. I take the concerns expressed by these users (whatever percentage they constitute) very seriously, but I disagree. This, however, doesn't mean that I would dismiss their viewpoints and block you again. If there is no consensus for such an action, so be it. I'm but one sysop trying my best to enforce policies and guidelines to the best of my understanding; I have no delusions of grandeur or belief that my opinions are sacrosanct.
2. Again, I didn't author the guideline addition.
3. My removal of the banner was far from unilateral. At the time, there was overwhelming consensus.
4. Advising a user to follow a guideline is not harassment, and the 3RR does not apply to the reversion of vandalism. (Deliberately violating a guideline that exists to prevent disruption is vandalistic in nature.) I would never block someone with whom I was involved in a legitimate content dispute.
5. Considering the fact that I unblocked you as soon as you agreed to stop restoring the banner, would you care to retract your previous allegation that I sought to stop you from participating in this discussion? —David Levy 07:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to me to be more of the same militantism that rears it's head on Wikipedia every so often. Some users seem to think Wikipedia should be as clean, stiff and dour as an English tea room or a board meeting in Japan, forgetting this is somethign most us do for FUN. Improving this project is, or at least should, not be another job, with a thousand HR decrees. It's a joke. take it case by case. Make the rule say such things should never lead to external sites, or to content of a non-family nature within wikipedia, for example Genital Piercings. But if you've got a fake 'leave me a message' up that leads to the Hand page, as in 'talk to the...', that's funny. Lame, but funny. (ish.). Tolerate it, and move on. I don't even see the associated WP:DICK in it that some here seem to. Learn to laugh. I try to remember, when I hit those things, that that user's here to have a GOOD time, and I should too. ThuranX 06:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia should be profressional. Playing jokes on other users is being uncivil. I support allowing it because wikipedia is BASED on freedom and accepting a whole host of different editors. There is no case where these things are helpful though, and users SHOULDN'T use them. I oppose enforcing such a rule, but support making it known to editors that it isn't appropriate. i kan reed 06:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1. There are plenty of ways to have fun (and even joke) on user pages without deliberately confusing and misleading fellow editors.
2. Any attempt to deem certain types of content "non-family" in nature (and ban such links from user pages) would be met with far more controversy than this has been. —David Levy 06:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, the idea of this - a spoof You Have New Messages box people can place at the top of their page - is really quite funny. But only as a joke told, not done. CyberAnth 06:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My thinking doesn't fit the below poll. I think fake new message banners are annoying and I think a tiny bit less of contributors that use them, but they're harmless, as long as they don't lead anywhere bad. I'd support a suggestion that they not be used, and a further statement that if they DO lead anywhere bad, anyone can remove them with a good edit summary and a note on the user's talk page, and reinsertion is not approved. That may be too nuanced, but I have non standard things in my userpages too, and I'd hate to see us all restricted to everything completely standard. ++Lar: t/c 21:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll

There's plenty of commenting above, so please just register your position with your signature below. Leave the comments to the discussion above. ChrisGriswold removed the previous added text stating that there was no consensus, so I'd like to see if that's true or not.

Question: Should language similar to the following be added to WP:USER:

Please do not put fake versions of the MediaWiki user interface elements such as a fake "you have new messages" box or fake category links on your user page or user talk page. Because these fake elements are difficult to distinguish from the actual MediaWiki interface, they undermine trust and carry the appearance of fraud.
Why on earth do we need a poll? Good grief. Don't interpret this as a personal attack, but it appears that everyone in the community is fighting each other over something absolutely stupid and small, and not even bothering to block trolls or vandals. Ridiculous. If no good reason for a poll is brought up, I'll close this one. Yuser31415 20:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yuser31415, although this is called a straw poll this is moreso a discussion and the reason this is true is that virtually every participant has voiced their views on it. (→Netscott) 20:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree

  1. —Doug Bell talk 08:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. - AgneCheese/Wine 08:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. There's room for harmless fun (including silly jokes) on user pages, but using forged software messages to deliberately confuse and mislead fellow editors is not harmless. —David Levy 08:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. This has the potential for serious abuse, and doesn't help build the encyclopedia. -Will Beback · † · 08:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. It should be glaringly obvious to anybody who respects wikipedia and its encyclopedic purpose. Tyrenius 10:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. These false messages confuse new users and disrupt the activity of established editors who are trying to perform batch tasks. —Psychonaut 10:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Editors should carry on with the business of editing. The Wikimedia servers are provided for the sake of creating an encyclopedia, not for engaging in practical jokes and other tangential activities. Zunaid©® 10:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Agree totally with the suggestion — MrDolomite • Talk 10:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Agree very strongly - it's deliberately disruptive, a potential security hazard for the unwary, confusing for new editors, and not funny anyway. I believe any kind of UI spoofing should be strictly prohibited by policy, but this is a good start. CiaranG 10:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Total agreement here. -- Qarnos 10:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's my opinion that the opinions in the discussion above are mostly in favour of this change. --ais523 11:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
    • So, what's _your_ opinion about whether this change should be made? Summarizing the opinions in this discussion are the straw poll's job, not yours. --Random832(tc) 17:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Personally, I think they should not be allowed (see my comments above). However, straw polls are best for indicating whether a consensus exists, rather than forming one, which is why I was commenting on what I thought the opinion was at the time. (Note that the strength of opinions has changed since I made that comment, so I've struck my vote above.) --ais523 10:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  11. Yes, as long as it doesn't say "Fake MediaWiki UI elements may be removed without warning and should not be replaced once removed" which was in a previous edit on that page. Garion96 (talk) 12:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Absolutely PeaceNT 13:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Agree completely...and a bit surprised that there's any dispute about this. This juvenile nonsense serves no legitimate purpose, and is annoying to the point of being disruptive. Spoofing mediawiki interface elements does not fall under the umbrella of legitimate self-expression. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 16:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. I used to have it, but I'm convinced of it's inappropriateness after reading the above. · AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 16:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Of course you should not be able to fake part of the software interface to trick someone into clicking. It is a waste of time. It is not about power tripping, not about a failure to take a joke, it is about wasting my time by trying to fool me into thinking I have a message when I don't. It is disruptive. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. These things are easier to ignore after you've fallen for them once or twice, but that doesn't excuse the first two times being irritating and (now that further dangers have been outlined) dangerous. It's a good joke in theory, lousy in practice, and should go. UI is UI, not your playground. -- nae'blis 20:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Very much agreed, if only for the precedent it sets. I will concede that many of the users who indulge in this do so with no malice, but nonetheless I feel it is a bad idea and a waste of time. DS 21:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Definite 'agree; its annoying, disruptive, and the general idea of 'spoofing' part of the MediaWiki interface - this is by no means the only source of fun, but lets not even get started on signature books. :/ RHB Talk - Edits 01:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Per Jimbo. – Chacor 01:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. If you're waiting for something really important, you shouldn't have to deal with this.--CJ King 02:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Maybe on April Fools' Day. PTO 02:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Agree the wording is a bit soft ("please"), but if it is explained to people that this is community concensus, then they should observe if as if policy, methinks. Jerry lavoie 02:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. I am pro user page freedom in general, but aiming to mislead/fool others is generally childish and should be discouraged. Dragons flight 02:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Agree. Might be a good April Fool's day prank though. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Agree completely. -- KirinX 03:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Strongly endorse such a proposal. Now to get tough on non encyclopedic user pages. Jorcoga (Hi!/Review)08:49, Thursday, 15 February '07
  27. Per the as yet unwritten WP:NOT#A PLAYGROUND. Moreschi Request a recording? 19:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Agree Wiki user pages have room for fun, but tricking editors decreases the quality of wikipedia, and is highly annoying -- febtalk 02:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Endorse ~ Arjun 22:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Agree They serve no possible good purpose, they annoy wide crosss spectrum of users. and they contribute towards deprecating the original and useful functions of userpages. DGG 05:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. I concur absolutely, childish jokes and pranks have no place on Wikipedia. We aren't Myspace. Michaelas10 (Talk) 20:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Agree. Potentially very damaging to user experience (depending on the capability of the user to understand and the direction of the link) not to mention a terrible security risk with the risk of viruses and phishing for people's login details. --Seans Potato Business 22:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Plus if this doesnt' work out, I'd like to hear Jimbo's word on the matter. --Seans Potato Business 00:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree

  1. While I didn't have that bar on my page before, I have it on now. Jeffpw 08:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Honestly, David Levy, why do you care so much? Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 10:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. you never hear their standard issue kicking in your door, you can relax on both sides of the tracks Pink Floyd, Gunners Dream. Sums it up. ALR 11:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Malicious instances should be removed. However, a fake new messages bar that links to "practical joke" is not malicious, and fake categories are certainly not a problem. Most importantly, these are in userspace, hence almost invisible to the vast majority of users of Wikipedia. Policing userspace does not help us build an encyclopedia, it just annoys people. Draconian measures against userspace silliness are disrupting Wikipedia far more than userspace silliness does. Kusma (討論) 11:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Disagree strongly, don't make "rules" based on WP:ITANNOYSME, don't bully users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bishonen (talk • contribs)
  6. How lame can you get? Honestly people, don't you have actual articles to edit? HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 12:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Lamest, dumbest proposal ever existed. 'nuff said.--Certified.Gangsta 13:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Whoa, everyone. Be civil, even if others aren't. That said, "deliberately mislead and confuse" is a gross overstatement of the matter, and as long as it doesn't link to an external link or an offensive article, I don't see the problem. We are not faceless content-generating robots, and trying to force us to act like we are does not help to build an encyclopedia. --Random832(tc) 13:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. In particular that it specifically mentions the "new message" joke is draconian. I agree with User:Bishonen this change is coming about as an application of WP:ITANNOYSME which is wrong. As I've said before, where MediaWiki spoofing is occuring for nefarious purposes then of course something needs to be done. If the wording were to more specifically target this then I would change my view and support additional wording. (→Netscott) 15:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Can't you take a joke?! Reywas92Talk 16:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Why are we polling? There's obviously no consensus here. IMO, those that think these things need to be barred by policy from user and user talk pages are on a power-trip high. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. I'd be fine with it being mentioned in a "some people don't like it, you should consider not having it" sense, but an out-right declaration that you can't have it is, as many others have said, draconian. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see how the word draconian can be applied, we are asking that people not spoof parts of the Wikipedia interface, we aren't asking them not to make jokes. I cannot think of any website that would allow users to spoof the interface of their software. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Practical jokes are funny. They may not be the first time they get you or the 100th time you see it, but somewhere between #5 and #90 you thought about someone else clicking that link the way you did that first time and thought it was pretty cute. I wonder how some of you pushing "deliberate disruption and malicious intent" make it through April 1st every year. ju66l3r 19:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, the rule does prohibit practical jokes because they require some semblance of normal function in order to get you to use them in normal practice...to then show you the error of your assumption of normality. There are many ways of determining whether the item is content or not and some of these are not even disruptive (e.g. navigate a page or two as you would have been doing normally and see if the message persists before clicking on it). ju66l3r 20:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why should users be forced to jump through hoops to determine whether the message notification is real or phony? Why can't we simply have a rule against deliberately tricking people in this manner? There are so many truly harmless jokes. Why should deliberate disruption be permitted? Simply because some people find it amusing? —David Levy 20:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I dunno if these were rhetorical or not, so here goes: Because consensus can not be met to add a new rule against these. Do you see Burma Shave signs and uproot them because someone might not have had their eyes on the road even though many of us find them humorous and unobtrusive? We deal with minor harmless disruptions every day. What doesn't kill you makes you stronger. Heaven help the child that knocks on your door and runs away. You really appear to be hunting field mice with an elephant gun. ju66l3r 21:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    1. I was asking why consensus cannot be reached on this matter.
    2. I remain unimpressed with users' "the harm is minor" argument. Yes, Wikipedia faces far worse threats than this, but so what? It's deliberately disruptive.
    3. Would you care to address the bot issue? —David Levy 22:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    David Levy, I don't recall reading anyone saying "the harm is minor"... who's saying that? I'm saying it is harmless (and that's what I'm seeing others say) (→Netscott) 22:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Plenty of people have said they find it annoying and do not want to be subected to it. Annoying people is not harmless. It's disruptive. Tyrenius 22:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Tyrenius, I disagree that if something is annoying be default is is not harmless. I have found the new message jokes very annoying yet completely harmless. (→Netscott) 22:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Those were scare quotes. Yes, some are literally arguing that the messages are harmless, but others claim that the harm is too minor to justify spoiling people's fun. —David Levy 22:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The rule does not forbid practical jokes, it only forbids practical jokes that impersonate features of the Wikipedia software. I see a lot of attempts to make this rule look like more than it is, it is a rule against impersonating technical features of Wikipedia, that is all. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm actually swayed by ju66l3r's comment, which is the most insightful thing I've heard on this subject yet. Since UI spoofing is possible, it might be better that people are exposed to it via practical jokes and know they should question the validity of what they see. CiaranG 20:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I ask that you try applying that logic to other disruptive acts. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If someone found a way to replace my "Special pages" link in the toolbox with a wiki-link to the article on Mental retardation (with no way of using the real "Special pages" link then I would agree that impersonation impedes my ability to use a function on the page. When I have gotten new messages on a page that has one of these practical joke links, I have seen them both. One is not overwritten by the other (and in any cases where it is coded to do so, I would agree with you that it needs to be changed to a flatter more-joke, less-impersonation version). I have seen user page and user talk page items that "impersonate" real templates and warnings. Of course, those usually have text changes and not just link changes. Are you looking to strike all of those too? It's deliberately disruptive to make me read the entire template to determine if there's a serious warning on their user page or not. Where is the line drawn for impersonation of Official Wiki-business? ju66l3r 21:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. As long as it isn't malicious, I don't see the harm in this. I came across this once, and thought it to be quite entertaining. Rarelibra 21:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that the person wasting my time does not feel malicious, does not change that fact that it is wasting my time. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 21:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Ironically draconian and disruptive measures such as this waste more time and frustrate more editors than a million fake message bars ever could. — MichaelLinnear 00:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. First things first, I don't oppose this proposal. This is a "neutral" comment that's being posted here to make sure it's read by the supporters. Apparently there's a script at User:GeorgeMoney/UserScripts that removes those fake new messages boxes on userpages. I think installing a script like this is preferable to blocking people for something so petty and generating a lot of hot air on somewhere like ANI. -- Steel 00:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of these banners are generated using raw code instead of the "usermessage" class that the script replies on. Regardless, I don't see why it should be anyone's responsibility to install special scripts to block other users' deliberate disruption. —David Levy 00:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Damn you David, why do you have to say something that I actually agree with? Regardless of which way this goes, I fully agree that forcing everyone to install a script is unreasonable. EVula // talk // ☯ // 07:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Disagree, per Bishonen. Let it go. riana_dzasta 01:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Disagree. The panties-in-a-wad brigade should be stopped. Kyaa the Catlord 05:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    lol. As long as there's a fake MediaWiki interface tool on Wikipedia, as long as someone's signature is the wrong colour, as long as our panties are in a wad, we will not be stopped! Actually, my vote is to support, so I probably shouldn't be seen consorting with the opposition, especially to make jokes about the state of our panties! :) --Seans Potato Business 01:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. I wholeheartedly disagree with adding the above statement to WP:USER. —KingIvan 07:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Come on. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, this isn't a vote, do you have a reason to oppose banning spoofing the user interface? I see a lot of votes here with no explanation. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 00:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I think people are seeing this as a poll on that particular message box joke, rather than a pool on UI spoofing. -- Qarnos 01:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Avoid instruction creep. I think the boxes are very annoying, but I don't think we should tell people not to put them there. If you see one, just remove it. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 19:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So you'd rather people edit war over them, than clarify existing guidelines/policies? -- nae'blis 19:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There's an indefinite number of things that people could argue about. I don't think we need to "clarify" everything that could possibly need clarification. We'd have too many policies for people too learn. Oh wait, that already happened. That's why WP:CREEP is there: this is a trivial issue. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 07:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. This poll has new messages - I oppose it. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 22:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. User pages are not articles and we shouldn't crush jokes just because some people might find them irritating. Kingjeff 03:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Everyone who thinks there is the need for some new rule here needs to chill and buy a sense of humor. If someone tricks users into clicking offsite links, that's disruptive, but a gag is not. Are we seriously going to block a user because his user page is a waste of time?— Randall Bart 21:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Per what I said on the AN/I thread, this is utterly senseless. Titoxd(?!?) 02:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. I didn't want to make a clothespin vote, so I going with no opinion neutral. It's a balance between freedom of expression and potential for abuse. Jumping cheese Cont@ct 11:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Abuse? How can a joke banner on a userpage do any abuse?--Certified.Gangsta 13:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Frankly, I voted for "neutral" because of the time of the voting, it was like 12 agree/4 disagree. I was swayed by the bandwagon pressure...had I voted now, I would have cast a disagree ballot. But, I don't want to change my vote, since it'll probably not pass anyways and settle on no consensus. =) Jumping cheese Cont@ct 20:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I hate those silly boxes, but I'm completely against harassing users over something that really isn't doing any harm. If we want to edit the userpage page to discourage practical jokes, fine. It's probably a good idea. But PLEASE, no more edit warring with users over what they have on or remove from their pages unless it involves personal attacks, copyrighted images, or material designed to shock. And no more blocks of users for doing something that may be annoying but that doesn't violate policy. Musical Linguist 00:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It violated a guideline at the time. Despite knowing this, the user repeatedly restored the banner (mostly without summaries and sometimes with the edits labeled "minor") and removed a warning from his talk page. He later indicated that he was under no obligation to follow the rule because "it's not a policy, it's a guideline." —David Levy 00:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It still violates a guideline. See WP:USER below. It's there for the person's entertainment (at the expense of other users who don't appreciate it), not in any way constructive to building an encyclopedia. Tyrenius 02:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Tyrenius, I respect you as an editor but honestly your interpretation of that aspect of WP:UP is too large of a stretch. Its essentially a strawman argument to liken the "new message" joke alert to that line. That line is referring to info like what level you've achieved and how many armour points (etc.) you have on a particular roleplaying game, etc. (→Netscott) 02:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I essentially agree with Musical Linguist. Asking someone to remove it is fine; but if they refuse, so be it. I'm not sure adding another !rule is worth it. I have a pretty low opinion of editors who have it on their page (I mean come on... it's so old at this point it isn't even funny; not that it was particularly so in the first place), but there is no reason to block and a !rule would just be used as a block reason. The only situation I would have a big problem with is if it was being used to feed editors out to an external link (particularly one to a site with malicious code) and at that point a block would be justified under existing conventions.--Isotope23 19:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I'm also not too keen on this, but don't want to actually oppose it. semper fictilis 18:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(End of straw poll)

  1. Well duh. Of course we can recommend against it, we don't need a poll for that. That doesn't mean we should be blocking people for "violating" this rule though. >Radiant< 17:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Fourth option

That the real new message box should be moved outside the content box so that it cannot then be spoofed, rendering this whole thing irrelevant. Votesopinions in this section are in addition to support/oppose/neutral above.

  1. --Random832(tc) 17:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    While it seems sensible this "solution" is not very practical because the reality is that with CSS code virtually anything is "spoofable" with regards to how a page is displayed on the Wiki. (→Netscott) 17:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    wikicode CSS can only apply styles to its own content. You can move the fake box up, but you CAN NOT move the title down to where it would be if it were naturally placed above it. --Random832(tc) 04:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure that most anyone competent in CSS could find a way to spoof it. I think this user page is fairly illustrative of what I'm talking about (notice the Wikipedia icon in the upper left hand corner). (→Netscott) 04:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This page is an example of how nearly anything can be spoofed. If I wanted, I could put everything in a div and move margin-top up, and change the title, so that it looks completely like the diff page. GracenotesT § 16:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth option

With regards to the proposed wording, what would you all think of re-wording it to only exclude UI spoofing with malicious intent? Personally, I agree with the proposal as it stands, but re-wording it in such a fashion may at least allow us to come to a compromise consensus. -- Qarnos 10:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better than nothing at all, but I'd still like to tread on it for it's annoyance factor. There's nothing to be gained by annoying people except a few cheap laughs so annoying people is wrong. Not to mention the confusion caused to people having not encountered a 'new messages' box before. --Seans Potato Business 23:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crafting intial guidelines about "new message" joke banners

Per the fairly clear consensus about certain aspects of the joke "new message" banner discussions I have intiated a proposal to begin crafting a guideline about them. I invite those interested in participating to join the discussion. Thanks. (→Netscott) 18:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Wikipedia:User page addition

Stemming from the shared (and we believe consensus per the poll, etc.) concerns and after much discussion and back and forth I have added a section and subsection to WP:UP arrived at by a number of the parties involved in this. I invite those who have been following these developments to review this new section. As well as the talk that developed it. Thanks. (→Netscott) 00:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USER

I fail to see what the discussion is about. See WP:USER#What_can_I_not_have_on_my_user_page.3F. This specifically mentions:

Games, roleplaying sessions, and other things pertaining to "entertainment" rather than "writing an encyclopedia,"

This is even more the case if some users find something annoying. I've already removed a false message box and would have moved to blocking if the user had not been co-operative (which he was).

Tyrenius 08:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woah...hold on there. So you also support blocking users before a consensus on a iffy policy is reached?!? So users aren't allows to have stuff on the page that make people smile? Jumping cheese Cont@ct 08:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And that rule was taken out of context. Jumping cheese Cont@ct 09:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) No, I support blocking users on a stable guideline over which consensus was reached a long time ago, which I have copied above. Yes, users are allowed to have stuff which make people smile. They're not allowed to have stuff which annoy people, which one of the people who used to have one plainly admits is the case:

I know it can get annoying sometimes, so if you don´t like it, then never visit my userpage nor any of my subpages

There's quite a few people here forgetting that editing is a privilege, not a right, and it's one granted for one purpose only, which is the creation of an encyclopedia. Once that priority is put back in place, then other problems sort themselves out. I suggest you forget about practical jokes, and get on with creating some good article content. Also user pages are not "private property". They belong to wikipedia. If you don't like that reality, then there's always myspace.

Tyrenius 09:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrenius, there should be a lot of latitude in the first statement that you quoted. Building a sense of community is important, and surely every involved Wikipedian should be able to have a trivial (not excessively time consuming) or personal subpage. The user page guideline is just that, a guideline; I agree with you that the trouble caused by this, however, transcends that of a guideline. Check out my table above. Please don't argue by quoting from WP:UP about what should and should not be allowed -- that's essentially not the issue, since it more applies to social networking.
Finally, blocking a user causes much more collateral damage than you can imagine. Protecting a page is a much much much better idea, if needed. GracenotesT § 19:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a box that can be ticked when blocking a user to not block the IP address, therefore avoiding collateral damage. Tra (Talk) 19:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I meant. I meant that a user that otherwise could contribute content and revert vandalism would be blocked, which is over all bad for the encyclopedia. Remember, blocks are meant to be preventative, so what are we preventing here? If the user is being disruptive, then a block might be warranted, not for this in itself. GracenotesT § 20:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Grace, I don't think a block would be given unless the user refused to allow the item removed, I don't think anyone is advocating blocking anyone who does this. To put it another way, the blocking policy that requires blocks to be preventative as opposed to punitive would not be effected. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm kind of hurt by your brash response. I don't like being lectured. It sure isn't helping Wikipedia either. grrrrr... Jumping cheese Cont@ct 09:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then it might be advisable to be more cautious before making accusations. Tyrenius 10:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yo Jumping cheese. I got your back.--Certified.Gangsta 09:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uh...thanxs? =) Jumping cheese Cont@ct 09:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This reminds me of an AfD where people don't know the policy. It seems like many people don't know about WP:OWN and WP:USER and of course WP:NOT. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to be mad to edit here but it help

If anything lends credence to the old adage it is this discussion. Steve block Talk 10:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Many of you feel these "jokes" are harmless. Say I found one of these jokes, and I fall for it, and I find it disruptive, what do you think of me posting a note below the "joke" saying "The above message is fake, you do not neccesarily have a new message."? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 22:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I placed a warning in a hoax box and the user removed it, obviously wishing to carry on wasting people's time. What was particularly annoying was that I was under pressure with a lot of intense messages and activities happening simultaneously, so I kept clicking the hoax one without thinking. Editors have a right to be able to trust and rely on official notifications. In this instance I found this hoax box to have a very disruptive effect. Tyrenius 22:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First link on page ought to be changed

The first link on the page to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/opensearch_desc.php

Gives a file of the type: application/opensearchdescription+xml

It would be far better to link to http://en.wikipedia.org/

Lynx doesn't have a native viewer for this application, and I belive most browsers don't. Falcone 09:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about the article OpenSearch? Or something else? I can't see anything using that link anywhere... --Quiddity 18:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He's talking about <link rel="search" type="application/opensearchdescription+xml" href="/w/opensearch_desc.php" title="Wikipedia (English)" /> - most browsers don't display this, and some can presumably use it to add search box abilities. --Random832(tc) 19:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, the html header metadata. I don't know anything about that.
Anyone else? --Quiddity 19:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'll have to ask at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). --Quiddity 19:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cut-off point change to {{Wikipedialang}}

With the continuing growth of all the Wikipedias, I feel that the "20,000 articles" mark is too low a cut-off point. I suggest that the point be changed to 25,000 instead, which (separating out those that make 50,000) would look like as follows:

This Wikipedia is written in English. Started in 2001, it currently contains 6,882,912 articles. Many other Wikipedias are available; the largest are listed below.

Complete list · Multilingual coordination · Start a Wikipedia in another language

This seems less cluttered, and adds more value to the Wikipedias that make the mark. There's always more room for expansion!

Please reply at Template talk:Wikipedialang#Cut-off point change, thanks :) Jack · talk · 09:54, Thursday, 15 February 2007

Merge GA with FA? A-Class?

See revised proposal section below

I just wanted to moot some discussion here before I did anything rash and MfD'd WP:GA, but it seems to me from reading the GA criteria against the FA criteria, there is a rapid trend in the continually evolving GA project policy towards convergence with the FA process. The key catalyst that caused me to notice this was the relatively recent strict rules adopted by GA requiring adequate citation for all GAs. It appears to me that the only major substantive difference between the two mechanisms is the approval process; for all other intents and purposes the content requirements are nearly identical.

If this is so, why not consolidate these two units together, and gradually review all GAs, a la Wikipedia:Featured articles with citation problems, for promotion to FA status. Because otherwise all I can differentiate between GA and FA is that one is better for instant gratification.

(edit): I'd also suggest that GA's which fail FA criteria in a merge be re-classified as A-class articles. This means that all articles can be individually assessed at any class level, with only one (final) candidacy step in the process, for FAC.

Thank you for your time, Girolamo Savonarola 22:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that a link to Wikipedia:Compare Criteria Good v. Featured is appropriate here.
Generally, I agree with this proposal to merge the two, but I would keep separate criteria for each on the same "guideline". (Why are none of the Featured and Good article pages tagged as guidelines?) —Doug Bell talk 23:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 23:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The difference in approval process is a major distinction and quite likely a useful one. The GA process is far more scalable than the FA system, which is never going to assess more than a tiny fraction of the articles on Wikipedia. We should see much quicker results from GA. We haven't thus far, however, for which one can offer two reasons:
  1. The GA process is bloated. It is not clear why a central candidate page exists, when all the work takes place on the talk page, but having this page certainly substantially increases the difficulty in nominating articles.
  2. Further, for many articles its purpose has been obviated by effective WikiProject assessment systems.
At the moment the GA process is probably too similar to the FA process to be adding much benefit to Wikipedia. As far as a "merger" goes, it's not clear what that would entail, but assuming that we don't want to change the FA process, it must basically mean scrapping GA. I think it would be worth at least attempting to go back to the original, simpler GA system, thus creating a clearer distinction between the processes. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose any merger; I think there's a definite difference in actual quality, even if it's not expressed clearly in the criteria. Have a look at GAs which have failed FACs to see some of the differences. Trebor 01:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you just think that nothing whatsoever should be done? Girolamo Savonarola 15:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know; I'm not really involved with the GA process (other than putting a couple of articles through). But many Good Articles come to FAC and fail, so there is a definite difference in standards (even if it isn't apparent from the criteria). FACs only work if there is an editor willing to work on the article, and if GAs haven't already been put through FAC then it implies there is not. Trebor 15:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt that there is some difference, but I am questioning if it is enough of a difference to warrant the entire GA apparatus. At the current time, I'd say not. I'd merge the two projects as per my original comment, and abolish the GA class. This would benefit the assessment structure as well, since the articles can still be assessed as Stub, Start, B, or A class by a single individual, based on criteria. So I'd presume that most of the GA's which fail FA in a merger would likely be recategorized as A-class. So structurally, the article is individually assessed from Stub thru to A class, and then if the article is deemed good enough, it only has to jump through one candidacy process - the FAC. Much more linear, simple, and less bureaucratic. Girolamo Savonarola 16:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds less like a merge and more like an abolition of the GA-class and framework, which would warrant an MfD (note I'm not saying I'm necessarily against that, just saying what it sounds like). There has been a slight lack of clarity in the assessment criteria with GA- and A-class being on different scales, and overlapping to a large degree, so it would be good to clear up where they fit in. But a blanket put-through of all GA articles to the (already fairly overloaded) FAC process, regardless of whether there are editors willing to improve them, would be a mistake in my eyes. Trebor 17:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • fix, don't merge. The GA idea was to have a quick and unbureaucratic way of assessing articles that are clearly good, without meeting the formal FA requirements. Now, it appears a whole bureaucracy has accreted around GA assessment as well. The solution is to get rid of it, and turn "GA" back into what it was supposed to be. There are many, many articles on WP that are good without being likely to become FA anytime soon. "GA" to my mind is a tool to facilitate measuring of the distribution of quality on Wikipedia. I say, leave FAC as it is, an assessment on the very best on WP, and turn GA back into something simple and unbloated. dab (𒁳) 16:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That simple process, in my mind, is more or less equivalent to giving an A-class assessment. See my above comment and my revised proposal. Girolamo Savonarola 16:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No merge. The difference between GA and FA is the difference between one set of eyes and several set of eyes. Hence the FA process is more like a fine tooth comb that can get to the nitty gritty assessment pieces. The purpose and benefit of the GA process is that with a single reviewer you will obviously get assessment and feedback much quicker. Of course the quality of that review is dependent on the quality standards that the GA reviewer is upholding. The push towards stricter citation is a positive development because more articles that are actually good are being recognizes and more articles that are substandard are being improved and brought to compliance with simple policies like WP:V and WP:NOR. The GA assessment process is more approachable than the FA process and is a good way for new editors (or editors new to FA) to become familiar with a criteria similar to FA but only have to deal with the feedback of one reviewer. As the overall quality of GA reviews improve then you will see more GAs succeeding at FAC. AgneCheese/Wine 16:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So what would the argument be against simply folding GA into the A-class for assessment, then? Since they both require just one reviewer, and have similar criteria. Girolamo Savonarola 17:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revised proposal

Here is my revised proposal based on discussions above. There seems to be a view that the GA has become overly hampered down with bureaucracy, and to many extents apes the FA criteria and structure to a high degree, with the most notable difference being the single reviewer of GA versus the community of reviewers for FA. GA also has been a curious question in regards to its somewhat incongruous shoehorning into the assessment classes (it should be noted that the GA class was not originally proposed in assessment).

Given the more rigorous GA standards from the past, its single reviewer characteristic, and the unnecessary bureaucracy, what I propose now is a merge of GA into A-Class assessment. The standards for the two, content-wise, are nearly identical, and like GA, assessment only requires a single reviewer to judge the article against the class criteria. It makes article assessment classes more straightforward, with all classes up to A being solely based on assessment, with a final bureaucratic candidacy process only required for the top distinction, FA. Based on the current criteria, it is likely that most, if not all, of GA-class articles would qualify for A-class easily. It is also much easier to implement than kicking up the current GA's for (gradual) integration into FAC, which has been noted would be a problem without an active editor. Reassessing GA's into A-class would not face this problem.

I look forward to your comments! Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 18:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would support that in principle, although I'm not really involved with the GA process (you may want to leave a message on GA talk). However, the assessment process is fairly haphazardly applied too, depending on the activeness of the Wikiproject (for instance the MilHist Proj seems to have a multiple-user assessment for A-class; others barely assess at all). Given my lack of familiarity with the issue though, I will see what others think (particularly if they can explain the need for, and differences between, GA and A class). Trebor 18:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since GA has already been shoehorned into the assessment system, perhaps the rating can be repurposed as effectively a 'B+' grade. There is currently too large of a chasm between A-class ratings (which are rare, and have an associated process in some wikiprojects) and B-class ratings (in practice used for a large range of article qualities that meet the general description of 'okay', which is not at all consistent with the rating's description). This classification could imply that the meat of the GA criteria are met (neutral, stable, referenced, reasonably complete) while allowing things like omission of minor content details, mixed referencing styles or minor formatting issues, or some prose problems, all of which (I think) would generally disqualify an article from an A rating.

I'd like to see most of the bureaucratic apparatus of GA scrapped, and what remains repurposed for its original intention: identifying excellent short articles. Current practice seems to be to call almost all short articles 'start' or 'B', on the assumption that they need expansion, but some topics just don't require more than a few paragraphs. Current practice also essentially blocks these articles from FA status, with the odd rare exception for a hurricane article. Whether this assessment class should also become part of the rating system is not obvious, as the existing ratings are not length-dependent and the 1.0 project might be too far along to permit adding or removing ratings at this stage. Opabinia regalis 17:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You want another rating? Frankly, I think some simplification is necessary. The larger chasm (IMHO) seems to be between Start and B-class. I'm not so concerned with whether or not B and A are massively different, so long as the grading scheme offers some clear identifiers (which I believe it already does, for the most part). These aren't real grades, and no one is being judged, so the need to be so precise is actually adverse to the idea of a grading asssessment (especially given that the articles are constantly evolving). It's a very coarse-grained way of tracking the general progress of a group of articles even moreso than it is used to track any individual one. Any more attention paid to how to exactly quantify the ever-shifting state of an article seems like it would only divert energies more properly spent working on the articles themselves.
The idea is to have a coarse-grained and efficient system requiring a minimal amount of effort. Assessments shouldn't require long perusal of a given article - it should generally be obvious on a quick skim. Making more subtle gradations simply adds more time to the assessing editors' evaluations, and furthermore is likely to adversely affect the willingness of many of them to continue assessments, especially if more rules and grades are being added. The only level at which any prolonged effort should exist is the FAC. Thank you, Girolamo Savonarola 17:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes. There are currently six assessment ratings. Two (GA and FA) have separate processes and can't be assigned by an individual assessor. A third (A) is rarely used, and some projects also confine its use to articles that have been reviewed by multiple people. That leaves an individual assessor with stub, start, and B. Since stubs are usually unambiguous, assessors sort articles into start or B. Surprise! We have an encyclopedia full of start and B-class articles. I'm sure it varies between wikiprojects, but I see much larger variations in quality within than between these two rating classes, and a large gulf in quality between B and A.
So if I were designing the rating system from scratch, it would have five levels available to assessors, of which the lowest (stub) is unambiguous, and the highest (A) is regulated by the corresponding wikiproject. (Obviously FA retains its own process.) That leaves an individual assessor with a practical choice of start, B, or B+/GA/whatever, which I suspect would help in distinguishing between 'usable' articles and 'raw material' articles. It also eliminates the problem of what to assign the current crop of GAs (and GA-quality articles) if the GA process is shut down or reformed. I would not agree that all current GAs are A-class, given the way the A rating has mostly been used. (It's possible, of course, that the problem is underuse of/overly variable standards for A ratings.) Opabinia regalis 18:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to be succinct, I believe that another rating is equal to more bureaucracy. If that's the case, then there's no point. I think you also underestimate both what a B article is and what an A is (and would be under this proposal). They should be clearly distinct. And yes, that may mean more clarity on the grading scheme definitions, but that is a lot easier than forcing yet another grade upon everyone. Please also think over my comments above about the process needing to be coarse-grained. I believe that those sentiments were reflected during the actual creation of the assessment schemata. Girolamo Savonarola 18:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind, also, that some projects are adopting more well-defined standards for B-Class (e.g. here). Kirill Lokshin 18:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please! This will significantly simplify the overall structure of the various assessment schemes (since they won't be structured as internal → external → internal → external, but rather as internal → internal → external, going outside a project only for the final FAC) and get rid of the GA backlog/bureaucracy/etc. issues at the same time. Kirill Lokshin 18:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does an assessment from one Wikiproject apply for all? For instance, if WikiProject Biography assessed a military figure as A-class, would that be accepted by MilHist? Trebor 19:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In general, it depends on the projects involved, and whether they have particular requirements for a particular assessment level. In your specific example, not necessarily, since MilHist has a formal review process for A-Class (it would, of course, be a fairly good indication that the article ought to be submitted to that review); conversely, an A-Class rating from MilHist is often copied by other projects that don't have any sort of formal review. Kirill Lokshin 19:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's what I would've thought. I'm just trying to think things through with regards to rating. One advantage to GA is that articles are centrally reviewed, so GAs are roughly the same quality across the project; considering the difference in activeness of Wikiprojects, A-class could end up being applied rather inconsistently. Although maybe that's not a problem, as you could take into account the processes of the project when considering the "authority" of the rating. (Excuse me thinking out loud here.) Trebor 19:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, I suppose. (But GAs do tend to vary quite a bit depending on who's doing the actual reviewing; so I suspect that the consistency is actually pretty similar across both processes.) Kirill Lokshin 19:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With the over-reaching criteria thing, a big problem with that is that discussion is rather difficult to start. Not because there's some group of people forcing GA to go one way with things, but because many people involved don't contribute to the discussions unless something really nasty happens, there's just so many candidates on the list it takes up a bunch of time :/. I for one have some things i'd like to change with the rules so that they'd go back to older, simpler versions, but I dunno how to start the discussion when sometimes people don't pay attention, and often times large chunks of rules get changed based on the discussions of maybe 3 or 4 people. Not that anyone's trying to make things bad on purpose mind you, its just discussion of process isn't very good yet.... Homestarmy 20:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that anyone is acting out of bad faith, but my whole point is that the GA process is massively inefficient and in some ways counterproductive to other larger processes. I believe that it has some merits, but it also had the bad luck to be created at about the same time, but with little true coordination with, the assessment project for 1.0. Had assessment been started a year earlier, I wonder if GA wouldn't have instead been the efforts of people to create more rigid A-class standards. And with regard to consistency of A-classification across different WikiProjects, surely we can all agree that this can be much more easily improved with tighter and clearer assessment guidelines? Girolamo Savonarola 20:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, many of the things making it more inefficient resulted from the 3 to 4 people discussions i'm talking about, and when the changes happened, not many people really said much. If there were more people to talk about things then there's certainly several rules I for one would like to see reverted to earlier versions, when GA wasn't really as inefficient. But when sometimes I propose things and maybe one person responds, (Like when I got the MoS criteria changed) it makes me feel like it would be a bad idea to just do something like that and change rules back when not many people might notice, it already has confused things a good bit in the past when that kind of thing happens. Homestarmy 20:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... everyone's going to want to get their hard-worked on article to be good, instead of A-class. It's an issue that's occurred to me before.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 17:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion seems to have lost momentum, which is a shame because I think this is worth trying to sort out. Do people have objections to merging GAs into A-class, and think GAs are worth keeping separate? Trebor 16:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No objections to deprecating the GA rating in the assessment scheme, though I would oppose default mass migration of GA to A. That's something for wikiprojects to handle. If the goal is to disassemble the centralized GA bureaucracy, the proposal should be posted there, and probably at WT:FA too. Opabinia regalis 04:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I just saw this discussion for the first time! It arises from the fact that the GA level as in the assessment scheme overlaps with B and (mostly) A, leading to ambiguity and confusion. I am proposing to remove the GA-level from the WikiProject assessment scheme, but have WP 1.0 bot read GAs so that WikiProjects have all GAs listed in their "WikiProject Foobar Articles by Quality" worklists. I think that should keep everyone happy and resolve this problem. Please read the proposal and leave comments. Thanks, Walkerma 04:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose merging A-class with GA-class for these purposes. Considering that "A" and "B" are the only letters that the system actually uses (it uses "Start" instead of "C", "Stub" instead of "D", and nonexistent articles would presumably be "F"), rendering their use kind of arbitrary and potentially opaque (especially to people unfamiliar with the A/B/C/D/F grading scale), it might be worthwhile to replace "A" with "GA" (or perhaps "Good", to mirror "Start" and be more descriptive to people unfamiliar with WP:GA), and to replace "B" with something that is also more descriptive. Perhaps "OK"-class. (Another, related problem that is probably more significant is that "Start" and "Stub" start with the same first two letters; this is obviously a very bad idea.) -Silence 21:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles about ongoing enterprises should be official policy

This should be official policy. It should be self-evident. Let's talk about it. Dino 00:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will have to look over it. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 00:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. It's written in a manner that's very similar to WP:BLP and, in fact, borrows certain elements from that policy. Notice also what I've said on the Talk page. Dino 00:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But it is not about sensitive personal matters the way BLP is. Surely it would be better to have it as a guideline first, and see if it does remain widely accepted.DGG 06:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BLP does cover sensitive personal matters, such as sexual orientation, rumors of drug abuse and relationship problems. All of this fits neatly under the umbrella of "negative material." Any negative material in an article about any entity capable of taking umbrage, whether a flesh-and-blood human being or a Fortune 500 corporation, must be handled with a consistent, high level of care and scrutiny. Perhaps the best way to achieve a consistent level of care would be to make them part of the same policy. Dino 21:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

magic wikipedia button.....

Programmers unite make a button which can be allowed to float on top of all text on any website when we read a word which we need clarification on we highlight the word and a wikipedia page appears with the definition/encyclopedia info. on that word especially useful in science

This isn't something that Wikipedia developers will use their time to create. Try finding some programmers to help you somewhere else - the coding can't be too hard. If you're on Mac OS X, I happen to know that there exists a Dashboard widget which calls up Wikipedia pages quickly without a browser. Try to find something like that. Nihiltres 23:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
firefox already has this feature. Highlight any piece of text, rightclick, and you can search for it in the engine of your choice, including wikipedia. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you use the conquery extension, you can search in multiple engines. I have mine set to display "google" "dictionary.com" and "wikipedia" in the normal right-click context menu. --Quiddity 21:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well there is that One click Answers.com Wikipedia edition thingy for Windows and Mac, that does almost exactly that, except you'll end up on Answer.com's mirror of the page rater than on Wikipedia proper. Personaly I just use a custum search in Opera, so any words I type into the location bar prefixed by "en" gets looked up in Wikipedia. --Sherool (talk) 07:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Children and young editors

This isn't about young people accessing Wikipedia and possibly being corrupted. This is about when they click the "edit this page" link.

A while back I was reverting some edits by User:Ronleilaraymondfan (born 1996), and I had noticed that on the talk someone had slapped a {{test4article}} before realized that they were dealing with a kid and therefore toned it down and added a {{welcome}}.

Now, I'm noticing some edits by User:Fbs. 13 that require reverting or revising (e.g. factual errors, removal of content in talk pages), and the person is apparently 12.5 years old. If the person was older and writing like this, I'd honestly start slapping test templates left and right, but I feel hesitant in laying the smackdown on some kid who I think knows a lot less and is less mature than he believes.

So maybe we really should have some disclaimers when users register. I can't say that banning young editors is a good idea, but it seems that sometimes they doing stuff more associated with vandals, but we can't really slam on some kid who doesn't know any better, right? I'm sure if I was still 12 years old, I'd think I know enough to contribute and would end up doing a lot of stuff like this. Kelvinc 03:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who was 12 not that long ago, they aren't as clueless as you think. If a 12 year old repeatedly vandalizes, they aren't doing it in good faith any more than someone else would be. And what kind of disclaimers would we put, anyway? "You may be blocked if you do bad things"? -Amarkov moo! 03:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Amarkov, I was a real shithead at that age, I deserved to be blocked when I did, and I did not cry. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 03:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm worried by an under-13 editor including his real name and age on his user page. I think that might even make Wikipedia run afoul of some sort of US laws. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We want editors of a certain maturity, not a certain age. If a ten-year-old is productive rather than a poopoohead, great. If a thirty-year-old is a poopoohead rather than productive, block them. Easy enough. >Radiant< 13:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the tone of {{test4article}} is harsh. But, look:

{{test1article}}
Information icon Hello, I'm [[User:{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}]]. An edit that you recently made seemed to be a test and has been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on [[User talk:{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|my talk page]]. Thanks!
{{test2article}}
Information icon Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you.
{{test3article}}
Please stop making test edits to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism, which, under Wikipedia policy, can lead to being blocked from editing. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox.
{{test4article}}
Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you create an inappropriate page.

There's a progression of these things. And, since AIV requires a sequence of warnings, if no-one adds a last warning they'll never be blocked. If some leeway should be given in certain cases, it should be given regardless of age. --Random832(tc) 13:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say we should stop caring so much about the age and more about if are they helping or harming Wikipedia. (In case you wanted to know, I am 15) Captain panda In vino veritas 03:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not support discrimination against the age of users. I was 14 when Wikipedia began in January 2001; I discovered it at 17 in early 2004. However, as with all new users, they should be guided into making constructive edits instead of ones that violate Wikipedia's major policies such as WP:ATT and WP:NPOV.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 17:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We already have a policy about "biting the newcomers". IMO, if an editor comes here looking to create trouble, whatever their age, they deserved to be disciplined. For a child, this can actually be quite productive, as being kicked in the butt early often means that they will shy away from undesirable behavior permanently. They may not return until they are older, more mature, and able to apperciate why they got "spanked", but they is actually what we want in a case like that!
I can't remember the name of the person, but there was an excellent tennis player who was always emotionally somewhat out-of-control and who would even shout at the referees if he disagreed with a call. One day, a referee chose to penalize him, the player got ruder, and the next thing he knew the referee had booted him from the match. (Actually, the referee declared the next game to be forfieted, but that gave the set and match to the opponent.) Afterwards, the player calmed down, and later said that looking back, it was a shame that noone had dared to stand up to him earlier, and gotten him to be more mature earlier. The point is that being tough early on someone can actually do some real good, and people should not shy away from doing so when it is needed, especially in the offender is a child. --EMS | Talk 20:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
John "You cannot be serious!" McEnroe ;) (see 4th paragraph at John McEnroe#Final years on the tour). --Quiddity 21:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point! A good spanking puts a child in order. If any user is bad, then they need a spanking. Hopefully, they will repent. Captain panda In vino veritas 05:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a twelve year old, I would say block the child, however, depending on the vandalism, if it wasn't things like blanking pages and replacing them with *#&$, I would say maybe turn autoblock off and allow account re-creation. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@ 02:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Watch Users

This is a feature request that will help vandal patrollers. Currently you can only watch changes made to an article. What I propose is to add the ability to ‘watch’ a user or ip. In this way, when you have spotted some vandalism you can add it to you watch list and keep an eye on it for a few days to see if the vandalism is recurrent.

Currently you could improvise this with some of the third-party tooling some of the patrollers use, but it would be nice to have integrated.

What do you think about this, would it be a helpful addition? Sander123 12:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bot pkgbot on the IRC channel #vandalism-en-wp has the concept of "blacklisted users" (all their edits are immediately reported) and "greylisted users" (like blacklisted, except it's automatically maintained and consists of users who were recently reverted). You can read more here: WP:CUV/Bots#Lists_of_users. It might still be nice though to have your own user watchlists for watching edits of friends as well as vandals that you directly associate with, and if anyone's concerned about privacy, it wouldn't reveal anything not available already through contributions. Deco 21:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've wanted something like this before; but the problem is that it would ease wikistalking. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 21:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The privelage of watching users could be limited to admins to prevent this. Watching users would mostly apply to admins anyways. Captain panda In vino veritas 03:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would love this option, I see not need to limit this to admins, some of our best vandal fighters are not admins. Also, all the information is already available for those who wish to wikistalk, and this feature would make such stalking easier to detect and track. No new information is being made available, just in a more convenient manner. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 03:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me. I was just trying to get the good of the watching users but trying to limit wikistalking. Captain panda In vino veritas 03:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikistalking is a bit independent from this, I guess. If you want to follow any particular user you can just bookmark his contributions page. The problem is, I might want to follow 10 ip addresses that are vandal only, but without the inconvenience of having to check my bookmarks every day. Sander123 09:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject user script's script page has a script called 'user watchlist', which might do what you want. --ais523 09:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't work on many platforms. Won't work with anything but IE, and doesn't work on my W2K even with IE. — coelacan talk — 22:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is a bit buggy. I might also add that people living to the east of the Greenwich Meridian are likely to see less results than people living to the west, due to a bug in the way it deals with timezones. It also doesn't work very well if you use it very soon after midnight, for similar reasons. Tra (Talk) 22:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exporting articles to PDF

I think we should export articles to PDF. Does that sound good to anyone? - Patricknoddy 13:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds hard on the servers. However, anyone can download Wikipedia's database and do it, as the license is free you could even sell the results. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 13:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you are on Mac OS X, you can export to PDF. Go to File Menu and select Print. On the Print dialog you will see a PDF button in th bottom left corner. Click on it and select "Save As PDF". Voila!—Perceval 03:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you use Windows, download PDFCreator which lets you easily convert anything into a PDF. Koweja 18:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is that like maybe we should create like a WikiProject-type group of editors to transport articles to PDF. - Patricknoddy 20:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the worst idea I have ever heard. PDF is not fit for human consumption. It's a printer format. It should be used as a printer format, and nothing else. Raul654 17:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. I have in the past submitted reports in PDF as most people do not have PDF editors - making it almost read only on Windows computers. Thus, it was hard to lift your report or edit it to suit another purpose. I, however, disagree with exporting articles unless it is for personal usage. Ronbo76 05:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So? What if someone wants to say, print it? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 05:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then they can use one of the methods mentioned above! Or use the "printable version" link in the toolbox.
Having editors/processors spend time exporting every diff of every article into PrettyDumbFormat is wasteful... --Quiddity 19:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matching entries on the history page

What I think would be very handy on a history page is a method that shows what past entries match the current entry. That way you can tell at a glance if the current entry had been reverted and to what prior date (without necessarily having to trust the comments). So if the matching pages could be hilighted in some manner (perhaps through the background color) it would save having to do as many page comparisons to check for vandalism. That would greatly speed up page watch checks. Thanks! — RJH (talk) 15:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. To save compute time, the required information could be stored whenever a true page revert occurs. — RJH (talk)
Probably checking just a few (five or less?) prior versions would get 90% of the cases; maybe even checking just the last two would get the vast majority. Even then, I'd worry about a bit about additional server load (yes, I know about Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance, but still ... ). Perhaps it should only check if there is an automatic edit summary ("AES" to start the edit summary) or the edit summary starts with "rv" or "re"? (I do agree that this would be useful.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a check of the last five or so cases would be sufficient in most cases. That would be beneficial. — RJH (talk) 16:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive#Add_a_.22reverting_vandalism.22_checkbox_to_the_editor_screen Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All Wikipedia templates should use small icons instead of large boxes: what do you think?

I just created {{Original research2}} with a small icon, which I think should replace {{Original research}} for the fact that large tags are ugly, bloated and self-referential, among other things, and really do marr the way Wikipedia looks sometimes. If you see what I've written on my user page as well as this discussion based on this essay, I suggest the creation of more such 'small icon' templates (which I will attempt to do if people think this is a good idea) and replacing all large templates at the top of pages using bots, which I don't know how to use and would greatly appreciate if someone made a bot to replace the tagged templates with the icon templates, so that all pages using the {{Original research}} tag would have that changed to {{Original research2}}, for example, although all templates using tags at the top of pages should ideally in my view be replaced with ones with small icons, of course. I'd really like to see this change the way Wikipedia looks for the better, but I thought I'd put it to users here for discussion.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 03:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're taking this too far. Minor issues like Current Events and Semiprotection could stand to have less prominent warnings at the top, but we need something more noticeable than a little icon there for tagged articles with significant issues, and we don't want to hide the fact that our pages have issues when we know about it. People shouldn't go into articles full of biased language or original research without a warning beforehand, thinking they're wikipedia's best work, we need a warning to tell them "yes we recognize there's a problem, watch out for it, and we're working on it." Icons or little single line notices would be fine for current events and semiprotection , but serious warnings like POV, OR, and other major content issues should be the first thing a user reads. A neater cleaner appearance, achieved by sweeping serious problems under the rug, isn't worth it. It's like taking down all the warning signs around a big spill or construction zone because they're ugly. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further, using an icon gives absolutely no information about why the tag was added or what it means. We need the talk page link, at least. If you want something less prominent and more helpful, add {{or}} or {{sectOR}} to the specific parts you're concerned with, which both takes away the tag from the top and tells people where the problem is. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can look over the icon and the caption that comes when you hover over it explains everything. This could be told to new users, in some way. If any more icons are created, we'll have to work out a way in which icons don't cover each other up, too.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 04:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unviable. Hover boxes are both difficult to spot and a browser-specific feature. And the boxes are there for unregistered readers as much as anyone, to whom we have no prior opportunity to tell these things. Deco 06:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A box generates not only a visual feedback, but also a logical division: you must read everything inside this box to get a concept and is, in itself, conclusive, regardless of other boxes around. The icon has a main drawback: it does not give immediate feedback (the user must hover the mouse there). We want to make it public, in the most easier way, that the article has some problem. A small icon does not give the same information as a ugly purple box. -- ReyBrujo 04:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your points do have some validity certainly, but I urge you to read User talk:Shanes/Why tags are evil and tell me specifically why that essay is wrong.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 06:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because it doesn't talk about content-related tags at all. I agree with the rant entirely (especially about spoilers), but tags that mention potential problems with the content of an article should be front-and-centre so people are aware of the problems before reading. Fagstein 06:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, I've mentioned this whole idea to WikiProject Templates.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 11:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the small icons on the article pages are an improvement over the big template messages. Too often, the big template messages are used as an article-defacing weapon among editors to display their disagreement over that article. The talk page of an article is the place to discuss and inform each other of our concerns in order to improve an article, that includes maintenance and cleanup tasks (and templates in my opinion). It’s of course good to inform the reader of those concerns as well, but we don’t have to scream it out loud to them with big ugly colorful templates. The icons suffice and keep the layout of an article acceptable. --Van helsing 11:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think top-tags that inform the reader about an article having serious problems with factuality or bias are fine. So, tags like {{TotallyDisputed}} and {{POV}}, are important enough to put on top to inform and warn the readers. But in general we're using the tags too often now and in cases where a simple suggestion on talk would be much more appropriate. {{wikify}}, {{Uncategorized}}, {{Cleanup-rewrite}}, {{Copyedit}}, {{Grammar}}, {{Citation style}}, to name just a few, are all meant well, but they are rather confusing and distracting, and outright irrelevant to the 99% who don't even know what the word "wikify" means. They just want to learn about some part of European history or a poet or a disease. The articles should be about the subject or topic, not about Wikipedia or even about the subject on Wikipedia. Pick any article that isn't featured, and I'll have no problem in finding a tag that covers whatever flaw the article has that keeps it from being featured. We have tags for every flaw now. But do we really want a million articles to start with a big framed self referencing box? I hope not. We should keep improvement-suggestions on talk in my opinion, but as a compromise I'm fine with making most of these tags into icons. Editors will quickly learn what the icons mean, while they will be easy to ignore for those 99% who don't care about editing. Shanes 14:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree! Isn't one of the main benefits of those tags that they also categorize the page? I think well-intended non-wikipedians fix grammar and do minor copy-editing whenever they see such problems. I'm very sceptical that when seeing a {{copyedit}} sign, they will stop and copy-edit the entire page, so it makes sense that any notices intended for maintenance should be very discrete. However, as said before, non-compliance tags are very important to even the casual reader. --Merzul 18:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at least some people seem to be in favour of my icons now.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 18:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point of such templates is to be noticed - a tiny icon in the corner won't be noticed, so you might as well just remove the template completely (and manually add the category). I think the templates serve a useful purpose, though, so I don't think they should be removed. --Tango 18:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting improvements to articles is good, and I can understand why you want them to be noticed, but drawing attention to your suggestions by putting them smack on top of articles is bad. You should use the talk page for things like that. That's what we have talk pages for. We would like the articles to be about the topic only. The style manual states that articles should start with a lead section explaining that topic, not with a self reference about that article on Wikipedia. Shanes 19:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Tango and Nightgyr. Plus, I dislike the icons that are in the top corner already, and wouldn't want to see more. --Quiddity 18:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's far too easy to completely miss seeing icons that are in the corner of a page already - I can't remember the number of times I didn't realize an article was sprotected until I clicked Edit. Per arguments above, cleanup and other maintenance templates are intended to be noticeable - if someone finds them ugly, hopefully that'll be incentive to do something to the article to merit removing it. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 02:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New pedophile policy

I have created a proposed policy on Wikipedia's attitude towards pedophile editors here. Wikipedia is listed as a "Corporate sex offender" at Perverted-justice.org, and I felt we needed to properly lay out our position. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 04:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate this effort, and think that it may be worthwhile to clarify these issues. However the POV of Perverted Justice should not determine our policies. We can decide them on our own. -Will Beback · † · 05:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "Perverted Justice" and why should we care what they think? --Cyde Weys 06:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cybervigilantes, evidently. Deco 06:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oooof, no thank you then. Vigilantes scare me almost as much as the people they're supposedly "protecting" us from. --Cyde Weys 06:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously. They're out to paint people in the most sensationalist light possible and structuring policies around a reaction to them would be horribly broken. I'm pretty sure that cases involving this are rare enough to be handled on an ad hoc basis. The snopake case had some related issues, but it was more creepy than outright pedophilic. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I didn't find their coverage of neither Wikipedia nor Blogspot particularly sensationalist. (I didn't read anything else). I doubt if Wikipedia, and the same is probably true about Blogspot, can do anything about this issue without sacrificing other values, but the criticism should not be brushed away as sensationalist. --Merzul 15:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I didn't find their coverage of neither Wikipedia nor Blogspot particularly sensationalist. Except that they are lying. They state in the Blogspot description that "advocating sex with children [is] an illegal act in the United States," but it's not; as long as you're not calling people to action, it is protected free speech. That's called sensationalism. Ashibaka (tock) 05:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"When you delve into exactly who the users are editing the "Internet's Encyclopedia" you find a vast pedophile cabal seeking to undermine it." isn't sensationalist? (incidentally, this should be added to WP:LOC) --Random832 12:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is Perverted Justice the people who hack into other people's computers on the off chance of finding incriminating images on them? Corvus cornix 19:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suing Vandals

From the Computer Misuse Act 1990:

3(1) A person is guilty of an offence if a) he does any act which causes the unauthorized modification of the contents of any computer; and b) at the time when he does the act he has the requisite intent and the requisite knowledge.

3(2) for the purposes of subsection 3(1)b above the requisite intent is an intent to cause a modification of the contents of any computer and by so doing a) to impair the operation of any computer; b) to prevent or hinder access to any program or data held in any computer; or c) to impair the operation of any such program or the reliability of any such data.

3(3) the intent need not be directed at a) any particular computer; b) any particular program or data or a program or data of any particular kind; or c) any particular modification or a modification of any particular kind.

3(4) For the purpose of subsection 1b above, the requisite knowledge is knowledge that any modification he intends to cause is unauthorized. 3(5) it is immaterial for the purposes of this section whether an unauthorized modification or any intended effect of it of a kind mentioned in subsection (2) above is, or is intended to be, permanent or merely temporary.

Thus my question is, do the policies and guidelines regarding the production of Wikipedia content make deliberate vandalism unauthorised? If so, I believe that vandals operating from the UK are guilty of a crime under the Computer Misuse Act 1990. If not, I suggest the Wikimedia Foundation explicitly unauthorises deliberate vandalism. Perhaps suing the worst of these offenders, will cause most to stop (I doubt it would even get that far and they'd stop after being sent the first legal letter).

I also wonder what laws in America prevent computer misuse and how they might be applied. Constructive criticism and support of my idea welcome. Note before you reply, that I'm not suggesting we sue people as soon as they put one foot wrong or dscourage newbies from discovering Wikipedia. --Seans Potato Business 15:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question. How do you intend on suing any vandals without blatantly disregarding our privacy policy and tracing people's IPs to obtain personal information? -Amarkov moo! 19:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Three simple letters: N.L.T. (→Netscott) 19:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you are proposing to hit a fly with a sledge hammer. Only the most persistent and egregious cases are worthy of this type of action. Many of the lesser vandals are schoolchild pranksters who would be as chastenned by being called into the principal/headmaster's office as by being dragged into a court. Also, we first need to remove as much of the allure of vandalism from this site by somehow making it so that an act of vandalism is not immediately seen by the world at large. IMO, this failing on our part makes us an "attractive nuisance", and would weaken any case that we care to bring.
The above aside, I also have some responses to the other editors responding here. On "privacy": The right to anonymity is associated with good behavior on the part of the individual. We do not feel that murderers and other criminals have a right to have their identities hidden and kept from being connected to their crimes. I would extend the same reasoning to vandals here. As for NLT: I most certainly feel that legal threats should not be made on this site by anyone for any reason. However, that does not mean that an attorney working for the Wikimedia Foundation cannot send a letter to someone known to be a vandal seriously threatening to initiate legal action.
So I would personally keep the door to legal action open, but unless you can get a prosecutor to file charges against someone, you are looking at spending thousands of dollars on each lawsuit. I really thing that Wikimedia can spend its better elsewhere. --EMS | Talk 20:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, the privacy policy does not say that. It states that personally identifying information will not be released publicly, except under six specific conditions, none of which include suing vandals. And that aside, can you imagine the negative press if the Foundation did decide to sue a vandal? Even if they technically could, it won't happen. -Amarkov moo! 20:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What about the "negative" press that occured when that guy got upset about the JFK lie in his biography? That did Wikip a favour. --Seans Potato Business 18:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to the statute you posted, there is no need to sue anyone, since the offence is a criminal matter. The Wikimedia Foundation doesn't even need to instigate the process; any Wikipedia user or editor could theoretically contact the police (in the jurisdiction where Wikipedia's servers reside and/or in the jursidiction of the vandal) as a private individual and ask them to conduct an investigation. Finally, note that in many cases this could be done without violating our privacy policy, as contributions from anonymous IPs are logged and published, and because some vandals freely post their own personal details or other identifying information.
Now, I'm not arguing that anyone should report vandalism to the police; I'm just addressing some of the misstatements and misinterpretations that others have made in this thread. —Psychonaut 19:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification Psychonaut. --Seans Potato Business 18:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Modified Proposal

I propose asking the Foundation to excplicitly forbid intentional vandalism, including an addition to the edit window, among the copyright, verifiable and GFDL notices. --Seans Potato Business 18:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Posting again about summary style...

I have used Wikipedia for a very long time and recently started to contribute in a more addicted manner, the one thing that annoys me most is the large amount of inconsistencies and poor quality articles that result from splitting of articles into sub-articles on the English Wikipedia. In general, it is probably a Good Thing, but there are serious failings in maintaining this, I posted on the assistance page if there are any projects that deal with this, and nobody has responded. Am I the only one who thinks this is a pervasive problem, or would anybody be interested in doing something about it? --Merzul 15:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... I found discussion about possible technical solutions at Wikipedia:Transclusion, and the many links to essays and discussion; so I have stuff to read, but is there any maintenance project that deal with these issues? --Merzul 16:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An example of where it is done well, is the article on Charles Darwin. DGG 07:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, and {{main}} and {{detail}} are used as they were intended, that's refreshing ;) --Merzul 10:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure though what is the right use of {{main}}, but I'm watching WP:SS and that might be the right place to discuss this whole issue. Wikipedia talk:Summary style might need some attention for other reasons as well. --Merzul 10:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedans by year categories

I have started a discussion at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion#Wikipedians born in (YEAR), as the existing actions have been inconsistent and ad-hoc, and recently prone to wheel-warring and POINT. I think the time has come to seek an overarching consensus on this issue. Crossposted to VPP. --Random832 16:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox migration request template

How about a template for proposing userboxes to move to the user sapce per the Userbox migration? - Patricknoddy 21:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Currency/Money tags and automatic conversion/inflation adjustment?

(copied from the help desk)

I'm sure this has come up in the past but I can't seem to find any of those previous discussions.

I was thinking that a lot of articles contain references to sums of money and many of those are historic. It would be great if there was a currency tag where the editor can input the amount, type and date of the currency and the wiki would automatically convert that to present day US/EU amounts while still displaying the original amount. This could be done pretty easily with a lookup table with inflation and exchange rates for various popular currencies. -Shaocaholica 21:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... agreed, a lookup table would be handy for that. Unfortunately, wikis aren't good at making lookup tables (at least not the sort the page parser can read) -- if we do it on-wiki, it'd have to be done with an army of meta-templates. I probably know enough about templates to set it up, if I can get the methods down, although (funny thing) I don't know enough about currency exchange to know the methods -- I'd need at least a crash course in getting that done. However, this sort of proposal should probably be run past the community, before being implemented; the village pump is as good a forum as any (if nothing else, they may be able to direct you to any prior discussions, if they do exist). – Luna Santin (talk) 20:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I happen to be someone who's interested in both currency and template. Perhaps I can help. But I'd like to ask some questions first. What is the resolution of this historical exchange rate? (daily? monthly? yearly?) How is it stored in wiki? How do you want to update them? bot? oanda.com has daily historical exchange rate, but only for a few recent years. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 04:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful--I think for out purposes annual would be sufficient resolution; It would be nice to go back as far as possible, but I know just enough to be aware of the really difficult problems here. DGG 07:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My comment (eg) the few times that this has come up is that it's really not a good idea. Historical "equivalent values" are very much an art, not a science; there's half a dozen different methods you can use, depending on what the thing being measured is and how much it was, and the results can easily vary by up to an order of magnitude or more; even done by hand, a large number of the equivalent values we have in articles are just plain wrong (usually using a consumer-price index to calculate something that's a sizable fraction of GDP...). I would strongly, strongly oppose any unchecked "on-the-fly" automatic conversion system; it's going to give spurious or misleading values as often as it gives helpful ones. It's not so bad for the last few decades, but for anything before that...
Exchange rates are a little more sensible, but I'm not convinced they're needed for non-contemporary values. Shimgray | talk | 23:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Making vandals wait...

How about this: if an anonymous editor makes a change that: (a) blanks most of an article, or (b) inserts an obvious vandal phrase, why not make them wait a while and then go through an extra confirmation step? I.e. the system makes an extra check for anonymous edits, taking a little extra time. If the revisions fit some criteria, after 10-15 seconds the editor is given a notice and asked if they really want to make the change. I'm betting that an immature vandal is not going to enjoy the extra wait as well as the additional confirmation, so the amount of vandalism is (hopefully) greatly reduced. — RJH (talk) 16:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like a great idea, as long as it errs strongly toward "allow". Better to let some vandalism through than to inconvenience and piss off well-meaning anons. — coelacan talk — 22:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, such a confirmation page would have to say something like "Your edit looks like vandalism", which would violate WP:AGF and WP:BITE. The first time an anon user vandalises we treat it as a test, rather than a malicious act. If the vandalism is obvious enough to be spotted by this, it's obvious enough to be reverted by the AntiVandalBots, anyway, so it's not very important. --Tango 22:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't have to be phrased in such a way. How about show the diff and say "Your edit has been detected by an automated system as being potentially unproductive due to [e.g. "deletion of significant quantities of material"]; are you sure you want to continue?" and wait no more than five seconds before enabling the submit button. This would even help in the case of mistakes by experienced users. Maybe also add something like "If you would like to test the ability to edit pages on this site, please go to the sandbox." --Random832 18:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the message could be pleasantly neutral. It's primarily the wait that I think would be of benefit. Longer waits based on higher certaintly of vandalism would be even better. If it passes the vandal check a wait shouldn't be needed, so most valid edits should (hopefully) be unaffected. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 19:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a great idea. Lets put it into action already! --Seans Potato Business 00:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like a great idea. The volume of anonymous edits has grown so large lately that it is becoming harder and harder to stop vandalism from getting through (in the good old days all you needed was a tabbed browser and Special:Recentchanges). AntiVandalBots are a help, but I don't feel like they've been enough. Rather than always depending on our ability to catch bad edits after the fact, I think we should really be looking for more ways to prevent them in the first place. This proposal would frustrate malicious users and direct experimentative users to the proper venue.
Tango makes a good point about biting new users, but I think the result of this proposal would be just the opposite. Rather than being reverted and warned by frazzled RC patrollers, new users would be directed to the sandbox before they even made the bad edits. My guess is that they would feel less harassed and conflict would be reduced down the road.
I'm cross-posting on WT:AIV, WP:AN, and WP:VP/T to try and generate some more traffic for this idea. Canderson7 (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Running a phrase based filter would likely be costly for the servers, but a byte based filter wouldn't be as bad. It could be more along the lines of "You are making a very large change to this page, please review the change below (queue preview pane) and click confirm to commit this change". — xaosflux Talk 02:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The concerns I get about suggestions like this are that the phrases would need to be stored on-wiki somewhere, so trivial for those determined to avoid and size based/blanking moves the "casual" vandal onto more subtle changes. Realistically the obvious stuff like blankings are the least problematic of vandalism, I'd rather not force people into doing other vandalism instead. Stable revisions is a better option. --pgk 07:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a wait will really deter many people, heck I have to wait for the Wiki servers to catch up to me during primetimes as it is! It seems to me that this system would pretty much catch the really obvious stuff that gets cleaned up by bots and RC patrollers in very short order anyways. Then there's the chance of biting newbies who are being bold and making large edits- like deleting some bonehead who added poop a hundred times to an article. IMHO this would be a lot of server load for not a whole lot of gain. —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 09:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I've seen too many bot (and manual) reverts do an improper job—usually when there are multiple vandalisms intermixed with solid edits. So it ends up needing to be manually checked anyway, if you want to do a proper job. While the bots are helpful, they don't really reduce the amount of checking needed. But if you make a vandal wait, that reduces the number of vandalisms they can perform in a given span of time. Plus this hasn't been tried, so I have to contest your assertion about the number of people this will deter. Has it even been checked whether there is a lack of correlation between system performance and the number of vandalisms? Maybe those prime time slow-downs are having an impact on vandalism. If it becomes clear to the vandal that their performance will suffer as a result, I can't see it not having an impact on some percentage of the vandals. And that's what this is really about; reducing the amount, not eliminating it. — RJH (talk) 19:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Variation on the concept

How about this... if any edit would trigger an automatic summary (you know, the "replaced page with X" stuff) then have that edit require a captcha. Should be fairly simple... wouldn't worry real people much, but it should confound bots and slow down editors who want to blank a bunch of pages. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 03:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retain deprecated templates

See Template:citenews for how this might be done. I think that older templates should at least be kept readable (maybe replaced with an emulation in terms of their replacements) so that old versions of articles that use them can be read. --Random832 17:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that if a popular template is deleted, a bot is run that converts it to a new form, or the category of articles that use the template is emptied out before the template is deleted. In the case of citenews, "what links here" shows only one article using the template in that form, so seems preferable to me to change that article and delete the redirect. CMummert · talk 20:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Removal of current usage only cleans up the current versions. Old versions of pages which have deleted templates neither look nor function well. (SEWilco 07:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
This is a good point. It does interfer with reading older difs and can be annoying. It also seems to arguably violate the spirit of the GFDL (or it does at least to me at 3 AM here) since someone will not have access to what the prior versions actually assembled as with the template. JoshuaZ 08:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Future Sound Options

I would like to shared an IDEA - this site is great, however if you could ADD some type of pronunciation like SOUND to words, it would help those that have problems pronouncing words. There are some Dictionary sites that have the option of sound of each word you are looking for . For example: "Encarta.MSN" uses (Adobe Flash Player). I hope to see the implementation in the near future thank you (Lili Dixon 20:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC))

Wiktionary is the proper place for this, and it does this as much as possible. For instance, most of the Word of the day seem to have pronunciations with them. --Interiot 21:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

getting IP info on anons should be easier.

The user pages of anons who haven't had a message posted to them yet, like User talk:69.153.37.62, should display the same IP information toolkit at the bottom as others, like User talk:65.28.166.83, do. It's a pain to have to post to the page in order to get access to the toolkit, or copy and paste the IP into a tool manually. I know there's a MediaWiki page somewhere where I can make this suggestion more directly, but I don't know where. Help? --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Coelacan (talk • contribs)

The toolbox is there, you just have to go to the user talk page itself, rather than the edit page you get taken to automatically - just remove "action=edit" from the URL. --Tango 22:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that helps me, but it doesn't help anyone who isn't reading this. It would be useful for many people to have the toolbox added, even if it's just at the very bottom, to the "Editing" page, since that's where everyone ends up; there are no clickable links to the page with the toolbox on it. — coelacan talk — 03:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've just gone through Special:Allmessages, which is a list of all the customisable bits of the MediaWiki interface, and I can't find one for just editing user pages (MediaWiki:edittools). It seems we have to have the same information on all edit pages and can't change it by namespace. It might be possible to do is with parser functions, but I'm not familiar enough with them to try. I would support the change if anyone knows how to make it, though. --Tango 23:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ebay

I dont know if its the right place for this proposition... but ebay should be added to the list of external links blocked. As most of these links are ads (like The Water Cup) -Sucrine ( ><> talk) 13:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

m:Talk:Spam Blacklist. --Random832 18:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What about the ebay and related articles? Would their external links be blocked? Seems inappropriate. --Seans Potato Business 01:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar discussion

Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals/New Proposals is considering a new Barnstar to be given to people who make great combined contributions to Wikipedia articles and the Commons free-use image collection. Please come by and state your views. Thanks, Johntex\talk 15:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling: Jewellery VS. Jewelry

Dear Editors: I am emailing about the Jewellery category. I personally have no issue with the fact that we have 2 different spelllings on WP - both English and American - as I am aware there are 2 different spellings and for me, it is not a problem. However, I do feel we are having a siginifcant issue here on WP about the English VS. American spelling and I feel I have a good case to revert to the American Spelling. So - here it is. I am a graduate student at Bard here in US. I have read and researched literally hundreds of published titles on this topic. To that aim, I am endeavoring to beef up this category and help WP. However, in the act of reading many titles over many years, I have come to conclude that the American spelling is more dominent in published works on this topic. I don't have a reasoning behind why, I just know that it is so. Because of this, I feel it is neccesary to switch back to the American spelling. Even though in OED, it is jewellery, in every major book on this topic with the exception a few published in UK, it is spelled jewelry. For example - see what is known as "the bible on jewelry," the title is: Jewelry Concepts & Technology by Oppi Untracht. The spelling used is jewelry. Another example: On Amazon, you type in both. For jewelry there are 83,868 Results, for Jewellery, there are 61,300,000 Results - that is a significant difference in published works. I am more than happy to provide a complete bibliography if need be, but in the interest of being user friendly, I ask that you consider this and let me know what you think. Thanks, Archie, archimartinArchiemartin

Common practice here is, when it's purely a Commonwealth vs US English thing - we go with the original intent of the original editor, who in this case appears to have preferred "jewellery." --Golbez 19:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it hard to believe that WP would cater to one author as opposed to being user friendly. Also - after reading the spelling guidelines it actually looks like the intent to be consistant would trump any original author.

archie, archiemartinArchiemartin

Golbez is right, and we have a guideline on this, in fact. Read WP:ENGVAR. Specifically, in this case, since there is no cultural tie to one spelling or the other, you need to Stay with established spelling and Follow the dialect of the first contributor. In an article about Jewelry in the United States, use the US spelling, in Jewellery in the United Kingdom, use the UK spelling. In all general articles, leave it alone and use the spelling that's already established for that article. — coelacan talk — 19:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys - and I am leaving it alone in the sense that I am not editing anyone's writing to reflect my ideas. However, I am not leaving it alone in the sense that I think it needs to be changed. If it were not a problem we would not have this major discussion going on usage of style to have the spellings automatically transfer to the common use of the surfer, (see usage of style). I also did contact the original contributor to see what he she thinks. I truly believe there are some serious inconcistancies with not only the desire of WP to be consistant but also with trumping one contributor over the needs of the millions of users. At the end of the day - it just makes good sense - particularly with a noun. archie, archiemartinArchiemartin

It doesn't make any good sense to me. I use American English but I recognize that neither is "wrong". There is no particular reason to standardize to either spelling. Both are "right", and most contributors speak and write in only one or the other dialect naturally. Neither should be forced to adopt the other's dialect across the entire wiki. The best compromise so far has been to leave well enough alone. I see no compelling reason to change that. I would strongly oppose any attempt to get all of Wikipedia to use either US or UK English, and I can assure you that any such attempt that you may be proposing is already a lost cause. — coelacan talk — 20:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - First off - the spelling is not a dialect. Second, I have no issue myself with the two spellings as I said, it is WP that clearly states in the usage area that the spelling and usage should be consistant. If they, or WP does not want that because as they state, "It makes WP look unprofessional" then they should change that. I don't care for myself but you have to admit that usage, and how people surf WP is important. This is not a personal debate - this is about serving the needs of the many and not the few.

Last - there is no such thing as a lost cause. archie, archiemartinArchiemartin

  • So, to sum up your original argument, the books you have researched use "jewelry", but Google makes it clear that far more people use the spelling "jewellery" online. Because of that, you want to change it to "jewelry" to make it more user-friendly? I don't follow the logic of that at all. If more people online use the Commonwealth spelling, then surely it is more userrfriendly for us to use it here. Perhaps - just perhaps - being a student of the subject in the US means that most of the publications you have seen have either originated in the US or been translated by American translators. Up until now I did not know that there was a spelling "jewelry". It looks wrong (and is counterintuitive when you consider the pronunciation of the word, too), but now that I know it is an acceptable alternative I'm quite happy to see it in articles - though not for the category. I'm not happy to see it there both for the reason that it appears to be the more user-friendly spelling and - more importantly - for the reasons Golbez and Coelacan outline. Grutness...wha? 22:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how "needs" come into this, to be honest. Americans can read English spellings and vice versa. Yes, we could have debates on thousands of articles about which is the dominant spelling, or which is most widely used in publications, but we don't. Why? Because there are far better ways to spend time. So we keep it simple: if it's obviously tied to a country, use their spelling; if it's not, use the original one. You say "in every major book on this topic with the exception a few published in UK, it is spelled jewelry", which just proves the point - the ones in the UK spell it jewellery. It's simply a difference in spelling, and there's no compelling reason to change. Trebor 22:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To address both of your arguments - there are more uses on both Amazon and Google for the American spelling indicating that the searchability is there for the American spelling. This is not an "alternative" spelling but another one. Again - I think many of you are taking this as a personal cause or argument when it has more to do with usability as well as the WP rules and manual of style. Believe me when I say that if WP did not state that they want consistency I would not be wasting my time. As for needs - I think it is obvious that we would like to have as much consistency and fact finding as we can so, I don't see how you can ignore the fact that many people, (like myself) originally went to "jewelry" and found zip. Also - if consistency is not important then why are we allowing an editor to make a recent chnage within that article to make the entire spelling to that of jewellery, the English one.

Last, no one has addressed the real argument here which is that the one spelling is obviously more used. Go on Amazon and Google. See for yourself. Thanks, Archie, archiemartinArchiemartin

If you go to jewelry, you get redirected to jewellery, so what's the problem? We aim for consistency where possible, but spelling is never going to be agreed on so we just used what was previously used. In this case, the title suggests that it is British English spelling, so editors are justified in changing everything in the article to British English. We don't decide these things by which is more used (which you are justifying using the Internet which is dominated by Americans); we just pick one and run with it. It is not a big deal - people have no trouble reading other variants of English - so time spent discussing it would be better spent elsewhere. Trebor 12:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HI,

Trebor - just to be clear for the third time - I have no problem myself with the two spellings as I use them all the time. When you ask what the problem is, I thought I outlined it, but here goes again. If WP says that consistency of style is one of its tenants, then this is not consistent. If the posters here say that one must stay with the original poster's spelling then, that is not consistent with policy - so then you say that the original poster trumps the WP manual of style. Ok, fine I can understand that. But - then, when one looks at one of the latest revisions, one editor basically tells anyone working on it to revise using "jewellery", which according to one of these posts is only because the original poster used it. Ok - fine again, but then again - we are going back to inconsistency because that would mean that the original poster does NOT always have the right of way because the current revisions indicate that no matter who created what section of this category, their contribution was changed to the original posters spelling. So, once again, I point out that not because I have a personal mission statement or preference - but only because of the dominant use, (I did not justify use by Americans, only pointed out the dominant search) in print and on the internet, I ask - where does the buck stop and with which rule? If this were a non -issue, as I also mentioned before, there would not be a heated debate going on about re-directing. I am seeking answers and to make WP better - not a waste of time here either, but no one seems to be coming up with an argument that holds up and makes sense in a consistent manner. Once again, I ask if you could please be a little more respectful and address what I am asking you to address. Thanks, Archie, archiemartinArchiemartin

I think there is a valid argument here - not along the lines you mentioned, but the problem being that no matter which spelling the majority of contributors use, the "first" is given some special status. Spelling issues seem to be an exception to WP:OWN. --Random832 12:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first is given special status to prevent edit wars. Go look at yogurt if you need a reason why this position is needed. It basically ends the argument over which spelling is right. A long time ago it was agreed that the easiest way was to not have the argument, and let either the article topic decide in country specific topics, and the first major contributor in all others. It works, it isn't broken, it doesn't need fixing and it doesn't violate WP:OWN. You can't own spelling. When we're all speaking Chinese none of this will matter anyway. ;)Steve block Talk 20:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure we do say that consistency of style is one of our tenets. I thought we were consistent in our inconsistency. Spelling in an article has to be consistent. Spelling across articles does not. Steve block Talk 20:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree. As long as we set up appropriate redirects, it's not something worth arguing over. It's caused a lot of bad blood in the past, absolutely ridiculous edit wars, move wars, blocking sprees, accusations of vandalism, people leaving the project in a huff. The solution currently applied is "find something more important to argue over," as I read it. We have a decision rule to prevent arguments -- if a change can be made without an argument, then sure, do your thing, but if attempting the change does start an argument, that's why we have the decision rule. My opinion. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Random Recent

I think it'd be neat if there were a "Random Recent" link/function, which would show you a random article chosen from the pool of articles that have been changed recently. Perhaps if possible with a callout or second column showing the change, or perhaps changes highlighted. -:)Ozzyslovechild 03:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? You can just click on the "Recent changes" link on the left (in the navigation box) - the most recent 50 edits are about as random as one could want. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Groups for deletion

According to WP:MULTI, discussion about the same thing in different places is not a good idea. Yet that often happens with XFDs—for example, a template that has the purpose of classifying a page with a category and notice (like {{PD-old}}, if it were to be nominated for deletion, and speedy kept :) ), or the CC series (see here and here), or a list and category that are interrelated (see here and here). It would be an option at a GFD to request the deletion of some items, an not of others. Because XFDs should be discussion and not mere polling, having all items separate would restrict this true purpose.

Listing something on GFD would entail creating a dummy entry on the XFD pages (on which each individual component would already go), that would link to the GFD. In addition, the GFD entry would list what XFDs would be involved. Sure it's instruction creep, but this level of complexity is even more so existent with nominating multiple cross-namespace items for deletion.

An alternative to this proposal would do such deletions on MFD. In addition, GFDs may be extended to all group nominations of pages not in the mainspace. Any thoughts? GracenotesT § 04:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we need a new policy to do that? Just transclude the discussion on each of the seperate pages, and pick a random XfD process to be in the page name. -Amarkov moo! 05:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the very sparse attendance at all the processes except AfD, perhaps it would be time to reconsider the decision to split the different XfDs. I wouldn't want to add yet an additional segment. A simpler rule is that the Cats and Misc wait upon the AfD, for the Afds are where the action is.DGG 05:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Amarkov, that can't be done because XFDs other than AFDs and MFDs don't use subpages for every proposed deletion; rather, things nominated on the same day are always on the same page. In addition, any standardized way to do these sorts of nominations (not just my proposal) would work. So regardless of whether GFDs float your boat or not, there's still a problem that probably needs to be fixed. If you want to use MFD for group nominations instead of this proposed process (not policy, by the way), that's fine too. GracenotesT § 05:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's how it's usually done. But things are regularly subpaged already if they get too long, so another use of subpages won't be a huge deal. Of course, I don't have any sort of objection to this, but I don't think it's necessary. -Amarkov moo! 05:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any regular subpaging, but maybe TFDs just aren't as heated as other XFDs :) GracenotesT § 05:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A current sub page example is Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt‎, whereas DRV usually doesnt need subpages. John Vandenberg 01:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Thanks! ...there's still this problem that I brought up, though. GracenotesT § 02:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As an MFD regualar, I'd be fine with hosting these on MFD, but TRANSCLUDING them in to the other approriate areas if needed. We frequenly attach RFD to MFD content. Even on pages with per-day logs, it is trivial to tranascluse an mfd page in there, done it many times for improper listings. — xaosflux Talk 02:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can there be any systematic topic for the discussion of tourism entrepreneurship development?

Anjan Bhuyan 09:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Anjan Bhuyan[reply]

Assuming I understood your question properly, my answer is that discussions taking place on Wikipedia should revolve around its development as an encyclopedia, the development of articles, the Wikipedia-based actions of users or otherwise be located at the reference desks. Thus, unless you're talking about creating an article called 'tourism entrepreneurship development' for the purpose of presenting encyclopedic information, then I think the answer may be 'no'. --Seans Potato Business 14:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic content

You guys should add a feature so that content can be marked as dynamic. For example, many numerical references in the encyclopedia are continuously becoming obsolete. If there were a sort of programmability to the pages, certain information could be collected from the internet every time the page is loaded. For example, a reference in a wikipedia entry on TUMORS to the # of hits returned by an online medical database with the search of TUMORS could be dynamically checked by the wiki page, and then the info is always up-to-date. wikipedia is amazing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.143.218.127 (talk • contribs).

I can't see how the specific example you gave would be of use (maybe it wasn't intended to be useful, and was just their for clarification) but the idea sounds good. The function should be able to retain the last available information in the event that the other website is compromised or something. There might be some technical problems. I would be worried about reliability of sites that WP has no control over but at the same time I like the idea... --Seans Potato Business 23:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some devs are working on it, see meta:Wikidata and OmegaWiki. No ETA though. --Quiddity 01:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There will be quite a lot of uses. Returning no. of hits isn't one, because normally you don't just want to look at the number but to view the results. I don't think there is presently any restriction on an external link that sends a search query, but in my experience such links need checking every few months. As Quiddity says, we will need to be careful in choosing the sources--and I think we'd need a new policy for live links. I would accept official government sources, and major associations. DGG 04:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lists for weekly box office charts?

In the article KRS Film Distributors, there has recently been sections that document the top ten films in the box office each week. Not knowing what to do with this, I've been leaving it in so far. However it's getting to the point where it is dwarfing the article about the company, and I know I've got to do something about it.

The best solutions would be to either remove it or split it in a new article. But I cannot find any such articles from any country that show lists of the ten popular films for each week.

I have the feeling that it would be encyclopaedic and suitable for Wikipedia so long as it originated form official sources and it is well referenced, but I'm not too sure. What is your opinion on this? ~ ► Wykebjs ◄ (userpage | talk) 18:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This level of detail is in fact not appropriate for Wikipedia, which is not an indiscriminate collector of information. Not to mention that the only source for the information presumably is the distributors themselves; that violates WP:RS. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We should avoid recentisms, remember and encyclopedia should have information that is timeless, not information that will be obsolete in a few weeks. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 22:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giving detention to school-based vandals!

It has been surmised that a considerable quantity of vandalism arises from misuse by school children who are less inclined to appreciate the importance of the project. Since these edits are sometimes traced via their fixed IP addresses to specific schools, I suggest that these schools are contacted with details of the vandalism that has arisen from their IP, and perhaps a selection of their useful edits, if any exist.

They could hold a school assembly on the subject of Wikipedia (they may even be thankful for the idea - I've sat through separate assemblies whose main topic consisted of a watch, a glass of water and a two pound coin where the teacher must have been really scraping the barrel!), condoning constructive edits and condeming damaging ones (ideally with threat of detention). If a response is asked for and received, it might be possible to keep a list of Wikipedia-friendly schools so that further vandalism from that IP address is dealt with differently. --Seans Potato Business 23:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can just imagine that. How about student-led dramas?
  • John: Oh boy! How I love vandalizing Wikipedia for the lulz!
  • Jane: John, have you no remorse?
  • John: No! It gives me great pleasure to replace pages with the words "PENIS PENIS PENIS".
  • Jane: What kind of pleasure?
  • John: Well... ever since I lost my mother and father when they were trying to fulfill a {{reqphoto}} request for Iron maiden (torture device)... [sniffles]
  • Jane: [hugs John] It's okay, John. But why do you take that out on others?
  • John: I don't know... I feel as though I can hide behind this barrier. I'm not John... I'm 70.101.175.243. Or whatever other dynamic IP I am.
  • Jane: Look at it this way, John. Is this who you're trying to hurt?

[reveal Wikipedian, eyes glued to the screen, gathering sources for Cleveland steamer]

  • John: [gasps] What a pitiful creature!
  • Jane: And how delicate, too. John, I'm shocked that you would try to destroy free knowledge.
  • John: Yeah, how else would I write my research paper.
  • Jane: So before you edit Diminutive and replace it with <div style="text-decoration: blink; font-size:1000%; line-height:1em; position:absolute;">[[LOL|I did it for the lulz]]<div style="position: relative">I did it for the lulz</div></div>, think of all these things.
  • Entire school: [replaces Diminutive with said text]
  • Admin: [semi-protects Diminutive]

The end.

Okay, so this proposal may be sound like a good idea, but most people don't share the same appreciation of free knowledge that we do, and there's also WP:BEANS implications. Plus, many teachers dislike students that use Wikipedia, either because it's too easy to reference, or sometimes inaccurate. The Wikimedia Foundation is not-for-profit, and for it to have sponsors (like schools) seems odd. Plus, not everyone likes Wikipedia, so how would a parent react if his or her student were being held in detention for hurting an organization in which they don't believe? Fun idea, though. Maybe when we get legislation to arrest Cplot will we be able to slip this in the bill. GracenotesT § 01:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, how's that legislation coming along? :-) —Doug Bell talk 16:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Legally speaking, if a DA could ever be convinced to take the case, it would be possible to prosecute under the recent internet harassment statutes. No DA would waste the time, but it's a possibility as far as I understand. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 03:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose if it was reported to the school and there was a sufficiently strict administrator, they could arrange an assembly to order all the students not to vandalize Wikipedia, whereby every student will do just that at the next opportunity. —Dgiest c 08:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would lead to another case study of reverse psychology :) Harryboyles 10:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the multiple Account creation

Hey,


I am a student at the Indiana University. I usually look up wikipedia and its sister webpages for many of my projects and class related activities. It is of great help to me. Thank You.

The problem, rather a suggetion I would like to tell, is that you could integrate and make a common Username and password to your verious websites of the Wiki. This is a very small thing, but creating a username and password for each and every Wiki site and its sisters, like the Wikiversity, Wikimedia and others, is really a wierd feature. If it were common, it would prove useful to the users of Wikipedia and to you too. It would save some space in your servers, instead of a person having 20 records of usrenames and passwords for using wikipedia, wikiversity, wikipedia(in other languages), etc.


Thank You for your consideration.

Hardik Dani

It's currently being worked on and hopefully it will be implemented soon. Tra (Talk) 01:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising sellout vs. a reliable site

Anyone else sick of how much time Wikipedia spends crashed? Though it is a minority of the time, we still seem to be one of the least reliable sites on the web. I'm sure this will infuriate a few people - but - would it really be so bad to have a few discrete adverts, if it means we can buy a few more servers..? There's a nice patch of whitespace on the left side of the larger pages that could fit a nice little moneymaker. If we force companies to use our colour scheme, it shouldn't distract too much. With us currently being the twelfth most vistied page on the whole web, think of the revenue! Jack · talk · 14:13, Monday, 26 February 2007

I myself will think of all of the Wikipedians that will leave the project because advertising violates WP:NPOV and WP:EL. Ads won't have any effect on Wikipedia being free in the way that "free" is meant, but you might want to check out Category:Wikipedians against advertisements for who would be upset! Can you imagine the ads that would appear on Abortion? Actually, these ads would appear there. Not that accurate, really. (By the way, Yahoo once donated servers, but it was full donation, not borrowing.) In short, this proposal has been rejected by the community. GracenotesT § 14:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eep! That's a few! Though, c.800 against isn't that many in "3,675,933 registered user accounts". I like how the pro-advert category is virtually empty! I'm writing an essay at Wikipedia:Advertisements, if anyone wants to help out? I even have a cool picture :) Jack · talk · 15:29, Monday, 26 February 2007
Um... I'm confused. Since when do we spend lots of time crashed? In my six months of editing, I have seen it crash once. For 10 minutes. -Amarkov moo! 01:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ach, it crashes for me all the time. At least once every few days (sometimes more), forcing me to go out and socialise. Bah! ...maybe it isn't Wikipedia's fault, maybe it's this proxy, but it could be my distance from the 'pedia servers? Whatever it is, I'm sure money will fix it Jack · talk · 02:42, Tuesday, 27 February 2007

Return under new username

After a period of inactivity, I have come back to edit Wikipedia - I was formerly ACEO, and am now ACEOREVIVED 19:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC). Can I please copy the username page of ACEO, copy and paste it on to ACEOREVIVED 19:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC) and then delete the former page? Please do not accuse me of Wikipedia: Sock puppetry, because I am not really interested in being an administrator of voting - I just wanted to edit articles on psychology and allied fields. ACEOREVIVED 19:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think it would be best for you to continue editing under your old username. If you do not wish to do this, however, you could probably copy and paste the contents of your old userpage over (since you already have a new userpage) and make the old userpage into a redirect to the new userpage, or ask an admin to merge the page histories of the two pages. To avoid problems of sockpuppetry and impersonation, if you remember the password from your old account, you can log in under that account and state that you have moved to the new account. Tra (Talk) 22:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject reform

I've put together an embryonic proposal for some general reforms of how WikiProjects are set up; comments and suggestions would be very appreciated! Kirill Lokshin 20:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge IMDB Database and wikipedia

Can anyone help ? I have been wondering about how one would go about converging the IMDB database with Wikipedia.

I am not clear about what the implications are, but believe that the outcome (if it were succesful) would be very beneficial.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.144.251.120 (talk • contribs)

  • The first problem would be copyright issues. I'm sure they'd claim even just their list of film names, cast and crews of those films, and information like runtime/country ratings was copyrighted, and quite possibly would object to Wikipedia mass-importing it, since it would devalue their main draw. Another problem is that IMDB is, in essence, a directory. Many entries (probably most) on IMDB have nothing more than cast and crew information, and that wouldn't be acceptable for Wikipedia. --W.marsh 00:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What other commercial databases (IMDB owned by Amazon) are there that would benefit from an opportunity to consolidate with Wikipedia ?

Please list:

  • IMDB
It's not at all clear that you understand that Wikipedia is (a) completely free content, and (b) run by a non-profit organization that has no interest in monetizing the value of this encylopedia. Exactly what a "consolidation" would consist of is totally unclear; commercial databases are already free to use Wikipedia content, as does Google for its maps. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The raw stats from IMDB are not the sort of thing Wikipedia would carry. Any actual blocks of text would be copyright. I don't see how we can automatically gain information from IMDB without exceeding the scope of our project or violating copyright. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 22:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, IMDB is, like Wikipedia, editable by any driveby, and they have no requirements for verifiability. Corvus cornix 22:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler tags

I am wondering if it is possible to hide information that is contained on a page between two spoiler tags. This way a person would need to click to read the rest of the text, and would prevent people from accidentally reading information they did not want to read.--NeilEvans 00:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that people already dispute that we should even have spoiler tags, I doubt there's any chance that people are going to consent to hiding the text between them. But it is quite simple, from a technical aspect. -Amarkov moo! 01:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It'd be easier if the spoiler tag put its content in a box (if not a real box, then some sort of structural element - a div by any other name) - obviously, the existing tag can't be converted to this, but maybe a new version like {{spoiler-top}} {{spoiler-bottom}} {{spoiler-inline|some text that spoils}} --Random832 04:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How would it break page layout - the whole point would be to have it be _new_ tags so that it will only be used in places that it wouldn't break the page layout. And the actual visible tags could have the same classes as the existing ones. something like <div class="spoilerarea">{{spoiler}} for the beginning tag, and {{endspoiler}}</div> for the end. --Random832 13:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Return to Wikipedia with a new username

After a period of inactivity, I have returned to editing Wikipedia, but under a new username. I was formerly ACEO and am now ACEOREVIVED. Please do not accuse me of Wikipedia: Sock puppetry, as I do not have interests in voting of Wikipedia administration; I simply wished to improve some psychology articles and to edit articles on fields allied to psychology (I was especiall keen to improve the article on locus of control). As I am now under a new username, albeit as some one who will, generally, be reading rather than editing Wikipedia, can I copy and paste the information that was on ACEO on to ACEOREVIVED, and then take things from there after deleting ACEO? ACEOREVIVED 20:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can copy anything you want from another user page. You probably shouldn't copy postings on the user talk page; these were directed to another account. And you certainly shouldn't delete anything on another user page or user talk page; it's simply your assertion that you were in fact the other person/user.
Also, you should note that WP:SOCK doesn't forbid multiple accounts; it forbids using them maliciously, including for the purposes of evading blocks and bans. Since that doesn't apply in this case, you should feel free to do anything that any other user does. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I missed the fact that you posted a very similar question a few sections above. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Language bar

In an attempt to make the search function even more user friendly I’d like to suggest a function which makes me able to redo my search in another language. For example; often when I conduct a search I type it in from the Wikipedia window in my Firefox toolbar. Naturally, this gives me an answer from the English database. If, however, the item I’m looking for is more common in the country I’m from, it’d probably give me a more extensive answer if I search that database instead. So, if it’d possible for me to redo the search just by clicking on my country’s name or flag, that’d be a great time saver.

Best, Andreas 193.13.176.149 14:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can add search engines to Firefox very easily. See this page of Wikipedia-specific addons. Even niftier, is any webpage that has a searchbox will automatically let you add its search: In the Firefox searchbox, click the icon on its left for a dropdown box to get a "Add (current pages search)" option! --Quiddity 23:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another (and perhaps better) solution is the search engine Qwika [4], searching in 1,158 wikis and (machine-)translating the text into English or another language of your choice. JoJan 08:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still, it might not be a bad idea to have a 'search in other languages' button on the search results page. I don't think that's possible by modifying MediaWiki space (except by messing with the site-wide JS), so if anyone wants this feature they could open a new feature request on mediazilla:. Such proposals can be discussed at the proposals village pump. --ais523 11:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)&oldid=111805091"