Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

The miscellaneous section of the village pump is used to post messages that do not fit into any other category. Please post on the policy, technical, or proposals pages, or – for assistance – at the help desk, rather than here, if at all appropriate. For general knowledge questions, please use the reference desk.

« Archives, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80

Aaron Swartz #pdftribute

How about a userbox or something like that to show support for Aaron Swartz, Open access and #pdftribute? I put a line on my userpage

Why are edit summaries not mandatory?

Hi, could anyone please point me to the bit of policy that explains the rationale why edit summaries are not mandatory?

I have some 5,000 pages in my watchlist, and it's very difficult to follow everything up when so many people are not leaving edit summaries.

I am sure this is the kind of thing that must have been discussed 498134598 times before, so if you could please point me to the discussion, that'd be great.

I believe that edit summaries should be mandatory.

Cheers, Azylber (talk) 18:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would be it more informative for youy if instead of an empty edit summary, I used something like "hgkdbdmsl"? Ruslik_Zero 18:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be far more informative, because I'd immediately check to see if the edit was vandalism. I agree with Azylber here, there is no reason not to make edit summaries mandatory in order to save an edit. Ryan Vesey 19:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How? Can't you do the same for a blank edit summary if you think it's something a vandal might do? Either way, you'd only catch the vandals who want to be caught. The vandals who want their work to stick around already know to lie in their edit summaries so their diffs are less likely to be scrutinized. Kilopi (talk) 20:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with blank summaries is that too many non-vandals use them (i.e. your last edit). Ryan Vesey 20:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries should be mandatory and they should also be required to serve the purposes of edit summaries. Bus stop (talk) 20:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - For users who actually write long articles instead of just watching them, it is very annoying to have to give an edit summary every time you make a small edit. Would suck the joy out of it. Mandatory edit summaries would hardly prevent vandalism. The vandals would just make false edit summaries, which they do already.[1] Thus, every edit would have to be checked anyway, and nothing would be gained. A much better way to prevent vandalism would be mandatory registration, or make registered users have to approve IP edits before shown, since practically all vandals are IPs, while registered vandals are simply banned. FunkMonk (talk) 20:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The OP never said he'd like making edit summaries mandatory in order to prevent vandalism. In fact the OP never said anything about vandalism. To him requiring edit summaries is just in order to help people who are watching a large number of pages for whatever raison. One can be watching a page for all kinds of reason. How was the discussion distracted into discussing what would or wouldn't deter vandals? Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 06:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries should be required to be good faith edit summaries. A few words of edit summary could satisfy this requirement. Occasional forgetfulness could be overlooked. Bus stop (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See above. Vandals are not stupid. Sometimes they just write "corrected typo" or some such, while actually adding malicious content. So again, absolutely nothing would be gained from making edit summaries mandatory. Nothing other than adding a nuisance for those of us who actually write articles. FunkMonk (talk) 21:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries serve a variety of purposes. Their use cuts across this project from article space to talk page spaces to many other parts of the project. A general policy should be in place requiring good use of edit summaries. I think constructive edit summaries should be a requirement for participation in this project whether one's account is "registered" or not. Bus stop (talk) 21:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're still ignoring the point. Vandals can make edit summaries that appear "good". They already do, as shown above. So I repeat, absolutely nothing would be gained, and false edit summaries would just become the norm for vandals, instead of blank ones. FunkMonk (talk) 21:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism is only one concern. Bus stop (talk) 21:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not for the majority of contributors here it seems. And it would be the only strong argument for mandatory summaries, which, again, has been shown to be weak after further inspection. IP edits approved by registered users is the way to go, and has already been implemented in some articles. It should be applied to all. FunkMonk (talk) 21:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Wouldn't really change anything; vandals would add fake summaries. Might also make it a bit harder for new users to contribute; if they don't see/forget the edit summary and click save; they'll end up with the edit form again. I'm guessing that most people won't have any problems with this and will see the message above the edit summary input field, but it might be an issue for some (this has actually been a problem for a few users coming to #wikipedia-en-help). If you are having problems checking up on every edit to the articles in your watchlist, a better solution might be to reduce the number of articles you follow instead. Bjelleklang - talk 21:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are many reasons for requiring edit summaries. Accountability is primary, in my opinion. It is not sufficient to simply make an edit; one should also be required to justify and explain the reason for that edit as well as identify it in the scheme of edits. Bus stop (talk) 21:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I have to explain every time I correct a minor typo, move an image, move text, move word order, or whatever, which I might do dozens of times within an hour when writing an article, I'd rather not waste my time, and not write the damn article. Usually, one can trust that a registered user is not doing vandalism. Therefore, the problem is mainly the IPs. FunkMonk (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"one should also be required to justify and explain the reason for that edit" Um, I dunno about you, but I've got better things to do with my time. I usually just say "tweaking" or "formatting" and leave it at that. Yes, it'd be NICE if the edit summary is descriptive (mine for this comment isn't, just because), but it's a waste of time to try to regulate their use with policy. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Tweaking" is fine. "Formatting" is fine. These are good faith edit summaries. Everybody has their own style of explaining what they are doing. I think leaving the field blank should not be permitted. It is not hard to type some sort of short explanation that sheds light, for other editors, on the purpose of the change you have made. Vandals can be very resourceful. No one has suggested that making edit summaries mandatory eliminates vandalism. I think there are many purposes edit summaries can serve in many settings. A focus should be placed on the role edit summaries play in the daily operation of the project. We are each ultimately accountable for ourselves. Our edit summary should be a counterpart to a good faith contribution to the project. Bus stop (talk) 00:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then I, and probably others, would cease to write long articles here. Long articles require tremendous amounts of "tweaking", so in a given article expansion I will write it once for every ten edits perhaps, and then the next ten edits will be blank, because they are also "tweaking". FunkMonk (talk) 01:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk why don't you "Preview" your tweaks (instead of saving every time) and when you're happy with your tweaking, then save and provide that edit summary. Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 06:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There could be created software which would insert the same edit summary repeatedly. But a pause should be inserted into the automated process at which you would be asked if you wished to use the stored edit summary. You would have to choose to use the stored edit summary or write a different edit summary. Bus stop (talk) 03:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I actually sympathize with the need to "tweak". I too write in a "to and fro"[2] manner that I don't fully understand. Therefore the automated edit summary mentioned above appeals to me. Bus stop (talk) 03:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Preview" won't stop the "tweaking." I do preview my articles and it never ceases to amaze me how often I don't see the error in the preview but do see it as soon as I've published it. Perhaps it's something about the preview itself that fools my eyes.--Bejjinks (talk) 23:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This question is answered at Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Automatically_prompt_for_missing_edit_summary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think strongly recommending summaries for article edits is as far as we should go with this. Although I would like it to be mandatory to link to the applicable policies/guidelines when we revert article edits. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 23:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That could lead to an increase in incorrect labelling of edits as "vandalism". Peter James (talk) 00:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - No it wouldn't. What it would do is tell hapless newbies (a) that we have policies and guidelines, (b) which one they've broken and (c) what they can do (if anything) to improve their edit. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sometimes it's obvious why an edit should be reverted but less obvious whether there is a policy that applies - and even where there is we shouldn't expect editors to have read all of the policies. Peter James (talk) 00:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ah. True. Strongly recommended, then. Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose If I have to make 20 identical minor edits, say adding a category all of the selected picture pages in a portal, I don't want to have to give edit summaries. Yeah, it's not a big deal when it's 20, but when it becomes 140, then it becomes painful. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer doing these using AWB. Which does require an es. -DePiep (talk) 09:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What's with all of the opposes? This is VPM, no decisions are being made here. Ryan Vesey 00:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose because I oppose. FunkMonk (talk) 01:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are opposing Azylber's suggestion that "edit summaries should be mandatory." :) (Which is sort-of silly for minor stuff) --Super Goku V (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all: I don't think it is a good idea to have even hundreds of pages on one's watchlist, let alone thousands.

As to making edit summaries mandatory or not, there are halfway solutions. For instance: Make edit summaries mandatories except in the case of minor changes (in that case that would be more effective if the software could detect what could, in no case, be called a minor edit). Some Wikis (I seem to remember the Japanese one, the Italian one, etc.) force you, if you want to save an edit without an edit summary, to enter the characters from one of those "spam filters" (what are they called?) which show moving modifying characters in ways that can't be handled by spam software (you know what I mean, but what are they called?). Also it is possible to always prompt you if you've entered a blank edit summary (with a more visible message, incidentally) but let you do it eventually it you insist. For the moment that is an option in your preferences Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing. Sven Manguard's point is of course well taken. But such special cases as he describes could be handled differently. More generally the requirement could be tailored to the type of file and type of action. Finally I'd like to know what the OP thinks is the reason for people entering blank edit summaries? Laziness? Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 05:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I remember. They're called CAPTCHAs. Damn it. I never remember those names and nobody wants to help me. So I was saying: some Wikis force on you a CAPTCHA if you try to save without an edit summary. Whew. Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 10:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Afaik, CAPTCHAs are used globally for anon edits, not for logged in users. Just tried editing on jp.wikipedia.org, and there was no CAPTCHA despite having no edit summary. The goal of Wikipedia is to have a source for knowledge it's as easy to contribute to. The community can of course define what "easy" means, but requiring edit summaries (which doesn't help against vandalism) or CAPTCHAS for edits without edit summaries is a step in the wrong direction in my opinion. Bjelleklang - talk 12:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I was a lad, I enabled the force edit summary option which I got around by leaving space bar or punctuation as edit summaries. I'm sure watchlisters were just thrilled. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 05:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you can get around something is not a good reason not to make it mandatory. Some people take those things seriously. No one is suggesting that overnight every one will consciously start providing informative edit summaries. But making it mandatory will certainly increase (by how much?) the number of people attempting to do so. Actually the fact that it is so easy to get around the requirement means that people who claim it would make their editing life into a living hell just don't have a leg to stand on. In fact if they dislike so much they could do what you did "when that [you were] and a little tiny [lad], with hey, ho, the wind and the rain"... Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 06:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I've just thought of another halfway measure: requiring an edit summary every say 5, or 10, or 20 "Saves" by the same editor in the same file. That would at least get rid of those long series of unsummarized edits. At least once every 5, or 10, or 20 edits you would get something descriptive. Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 06:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To all those who think providing edit summaries is just an unbearable chore: I used to be very bad. But little by little (after I enabled prompting in my preferences, which made not providing an edit summary more of a pain in the backside than providing one and be done), it became second nature; now I do it mostly without thinking (come on you, you know what I mean!); when I really can't think of anything descriptive I try to write something funny. At least those watchlisters will be having a laugh while watching those old files. :-) Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 06:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a script or option somewhere that you can enable to force edit summaries. It's great for prospective RfA candidates, and it really kicks the habit of lazily omitting edit summaries. However, it can also result in esoteric, unintelligible and nonsense edit summaries. If you just need to quickly fix a small error, it unnecessarily stalls the process and discourages quick, minor edits. And, contrary to what is suggested above, vandals virtually never leave misleading edit summaries. Forcing them to put a summary would invite edit summary vandalism and/or misleading edit summaries, both of which would negatively affect the project. In a nutshell, it's just not a very efficient system. Swarm ^X 06:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on what kind of articles they vandalise. Those who vandalise science related articles are usually smarter than those who vandalise pop culture articles. Therefore, I've often seen many false edit summaries on the former. FunkMonk (talk) 16:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm horrible about this. What about not requiring them if you tick the edit as 'minor'? And not in talk space. — kwami (talk) 08:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Last I checked, unregistered editors can't tick the edit as 'minor' in the first place. But they can put in garbage, either by mashing the keyboard or by putting in the opposite of what they actually did (I wonder how long it would take before "Rm spam" would become a popular edit summary with serious spammers?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Please see also the recent discussion at the policy pump, Behavioral guideline for minor edits (now archived). — Hex (❝?!❞) 18:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are only so many ways to state that an edit is fixing a typo or grammar wart without risking being nasty to the editor who introduced it (eg, "I rite good" as an edit summary is unacceptable unless fixing your own mistake), and even playful summaries like "fixd tyop" get old fast. If I have to spend more than 30 seconds putting in an edit summary (by typing, selecting, approving an automated suggestion, or whatever), that's one typo I likely won't fix, because I have the attention span of a golfdish. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 13:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are edit summaries a good idea? Of course they are, in almost every single case. However, some people don't want to do them. What is being asked here is that those who don't wish to do them be forced to do so for the convenience of others. That's not ok. Clicking a link to view a diff is even less trouble than writing an edit summary. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

small problem in several articles

I've noticed this problem in several articles which is why I'm posting here instead of on each articles talk page. Where the article lists the area of a region in square kilometers, the number is often listed with the comma changed to a decimal so that a number like 109,467 becomes 109.467. This further becomes a problem because when the square kilometers is converted into square miles, the smaller, inaccurate number is used in the calculation.

The worst case I've seen of this is in the article for the Victoria Daly region in the Northern Territory of Australia. The region is 64,972 square miles in area but the article lists it as 65 square miles because of the decimal error.

I could fix this myself in some of the articles but I've seen this in so many articles that it would be good to have a bot that double checks these numbers and makes sure the decimal is supposed to be a decimal instead of a comma. --Bejjinks (talk) 23:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One issue may be that there are many places where the Decimal mark is a comma instead of a period. Chris857 (talk) 18:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a "low-hanging fruit" approach, I'd like to suggest taking the opposite tack. I.e. flagging pages where: (1) there is a comma followed by a number of digits other than three (ex.: 35,21), (2) there are numbers with multiple periods (ex.: 3.456.789), or (3) there are numbers that have a period followed by a solitary comma (ex.: 3.542,21). That approach wouldn't catch everything, but you'd have a much lower false positive rate. Praemonitus (talk) 19:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

wrong info on candyman 1991 movie page

someone put wrong information on the candy man page, things such as actors who were not in the film, and the film being a comedy have been added to the page. its not a big deal but its a good movie, and people should be able to get correct info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.111.222.140 (talk) 00:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Vandalism by Special:Contributions/128.205.167.236 was reverted. Peter James (talk) 23:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alternapedia

I have noticed WP information quoted elsewhere, but during a recent Google search I found an entire web site (Alternapedia) which mirrors all of WP except for those articles that it has written from their POV, which is alternative medical treatment. In order to edit Alternapedia, one has to join and provide credentials as an expert. (?)

I suppose this is the Catch-22 of public domain, anyone can use anything edited by volunteers here for their own purpose: a complete, alternate encyclopedia? (The unaltered WP articles are clearly marked.)

Wikipedia content is not in public domain. It is distributed under the CC-by-sa license. Ruslik_Zero 19:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So Alternapedia is a derivative work, which is ok as long as they have the same licensing; but it also means they get to have the appearance of a complete encyclopedia with an overlay of their content that is not NPOV, but represents their minority opinions with regard to alternative medicine. There is nothing preventing religious fundamentalists or others who do not believe in NPOV from doing the same?

FigureArtist (talk) 23:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We who create Wikipedia give people permission to do a lot of stuff with our work, and we really don't impose all that many conditions. From WP:CC-BY-SA, the human-readable summary includes: "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work.)", and the License itself includes, "to create and Reproduce Adaptations provided that any such Adaptation, including any translation in any medium, takes reasonable steps to clearly label, demarcate or otherwise identify that changes were made to the original Work." I'm not actually going to check Alternapedia; does it run afoul of any of these conditions? Ntsimp (talk) 23:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:MIRROR. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Query: Spacing in contractions, esp Italian

My question has to do with the fairly stylized language of operas from the early 20th C and earlier, rather than either formal or colloquial speech or writing:

It seems clear that you never space following the apostrophe where the contracted word is an article, such as with L'elisir d'amore, or in other situations where a word might be frequently contracted, such as, just for example, "Dov'è Angelotti?" or "Mario, consenti ch'io parli?". But then you sometimes get things that it's impossible to tell from the typography, but they look strange when they're not spaced, such as "Ho una casa nell' Honan" or "Nient' altro che denaro", "Quando me 'n vo soletta", "Sa dirmi, scusi, qual' è l'osteria?" etc. Are there rules for this?

Thanks for any advice. Milkunderwood (talk) 06:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Qual'è" is always a mistake, with or without space. It's truncation, not elision, so no apostrophe is required.

As for your other examples, I've never seen them written with a space, just Google these: "nell'antica Roma", "nient'altro" and "me'n vo".

It's an interesting question though, I don't know if there is a general rule about spacing. Articles and prepositions ("l'uomo", "d'acqua", "un'attrice") don't need a space, but "un po' di vino" and "a mo' di" do need it. Uhm... 220.246.155.114 (talk) 11:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Uhm", indeed. Thanks very much for your thoughtful examples. I'm not sure I followed the reasoning for "qualè", though - that looks awfully strange. Milkunderwood (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrew, Arabic in intros

When I try to fix an article's intro (per WP:DATE) from Born in Year; Died in Year to Year–Year (for example), the editing process goes beserk, when a hebrew or arabic translation is invovled. Why is this? GoodDay (talk) 18:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you're saying. What article were you trying to fix? Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 21:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yehoshua Hankin. -- GoodDay (talk) 21:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrew is a right-to-left script. When you edit near any Hebrew characters, the inserted characters can be misplaced. In this case, when you try to delete born the 1864 jumps inside the {{lang-he}} template. I am going to try something. --— Gadget850 (Ed)^talk 21:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It sure is odd & annoying, when it occurs. GoodDay (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fiddled with it, but I have a RLI for now. --— Gadget850 (Ed)^talk 23:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrew troubles

I've got my own troubles with Hebrew but I don't know where I can ask these questions as they involve the Hebrew wiki also. Is this the place for pan-Wiki help? Based on the code of my user and talk pages I tried to produce Hebrew versions here and here. To begin with, when I pasted into the right to left Hebrew editor on the Hebrew Wikipedia text copied in my English files it messed up the whole file. The code looks now like goat vomit. Anyway, the source is not pretty but it sort of works at the result end. But then when I try to modify those files inside the Hebrew editor, changing tags and so on, everything goes crazy, tags jump all around instead of being inserted where I want them. It's gotta be seen to be believed. Is there anything special about Hebrew HTML? It doesn't look like it's only a matter of inverting the syntax from left to right to right to left (e.g. changing <span...> ... </span> into </span> ... <span...> and stuff like that). There seems to be some more involved. What's going on? Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 21:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well... The WP:Help desk provides technical support. Meta:Wikimedia Forum is a good place to ask about issues that affect multiple wikis. he:ויקיפדיה:כיכר_העיר seems to be the equivalent of the village pump at the Hebrew Wikipedia. Perhaps one of those would be useful to you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or WP:VPT, specifically? Biosthmors (talk) 20:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing? Helping me. For which I am grateful as well as to Biosthmors. I'll try all these routes and also Biosthmors's suggestion once I get to the point where I can forumulate a coherent enough technical question to even post to WP:VPT. In any case you may be certain that there "ain't no mountain high enough, ain't no valley low enough, ain't no river ~~deep~~ wide enough, to keep me from" becoming an absolutely ambidextrous HTML programmer. Cheers Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 12:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Over 9000 Pages with Potential Typos

http://pastebin.com/EQxh2dJi Enjoy.

Also, does anybody know what happened to the TypoScan project? 930913(Congratulate) 23:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only one in almost 500 articles contains suspected typos? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No joke. If that's all, we're doing MUCH better than I'd have thought. --Jayron32 01:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the topic, Spanish Wikipedia has a typo checker. It highlights things that might be a typo on pages and if you hover over them it suggests the proper spelling. I think it's a javascript tool. Ryan Vesey 01:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't comprehensive. I'd estimate it scanned ~10% before AWB packed up. 930913(Congratulate) 02:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still, one in 50's an incredible result. - TB (talk) 09:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Media needing categories on Commons

Due to a number of huge batch uploads, the number of uncategorized images on Wikimedia Commons has exploded in the past month. If you want to help categorize images, your effort is appreciated. You find the uncategorized images at All media needing categories as of 2013 and help with categorizing at Commons:Categories --Jonund (talk) 18:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Linkspam?

Hallo, I am not familiar with the policies here and need some help. Is this Linkspam? And what to do? Thanks for the help. --PigeonIP (talk) 19:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

user began as IP 91.219.220.161: the beginning --PigeonIP (talk) 19:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Thank you, PigeonIP (talk) 14:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata deployment phase 1

Hey :)

As already announced in the Signpost we currently plan to deploy the first phase of Wikidata here on Monday. (We're still waiting for a performance review so worst case we'll have to push the date back some more.) We've already deployed the first phase on the Hungarian, Hebrew and Italian Wikipedias and things there went rather smoothly. We hope this is the case here too.

What is going to happen exactly?

Language links in the sidebar will come from Wikidata if they exist there.
Existing language links in the wiki text will continue to work and overwrite links from Wikidata.
For individual articles language links from Wikidata can be supressed completely with the noexternallanglinks magic word.
Changes on Wikidata that relate to articles on this Wikipedia will show up in Recent Changes if the option is enabled by the user
At the bottom of the language links list you will see a link to edit the language links that leads you to the corresponding page on Wikidata.
You can see an example of how it works at it:Marie Curie.
The second phase of Wikidata (which is about Infoboxes was started on Wikidata but can't yet be used on any Wikipedia. This will follow later.

Please let me know if you have any questions. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 11:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How might Wikidata have an impact on articles say, within the scope of WP:MED, for example? Biosthmors (talk) 20:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to imagine how I might use it, in other words. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 20:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first phase should not have much of an impact on those. If you want you can start removing language links from the wiki text but that is mostly it. The result is that you will have less markup in the article since the links come automatically from Wikidata and don't need any special syntax.

Later for phase 2 that is different. When that is done you can decide if you want to continue to maintain your infobox data locally in the article or if you want to move some or all of the data to Wikidata. You can decide this for each article and infobox. You can imagine the whole thing like the decision to host an image locally or on Commons - just for data like the GDP of a country and so on. Phase 2 has only just started at the beginning of this week on Wikidata and will still take a bit to show up on the first Wikipedias. It is probably a good idea though to start thinking about if and how you want to make use of it. You can see some examples of the current state here, here and here. The decision in which articles you'll use this is with the editors and can happen gradually. It's not an automatic process. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lydia, will bots be running starting from Monday to remove interwiki links from the articles? Or is it just our business to organize? (I saw how it was done on hu.wp, but I have no idea about the bots).--Ymblanter (talk) 21:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is up to you locally to decide if you want this and if you want it to get it up and running. We'll not intervene there. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 22:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a bit of a derailed and confusing discussion at Wikipedia:Wikidata interwiki RFC, but the general consensus (in as much is there is any) seems to be that we should not start massive bot runs, at least not in the near future; there's no harm done by leaving interwikis in place for the time being. Likewise, removing them won't do much harm. but there's no urgency. There is a suggestion at the bottom to run a bot for the most-interwikied articles, but it doesn't look like anyone's prepared it (and that would only cover 25k pages). Andrew Gray (talk) 23:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see a bunch of q's followed by numbers and $4's at the examples you pointed to, here, here and here. I'm guessing this is a temporary glitch. Biosthmors (talk) 23:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uhmmm yes hopefully only a temporary glitch. It works fine here. Can you check again? Reload? If it still happens then please let me know. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 23:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fine now, thanks! Biosthmors (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I participated in Wikipedia:Wikidata interwiki RFC, but my reading of it was that it was not sufficiently well prepared, and there was no consensus anyway. On the other hand, as soon as it works, interwiki conflict articles are avoided, and we provide some protection against vandalism on Wikidata, it does not really matter.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have a nagging concern that interwiki links are not equivalence relations, because the scopes and boundaries of the articles in the different language wikis can be really quite different. So suppose we (language A) have an article W, and the nearest equivalent in language B is their article X. Now the nearest equivalent to language B's article X in language C might be their article Y; but the nearest equivalent in language C to our article W might be a different article, article Z.

From what I've heard about Wikidata, it seems to be assuming that there is a definite set of equivalence classes that all the articles in all the languages can be partitioned into, and WD will have one page per class. But what happens when this assumption fails, as above? How does WD propose to deal with such cases? Jheald (talk) 18:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What you describe is known as an interwiki conflict. Currently, Wikidata can not deal with them. We just need to keep the interwiki links for these articles locally, overwriting every Wikidata solution. Fortunately, these articles are only a small minority.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So can you clarify how that works? If there are any interwiki links on an :en page, does that over-rule everything coming from Wikidata? Or at the :en page's links added to those coming from WD ? Or is there something like a template {{get iw links from WD}} that can be switched on and off on the page ?

Just trying to get an idea of how this was all going to be implemented. Jheald (talk) 12:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try to summarize:

* If there is no link in the local wikitext then links will automatically come from Wikidata (assuming someone entered them there of course). No special syntax is needed.

* If there are links in the local wikitext but not on Wikidata then the local ones will be shown.

* If there are links in the wikitext and on Wikidata then they will be merged. For example if the local wikitext has a link to the German language Wikipedia and Wikidata has one to the French language Wikipedia then both will be shown. If there are two links for the same language then the local wikitext will be taken for this particular one.

* Links coming from Wikidata can be turned off completely for a specific article by adding the noexternallanglinks magic word to the wikitext.

For this to work the Wikipedia article here needs to be connected to Wikidata. This happens by adding a link to enwp to the corresponding article (called item there) on Wikidata. This has been done for a lot of articles here already. For those articles a "edit links" link will show up at the bottom of the language link list in the sidebar. If that doesn't show up then the article isn't yet known to Wikidata and needs to be entered in Wikidata. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 13:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's very interesting. Thanks!

One more question: what if an article here gets split? Does one simply manually split the interwikis (if appropriate), so the new :en articles both end up with hand-made interwiki lists? Is a change like that something that will automatically be picked up? Or should the proposed ontology split be somehow flagged to WD ?

Also, if two articles get merged, and it appears that their associated interwiki lists ought also to be merged, what's the correct procedure now with WD?

Sorry to have so many questions, but thanks for answering them!

By the way, is there a guidance page in the :en:wikipedia namespace for all of this? Jheald (talk) 13:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Wikidata will need to be made aware of the split. Later this might happen automagically in some cases but at the moment it does not.

For merging it is a bit trickier. Assuming these two articles previously talked about two separate "things" you might have to resort to local links in the wikitext becaue Wikidata works with the assumption that it has individual pages about particular "things" that correspond to one Wikipedia article. There will obviously be cases where this assumption doesn't hold true. This should fortunately be the minority. It's one of those things that'll have to be worked out when it is actually used.

I don't think there is a guidance page yet. Can you give me an example? Can someone who knows more about them help write something? I'm happy to give a hand but don't know the particular things needed. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 14:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well at the moment we have pages like WP:MERGE, WP:SPLIT, WP:MOVE, Help:Interwiki -- mostly discussing the policy guidance of when things should and should not be done, but also covering the practical implementations. All of those I think probably need to be updated as WikiData comes into play. But probably the place to start is a new page, eg perhaps Help:Wikidata, to act as a FAQ page all in one place, covering all the sort of questions above as to how WikiData links work, and when and how and what ordinary WP editors will from now on need to take WikiData into account.

Having created such a core page, you then have a resource you can link to using templates like {{See}} when you edit the specific existing help pages, that people can go to for further information and an overview as to how WD as a whole interacts with WP, from a WP perspective.

The talkpage of the Wikipedia:Help Project may be a good place to seek further pointers, from the people who actively aiming to improve and better co-ordinate WP's rather baroque jungle of information pages. Jheald (talk) 21:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We unfortunately ran into issues. We'll have to reschedule the deployment. Currently it looks like we'll do this on Wednesday. Sorry folks. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 22:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We'll do another attempt later today (probably around 17:00 UTC). --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 11:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There were unfortunately too many other issues unrelated to Wikidata so we also had to call off this one. Sorry. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 19:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Third time's a charm, right? ;-) We're live now. More details are in this blog post. An FAQ is here. I'm happy to answer questions at Wikipedia:Village_pump (technical). Please also let me know about any issues there. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 21:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a suggestion, but not everyone has been paying attention to this deployment. To help minimize confusion when removing iw links from articles, it would help if there were some documentation that could be linked to in the edit summary. Otherwise it might be mistaken for vandalism. older ≠ wiser 22:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May be we could even shortly run a watchlist notice or smth.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see the discussion that's going on at [[3]]. The plan will be for bots to slowly remove interwikilinks after they have been checked while carrying out other tasks on a page. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 00:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Userbox/User Death Note 3

Would like more eyes on this as I suspect the discussion is being affected by selection bias. Please review the userbox and give your opinions at the MFD. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this a bit of WP:CANVASSING since you are expressing your opinion on the issue in the invitation to participate? ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you can just write my name in your death note so that this grave injustice may be righted. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen the series, and I don't plan to ever watch it. And please keep your snarkiness to yourself. My question above was sincere as I was only pointing out what seemed to be an oversight on your part In how you worded your invitation. Sorry if I stepped on your toes by pointing that out. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 08:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment at physical determinism

To clarify the usage of physical determinism, I have posted a request for comment. Brews ohare (talk) 17:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maring Naga

Hello! I found in this article a section which is completely copied from this page. I did not find the right place to report this kind of offense.

Thanks for your help! --Bigbossfarin (talk) 18:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Copyright violations should help. Best. Biosthmors (talk) 20:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of articles without an assigned Wikiproject?

Does such a list exist? And a list of articles without a talk page yet? Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 20:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody at WP:1.0 might be able to help. They'll at least be able to tell you about the 480K that are tagged but not assessed for quality. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any such list myself, I just tag them as I come across them. It seems like it wouldn't be too hurt to write a bot to find them though, if no one's done that already. Robofish (talk) 17:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Biosthmors, you may be able to get this from a Database report. They can run this once or routinely update it. Just post a note at Wikipedia talk:Database reports and they should be able to help you. Cheers. 64.40.54.47 (talk) 12:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a list of all the tagged articles, leave a note here and someone should get back to you. We used to try and keep track of untagged articles through WP:WVWP, but that was more relevant 5-6 years ago when we had some major subject areas that weren't covered at all. One useful category (not very full!) is Category:Orphans_needing_WikiProjects. If you find any important topics that aren't covered, please let us know at WT:1. Thanks! For the 1.0 project, Walkerma (talk) 06:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WebCite

Wikipedia has a lot of links to WebCite (webcitation.org). I often add such links myself. (There's even a page about using the website.) I'd rate the site as "invaluable". (I also appreciate its lack of advertising, its lack of fancy Javascript that won't work with half the browsers I use, and its general no-nonsense approach.)

WebCite now tells the world:

WebCite will stop accepting new submissions end of 2013, unless we reach our fundraising goals to modernize and expand this service.

They want fifty grand, and at the time I type this they're only 0.946% successful.

Come on, peoples. -- Hoary (talk) 08:50, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if this might qualify for one of the grants from the WFM? It's certainly helping toward the goals of the WFM to have a reliable source archive. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The was a proposal on Meta open today, meta:WebCite, to make WebCite a WMF project. JFYI.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added that discussion to the WP:CENTRAL template in order to get the information out to more people and encourage more to participate. This is a very big issue. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good, thank you. I might add that I hope more people will also cough up some moolah for WebCite, and quickly. This is not incompatible with persuading WMF to offer to take over; indeed, it would help. -- Hoary (talk) 05:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be on Watchlist

This needs to go up as a Watchlist Notice. Our citations are part of our critical infrastructure. They are the basis for valid content and critically important to our readers. Without them, our content is no more valid than any random website on the net. This conversation needs to put on a Watchlist Notice in order to get input from the wider community. Can some knowledgeable Admin please set up a Watchlist Notice? Thanks in advance. 64.40.54.47 (talk) 10:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've never done that, so I wouldn't know where to begin. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make a request at the talk page, but if somebdy wants to just do it...

<ul id="watchlist-message">
{{Display/watchlist
 |until=2013-2-21
 |cookie=142
 |text=Editors are invited to '''[[meta:WebCite|comment]]''' on a proposal to start a new sister project to take over the [[WebCite]] archiving service used to archive citations on Wikipedia.
}}
<!--{{Display/watchlist
 |until=
 |cookie=143
 |text=
}}-->
</ul>
You have '''$1''' {{PLURAL:$1|page|pages}} on your [[Help:Watching pages|watchlist]] (excluding [[Help:Using talk pages|talk pages]]).

See also {{Display/watchlist}} for details. 64.40.54.46 (talk) 13:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of most desired articles?

Do we have a list of the articles that do not exist that get the most hits? I just happened to create #4999 on the WP:5000 (Kevin Gates). It had been one of the most viewed articles, despite not existing. Biosthmors (talk) 22:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's Wikipedia:Most missed articles, but it was last updated in 2008. Peter James (talk) 00:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's also Wikipedia:Most wanted articles, which seems more up to date. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

how did you "verify" Bo Guagua's nationality?

His dad Bo Xilai is a chinese communist criminal, and his mother is a murderer. there is no known report that he has gone back to china. he is most likely still living in the usa. therefore, either he is an illegal immigrant or he has a US passport or something else.

you wikipedia simply can NOT verify his real nationality. and why did you put the un-verified nationality on Bo Guagua?

I changed it from nationality to ethnicity, but your stupid admins called it "vandalism", therefore, it was reverted, and put under protection due to "vandalism".

therefore, I demand you to explain it to me, how you got "confirmed" that he has a chinese passport, but not other foreign countries' passport? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.198.182.185 (talk) 03:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well I didn't read all that but I went ahead and made this edit. Biosthmors (talk) 03:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A passport tells you the person's citizenship, not his nationality. They are technically separate things, although most people don't know that (especially most Americans, because holding American citizenship automatically confers American nationality, although it does not automatically revoke either citizenship or nationality from other countries, so most Americans have no need to know anything about the technicalities). It is entirely possible for a person born to Chinese parents to still be a Chinese national even if he has passports from and citizenship in a dozen other countries. See Nationality for more information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where to publish quantitative research on Wikipedia articles?

I've been analyzing the presence and consistency of certain types of metadata on Wikipedia pages. I think Wikipedians would find it useful (especially the list of internally inconsistent pages). Any suggestions where I could publish/post this work? I can't make it to Wikimania. Espertus (talk) 21:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I think I've found the answer to my question: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter Espertus (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the verge of quitting

How do we handle those on the verge of leaving wikipedia? Ive been heee for a certain ammount of years and attempted my very best to improve wikipedia, but wikipedia isnt good to me in the sense that there is always one or two editors blocking my progress and never a group to give a good answer or any attention at all.

Similar to gaming the system, i find constant ammount of editors game the system/discussion by treating wikipedia as a vote count and as much wikipedia attempts to deny this, it still leans with vote over reason. So editors game the system by posting once and once asked for elaboration, they ignore it knowing fullwell its their advantage in a discussion.

And attempting to draw more editors gets me. And thats the sad thing, these editors care more about winning the discussion rather than helping the other editor with reasoning. Im exhausted and i know wikibreaks wont help me here. I think we should find a way so that multiple editors cant game the system and for wikipedia to also make sure reason triumphs over vote. SORRY if this is at the wrong place, but im tired and dont know where else to propose and get taken seriously.Lucia Black (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll mention this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention, which I think is the perfect place. Thanks for posting. Sorry for your troubles here. Biosthmors (talk) 22:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you've reached that point Lucia, I'd just walk away. Ego battles just aren't worth the bother and it's just better for you to work on something that you're happy doing. If you still want to work on Wikipedia, you should give yourself some "rules of engagement" and be willing to abandon work that people are sabotaging, for whatever reason. Praemonitus (talk) 00:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with you, Lucia. Wikipedia s u c k s because most of the people here today treat it as a game to be won. Back in its heyday, this place was great—but that was many years ago. The only solution I've found is to work in areas that few people traffic. If you get articles from WP:DUSTY, most people will let you work in peace. 64.40.54.40 (talk) 16:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Praemonitus (talk) 04:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See meatball:GoodBye. There is a life cycle to editing. If it's time for you to leave, then you best course of action is to just quietly leave.

I have at a couple of points considered leaving because serious problems (usually at minor articles) were not being addressed. My response has been to recognize how bad that was for me, and to make a special effort to help other people in similar situations. It means that I spend less time dealing with "my"goals, but I like to think that someone else's day was improved as a result. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"but I like to think that someone else's day was improved as a result." I can say, without fear of contradiction, that you have succeeded wonderfully in that, WAID. As our resident expert on policy, you have helped thousand of people understand how Wikipedia works and your efforts have been a great help to the project. I have seen many times that others have made life difficult for you, and I thank you kindly for hanging in there. Your help with the project has been of immense value and I am glad you are part of our community, WAID. Best regards. 64.40.54.22 (talk) 05:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

total time spent on wikipedia, by everyone combined

In this wired interview from May 2010 Clay Shirky says "All the articles, edits, and arguments about articles and edits represent around 100 million hours of human labor. That’s a lot of time. But remember: Americans watch about 200 billion hours of TV every year.". Anyone know how he did that calculation? How many articles were there in early 2010? With 4M today the 100M figure sounds really low to me, 25 hours per article? I guess there are a ton of stubs, but is that enough to make up for the vast number of hours put into GA and FA articles? Plus is he really considering how long it takes to chase down some references, that could be looong time for what ends up being a tiny edit? Any thoughts?

I think even if he is off by a factor of 10, so it's 1B hours, that's still tiny compared to TV, which I think was his point. But I'm just wondering if he exaggerated his point by low-balling the number of hours people have put into Wikipedia. Silas Ropac (talk) 00:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shirky's calculation actually dates to 2008, and he doesn't seem to have explained the methodology beyond saying "I worked this out with Martin Wattenberg at IBM; it's a back-of-the-envelope calculation, but it's the right order of magnitude, about 100 million hours of thought" [4]. We might have a more up-to-date and slightly more well-founded (but still rough) estimate shortly based on the soon to be published results from the 2012 editor survey. Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 00:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Email this user" edit notice

A discussion has started at Wikipedia talk:Emailing users about user customized edit notices when using the "Email this user" functionality. Please feel free to discuss and provide feedback. Hasteur (talk) 20:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declaration of possible conflict of interest

I have just accepted a contractual position with the Wikimedia Foundation, and posted a full disclosure with details and an invitation for community comments here. — Coren ^(talk) 21:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for hire

This was reported to us via OTRS. I'm sure it's not uncommon, but anyone doing page curation or patrol might want to be on the lookout for these titles - assuming the content turns out to be unwanted, of course. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of discussion on Gibraltar-related Did You Know articles

I am proposing that the temporary restrictions on Gibraltar-related Did You Know? articles, which were imposed in September 2012, should be lifted and have set out a case for doing so at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Gibraltar-related DYKs. If you have a view on this, please comment at that page. Prioryman (talk) 21:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes in refs

In cleaning up an article that has an excessive amount of quoted text in its references, I have begun to remove a few of those quotes, with the eventual goal of getting rid of as many as I can. What I would like to know is if what I am doing is appropriate, and how and when it is a good idea to use quotes of the source in references. I have seen reference quotes challenged in FACs before, so I assumed there was some unwritten rule that they are not necessary, and that citing the source alone is enough to verify the information. Does anyone have any input on this? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]