Wikipedia:Suggestion box (resolved)/group3

Opening External Links in new Window

My initial visit was excellant with the exception that when I selected an External Link, I would have prefered to have a new window open with that External Link on it. This would make it easier and quicker to go back to my original Wikipedia page.

A lot of people object to links working in that way but you can open a new window by holding down shift while you click the link. Angela . 19:37, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)

Is there any code I can use in wiki to create an external link to open in a new window? Please advise. 17:09, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)17:09, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)65.93.58.32

Could you clarify the question? Do you mean on Wikipedia or another wiki, and for only yourself or for all users? You could add it with something target="_blank" in the stylesheet, but why would you want to enforce that? Angela .

I agree with the first commenter. Why not give the option syntactically to allow the editor to create a target like HTML? Not everyone is knowledgeable on holding the shift key down when clicking the external link. I sure don't have time to teach everyone. Adding it to the stylesheet would make all links popup in a new window including internal correct?

Subject Matter on a topic

Dear whom it may concern,

I am relatively new to wikipedia and searched the encyclopedia for a favorite topic of mine Camp, as in the behavior/adjective. I found such a page and was extremely excited because it is a very vague or rare topic to find anything on except for a few books and references, which I own or have already visited. After reading the article and felt very disatified with the content of the page most because it didn't talk about what is Camp just what was Camp. This didn't make very much sense to me at all because of the article, It's a reference about Camp.

Now then I added a comment about this and explained a little bit what is Camp because I felt this is what the article lacked completely.

I got a reply back stating that the article is about "Camp" not what Camp is by another admin and I extremely confused. Can someone please explain this too me because I am not understand then what the article is about and would loved to be enlightmented. I thought the subject matter was Camp and thus don't you have to define what the subject matter is?

Sincerely,

Very confused Vesta

Did you look at the disambiguation page pointed to in that article? In there were the uses you were looking for. Disambiguation is the way wiki handles things that have multiple uses. While there is a pointer at the definition of camp, I would suspect that most people are not looking for the article presented so you could make a case to have that article renamed and the disambig page moved to camp rather then camp (disambiguation). Someone more with more knowledge about this can explain this better. BTW, when you post here use 4 tildas ~~~~ to sign your posts. Vegaswikian 18:19, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Word 'Wikipedia' is absolutely silly.

...Infact, the term 'silly' in association with the word 'Wikipedia' is too mild. I think that the word 'Wikipedia' is disgusting, abhorrent, awful, abominable, despicable, detestable and even morbid.

It certenly isn't a name for such an important job it obviously has; I mean - what(?!?) - is it a joke or something? Did it all started like a joke - so they named it as a joke, and then it grew-up into something big but kept its name: like if you would have a child - baby, a boy, and you name him Fifi, but later on he grews-up into a 230cm tall, ~350kg heavy bahamut of a man, a "silverback" of a human kind who eats rock and wood, works as a woodcutter, helps at a sawmill, and can snap you like a twig if he incidently mistakes you for an umbrela.

Term 'Wikipedia' is abnormaly stupid. It sketches an association towards the name (or a nickname) Wiki, a eighteen-year-old fun-girl (she's-"soooo"-"cool" type of girl) with a coefficient of inteligence lower than the size of her shoes, who smiles stupid all the time and moves her hair when she tilts her head ocasionaly, also a great fan of 'Duke of Earl' song, and simply loves britney spears. ...Or maybe it reminds of chewing on an unpleasently sauer unripe kiwi that makes your mouth water to wash it off while you crunch the black little seeds of that tropical fruit. ...Or maybe it reminds of that silly little fuzzy bird without wings with a funny beak that lives in the forests of New Zealand. Furthermore a sufix '-pedia' extracted out of the context of a word 'Encyclopedia' sounds like, reminds, associates and points to the word 'pedofilia' (no excuses - it just does).

Now - all that in a mix creates a strange and morbid combination of concepts in the head of an unsuspecting reader: an eighteen-year-old pedofilian woman (probably works as a nanny, and likes to endulge into physical contact with very young boys when noone is around, while she listens to britney spears) who chews kiwies (new diet...) and who's hairsryle reminds of silly bird. Wicked Wiky p-0-r-n star... ...Deliriously disturbing...

I guess - all I'm trying to say is: of so much good names that can be given to the service like this they choosed this one... Sad.

Imagine a middle age small-time polititian of some province in some country saying all serious and proud: "The province that isn't in Wikipedia is not a serious province. Our province is proud to tell that we too, as some of the renound provinces around the world can be found in the Wikipedia." - hilarious.

'Wikipedia' is laughable... I suggest that 'Wikipedia' should change into some a little bit more serious name...

Suggestions: "The Enciclopedia" would be nice (Like: The - THE! encyclopedia), "Internet encyclopedia", "Interencyclopedia", shortly "Interedia", "World Encyclopedia",or something completely different like "Nexus", or "Internexus", or some word that sounds good and is in the context even mildly - like "Perplex", or "Enigma" etc. Or, on the other hand - an acronym for something (e.g.: GEFARD: Global Enciclopedic Free Acess Resource Database; or AWIE: All-purpose World-wide Internet Enciclopedia (this one!)) something or other... Maybe "Cyberenc" (CYBER ENCyclopedia (although the word 'Cyber' is badly missused these days by people who don't really have a clue what it actualy means)), Hyperenc (HYPER ENCyclopedia)...

Just change it!!!...

Thank you for sharing your views with us. Your suggestions have been duly noted. Ground Zero | t 18:25, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

article requests

As a relative newcomer, I am finding it almost impossible to find a place to make a request for an article on a given subject. A CLEAR, SIMPLE way (hotlink?) would be appreciated. For those of you wondering, I had in mind ASW aircraft of WW1.

You want Wikipedia:Requested articles, or specifically, Military / Military History--Rogerd 10:44, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How-To Articles

I understand that Wikipedia does not accept "How-to" Articles and I do not understand why. "How-to" articles are extremely useful to everyone in their day-to-day lives. While I understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, emphasizing on "What-is" articles, I hope that, with its very unique concept and resources, it can extend its scope to include a sister project, such as "Wiki-How2" or something like that. — PM Poon 08:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed a very good idea, and we already have one! :) See Wikibooks, at this location. It is another Wikimedia project. Enjoy! Dmcdevit·t 08:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Dmcdevit, for your information, otherwise I would have missed the goodies!! Wonder whether WikiHowTo would have been a more catchy name, rather than Wikibooks!! — PM Poon 07:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikibooks is not just for how-tos, but other things as well (anything you'd expect to find in a book, really) →Raul654 08:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Search buttons: Why no ALT-text?

The search field has two buttons, "Go" and "Search", but unlike most other navigation elements they lack an ALT-text explaining their function. Also, the buttons are identical, and thus do not show which one is the default button (that is, the one that is activated when you use the Enter key rather than clicking on the buttons). I suggest adding an ALT-text to each button, and making the default button stand out somehow. (10/13/04)

You can add requests for software changes to MediaZilla:. Angela . 18:20, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

Unseen images

All of a sudden i cant see images from wikipedia. None of them. can someone tell me how to fix it.

I see no images using Firefox 1.0, yet they do appear using IE. Is this a feature?

I can't see images. I'm with firefox 1.0.4 (running on slackware linux) and I have checked adblock and webdev whether it is them blocking images, but still can't see all images in wikipedia, but some I see. For example buttons above input, and small person icon near top user menu (the one with log in / log out.) As well as background image, but no others.

Solution: Firefox has a feature to disable the display of images originating from a server different than the one hosting the main page. Wiki works in a distributed environment, so I suggest disabling it under Edit --> Preferences --> Web Features. Gchriss 20:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IMPORTANT EDIT: I've just tried firefox but with another profile, and there were images! So it is something in the settings, but I can't understand what. If anyone has any ideas please write answer here: http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=275354

The Teach the controversy page: Merely one train wreck that manifests the general and pervasive problem in Wikipedia

The Teach the controversy page is one of several spread throughout Wikipedia covering many subjects and reflecting many aspects of humanity all featuring ORIGINAL RESEARCH by a handful of polemical writers who insist that only their view remains. I suggest that there is a bug in the Wikipedia system, and I suggest that the bug in the Wikipedia system repeatedly sets off the train wreck that the Teach the controversy page is. I wouldn't even want to convince anybody of what the bug is at this stage--because I don't have a clear understanding of what the bug is myself. So let me give you the data that I see in the patterns of bug and train wrecks. Feel free to state what you see.

Both sides assert that they understand the situation better than the published scholars, so both sides rip out the quotations, paraphrases, and citations to the analyses of published scholars to leave behind their own ORIGINAL RESEARCH.
There are plenty of Wikilinks to people. But the Wikilinks to people are little more than ad hominem fallacies that attempt to discredit ideas by cataloguing the faults of the originators of the ideas. Why not paraphrase, quote, and cite to the published scholars that have analyzed the actual faults in the ideas? Forget the originators of the ideas. It is the ideas that are faulty here. Let's stop all of these ad hominem fallacies; they are all over Wikipedia.
Beneath the tangle of the train wreck is the repeated attempt to blame the ills of society on the imaginary God and on the zealots' imagined relationship with the imaginary God! That is preposterous, my friends! There ain't no God, I say. Forget all of that religion and black magic stuff. Whatever is wrong has nothing to do with religion and God; the fault lies in the heart of man and arises from the very evil side of the very godless atoms that make up all of us. And both sides manifest the very same bigotry and closed-mindedness at which religion and God excel.
What can you do about it? Please feel free to make your own statement of what you see as the "bug." None of us know what the bug is, I say. But we all have clues; so we have to work together and pool our information to get a good-enough picture--so that we can get a grip on the real problem that is underneath and sets off the train wreck. ---Rednblu | Talk 10:52, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

- The bug is a peculiar assumption ingrained in the western secular mind -- the divorce of science and religion. In western secularism, as long as religion bears no link to science, then it's safely within the realm of conjecture -- it's harmless. "Believe whatever you want, it doesn't matter, because it's all just harmless imagining." But when a religion begins to make hard claims to historical fact that demand response, religion is no longer safely neutered, and secular civilization finds itself aghast at the arrogance of those religious individuals who make claims to hard reality. Such efforts to marry science and religion are subversive to western secularism. They are the cats that walks by twice in The Matrix. They draw out the irrational paranoia in otherwise intelligent, balanced people. The solution to this bug is not a change of religion. the solution to this bug is the recognition of one's assumptions, and the recognition that they are assumptions, rather than absolute truth. Once fundamentalists of the Christian, Muslim, or Atheistic variety understand and own their assumptions and the assumptions of others, ideological conflict vanishes, and mutual understanding begins. Ungtss 23:39, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

- I think the bug is actually larger than just "God", but there is a serious lack on Wikipedia of a quick means to end disputes about content in relation to pseudoscience articles. Moderation, arbitration, and the other myriad of dispute resolution processes just doesn't seem to work in the face of the attempts by multiple editors to write different articles on identical subjects when the authors are simply entrenched in either science or in their own pseudoscientific viewpoint. It gets to the point where months are spent arguing on very minor details because of perceived biases by both sides that slip through. I think that the pseudoscience articles that exist on wikipedia from non-standard cosmologies to creation science are all very poor articles from a strict quality standpoint because they tend to have a haphazard writing style as the result of this consensus articulation. This is due to the fact that there really isn't consensus on how to view the topics themselves and there is no general policy of wikipedia on how to view pseudoscience other than to declare that it should be NPOV. But npov is way too vague to deal with this. The way to be NPOV with respect to pseudoscience isn't clear because science works in a very clear manner as opposed to, say, an article on John Kerry which looks to the neutrality of a moderator of a political debate on how to view a subject in NPOV. What could be very useful are authors (not just moderators) who are not related to the conflict brought in to rewrite the articles in less offensive ways. Too often, the "sides" are too used to reading the detail arguments of the other "side" and so any one editor on one side is likely to push the other sides' buttons. We don't have enough neutral editors for articles about pseudoscience, and frankly I don't know where we will find them. Joshuaschroeder 23:26, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  - The npov guidelines are very clear and explicit on pseudoscience. treat it sympathetically, descibe the beliefs on their own terms, and then explain in attributed terms why these ideas are rejected by the mainstream scientific community. it is neither complex nor vague. it just requiresus to write for the enemy -- something that is very difficult to do when your entire worldview is on the line. Ungtss 00:30, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See, it's backhanded comments like the one included above that have become par-for-the-course in editting these articles. The problem is, what is considered "sympathetic treatment" to Ungtss looks like propaganda to me and vice versa. Joshuaschroeder 00:53, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"sympathetic treatment" has a very clear definition under npov. it means the text itself should neither state nor imply that any point of view is right or wrong, but maintain textual neutrality, accurately describing and attributing the "lies" to those who tell them, while describing and attributing the "truth" to those who speak it. Ungtss 02:10, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

However, in the realm of science there are facts that cannot be denied. It is a fact, not an opinion, that the Earth is billions of years old. To try to attribute this fact would be ridiculous, even though creationists object to it. Sympathetic treatment means we must describe the reasons given why creationists make claims they do, but it does not mean that we have to treat their claims with the same weight as those of science. Joshuaschroeder 15:13, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the age of the earth is an absolutely unfalsifiable proposition. there is absolutely no way to demonstrate that the earth is not 10,000 years old, or that it is not 1,000,000,000 years old. we don't have the tools. we can make estimates based on assumptions, and come to conclusions that we think are reasonable. but your assertion that "it is a fact that the earth is billions of years old" is absolutely laughable. we weren't there. we don't know. Ungtss 22:07, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(losing indents) "We weren't there. We don't know" would negate much (almost all?) accepted human knowledge. I think if we are to accept the concepts of "facts" and an "encyclopedia" at all, we have to also accept that scientific methods do tell us how old the earth really is, to a close approximation.

It is ridiculous to have to state "but many people are convinced the earth is actually billions of years old" just to be fair in a "creation science" article. We should not, IMO, favor irrelevant facts about what is believed over actual facts, such as the scientifically established age of the earth.

There is no answer. Do some people believe that Apollo carries the sun across the sky each day in a chariot? Yes. Do we have to include that in an article about the sun to make it NPOV? No, no, a thousand times no. But since this is a collaborative effort, and we can't just block those accounts, I stay out of editing articles about nonsense like "creation science." Does it mean we will wind up with an encyclopedia in which some articles are pure mysticism and fantasy, not facts? Yes. This is the way the whole of human society is heading, it seems.

The only solution, one that I actually see happening, is that at some point in the future, we fork the whole Wikipedia database, create a fact-checked encyclopedia controlled by a board of editors who have a common understanding of what knowledge, science, and factual information are and are not, and we will toss all the crap science and mysticism in the recycle bin. When that happens, I'll join the new Factipedia and leave this one behind.

No offense meant to those who believe otherwise. I respect your right to believe and practice what satisfies you. Freedom and respect are the most important qualities in any community. DavidH 22:41, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, come off it. You know that a centrally-controlled version edited only by people who agree with you will cease to possess the Wiki-magic. If you wind up arguing for one point against scads of zealots, alert the community over on RfC. You don't have to hold back the tides of zealotry all by your lonesome. Of course, you might end up on the losing side. We can't all be right all the time. grendel|khan 16:58, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Twit Factor

Wikipedia's advantage is also its flaw. Information comes streaming in from all over the world in a way never before possible, and that is its extraordinary advantage. But idiots are, by reason of their affliction, unaware of their affliction; when given the opportunity to express themselves for free, they will screw things up cluelessly and royally. Read some of the essays on towns which devolve into forums for ego, put-downs, huckstering and illiteracy. Yes, I know that the "revert" button exists, but monitoring it can be an imposition on a harried contributor. Perhaps pages should achieve a "locked" status when deemed worthy, with further changes only by petition. --Hugh Manatee 14:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the best way to deal with the twit factor is a voting system where you can vote on a change that was made with a question like "Do you approve of this change" and you get "Yes", "No" and "No opinion". Saying no would be slightly different that undoing changes as this system would allow Wiki to realize that if many different people vote yes, the change is a good change but if many vote no, the change is possible not up to the Wiki standard (but it's not so outrageous that it was reverted). Ideally people that watch a list would get this UI to vote on changes (while they viewed a diff). --Travis Owens 11:35, 8 August 2005 (EST)

"if many different people vote yes, the change is a good change". So before Galileo, the Sun really did go around the Earth? If something is wrong, it's wrong, no matter how many people think otherwise. Sbz5809 13:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with this approach - majority opinion is at least sometimes (and IMO 'quite frequently' if not 'usually') at oods with whatever may be available as established fact. I'm pretty new here, but it seems to be the goal of WP to be as factual as possible and avoid conflicts of opinion or popularity. What if a majority of Wiki users don't like being reminded that the US is the only country to use atomic weapons against another nation? This is true, established, incontrovertible fact, but your 'reversions-by-populism' approach would have that - and many other facts - quickly removed.John Henry My Talk Page 04:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Overzealous Keyboard Shortcuts

The keyboard shortcut overrides for editing features are neat, but it's a handicap to lose Ctrl-W for <close window>, etc. At the least, Alt-F for accessing the File menu should be open, which gives access to the menu systems. At the best, all wiki shortcuts except for Alt-E for editing the current page should be disabled until the user begins actually editing the page. It's quite intrusive to the web-browsing experience and makes mouse-less web browsing more difficult. There is a workaround in Windows, though it goes against what is probably considered "normal" practice: press and release ALT, then press the key.

Also, any keyboard shortcuts that are available should be instantly obvious to the user without having to find a lookup table -- the world standard for well over a decade has been to underline the character in the control's label. ("Find" is the closest I can get with the Wiki formatting I know -- how do you do underlining without a link?) I realize that not all buttons support HTML, but for those browsers that do, it would be a big help, and non-button controls should be able to do this in almost any browser. Ideally, it would be up to the user which shortcuts to keep and which to give back to the browser, but I haven't figured out how to do that in Firefox yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.129.118.21 (talk • contribs) 07:47 EST, 15 March 2005

See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Browser shortcuts DES ^(talk) 00:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Camerlengo - Wikipedia License Violation?

I was doing some research for an article re: Papal Conclave and noticed that the page http://camerlengo.biography.ms/ is identical to the page on Wikipedia found by typing "Camerlengo" into the search box. On closer investigation, it appears that the entire site http://www.biography.ms/ is ripping off Wikipedia articles but displaying no copyright or licensing information. Isn't this against your rules? Sorry if this is the wrong place to mention it, but I'm a little pressed for time and couldn't immediately find anywhere better.

It seems you are correct MarSch 11:23, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See our forks and mirrors page adn report any mirror sites you find there, if they aren't listed already. DES ^(talk) 22:47, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Benedict XVI

As of 20:38, Wednesday, April 20, a photo of Osama bin Laden was in the place where a photo of the new Pope, Benedict XVI, should be. Please, folks, stop hijacking this page and show some maturity!

Why different accounts for different projects?

Why do I have to register for each language and each project separately? Why not use one account for all? I would like to use the same name everywhere, but on the German Wikipedia, my name was already taken, so I had to opt for Benne.de. Benne 09:54, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See bugzilla:57. Bovlb 15:27:39, 2005-08-24 (UTC)

Why is the search so brainless?

There is an entry for "El Mozote Massacre." Fine. However, inputting "El Mozote" or "Mozote" yields "No page exists." I don't mean to criticize, but is that a dumb search engine or is that a dumb search engine?

Try selecting "Search" instead of "Go". Or try using the search facilities on the "No page exists" page. I agree that things could be clearer and search better.Bovlb 15:34:05, 2005-08-24 (UTC)

Kate's counter

I can't access the tool since I get a 404 error... did it get moved? --Rschen7754 02:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: the address evidently changed (again). You can now get it here: [1] Antandrus (talk) 03:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks... wondering if I need to respond for this to get archived. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

cancelling account

How can I cancel my account.

You can't. Your edits need to be attributed to someone. If you wish to change username, see Wikipedia:Changing username (although the feature is disabled temporarily). If you want nothing to do with your account ever again, just stop using it. gkhan 07:48, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Truly random?

Does the Random Article link just redirect you to a uniform random page? Wouldn't it be better if some sort of a score is assigned to each user (ip?) and a weighted random page is generated? Prateek 14:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why in the world would we do that? And wouldn't we give a weight to the articles instead of the users, if we wanted to deliver a non-uniform random page? And again, why? gkhan 12:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, I meant a personalised score for articles for a user. And I brought it up due to an irritating 20 minutes of random article searching before I came up with something interesting (subjective, you say?). I was just wondering if there is a more sophisticated algorithm than just a uniform random number. If not for each user, I think at least a global weighting of articles (small weights for stubs/very specific article, and larger ones for the more fleshed out articles, say?) can be done. Should make the Random article link more clickable.Prateek 17:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh, so you mean like by using statistical analysis of a users contributions, you assign different weights to articles in different categories? It's a neat idea, but it wont ever happen for two reasons 1) no one is going to program it and 2) even if they do, the server is strained enough as it is :P If you're looking for something interesting to read, why not try one of the portals? gkhan 20:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well as to point 1, I for one am interested in coding up something. And about the server strain, I am sure a trade-off between usability and server load can be achieved (and so what I am saying is, the equilibrium should be a tad bit higher on the usability of the link :P). How do I go about knowing how the link works, and actually making a contribution towards it? I don't mind submitting my work to an admin also.Prateek 13:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are ofcourse welcome to code this for mediawiki, it is open source so just go right ahead and download it (it's written in PHP btw). See m:MediaWiki. However, because of the fact of server drainage and simply the reason that many users like Random Page the way it is (some use it to find crap pages and then fix them), I doubt that your change will be implemented. Sorry :P I would encourage you however to start tinkering with MediaWiki, because we could always use more developers :D gkhan 09:24, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User harrasment

Complaints about immature harrasment attempts by wannabe "power editors":

While editing a page about one of the more interesting current norwegian bands, this babble showed up in my 'user talk':

"User talk:85.164.161.140 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Please stop adding nonsense--.::Imdaking::. Bow | DOWN 22:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC) Screw your self you queer! --.::Imdaking::. Bow | DOWN 04:16, 6 October 2005 (UTC)"

Enough said, it is sad to see in what ways some users like Imdaking fail in trying to bully through their agenda... :)

I'm not sure, but it may have had something to do with you editing his user page to add that they like heavy metal music. Of course this is not justification for the comments that were left on your talk page. Looking at Imdaking's talk page, it seems gkhan has talked to him about this. Evil Monkey∴Hello 22:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please block

Over the past week or two me and 82.44.156.246 have been complaining over the fact that tupac is muslim or not. Today he replied with something very offensive, the following:HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, thas it? ur lot are just a joke! think that cos ur dumb fuck minds know English ur clever? there is NO way u could have checked 164,000 websites...then again, ur life is probably devoid of any intellectualism so it may be a distinct possibility...as for not writing a necklace that had spelt out allah in arabic....you must be blind as well as dumb...you deaf too by any chance? look at the paragraphs above in enough detail and u might just pick out the following sentence "I have heard that his mother was a convert to Islam and also that he had a gold chain shaped in large letters spelling "Allah" in Arabic"...which u ignorant fuck, isnt what i wrote! maybe ur english and ur intellect doesnt stretch far enough to understand that concept, eh, Little Girl? As for Tupac Resurrection, there is no concrete/hard evidence that says Pac is Muslim...i dont think ur small little mind has mastered the definition of evidence yet, has it Little Girl?...whats the matter, cant u afford a dictionary on the intellectualist scrap heap? as for you picking out small errors in grammar....you need a life...go outside of the cellar, or maybe widen ur diet away from the bread and water...

now stop wasting my time little girl and go back to ur playschool and demand a better teacher, cos the incumbent sure as hell isnt doing a good job. He bothered me alot with that and I would like a permenant block from him.

Dealing Rich Farmbrough 13:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Naming Conventions For Pro Wrestlers

A small note regarding what I see as an ongoing controversy on Wikipedia:

I contend that there should be an accepted standard for article names on individual professional wrestlers, basebusiness, and the rules that apply to other venues of entertainment don't always apply well to wrestling.

I am aware that standard Wikipedia policy tends to be that an individual should be entered under the name by which he/she is known best. However, in pro wrestling, the name one appears under for shows can be changed by the whim of a promoter or performer. Many ring names in wrestling are trademarked, and can not be used by a wrestler once they leave the promotion that owns the trademark.

The only wrestlers I see having a valid reason for being entered into Wikipedia under a ring name are wrestlers who have significant appearance credits or other notoriety outside of wrestling under that name - Hulk Hogan, Stone Cold Steve Austin, Andre The Giant, and even lesser names such as Roddy Piper or Randy Savage would fall under this category. The rest, IMO, are best served by being listed under their real names.

I have moved a few entries from character names to real names, but for whatever reason, a few rogue editors with axes to grind have moved them back, and complained bitterly about my article moves. This occurs in spite of the fact that for the most part, most of the individual wrestler entries here have been under real names.

Is there any chance of hammering out some sort of official policy or guideline regarding this subject? Chadbryant 07:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There IS an official guidline, as Mel has pointed out to you SEVERAL times. Wrestlers are listed under the names of which they are best known. Promoters change the names of performers 'on a whim' only in backyard feds or very small regional independent promotions. No promoter with any brain would change the name 'on a whim' on even a c-list wrestler with regards to national exposure. You were told about the official Wiki policy, you ignored it in several instances, and Mel and others warned you about it. There is no axe to grind, policy must be followed. You are the only person who is pushing wrestlers to be listed under their real names, even within the Wiki pro Wrestling project, the consensus is to follow Wiki policy as per the naming conventions.

TruthCrusader

Input from other people who are relevant and not causing trouble would be appreciated. Chadbryant 23:39, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about wrestling, but I think if the stage name is going to change soon, list the real name; if the stage name won't change for sure in the forseeable future, use it. But either way, just have the other name redirect to the article. It's not a big deal. Twilight Realm 02:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestling performers are essentially television stars. Under most circumstances, no television performer would be listed under the name of a character they portray(ed) on TV (i.e. we have entries for Barry Williams and Bob Denver, not "Greg Brady" and "Gilligan"). I concede that certain pro wrestlers who have gained a sizable amount of notoriety under a ring name (Hulk Hogan, Ric Flair, Andre The Giant, etc.) are better off being listed under those names, but the average pro wrestler goes through numerous identities, and can quite often gain his greatest exposure under a name that they will no longer be allowed to use once they leave a promotion. Professional wrestling is a unique industry, and conventional rules and policies don't often apply to it. Chadbryant 03:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In pro wrestling, you have a combination of two situations, which could best be likened IMO to a cross between TV stars and musical stars. Obviously, a TV star isn't generally listed under the name of their role; on the other hand, you'd likely be hard-pressed to find a Wiki for 'Bill Bailey' or 'Saul Hudson' or 'Chaim Witz'/'Chaim Klein'/etc (Axl Rose, Slash, and Gene Simmons, respectively). I agree that attempting to apply a standard from any other genre of entertainment is at best a misguided, if well-intentioned effort; I think the best of all possible solutions - and one which would apply equally well to the 'knowns' and the 'unknowns' is the one suggested by Twilight Realm above; create entries for all of the varions stage and real names of the wrestler, and create redirects (or links for those entries which apply to multiple people, as the 'Bill Bailey' entry, for instance, could apply equally to the legendary/apocryphal target of the well-known children's song as well as to the rather neurotic lead singer of a popular late-80's/early 90's hard rock band) as necessary. Granted, this is more time-consuming, but it covers all the bases very nicely...

I tend to look at this as an issue of functionality - the simple fact is that the majority of people who bother are going to look for the wrestler's current stage name or a previous stage name that they were well-known under; it will be the rare customer who goes looking for 'Deborah (+ alt. spellings) Micelli' rather than 'Medusa'; or who runs a google or wiki search on 'Solafa Fatu' rather than 'Rikishi' - thus, the searching public is ill-served by keying all but a small select few to their birth names, regardless of the trademark status of their most popular stage identities. On the other hand, the xref should be there for those rare people. I think TR's solution addresses best the most important issue from a WIki standpoint, to wit: What is the best and most effective method of allowing Joe User to find what he's looking for? Truth Crusader's assertion is off-base; I can tell you (as can *any* wrestler, referee, announcer, manager, or valet who has worked multiple regions or transitioned from indy to 'major' work or crossed between major promotions) from personal experience that names will change for the widest possible variety of reasons, from whim to legal threats and one can only consider the truly legendary names such as those covered in Chad's original post can one be certain that a name will not change.

The bottom line (if you'll pardon a small pun) is, there's really no good way to establish a convention or 'rule' that covers all of the bases better than TR's suggestion. The goal should be to produce a catisfactory search result for the widest possible number of searchers, from the short-term fan to the devoted die-hard to the old high-school buddy who knows nothing more than that his old flame Amy disappeared into that goofy pro-wrestling thing years ago.John Henry My Talk Page 04:04, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mr.Bryant, you do NOT hold the say on WHO is relevant on Wikipedia. The policy for naming is already set: The entries are to be made via the most well known name. THIS is Wikipedia POLICY, it has been policy for a lot longer than any of us have been around. It has functioned well, until Mr.Bryant started, in defiance of admin warnings, to change the wrestlers entries. While I respect Mr.Dejong's opinion, he must realize that Wikipedia is supposed to be a place where the average person can come, look something up, and not be confused by 'insider' stylized entries. The whole purpose is to maintain a simple, well known, and unconfusing entry.

And one more thing. Mr.Bryant, it is your talk page to edit, but deleting the warnings you received from Wiki administrators will not help your situation with regards to the trolls who constantly deface your page. Nor will your continued personal insultive remarks. This is not Usenet, there is a code of behavior here, and we ALL must follow it, and that also means YOU.

TruthCrusader

In this case, the policy is lacking. Everybody who is a wrestling fan is not a CURRENT wrestling fan, for one thing - the best example at hand is what happens if someone who was a fan in the late 90's boom goes looking for Justin 'Hawk' Bradshaw? No possible way to find them.

It is my observation that the ultimate goal of Wiki is to get the best possible information to the widest possible number of people who may look for it. In that context, the best possible solution for the unquestionably unique problem of wrestler names is the one offered by Twilight Realm. This addresses all possible issues adequately and ensures the greatest possible access to information for searchers. Policies are dynamic, not static; let's not forget that it was the policy of the US government to count blacks as 3/5ths of a person at one time - that policy was found to be lacking and was abandoned. It was once my policy to refuse the use of killfiles on Usenet; I have changed that policy as a result of the changing face of that forum. In this case the policy is inadequate to the task at hand. While I'm not in agreement with the notion of listing all but the most prominent, best-known names only under their birth names (this would clearly make the information LESS accessible, not MORE), I am in agreement that the policy in question simply is not suitable to the question under debate. Frankly, I think if this approach had been taken in the first place, there would be no debate at all - it's clearly the best way to handle things.John Henry My Talk Page 00:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If someone types in "Justin hawk bradshaw" they would NOT get an empty entry. if set up correctly, the entry would immediately re-direct to JBL's entry. This is how Wiki works. I type in "brutus Beefcake" a name not used in over 15 years, and it automatically goes to Ed Leslie. The naming convention is for the MAIN name listen on the primary entry. It has nothing to do with blank or missing information at all. Its a matter of re-directs. But to have Lex Lugers REAL name as the main name on the article, when 99.9% of anyone looking for him has no idea what Lugers REAL name is, well I'm sorry but thats ludicrous. The policy here at Wiki has been around for a long time. It has the support of the vast community of editors and all of the admins.

TruthCrusader

Mr. Signorelli, Brutus Beefcake redirects to Edward Leslie because I moved the article to that name, which was a move that you attempted to reverse with absolutely no justification (a check of the article history reflects this), while I clearly outlined why the move was appropriate (Leslie has not used the Beefcake ring name since he left the WWF in 1993, and was unable to use it during his WCW stint because of its status as a registered trademark). Leslie is a perfect example of why the "policy" that Mr. Signorelli is trying to strongarm for no good reason of using "most famous" stage names for all pro wrestling performers is flawed. In addition to Edward Leslie, Monty Sopp, Devon Hughes, and Mark LoMonaco are prime examples of this phenomenon.

It would be much more efficent for the Wikipedia mission if wrestling-related contributions were left to those of us who have a working knowledge of the wrestling business, and who seek to cooperate rather than condemn. Chadbryant 11:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As long as I can find the information I'm looking for, regardless of whether I type "Ed Leslie," "Brutus Beefcake," "Zodiac," or whichever of the thousand other names Leslie has used, I really don't see what difference it makes *where* the main article is located. Beating a dead horse is really boring; the solution seems simple to me. Personally, I don't think I'd bother moving articles from place to place to place just to make a point...although, especially for workers like Sopp and Leslie, I can see where Chad's coming from; OTOH moving the 'Lex Luger' entry to one called 'Larry Pfol' rather than just creating an entry under 'Larry Pfol that redirects to the existing 'Lex Luger' page seems to me an unnecessary overcorrection. There simply is no hard, fast rule that can be applied effectively to every wrestler - this is why the existing convention is inadequate to the task at hand.. All that said, this is obviously far less about 'finding the right thing to do' than 'proving my way is better than his,' and that is just a waste of time. I wouldn't bother moving articles around, and I certainly wouldn't bother getting involved in a revert war. The solution is simple and I've repeated it several times already. Finally, the situation is never going to occur where only 'experts in the field' controbute to a given WP article - the system just isn't designed for that. As far as this particular discussion goes, in my opinion it's already gone about 6 posts longer than it needed to. The solution is simple and effective. It's not necessary for TC to be CB's personal hall monitor; nor is it necessary for CB to move every existing entry from where it is to where he personally thinks it should be. Neither activity is doing searchers any favors or serves any purpose beyond distracting people from the primary task of WP, regardless of how many saccharine-polite "Misters" are thrown around. The solution is at hand. Move on.

Mr.Bryant, you have been told several times, by myself and admins, to stop using that individuals name in an attempt to erroneously link me to someone you have real life issues with. This is the last time I will ask nicely. From this point on, if you do it again, i will edit your comments so the name is deleted. TruthCrusader

Mr. Signorelli, you do not have my permission or the authority to edit any of my comments. Please refrain from doing so, Stephen. Chadbryant 02:30, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Link error: Nightshade

While reading infomationon Day of Vengeance, I clicked a link labeled "Nightshade"-however, this took me to information on the plant family Solanaciae rather than information on the character. Trying again, I was once again directed to the plants- it appears there is no disambiguation page nor indeed any page on the character. Unfortunately, I don't know anything about this character at all, so can be of no help. Please have a member who is knowledgable about this character set up info and disambiguation pages. [The Mysterious Interloper]

The only link I can see from Day of Vengeance to Nightshade goes correctly to the comic book character. I presume you are talking about the Black Alice article. I've now fixed the reference there. If you had mentioned which article you found the problem in, it would have been much quicker to have fixed it. Of course, this is a wiki, so you can fix such problems yourself.-gadfium 18:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, the mistake I was thinking of was on the Eclipso page. I've just fixed it.

[The Mysterious Interloper]

Getting pnm: RealAudio links to work in Wikipedia

Normally, if you put a URL: resource address in [brackets] the wiki server side process will properly format a buried link for the browser. However, there are many more URL: resource addresses than just those that begin with "http:". For example, the wiki server side process does not properly format the following [pnm://rm.content.loudeye.com/~a-600111/0676330_0104_07_0002.ra URL: resource], as you can see. If you paste the URL: resource address

pnm://rm.content.loudeye.com/~a-600111/0676330_0104_07_0002.ra

into your browser address window, you will see from the browser reaction how the wiki server side process should format that pnm: URL: resource address as a link in the above examples. Could you please add pnm: to the table of allowed external URL: resource prefixes, such as http:, https:, ftp:, etc.? Thank you. ---Rednblu 20:17, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have submitted a request for this feature at bugzilla It is listed as "Bug 3925". DES ^(talk) 18:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have also posted a copy of this at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). DES ^(talk) 18:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VRML Files for Polyhedra pages

I was browsing the pages on polyhedra, and noticed that the pages have links to animations of polyhedra, but not to manipulatable files such as VRML files, that those with the proper plugins can use. I find that such files help understand the polyhedra better, and plugins for your browser can be downloaded free of charge. If it is simply that no one has added the files, I've got a couple of files I could adapt (wireframe-ish only).

feel free to add any such files you care to. If you have created them, you should probably tag them with {{GFDL-self}}. DES ^(talk) 22:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some students prevented from creating accounts due to a "10 account" limit

While trying to get students set up with Wikipedia accounts yesterday, some of the students were unable to create accounts because of some sort of limit on the number of accounts that could be created. The error message (sorry, this isn't an exact quote) said that a given student was unable to create an account because s/he had already created 10 accounts. This was not at all the case; there's no way that any one student even had time to create that many accounts.

Is this some sort of security feature that monitors the domain from which accounts are created? I realize that the computer lab in which we worked might be using some sort of sub-domain that makes it look like one IP address, but that's not the case.

How can this be avoided in the future? It's usually best for me to supervise the students when they create their accounts, but I might be able to turn this into a homework assignment that's done from home or from different labs on campus.

Any help or suggestions on this matter would be greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymond Meredith (talk • contribs) 09:00, 26 January 2005

There is a limit of 10 accoutns per IP address, as i understand matters. I don't know why the system was perciving your connetion as a single IP Address. DES ^(talk) 22:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have copied this to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). DES ^(talk) 22:59, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's 10 account creations per IP per 24 hours. It is intended to block bots from automatically creating large numbers of accounts. Dragons flight 23:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Towers

Does every tower need a page? Are these really encyclopedic? Most entries are one line with two external links? Vegaswikian 19:09, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You could nomiate a buch for deletion on AfD or start a centrralized discussion page, like several linked to from the AfD page, on what the standards for a tower or building article should be. DES ^(talk) 23:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A good point

This was on this article's talk page:

:As a relative newcomer, I am finding it almost impossible to find a place to make a request for an article on a given subject. A CLEAR, SIMPLE way (hotlink?) would be appreciated. For those of you wondering, I had in mind ASW aircraft of WW1.

::You want Wikipedia:Requested articles, or specifically, Military / Military History--Rogerd 10:44, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

This is a good point. It's also not obvious how to start a new page. If you search for something, and there's no article matching it, there should be a way to make one!!! Isn't that the main concept of Wikipedia?

I know that there are ways to do these things, but for newcomers, or one-time writers, this is definitely enough to discourage them. Most people don't have the time or motivation to edit much, probably just occasionaly. I had ideas of articles I wanted to request when I was new here, even a few articles I would have started, but I couldn't figure out how, and was too lazy to check the help. It may be years before those articles are requested and/or written (I've completely forgotten what they were).

I am seeing too many responses to these complaints with a "to do that, go here." Sure, you may be helping that one person, but what about the other people, the thousands who give up? If there's no way normal editors can change this, can someone tell me who should I talk to about it?Twilight Realm 22:33, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you enter an article title in the "search" box at the left and hit "Go" or press RETURN, then if there's no article matching it, you should see something like the following text:

You can create an article with this title or put up a request for it.

This line contains a link allowing you to create the new article, and a link to Wikipedia:Requested articles. This is the "No Go match" page. If you hit the "Search" button instead, or you use the search box on the "No Go match" page, then you get a search results page that does not have these links. Perhaps this should be changed. We're certainly keen to improve the site's usability. Do you have any specific suggestions for how we can improve things? Bovlb 00:19, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have a suggestion. Go, for example, to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=this+page+does+not+exist . It doesn't give you that option. I am guessing that that's because there are a lot of search results, but there should still be a link to create a new one. And by the way, if I'm just being stupid, just tell me. It could just be that I'm skipping over something extremely obvious. However, I still think that there are too many people saying "to solve that, go here." I know that this entry isn't going to get many readers. I'd like to put something about that in the instructions. If someone's having trouble with something, other people most likely will. "If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day..." Well, if you tell a single person the solution, you're feeding the group of newcomers for a day. Make the solution obvious, and you'll help them and you. You'll feed him for his life. NOTE: Please respond to both the topics I discussed, if you can. Don't punish me for including both in the same entry.Twilight Realm 22:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_complaints#Over_resoluted_pictures and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_complaints#An_Article_.22Faggot.22_that_I_found for two examples of what I'm talking about. They're actually just a few sections down this page. Twilight Realm 23:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

General complaints

Sorry I don't know how, but can someone please do one of those things on this page which invites one to ask a new question, same as what can be found at help desk and reference desk, it would make things easier. thanks/ --Ballchef 10:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. If you're curious, it's the same functionality as when you press the "+" tab at talkpages. gkhan 16:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. If you're up for it, can you also put one of those pretty boxes around it, to make it more noticable? --Ballchef 08:11, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Want all the bells and whistles, huh? Well fine :P gkhan 23:21, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Search Engine

OK, so everyone hates the wikipedia search engine. now that i think about it, yeh, it sucks. someone (above) mentioned that they use google search. I also noticed that when the wikipedia search engines are down wikipedia invites the user to search through google or yahoo. Many websites have boxes that say "powered by google", so why doesn't wikipedia get that too and solve the problem of poor searching ability? --Ballchef 10:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am aware the advantages of the Mediawiki search is that it handles redirects better than google does and gets updated a bit more quickly. Robmods 20:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE READ

YOU NEED TO SET UP A PAGE THAT EASILY DIRECTS PEOPLE TO THE EMAILS THERE LOOKING FOR! LET ME EXPALIN WHAT I MEAN...FOR EXAMPLE...WHEN I CLICK THE "CONTACT US" LINK ON THE LEFT, IT SHOULD HAVE ONE PAGE THAT EASILY SHOWS ALL THE EMAILS AVAILABLE FOR THE CORRECT DEPARTMENTS. BUT INSTEAD IT HAS PAGE AFTER PAGE AFTER PAGE, OF LONG DETAILED INFORMATION THAT IS SO COMPLICATED AND DOESNT TELL YOU WHAT THE EMAILS ARE! NOW I REALIZE NOT EVERYONE MIGHT BE HAVING A PROBLEM LIKE ME..BUT I CONSIDER MYSELF COMPUTER SAVY, AND IT TOOK ME A HALF HOUR TO FINALLY FIND THIS PART WHERE IM WRITING NOW! I MEAN WHEN YOU CLICK ON "CONTACT US" THERE SHOULD BE A SIMPLE PAGE SHOWING ALL THE EMAILS AVAILABLE DONT YOU THINK THAT WOULD MORE SENSE? This unsigned comment was made by User:ARYAN818

Please, calm down. Most of the time, an e-mail is not necessary, as we have set up several methods of handling common situations. If you need to contact an administrator, see Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention. —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 21:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

HOW CAN I BLOCK SOMEONE

LISTEN, THERE IS A PAGE CALLED "KASHMIR" AND IT IS WAY TO LONG, AND THE PERSON WHO WROTE IT LEAVES OUT ALOT OF FACTS. THIS IS NOT JUST MY OPINION BECAUSE THERE ARE OTHERS WHO ARE SAYING THE SAME THING. NOW I HAVE EDITED IT WITH ALL THE INFO HE LEFT OUT, AND MADE IT SHORTER AND EASIER TO UNDERSTAND, BUT HE KEEPS CHAGNING IT BACK...AND NOW HE IS THREATING TO BLOCK ME...CAN U HELP SOLVE THIS PLEASE? This unsigned comment was made by User:ARYAN818

Once again, please calm down. Please bring up the issue on the article's talk page, where it should be discussed in a civilized matter. Wikipedia is about consensus, and the best way to reach it is through conversation on an article's talk page. —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 21:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Factual errors

There doesn't appear to be a specific Wikipedia bulletin board or e-mail address to report factual errors contained in the articles. This seems an unusual thing to have omitted. Hard to believe it was just oversight.

The place to report factual errors, or to discuss the wording of articles, is the talk page for each article. Alternatively, you could just edit the article directly to fix any errors. Make sure you explain why in the edit summary.-gadfium 04:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Modding

To whom it may concern,

Under your definition of "modding", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modding#See_also , the picture of the modded computer is actually considered as a "pre-modded" case, which do not require the user to modify it at all.

Modding is when someone modifies a case THEMSELVES, such as installing a case window using thier own tools and materials. NOT buying a pre-modded case.. please update your picture to help explain what a modded pc REALLY looks like.

Thankyou for your time and co-operation, if any,

William Clark

sorry guys the link to modding was To whom it may concern,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modding

sorry 'bout the inconvenience..

William

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs changing, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit any article by simply following the Edit this page link. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to...) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use out the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. --cesarb 14:23, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Court Cases

I was doing a search on your site and determined that you don't have the Landmark Supreme Court Case, Cochran v. Louisiana State Board of Education (S.Ct.1930) list with your cases. Just thought you should have it there. shannon

You may want to place a request here for the article. Or create a short stub article yourself. Another good place to add it would be on List of United States Supreme Court cases. Evil Monkey∴Hello 03:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Wikipedia on CD or DVD?

I was wondering if Wikipedia is available on CD or some other archivable non-internet source (like DVD). I would love to have the whole of Wikipedia on CD or DVD since i live in a rural area with poor internet access. I understand that Wikipedia is a work in progress and maybe it could be published every year or five years or whatever. It could be another source of revenue for the project (if it doesn't already exist) in addition to all the hats, t-shirts, mugs etc. available at the merchandise center of the site.

Perhaps this is a silly question, but it seems like a good idea to me and its another way to get good information to more people who might not have regular internet access but who have a computer that could support CDs or data DVDs (if all the data on the servers is sufficiently huge). And like i said, it could be a source of revenue for the project, and if you can sell t-shirts i imagine you could sell the encyclopedia somehow.

Thank you for your time and consideration...

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk"

Wikipedia is edited far too often for it to be placed on some non-rewritable format like DVDs. Cds are of course out of the question due to Wikipedias huge size. Have you considered getting satellite or wireless internet access? --Arm 02:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The German language Wikipedia has had a couple of editions produced on DVD, in quantities of several tens of thousands. They've sold out pretty quickly. It's always been the intention that Wikipedia would be available in offline versions, for the benefit of African schools and suchlike, but we've never been in a sufficiently stable state to produce "Wikipedia 1.0". -- Arwel 12:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking ?

I'm a newcomer; and have made a couple of minor contributions during the last few days; then today, I suddenly find myself blocked because it seems that somebody else is blocked, and it seems that I'm temporarily using the same IP-address.

The instructions for asking Help in such a case are - to put it mildly - rather confusing; I can't even find my user name in the blocking list; so I ended up on this page; and I'm asking any of you guys who cares to answer, what I'm supposed to do? Thanks. Chingon86 06:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about blocks, but I think that if you can leave a message on this page, then you are not blocked. Maybe Wikipedia:Blocking policy has more info.--Commander Keane 07:34, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for answering. Well yes, I am blocked. I can put messages on a talk page like this one, but my attempt at extending a Wikipage proper (or whatever; it was an entry from the merge backlog) was blocked. Question is - do I have to wait until my IP-address changes again (courtesy of my provider) or what can I do about it? Chingon86 10:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the best way to handle this is to email the user who blocked your IP. Was there a notice somewhere that told you about who did the block? Otherwise, leave a message at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (they don't bite newcomers) explaining the situation (I'm assuming you can post there too). --Commander Keane 11:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Accidental blocks explains your situation (and has some instructions).--Commander Keane 11:34, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Commander Keane! Meanwhile, I read the instructions you mentioned, thought a bit, logged off altogether (comp and all), and started afresh, and succeeded in inserting my entry into that merge backlog page. (P.S. I appreciate you don't bite newcomers!) Greetings. Chingon86 14:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

offensive article

I am doing music research as a teacher for my school on your previously excellent website, and was ready to set my students up to use it for research during a lesson. It's lucky that I double checked the page first (minimalism-music)because someone has entered the page and added some very offensive swear words. I'ts a real shame because your site is so excellent, but I won't be able to recommend it to any of my students now as it's safety is unpredictable. I hope something can be done about this to stop it happening in the future.

Vandalism is a constant problem, but it usually gets cleared up quickly (check back at that article, and if it hasn't cleared yet we will do something about it). Also, it is understood that offensive material can be posted at any time and Wikipedia isn't censored for children anyway, see this. However, there is a way to send your students to the specific version that you see (and not a version that might be vandalised afterwards): it's the "Permanent link" button in the toolbox to the left of the article (under the search bar). After clicking "Permanent link" the URL refers to that specific version, so no changes to the article are visible from that link. Good luck! --Commander Keane 11:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just edit out whatever vandalism a page may have and print out what Wikipedia page you want your class to see. And the petty cuss words in Wikipedia vandalism is hardly offensive. Are you teaching at a Mormon elementary school or what? --Arm 02:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So you think that only a "Mormon elementary school" would be offended by this (scroll to the first section after the contents list), on an encyclopedia? At least Brittanica doesn't have to be vetted for mindless juvenile graffiti every time it's opened. Sbz5809 15:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Remove insualt on Inca page

HI

while reading about the medicans of the Incas there was the note

'Kenin is a Loser'

I think this should be removed cause it has nothing to do with anything.

Please.

Thanks.

Some one who cares. :D

(Preceding unsigned comment by User:203.122.230.21)

Now removed. I also found another act of vandalism by the same user who is on a final warning for previous acts of vandalism to Wikipedia pages. It is likely that user will be blocked.

Of course you can always remove this kind of thing yourself. Each page has a tab at the top marked "edit this page". If you need to practice, you can use the Sandbox.

-=# Amos E Wolfe ^talk #=- 13:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Protect Featured Articles?

I just went to read the Featured Article of the Day (Seattle WA) and ended up spending about 20 minutes cleaning up a whole pile of vandalistic words and phrases that a clever person or persons had interspersed throughout the text. I assume that all this had been done in the past few days since nobody had caught it, or perhaps just in the last day since the article's summary had appeared on the Main Page. My question is this: If an article is good enough to have been voted a "Featured Article," and especially if it has been made a "Featured Article of the Day," doesn't it make sense to provide some level of protection for that article, so it remains at the high level of quality that cause it to be "featured" in the first place? Otherwise, by "advertising" that a particular article is of really high quality, and especially by putting it on the Main Page for a day, you are just inviting vandals to mess up the article. Would it make sense to protect the page and require that any changes be passed through an administrator before they can be made? I realize this would be cumbersome, and time-consuming for administrators, but the alternative is that Wikipedia promotes an article as "among the best we have to offer," and when you go and read it it is laced with profanity. That can't be good for Wikipedia's credibility. Has this suggestion ever been considered? 6SJ7 14:25, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to add one thing. I do understand what some of the arguments might be against my suggestion. I guess the question is whether Wikipedia is going to achieve the status of a reliable reference work, or remain almost completely open to whatever editing anyone cares to do. I think some people believe it can be both, but my observations suggest that it cannot. I think a choice has to be made as to whether Wikipedia is primarily a place for people to edit things, or an encyclopedia that can be used for research and reference. I see at least one comment above by a teacher who would like to use Wikipedia for student research but cannot, due to the likelihood that a student looking at an article at any given moment may find it laced with obscenities. Wouldn't it be great if that teacher and others could use Wikipedia as a reliable research tool? I don't see how that can happen unless Wikipedia begins to "freeze" Featured Articles. Maybe there needs to be another "level" such as "Reference-Quality Articles," and once a Featured Article is deemed "good enough" it gets placed on the "Reference-Quality" list and can be edited only with an administrator's approval. Once a body of research-quality articles has begun to develop, Wikipedia could install a search feature that searches only those articles for people who wish to limit their search in that way. (By the way, having read the history of Wikipedia, I do realize that the original idea was for something like this to happen, though the "finished articles" would have been presented under a different "product name." Maybe it is time to resurrect that idea, but within Wikipedia.) 6SJ7 14:44, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In the immortal words of Ben Stein: "Anyone? Anyone?" 6SJ7 17:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to have a look at User:Raul654/protection. Evil Monkey∴Hello 03:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I figured it had probably been addressed somewhere, since I was sure I was not the first person to ever think of it. (Which I realize is unusual these days, many people think they are the first person to think of any given idea, and they almost never are, and many of them get offended when you tell them someone else, or many someone elses, though of it first.) I do not agree with the explanation, but I will address that on the Talk page connected with the explanation. The short version of my opinion is that most people look to an encyclopedia to READ it, not to WRITE it, and if an article is filled with trash, they aren't going to come back. As for the idea that vandalism is reverted quickly, the Seattle article that I referred to seems to be an example that this is not always true. Major, obvious vandalism such as replacing an entire page with an obscene word, will usually be reverted within minutes, but this is not necessarily the case when someone takes the time to go through an article and "hide" some words or short phrases here and there. It took me three edits and about 20 minutes to clean up the Seattle article and I had to stop about halfway through because I had work to do. 6SJ7 15:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested to know why the reversion of the vandalism took you so long. Had there been intervening edits that made it hard to revert using the history function? Evil Monkey∴Hello 00:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Number one, yes, in looking at the history I found that there had been some "good" edits after the vandalism, so that simply reverting would have wiped out someone's positive contributions. I tried to figure out how to revert but still keep the good stuff, but it appeared that the good edits and the vandalism had become so tangled up by that time, that I had to read every word and edit out all the vulgarities, obscenities, nonsense, etc. (If you go back into the history and see the collection of stuff that I removed during my 3 edits, it's actually pretty amusing.) Is there a technique for avoiding all this that I don't know about yet? As you are an experiencd user maybe you can look back at the history of that page (on the day it was featured on the main page) and see what you have done differently from the point that I started editing. Number two, since I had to read every word and edit, and since I did not have the ability to print out the article at that moment, I had to go into "edit mode" and therefore read not only the words in the article, but all the coding etc. which made it more cumbersome and time consuming. If I had tried to do it just by reading the article itself, I would have been able to remember the location of all the stuff that needed to be edited out. As it is, I ended up doing "find" on all of the most popular swear-words, vulgar names for body parts and functions, etc. (and got hits on most of them!) As I say, if there is an easier way to do it, please tell me. 6SJ7 16:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of Vandalism

I am also a newbie in many ways, including fixing vandalism, especially when it is scattered thruout an article, and there have been good edits since it happened.

It would be helpful if we could print one section at a time ... just the one we want to edit, for whatever reason ... what I do when one is particularly complicated, is to cut & paste from Wiki (not the edit box) to some other editor, such as an e-mail that I delete later instead of sending, then print that and use for mark-up reference. This approach has the added benefit that I can spell check the work, although I rarely do, since I have high confidence in my personal ability to avoid a lot of typos.

I find it helpful when fixing vandalism, to have two windows open.

one for the actual editing
one in a history comparison associated with the actions the vandal took, so I can see the specific text in need of repairs.

AlMac|^(talk) 20:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Protection Thoughts

To accomplish what you imagine, a place where the content is appropriate for children, and veracity of content approved by teachers, you'd have to have:

A mirror site that copies from Wiki, in which each article before going to the mirror site has to go through a vetting process by the teachers and other people approved by the academic community.
- The editors would not be anyone, but approved similar to a moderated discussion group.
Perhaps through the discussion pages approve who may edit, and the kids would be blocked from access to the discussion pages. So anyone, who is registered as an adult, could edit the discussion pages, then a higher level adult editor approved to change the content that has been censored by the teachers.
- That is a very different kind of material presentation than Wiki, but it is one way of getting what you call for.

AlMac|^(talk) 20:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The error (or worse) in the artcile about Harold Pinter

There is a claim that "Pinter is also an active delegate of the Cuba Solidarity Campaign, an organization that defends Cuba's rights abused by Fidel Castro's regime and campaigns against the U.S. embargo on the country"

As a matter of fact as everyone can see on the Cuba Solidarity Campaign website (thanks to link provided) that the CSC does not "defend Cuba's rights abused by Fidel Castro's regime" in any way. Please, correct the very annoying mistake in your wonderful informative wikipedia. Thanks. Alla Nikonov

You see that link at the top of the page that says Edit this page? That means you, yes YOU, can edit any non-protected Wikipedia page you want. So YOU can fix these errors yourself. Just be sure to read Wikipedia writing guidelines for an idea of how we get stuff done at Wikipedia --Arm 02:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

reference to obscene article on portal

Call me a prude, but I really appreciate that the reference to an obscene article was removed from the english portal. It seems that wikipedia can be a vital source of important information without referencing obscene material. I question the benefit of information that contributes to social degradation.

Thanks,

Tony Zamarro <email removed>

The definition obsecne is not one thats universal. Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors.

Content

I keep adding relevant content to the page about my husband and his band since the pages are stubs and ask for more content but you guys keep deleting it. What gives?

In the history of the article, the name of the users who removed the information can be found, and I'm sure they'll happily discuss their actions with you. I'd hazard a guess that since you are in a unique position the information you provide is unverifiable.--Commander Keane 08:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Accident

I accidently put in an image on the Article about John Titor under the name Titor1.jpg. Please take off the image.

List the image in Wikipedia:Images for deletion--Arm 02:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, the correct version of the image is still available at [2] so please upload it over the one you accidentally uploaded before.

Recommendation

Hi,

I find Wikipedia a particularly useful tool whether for my graduate studies or just regular procrastination.

I have a suggestion, that you've probably already considered:

Why don't you make a toolbar a la Google's? So you can type in your wiki-query from any webpage...

Best, Rasmus, D.C.

You can set up search toolbar to search in Wikipedia if you choose. I know this can be easily done in Firefox--Arm 02:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article on the LDS church has a large factual error

Overall I am impressed with your article on the LDS church. HOwever, at the very beginning of the article when you are listing the basic beliefs of the church, of the 'Largest sect' as you call it, headquartered in Salt Lake city, you are incorrect in including the practice of Plural Marriage.

The church no longer practices plural marriage, nor does the church endorse the practice of plural marriage today. Those members who engage in this practice are excommunicated from the LDS church. I refer you to the Church's official website www.lds.org

(below is an excerpt taken from the Official Church website) In 1998, President Gordon B. Hinckley made the following statement about the Church's position on plural marriage: "This Church has nothing whatever to do with those practicing polygamy. They are not members of this Church. . . . If any of our members are found to be practicing plural marriage, they are excommunicated, the most serious penalty the Church can impose. Not only are those so involved in direct violation of the civil law, they are in violation of the law of this Church."

At various times, the Lord has commanded His people to practice plural marriage. For example, He gave this command to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, and Solomon (Doctrine and Covenants 132:1).

In this dispensation, the Lord commanded some of the early Saints to practice plural marriage. The Prophet Joseph Smith and those closest to him, including Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball, were challenged by this command, but they obeyed it. Church leaders regulated the practice. Those entering into it had to be authorized to do so, and the marriages had to be performed through the sealing power of the priesthood. In 1890, President Wilford Woodruff received a revelation that the leaders of the Church should cease teaching the practice of plural marriage (Official Declaration 1).

This issue should be placed in the article's discussion tab or errors might be fixed (edited) yourself, with discussions or references where appropriate. This page does not concern content of articles. --moxon 18:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hacked page?

Please check URL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contact_us for word "sex" in about 5th line from the top.

All pages (well, almost all, 99.9%) can be edited on wikipedia, so "hacked" is perhaps not the most appropriate word :P Anyone can do this. If you see this happening again, you can fix it yourself using reverts (ie. reverting to a previous version of the page), see Wikipedia:Revert. Anyway, it seems to be fixed now. But thanks for being alert! gkhan 12:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

list scientific info. not only by subject but by formula.

I often find myself looking for some bizarre mathmatical or scientific formulas*. Like many other sites, Wikipedia often has the formula, but each formula is hidden in a five page article on how to use it. It would be extremely convienient if sombody were to create a page listing all the relavent formuals and conversions for a subject (algebra, chemestry, geometry, calculus, physics, etc.) all in one place. A sort of "cheat sheet" or "tool kit" that would allow for quick reference by those who just need the information, not the explination. This page could also be used as a menu by linking each formula to the previoulsy mentioned explanitory article. Basically what I'm looking for is a list with all the important applicable information all in one place. I don't know if this is the right place for it, but if You could make one or refer me to one that already exists it would be awesome.

Thank You.

--68.74.157.113 14:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

* by "formulas" I mean mathmatical or scientific, laws, theories, conversion ratios, measurement scales, etc.

We do have those kind of lists and tables, they are just a little hard to find sometimes. See for instance Table of derivatives, Table of integrals, List of equations in classical mechanics and List of laws in science. They can be a little difficult to find (you usually have to look in the "See also" sections or the "List of X topics" articles. See for instance List of calculus topics#Lists and tables). gkhan 16:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

creative thinking vs critical thinking

(1) Your separate articles on CREATIVITY and CRITICAL THINKING neither complement nor distinguish one from the other nor are they constructed in a parallel manner: they should.

(2) I believe that both articles need drastic rewriting. For instance, what is listed as "methods of critical thinking" are not methods but "steps" and "overcoming bias" etc. And De Bono's Six Thinking Hats is creative thinking, not critical thinking. The article on creativity is not coherent either.

(3) I also happen to hold a strong belief that critical thinking and creative thinking are two sides of the same coin - a highly original (and creative) thought, I must say. I propose to write a different, long, combined, creative article on these two kinds of thinking - but that would mean that the separate articles on creativity and critical thinking will have to go.

Frank A Hilario frankahilario@gmail.com 2235 hours Manila time 2005 October 18

These issues should be placed in the articles's discussion tabs, or they might be fixed (edited) yourself, or rework might be suggested in the articles, with discussions or references where appropriate. See Template_messages/Maintenance. This page does not concern content of articles. --moxon 18:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Error in Van Til biography

Sirs: The article on Cornelius Van Til gives the wrong date of birth. He was born on May 3, not on May 4.

This issue should be placed in the article's discussion tab or errors might be fixed (edited) yourself, with discussions or references where appropriate. This page does not concern content of articles. --moxon 18:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Upload file problem

I tried to upload file a logo of GOLTV off of http://www.images.google.com which is a general purpose resource search engine under the Wikipedia:images topic section on the article GOLTV but failed. A notice was put up on the Upload file page that if the file was not completed, it would be deleted in a few days if the rules were not followed. The notice also says that users who upload content with false licenses may be blocked. This is not the case since I uploaded content from a free general purpose resource search engine under the Wikipidia:images topic section. Anyway, I deleted the file myself from the Upload file page and from the article itself when I revised it again. However, the notice of the deletion and block is still there. Please do not block or put any penalty on username Altersphere since the file has been deleted and please check Wikipedia:images for proof of http://images.google.com which is under the general purpose image search engines in the paragraph section called Finding images on the internet.

On the detail page for every result, images.google.com warns that the image may be subject to copyright. That's probably an understatement. Almost every image that it returns is subject to copyright. I imagine that they argue that fair use applies because they normally degrade the image, by reducing it, and becaue it is used for a purpose that benefits the images owner by directing people to their site (or to sites that have bought the rights to the image).

Logos tend to be a particularly sensitive area, as companies don't want their logo used to imply a false association, or in a critical context, and are also sensitive about the exact form in which the log appears. Many copanies have documents specifically about how their logo can be used. It's possible that the logo might be fair use in an article about GOLTV, but IANAL. Even then, the company might complain if the perceived the article as not sufficiently positive about them. They might also insist ton the inclusiion of links to their web site.

Such conditions would be GFDL incompatible.

I can't find any copyright licence on the GOLTV English language page, so the presumption is that they reserve all rights under copyright.

Google's results pages have a copyright notice and their help page states that the images may be copyright and Google don't give you any permission to use the images.

To get the image accepted as fair use, you need to tag it as fair use and explain why you think it is fair use. As I understand it, the resulting image may get excluded from some derivatives of wikipedia.

--David Woolley 22:01, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Opening External Links in new Window

Subject Matter on a topic

Word 'Wikipedia' is absolutely silly.

article requests

How-To Articles

Search buttons: Why no ALT-text?

Unseen images

The Teach the controversy page: Merely one train wreck that manifests the general and pervasive problem in Wikipedia

Twit Factor

Overzealous Keyboard Shortcuts

Camerlengo - Wikipedia License Violation?

Benedict XVI

Why different accounts for different projects?

Why is the search so brainless?

Kate's counter

more of a question really

cancelling account

Truly random?

User harrasment

Please block

Naming Conventions For Pro Wrestlers

Link error: Nightshade

Getting pnm: RealAudio links to work in Wikipedia

VRML Files for Polyhedra pages

Some students prevented from creating accounts due to a "10 account" limit

Towers

A good point

General complaints

Search Engine

PLEASE READ

HOW CAN I BLOCK SOMEONE

Factual errors

Modding

Supreme Court Cases

Suggestion: Wikipedia on CD or DVD?

Blocking ?

offensive article

Remove insualt on Inca page

Protect Featured Articles?

Reversion of Vandalism

Protection Thoughts

The error (or worse) in the artcile about Harold Pinter

reference to obscene article on portal

Content

Accident

Recommendation

Article on the LDS church has a large factual error

Hacked page?

list scientific info. not only by subject but by formula.

creative thinking vs critical thinking

Error in Van Til biography

Upload file problem