Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive T

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Tom Wilson

I hope this is the right place for this type of thing, I wasn't sure where else to put it. I've already mentioned it on the discussion page for two of the articles in question, but I wanted to mention it somewhere that others would see it, not just those checking the specific articles.

When I typed "Tom Wilson" into the search field and hit "Go", I was looking for the Back to the Future actor, but instead I was lead to the producer. Now, I know that there's a small group of people on the producer's discussion page hailing him as a hero and whatnot, but is he really the primary Tom Wilson that someone should be automatically taken to when looking up the article for that name? Between the aforementioned actor and the Ziggy cartoonist, I submit that there's no real justification to say that any of these 3 is necessarily more likely than the others to be the person someone's looking for when they look up the name. I propose that the article currently called "Tom Wilson" be renamed to Tom Wilson (producer), and that Tom Wilson be changed to redirect to the Thomas Wilson disambig page. It might also be a good idea to start removing some of the people from the list, since more than half of the links are currently red. - Ugliness Man 10:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's one thought: Have you tried comparing Google search results? Take the name in quotes (the common name "Tom Wilson" or "Thomas Wilson" might be best, but I'm not sure) and in different searches use a single word associated with only one of these people (for instance, movies that only the producer or actor were involved in but not both), then do a search with the name of the cartoonist and, I guess, Ziggy. If none of the results are enormously bigger than all the others, you've got some evidence to show other editors why it would be a good idea. I'd make the argument on the Tom Wilson page. It's up to you to decide if it's worth the effort, of course. As to removing people from the red links, the question I ask myself is: would it be more useful to readers if this stays or if it goes? Noroton 18:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the idea. I did Google searches on both names, and the evidence seems to support my position. The only links relevant to the producer are links to the current Wikipedia article. I reported a more detailed version of my findings on the talk pages for both relevant articles, and if there are no convincing arguments to the contrary in the next few days, I will "be bold" and begin the moving/renaming process myself.
As for the red links, I'll leave those alone, since someone may consider one or more of them article-worthy any day now. - Ugliness Man 23:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Almost a week later and no comments, in either article, on the subject supporting or opposing. I've renamed the article to Tom Wilson (producer), and I'm currently in the process of editing articles which link to Tom Wilson with piped disambigs. - Ugliness Man 21:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to add a note that I'm now taking this page off my watchlist, so if anyone wants to discuss this with me for some reason, please do so on my talk page. - Ugliness Man 11:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


Any help here would be appreciated. For a while, almost all submissions have been entirely untouched. Patstuarttalk·edits 18:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Copyright vs. Trademark?

Does anyone know something about the difference between the two according to US law? If so could you check out the discussion on Talk:David Miscavige? It seems like the two are being confused and someone is saying that a copyright has to be renewed every year. Thanks if you can help. Steve Dufour 19:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

My training is in writing rather than in law so what I write are pragmatic observations rather than legal opinions, but yes DES appears to have a very firm grasp of the matter and Steve Dufour is unfamiliar with the fundamentals. No, this isn't a discussion of trademark law, and the issue of copyright renewal is not copyright has to be renewed every year but that United States copyright law used to require a single renewal 28 years after publication. That particular issue is a delicate one because the matter of what constitutes publication is somewhat nebulous and the works under discussion could have disputed copyright status for several reasons. Copyright law also changed several times during the late twentieth century, which potentially affected various works within the author's corpus. DurovaCharge! 14:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. You both were very helpful and it seems that the question has been cleared up now. Steve Dufour 19:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Primex7 22:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Darkness of Meta

I just got a message (reprinted here) through my wiki email. Anyone else get this? I was just wondering if I have to register to "establish the ultimate scourge" or if I'm automatically enrolled as a member of the cabal?--Isotope23 15:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

When do I get my share of the world? Corvus cornix 22:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


I believe LENS (the new technology) should also be listed on the Lens page...



chris collins, st. louis — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 14:10, 3 March 2007

If there's a "Lens" disambiguation page, then you can add it to the list. You can also write an article on it, as long as it conforms to Wikipedia standards. Eilicea 16:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Quick Opionion Poll.. How long will the en.wikipedia community continue to operate, given current trends?

How long will the current wikipedia community (not the encyclopedia itself, not theoretical future communities), continue to operate successfully, if current trends continue unchanged'. What changes might be useful to help us operate for longer?

1 year

2 years

3 years

4-10 years

More than 10 years

Until the whole current community is dead.

By definition :) --bainer (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I would vote for between one day, since people come and go every day, and as long as civilization lasts, since WP is such a great thing and there is no reason for it to go away -- the community will continue long after our lifetimes. Steve Dufour 19:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

When the whole current community can go fork somewhere, it's rather hard to kill it. -Amarkov moo! 19:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Voting is evil. Corvus cornix 22:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the last option. The content will exist forever, at least. The community's operation depends on the server's, so I trust that the latter will work. At least this isn't a ballot ("how long would like like Wikipedia to exist?") GracenotesT § 02:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Sabotage by subject of article

This has been reported on Talk:Barbara Schwarz. What do you think? Steve Dufour 00:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia mention by Michael Scott in "The Office"

Is there any discussion in Wikipedia on this humorous and very high profile mention on the April 5 show? I thought it was very funny, because the principle of Wikipedia does sound pretty silly when you say it like he did, that "anyone in the world can edit it" and that's a good thing. I happen to think it is a great thing, but it does sound ridiculous when you outright say it like he did. It was perfect for that character and show. Spalding 17:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It's mentioned on Wikipedia:Wikipedia on TV and radio, but I haven't seen it anywhere else. --Joelmills 22:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Random article link

I tried this for the first time today. I was really very impressed with the quality of the articles that came up in a dozen or so tries. It makes WP look a lot better than some of the controversies you run into on the discussion pages. Steve Dufour 21:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I like it. It's a good way to find a really random topic that you can learn a little about while improving an article. Sancho 07:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I've looked at 30 to 40 articles this way in the last couple of days. I didn't see any bad articles. Some were quite good and about interesting subjects. A few were about people of marginal notability, or songs on albums by bands I have never heard of. I didn't come across any that were "unsuitable for family viewing." Steve Dufour 17:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

iorn board

iam unable to fold my iorn board could you suggest me some ideas68.100.249.46 17:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

See if there is a catch holding one of the legs to the bottom of the table. Steve Dufour 19:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Problems with Stable versions

I have been thinking about stable versions and something occurred too me. Would the templates have to have a stable version along with pictures? My guess is that not being able to edit articles, those would be the prime targets for trolls and vandals. Comments? The Placebo Effect 23:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

There would always be previous versions of images stored in the database. I'm not sure how difficult it would be to bring up archived versions by default, though I imagine it should be possible.--Pharos 00:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Redundant fundamental categories

I'm posting here just in case I've overlooked something really really obvious: I'm about to nominate Category:Fundamental for deletion, because it seems to be quite redundant to Category:Main topic classifications to me. Now, have I missed some obvious differences between the two categories? Is there a good reason to have two different "main" categories?--Conti| 23:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:IFD, not deleted

on Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 April 8 there are many images still not deleted, eventhough it recieved delete votes. And the APril 8 page is off the WP:IFD list. So how does this system work then? When will these images be deleted? (of course I'm particularly interested in the images I nominated) --Spundun 16:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Censoring the flag of Spain? Input requested

Over on Talk:Gibraltar, a Gibraltarian user is objecting to the inclusion of the template for Wikipedia:WikiProject Spain on the grounds that it's a "foreign project" and that it includes an unacceptable "nationalist symbol" (i.e. the Spanish flag). In conjunction with this, he is attempting to remove either the template or the flag from the template. Bearing in mind that Wikipedia is not censored to meet particular points of view, I'd be grateful if previously uninvolved users could take a look and provide their views at Talk:Gibraltar#Flag. -- ChrisO 15:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Quick question of absolutely no importance but it's been bugging me

I use {| id="EnWpMpBook2" style="width:95%; height:100px; background-repeat: no-repeat; background-position: 0% 20%;background-color: #ffffff; border: 1px solid #88a; -moz-border-radius:10px; margin-left: 2.5%; margin-top: 2.5%;" |} on my userpage, which gives whats at the bottom of this post.

Does anyone know what I could replace EnWpMpBook2 with? or what the id=" " part of it does? I pulled the script out of another userpage and I think it came from an alternative main page - but I would like to change the image. As I said, no importance but it's been bugging me for a while - even if i could find the script that id=" " links to, I could probably figure it out.

Thanks, ...adam... (talkcontributions) 22:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

User talk:The Joker#Background has more info --Random832 01:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Is it irrelevant?

[1] > the user who deleted this picture from this article says this picture is irrelevant and I completely disagree. It was included in a section untitled "Criticism of and opposition to Mugabe" so it's not irrelevant to show a demonstration against him. It's totally neutral to show a demonstration. It would have been irrelevant if it was written something like "fair demonstration against Mugabe's crimes" under it but it wasn't. Moreover, there aren't many pictures in this article so I think such a picture was welcomed. Of course, I have to admit that I might not be objective since it's my picture but I wanted to know what people generally thought about it before trying to restore it. Thanks. --Two Wings (jraf ) 08:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

hmmm...I have never thought about a picture of a demonstration against the subject of an article. If the article was about me I'm sure I would feel it was unfair. Did the article itself mention the demonstrations? Were they especially notable? If so I would say the picture is ok. Steve Dufour 01:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
The article doesn't mention this particular demonstration but it mentions that many protests and oppositions exist throughout the world so the picture was useful because it illustrated an example of protest (what's more a foreign protest). Same as George W. Bush in the "Foreign perceptions" paragraph. --Two Wings (jraf ) 20:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
That sounds good to me. I'd vote to let the picture stay. Steve Dufour 05:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, well I'll include it again then. Thanks for your opinion. --Two Wings (jraf ) 16:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't Tell Me

I've learned that WP can be a useful tool in some narrow fields if taken with a grain of caution; in others, it can be an amusing distraction. So I read it. Fortunately, I have enough background that I can tell BS from GS and if I don't like what I read, I can go read something else.

I don't edit anymore. I think it's stupid and pointless; WP is consumed by idiot Sunday-afternoon-book-club politics. I don't want to get any more silly, smarmy, cowardly talk page notices telling me how somebody wants to delete stuff I did years ago. I'm not going to argue plain facts with blinkered fanatics.

If you want to delete it, delete it. Don't be pussies. Just do it. — Xiongtalk* 02:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

This article is a mess.

World War II casualties 19:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Fix it then! Click edit this page at the top and edit till it's better! GDonato (talk) 22:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC) ~(If you intend to become a longer-term contributor you may want to Create an account)
I saw the link above and tried to add the {{rewrite}} tag to the article since the footnotes section is half the article, but it keeps getting removed. I've tried talking it out, but am getting nowhere. Any suggestions? 23:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be a good idea to go to Talk:World War II casualties and raise your concerns there - being specific about them. Saying, "This article is a mess" or "This article needs a rewrite" isn't helpful, but "This article is a mess because..." with a reason is. x42bn6 Talk 23:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I have. I wasn't the one who said "This article is a mess", that was 23:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Proper CSD tag

What would the CSD tag be for a vandal only picture? It has no other uses. Thanks. - Hairchrm 18:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

{{db-g3}} Anon 19:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Quick Opionion Poll.. How long will the en.wikipedia community continue to operate, given current trends?

How long will the current wikipedia community (not the encyclopedia itself, not theoretical future communities), continue to operate successfully, if current trends continue unchanged'. What changes might be useful to help us operate for longer?

1 year

2 years

3 years

4-10 years

More than 10 years

Until the whole current community is dead.

By definition :) --bainer (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I would vote for between one day, since people come and go every day, and as long as civilization lasts, since WP is such a great thing and there is no reason for it to go away -- the community will continue long after our lifetimes. Steve Dufour 19:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

When the whole current community can go fork somewhere, it's rather hard to kill it. -Amarkov moo! 19:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Voting is evil. Corvus cornix 22:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the last option. The content will exist forever, at least. The community's operation depends on the server's, so I trust that the latter will work. At least this isn't a ballot ("how long would like like Wikipedia to exist?") GracenotesT § 02:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Raising my voice

Wikipedia has become what most people dread. Let me explain myself, when I first came here in 2003, I fell in love with Wikipedia because it was so different to other encyclopedias as it aimed to be. No other encyclopedia in the world can boast of having an article about Jose Luis Ramirez, which I wrote by the way.

Wikipedia could attract people from the "other side of town" into learning in an entertaining way. Those students and children or grown ups who are bored by Britannica and the other, uptight encyclopedias that seem designed so that only highly intelligent people and those who did not need to learn in the first place can enjoy it. You can bring that "wikipedia is not..." all you want, but as writers we are also teachers and it is our responsability to teach those who are hungry for learning, as well as those who already have knowledge. So if it says somewhere Wikipedia is not a school, well, all serious encyclopedias are schools anyways.

Which is my leading, but not only, argument, to the new, exaggerated measures taken by Wikipedia's new blood, people who werent even here to begin this wonderful project in the first place but who have taken it upon themselves to make sure Wikipedia becomes ridiculously meticulous and strict-exactly what Wikipedia did not want in principle to be, another Britannica or Webster's.

Take Genieveve Jones, for example. She has become a large celebrity, even labeled as The Black Paris Hilton over the internet. I was going to reinstate her article until I found out you have to put 5 tags and let 5 people know that it will be reinstated, so that the people who voted for it to be deleted can put it for deletion again. Do you see what I mean?????? A Harvard professor or a laureate, for example, thinks she is not worth it, therefore they out it for deletion, 15 scientifics vote for it to be deleted because shes not notable in their fields and the article is once again deleted. Despite her obvious celebrity (look on the internet), some deem her not to be important-she is gone. Some 15 people who are closed inside their labs and not obvious to what's going on around the world, and who decide to go against the millions who do know who she is, therefore making her a celebrity no matter what 15 people think, but the 15 people have her deleted...ha!

Carol Castellano, a very significant personality in boxing and International Boxing Hall of Fame shoe in dies and her death is listed by VERY RESPECTABLE wikipedians, and other wikipedians who don;t have a clue about the HISTORIC sport of Boxing delete her name just because they in particular don't know her. Ms Castellano judged more than 60 world title fights around the world and the entire world of boxing is saddened by her parting. Tell me her death is not significant. The Carol Castellano who is president of some animal organization may have more websites but Carol Castellano the boxing judge is likely to become a Hall of Famer in Boxing, and the Carol Castellano director of something is likely to retire into oblivion.

Not to talk about Judith Pizarro, not known in the USA but known by about 80% of the 4 million Puerto Ricans residing in th8at island, yet someone says she's not notable and erases her name from the recent deaths list.

Another item is that, lately, there seems to be an unwritten Wikipedia law that those related to celebrities shouldn't have articles about themselves despite their own celebrity. Skylar Neil became a celebrity apart from her dad, Vince Neil, because of her tragic disease. She even has a fund named AFTER HER, a celebrity goldf tournament and an MTV feature. Clara Benitez is mentioned commonly in Puerto Rican newspaper as an important woman in the boxing world. But their articles redirect to their relatives, in Clara's case, Wilfred Benitez. They are CELEBRITIES, or at least well known, whether their relatives are more famous or not. Soon we may have Ashlee Simpson redirected to Jessica Simpson just because. Relatives of famous people who have gained fame on their own should not have their own articles redirected. Else we can begin by redirecting Prince Harry's article. He is worldwide famous but only because of who he was born to, otherwise no one would care what school he went to or what scandal he caused.

Wikipedia needs to go back to the simpler, easier format encyclopedia everyone liked. A potential Wikipedian who may be a young teen or a person who had before never been interested in encyclopedias-a potential benefactor of Wikipedia's vast article list-writes about his or her favorite New York Knick basketball player and some highly rated law student puts the page for deletion, and the new writer comes back and sees his or her article about said basketball player on a vote for deletion two days after it was written. Do you think that's a way to encourage people to come to our website and learn or expand their knowledge?? NO.

Wikipedia needs to go back to the simpler, friendlier while also watchful encyclopedia it once was. Wikipedia's fathers ran it VERY WELL like that.

Antonio Outspoken One Martin 9:48 GST, April 2, 2007

There's nothing wrong with articles on obscure people as long as the information is attributed to a reliable source. Otherwise we will end up with pranksters creating lots of articles about fictional people (who don't exist in the real world or in any existing fictional work). Wikipedia is not a soapbox for the publication of creative works or original research; if you want to publish that, go to Wikibooks. For an example of a properly researched biographical article, see my work at Roger J. Traynor. If people really care about celebrities, they will find the time to dig up a couple of citations to articles about them!--Coolcaesar 16:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Articles on obscure people are one thing. Articles on every Tom, Dick and Harry is another. I'm not saying that all of the above articles should have been deleted but there is a clear need for us to require notability. Also, while defining notability is a difficult thing and some editors are perhaps a bit too deletionist, the bigger problem is IMHO that people often write with a lot of junk but without the important stuff. It's all very well that people may be noteable but if you're writing an article on someone one of the most important things is to establish notability. Yet editors often get held up on the lesser details. I don't care that someone once dated some random celebrity for 5 minutes. As a reader, one of the key things I want to know is why a person is notabable. Even things like someone's age, marital status etc are irrelevant with notability. Why should I care that someone is 34 years old and married for 15 years with 3 children if I don't even know why the heck a person is notable? Therefore, editors shouldn't expect people to ascertain whether people are noteable independent from wikipedia. The article itself should ascert notability. It's no less important IMHO to ascert notablity as it is to use reliable sources and write in a NPOV fashion. Nil Einne 20:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a classic example of the battle between the good and the perfect. If every article had to be perfect we'd have precious few articles available. I say lighten up a bit on the need for excruciating source attribution, lots of articles simply don't need it. Perhaps there should be an easy way for the contributor to indicate they don't have source references and they are contributing on a "best efforts" basis. Or perhaps the wikipedia software could use some algorithm to assign a "credibility rating" on an automatic basis. GregInCanada 02:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Images by User:Bhudiya2

This user has been actively contributing to Bhagwan Swaminarayan and related topics. He has uploaded a lot of images which maybe copyvios. To begine with he is licensing all of them as self-GFDL, but he himself is stating on most images that he got them from either or or some other similar website. And those websites are copyrighted.

Here are the images he's uploaded.


These images are orphaned and could be deleted, they are probably all copyvios anyway.


These are pictures of the idols at places, again these pics are obtained from the websites I mentioned so are copyrighted. However the statues are in a temple (public place), can its images be copyrighted? Also, some idols might be old enough to be PD by itself, what are people's thoughts on this? Can these images be considered PD?


These are images of the head of a faction, taken from the website, I don't think these can be used by us, neither free, nor fair-use, right?


These are pictures of temple buildings, taken from the websites. I am not sure.... copyrightable? I'm leaning towards yes.

Book Cover

A book cover used in an article on the (religeous book) I think its valid faiuse (though ALL these images are uploaded as self-GFDL right now).


This is a scanned/photographed copy of a (possible reproduction of a) very old iconic image. I believe this can be PD, since the first such image was published more than a hundred years back. (though this image's hard copy might be more recent)... so I think this one can be PD, (but don't yet know which tag to use, any suggestions?)


This is a 3D model of a museum (under construction), definitely copyrighted. Can this be fair use? since the actual museum is not yet there, we can't get a free picture of it. Can we use this as fair use in the section Swaminarayan_Sampraday#Swaminarayan_Sampraday_Developments ? I don't think so.

I'd greatly appreciate if you guys would comment on these. Thank you --Spundun 17:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I have the feeling that you are asking for too much at one time. Steve Dufour 15:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


I don't get involved as a "write user" often around here, just when I'm utterly bored... I couldn't help but to check up on the few wikipedians I know of around here. I couldn't help but to notice this:

User:ILovePlankton's userpage

Don't want to beat dead horses, but this whole story around "Nathanrdotcom" has gone way out of control. That story put aside, it's a nice letter. mimithebrain 06:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Largest wikipedia page

I recently came across a nearly 700k talk page Talk:Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming which I've just set up for automatic archiving. This is a new size record for me but I'm wondering if other editors have encountered larger talk pages and also what's the largest article people have come across? Nil Einne 21:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Funny, I just asked the same question a few hours ago. Special:longpages lists the longest pages, the longest of which, List of former members of the United States House of Representatives, is around 519k, most of it text too. --YbborTalkSurvey! 21:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Ironically I was first going to ask the same question in the Reference Desk (albeit computing) but eventually came here. Nil Einne 21:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yoghurt, Yogurt

The spelling was already standardized, as can clearly be seen. Editing an article to change the spelling of an already-established term (with a misleading summary, no less, to imply that it is not yet standardized) is in clear violation of the manual of style WP:ENGVAR (as of then), quoted here:

  • Stay with established spelling
    • If an article has been in a given dialect for a long time, and there is no clear reason to change it, leave it alone. Editors should not change the spelling used in an article wholesale from one variant to another, unless there is a compelling reason to do so (which will rarely be the case). Other editors are justified in reverting such changes. Fixing inconsistencies in the spelling is always appreciated.

We've all heard it before, many times. But this edit is different. Why, you may ask? This edit changed the established spelling "Yogurt" to "Yoghurt", in 2003. --Random832 06:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Uh-huh. So what are you trying to say? I don't understand your point? --YbborTalkSurvey! 18:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
So the established spelling for the last four years -- two thirds of the lifetime of the article and "a long time" by Wikipedia standards -- has been "yoghurt". The policy that you quote seems to be quite clear that it should stay that way "unless there is a compelling reason" to change it. And if there were a compelling reason I believe that it would have come up in the two previous discussions over the name of this article. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
As for "misleading edit summary" -- that is not the case. The link provided only lists the changes and thus only shows the places where "yogurt" was changed to "yoghurt". It does not show the places where "yoghurt" originally existed, except by chance. To see the mixture which existed before I standardised the spelling you need to look at this link,, which shows the version immediately before I edited it. In that version both "yoghurt" and "yogurt" appear. So the spelling was not "already standardized, as can clearly be seen". -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
The diff I linked covers the whole article, and "yoghurt" appears in only two places on the left; once in the intro (as an acknowledgement of the spelling differences), and once in the "homemade yogurt" section. If someone today used one or two later-inserted occurences of their preferred spelling over overwhelming use of the other spelling to justify "standardizing it", what would happen? And, as the spelling has _not_ been stable over the last four years, the rule that applies here would seem to be "If all else fails, consider following the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor (that is, not a stub) to the article." The article was not created as a stub, so that would be the article creation itself. Which did not include any references to the -gh- spelling at all.
On the other hand, we could go with Yoğurt, since an edit which 'corrected' it to this spelling stood unchallenged for almost a week. Anyway, all i'm saying is that since we're throwing out any arguments about which spelling is more common worldwide, etc, in favor of just using the spelling that got there first, we should use the spelling which actually _was_ there first, being absolutely consistently used from article creation until this edit, and used almost everywhere until your edit. --Random832 21:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
And thanks for calling this "unproductive" - I found new information (or rather, information that has been misinterpreted and dismissed for obviously faulty reasons [specifically, the assumption that the title shown in a historical version is the title that it had at the time of that version] the last time around) and thought it should be brought up again. I do think that using a variant spelling not used in other reference works (Britannica, which one would of course expect to use british spellings generally, says "Yogurt") just because once upon a time someone changed the article to it and successfully defended that change makes Wikipedia look bad. That the issue was "settled" before does not mean it should not be brought up again when new information is found affecting it. --Random832 21:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Re your point about the diff covering the whole article. Well it does but it covers the whole article after I changed it whereas the important version is the one before I changed it since that shows how many occurrences of yoghurt there actually were (there were three not two).
Re your point about "Yoğurt". Use of that spelling was not brought up in the talk page whereas the "yogurt" to "yoghurt" change was brought up on the talk page in this revision, (as were the later two suggested "yoghurt" to "yogurt" changes in later revisions. So the two cases are not strictly comparable.
Re your point about new information. I'm sorry that there was no move log at the time but that's life. To make it absolutely clear, I renamed the article at the same time that I regularized the spelling to reflect the spelling pronunciation suggestion which I had raised on the talk page a month previously (and received no objection to during that month). -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

How does one become a bureaucrat of the English Wikipedia?

How does one become a bureaucrat of the English Wikipedia? Itayb 09:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

There's a section at the bottom of WP:RFA. Bear in mind, however, that people usually like bureaucrats to have already been an admin for some time, so you're very unlikely to succeed if you do decide to self-nominate. Tra (Talk) 23:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. And how does one become a steward? Itayb 09:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • One does not. >Radiant< 10:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Stewards are not on Wikipedia but on the meta-wiki. They are appointed through annual elections. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Sjakkalle. How does one become a candidate for stewardship? Who elects the stewards? What are the qualifications required from a steward (for instance, does he/she need to be an active bureaucrat, or to have been a bureaucrat in the past)? Is there a formal mechanism enabling the general community of Wikipedians to influence this process (such as the RfA for administrators and bureaucrats)? Itayb 10:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't know much about meta-wiki, I have only edited there a few times. But I think that if you look at meta:Stewards/Application guidelines you will see what is required, and meta:Stewards/elections 2006-2 you will see the election process. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. You have been most helpful. :) Itayb 11:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
No problem. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia really "broken beyond repair"??

I'm rather disturbed by all the news I'm seeing, in which the co-founder of Wikipedia is saying that it's "broken beyond repair", citing "serious management problems", "a dysfunctional community", "frequently unreliable content", and "a whole series of scandals" (example link ) - is this really true? And if it is, should Wikipedia continue in its present form, or should we all now be looking at and contributing to the new version, Citizendium? There must be some background to this - does anyone know what it is? (I for one don't want to continue working with something that has been publicly discredited and which no-one trusts!) I feel this issue should be addressed by the Wikipedia administration, and urgently, otherwise people will lose faith - it seems such a pity to let so much work possibly go to waste. I wonder if you could you put out a statement on this, please? I think that the Wikipedia community need to be reassured (or otherwise). Jaycey 11:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This is coming from the founder of Citizendium, who left wikipedia years ago. Adjust your bias-filters accordingly.--Kim Bruning 12:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
It's nonsense. When I'm too tired to edit Wikipedia, I read it; it's impressive. For standard subjects, the articles are very informative: it's remarkable that all this information is available, in such detail, free. Judge whether it's broken or not by whether it provides you with the information you need when you look things up. qp10qp 14:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Let's see, a competitor of wikipedia says wikipedia is broken? There couldn't be any bias there? --Minderbinder 15:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm still here. I like the idea of NPOV, and I still think it can work, but we have to get back to basics - restore our commitment to our core principles.

Jumping onto Arbitration enforcement (about an edit that was already reverted) without even talking to me about first, sounds to me like an indication that something is broken. Perhaps a rip in the social fabric. --Uncle Ed 15:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
And Larry Sanger is more than a competitor - he helped craft the NPOV policy. --Uncle Ed 15:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, but he also intends to violate our GFDL. >Radiant< 16:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, a tool recognized for it's value. It's beautiful when you watch it from the distance. The "Free encyclopedia" part works fine. The "anyone can edit" part is problematic. Users can't write on pages without the lines going through scrutiny for validity as wikipedia grows in credibility. ArbComs, bans, edit wars. See 2 sections above for only one example that probably doesn't deserve as much attention as the many I just didn't care to research. NPOV, rv/rvv, rm... speak english, you have newbies fleeing from editing this place because it's full of tech talk. Second example: User_talk:Grapeman#How_to_create_a_wikipedia_article. Poor guy, trying to be helpful. These are just the 3 people out of 3 people I know from wikipedia that have problems. (ILovePlankton, Nathanrdotcom, Grapeman)mimithebrain 18:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
From what I have seen, the credibility attacks on Wikipedia are silly. Wikipedia holds its articles and editors to high quality standards. (See WP:GA and WP:FA to see proof of this.) There are a few problems in Wikipedia due to its system, but those problems are getting solved bit by bit. I plan to see Wikipedia getting better as time goes on. Captain panda 03:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

"Unfriendly takeover" of articles

Over the last months many article talk pages have been used to announce within the range which WikiProject the article belongs. Interdisciplinary articles sometimes got a large list of these tags.

But recently I've seen attempts of Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal to tag articles which have a paranormal connection only in widest of all imaginable senses: Like the archaelogy article Megalith or the physics article Homopolar generator. Together with alarming interpretation of this tagging as "area of jurisdiction", I'd very much prefer these articles not under paranormal jurisdiction. And I'm not convinced that a straw poll at the project's talk page will do anything good about the issue:

Comments? Suggestions?

Pjacobi 10:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I can not speak for homopolar generators, but I know that megaliths are real. :-) Steve Dufour 15:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey I've seen the Sirius article get tagged by Wikiproject Dogs. Go figure. But yes I understand your concern. It'd be good to keep science-based articles purely about science, and link the other material in the "See also" section. Otherwise some readers may become confused about what content is (or is not) based on repeatable, peer-reviewed evidence. — RJH (talk) 16:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
The poll has now moved from Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Paranormal to Talk:Megalith, which seems to be a step into right direction. --Pjacobi 06:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
WikiProjects don't exactly have "jurisdiction" over articles. According to WP:PROJGUIDE, a WikiProject is "a central place for editor collaboration on a particular topic area. It may develop guidelines, maintain various collaborative processes, keep track of work that needs to be done, and act as a forum where issues of interest to the editors of a subject may be discussed."
If Megaliths are of interest to both members of both WikiProject Paranormal and WikiProject Archaeology, what on earth is the problem? Obviously the two groups of editors will need to reach a consensus if there is any disagreements between the guidelines of their respective WikiProjects. But come on, WikiProjects do not "own" articles, nobody does. --Stormie 00:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Problems with Stable versions

I have been thinking about stable versions and something occurred too me. Would the templates have to have a stable version along with pictures? My guess is that not being able to edit articles, those would be the prime targets for trolls and vandals. Comments? The Placebo Effect 23:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

There would always be previous versions of images stored in the database. I'm not sure how difficult it would be to bring up archived versions by default, though I imagine it should be possible.--Pharos 00:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


The status of the WP:FRINGE guideline has been questioned. It has been suggested that an RFC/straw poll could help determine if the guideline has community consensus or not. Please comment at Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories#RFC - Does this guideline have consensus?. Blueboar 12:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

How to display a Wikicommons image

I wanted to include an image found on Wikimedia Commons into an article I have been writing. But I could not find quickly how to do it. From some of the comments I saw on other talk pages I am not the only one to have had this problem. So having eventually found the information, to make life easier for those who may need the same information, I have converted Wikipedia:Wikimedia Commons from a redirect into an article that is optimised to describe how to display a Wikicommons image in a Wikipedia article. As the page is new and to date I am the only one to have edited it I would appreciated more eyes to help improve the article. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Continuous plagarism from another website

I do a fair bit of editing and creating of sites about Australian music, particularly heavy metal as it's a bit of a special subject and I have a website The Australian Metal Guide dedicated to it. Lately I have found that another editor here is directing cutting and pasting from my site to WP in order to create new entries. I've rewritten most of them so they aren't directly lifted from my site, but I keep finding them and I'm rather peeved. It appears the same fellow is lifting logos and images from Metal Archives and I've noticed they are being deleted. What can I do about this guy, if anything? BrianFG 07:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

For the particular pages, you could use the {{Copyvio}} template. Have you tried talking to the person involved? — RJH (talk) 16:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Is this murder threat?

Yes, it is a death threat. But it was made in June 2006. x42bn6 Talk 23:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
..from an IP address which is currently blocked from editing, and has amassed the longest Block Log I've ever seen. --Stormie 01:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
    • That's nothing. I've blocked someone for a year before with less vandal edits (probably because he was blocked for so long!) I started out small, but he kept coming back so I blocked him for longer and longer periods. And wouldn't you know it, when the year was up, he came back! Unfortunately, it was a school IP, so he's not longer blocked. -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Upload help

On the norwegian Wikipedia, when you click "Upload a file" you see a page wich explains how you should upload a file in different situations (See it here) Maybe this is an idea for the English Wikipedia? Dvyjonest·c·e 15:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

An English translation can be found at User:Kjetil_r/Upload. It can easily be adopted to take local fair use uploading into account. Kjetil r 19:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
There's something like it on Commons, too. Shimgray | talk | 23:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons --Philip Baird Shearer 22:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

User pages as redirects to article space

This is interesting. We have the article Yury Chernavsky. We have the user User:Chernavsky George Yury. Apparently the same person. The user page redirects to the article; it appears the user page was moved to article space. (User talk:Chernavsky George Yury likewise redirects to Talk:Yury Chernavsky.) The primary contributor (almost sole contributor) to the article is the user. Possible WP:AUTO problem there, but that's not what I'm interested in right now. For the sake of discussion, let's assume the article stays. My question is, is there any precedent that shows the community's opinion on having a notable Wikipedian's user page and talk page redirect to the article pages? It seems wrong to me, but I'm having trouble articulating why. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 07:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

There should indeed be a separation between the user page and the article. For one thing, the article is open to anyone to edit, while the user page is not (it is considered very bad form to edit another user's user page). The talk pages are for very different purposes as well (one is to discuss the article, the other to leave messages for the user). I would undo the redirect. Blueboar 13:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I've started an AFD as the person appears non-notable. GDonato (talk) 15:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Plug-in hybrid

I want to offer my heartfelt thanks to the many who've seriously improved Plug-in hybrid over the past week, and ask for your help in copy-editing. Could you have a look through the article, please, for unclear prose, and try to make it more clear if you find any? Thanks in advance. James S. 13:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Have you posted this request on the talk page? Also, you can try two things. For one, you can put a {{[[tl|copyedit}} tag at the top. This is not a very common cleanup tag, and people do look at these articles sooner or later. (I think there's a Wikiproject for copyediting.) Second, the article is well structured and referenced, and if you really wanted a swarm of ants around it, you could try a peer review. YechielMan 21:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Twisted Metal 4 music

As a player of Twisted Metal 4, I happen to know that the song: Closing Time [Live] is the song played in the Neon City level.

Time's Running Out is the one played in the next level.

Cypress Hill does Closing Time [Live] in Neon City.

(Minion1112)Minion1112(Minion1112) —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 16:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

How is this relevant to Wikipedia? This page isn't just a forum or an advertising page, you know. Pyrospirit Shiny! 04:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

National debt/Soc. Sec. clock

What exactly would the script that I would type into my User page to get the clock from onto the page? Alphabetagamma 00:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

none. mediawiki won't let you do that.Geni 03:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar Graphics

I just want to know how do users used to make barnstars and make them into different colours. Do users use free softwares or not? Thanks! --Jacklau96 10:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The GIMP will do most of the stuff. There other programs but the GIMP is probably the best free one.Geni 13:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Stupidity on the increase?

Hello all. I've returned to WP after some time, with a fresh ID.

I used to look at the NewPages list now and again. There was a lot of junk there, but a significant amount of stuff that looked as if it could be worthwhile. Even some articles that already were worthwhile.

Now I look there and almost all I see is kiddy talk. It's a mixture of (1) possibly earnest attempts at writing up trivia/juvenilia, and (2) mere babble.

Are people becoming stupider? Is WP attracting the under-ten demographic? Have most of the worthwhile articles already been started? Really, I wonder.

I thought of marking this stuff with the "speedy this, it's obviously vapid" template. But I'd mark 90% of it. Some team of sysops might as well go through the whole lot, rather than the tagged 90%. But what a waste of their time that would be.

I'm starting to wonder if first edits should be made to follow a short general knowledge test: Five questions, like "Name the person who first reached the south pole." The knowledge (derivable from non-vandalized WP articles wouldn't be an issue but what might be is the need for an attention span of more than just a few seconds. Then most of the silly people, drunks, infants, etc. could stay with Myspace or Neopets; less timewasting for people who actually want to improve articles, less silliness for people who actually want to be informed. Morenoodles 08:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

One of the big problems is we've got pretty much no way of making most guidelines noticeable before edits are made. -- Ned Scott 08:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
There is MediaWiki:Newarticletext but evidences suggest not a lot of people read that.Geni 09:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the way to do it would be to replace the content of MediaWiki:Newarticletext with <span style="text-decoration: blink; font-size: 20pt"><font color=red>[[WP:NOT|Wikipedia is neither myspace nor an advertising service!]]</font></span> Using it as such will get your pages deleted. , which produces

Wikipedia is neither myspace nor an advertising service! Using it as such will get your pages deleted.

I can't see anyone ignoring that. MER-C 09:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I should put that on my talk page header... MER-C 09:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Remember the blink tag has ne effect in ie.Geni 09:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not too sure about the CSS, which is what this is. MER-C 09:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Well it doesn't in IE6.Geni 09:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
We can also do something like this. MER-C 09:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid that text makes Wikipedia look like MySpace... x42bn6 Talk 21:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Are Info Boxes mandatory?

I see that info boxes can be helpful in many situations. However, in some cases, I find them redundant and too much like "lists". In the case of theatrical plays, for example, some editors are insisting on listing all or many of the characters in a play, or every producer of a movie (which can be quite a few these days). I also feel that the over use of these boxes gives a feeling of dumbing down of an article - sort of like using cliff notes to write a report instead of reading the whole article. Listing all the scene locations for many plays would be equally cumbersome. In fact, for the most part, all the information in these boxes is typically found in the first paragraph or two of the article itself. Isn't this redundant? Are not these just more lists that duplicate the information in the articles? Are these boxes mandatory for plays and musicals? I am concerned that we are turning some articles from encyclopedia entries into USA TODAY stories with these little boxes that make it easier to avoid actually learning about the subject, as opposed to simply getting a few quick facts.Smatprt 16:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Use your judgement, and keep infoboxes informative, short, and relevant. Remove trivia and use the infobox to summarise the important points of an article. Think of it like a tabular form of the lead section, with a few stats, images and figures as well. The crucial thing though is for it to complement the article, not to compete with it. Good luck though, as many editors do like to focus on infoboxes as a series linking across articles, rather than treating the infobox as an integral part of the article. Carcharoth 17:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
As a box and tag antagonist, let me speak up for a moment. There are times and places where such things are entirely appropriate, but the most central question to ask is whether the subject of the article can be standardized. For example, there is little doubt that toxicity is a thing all want to know about a snake, that genus and phylum is a thing all readers want for a plant, that location and time are things all those who read battles want to know. If the subject has such universals, then it's possible for there to be a box or template. However, if the questions and salient features of the subject will not conform to uniformity, the presence of a template or box is likely false, if not an outright assertion of POV. People, in my experience, differ from each other wildly. In my experience, lives cannot be reduced to meaningful feature points. Even birth and death dates are not reliably important. Novels and plays and artworks of all sorts have a compulsion to originality, and, other than who made them (and maybe not that), there isn't a great deal that is reliable across all iterations. The goal of boxes and templates is "consistency." Well, if the objects are not meaningful in a consistent way, then there is no way to achieve this goal, and even making the attempt is a refashioning of the subject into a limited form.
Additionally, if the important thing about the subject is an illustration other than the one the box/template wants, then the box or template is counter-productive. A picture of Cædmon is useless. A picture of most authors is really not to the point, while a picture of an actor/actress is vital. It might be that, in Orrmulum, the most important thing is a picture of the manuscript, while in Peterborough Chronicle the most important thing is a picture of the abbey (or even a map of England). Someone coming along with a "these are both books, so the form requires a picture of the author" would be silly.
Use your judgment and inquire carefully. Geogre 20:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to bring up Scientology again. But its info box is a good example of info box abuse, IMO. Steve Dufour 00:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Compare it to the info box on Hezbollah. Steve Dufour 01:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The sighted and unsighted application of tags.

Just an ironic coincidence that this occurred just after making those comments above, but today I wrote William Rainborowe. I had some time with the DNB, took notes, and thought it an interesting figure. Very quickly, a person came in to minister to the article. I have nothing but good feelings about this, even if I disagreed with both improvements. One was grammatical. The other, though, was to put a tag on the article saying that few articles link to this one.
Well, what is the purpose of such a tag? Normally, tags like that tell us that the article may be a hoax or nonsense or trivia. When an article on J-ball funk (fictional) gets created and the author says that it's a very important type of music found only in Roxbury in Boston, the New Pages patrollers might miss it. They might let it stick around. (They shouldn't, even with the claim, but that's an WP:AN issue.) So a tag saying that nothing links to this will alert readers to the fact that this was probably some dude's hoax or, at best, some local slang or, most likely, a pure ideolectical term. Therefore, the article may go to AfD. In other words, the tag acts like a bullsh*t detector.
In the case of someone like William Rainborowe, we're dealing with, first, a brand new article, so extant links could be missing for honest reasons, but we're also dealing with an article that has references and establishes the case for the figure's notability quite well. However, the historical figure is a very good example of a number of things. He is very interesting. He helps us understand the Ranters, the Levellers, the New Model Army, and all sorts of other things. However, he is not a person who is going to generate many links to. He is not indispensable for understanding Oliver Cromwell, or the Rump, or the Restoration, etc. In other words, while I can think of places to insert his name to generate links ( one needs to advise me there, because I can think of them myself), honesty would dictate that I not do it. In other words, his article really shouldn't have very many links-to.
Again, nothing but wikilove for those who minister to the article. It needs help and can benefit from all. However, a guided tag, a tag put in upon consideration of the content and circumstances of the article is very different from an automatic tag. The same is true of boxes and templates. There is no way to automate them, even if there are too many new articles a day to do them by hand and be complete. The one principle that's paramount is that every action with regard to tags, boxes, and templates is that they must be carefully considered. Geogre 01:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

talk page of anonymous user

I found a WP article which is, well, questionable, in my opinion. As per the instructions I found on the RFC page, I posted to the talk page. The writer of the questionable phrase in anonymous. If he wasn't, would he be notified (by email?) of my post? So where do I discuss this? Is this the right forum? Should I post an RFC? Is there any point in my talk page post at all? The page in question, BTW, is "Hitachi Travelstar". Sailor.nir 12:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it. A claim like that needs (must have) a citation for it. If you see suspect claim like that without a reliable citation, be bold and revert it and then leave a message as to why you've removed it. - X201 12:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Create an article about a person?

Are we able to create articles on ourselves or someone we know?

Thank you. KieranMullen

Please see our policies on autobiographies and on conflict of interest. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. It is probably a good policy. I am watching this page and I did not get an email. Is there a wikipedia village pump newsgroup or standard web forum? Posting in this manner is really clumsy.

Thanks again


People do post information about themselves on their user pages. — RJH (talk) 21:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Regarding your questions, no, there is no process by which someone is notified that a question or posting has been responded to; no, there is no village pump newsgroup, although there are mailing lists and a weekly internal newsletter; no, there is no web forum (at least officially; Wikipedia is certainly discussed in places other than Wikipedia). On the other hand, if you post a question on the user talk page of an editor, you're pretty likely to get a quick answer.
For more information on the encyclopedia, you might want to take a look at an index. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
And also, when you choose to "Watch" a page using the Watch tab up the top, it doesn't mean you get email updates, it means that when the page changes it gets listed on your Watchlist, listed up the very top of the page whenever you are logged in. See Help:Watching pages, I believe. Confusing Manifestation 05:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Or, as I've just realised, you may have chosen to watch the page by ticking the box under the edit box, of course. Confusing Manifestation 05:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I Need A Source For A Story

I'm working on my final project for my Multimedia Reporting class at KU. It's over Wikipedia editing and how much it re-establishes the site's credibility. I'm looking for editors who would be interested in being interviewed for my story. I need both involved volunteer editors and hired staff. If interested, please message me back. My username is Luke J-School. Luke J-School 15:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Note that hired staff generally aren't hired to edit the wikipedia (though some do edit in their free time). If possible, please share a copy of your final report with us when done. Maybe we can learn useful things! :-) --Kim Bruning 15:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Your help is needed

Wikipedia:Vital articles. These are articles essential to an encyclopedia. Please help out. Expand any stubs. Cleanup the messy articles. Make sure the articles are comprehensive and well-written. That list is a shame. Let's all work together to bring all of those articles up to quality standards. Vassyana 13:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. We're too busy working on the Scientology articles. Xenu was a featured article. Or else Pokemon and The Simpsons. Steve Dufour 05:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Vassyana, I'll help out when I can. I'm currently tied up. Its good to know about that list! I was unfamiliar with it previously. --Iamunknown 23:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Jim in News Headlines

Just a story on but thought it maybe of interest. Wikipedia guru opens new era -- Bidgee 01:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

That link doesn't work any more. Try this one -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Also: Rafy 06:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Jimmy caught on the Chaser

Jimmy Wales has been "attacked" by Andrew Hanson on the chaser's war on everything. You can see the vid at --talk to symode09's or Spread the love! 13:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Brazil Collaboration

Wikipedia:Brazil Collaboration was created!!! JoãoFelipe Flag of Brazil.svg ( Let's talk! ) 21:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Brazil Featured Star The current Brazil Collaboration is Brazil.
Every month a different Brazil-related topic, stub or non-existent article is picked.
Please read the nomination text and improve the article any way you can.

IFD Problem

I posted Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_April_7#Image:North_American_hardiness_zones.jpg some time ago. I understand that there might be back log (although it's the only file from this date which has not been addressed). More distressing though, is that someone keeps clobbering the ifd template and discussion comments on the NA hardiness image itself; with no history. I can only imagine that it is P199 who was tipped off by my adherence to policy (posting to his talk), and is somehow displeased yet unwillingly to share his thoughts on the matter. --Belg4mit 14:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the circumstances surrounding the situation, but I tagged Image:North American hardiness zones.jpg as a duplicate of Image:USDA Hardiness zone map.jpg that should be deleted, reason being that the latter name is, AFAIK, more descriptive, accurate, scaleable and already has another image with the prefix Image:USDA Hardiness. --Iamunknown 23:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
In case anyone wonders: the image is still there but it's tagged for deletion as a duplicate on commons: it has been deleted from en.wikipedia. Mangojuicetalk 14:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Commons admins generally do (eventually) delete duplicate works; we'll see what happens with this. --Iamunknown 19:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Cancelling my Account

If I decide to cancel my Wikipedia Account what would I need to do? John R G 20:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Just quit using it. There is no provision for deleting Wikipedia accounts, as all edits made by the account need to be attributed for copyright purposes. Corvus cornix 20:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Lets see what if I want to cancel my account and not be able to log back on. John R G 21:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You could ask a bureaucrat to change your password, I suppose. Corvus cornix 21:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Or an admin to indefinately block. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Or change your own password to something really complex and 'forget' what you changed it to. Tra (Talk) 21:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Note that in the past requests to block your own account wouldn't be honoured due to the chance of an autoblock affecting other users, but as autoblocks can be disabled now such a request might be honoured. Another way to block yourself is using user script; WP:US/S has a 'wikibreak enforcer' script that will effectively lock yourself out if you set it to a time a long way in the future. --ais523 08:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Humourous barnstars

Is there a barnstar I can award to the funny guy who put the "future event" tag on the following articles? I can sort of understand 22nd century, but 23rd century, 24th century, 25th century, 26th century, 27th century, 28th century, 29th century, and 30th century? "This article or section contains information about scheduled or expected future events. It may contain information of a tentative nature and the content may change dramatically as the event approaches and more information becomes available." Oh, please!! I wonder if those tags will be a candidate for the longest-lasting tags, hanging around for nearly a thousand years until the events take place? I think Talk:8th millennium sums things up quite nicely. Well, actually, I learnt something from that, so ferreting through those pages wasn't entirely useless. And thank goodness someone eventually ran out of steam... It took Ultimate fate of the universe to bring me back to reality. Nice navboxes though, making it easy to click through the whole series from 10th millennium BC up to the 11th millennium and beyond (and nearer our own time, clicking through the centuries is nice and informative as well). Unfortunately, going a bit further back, I discovered some original synthesis going on at Timetable of the Precambrian, with theories presented as actually happening as part of a historical timeline... The final part of this impromtu tour, from there to the Big Bang, will have to await another night. Carcharoth 03:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's possible to design your own custom barnstar. Just fool around with the source code of the standard barnstars and see what you can come up with. YechielMan 05:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
user:Gurch is the one who added them. -- Zanimum 17:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I did what, when? At least on 23rd century the tag was added by an anonymous user who is certainly not me. If I did add it to one or two (though I don't remember doing so), then it was for consistency. By all means remove them if you don't like them – Gurch 18:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

writing a fiction book

does anyone know anything about writing a fiction book? i have tried to find out but i am overwhemeld and can't find a free leason or article to help me write my book.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jclindsay007 (talkcontribs)

What sort of help do you need? Do you need help getting a book you've written printed? Finding a topic to write about? Actually writing it? Your question is so nebulous I don't know where to start to answer it. You might want to look at our article on Fiction writing, but keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. For future reference, questions of this sort belong at the reference desk. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Check out your local library too. Steve Dufour 00:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC) is a great place to get help. --ざくら 21:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Curious. Where did Vanity gallery Go?

Vanity gallery was an article I contributed a small bit to a few months ago, but now it's not there anymore -- Even my contribution list doesn't have it. If I hadn't mentioned it on the talk page of Vanity press I might not even have remembered it. I haven't dug much into the mechanics of Wikipedia, but what happened? I'd be the first to admit it wasn't a great article (I can cheerfully do that because I didn't write it.) -- a small definition and a long list of galleries with their fees. It wasn't great, but certainly something on the subject is worth doing. Artemis-Arethusa 00:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This is odd -- the edits seem to have been deleted, yet there is no deletion log entry. Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 01:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Since spelling and capitalization count, you probably created it with a different name and it was deleted. You could try looking through articles for deletion archives, but it wouldn't be there if it was speedy deleted. Also, deleted articles no longer show up in your edit history. I've tried a few misspellings that you might have done, but no luck. An administrator would have to find it... if you could interest one in spending the time... Jaksmata 20:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I didn't write it, I only contributed a minor edit. And it was spelled and capitalized exactly like that because my (now inactive, but back then it worked) link to it still exists in that form. Me, I would have capitalized both words. It makes sense that deleted articles vanish even from edit histories. I wondered why because it seemed a worthy subject (if a mediocre article) -- vanity galleries are a serious plague on artists, big time. Artemis-Arethusa 12:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Vanity gallery was deleted, but for some reason there was no deletion log entry (perhaps a server glitch) It doesn't look like an obvious speedy delete, so i have undeleted it. DES (talk) 13:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

How long do you think it takes to revert vandalism to Featured Articles?

I have conducted a survey on this topic and found that it takes, on average about 10 hours to revert serious vandalism to featured articles. Questions and debate are welcomed on the survey talk page. You can find the study at user:Colonel Chaos/study. Colonel Chaos 20:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Shocking and appalling. We need to deal with this. I for one added 10 featured articles to my watchlist. Cool3 21:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Reading German Wikipedia in English

As a result of trying to read the above report I had an interesting experience. To see what I found try the following link: Interesting report translated by Google. "No big deal", you say, "I knew that Google could do that". Well fair enough, but try clicking on any of the Wiki links on the page. Now that's cool! Suddenly the German Wikipedia is browsable in "English"! -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Economy of Brazil

This article is in need of attention from an expert on the subject. Please, help. JoãoFelipe Flag of Brazil.svg ( Let's talk! ) 17:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Jimmy caught on the Chaser

Jimmy Wales has been "attacked" by Andrew Hanson on the chaser's war on everything. You can see the vid at --talk to symode09's or Spread the love! 13:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Portal:Soccer redirects to Association football.

When "Portal:Football" is entered a disambiguation page appears, giving the reader a choice between "Association football", "American football", and "Australian rules football".  Not so with the search term "Portal:Soccer", however.  With that search terem there is an automatic redirect to English football, i.e., "Association football", and not to a disambiguation page, as I think should be done.

I would strongly suggest that a disambiguation page should be shown for the search term "Portal:Soccer".  I suggest this because "Soccer" is the universally used term for the sport in North America.  Also, in my thinking, automatic redirection of the general term "Soccer" to "Association football" is inappropriate for an international encyclopedia.

And was this redirect done recently?  And possibly unilaterally?  I could be wrong, but it seems to me that just a few weeks ago (or less) the portals "Sports" and "Games" were separate portals, but no longer.  For whatever reason, now both are grouped together as "Portal:Sports and Games".  What seems particularly odd to me is that "Video games" are grouped in this new portal, but there is no grouping for traditional board games such as Chess, Checkers, Goh, Konane, Backgammon, Monopoly, and Scrabble.

Any help?

K. Kellogg-Smith 21:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

About your first points, Portal:Soccer was created as a redirect in September 2005 and there have been no other edits. (hist) The redirect seems appropriate as, according to Names for football (soccer), "soccer" comes from the abbreviation "assoc." from "association football". As an American, I've never ever heard American football or Aussie rules called "soccer". - BanyanTree 00:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input on the date of the redirect of "soccer" to "Association football".  As to my example, I was pointing out that "soccer" is as ambiguous as "football", and rates a disambiguation page, not an auto redirect.  I'm still curious as to whether or not there was any discussion about the redirect, or if it was simply unilaterally and without discussion.  While I have used the auto redirect to advantage in one of my articles, I think one of the disadvantages of automatic redirects is (as far as I know) that there's no obvious way to view the page on which the redirect tag was inserted.  I'm not a soccer fan, and I don't want to belabor the point, but I think the redirect of "soccer" to "Association football" was very narrow minded, to say the least.  As I pointed out in my query above, Americans know the sport as "soccer", not "Association football".  For example, the article on "Kick ball" clearly illustrates that the term "soccer" has been common American usage for at least the past sixty years, certainly far longer than the term "association football" has been.  Again, I believe a disambiguation page on the term "soccer" is preferable vice an auto redirect to a term of far more limited usage in America.  And again, thanks very much for your input.  K. Kellogg-Smith 15:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Unusual page

While wandering around just now, I discovered Category:Snow Wikis. I must say, I've never seen a category page like this one before. I'm assuming that it should not be left as is, but what should be done with it? Nyttend 15:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I've nominated it for deletion or re-formatting as a list. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 21:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

How Many Editors?

Where can I find the most recent count of the number of editors for Wikipedia? I'm still new on here, so I suck at navigating. Hit me back on my talk page. Luke J-School 18:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Users: 33,429,476. Admins: 1,219. Of course, most of those more-than-4 million users are not active. Admins are more likely to stay long-term. Adrian M. H. 22:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Reading German Wikipedia in English

As a result of trying to read the above report I had an interesting experience. To see what I found try the following link: Interesting report translated by Google. "No big deal", you say, "I knew that Google could do that". Well fair enough, but try clicking on any of the Wiki links on the page. Now that's cool! Suddenly the German Wikipedia is browsable in "English"! -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

"This is the English Wikipedia, not the American Wikipedia"

What is this phrase supposed to mean?? This is the English Wikipedia, because English is the name of the language that it is written in. Thus, this statement implies the existence of a language called American, which there is not. Any faulty info in my descrption of the phrase?? Georgia guy 23:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The phrase uses the fact that the word English has multiple meanings - a language, a country, a culture - and finishes the sentence as if it meant the latter. It's a rhetorical device, not a statement in logic. - DavidWBrooks 00:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
In other words, this is the Wikipedia for the English language, which means all of the language and its dialects -- British, American, Canadian, etc. -- and not exclusively American. Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 01:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
This phrase is to show that the site is meant to be for all English speakers around the world, and it is to prevent it from getting Americanized. After all, the site was started by Americans, and became well known in America first before spreading to the world, so there may be users who think that it represents the American perspective of the subject. This phrase prevents it from happening.--Kylohk 17:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Jimmy Wales happens to be an American (I checked his passport :-P), but some of the first editors were from all over the world. --Kim Bruning 17:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Yup, that's the point. There are so many English speaking countries around the worlf, the US being one of them.--Kylohk 22:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Polite way to remind people to take care when reverting vandalism?

Is there a polite way to remind people to take care when reverting vandalism? I just spent some time repairing Francis Bacon. I found it in an obviously truncated state, and eventually tracked down the major vandalism, the effects of which can be seen here. That loss of a massive chunk of the article lasted for over 5 days. Would it be rude of me to ask those who part-reverted the vandalism, but failed to restore the cut sections, to be more careful next time? It is this sort of vandalism that is difficult to spot after a few weeks have passed, and very difficult to repair if the page has been heavily edited since. Increasingly, I get the impression that the history of an article may often contain relevant information that is not in the current version. If I may put my crystal ball spectacle on for a moment, a future industry may grow up around mining the history of Wikipedia pages for little nuggets of information not recorded anywhere else... Carcharoth 17:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as somebody who has made that very error myself - mea culpa - nothing beats a polite note on the user's Talk page, pointing out exactly what you've just said. That takes a bit of your time, though. - DavidWBrooks 19:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
This is why I almost never revert when dealing with vandalism. Throw out the baby with the bathwater? No, sir! Reverting is often the lazy solution, and can be as harmful as (or more than) the original vandal's work. Better to rewrite or cut-and-paste. Rhinoracer 20:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
For heavily vandalised articles, it's inevitable that problems get missed from time to time. I've found two cases of very old missing content recently. The new software features that show the number of characters changed will be very helpful in preventing these things, I think. I always revert when dealing with vandalism, because it can be in more than one place, but I check the history to make sure I'm not just reverting to someone else's earlier vandalism. Kla'quot 06:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
It's happened to the Wii page soon after it became FA of the day. There was some confusion in the reverting, and sometimes, even after the revert, vandalism still was seen, so they have to be removed manually.--Kylohk 22:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The best featured article

What do users think is the best featured article? --HadzTalk 11:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

You excpect an answer? Alphabetagamma 00:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Try the random generator at Wikipedia:Featured content. Carcharoth 03:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't answer what's best because I've only read a few of them. My favorites are chess and The Turk. YechielMan 05:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Sesame Street rocks! -- Zanimum 17:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC) (doing shameless self promotion)
There is no such thing as the "best" FA. Although different users might have different perceptions.--Kylohk 22:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The KLF won a wikimania award. 13:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I was impressed with The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Steve Dufour 04:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

1980 Winter Olympic Hockey Medalists Incorrect

There seems to be some confusion as to who won what medal in ice hockey during the 1980 Winter Olympics. Obviously the United States won the gold. However, some people, including me, have mistakenly placed Finland with the silver, and the USSR with the bronze. This is being reflected in some player articles having the wrong medal credited to them. I personally went back and forth with Fetisov's article. The confusion lies in how hockey standings are used during the Olympics. In the Olympics, playoffs are "round-robin" and a point system is used, a win counts as 2 points, a tie 1 point, similar to the NHL. This is what determines who gets what medal. So officially, the USA got the gold with 5 points, the USSR got the silver with 4 points, and Sweden got the bronze with 2 points. Finland placed fourth with 1 point. With that said, it looks like 1980 Olympic Ice Hockey player's articles for the four teams mentioned above in Wikipedia are going to have to be looked though to make sure credit is given where credit is due. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maximus92 (talkcontribs) 15:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Go to it then. :-) Steve Dufour 16:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
sorry... just reliving the moment :>) Blueboar 18:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion - are invalid comments disregarded

I've seen a number of deletion discussions recently , where the reason for a keep or delete "vote" has been false (for example "delete - single use templates are bad" - the template is used on more than one page; "keep - Google shows this is notable " - another editor had already described in detail how the Google results all referred to a different meaning of the term concerned). I realise that some of these issues may be value judgements, but many are clearly not. Do closing admins take such matters into account? If not, should they? Andy Mabbett

I do, especially if someone comments on the reason explaining why it's counter to policy and/or wrong. --ais523 08:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Perhaps deletion policies should be amended to give admins a remit to do so (indeed, to encourage, if not oblige, them to do so)? Andy Mabbett 16:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject scope

I'd appreciate any comments from the wider community on the discussion going on here concerning the scope of WikiProjects and what pages they should and shouldn't be tagging. Thanks. Carcharoth 23:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion moved to here. Carcharoth 01:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Operating system screenshot

This is [2] screenshot of BKUNIX, a GPLed operating system. But it also contains some output by computer's ROM including bootup messages, indicator string at the top of the screen and the font of the letters is also ebeeded in ROM. How should I proprly provide the license information?--Dojarca 07:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

IIRC Font bitmap output is uncopyrightable under US law. --Random832 00:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Simple English Language

Could someone please explain the point of having a simple english language? Is the only point of this language for some kind of mockery of english speakers? I honestly do not get it... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Moistspike (talkcontribs) 04:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

For little kids and English as a second language speakers, of course. It probably helps as an intermediate step towards translating articles into foreign languages as well, since reading the simple version of an article might only require en-2 or -3 skills while the main version might require en-4 or higher proficiency to understand. --tjstrf talk 04:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't fully understand it either. I guess it helps with non-native speakers, but I don't know too many kids so little as too have significantly limited english profiency that spend time visiting online encyclopedias. As for people who speak english as a second language, I tend to feel that they might be better off reading in their native language (which is generally possible). If they are in facy aiming to improve their english skills by reading, though, shouldn't they read the real thing? In any case, I think that all of the simple english editors should come back to the main en wikipedia. We're nowhere close to having a perfect encyclopedia here (but we are getting closer every day :-)). Cool3 22:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps the Basic English article might help. I once had a book named Basic Tagalog which built on the Basic English philosophy, but for the Tagalog language. I found it useful, but couldn't get up the motivation to apply myself to it hard enough to become conversational in Tagalog. -- Boracay Bill 02:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
You know what they say, start from the basics. If you throw someone into the deep end when learning languages, you are likely to run into a brick wall early and give up. So, I guess the Simple English is designed for people who want to brush up their English skills before moving up the next level.--Kylohk 22:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

No solution

There is no solution to the edit-warring problem. Every tactic we use can be used by our opponents. As Wikipedia grows to encompass the world it will be riven by conflict just as the world is.

Information can be shared, but control cannot. In the end, someone gets their way and someone doesn't. Stability requires totalitarianism; freedom implies chaos.

Some people cannot share the same world. If they cannot be given different worlds (different Wikipedias) they will fight over what is available.

I am sorry I cannot help you.

--Ideogram 10:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Um... yes, someone gets their way and someone does not. It is logically impossible for two people to simultaneously get their way, if they want different things. Why is that bad? -Amarkov moo! 15:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
We have to live together or die together. We no longer live in a world where we can simply exterminate our enemies. --Fuarco 19:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Consensus. Corvus cornix 20:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty of Wikipedia editors who refuse to accept that principle. What do we do with them? --Fuarco 20:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

What do you do with rude co-workers, family members who won't get along, apartment dwellers who are too noisy, etc. etc.? You work with them, live with it, persuade them, wait them out, and a dozen other strategies. No magic bullet - in life or wiki-editing, alas. - DavidWBrooks 21:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I never was good at compromise. --Fuarco 21:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Edit wars often end in sad ways for one side or the other, especially if they don't stay calm on the talk pages. It often ends up in arbitration, where one of the involved persons would be blocked from editing pages in a certain category. I guess it's just human nature to be competative at times.--Kylohk 22:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Faux-Scientism as style

I have detected that there's a trend to not use common language terms and expression but to give articles and article names a exaggerated sense that everyone and everything is a scientific phenomenon and not part of the shared human experience. It needs to described in specialist terminology. There's an expression of distance, as if we needed the perspective of Martians to write about humans for a human audience.

Stories about people become anthropology. Articles about organizations and institutions become an analysis of ideologies. Maybe this tone of scientism is motivated by editors seeking objectivity, but it seems awkward and strange to me. To others I believe it might obscure what is actually meant by the editor, or to a marginal reader of English result in an unreadable article. patsw 15:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you have made a good point. One of my pet peeves is the article on Bigfoot. That seems to me to be kind of a "low-brow" subject, but after a couple dozen words the article starts talking about Gigantopithecus blacki. Steve Dufour 19:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Curious. Where did Vanity gallery Go?

Vanity gallery was an article I contributed a small bit to a few months ago, but now it's not there anymore -- Even my contribution list doesn't have it. If I hadn't mentioned it on the talk page of Vanity press I might not even have remembered it. I haven't dug much into the mechanics of Wikipedia, but what happened? I'd be the first to admit it wasn't a great article (I can cheerfully do that because I didn't write it.) -- a small definition and a long list of galleries with their fees. It wasn't great, but certainly something on the subject is worth doing. Artemis-Arethusa 00:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This is odd -- the edits seem to have been deleted, yet there is no deletion log entry. Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 01:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Since spelling and capitalization count, you probably created it with a different name and it was deleted. You could try looking through articles for deletion archives, but it wouldn't be there if it was speedy deleted. Also, deleted articles no longer show up in your edit history. I've tried a few misspellings that you might have done, but no luck. An administrator would have to find it... if you could interest one in spending the time... Jaksmata 20:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I didn't write it, I only contributed a minor edit. And it was spelled and capitalized exactly like that because my (now inactive, but back then it worked) link to it still exists in that form. Me, I would have capitalized both words. It makes sense that deleted articles vanish even from edit histories. I wondered why because it seemed a worthy subject (if a mediocre article) -- vanity galleries are a serious plague on artists, big time. Artemis-Arethusa 12:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Vanity gallery was deleted, but for some reason there was no deletion log entry (perhaps a server glitch) It doesn't look like an obvious speedy delete, so i have undeleted it. DES (talk) 13:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Scientology overcovered?

Here is Wikipedia:WikiProject Scientology which now includes 240 articles. There seem to be about 100,000 Scientologists in the world so there is one article for every about 420 of them. Do you think this is a little bit too much? Thanks. Steve Dufour 11:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Please see Talk:Scientology#How_many_Scientology_articles_are_needed.3F for more on this discussion thread, also see comment there by User:Raeft: There should be as many Scientology articles as there are coherent and individual informative occurrences, locales, people, or other originators of encyclopedic content related to Scientology. Adding information serves to make Wikipedia -more- coherent and encyclopedic, not less, and adding too much material to one article makes it overlong and clunky.

Incidentally, Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial arts has 319 articles, Wikipedia:WikiProject The Simpsons has 745 articles, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Nintendo has 1,608 articles. Smee 15:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

More people are interested in these topics than in minute details of Scientology doctrine and history. Steve Dufour 13:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Really? Have you talked to them? That is, both the people more interested in those other topics than in Scientology doctrine and history's minute details? Because I posit that I know many people more interested in the latter than the former, and thus we are tied. I mean, even if we HAD statistics stating exactly how many people were interested in every topic on Wikipedia, the current guidelines would NOT, Steve, NOT mean that this made one bit of difference.
The only number of people who need to be interested in an article in order for it to be on Wikipedia, is one. One person interested enough to find documents or examples, if they exist, of materials about the article subject which are verifiable, reliable and therefore notable. Please read these guidelines before you continue to make the mistake of equating sheer -number- of believers, interested parties, or adherents to the notability of an article.
I have said to you before that the bar of notability for Wikipedia is deliberately low. That is to say, if it CAN be written about in a reliable, unbiased, and substantiated fashion, it should be, if someone wants to write about it. The higher we set the bar, the more articles get taken out, and the less Wikipedia can claim to be a comprehensive and reliable encyclopedia on every possible topic.
To simplify this further, I quote Wikipedia:Notability:
  • A topic is notable if it has been the subject of at least one substantial1 or multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject."
Please, go there and read up on the discussions about what constitutes notability. If you, as such an experienced editor, with so many valuable edits, had known about this, I feel sure the recent failed AFD application for article Xenu would not even have been initiated and time would have been saved. Now, to the bulk of things:
Steve, I do not know how many times I shall have to say this in the space of encountering you on Wikipedia, but I shall say it for the 5th time here, without being so trite as to cite the other times:
The standard of notability on Wikipedia is not how many people are interested in, believe in, or know about a topic, of necessity. The standard relates only to the presence of reliable sources, and the verifiability of same. Wikipedia is a Wiki, a huge, capable, utilitarian and powerful distributor and container for knowledge. If one source on an article which is intensely reliable, or multiple trivial and valid sources can be found, an article can be written.
This spirit of verifiability and reliability is what makes it possible for TV shows, even ones no one has ever heard of or which were never shown on TV because they were dropped while still being written, to still have an article for every episode if we have reliable sources for them and verifiability is established. Interest does NOT equal notability, and I do not know any other ways to say it except those I have been using.
Even apart from this, there are many Scientologists (the Church claims over half a million), and aside from that, many people outside are interested. Pop culture has directed attention at them (YTMND and South Park, others too), aside from which, even the obscure articles in the Scientology series, you have -admitted- (I will not be so crass as to cite you now), are well written and well sourced. Since well and verifiably sourced equals notable by Wikipedia standards, well... I leave the other conclusions for those following the discussions on Xenu's talk page and the attempted AFD there, as well as that for Scientology, and Wikiproject: Scientology.
Peace. Raeft 15:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree that a lot of hard work has gone into the Scientology series of articles. I just think that 240 is a lot on this one subject. Steve Dufour 17:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
How do you measure that, though? How do -you-, personally, determine what is "too much" information about any one given topic? This is an encyclopedia, more information is a -good- thing. Now, if any of the information is inaccurate, not neutral, or in some other way messed up, that can be addressed on the individual article's talk page, etc. And can be fixed. But sheer number is -not- a reason for there to be less. Chances are good there will only ever be more, and since this is an encyclopedia being built? Bigger is good. If I search a topic I'm interested in on Wikipedia, and don't find some information, or it doesn't have a page, chances are good I'll MAKE that page. Everything can be written about, if you have the sources, that's the beauty. There is no such thing as too many articles about one subject. As long as each is unique and a stand-alone article. And if it's not, there's merging, but merging should be restricted to when two things are so close in topic that a suitably organized page can be knocked together from them. Peace be with ya.Raeft 19:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
You say each article should be unique and stand-alone, but in the Scientology series a lot of pieces of information are repeated in multiple articles. Steve Dufour 19:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the reason for that is that Wikipedia pages cannot cite themselves. Each article has to be both unique, AND stand-alone. Statements and sources have to be repeated if they are condusive to information about the subject of the article. The triviality of difference between two closely related article can basically be summed up in saying that the closeness has to be great. Multiple similar articles are often used to keep already-long pages from becoming inconveniently long pages, AND to separate different topics. Really, if the information is repeated, one can only justify removing it from an article if it doesn't BELONG there, if the information does belong, it's perfectly acceptable to repeat it. Sometimes repeat material can be removed from an article if the information is key and prominent in a closely linked article (Such as in the "see also" section, or something linked in the text), but it can NEVER be removed altogether, since taking information which is well-sourced and verifiable out of Wikipedia is destructive to its overall goals. Thus, it is better to have the information twice, than to risk not having it at all, and if an article ceases being comprehensive due to someone removing material they feel is "repeated", and the lack of said material leaves a casual reader less informed, the editor has done a disservice to the base of knowledge present. But, I'm through quoting and paraphrasing Wikipedia guidelines, the process handles itself rather nicely when everyone does their best, and the number of Scientology articles on Wikipedia is not going to stop growing. Peace, and Eris be with you. Raeft 21:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I would think that two articles could be merged if they contain the same information. Steve Dufour 22:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Not if they only contain -some- of the same information, you see. For instance, sometimes the same information is relevant to two different lines of thought and discussion, and placing it only in one place would be counter intuitive to single articles being informative in many cases. Cheers, I'm done here. Peace. Raeft 01:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I might post another notice when the project reaches 365 articles, one for every day of the year. Steve Dufour 03:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Steve's statistic seems a bit exaggerated. If you look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Scientology/publicwatchlist you'll see that many of the articles listed are related to Scientology rather than about it - an important distinction. Examples include Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act, Christopher Evans (computer scientist), Erhard Seminars Training, Gabe Cazares, Penet remailer and of course John Travolta. As for the rest, Steve needs to remember that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and therefore, to quote, "there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover, or the total amount of content, other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page." -- ChrisO 07:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Good point. There are a few on that list that do not seem to be mainly about Scientology, most do however. Steve Dufour 16:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is where I got the number 240: Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Scientology articles by quality statistics. There are now 247 Scientology articles. When the count reaches 250 there will be one article for about every 400 Scientologists in the world. Steve Dufour 17:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh my God you must be joking!
Here's what you should do instead of telling us the ratio of articles to Scientologists: find some actual articles that are either non-notable or so close in information that they need to be merged. Atropos 20:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Let me get back to you on that? Steve Dufour 21:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Starting from the beginning of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Scientology/publicwatchlist here are some that have no cites from secondary sources (which discuss the topic of the article): Altered texts in Scientology doctrine, Andreas Heldal-Lund, ARC (Scientology), and Author Services Inc.. That does it for the A's. Steve Dufour 14:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is the B-list: Believe What You Like, Bennetta Slaughter, Body thetan, Bridge Publications (scientology). Steve Dufour 17:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
And the C's: Celebrity Centre, Church of Scientology v. Gerald Armstrong, Citizens for Social Reform, Clear (Scientology), Creative Learning: A Scientological Experiment in Schools. Steve Dufour 17:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
The D's: Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science, Dianetics Today, Doctrine of Exchange, Dumbleton-Powles Report. Steve Dufour 19:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
E's and F's: Enturbulation, Fishman Affidavit, Fort Harrison Hotel, Foster Report, Foundation for Religious Tolerance of Florida, Frank A. Gerbode, Free Solo Processing, Freedom Magazine, Freewinds. Steve Dufour 19:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm going hit the last article, Freewinds, with a notability template and see what happens. Steve Dufour 21:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The tag was removed. It seems that every ship that sails the seas, like every Pokemon character, has its own WP article. :-) Steve Dufour 23:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
These are the G's: Galactic Confederacy, Galaxy Press, Game (Scientology), Gerry Armstrong, Golden Age of Knowledge, Golden Age of Tech, Golden Era Productions. And the H's: Harry Palmer (Avatar), Helatrobus, Heron Books, Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto, Hubbard Association of Scientologists International, Hubbard College of Administration International. Steve Dufour 00:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
The I's: Ignatius Piazza which might have BLP problems, Implant (Scientology), International Association of Scientologists, Introspection Rundown. And one J: Jesse Prince already tagged as non-notable. Steve Dufour 00:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Then we skip to the M's: Mark Bunker, Mary De Moss, Meade Emory, Medical claims in Scientology doctrine no secondary source seems to be about the topic, MEST (Scientology). And an N: Notes on the Lectures. And some O's: Operating Thetan, Orientation (film), OT VIII. Steve Dufour 01:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Articles are sourced up to: Reactive mind, Robert Vaughn Young, Ron Newman (computer programmer) already tagged for non-notability, Ron's Org, Ron's Journal 67, Route to Infinity, Rundown (Scientology). Steve Dufour 01:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Lots of S's: Safe Environment Fund, Sara Northrup, Scientology 0-8: The Book of Basics, Scientology 8-8008, Scientology cross I contributed to this one, Scientology holidays, ScienTOMogy at least it cites itself, Security Check Children, Source (magazine), Squirreling I corrected the info on real squirrels, Standard Tech, Straightwire, Study Tech. Steve Dufour 02:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

T's too: The Cause of Suppression, The Creation of Human Ability its one cite is not about the topic, The Phoenix Lectures, The Process Church of The Final Judgment, The Scientology Handbook, The Technology of Study, Tim Bowles, Traumatic incident reduction already has 3 tags. Steve Dufour 02:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Finishing up: Writers of the Future, Xenu is not on this list, he has gotten lots of press coverage, Youth for Human Rights International the newspaper story cited did not seem to mention it, and lastly Zenon Panoussis. Steve Dufour 02:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Scientology Finance was not on the watchlist but seems to have serious problems. Steve Dufour 05:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

And the count is now 252. :-) Steve Dufour 20:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I have a really hard time believing that this list is in good faith. AndroidCat 21:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Please check out any of the articles I mentioned and see if they are supported by secondary sources, unless something has been added to some of them since I posted the list. Thanks. Steve Dufour 21:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
You obviously didn't check out all of them or you wouldn't have included Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto. There are quite a few others there as misplaced as your last [3] effort. That's why I have trouble taking this seriously. AndroidCat 02:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
The article Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto is only sourced by court documents, primary not secondary sources. I am not saying it should be deleted however. Steve Dufour 04:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
It's -good- that you're not saying it should be deleted. Not simply because primary sources are -acceptable- when talking about the documents themselves (documents from a court trial are perfectly acceptable as sources about the documents themselves, and their contents (the case). Additionally, to imply the documents were untrustworthy would kind of be saying the supreme court of Canada is not a reliable source. I would then foresee that people who've used Roe V. Wade's text as a source, or oh so much else, would be bothered. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 15:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC).
My list was in response to Artopos's suggestion to mention some Scientology articles that were non-notable. I am not saying that they should all be deleted. However, there should be some secondary sources added to that article. Steve Dufour 17:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto is extremely notable in Canada and is cited in a great many cases involving areas of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and is covered in law schools. Comparing it to Row v. Wade isn't out of line. The article is primarily part of WikiProject Canadian law, rather than Scientology Series. AndroidCat 05:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
But still its WP article has no secondary sources. Steve Dufour 17:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
And just in case you were wondering, Atropos is not a sockpuppet. :-) Steve Dufour 15:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes I am! Stop denying it. Atropos 06:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The first comment on this topics says, "There seem to be about 100,000 Scientologists in the world ..." However our article on the Church of Scientology says: "The Church has said that it has anywhere from eight million to fifteen million members world-wide, and has stated that Scientology is "the fastest growing religion in the world."" -Will Beback · · 21:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the article does contain that sentence. It then goes on to mention quite a few surveys and censuses which seem to indicate about 50,000 Scientologists in the USA and a couple of thousand or so in each of a handfull of other countries. Steve Dufour 21:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
If the article is more accurate than the church's own statements then that's an indicator of the value of this material. -Will Beback · · 21:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you Will. :-) Steve Dufour 23:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Let's face it: most articles are just a repetition of others. All the "doctrine/practice' stuff could be merged, and so could the "controversy" sections. This thing is just artificially blown up. Instead of having dozens of stubs, several long articles would do better. Misou 22:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes. But try to delete or merge any and see what happens. :-) Steve Dufour 03:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I see that Tim Bowles is now up for deletion. And the count is still 252. :-) Steve Dufour 04:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
And it survived the test!!! The count is still 253. :-) Steve Dufour 03:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
But now it is up for deletion review. Steve Dufour 11:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
It looks like it passed that too. Steve Dufour 14:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
253. Steve Dufour 17:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

A big jump today! There are now 272 Scientology articles. Steve Dufour 00:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The article on Ken Ogger, an ex-Scientologist trying to get on with his life, has now been nominated for deletion. This one might have a chance. The count is still 272. Steve Dufour 15:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Ken's article went down!!! But there are now 288 Project Scientology articles. So over one a day have been added in the last month. Steve Dufour 14:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Compared with other religions, this is pretty scant coverage. There are 17,800 pages mentioning moonies, 2,080 pages mentioning sikhism, 3,110 pages mentioning falun gong... --Infrangible 23:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The Unification Church also seems to be overcovered for its number of members. There are 23 million Sikhs and at least 2 or 3 million Falun Gong members in the world, according to their articles. Searching the same way there are 3,970 pages with the word "Scientology". That's one for about every 30 Scientologists. Steve Dufour 05:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Articles per Scientologists is a rather misleading measure of overcovered, undercovered or anything of the like. 10800 pages on Wikipedia use the name "George Washington", using the google method used above. Does that mean that George Washington is overcovered? No it means he's famous. I could go on with similar examples. The US Supreme Court has nine members and is mentioned 5170 times (and 3010 times as Supreme Court of the United States), does that seem overcovered? No, because those articles are notable and important. The category United States Supreme Court has more than 355 pages in the main category and principal subcategories. That's more pages than scientology for an organization with only nine members. Cool3 21:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the Supreme Court is one of the most important institutions in a nation of 300 million people, while Scientology is mostly only important to its members. BTW I would guess that about one article for 10,000 people would be about average for WP. Steve Dufour 01:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Scientology is mostly only important to its members - Excuse me? You don't know that. May I suggest that you just drop the whole issue you have against coverage of Scientology on Wikipedia? Your whole argument consists of (1) random statistics that no one has analysed to see if they actually mean anything and (2) broad generalisations that you have no idea are correct. --Iamunknown 02:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but if Steve keeps posting idle tidbits, the Twisted Metal thread will be archived, and this month-long thread of little content will be top of the charts. AndroidCat 06:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I felt like commenting about that too; I wish this thread would go away. --Iamunknown 07:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Support--SB_Johnny|talk|books 18:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Before it does, I forgot to mention that Xenu, a fictional character created by L. Ron Hubbard, is mentioned on 745 pages and there are now 276 Project Scientology articles. Steve Dufour 13:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Harry Potter, a fictional character created by JK Rowling is mentioned on 7940 Wikipedia pages. These statistics, really don't mean too much. The city of Chicago is mentioned on 77300 Wikipedia pages. Quantity of coverage of this that or the other doesn't matter so long as the articles involved are factual, well-written, and follow Wikipedia policy. Cool3 17:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Do you think Harry Potter is only 10 times more important than Xenu? Or Chicago only 100 times more? Steve Dufour 17:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You're missing (or perhaps disagreeing with) my point that these numerical comparisons are misleading and nearly useless. Nonetheless, I would like to ask you something, do you feel that Wikipedia is a complete and finished encyclopedia with articles about everything that should have an article? I seriously doubt it. Wikipedia still has lots of room for further growth and development. Any growth of well-written, encyclopedic articles is worthwhile. If you really think that the coverage of scientology is out of proportion to that of Harry Potter or Chicago, then the best thing to do with your time is write more articles on Chicago and Harry Potter or whatever other encyclopedic topics you may choose. Cool3 18:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Wikipedia isn't paper, we don't need to fit everything into 30 (or 100, or 1,000) volumes, and if the articles are good, then they're good. If people are willing to do the research and write good articles on a topic they're passionate about, their contributions should be valued, because they're valuable. We have articles on nearly every concievable sexual act, articles on obscure acid rock bands, articles on nearly every officer in the US Civil War. That's what will hopefully make Wikipedia the Best Encyclopedia in the World someday... we have articles on everything :).--SB_Johnny|talk|books 18:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • This is getting ridiculous. Does anyone else not think that this particular thread is pointless and is taking an inordinate amount of space on this project page, because of one editor??? Smee 08:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

In-jokes on wheels

I rarely participate in Wikipedia's inner workings despite having been an editor for a few years. What's up with all the in-jokes regarding the phrase "On Wheels"? There seem to have been some pages created to explain it, and all those pages appear to have been deleted. Why the censorship? Can I be let in on the joke? Fishal 16:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Old case of a repeat (and now banned) vandal... he would put "On Wheels" at the end of the title of every article he touched. Stupid as hell, but then vandals usaually are. You're not really missing anything by not being "in" on the joke. Blueboar 17:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

List of RMS Titanic passengers

I have put a message (from WP:fr) here about the list of RMS Titanic passengers. Thanks for an answer. Regards. Jpm2112 06:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Editing experiment website

I have created a website which intends to be an "editing experiment" for Wikipedia involving a relatively-tightly-knit community based solely on article development. I mainly designed it for those who are disillusioned by the present community of Wikipedia but still want to work on articles. If you're interested, please send me an email. Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 17:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain more please. Whats the experiment? -Icewedge 22:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
The experiment is what I call a "semi-fork", however, articles must be copied from Wikipedia by demand. Basically, I want to create an alternative atmosphere where the people of the community know each other (basically so that they're more than just names) and there is more focus on collaboration and generally working on articles (as opposed to some of the other stuff I've seen on Wikipedia). My wiki is supposed to be attractive to those who are disillusioned with the Wikipedia community yet still want to edit articles. Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 02:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Compressing footnotes-- some issues

Three or four significant articles that i have worked on, in some cases articles that i created and developed from scratch, have had footnotes compressed, by three or four different editors. I'd like to offer some comments for discussion.

  • There appear to be several different styles of footnote compression. I don't have any particular preference, but it seems to me that mixing different styles can lead to daunting barriers for an average editor seeking to add referenced content.
  • Compressing footnotes has a couple of significant benefits, but in my experience, having them compressed by someone who wants to do so in order to "help out" during someone else's extended editing sessions is like throwing a monkey wrench into the project. Every step thereafter, it is necessary to move that wrench out of the way to get productive work accomplished. Spend the effort to study one person's compression style, the next one to come along is completely different.

Well, that can perhaps be dealt with, and any inconsistencies cleaned up later.

  • But there's a common practice during footnote compression that is very damaging to the integrity of the article. That is the practice of moving footnotes during compression. I've seen this frequently—a footnote that is in the middle of a sentence or paragraph, for very good reason, is moved to the end of the sentence or paragraph. It may facilitate the compression process or seem more attractive, but it makes the article dishonest. In fact, i think it is particularly unattractive to have three or four footnotes moved from within a paragraph, all stacked up at the end. They are thereby rendered unhelpful in judging the veracity of sources, because not even the original author may recall which note applies where. The footnote compression process scrambles everything to such an extent that textual comparisons are nearly impossible, so the only "fix" for a botched compression job is either massive effort to re-correlate references, or undoing the compression entirely. What can be done about this?

Richard Myers 21:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

  • What can be done is to revert. If you are convinced that formatting concerns have distorted the actual content, I would suggest doing so. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, some of my experiences to date have been discovery of moved footnotes days after the footnote compression. I expect that i'll need to begin inspecting more thoroughly for such changes, immediately after the edits.
Is there a forum or discussion page for those who do these footnote compressions? Thanks for the response — Richard Myers 16:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

    • Also, when making a complex, interesting point, you can capitalize the first-person singular pronoun I, as has been done in English for hundreds of years, so the broken spelling rule doesn't distract readers. - DavidWBrooks 00:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The article being talked about is Molly Maguires. The version I saw looked like this. The version after I had edited looked like this. Using the same footnote more than once is covered in WP:FN. The "moved footnotes" claim is hardly relevant, as can be seen by the edit that moved it back, I simply moved it to the end of the sentence rather than leave it in the middle and that was the only moved footnote. I don't do footnote compressions per se, I'm a member of the Irish Republicanism WikiProject and it's a project article and I was simply improving it, in my opinion anyway. The only thing that is currently "damaging the integrity of the article" is the lead that Richard Myers has added. One Night In Hackney303 18:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
No, my primary concern was with a couple of other articles, which involved systematic repositioning of footnotes. The single Molly Maguires example reminded me of the previous examples, which were a greater concern. As far as the lead, please feel free to be bold... best wishes, Richard Myers 07:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Dense Articles

Many wikipedia articles have become so long and dense as to be completely incomprehensible. The article for Rhetoric for example is obese with redundant text. I think that Wikipedia in general needs to thin out the articles to make them more efficient without subtracting from their informativeness. 02:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I would have expected better in an article on rhetoric. :-) Steve Dufour 14:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Project pimping

One featured article per quarter is a group of like-minded editors attempting to increase featured article counts on the English Wikipedia. We're always looking for more talented writers, copyeditors, and reviewers to assist in the project, so come on by. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't do it.

while I understand that you have a computer ISP for my computer but I use a home computer, shared with no one, and I have never edited or added anything to Wikipedia.

I use it, enjoy it, get pissed off by it, but, up until now as I write this, never once did anything upon it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 00:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

We're sorry this happened to you - it does indeed happen whenever an IP address is shared by more than one computer over time, something fairly common in many situations. The edit made by whoever had your IP on the 7th will not count against you in any way, but if you really want to make sure that you don't get these kinds of message, you may want to consider registering a username. That way you'll only get messages directed to YOU. Confusing Manifestation 06:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism that isn't vandalism

What do I do? I try to make a couople of small amendments to pages relating to Irish & Northern Irish History and contemporary events and they are reverted as vandalism. I then get a final warning from someone who lives in England and probably has a granny who knew someone from Limerick. What do you do if you dispute content and simply try to make it read a little better (whilst maintaining a studied neutrality)?


Tlufs (talk · contribs)

Bear in mind this is the editor that vandalised a template featured in this news article, and his other contributions speak for themself. One Night In Hackney303 00:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • What? Like this? Or this fun little bit of template vandalism, which actually got mentioned in El Reg this morning? That kind of non-vandalism? Yah right :b - Alison 00:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • When you are planning to make an edit, no matter how small to an article whose subject might be controversial, it's a good idea to consult the talk page before you do it. Otherwise edit wars may occur.--Kylohk 22:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


As a fairly experienced user of 4 years' standing, I don't know where else to post this, so I hope this is an appropriate place.

Does anybody else have the same problem I have? I have told only a selected few of my friends or family about my involvement with Wikipedia, for the simple reason that the name "Wikipedia" sounds, well .... silly, and even embarrassing. Many of my friends and family seem never to have heard of WP, going on the fact that they've never mentioned it to me. When I have broken through the silly-embarrassing firewall, and told some friends about it, typically they confirm it's something they've never heard of, and when I tell them a little of what it's all about, they immediately say it couldn't possibly work, and/or since it's open to anyone at all, how could it possibly be regarded as an authoritative source for anything? Almost as if a site with such a silly name is obviously not worth a cracker. So, I've learned to just get on with my editing and shut up. Can anyone relate to this? Am I just projecting my own internal stuff onto others? (Oh, and if you happen to be my closest friend, or one of my siblings, Hi!). JackofOz 06:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

"Wikipedia"??? How ridiculous. you should be ashamed of yourself. Rhinoracer 08:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi jack, i have experinced the above, when i talked to my dad about using wiki (it's his PC/connection i use weekends) he just used his 'indulgent smile', the one he used with me as a kid when i use to come up with/out with those 'crazy assed' ideas i had (and still proudly do!) - and then i found out a few weeks later that he had started accessing wiki to help him with crosswords, although he would never admit to it. Perry-mankster 11:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Helping to run a forum, I don't really see so much of a problem in helping other people and distributing content for the world to see. There is only a problem when Wikipedia starts to take over your life when it will start to become embarrassing. If you really are unsure, then show them articles like 0.999... to confuse them, or George Washington (inventor) for surprise, or even the current featured article. x42bn6 Talk 18:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Another good one for raising eyebrows is Karl Marx (composer). I'm interested in "There is only a problem when Wikipedia starts to take over your life when it will start to become embarrassing." Can you tell me more of your thoughts on this? It might just be irritatingly relevant. Thanks. JackofOz 21:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
The article on Marx was shocking! Who knew that Marx's songs would be used in Nazi songbooks?:-) Steve Dufour 17:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I've not encountered a negative reaction from mentioning to people that I contribute to wikipedia. In fact a few go so far as to praise wikipedia unabashedly. (So much so that it can be tempting to give a more balanced perspective.) — RJH (talk) 19:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking about this today. Be sure to say that the reason you are volunteering here on WP is to make a positive contribution to the good of humanity, not that you are doing it for fun. Steve Dufour 00:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes but it is entirely possible to contribute for both reasons at the same time. :-) — RJH (talk) 17:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I've read a while back that Wikipedia is one of the fastest growing webpages. Therefore, eventually, it should be widely accepted that you'd actually want to actively say you are a Wikipedian.--Kylohk 22:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Is it my browser, or the wikilinks changed color?

File:Firefox links wikipedia.jpg
you see what the problem is?

I am using wikipedia for over a year and contributing and I am not joking. Is there a change on the wikilinks color? When a page does not exist they are still red, but when it does exist they have changed from the regular blue to Maroon. I am using Mozilla firefox and I really find it confusing. As a matter of fact, I find out as I am browsing that some elements such as Table of contents, citation needed button, the sidebar, edit this page button etc, are still in blue. The colors of wikilinks also changes after some time to blue, and back to maroon as I browse wikipedia! If it's not my browser it's frustrating. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alexignatiou (talkcontribs) 16:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

I think it is your browser or settings... links are still blue for me. Blueboar 17:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
That happened to me as well. Maybe it was just general MySQL flakiness? Everything appears fine now. — RJH (talk) 17:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
See the discussion on the technical section The problem should be fixed now, if you clear your browser cache. DES (talk) 17:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The best featured article

What do users think is the best featured article? --HadzTalk 11:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

You excpect an answer? Alphabetagamma 00:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Try the random generator at Wikipedia:Featured content. Carcharoth 03:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't answer what's best because I've only read a few of them. My favorites are chess and The Turk. YechielMan 05:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Sesame Street rocks! -- Zanimum 17:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC) (doing shameless self promotion)
There is no such thing as the "best" FA. Although different users might have different perceptions.--Kylohk 22:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The KLF won a wikimania award. 13:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I was impressed with The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Steve Dufour 04:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

In-jokes on wheels

I rarely participate in Wikipedia's inner workings despite having been an editor for a few years. What's up with all the in-jokes regarding the phrase "On Wheels"? There seem to have been some pages created to explain it, and all those pages appear to have been deleted. Why the censorship? Can I be let in on the joke? Fishal 16:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Old case of a repeat (and now banned) vandal... he would put "On Wheels" at the end of the title of every article he touched. Stupid as hell, but then vandals usaually are. You're not really missing anything by not being "in" on the joke. Blueboar 17:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


I keep seeing this everywhere as a way of communicating with people. What is it and how exactly does it work? Simply south 22:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:IRC. Feel free to ask more questions here. --Ideogram 22:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia in another language

I would like to know how Wikipedia in a language other than the existing may be started. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 17:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

Instructions are here. There are a lot of Wikis already, so you should check the list of Wikimedia projects to make sure that the language you're thinking of doesn't already have a Wiki. -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Slogan for Wikipedia

I think a really good slogan for Wikipedia could be: "Everything about everything"

Just an idea, given that Wikipedia has mostly in-depth articles on just about everything :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TurboForce (talkcontribs) 01:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

I don't think that quite catches it. :-) Steve Dufour 14:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Quote: "...mostly in-depth articles..." If only! Adrian M. H. 20:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
How about: "Everything about some things and something about everything"?  :-) Steve Dufour 04:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Or we could just use "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." --tjstrf talk 04:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
You could suggest this at Motto of the day, where there's a new Wikipedia motto every day. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Creating a page

Hey, I'm real sorry if this doesnt fit here--I cant find anywhere else to put it! I want to create an article about my cello teacher, Kevin Hekmatpanah, but I'm not sure if I'm allowed to do that. He's quite well known and EXTREMELY, EXTREMELY talented on cello, and he's also a conductor and teaches/conducts at Gonzaga University in Spokane, Washington. Do I need his permission to make a page? And how can I make the page good? He has a website, so could I maybe use some information from there? Please comment back on my profile page. Thank you, Cookie 02:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Commented in more detail on your page... in short... go ahead and write it. Good Luck. Blueboar 13:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and if he's so good, consider adding at least one newspaper article or reliable third party web source to the article to ensure the notability guideline is met.--Kylohk 17:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk about talk

On Talk:Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars, we're running into people talking about the same issues over and over again without reading the whole talk page to see their questions have already been asked and answered. To solve this problem, I rearranged the headings, and User:TTN quickly reverted my edit because “Topics go in chronological order. It helps make which topics have come and gone clearer.”, but that's just it! The topics aren't going away, and people keep asking the same already–answered questions about Smithy, music, screenshots, etc. I reverted TTN's edit stating, "However the same topics keep coming up again and again! This prevents that.", which TTN quickly reverted stating, "Take it up at WP:TALK if you care that much. Every other talk page does it chronologically.)" I read WP:TALK and found my way here. Suggestions? Taric25 00:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Check how it is done at Talk:Wii. Archive, and leave a few comments about frequently asked questions to prevent them from reappearing. -- ReyBrujo 04:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! We're going to refactor it and add an FAQ section. Taric25 20:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Is this allowed and where?

Is it allowed to discuss ArbCom decisions with the wider community, or will it only get me blocked for disruption? Or maybe it is irrelevant since it will not change anything? If it is allowed and relevant, where should it be discussed? --Ideogram 18:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It would be absurd if you were blocked for doing so, but it's also completely useless, since Arbcom is not subject to community consensus. -Amarkov moo! 04:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You can always start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration. Corvus cornix 22:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Reindeer Lake

this article has the coordinates of the location floating in the wrong spot(top right above the heading) and i dont know how to fix, so it needs fixin --Johnrob69 03:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

That's how that template is supposed to work. Rmhermen 00:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

How do i contact you

How do I contact the staff of Wikipedia themselves? it's Important.

For Wikipedia, there are no "staff", but the Wikimedia Foundation runs Wikipedia and they can be contacted here. x42bn6 Talk Mess 03:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

RIAA certifications given to music albums

Should RIAA certifications given to music albums be capitalized on pages like discographies? Some editors do capitalize (see Earth, Wind & Fire discography, Audioslave discography) and some (I actually know only one) don't (see Britney Spears discography, Eminem discography). I need opinion of at least two experienced wikipedians, thanks! Daniil Maslyuk 13:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

That depends on whether it is used as a noun or an adjective. In the case of Platinum/Gold discs, is it an award that happens to be metallic in colour, or is it a Gold Award (like a Gold Medal)? I would say that it is the latter, and should therefore be capitalised. Adrian M. H. 16:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I actually don't know if it is used as a noun or adjective. It denotes certification, for example, "2x Platinum". RIAA does capitalize the words on its site, but Mel Etitis says that we should not take into consideration what other people do. It actually confuses me, because if we don't follow the inventor's style, then how will we operate the Wikipedia? I mean, RIAA invented the statuses, so we should capitalize the words after it, just like the RIAA does on its site. Daniil Maslyuk 16:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps the RIAA fully intended to use it as a noun in that case, and it is an award of sorts. I agree with Mel Etitis's sentiment because other people's errors – if any error was made – should not be compounded, but if no error was made, then there is no reason not to follow the RIAA's lead. It is difficult to second-guess intended meanings, but for what it's worth, I think it reads better with capitalisation than without. Go with the RIAA, I think. Adrian M. H. 20:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Where do all those articles listed on AfD come from?

Just out of curiousity, I'd like to ask how does a user typically discover articles that meet Wikipedia's deletion policy. By randomly bumping into one, or by continuously patrolling the RC?--Kylohk 20:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I find them randomly. Most others probably do as well since RC patrol pages are more likely to be speedy-deleted. --tjstrf talk 20:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I also find them when working on pages that are tagged for wikification, cleanup, or sources- sometimes they get tagged when they should just be deleted. -FisherQueen (Talk) 22:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I find them in different ways. Occasionally I see something on RC patrol or New Page patrol, but those are usually in the speedy/PROD class. More commonly, I look through Wikipedia:Dead end pages and Category:Uncategorized pages because about one third of those articles should be deleted according to policy. 15:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Reliance on information

Greetings! Perhaps someone might want to suggest changes or join this experiment: User_talk:Edgerck#Reliance_on_Information Comments are welcome (down the page, please!). I hope this is useful. Edgerck 18:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Usage statistics

Is there any way to find out how many people view a particular article? Alæxis¿question? 16:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there are any view counters for articles in Wikipedia. Hit counters do have some drawbacks, as discussed here.--Kylohk 16:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Racist announces plan to "destroy Wikipedia"

I figure this should go in the "Miscellaneous" category. I doubt I'm the only Wikipedian to read Respectful Insolence, but I might be the first one to talk about this topic, so here goes:

Bill White, Commander of the American National Socialist Workers' Party, apparently annoyed that he can't edit Wikipedia pages to conform to his racist views, proposed a strategy for "destroying" Wikipedia. Apparently, according to white racists, Wikipedia is full of "Jewish bias," whatever that means.

White's strategy is the following (his own words, quoted here):

Write a dialer that interfaces with the broadband service. I am not as familiar with cell phones and other wireless devices, but I'm sure there is some way to have those devices' operating systems' switch IPs. Set it up so it dials in, loads Wikipedia, starts indexing links from a page, opens them, then vandalizes the original page, and repeates for each open page. Essentially, build a vandalism spider, a la the kind used to hack, say, the major forum software packages.
When the spider detacts it is loading a blocked Wikipedia page, have it disconnect the dialer, then redial. It will be assigned a new IP, and it can start its crawling vandalism again.
Most Wikipedia pages are small and load quickly so I don't see why a properly equipped machine couldn't vandalize all 1.7 million Wikipedia articles in a relatively short period of time, and do so repeatedly at a rate that the human users Wikipedia relies on to correct vandalism couldn't respond in time to find all the histories needed to revert the pages and ban the user. Given that one would only lose a few seconds reconnecting to the wireless network and getting a new IP, Wikipedia could be taken down forever.

Having done a little MediaWiki administration on my own sites, I can think of several ways to stymie this sort of trickery, but I'm not sure what would work best. (The solution would no doubt depend upon the sophistication of whatever war-vandalizer White and his friends manage to cook up.)

Anville 20:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

White made this announcement a while ago and so far Wikipedia hasn't suffered noticeably. This was discussed on ANI sometime last month I believe. - ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer. . . I found the relevant discussion in Incident Archive 225. Anville 21:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Anyway, if he's busy racking his brains over How To Destroy Wikipedia, he's not working on How To Take Over The World (and thus leaving an open field for the rest of us Evil Overlords), so maybe it's a good thing ! -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Racist announces plan to "destroy Wikipedia" should be right up there with Man carries sign announcing "The End Is Near"... front page headlines, for sure. -- BenTALK/HIST 00:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Part of an ongoing trend for political and/or extremist groups to stereotype wikipedian content. Wikipedia is now representative of so many different aspects of human culture and society that it's not difficult for the radicals to find something about it that they don't like. And, of course, they have to try and control what others think by limiting access. Hopefully wikipedia has a good disaster-recovery plan in case some loopy loon takes into their head to do something inane. (But I'm not going to suggest ideas here.) — RJH (talk) 17:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Flags in inboxes for people

Could somebody please confirm Wikipedia official policy of whether, or not, a flag should be put into a person's infobox as part of the location of birth information. Thanks.

My question follows the continual deletion of the Scottish flag from the infobox for Billy Connolly (by a user who thinks that the Scottish flag is "rubbish" and "cute"), and the recent deletion of the flag from the infobox for Graham Chapman (by a person who wants to avoid a discussion on whether the English flag — or the UK flag — should be used in his infobox).

Also, with respect to infoboxes of people born in countries within the United Kingdom (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) there seems to be a lot of confusion about whether the UK flag should be used, or whether the flags of the individual countries should be used, within infoboxes to show the location of birth. Because there are four individual countries within the United Kingdom, I feel that the individual flags should be used in infoboxes (i.e. the English flag for people born in England — the Scottish flag for people born in Scotland — the Welsh flag for people born in Wales etc.), instead of the all-encompassing UK flag (because the UK flag covers too broad an area). A discussion regarding this topic has already taken place on the Talk:Hugh Laurie page (under the title "English rather than British".

I feel that the decision of whether, or not, a flag should be in a person's infobox, should be made on an official level and, therefore, 'uniform' for Wikipedia as a whole (as an encyclopedia), and just not rely on an individual user's own POV on the subject. Figaro 00:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Ahem ... We're here to write the world's best encyclopedia. Infoboxes on user pages can be (a) helpful to others or (b) diverting (but still constructive, arguably, because they encourage a user with an investment in a user page to continue to edit. What they shouldn't be is an area of controversy that absorbs resources (time, effort, psychic energy) as editors argue over what is "right", and administrators are asked to enforce policy.
So, you're welcome to feel that there should be "official" policy regarding flags, but the reality is that (a) no one forces you or anyone else to look at a user page; (b) most people simply don't care what is on user pages as long as it isn't too offensive and as long as it doesn't interfere in some way (e.g., spam, political advertising) with the purposes of Wikipedia; (c) official policy on the matter of flags just isn't going to happen. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
This post wasn't about user pages, so I'm not sure what you are talking about... Christopher Parham (talk) 02:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Figaro's arguement, individual flags within the UK should be used not the all encompassing Union Jack, wether it can be made policy...well that's another matter Perry-mankster 12:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


What does "!vote" mean? Simply south 20:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Wiki-politically correct way of saying "a formal expression of opinion for the purposes of group decision making that is not strictly decided by majority rule". In other words, a vote, just with variable cutoff points for victory and suffrage. --tjstrf talk 22:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
It is derived from Mathematical logic, where the prefix "!" is the Negation of what is being prefixed. --Iamunknown 00:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I.E., "not a vote", since technically there is no voting on Wikipedia but discussion. Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 14:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


Due to a potentially controversial bot request, I have been asked by User:Martinp23 to get opinions on my bot request from here and WP:AN. Can I get some comments/suggestions on that page? Thanks! TheFearow 01:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


I have listed %s at RFD to try to generate discussion on what to do with this title --Random832 00:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Ethics: Is Editing Wikipedia a Community Service?

Occasionally I consider being the sort of person who allots a percentage of time each month to community service. In my mind, this means painting over graffiti or volunteering in soup kitchens. In other words: gritty and unpleasant work. But it occured to me today that editing Wikipedia might also be considered a community service, as long as one's contributions are arguably helping one's fellow man. Am I rationalizing my desire to spend more time editing Wikipedia in my pajamas, and less time picking up trash on the beach? Or is there legitimate ethical weight to considering Wiki-editing a part of one's monthly ration of public service? Jonathan Stokes 23:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're rationalizing; no, it doesn't count in the tally of "good works" we carry in our heads. IMHO, of course. - DavidWBrooks 00:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
"Am I rationalizing my desire to spend more time editing Wikipedia in my pajamas" Yes. "is there legitimate ethical weight to considering Wiki-editing ... public service" Yes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ONUnicorn (talkcontribs) 04:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC).
Well, it depends. Writing a featured article on an undercovered human rights issue like the Lord's Resistance Army certainly would in my opinion give you brownie points. The other stuff, well it might be nice, but it shouldn't replace actual community service.--Pharos 05:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
And I definitly wouldn't suggest putting time spent editing Wikipedia down for community service for a court punishment or college application ;). --YbborTalk 13:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
It depends on what you mean by community service. If you are talking about the punishment on delinquents then it's definitely not true! People edit Wikipedia because they enjoy doing so. I take editing as a hobby.--Kylohk 14:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Consensus seems to be I am rationalizing. (deep, existential sigh) I suspected as much. Sadly, my edit count and my karma appear to be unrelated. Oh well, nirvana can wait... Jonathan Stokes 05:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you get bored with something, don't do it for a while. Consider taking a wikibreak if you are stressed.--Kylohk 16:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The bottom of every page on Wikipedia displays text from MediaWiki:Copyright:
You may view contributions to different charities as being "charitable" to different degrees, but the Internal Revenue Service does not make that distinction. Given that the IRS equates Wikipedia to any other tax-deductible charity, you can rationally feel as good about contributing here as you might feel good about contributing to, say, a soup kitchen. Nobody has time to contribute to every worthy cause, so it is futile to wallow in guilt over all the worthy causes you cannot possibly support. If you can add more value by editing for an hour on Wikipedia, that's better for society as a whole than if you squander society's investment in your expensively educated mind by serving soup to poor people. Soup kitchen labor could be purchased on the free market for less than it would cost to hire people who are literate enough to help out on Wikipedia. Let the people who cannot write well volunteer their time in soup kitchens. Society is better off when people contribute where they are most productive. --Teratornis 23:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject seeking assistance

WikiProject Occult could use the assistance of more editors in monitoring and developing occult related articles. We could also use help developing our assessment department. Come join us and help improve Wikipedia. Thanks! Vassyana 08:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Spam protection filter

WTF is this? I basically can't edit any large page because basic links are being called spam. Marskell 07:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

What page are you trying to edit? I haven't had any problems with this, even when I test edited a link heavy page. --tjstrf talk 08:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Norte Chico civilization. and are spam? I then tried Fermi paradox. is blocked. Marskell 08:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. It just let the edit through... Marskell 08:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I had the same issue with pre-existing links to There's mention of a problem (that appears to have been fixed) here on Meta-Wiki. --Ckatzchatspy 08:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


Has the default number for user contributions increased or am I being silly (i.e. changed something in user prefs?) GDonato (talk) 22:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Default number? What do you mean? Are you talking about the number appearing on the page at the same time?--Kylohk 16:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, sorry I didn't make that clear. GDonato (talk) 07:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
It's still 50 for me. Might be your prefs. Adrian M. H. 13:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't see anything in prefs (200 is what I'm getting) GDonato (talk) 15:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

de-Wikipedia ↔ en-Wikipedia

User:DerHexer (sysop on German Wikipedia) worked for four days on en-Wikipedia and wrote an interesting report about his days here. He described among other things some differences between vandal fighting here and vandal fighting on German Wikipeda. Are there any similar reports here by users who went to the German Wikipedia but mostly work here? What do users think of the German Wikipedia? --de:Spongo 08:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd love to read a summary (in English) of DerHexer's report. In the Signpost there are sometimes reports on the German Wikipedia, but differences between En and De are not discussed.--Commander Keane 07:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
There's also User:Elian/comparison, a comparison between the English and the German Wikipedia. It's over a year old, but I think not much has changed in the meantime. -- 01:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Here's a link to a Google translation of the page. It's not great (the translation, that is) but with a little luck you can pull out the relevant details. --Ckatzchatspy 04:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Reading German Wikipedia in English

As a result of trying to read the above report I had an interesting experience. To see what I found try the following link: Interesting report translated by Google. "No big deal", you say, "I knew that Google could do that". Well fair enough, but try clicking on any of the Wiki links on the page. Now that's cool! Suddenly the German Wikipedia is browsable in "English"! -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

And as a result of that... the English wikipedia is now browsable in English! Interesting what happens when english is translated from german. -- Someone who forgot to sign with ~~~~ or didn't know.

<Grin>, I didn't try that. I was too busy smiling at Google's "translations" of the German Main Page. Yes that is quite weird. I wonder what makes Google decide to translate some of the words as ALL caps ? -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Creating a page

Hey, I'm real sorry if this doesnt fit here--I cant find anywhere else to put it! I want to create an article about my cello teacher, Kevin Hekmatpanah, but I'm not sure if I'm allowed to do that. He's quite well known and EXTREMELY, EXTREMELY talented on cello, and he's also a conductor and teaches/conducts at Gonzaga University in Spokane, Washington. Do I need his permission to make a page? And how can I make the page good? He has a website, so could I maybe use some information from there? Please comment back on my profile page. Thank you, Cookie 02:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Commented in more detail on your page... in short... go ahead and write it. Good Luck. Blueboar 13:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and if he's so good, consider adding at least one newspaper article or reliable third party web source to the article to ensure the notability guideline is met.--Kylohk 17:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


A few days back, there was a TOTD that didn't seem to be helping Wikipedia, as it mentioned Esperanza (which has now been deleted). Is there any chance this particular tip could be removed? -- Casmith_789 (talk) 15:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Now that I look at it, today's TOTD seems to have an error at the end (there should not be a comma at the end of a word). -- Casmith_789 (talk) 15:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I've fixed todays, can't find the Esperanza one, do you have the date? -- GDonato (talk) 15:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I think it was on the 18th May. -- Casmith_789 (talk) 16:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah. That was a mistake, it was cancelled at about 16:00 so I didn't find it at first- the problem was the tip was thought up in Nov. 2006. GDonato (talk) 16:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Similar user names

I don't think anyone but me is aware of this, but there are User:Geologyguy and User:Geometry guy. I think these 2 names are easy to mix up, and I suggest one should be changed. Georgia guy 20:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

You could try contacting them on their talk pages about it. Tra (Talk) 20:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, I'd be more likely to confuse "Georgia guy" with "Geometry guy" than "Geologyguy" with "Geometry guy", and even this case would require a substantial lack of caffeine on my part. Am I missing something? I second though that one can ask them if they would agree to put some form of Username disambiguation on their userpages. Femto 21:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 18

Hey, I have two deletion reviews up at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 18 which have been scantily commented on. I would hate to see these deletion reviews closed with only 1 or 2 !votes, and it doesn't appear they're getting any more. As I feel very near to the subject of these deleletions, I ask anybody to come comment on them, as a fuller discussion would be appreciated. Thanks, even if you !vote keep deleted. The Evil Spartan 16:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


Does anyone know of any proxys that i can use to get passed the firewall at my school? all of the ones so far have been blocked. i need help. please post on either here or in my talk page.Gogoboi662 16:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia generally blocks open proxies, so that vandals can't use them to get round blocks. Is the problem that Wikipedia has blocked the school (this happens quite often as there can be a lot of vandalism from schools) or that the school prevents you from accessing Wikipedia (less likely, but possible)? Tra (Talk) 16:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Longest article name

On the English Wikipedia, what is the longest name for any page in the article space? --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 14:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I found Krung Thep Mahanakhon Amon Rattanakosin Mahinthara Ayuthaya Mahadilok Phop Noppharat Ratchathani Burirom Udomratchaniwet Mahasathan Amon Piman Awatan Sathit Sakkathattiya Witsanukam Prasit (redirects to Bangkok) but Longest word in English has more variants. x42bn6 Talk Mess 18:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
There are some real long titles. Unfortunately I don't know one off the top of my head (because they're so long!). Some articles actually have to have truncated titles because their full name is too long. Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 14:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Here's some trivia: article titles are limited to 256 characters. Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 14:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
My favourite is so long that it has to be abbreviated: Acetylseryltyrosylseryliso...serine. From Wikipedia:Unusual articles. Adrian M. H. 13:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
The article Krung-dēvamahānagara amararatanakosindra mahindrayudhyā mahātilakabhava navaratanarājadhānī purīrāmasya utamarājanivēsana mahāsthāna amaravimāna avatārasthitya shakrasdattiya vishnukarmaprasiddhi is a redirect I made that also redirects to Bangkok. It is a more Thai spelling od the above name in x42bn6's post. I think it is 7 charecters longer than that one. •Felix• T 18:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I feel frustrated

I have been editing Wikipedia since February. Soon I realized a lot of articles were about topics such as next-door neighbours and aunt's kittens. I began searching for questionable contents... In the last weeks I found that fame and popularity implying notability, which clearly is not the spirit of WP:N. I quit editting for a couple of weeks, first arguing a travel and then arguing exams (which were true). I'm not for either discussing policies or how should they be applied; what I'm asking for is a bit of emotional support... I'm sad I had to appeal here and I would like to stay active, but I will not be able if I'm convinced that editing Wikipedia is a waste of time, because nobody cares about non-popular notable facts. Thank you. Rjgodoy 23:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, as long as someone brings the heart to editing an article, it should eventually shine. Take The Bus Uncle, for instance. It's an internet meme last year, and was the talk of the town back then. I decided to focus on the article last month and managed to recover many long lost reports about the incident. After some grammatical improvements and the application of new images, the article was nominated for a Featured Article and succeeded. Anyway, this shows that when you really take the effort, even the most awful articles can be featured one day, so don't give up.--Kylohk 10:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes there is plenty of goofy and/or trivial activity on wikipedia. Personally I just don't worry about the existence of non-notable pages. Instead I find it motivating to work on articles about core subjects. You might find it helpful to take a look at the WP:Vital articles page and see if there are any topics that interest you. Many of those pages are in need of significant TLC. — RJH (talk) 14:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your responses =). I'll think about improving some articles and I'll try not to worry so much about trivial activities. Rjgodoy 22:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Roskilde Festival

At Danish Wikipedia I am trying to arrange a meetup for music loving users of Wikipedia at the Roskilde Festival. If one or more of you should be interested in perhaps sharing a camp with some Danes write your name at:

da:Wikipedia:Træf --|EPO| 19:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm New

hi people, i dont know what to do...... ahh...... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ennaburned (talkcontribs).

It depends on what you want to do! General FAQs may be useful. x42bn6 Talk Mess 18:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Try clicking the 'Random article' link and reading whatever you find there... that's always good for some fun. -FisherQueen (Talk) 22:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia meets the resume

Simply put, would you ever consider using, or have you ever used, your experience as an editor and/or admin on Wikipedia as a volunteer experience on your resume? --Saaga 00:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Never thought of it. It might work if you could mention being elected an administrator or something like that. Steve Dufour 01:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I haven't updated mine in years, and hopefully never will! But, yes, I think it would be valid inclusion among one's activities/interests. Particularly if you can find anything significant to mention: "...for which I have written over 100 articles, some of which have been featured on the main page" or "...the processes of which have given me invaluable experience of dispute resolution and policy development". Adrian M. H. 23:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
being a wikiadmin would count against you in a job application, just like trainspotting or playing videogames. dont do it. 13:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
How exactly? Wikipedia administrators are usually chosen for being responsible, trustworthy, and giving-a-care. Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 02:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
funniest thing i read all day! ;) 11:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I put my wikipedia editing into a resume for a job as a technical writer. Corvus cornix 18:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Did you get any reaction, positive or negative? Did anybody mention it as an impressive indication of your dedication and interest in the technical-editing process? Did anybody mention it as a laughable waste of time that shows you're only an amateur? Did anybody ignore it, because it is routine to see it on resumes, or ask you about it because they didn't know what wikipedia is? (I mean these questions sincerely, by the way, not snidely - this is a very interesting, and I think quite new, indication of how wikipedia is perceived in the outside world.) - DavidWBrooks 19:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
We went into a discussion of Wikipedia and what it is, and how editing works. I had also printed out some articles that I had created and showed them what I could do. I didn't get the tech writer job, though.  ;-} Corvus cornix 22:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I put it on my resume. Most people in the outside world don't know about administrators, but they do know about Wikipedia and my contributions to articles in my field demonstrate knowledge, expertise, and work ethic. Dcoetzee 20:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, speaking as someone who runs some corporate wikis using the MediaWiki software, I can tell you there is a screaming need for more employees who have wiki editing skills. As far as I have seen, nobody at the two companies I work for (a total of about 60 people) had any prior experience with wiki editing until I pushed the wiki idea in front of them (OK, one said he used TWiki at a previous job). Generally most of them appreciated the value of wiki technology right away, but it's hard for a company full of people to get up to speed when everybody is a newb at the same time. Having a few more people around who already understand the complicated issues of templates, categories, and so on would help a lot. I would certainly expect that as more companies install corporate wikis, anyone who is rational in the corporate world will begin to value demonstrated Wikipedia editing experience, given that Wikipedia is arguably one of the best-organized and most well-developed wikis. The typical corporate wiki is probably not nearly as well-developed as what we have here, so you'd like to have experienced Wikipedians who can copy useful templates and so on from Wikipedia and adapt them to the corporate wiki. --Teratornis 00:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I didn't mention it on my resume, but shortly after being hired as a programmer, I mentioned offhand that I had MediaWiki experience, which ended up with me spearheading an internal-use wiki-based documentation system...we now run a Wiki farm internally. ^demon[omg plz] 03:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Similar to ^demon's case, we setup an internal wiki to keep development documentation. We have been porting all our internal applications to free tools (SVN, Bugzilla, Linux servers, etc), and a wiki was just a natural addition. However, I haven't yet setup a MediaWiki one, just MoinMoin. Personally, it should be easy to add MediaWiki (or any other Wiki editing) as a skill in a résumé, because it is a very useful tool for documentation, it can be considered a skill (you can't just unpack and set it up, most companies don't even have a Linux dedicated server), and since it is free, companies should have no problem accepting it. -- ReyBrujo 03:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Reliance on information

Greetings! Perhaps someone might want to suggest changes or join this experiment: User_talk:Edgerck#Reliance_on_Information Comments are welcome (down the page, please!). I hope this is useful. Edgerck 18:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Usage statistics

Is there any way to find out how many people view a particular article? Alæxis¿question? 16:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there are any view counters for articles in Wikipedia. Hit counters do have some drawbacks, as discussed here.--Kylohk 16:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales on Charlie Rose Show tonight

I just received the daily email update for the Charlie Rose Show on PBS, which announced that Jimmy Wales will be the featured guest in one of the interview segments on tonight's program (Tuesday, May 22, 2007). It looks like he will be seen/heard in the second of three interview segments. Here is the full text from the email message:

"Next, A conversation about Wikipedia, web technology, and the future of search with Jimmy Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia."

Does anybody know of a better place to post this announcement? I just spent 10-15 minutes looking around, hoping to find a more prominent place to post it, but I didn't see anything that made sense. Cgingold 22:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (news) perhaps? There's also a page along the lines of Wikipedia:Wikipedia in the press someplace, but I don't recall the exact name. --tjstrf talk 22:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


I want to create a barnstar. I got the original barnstar, but how do you "dye" it in the GIMP? Please answer in my talk page too. Thanks. --Jacklau96 02:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I mean how do you colour it. --Jacklau96 02:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Research about the self-correcting mechanism

The internet is still a fairly recent phenomenon. Whereas communities and groups enjoyed thorough research, theories and knowledge about virtual communities are relatively limited. I am busy with researching how virtual communities communicate, interact and exchange knowledge and information. Most importantly, I am interested in the relation between virtual communities and knowledge creation, especially the correcting mechanism of Wikipedia-the users.

As Wikipedia is one of the biggest and most popular virtual communities, and as it is focused on knowledge creation and knowledge exchange is it perfect to contribute to this research.

I can get lots of data and information from the site it self. But in this context, people are crucial. Crucial for understanding the motivators and visions which are necessary to have a website as successful as Wikipedia.

I am therefore looking for people who are active on Wikipedia who would find it interesting to give interviews. These interviews are necessary to complete this research successfully. Obviously you will be able to express your own opinion and illustrate Wikipedia as you see it.

Just put your name on my user page or send me a message,

thanks NeniPogarcic 13:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank You Creaters and user

I just want to say thank you to the creaters and users of wikipedia. This is a great site and has the usefull information I need to get things done. I wish I could make a donation, but I don't have paypal or anything. HAHA!

Thanks a bunch guys. This is helping me out with my English exam very much.

05:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You can make a donation in the form of useful edits to our articles. Paul Carpenter 11:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

a little backup?

I made a proposal on my blog that the Discogs site could become an open Wiki-- and now I'm in the middle of an "experts vs. consensus" argument. It needs a bit of balance. Anyone want to visit and present a nicely-worded defense of the wiki concept? Here's the URL:


--Daephex, Wikipedia contributor —The preceding unsigned comment was added by aephex (talkcontribs) 12:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

deadline extension for participation in Wikipedia study

Dear English Wikipedia community,

I am conducting a study of the Wikipedia communities in six different languages for my diploma thesis. Please read my initial announcement for more information.

I owe a big "thank you" to everybody who has helped answer my questions.

So far over 50 people across six Wikipedia communities have contributed to their community's answers and I am grateful for their help. However, for the study to be comprehensive I need more people to get involved. Some communities also seem to need more time to discuss and work out the answers.

Therefore I have extended the deadline for participation until May 13th.

I have used mailing lists and village pumps to spread the announcement about my research questions, but every community has their own channels for the distribution of information. So, I ask you to help get more people involved to make sure the results accurately represent your community.

When phrasing the answers, please approach it as if you were writing a Wikipedia article: try to work on joint answers that your community can agree on. The answers don't need to be neutral in an NPOV kind of way, but please try to give a comprehensive picture of the processes and ideals of your community.

The questions can be found at User:Kurt_Jansson/questions; please edit the questions page to contribute.

Best wishes,
Kurt —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kurt Jansson (talkcontribs) 22:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia article(s) with most references

How about this...

Which Wikipedia article has the most references - or really what I'm after is articles that have a substantially high number of references (quantity-wise, not coverage-wise).

A google search didn't help.

Rfwoolf 16:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean "references"? Do you mean an article that includes lots of references to other articles? Or lots of references to non-wikipedia stuff? Or do you mean, what articles are referenced most often outside wikipedia? (I don't know how to calculate any of those). - DavidWBrooks 17:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
He is referring to the number of unique inline citations of the article. Finding the article in the middle of the millions present isn't going to be easy, I believe.--Kylohk 18:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Well it's at least 151. — RJH (talk) 21:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
That's topped easily enough -- Campaign history of the Roman military, 397. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah, but those only reference a short list of books. ;-) — RJH (talk) 14:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks all. Yes I'm looking for references/citations - i.e. an external referencse for facts - much like the examples RJH and Christopher Parham have so far given for George_W._Bush and Campaign history of the Roman military.
Now I'm wondering why some articles say "References" and other articles say "Citations". Which is correct? Rfwoolf 12:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Both are correct. "References" is considered standard. Somewhere in the Manual of Style there should be a clarification. YechielMan 13:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

New Task Force!

Dear Wikipedians,

Another Wikipedian and I just created a Salem Witch Trials task force. If you are interested in history, Massachusetts, colonial America, witchcraft, or instances of religiously motivated violence, then this is the task force for you!

So please check it out!

Psdubow 18:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)