Jump to content

User:Timeshifter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Timeshifter (talk | contribs) at 18:39, 15 January 2008 (→‎Spam-fighting fanatics support Microsoft and big commercial interests). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This user is a member of the Illustration taskforce of WikiProject Images and Media.
11,000+This user has made more than 11,000 contributions to Wikipedia.

Have PC, will travel. Just another guy with a PC. :)

Template:FixHTML

Template:FixHTML

Template:FixHTML

_

Related categories for diagrams, charts, graphs:

- Category:Statistical charts and diagrams
- Category:Diagrams
- commons:Category:Diagrams
- Category:Charts
- commons:Category:Charts
- Category:Infographics
- commons:Category:Infographics
- Category:Scientific modeling
- commons:Category:Scientific modeling

Create A Graph. Free online graph creation tool at the website for the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (located within the U.S. Department of Education and the Institute of Education Sciences). Bar charts, line charts, area charts, pie charts, and XY graphs. Choice of PDF, PNG, JPG, EMF, EPS, and SVG output.

BARCHART Tool. Free online bar chart generator. Line charts and pie charts, too. The tool is based on the free software JFreeChart.

Another online charting and graphing tool: Zoho DB and Reports [1] is the name of the online database and reporting application in the Zoho Office Suite. It can also "create charts, pivots, summary and other wide-range of reports through powerful drag & drop interface". Here are some samples of reports, graphs, charts, and tables.

Online tools to convert tables (HTML, Excel, comma-separated values (CSV), etc.) to wikicode. See

- meta:Help:Table#External links
- http://www.uni-bonn.de/~manfear/html2wiki-tables.php

IrfanView is a great, highly-rated freeware image editor.

GIF images are fine for graphics on wikipedia. See this discussion, and this one.

Transparency works in GIF images. I am not familiar with all the intricacies though. Many graphics do not need transparency. Especially when used on wikipedia pages. I noticed that GIF images using transparency have to be done correctly if the images are to be scaled. Otherwise one gets the jaggy, laddered edges. There are ways to make the transparency work correctly with GIF images according to this:

- http://www.handson.nu/HTML/transparency.shtml

Copying maps and charts from PDF files

Ask for map help of any kind on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps talk page, or ask the project participants directly on their talk pages.

Another very active place to seek map help is at:

See many map sources, help, work, and template links here:

It is usually better if uploaders make and upload PNG or GIF copies of maps and charts found in PDF documents. PNG and GIF are free, lossless, uncompressed, sharper formats. Please do not use the JPG image format for map and chart graphics. JPG images, and subsets cropped from them, get progressively more and more blurry since JPG is always compressed. Even at the highest quality levels.

I use the freeware IrfanView. It is great for pasting in full or cropped sections of PDF maps, and then converting to GIF or PNG. One can continue to crop further subsets without loss of clarity.

Image formats such as JPEG (JPG) that use lossy data compression, are generally not as good for images that have sharp lines and text in them. When scaled the compression process used for these formats can make lines and text appear "fuzzy" (especially at higher compression levels), even if they were sharp when originally created.

This is not usually a problem with thumbnail JPG images in Wikipedia articles. People can click the image to enlarge it and see a sharper version of the image. But with scaled, intermediate-sized JPG images in a Wikipedia article it can be a problem. That is because the MediaWiki software compresses the image somewhat while scaling it, and the image may look "fuzzy", and have compression artifacts. MediaWiki does not scale JPG images using the highest quality settings.

Even at the highest quality settings there is no JPG setting for saving an image that will not compress the image a little. It is always a lossy compression. See: [2]

WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias open tasks

Wikipedia:WikiProject Palestine/Open tasks

  • Review and Improve: Template:Palestine topics • Palestine Liberation Organization • Palestinian views on the peace process • History of Palestine • Timeline of the name Palestine • Criticism of the Israeli government • Palestinian Centre for the Study of Nonviolence
  • Requests and drafts: 1657 Ottoman campaign in Palestine • Abu Nuwar • Al-Hussein Stadium • Demographics of Gaza • Fahmy al-Zaarir • Fawzi Barhoum • Future for Palestine • Khaldoun Al-Halman • Lajee Center • National symbols of the State of Palestine • Palestinian dance • Suleiman Jacir • Weaving in Majdal
  • Expand: Prime Minister of the Palestinian National Authority • General Union of Palestinian Students • Palestine Monetary Authority• Preventive Security Force • Walid Khalidi • Education in the State of Palestine • Sa'ir • Salman Abu-Sitta • Kawkaba • al Qastal, Palestine • Michel Khleifi • Al-Shajara • Sami Abu Zuhri • Yezid Sayigh • Yatta, Hebron • Qalqilya • Palestinian Scout Association • Arab Liberation Front • Palestinian literature • Muslim Quarter • Christian Quarter
  • Update: Palestinian Christians • Israel's record: human rights in the occupied territories • Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions
  • Within WikiProject: Template needs to be edited so that space between bullet and text would be less


    • My bias

    I support WP:NPOV.

    I am pro-Palestinian. I also support the left-wing of Israeli politics. I support a two-state solution concerning Israel and a future state of Palestine.

    Systemic bias in English Wikipedia and English media.

    See:

    Ultra-nationalist editors and tag teams are bad enough. Systemic bias is even more difficult for wikipedia and WP:NPOV neutrality. Wikipedia is about neutrality (WP:NPOV). If more editors fully understood it, there would be less problems. If more people allowed all significant viewpoints to be shown (from reliable sources), then there would be less complaints, because people could not say that their POVs were not being expressed.

    People who insist that ONLY their particular POV be expressed on a wikipedia page will not be happy, and should leave, or be banned (at least temporarily), from wikipedia. It is against a core wikipedia policy (WP:NPOV). WikiProject "Countering systemic bias" is about expanding wikipedia's expression of all significant viewpoints. Especially, those viewpoints suppressed by institutionalized bias, racism, bigotry, ignorance, culture, etc..

    I usually say something concerning unbalanced POVs (even ones I agree with) when it is brought up concerning parts of articles I have worked on. I try to be intellectually honest and fair. I don't just do this out of charity. I want my edits to be treated the same way by others.

    When I point out some unbalanced POV that an editor has inserted, I want them to be intellectually honest too. Fair is fair. It is common-sense fair play. When I say "Unbalanced POV" I am referring to a POV being expressed in an article without the balance of other POVs. Wikipedia maintains a neutral point of view in the narrative voice of the article by expressing the various POVs in the form of X says Y.

    Israeli human rights violations in the Palestinian territories

    The following discussion between the lines was copied from

    There doesn't seem to be a good article on the Israeli occupation of the territories, including such things as security arrangements, the barrier, checkpoints, travel restrictions, settlements, citizenship, roads, water rights and so on. There is some information in Allegations of Israeli apartheid, but that's focussed on the word "apartheid" rather than more general. —Ashley Y 09:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

    Please see
    Wikipedia:WikiProject_Arab-Israeli_conflict#April_2007
    I copied this from that section:
    As for human rights abuses under occupation please see
    Wikipedia:WikiProject_Arab-Israeli_conflict#February_2007
    Here is the relevant info copied from there:
    Accusations against Israel of war crimes during the Al-Aqsa Intifada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Allegations against Israel of war crimes during the Al-Aqsa Intifada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Some editors and admins improperly deleted this page, and blocked all attempts to restore the page, and to rename the page. See Talk:Allegations against Israel of war crimes during the Al-Aqsa Intifada. It has been suggested that the info in the article that this talk page refers to could be merged with Al-Aqsa Intifada. See this AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accusations against Israel of war crimes during the Al-Aqsa Intifada. The closing admin for that AFD said the material should be kept. Currently the article redirects to Al-Aqsa Intifada. The article can no longer be found at its original location except in some of the page revisions such as this one. The original page is also found here: User:Timeshifter/Al-Aqsa Intifada Archive. Old page‎. In that location the embedded links have been converted to footnote links. That way the relevant material can be more easily moved to other wikipedia pages. There is probably too much material to move all of it to existing pages, because no page focuses only on the topic of human rights under Israeli occupation. One suggestion has been to put the info in a completely new article with a new title. This title could not be used: "Human rights in the Palestinian territories". It currently redirects to Human rights in the Palestinian National Authority. That page does not cover human rights violations by Israeli occupation. There are other possibilities for titles: "Human rights under Israeli occupation," or "Human rights in Israeli-controlled territories" or "Alleged human rights violations in Israeli-controlled territories" or something else. There are parallels in article names such as Human rights in pre-Saddam Iraq and Human rights in Saddam's Iraq. This may help: Wikipedia:Naming conflict. See also: Portal:Human rights and Category:Human rights for ideas. Over time WP:NPOV help is needed to move the lengthy info. You can help. It may be possible to move some of the info to here: Human rights in Israel#Israel's record: human rights in the occupied territories. Maybe a "further information" link from it could link to a spinout article titled "Israel's human rights record in the occupied territories." --Timeshifter 03:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    So, it seems that it will take some dedication and WikiProject teamwork to get WP:NPOV info into wikipedia in articles focused specifically on those topics. --Timeshifter 10:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

    There is the article Israeli-occupied territories. Its scope includes the Golan Heights as well as the Palestinian Territories. Sanguinalis 13:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

    Thanks for the link to that article. I think that article needs to be vastly expanded, and/or WP:SPINOUT articles created, to include more info on the things mentioned by Ashley Y (especially the hardships experienced by Palestinians): "such things as security arrangements, the barrier, checkpoints, travel restrictions, settlements, citizenship, roads, water rights and so on." Also, the human rights abuses that are alleged in the info I linked to higher up.
    Occupation of the Palestinian territories redirects to Palestinian territories. I can find no wikipedia page focussed on the Israeli-imposed hardships, or on the alleged Israeli human rights abuses, in the Palestinian territories. Looking at the edit history of Israeli-occupied territories is enlightening.
    The main little bit of focussed info on the topic is at
    Human rights in Israel#Israel's record: human rights in the occupied territories.
    I think it is an obvious systemic bias to put that info there. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. The Palestinian territories are NOT in Israel. Read the article Palestinian territories. Israel occupies the Palestinian territories, at least according to the UN and most of the world. So why does wikipedia treat it differently at times? Why is the main discussion of alleged Israeli human rights abuses buried in a non-obvious location? It would take a determined reader to find it. The average wikipedia reader may not find it.
    Please see also:
    Wikipedia:Notice_board_for_Palestine-related_topics#October_2007 --Timeshifter 14:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
    I agree with all of the above. Sanguinalis 02:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

    End of section copied from

    Israeli Foreign Ministry's organized campaign on Wikipedia

    Please see:

    DMI Comparison between Anonymous Palestinian and Israeli Wikipedia Edits

    Using WikiScanner the Digital Methods Initiative (DMI) site has an analysis in progress called:

    So far, Israeli anonymous edits outnumber Palestinian anonymous edits by around a 4 to 1 margin.

    Isarig and his sockpuppets banned from editing anything relating to Arabs and Israel.

    Isarig was almost permanently banned from wikipedia because of his use of sockpuppets in order to favor the ultranationalist Israeli POV in many articles. I call this the "Israel can do no wrong" POV.

    December 20, 2007 diff. Avi wrote (emphasis added): "Just for reference, I talk with Fayssal before he performed the block, and I agree with his action. Isarig, you have to demonstrate the ability to consistently edit articles completely separate from anything relating to Arabs and Israel, in a neutral, sock-free fashion, for a significant length of time, before the ban is lifted. Continued violation of the terms of your probation may result in ban extension or permanence."

    August 30, 2007 topic ban placed on User:Isarig for at least 6 months, with possible extensions. See:

    Sockpuppets confirmed August 24, 2007. See:

     Confirmed. The following users are the same:

    These may not be all the Isarig sockpuppets. I don't believe Isarig should be allowed to edit any part of wikipedia until he reveals all his sockpuppets. Some "Truth and reconciliation commissions" require public confession of all crimes before any leniency is allowed.

    I believe the topic ban should be extended to at least a year. Other people have gotten a complete ban from editing all topics for a year for smaller infractions of the rules.

    Barnstars

    These were copied from my user talk page, and its archives. The latest one is on top.

    The Working Man's Barnstar
    For your work on compiling detailed maps, free images, and in your efforts in categorization. Tiamut 20:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
    The Barnstar of Diligence
    For your efforts at organizing regional maps in the commons and your patience in explaining those efforts Tiamut 22:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
    The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
    For remaining cool and encouraging others to do so, while retaining editorial integrity and passionately advocating for the truth (all POVs) to be presented :) Tiamut 10:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    The Barnstar of Diligence
    For diligence on the Iraq War subtitle debate and for helping solve a very tough issue. Also, nice work on keeping everyone (myself included) honest on the various casualties sections. Nicely done. Publicus 21:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

    Impolite spam fighters

    The following is revised from something I wrote to a spam-fighting editor.

    I have thousands of edits on wikipedia. I am not a newbie. So I know a little about wikipedia guidelines and policies.

    As for how you communicate with newbies, wikipedia guidelines and policies still apply. I am specifically talking about WP:BITE and WP:STALK. The way you hound newbies who are following the wikipedia injunction to click the edit button and be bold is unseemly. Calling someone a spammer is an insult and thus it is a violation of WP:CIVIL.

    The correct thing to say is that they are breaking the conflict of interest guideline WP:COI, and that they should suggest links on the talk page, and not add them themselves if there is a conflict of interest. At no point during your initial communications with them should you call them a spammer. In the real world that is an insult. If after your initial communications they continue to add links in violation of COI, then you can call them a spammer because they now know the WP:COI rule.

    I suggest a paragraph or 2 on the spam-fighter notice boards explaining these rules of basic civility and politeness. Newbie spam fighters follow your example and the instructions given them. Are there any instructions on politeness on the spam-fighter notice boards?

    Spam-fighting fanatics support Microsoft and big commercial interests

    The following is revised from a reply I wrote to someone.

    In reply to your comment on my talk page, I do not want to get back in this fight. I suggest taking it up at Wikipedia:Lists. That is the guideline page. I had some old info on my user page. It is out of date. It is now archived at User:Timeshifter/Archive 1.

    I believe that some spam fighters go well beyond the spam guidelines and are extremely destructive to wikipedia. Some admins too. They have destroyed many longstanding pages on wikipedia. Also, the list guidelines change periodically, and are subject to various (sometimes twisted) interpretations.

    My solution for most spam is to eliminate the right for anonymous users to add links to external links sections of articles. That would eliminate most of the spam links that are being added. See my discussion at

    I don't consider links for list entries to be spam. This is a fundamental difference I have with some spam fighters. If the list entry is allowed then so is the link for it. A single link on wikipedia is not spam. Spam fanatics think that even a single link on a list is spam. It is totally illogical, and many of them can't be reasoned with. Some admins support this illogical thinking, and so unless you can find admins who understand the progressive versions of Wikipedia:Lists (before they get changed back to the regressive versions), then you will make little progress.

    I believe that some spam-fighting fanatics are near-psychotic. This is not a personal attack. It is a generalization. Feel free to copy this anywhere. I can't promise to waste time defending it, though. Good luck. You'll need it. It could sour you completely on wikipedia. Spam fanatics are some of the most destructive things on wikipedia, and they frequently get away with insulting many people. They probably do more harm to wikipedia's image in many readers' minds than anything else.

    Some spam-fighters constantly confuse notability for the topic of an article with the need for reliable sourcing for the entries in a notable list. This subtlety eludes them. See my archived user page, User:Timeshifter/Archive 1, for more info from wikipedia guidelines. If the topic of a software or other computing-related list is notable, then one can add entries to the list if those entries are within the umbrella of what the list covers. Each entry on the list does not have to meet the notability standard just as many facts in an encylopedia article do not have to meet the notability standard. They meet reliable sourcing standards, and primary sourcing counts as reliable sourcing for non-controversial facts such as whether something exists or not.

    The list topic is notable. The facts meet reliable sourcing standards. Primary sourcing counts for something as non-controversial as whether a piece of software is of a certain type, or if a web host is of a certain type. Otherwise all software lists and web hosting lists would only have big commercial sites, programs, and web hosts. Those that get media coverage. Lots of freeware, web hosts, and open-source software do not get mainstream media coverage, or even smaller media coverage. They might get niche coverage online only.

    So, many spam fighters actually end up being agents for big commercial software companies like Microsoft. All just to stop a single link to a web host, or a freeware or open-source software program's home page.

    All my comments are in the public domain. They are freeware comments like all of wikipedia text. Copy them anywhere. Edit them there too. Combine them with your thoughts too.

    The Wikipedia Signpost

    The Signpost
    26 September 2024


    Your comments

    Please do not comment here. All comments found here from other users are moved to Timeshifter's talk page.

    Please comment there.

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Timeshifter&oldid=184533459"