Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
  Policy   Technical   Proposals   Idea lab   Miscellaneous  
The miscellaneous section of the village pump is used to post messages that do not fit into any other category. Please post on the policy, technical, or proposals sections when appropriate, or at the help desk for assistance. For general knowledge questions, please use the reference desk.
« Older discussions, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59

Commons to en:Wiki[edit]

I recently became aware of the contributions to Commons by ACTVR. I haven't examined all of them, but those I have seen are carefully edited versions of older (but nevertheless presumably copyright) British company logos. I think that many, perhaps all, have their ("fair use"!) place in en:WP articles -- but not in Commons. I've put up one for deletion, and, in my nomination, mentioned the others. I think it would be beneficial if, for most (all?) of these files, somebody would upload it to en:WP with a different filename, switch the link in the article to this new upload, provide a fair use rationale, and perhaps do a couple of other things that I can't immediately think of. However, I cannot be that body: my "RL" has deadlines looming.

Alternatively, perhaps there already exists help for moving stuff such as this from Commons to en:WP; I don't know, and sorry but I lack the time needed to investigate. -- Hoary (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I really don't have the time needed for this stuff, but I thought I'd do it for one file: File:MPP logo.jpg. I gave this a different filename, selected "fair use | logo", and wrote:

The logo of Micro Precision Products, in a JPEG edited by User:ACTVR, who in 2013 uploaded it to Commons as File:MPP logo.jpg, stating that it, together with a score of other logos was ACTVR's "Own work". Surely it instead should be presumed to be copyright, and should not be at Commons (and I am about to ask for its deletion).

Fair use rationale: The image is used to identify the company Micro Precision Products. Use of the logo is intended to help readers identify the company, assure readers that they have reached the relevant article containing critical commentary about the company, and illustrate the company's intended branding message in a way that would be laborious or impossible to express via words alone.

Source: Wikimedia Commons (File:MPP logo.jpg). User:ACTVR did not specify their source for this. The logo is identical to that shown on the back cover of Basil Skinner, Micro Precision Products: The MPP Story and the Products (Newquay, Cornwall: MPP Publications, 2004), to that shown in the advertisement for the MPP Monorail Camera that is reproduced on page 42 of this book, and also to that on the MPP Monorail Camera as shown in this advertisement.

But I was told: "This file is a duplicate of the following file: [File:MPP logo.jpg]" and "Please modify the file description below and try again." I don't know how I could constructively modify the file description. I could open the file with GIMP and fiddle with a few pixels and save as a different file, but this seems like cheating (and some bot might flag it as nefarious). What to do? (Not that I, this week, would be in a mood to do any of it.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:02, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Attempt at discussion failed here; succeeded at commons:Commons:Village_pump#Moving_from_Commons_to_en:Wikipedia. If anyone here is interested, please go there. -- Hoary (talk) 22:23, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

How can the Interaction Timeline be useful in reporting to noticeboards?[edit]

The Anti-Harassment Tools team built the Interaction Timeline to make it easier to understand how two people interact and converse across multiple pages on a wiki. The tool shows a chronological list of edits made by two users, only on pages where they have both made edits within the provided time range. Our goals are to assist users to make well informed decisions in incidents of user misconduct and to keep on-wiki discussions civil and focused on evidence.

We're looking to add a feature to the Interaction Timeline that makes it easy to post statistics and information to an on-wiki discussion about user misconduct. We're discussing possible wikitext output on the project talk page, and we invite you to participate! Thank you, For the Anti-Harassment Tools team, SPoore (WMF), Trust & Safety, Community health initiative (talk) 21:38, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

IP-users 110.169.nnn.mmm[edit]

I'm not shure if I must report this here, but I could not find another place. Since early this year IP-users 110.169.nnn.mmm, where nnn=13 and nnn=12 were the busiest, have been contributing many times with "not existing template arguments". The pattern is always on one day many contributions are made, and only on that one day. Next time such a thing happens, it is the same pattern, but another address. Some examples: 110.169.13.23, 110.169.12.191. I could not find all edits by all 110.169.nnn.mmm addresses, but there must be more than those I noticed. --FredTC (talk) 14:56, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

See Special:Contributions/110.169.0.0/16 for any edits by 110.169.x.x. Johnuniq (talk) 23:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank for explaining tis usage of Special:Contributions. Some analysis shows the pattern mentioned above is indeed more often present than I noticed. Some examples are: Ananda Mahidol 3 edits, Bhumibol Adulyadej 6 edits, Somchai Wongsawat 9 edits, and again, by the same IP Somchai Wongsawat 12 edits and Maha Thammaracha 12 edits. I cannot judge every edit, but many of such edits had to be reverted. Is this a reason to have these addresses on a special watch list? --FredTC (talk) 07:20, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Help with finding an essay[edit]

Hi. I read a Wikipedia essay a short while ago detailing how to avoid repetition. One of the things it detailed was that editors should avoid using different synonyms in repetetive text and instead shorten it. It mentioned that “title” shouldn’t be used as a synonym for “game” due to its ambiguity.

Could somebody please help me find this essay? I couldn’t find it at Wikipedia:Essay directory as I don’t remember what it is called. Interqwark talk contribs 06:12, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Interqwark: This search found Wikipedia:The problem with elegant variation, which matches your description. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
@John of Reading: Thank you! I searched for “repetition” in essays but couldn’t find it, for some reason. Interqwark talk contribs 08:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Experiment to understand Wikipedia citation usage[edit]

Hi everyone,

The Wikimedia Foundation Research team is starting a project on understanding the role of external citations in Wikipedia reading. This project aims to understand how Wikipedia readers use the citations, which in turn can inform the editor and tool developer communities about the usage (or not) of citations by Wikipedia readers. Some more information about this research on the project page: m:Research:Characterizing Wikipedia Citation Usage.

To be able to do this, we will collect data on readers’ citation usage, starting 2018-06-25. We will collect data that captures the interactions of readers (not logged-in users) with references and footnotes. We will initially sample 1–15% of the traffic to validate the quality of the data. Once that’s verified, we intend to do data collection at 100% sampling rate for a period of one week. Please note that given that we do not know the frequency of citation usage, we may have to change this plan based on the initial validation steps. We will keep this thread posted with changes if they occur, and we will update our project page.

To follow the progress of the project and monitor our research results, please also look at this task. If you are interested to know more, or if you have any question, or any observation, please ping me! Miriam (WMF) (talk) 15:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Hasty delation of Judit Hidasi & Hasty proposed delation of Judit Hidasi bibliography[edit]

To whom it may concern. I am astonished at @Randykitty:'s act because I think she is not right but we are human beings and to err is human. I think she has not paid enough attention to the fact that I am an CONFIRMED editor and I am aware of the facts of notability guideline for academics and the rule of WP:SCHOLAR and the article in question is highly suitable for creating a wikipedia article. So These articles ARE NOT an Unambiguous ADVERTISING or PROMOTION. Her nomination for delation was pretty husty and unreasoned, I think, and I understand her intention to defend the interests of Wikipedia but on the one hand the article was about a famous and notable scientist, scholar, professor of linguistics from Hungary who teaches and researches not only in Hungary but in the universities of Japan, Taiwan, Russia, Germany and Romania, so she is known worldwide and his scientific efforts were honored with lotsa awarded eg. Order of the Rising Sun 3rd Class, Gold Rays with Neck Ribbon by HM Akihito, Emperor of Japan on 8 November 2005 in Tokyo

so it was an unfriendly act to offend these articles but on the other hand if this Hungarian scholar were not a notable scholar, she would not have been invited to teach and research to the notable universities of the world therefore this article was abouut a notable woman, scientist who is respected in my country and in Western Europe (Germany) and Eastern Europe (Romania, Russia) and in the Far East (Japan, Taiwan).

Her article has been existing for two years and I do not understand why it were an un unambiguous advertising or promotion??!!!! If her own article were an advertising or promotion then all living scholars' articles would be advertisings or promotions and you all might think she (who will be 70 years old on 11 July) should die if her article were rightful??!!! And it is pretty weird that @Randykitty: has nominated the article for delation at 13:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC) and it have been delated in five hours, at 18:47, 23 June 2018 by @Swarm: this is nonsense!!!! There WASN'T any time to revise it, to defend it for me, to explain my opinion.

@Randykitty: is not right, both articles Judit Hidasi and Judit Hidasi bibliography own several secondary sources and not only in Hngarian but in English, too. I think if a person can be found in a book of the Biographies of the Contemporary Hungarian Linguists, that person can also deserve the article on wikipedia. A biography has been written about Judit Hidasi in Hungary:

  • Kálmán Bolla (ed.) (2009). Judit Hidasi (PDF) (in Hungarian). In: Kálmán Bolla (ed.): Magyar nyelvész pályaképek és önvallomások (Biographies of the Contemporary Hungarian Linguists) 85. Budapest: Zsigmond Király Főiskola (King Sigismund University). Retrieved 2018-06-24.  ISBN 978-963-9559-44-8

I understand @Randykitty: does not know this linguist in her own country but the scientists who research the communication in the world, they know her name. She is among the respected and notable linguists.

I hope I have managed to prove my arguments and standpoint that the articles in question should be kept on English wikipedia and now the admins of enwiki will give up the idea to delate Judit Hidasi bibliography as @Randykitty: has written it to me, and the article of Judit Hidasi will be restored without delay and I can remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}} and you all will accept this, you all agree with me and you all won't change my editing and you would no longer like to delate both of them. Please Ask the opinion of the Hungarian administrators and workshops that deal with Hungarian topics. I DO NOT accept that the delation of the article of this Hungarian scholar was well substantiated and that two admins can make a decision about this important topic without any discussions, diputes, debates so the decision of delation was hasty and unreasoned. Best regards.Borgatya (talk) 21:46, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

The bibliography is clearly unsuitable for inclusion (see WP:NOTCV in particular), for the main article it's impossible to gauge at the moment since it's now deleted, although I have no reason to doubt Randykitty's judgement that this was a case of WP:CSD#G11. I suggest you create the article as a WP:DRAFT first, where the article can be brought inline with our standards, if it is indeed suitable for inclusion. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:27, 25 June 2018 (UTC)