Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

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

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, 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

Incest in movie

At the entrance of the movie "Terms of Endearment" omitted mention the incestuous relationship of the protagonists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.255.116.64 (talk) 08:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

If you have a suggestion for improving Wikipedia's article about Terms of Endearment, please post it at Talk:Terms of Endearment. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Or the respective Wikiprojects. --NaBUru38 (talk) 21:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia as a battleground for academics

There are now web services that track the number of times papers are cited in Wikipedia. They use this as a way to estimate the impact factor of a paper. Authors can get updates in near-real time on who added (or removed) their paper from a particular article; and apparently this technology is largely being facilitated by the WMF [1]. Am I wrong in thinking that this is a terrible idea, and one that actively encourages COI editing? Can we somehow encourage the WMF to quit encouraging people to see Wikipedia cites and links as a commodity? Add a few more things to WP:NOT? Geogene (talk) 00:47, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Outside services seeing how often sources are used, be they scholarly or not, can be useful. Academics may want to analyse the use of sources across articles and languages to look for trends and biases, for example. This analysis of sources relies on URLs, DOIs, or citation templates and there is no way to block that, nor should we want to. We already have WP:REFSPAM in place to discourage COI citations. Fences&Windows 01:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

This tool is not for looking for trends and biases, but to rank different papers (in part) by the number of times they are cited in Wikipedia, to keep the authors aware of how Wikipedia uses their papers and in which articles, and to notify them if their source is removed. What is the likely outcome of this? Geogene (talk) 02:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

1. We can't control how outside tools use our site; and we can't change our policies to deal with them, when our primary purpose is to create an encyclopedia.
2. If some academic wants to be sure that his/her article will gain popularity, it would certainly make sense for him/her to publish it in a journal which one of the top web sites uses as a source; whether or not this will actually gain him/her any popularity is unknown to him/her.
3. I believe that many academics may want to have some idea of which issues we tend to refer to and which ones we tend not to; amd to see that his/her wrk isn't misunderstood or abused.

עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Dear Geogene, Wikipedia is i=mmensely popular and already prone to conflict of interests.

"Can we somehow encourage the WMF to quit encouraging people to see Wikipedia cites and links as a commodity?" I'm afraid we can't make academics to think how to perceive Wikipedia. --NaBUru38 (talk) 22:09, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

What is truth

Hello friends. i am a Wikipedia Writer in Persian Wikipedia and my English is not good do you think for article of Persian-speaking peoples, is name truth in English paragraph because Peoples is more peoples or just should be people? be people is multiplication. do you think what name is more correct to use?

• Persian Speakers People
• People of Persian Speaker
• Persian Speakers
  • __ Thanks.  Qian Nivan  Talking        20:19, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

@Qian.Nivan:

First, if you have questions on correct use of the English language I suggest you might want to try asking at English Language Learners StackExchange. That website is not part of Wikipedia but they are much better at answering questions about using English.

Second, English Wikipedia has many rules. I do not speak Farsi, but by using Google Translate I see that Persian Wikipedia has many of the same rules. We think those rules are very important. In all honesty the article you are trying to create does not meet many of those rules, and much of what you are trying to say is already said in the Persian language article. It is only a matter of time before someone will tag your article for deletion because of those rules. I suggest you read the rules carefully and then try and make the Persian language article better instead of trying to start a new one on the same topic. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 09:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@Koala Tea Of Mercy: What? Qian isn't creating any article, he's just asking about the grammatical intricacies of a title of an existing one (which is admittedly pretty shitty but has lasted since 2007 as a quasi-disambig page). As far as the title of the article, it's gramatically correct - "peoples" here is the plural of "people", which indicates a singular group of individuals with a similar characteristic (speaking a Persian language) - hence it is a group of groups of people. ansh666 04:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@Qian.Nivan: Dear Qian, you could ask this question in the Persian Wikipedia, on the page گوناگون; where so many Wikipedians whose English is almost perfect and some of them can read and speak the language near native . I agree with the suggestion by Ansh666. As Ansh declared above, Quian is not trying to create any articles, and he just asked about an English grammatical fact on people and its probable plural form. Again, as Ansh expressed, peoples could be plural form of the word. Accordingly, the plural form people is correct and there is no grammatical problem with it. Anyway, thank you. Hamid Hassani (talk) 16:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

It is also of interest to note that the English idiomatic usage when dealing with multiple nations or groups speaking a common language is borne out by the notable A History of the English-Speaking Peoples by Sir Winston S. Churchill. Collect (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment: Lead sentence for train or railway stations

In what way should the lead sentence of articles dealing with railway stations or train stations be fashioned? See discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Request for comment: Identification of train or railway stations in the lead. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:List of Monuments in Nepal

What's the policy on non-AfC article-like pages in the Wikipedia: namespace? The page linked in the section header and its subpages (e.g. Wikipedia:List of Monuments in Mechi Zone, [[]]) were created in WP: space, there don't seem to be articles with the same title/topic in mainspace, and they come complete with their own template. However, they seem to be a walled garden (other than the main page) with probably negligible views. They're also completely unsourced - they wouldn't survive in article space. What should we do with them? ansh666 04:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

You might be able to apply WP:G6 directly, as "deleting pages unambiguously created in error or in the incorrect namespace"; if not, I would move it to Draft: space, and if there are no inward links to the old name, mark the new redir with {{db-error}} --Redrose64 (talk) 19:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

This is indeed strange. There are too many related pages out there and they have not been filed as subpages. Prima facie, it doesn't look like they were written for the mainspace. These appear to be lists created to facilitate creation of articles on the monuments. It's okay to keep them in projectspace, but they must be stored as subpages. It's worth noting that three of these pages, List of monuments in Rapti Zone, List of Monuments in Sagarmatha Zone, List of Monuments in Seti Zone were erroneously moved into the mainspace by User:DexDor. 103.6.159.75 (talk) 19:07, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

And then we have Draft:List of Monuments in Mahottari, Nepal - erroneously moved to the draftspace by User:Tokyogirl79.103.6.159.75 (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

• I moved that article to the draftspace because it wasn't finished. When I came across the article it looked like this and was clearly unfinished. The deletion rationale wasn't really accurate, but then the article really wasn't finished and they could've gone back with another template or taken it to one of the more formal deletion outlets. Since the article creator (बिप्लब आनन्द) was fairly new I chalked it up to a newbie mistake and moved it to the draftspace so they could continue working on it, and then left a message about this on their talk page. I could've gone into a bit more depth, but I just figured that this was a case of them trying to make a draft or a live article and making a mistake - something that happens quite a lot with new users, especially if they speak English as a second language. I really think that these were meant to be articles and the user just misunderstood the article creation process and some of the standards for articles. I just moved it as a sign of good faith that he'd improve the articles and submit it to the proper places. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Um, I'd say no. See Special:PrefixIndex/WP:List of Monuments in to see the full list of pages. They are clearly intended as project pages created to facilitate creation of articles on the individual monuments. @Tokyogirl79: Could you please revert those moves - the one by you and three by DexDor, as the lists are clearly unsuitable for mainspace? (The list entries themselves are lists, that too in Wikipedia space, as such blatantly failing inclusion guidelines for lists in mainspace.) 103.6.159.92 (talk) 09:55, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

• I'll move them, however I will say in my defense that I had no prior knowledge of this list and had only seen that a new user had created an article. His argument against deletion also gave off the strong impression that he was creating an article in the userspace per his comment here, nor was I given a reason to suspect otherwise until today. My point is that workspace articles really, really need to be marked with tags like {{Workpage}} to clearly designate them as a work page otherwise stuff like this can easily happen - articles can be erroneously moved, deleted, or seen as random information. Admins see a lot and I stress a lot of incomplete articles in the wrong areas, so it's easy to see where myself and others could assume that the articles were misplaced article creations or articles in progress. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Sources in lead

Recently I, by myself, wrote my first GA and got it promoted. It's always been my understanding that unless an article is about a very controversial topic, it shouldn't have sources in the lead; the information in the lead should simply be a summary of the rest of the article, and the information should be sourced in the body, not the lead. This article is about a noncontroversial subject who has been dead for 15 years. Today there was a post on the talk page of the article questioning why there are no sources in the lead. I thought maybe it was a new user, but then I looked at their contribs I saw that their account is a over a year old and they are reviewing GAs. I pinged them at the article talk and sent them to the WP:Lead page. I'm just sort of wondering how people who don't seem to understand policy can be reviewing GAs, and if anybody else has seen this. I'm confused... 😕 White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 00:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

You've been trolled, WAF, everything in the lead is sourced in the article, I checked that carefully. See WP:LEAD. That reviewer just had two of their GA reviews pulled from the wikicup too... they are after points and at the moment they have zero...why they are trolling an article that has already passed GAN is beyond me, but they are on their way to a block at the rate they are going... Montanabw^(talk) 06:40, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Maybe they were trying to get nitpicky in the idea that it made them look better and more serious about reviewing. Or maybe they thought they could get it delisted so I or somebody else WOULDN'T get points (I'm not in the Wikicup anyway). White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 22:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't know how you got "unless an article is about a very controversial topic, it shouldn't have sources in the lead" from the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section guideline. In particular, that is definitely not the lesson that the WP:LEADCITE subsection wants you to learn. It makes me wonder if you have read the lead guideline. I haven't looked at the particular article that brought you here but WP:LEADCITE says, "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus" so there is nothing inherently wrong with the editor initiating a discussion on the talk page "questioning why there are no sources in the lead". The argument above that you are using is a clear misinterpretation of the lead guideline and the action of the other editor (as you've presented it) is not against the guideline. Jason Quinn (talk) 13:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

In this case, sources weren't needed in the lead because the subject is dead and is not going to do anything else. What made me post here is that the editor who raised the question was reviewing GAs for Wikicup points and clearly had no understanding of the criteria. They reviewed two articles before somebody noticed how off-the-wall some of their comments were, and both of those articles are now having to be rereviewed by others. That is a major pain for those two nominators, and is probably upsetting as well.

Also, in the horse articles we have a LOT of COI and SPA accounts, and it makes me wonder when somebody shows up and begins questioning things out of nowhere. Especially when an article has just been promoted. There are plenty of stubs out there.

I have read the whole guideline on sources in lead. I was the sole editor of the article I'm referring to, beyond minor copy edits made by a couple of others. The subject is dead and was not controversial during their lifetime. All text in the lead is simply a summary of the sourced content in the rest of the article. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 22:08, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

The guideline does not imply "sources [aren't] needed in the lead because the subject is dead" or anything like it. You are phrasing your sentences poorly, probably to fit some preconceived notion of how you think the lead should be. It may very well be that the particular editor was not being helpful and had nefarious intentions. Right now I just want to help you calibrate your interpretation of the lead guideline (and make sure that anybody reading this doesn't walk away with the wrong notion of that guideline). You are correct that if the things cited in the lead were sourced later in the article, then there may be no need to cite them in the lead (unless they are controversial, in which case they must be sourced). The guideline suggests to "balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers". The guideline does not forbid sources in the lead, even redundant ones and if there's dispute, consensus should be sought. This is all clearly stated in the guideline so by writing things like "there aren't supposed to be sources in the top section" as you've done at the article's talk page clearly shows you are have an incorrect understanding of the lead guideline. Jason Quinn (talk) 12:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much to somebody!

I see a new feature on the article editor - when a section edit is previewed, a preview of references is automatically included!

This eliminates the need to insert a reflist tag for testing; on at least five occasions I've done that and forgotten to remove it before saving the edit.

Never again! Yay!

Many thanks to whichever developer did this.

(NOTE - I do most of my editing in Firefox 2.0.0.20 under Mac OS X 10.3.9. Really. It may seem hard to believe, but it works fine. A few features are missing, but it is entirely usable. I applaud the Wiki developer team for maintaining backwards compatibility, and not cluttering Wiki with clever-dick new "features". Some day there may be a wholly new editing system, and I expect to be left behind, but for the moment I can still be useful. When that day comes, I will upgrade if I can, but I'll probably stick with what I've got till then.)

Rich Rostrom (Talk) 19:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

That would be User talk:PiRSquared17 with some help from a couple others. You can leave your comment at his talk page. --Izno (talk) 20:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Temporary undeletion of Template:Strloc prefix

Can someone undelete that template for a while? I can't import it on The Multilingual Encyclopedia because I can't view them. --stranger195 (talk • contribs • guestbook) 06:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Maybe best to ask on WP:AN, if you don't get an answer here. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done Processed at AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

How best to avoid argumentative editors/make the discussion more productive

Hello everyone,

I'm pretty new around here (as an editor at least!). I've had a bit of a crash course on Wikipedia guidelines regarding things like COI due to mistakenly editing a page for which I had a COI (now disclosed). Anyway this lead to me suggested another user discloses their COI and this spiralled into a massive argument that's lead to the user threatening to report me for harassment (I don't want to name names here I've already requested a Third opinion to help resolve the problem). I would like to apologise to the user for the perceived harassment but I'm worried that doing so will (in his eyes) count as harassment, so in this case what should I do? I don't want to be rude, or allow the guy to call me rude when it wasn't my intention. (apologies if this isn't the right place - I'm more looking for general guidance on Wikipedia conduct than anything else)

Cheers,

FraserJamesRobinson (talk) 03:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Importing en.wiki revisions into de.wiki?

Not really sure what the appropriate venue for this question is, but: Does anybody know why history from English Wikipedia articles seem to be imported into German Wikipedia articles? For example, this de.wiki revision seems to show that history from en.wiki's article on Georgia Groome has been imported there, as do some of the preceding edits (example edit from de.wiki and corresponding en.wiki edit). I just don't see the point in doing something like that. CabbagePotato (talk) 07:51, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, actually, it could be the right action. If you plan to translate all article, and you want to "show" source, then you put all revisions from original Wikipedia. That was short answer. Correct answer can be given by some user from (or familiar with) dewiki. But yes, when I first encountered this, I was a little bit surprised, why my colleagues are editing dewiki :) --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 10:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

It's considered a URV (copyright infringement) not to attribute all authors of the article in it. So the history has to be imported to get this right and make sure all authors of the article are properly mentioned in the history. The CC-license, that is used for the projects here, demands naming of the authors, so how could this be solved in anotrher way? Grüße vom Sänger ♫ ^(talk) 11:33, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

They've been doing it for years. Most of my 400+ contribs at German Wikipedia are imports. My last two genuine contributions were 00:05, 16 July 2015 and 20:11, 15 July 2015 - you need to go back more than 100 edits from those, to 22:25, 27 February 2013, before you find the one before those, and I don't think that I've made more than about a dozen genuine edits altogether. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I just realized that enwiki also imports revisions from other Wikipedias (after arriving at Wikipedia:Requests for page importation from Wikipedia:Translation). I think I understand why revisions are imported like that now. Thanks everyone for your help! CabbagePotato (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikimania 2016: call for posters, discussions and trainings

Hi people,
the calls for posters, discussions and trainings for Wikimania 2016 are officially opened, you can find all the relevant links on the conference wiki:

https://wikimania2016.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submissions

The calls will be closed on March 20.

Posters will be reviewed just to make sure that there aren't things which are too much out of scope. Since we have a whole village we will surely find places to attach them, even if we they will be a lot!

Discussions will be managed by a guiding committee who will work on the wiki to meld all the proposals and suggestions.

Trainings will be reviewed by the programme committee. Please note that we request that each training has at least 3-5 interested attendees in order to be put in the programme.

By the beginning of April we will have a first list of all the accepted proposals.

If you have questions we suggest you to ask them on the discussion pages on wiki, so that everyone will be able to see them (and their answers, of course).

We are looking forward to read your ideas! --Yiyi (Dimmi!) 13:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Ferdinand Marcos

Our article on ex-Philippines president Ferdinand Marcos had been relatively stable before 19:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC) but one prolific new editor has now made very many edits that other editors have characterised as 'whitewashing' Marcos' record.

Since this is a presidential election year in the Philippines and the only son of Ferdinand is currently a candidate for high office, it might be considered important that this article not become too unbalanced... BushelCandle (talk) 16:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Help me out on wikilinks & italics & possessives

I've had a wee skim through the MoS, but found no answers ... what's our position on wikilinking where there's a possessive apostrophe involved. Foobar's, or Foobar's?

Reason I ask is I came across this: The Huffington Post's in the article Leavin' (album), which looks particularly typographically crappy, but I guess this is as much to do with the decision to italicise the wikilink but not the possessive. Again, what should we be doing here? Extending the italics to cover the 's? --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

This is regularly debated and consensus is never secured, Tagishsimon. Personally I prefer Foobar's per WP:LINKCLARITY (Wendy's is not the same thing as Wendy's, and it's good that the wikilink makes that distinction). I see no reason to extend the italics either. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Regarding linking of the possessive 's, the most recent discussion about that at WT:Manual of Style/Linking is archived at WT:Manual of Style/Linking/Archive 18#Saxon genitive and piping. (That discussion was after a mass change by bot, so it was partly about whether the mass change should be reverted.) Personally, I prefer the possessive s to be linked just like the plural s, but (as I think is common) not italicised: The Huffington Post's. --Pipetricker (talk) 12:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello

Note that Ranginui Walker died on 29 february accordind to Google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.185.175.84 (talk) 06:45, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Looks like someone changed the date to the 29th, and then someone else reverted it to the 28th. I've started a talk page section to sort it out. Cheers, IagoQnsi (talk) 17:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Edit requests related to election in two weeks

Hi. I've made a couple of edit requests related to the Democratic primary for the 2016 U.S. Senate election in Ohio; specifically, I've made a very small request for the article on the election itself, and two slightly more substantial requests for candidates Ted Strickland and P.G. Sittenfeld. Given that the primary election is just fifteen days away, I think it is fairly important that the articles updated quickly, so that potential voters can get accurate information should they turn to Wikipedia. If someone could review those edit requests, I would really appreciate it. Thanks, IagoQnsi (talk) 17:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

@IagoQnsi: Wikipedia is not a noticeboard for political campaigns. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:44, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

@Redrose64: I'm not trying to use Wikipedia as a noticeboard for political campaigns. I'm simply trying to add relevant information to some political articles. I did my best to write neutral content, and I adhered to the standard of making an edit request since I have a conflict of interest. I'm simply asking if someone could review my requests sooner rather than later, since the edit request backlog tends to get cleared somewhat slowly, and my contributions are time-sensitive. Cheers, IagoQnsi (talk) 21:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Pages about airlines' destinations

Why do people here create separate pages just for the destinations of an airline? Why don't they just list them under the "Destinations" section on the main page of the airline? The way I see it, these pages serve only one purpose: spiking the page count. Cédric ^{wants to abolish "Convention №. 2" like abolishing slavery.} 18:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

@Cedric tsan cantonais: Have you tried asking at WT:AVIATION? --Redrose64 (talk) 23:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

@Cedric tsan cantonais:They recommend creating a standalone article if there are more than 10 destinations. (Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide#Airlines). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality issue

I also posted on Wikipedia:Help desk. Hello everyone, I have no idea on how to deal with it, but the article Waldorf education poses a severe issue of neutrality, particularly with the section Reception, where you would expect some hindsight if any is needed, and which is a laudatory. I can see no trace on criticism of these schools, there is absolutely no mention of sectarism. A nice job has been done by POV-pushers so far. Please take care of it, I can deal with French-speakers, but I can't do much here. There is an overall problem with anthroposophy, with well-coordinated "cleaners". For the peculiar article I cited, I can provide you this secondary source which offers a good starting point. Be brave, English-speakers! Totodu74 (talk) 15:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Could someone take a close lok to what User:Hgilbert is doing on this kind of articles? He is one of the cleaner I mentionned, as you can see here, for example. I hope there is some motivated contributors here, or projects that care about this kind of issues. Thanks, Totodu74 (talk) 16:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

The source you cite above (Jelinek) is already referred to in the article, but-- in line with WP standards on preferring reviews to primary studies-- by citing a review article that summarizes it. This hopefully gives an objective picture of its most important contents. The entirety of the following quote from the article refers to exactly that study.

One study of the science curriculum compared a group of American Waldorf school students to American public school students on three different test variables. Two tests measured verbal and non-verbal logical reasoning and the third was an international TIMMS test. The TIMMS test covered scientific understanding of magnetism. The researchers found that Waldorf school students scored higher than both the public school students and the national average on the TIMMS test while scoring the same as the public school students on the logical reasoning tests. However when the logical reasoning tests measured students' understanding of part-to-whole relations, the Waldorf students also outperformed the public school students. The authors of the study noted the Waldorf students' enthusiasm for science, but viewed the science curriculum as “somewhat old-fashioned and out of date, as well as including some doubtful scientific material.” Educational researchers Phillip and Glenys Woods, who reviewed this study, criticized the authors' implication of an “unresolved conflict”: that it is possible for supposedly inaccurate science to lead to demonstrably better scientific understanding.

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hgilbert (talk • contribs) 16:45, 1 March 2016‎ (UTC)

You are not answering on the absence of any criticism section. This "education" was suspected of sectarism, proselytism, the lack of qualification of the teachers was pointed out, so were the "close" relationships of some teachers with students. The Reception section is presenting this "education" as the perfect one. I am not expecting any answer from you. You cleaned the article just as you did before; you have aready removed the sentences on vaccination previously (and I am not their writer). AGF, kiss my ass :) Totodu74 (talk) 16:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

From WP:Criticism: "separate sections devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like should be avoided in an article". Critiques are woven into the various sections and/or included in a general "Reception" section. Numerous times, editors have demanded more criticism without providing reliable sources not already represented in the article. Find these and add the relevant discussion! Blogs and other web commentary by people with no relevant credentials are not helpful, however. HGilbert (talk) 19:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

As far as the diff above: most of the information you had just added was simply a repetition of the information already included in the article (see above quote) and I merged this into the section that already covered this. I unfortunately did not notice that the new section which you added also included text about vaccination that had previously been in another section. It was not at all my intention to remove this, I have already apologized to you for doing so accidentally on my talk page, and emphasize again that this, being well-cited and well-founded critique, deserves its place in the article. Note that before your edit, that text had already been there for a long time with my approval. HGilbert (talk) 19:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I am not trying to debate on the article here, I just want to let the community know about the Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing ongoing here. Does anyone care? :) Totodu74 (talk) 09:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

The topic of Waldorf education is covered by discretionary sanctions under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education. User:Totodu74, if you think you see actual misbehavior you can ask any administrator how to follow up. But practically speaking, you are unlikely to get changes made to the article unless you can persuade others on the talk page that your new text belongs in the article. If you find yourself having nobody but User:Hgilbert to comment on your changes you can open a WP:Request for comment, use WP:DRN or read the other ideas in WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 19:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

This is a non-issue. Long-standing text was accidentally lost in the course of merging two sections on the same theme. It was an honest mistake and was quickly corrected by Totodu74. I apologized for the mistaken deletion immediately. There is no text under dispute and never was one. It never even required discussion on the talk page and there was absolutely no edit warring or any other reason to cast aspersions. HGilbert (talk) 20:51, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Inspire Campaign: Making our content more meaningful

The second Inspire Campaign has launched to encourage and support new ideas focusing on content review and curation in Wikimedia projects. Wikimedia volunteers collaboratively manage vast repositories of knowledge in our projects. What ideas do you have to manage that knowledge to make it more meaningful and accessible? We invite all Wikimedians to participate and submit ideas, so please get involved today! The campaign runs until March 28th.

All proposals are welcome - research projects, technical solutions, community organizing and outreach initiatives, or something completely new! Funding is available from the Wikimedia Foundation for projects that need financial support. Constructive, positive feedback on ideas is appreciated, and collaboration is encouraged - your skills and experience may help bring someone else’s project to life. Join us at the Inspire Campaign and help your project better represent the world’s knowledge! I JethroBT (WMF) 19:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Women's History Month, India-2016

Following the tradition(?) of the last two years that I had seen on Wikimedia, I created a page this year for Women's History Month 2016. However, I don't know where to take it from here, after creating the page. Any advice or suggestion? I posted this question on WikiWomen's Collaborative and they suggested me to ask this here. Ankitashukla (talk) 05:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Professor Carl Hewitt

Professor Carl Hewitt has posted a letter that he sent via registered US mail to the Wikimedia Foundation here.

A member of the Wikimedia Foundation suggested that I post a notice here when I discussed the matter with them after they presented a seminar at Stanford Law yesterday.171.66.208.134 (talk) 00:34, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

It appears to have been discussed on the talk page of his article - Talk:Carl_Hewitt/Archive_2. There seems to be something of a disagreement / feud between Hewitt and one Arthur Rubin, a wikipedia editor. Lord know what the rights & wrongs of it all are :( --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Students became frustrated by censorship. So they asked Professor Hewitt to write a letter to Wikimedia Foundation. 45.33.51.219 (talk) 17:43, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

"Censorship", eh? Students probably need to read WP:COI, even if they think they have right on their side. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:48, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Since the students are in the Law School, they care more about process and procedure than whether Professor Hewitt is right. 4.15.127.211 (talk) 18:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Possibly relevant: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Carl Hewitt. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 17:59, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

It's a lot easier to start a war on Wikipedia than to finish one :-( 50.247.81.99 (talk) 19:46, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. Dumuzid (talk) 19:49, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Professor Hewitt is a highly respected academic. For example, Professor JJ Meyer wrote an extremely favorable review of the book Hewitt co-edited Inconsistency Robustness. 45.33.51.219 (talk) 19:33, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

It looks like a couple of admins really have it in for Hewitt. Anybody know what's up? 50.0.72.133 (talk) 20:27, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Opinions vary. Some appear to think that Hewitt & supporters are seeking to promote the importance of his work beyond its merits. Others appear to think that "a couple of admins" et al are seeking to denigrate Hewitt and his work. At least two of the IPs who have engaged in this thread appear to have a singular interest in the Hewitt issue (which is to say, probably very little interest in Wikipedia beyond its use as a venue for Hewitt promotion and/or denigration.) I'm happy, 50.0.72.133, to assume in good faith that you don't know "what's up". I don't think we're going to clear up a sore that has festered for more than eight years on wikipedia in this thread. Still. Nice evening. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:30, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Instead of going around saying how awful Arthur Rubin is how about actually doing what is required in Wikipedia which is to provide secondary sources supporting what you are saying? There is a reason for the cartoon Wikipedian protestor. Dmcq (talk) 22:34, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

What I don't understand is why are the admins working so hard to keep a link to his homepage out the article on Hewitt. 50.242.100.195 (talk) 14:55, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Including an article subject's homepage can veer quite close to promotion, and as a primary source, is disfavored as opposed to secondary sources. So there's that. Dumuzid (talk) 15:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I thought that there is a Wikipedia rule that the subject's homepage can be included as a link. 50.0.72.133 (talk) 16:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

You're right that there is WP:ELOFFICIAL, but like so much, it is subject to context. I don't know whether the link in question meets the two-prong test or was removed for some other reason. Dumuzid (talk) 16:22, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

In Actor model, the same admins have removed references to the most important published articles on the subject that are in the book Inconsistency Robustness. 50.0.72.133 (talk) 15:09, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

• A lot depends on whether the links in dispute are being used as sources in the article (ie to support something stated in the actual text of the article), or merely being placed in an "External Links" section. Context matters, and the rules on what is, and is not, appropriate are different depending on context. Blueboar (talk) 16:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

The standard reference for Actor model is in the book Inconsistency Robustness and is titled "Actor Model of Computation for Scalable Robust Information Systems." 45.33.51.219 (talk) 21:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I just had a quick look at the history of all this and some people are just not able to drop a stick. If the article was just left alone it would be developed like any other. Anyway is [2] his personal page because all it says is that the site is undergoing scheduled maintenance. People are allowed to hang themselves as far as I'm concerned and that seems to be the purpose of most homepages for people who are as concerned about their biography or pet project or whatever as this, I see no particular reason not to stick a reference to his home page in the infobox. Dmcq (talk) 18:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

It says that his homepage is here, which is currently being maintained by him. I see no evidence that Professor Hewitt is now connected with http://carlhewitt.info/. Maybe http://carlhewitt.info/ is now a different Carl Hewitt? 4.15.127.211 (talk) 21:26, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I encourage Dr. Hewitt to file a request with the Arbitration Committee to modify the sanctions that currently affect his ability to speak on his own behalf on Wikipedia. I believe that the committee might well be amendable to amending the previous arbitration case, which was originally decided in 2006 and, in my opinion, has outlived its usefulness. The page for filing requests is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment. Because the account User:CarlHewitt has been blocked, it may be necessary to obtain an unblock for the purposes of filing an appeal. Because I have not been an admin since January 2015, I am not able to block or unblock users. The arbitration committee may be contacted directly at arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org to facilitate the appeal. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:46, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Is the infobox at Planet Nine a disinfobox?

I've recently been asking other editors whether the infobox image at Planet Nine should be removed, and there is an ongoing discussion to that effect. Today I've been exploring the labyrinth looking for appropriate guidelines, and I've just been reading Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes. Basically, I'm starting to see the whole infobox as a sort of spoof. Though I'm certain that the editors have acted in good faith, what they have essentially done is create an infobox for a planet for an article about a hypothesis, if you catch my drift. Opinions are fairly polarized over there at the moment, so I'm loathed to add insult to injury by posting further criticism there. If anyone fancies casting an eye over it, please do. Regards, nagualdesign 15:26, 6 March 2016 (UTC)