Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)/Archive O

< Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)
Village pump (assistance) archive  

This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (assistance). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.

< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

A letter from a record co. promotions manager

On my talk page User talk:Paul Erik I received a lengthy note from a promotions manager at a record label, regarding copyrighted material posted on Matthew Jay (a deceased singer on that record label). Could someone please take a look at my talk page and review the recent edits on the article? I have tried to familiarize myself with the Wikipedia guidelines and procedures around copyright, but I am fairly new here, not sure how to proceed, and would appreciate assistance from a more experienced editor. Thanks in advance, --Paul Erik 22:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Paul. As the user is an anonymous IP poster, I will try and contact them. See the IP's talk page (User talk:130.88.238.60) for my response, which I will also post to Talk:Matthew Jay. You have done the right thing. In the case of future messages of this kind, you may get a quicker response if you post them at Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents. Let me know (either via my talk page or via email) if you hear any more from them. Proto ► 23:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Also User:CrookedSmile. Irrespective, the text must be explicitly released under GFDL or a compatible license for us to use it; this must be on the URL the text is taken from. Proto ► 23:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the help very much. Another issue that has been raised is whether someone who describes herself as "the Promotions Manager for Jay's Music Ltd, Matthew's current record label" is declaring a conflict of interest. --Paul Erik 00:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

(I'm not an admin, but I would like to comment. I've spent a lot of time studying Copyright issues.)

This person may manage Matthew Jay's legacy, but they cannot mandate what we say or don't say on Wikipedia. If you post verifiable information, that person doesn't have the right to remove it, unless they have a valid reason to under Wikipedia policy. The COI is certainly a valid concern. Maybe you should point this person to WP:COI and explain to her that she doesn't get to control this article. She has her own web site where she can say anything she wants. This is not her site, and she doesn't have the right to control what goes on here. -- TomXP411[Talk] 18:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

While it isn't necessarily what has happened here, if they own it, they most certainly can mandate that we can't have it. But indeed they certainly cannot say "I have given you this text, you must use it." Chris cheese whine 18:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Not true. She admits that she posted the original article on Wikipedia. So that article is now part of the GFDL.. She can't change her mind now. Like you said, she also can't legally require that we leave her article in place. She just wants her boy to look good, and that's not what WP is here for. -- TomXP411[Talk] 18:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I just left the individual in question a friendly note with some links to relevant policy as they don't seem aware of WP:OWN, WP:RS, etc. and I've left a link to my talkpage to open a dialogue with them so hopefully they will get a better understanding of the way things work around here.--Isotope23 18:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Fansites and WP:EL

A bit of a policy question has been brewing at the satellite radio articles, XM Satellite Radio (primarily) and Sirius Satellite Radio (as a directly affected article). Several users feel it is highly appropriate to include fansites and forums and such on these articles because they "provide news and useful information that doesn't come to light through the official company page" (quote by User:TomXP411), and the discussion is ongoing at Talk:XM Satellite Radio. This diff shows links that were removed. The external link policy, especially "Links normally to be avoided" numbers 10, 11 and 13 seem to say that none of the contested links are acceptable for inclusion. Might I get some opinions on this issue, so this problem can be dealt with one way or another? -- Huntster T • @ • C 21:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, you can always thrash this out at Wikipedia talk:External links. My two cents, here, is that 13 applies only for (say) a blog about the radio industry in general, so it's not really applicable. As for 10 and 11, the section heading is "normally to be avoided", which gives some discretion. I think forums are generally unregulated junk; if someone wants to find them, they can always use Google. Fansites and blogs vary in quality; some can be quite good. If you can get some kind of consensus about quality, so that you can avoid a "well, X and Y are listed, so I listed A through M, because they are of equal quality", then my personal opinion is that a couple of high-quality links are useful to the reader. If you can't get consensus that limits the number to a handful, then I suggest removing them all.
Also remember WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not a directory. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

How do I mark an article as contradicting itself?

I've tried to search this, but just keep getting an article about contradiction. Grr. So, if I am trying to mark that an article contradicts itself in its text, how do I properly mark it? Not biased, just has two opposing facts. Thanks. --Nleamy 02:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

{{contradict}}. And make sure to explain on the talk page. —Random832(tc) 02:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Swell. That was easy... Thanks!--Nleamy 02:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Is there a list of all those kinds of tags somewhere? It would be nice to keep as a reference. -- TomXP411[Talk] 18:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
The master list is on WP:TM (note all the aliases): The contradiction tag is on the Cleanup subpage. —EncMstr 18:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

How do we view our contributions?

I have been away for a while and it seems the interface has changed... I no longer can locate my articles and monitor the progress of their evolution. Thank you in advance for your time.

LV —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lex luther vandross (talk • contribs) 05:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

I've added the "big" welcome template to your talk page which has lots of useful reference links. If you're using monobook as your skin, "my contributions" is at the right top of the page next to "log off". —EncMstr 05:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

TOC layout

I'm terrible with coding and stuff, noticed an article that needs its TOC to stream with the text, rather than interrupt it.

pls see List of Phyxelididae species.

Thank you. -- Librarianofages 02:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Admin request

hey im an insomniac and i have been using wikipedia for ages now and i have never gotten around to making a username. I am interested in becoming an administrator and i was wondering if any of you peeps out there can help me? what must i do in order to achieve this? Thankyou very much for your assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gotta.stay.awake.monster.under.my.bed (talk • contribs)

Hello. The information you seek can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. However, before you seek adminship, I would recommend racking up at least a few months worth of editing under your current username. It is highly unlikely a request would be successful at the moment. Rockpocket 01:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Which is worse - copyright violations, or spam?

Today User:The Argonaut went around and tagged at least 7 articles that he had previously made extensive edits to as copyvios (random diff, diff from copyvio log). Checking out the history of a couple of these articles it seems he is responsible for almost all of the content (history of one of them). The alleged copyright violations all come from the same website; Questmagazine.com, and all have the same author - one Hal Siemer. All the Questmagazine articles have this copyright notice on the bottom,

Reprints

This article may be reproduced online in whole or part if credit is given to both the author and Quest Magazine and a link is included to the web address from which the article was taken. Copyright © 2006 Quest TM Magazine

Immediately prior to Argonaut tagging as copyvios an IP, User:86.129.166.136 had removed all the references to Quest Magazine (random diff) with an edit summary of

Removed Vanity Reference - To: The Argonaut / Hal Siemer, Wikipedia is not a place to promote your magazine. Stop with these countless uneccessary references.

I asked about it on both editor's talk pages and got the following responses from The Argonaut

I copied these from Quest since they give permission on their site as long as the author, magazine, and a link are included. ... I thought it would be OK since the cites and link were included, but these have been removed.

and from the IP

The reason why I removed the reference as I feel user:The Argonaut (very likely to be Hal Siemer) has been using Wikipedia to promote himself and his magazine. ... I see the use of these articles to as yet another attempt at self promotion. As it now appears the articles are identical to another website. If the text in these articles is made GFPL, then the situation does change, but as far as I can see the author of this text has not made this GFPL.

It seems that about a year ago someone wrote articles on Quest Magazine and Hal Siemer which were deleted (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quest Magazine, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hal Siemer), and the IP thinks that The Argonaut is the same person and is spamming.

Reading what Quest Magazine has to say about copyrights, it looks to me like the material is licensed in such a way that it is compatable with Wikipedia's GFDL license, especially since we're supposed to be citing out sources anyhow. It's not a copyvio if it's cited.

On the otherhand, the IP believes all these citations are spam. Hence it seems to boil down to Cited = spam, uncited=copyvio. Which do we like less, copyvios or spam?

Frankly I'm inclined to go through and revert to the version prior to the IP's removal of the citations. What do other people think? (I'm crossposting this to the Admin's noticeboard and to the Assistance board on the Villiage Pump.) ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


Let's look at this from another perspective: Spam isn't illegal, but violating copyright definitely is.

How many articles are we talking about? Obviously, we have to comply with the terms of the license (citing the source). That's not negotiable. Now the issue becomes whether Wikipedia should use the images articles. Do you think this person is submitting these images with the express purpose of promoting his site? Perhaps other sources should replace the ones in question. -- TomXP411[Talk] 18:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Images? I see no mention of images here. I assume you mean articles. Taking the entirety of such articles doesn't exactly qualify for fair use. Chris cheese whine 18:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
That's right, we are not talking about images here, we're talking about text. We're talking about the text of 7-10 articles, most of which are pretty important (Haunting, German Christmas traditions). ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry. I misread.
Just a suggestion, since I'm not that experienced here: perhaps the article should be reverted to its pre-Quest state and someone (not Argonaut) should write an original article, rather than just taking the text wholesale from Quest. I agree that the Quest article is a good article, but what's the point of simply copying someone else's article wholesale if a link serves just as well? -- TomXP411[Talk] 05:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

List of criticism articles

List of criticism articles: is this supposed to be a disambiguation page? should it be moved to the Wikipedia space? or left alone? --maclean 01:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd leave it alone. There are a lot of "List of" articles. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, this does look a prime candidate to get out of article space. That they are all "criticisms" (even though the nature of each article is somewhat different) isn't a useful cross-section for a list - seems a little indiscriminate to me. Chris cheese whine 18:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

how do I tell how many edits an artice has had?

For example, I want to know how many times the article on climate change has been edited - how do I do this?

Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.106.100.217 (talk) 00:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

Please see Wikipedia page history statistics.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Wow, that's a nice tool, although it only goes up to the last 1000 edits. To see further back than that, you can follow these steps:
  1. Visit the article
  2. Go to the history tab
  3. Click 'Earliest' (if you can't do this, just skip this step)
  4. Go to the bottom of the page, where the first edit to the article is listed
  5. Click on its date
  6. Go to the address bar and find where it says &oldid=(long number)
  7. Copy this long number to your clipboard
  8. Click the history tab again
  9. Click 'Compare selected versions'
  10. On the address find where it says &oldid=(long number)
  11. Delete this long number and paste in the number you copied earlier
  12. Press enter
  13. Find where it says n intermediate revisions not shown.
  14. Add 2 to this number
This will give you the total number of revisions to the article. For Climate change, this comes out to 1257 edits. Tra (Talk) 00:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I remember a "tool" that showed how many times each person had edited an article. Did it also show total edits? Rmhermen 01:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
You might be thinking of this or this, which shows the total number of edits. Tra (Talk) 01:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - Never Mind - Problem solved.


Reid Rosefelt —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tiger the Frog (talk • contribs) 15:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

Require a few extra editors thoughts

This isn't quite ANI territory, but it does look a bit suspicious and may require a bit of unpicking. On random browsing I came across Anthony John Bailey - it looked like it was a little too polished and my suspicions were only raised further when I see virtually a mono-contributor history (a couple of accounts and IP addies, but almost all of them bar the most recent few are most likely all the same person). There is certainly some fact in there, but there is certainly also a good deal of what, for a better phrase, could be described as promotional material. Hi-res photograph (publicity shot), verbose language, "Bailey is one of the most decorated living Briton" (is he? no source and sounds promotional), coupled with fudge facts, "Freedom of the City of London 2004" - as Freedom of the City details for London that basically means being as part of a Freemason/guilds type linkage - the text as it is in his article makes it sound like it is on par with Neil Armstrong being bestowed freedoms. The vast majority of references are to "Eligo International" - a check on that website reads:


If folks can manage to actually decode any real english words out of that pea soup of management speak then it looks to me like a straight up PR firm. It was also "Founded in 1997 by Anthony Bailey". Of the other references a couple are from reputable sources, but the rest of them are from various "organisations" setup by him or his company. Matters aren't helped by the multiple edit accounts this has all been created from - including 81.149.151.110 (talk · contribs), Digby2 (talk · contribs), Seisal (talk · contribs), Cahce (talk · contribs) and the most obvious, Eligo (talk · contribs). A couple of them may be genuine editors, but the IP addy and Eligo are definitely the same thing. Other relevant articles to the situation include Painting & Patronage and House of Hohenberg - there may be others.

The issue I set out here is not some nn situation - these all appear to be real things - but what it does appear we have is some sort of promotional, PR web. I say web because the methodology of the editing is all too intermingled and from too many new accounts all editing on the same subject. The main article on the individual most definitely reads as nothing but self-promotional vanity and is in no way objective. Others thoughts would be welcomed. SFC9394 23:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Try WP:AN for that. Looks fishy to me too. DurovaCharge! 03:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I've just posted the page on AFD.The Boy that time forgot 23:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Citing info. (with permission) from sitting MP(UK)

I have some correspondence from my constituency member of parliament (UK) which includes, among other things, views on some key current events and things she desires to accomplish during her time in parliament/government. Through a colleague, she is close to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is likely to be the next Prime Minister and there are good chances that she will get some sort of ministry.

Given that I have written permission to communicate this information to others and I have been making contributions to her Wikipedia entry, I would like to know how to cite the info. for 'verifiability.' Do I have to copy to Wikisource/Commons ??

Excuse me if this is some sort of FAQ, but I'm still kind of a newbie at this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dsmith1usa (talk • contribs) 11:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

Well, to post it to wikisource, you might have to get it put under the GFDL - and this may fall under crown copyright rather than the writer's personal copyright, which could complicate things. (I am not a lawyer) --Random832(tc) 15:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
What does GFDL stand for ?
(Don't forget to sign your posts. Type ~~~~ at the end of your posts.) On to the answer to your question: GFDL is the Gnu Free Documentation License. Essentially, text submitted under GFDL is free to use anywhere. -- TomXP411[Talk] 07:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Yep, it was right in front of my face. Thanks, anyway, for getting back (I've been trying to remember to sign-post, as well :-)Dsmith1usa 10:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Um. I'm guessing the MP and article is Natascha Engel. Looking at the article I think you may have some problems with original research and the neutral point of view. That's just my opinion on the article. Steve block Talk 18:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
You are correct. As for your concerns, I have them myself. One Sam Blacketer has added a tag to the article, which is fair enough. I reply to the concerns on the talk page.
If she publishes them herself on a website, or you post them on a blog, then you can cite them, but it's still only as reliable as the source you're citing. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that info. Night GyrDsmith1usa 11:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

User removing speedy tags---- could use some help!

I put a speedy tag on this article Bill and Dede mactaggart as spam (it could be tagged as an attack) and the editor has removed the tag three times . I am afraid of breaking 3rr if I revert it again. I could use some help.--John Lake 04:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, the 3rr is only for content disputes, not vandalism and things like this. If someone removes a speedy deletion tag from an article they have created, it should be restored, and they should be warned on their talk page. There are appropriate warning templates here: Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. -GhostPirate 12:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Black pot

For WP:KETTLE, we request an image of a black pot. >Radiant< 14:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

"high traffic" template?

Where is that template for talk pages of articles that have been linked to by a high-traffic site? Joyous! | Talk 17:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

{{high-traffic}} – Qxz 08:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikistalking

Could anybody please investigate the case of alleged wikistalking (WP:STALK) of User:Biophys and me (User:Colchicum) by User:Vlad fedorov? Vlad fedorov has been harassing Biophys for two months (since December 18, 2006, when the Vlad fedorov account had been created) and me for several days (since February 14, 2007), being quite disruptive, and I am almost sure that he has never tried to touch an article that hadn't been created or edited by us shortly before this (see Special:Contributions/Vlad_fedorov). Colchicum 02:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is the full list of the articles User:Vlad fedorov has contributed to since December 18; Without any exception, it exemplifies wikistalking against User:Biophys and sometimes against me.

Active measures
Alexander Goldfarb (microbiologist)
Alexander Litvinenko
Anatoliy Golitsyn
Anna Politkovskaya
Boris Stomakhin
Central Intelligence Agency
Chechen suicide attacks
David Satter
Dedovshchina
Disinformation
FAPSI
Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation
Galina Starovoitova
Glasnost Defence Foundation
Human rights in Russia
Izvestia
Mitrokhin Archive
Moscow Serbsky Institute
Moscow theater hostage crisis
Platon Lebedev
Putin's Russia
Russia and the Arab-Israeli conflict
Sergei Ivanov
State-sponsored terrorism
Union of Councils for Soviet Jews
Vladimir Putin legislation and program
Yevgenia Albats
Yulia Latynina

Here are some talks:

User talk:Alex Bakharev#Vlad
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive74#Boris Stomakhin article and inciting of ethinic hatred
Talk:Active measures
Talk:Alexander Litvinenko
Talk:Anna Politkovskaya
Talk:Anti-Russian sentiment/Archive2
Talk:Anti-Russian sentiment
Talk:Boris Stomakhin/Archive 1
Talk:Boris Stomakhin
Talk:C2 domain
Talk:Chechen suicide attacks
Talk:David Satter
Talk:Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation
Talk:Glasnost Defence Foundation
Talk:Human rights in Russia
Talk:Mitrokhin Archive
Talk:Moscow Serbsky Institute
Talk:Putin's Russia
Talk:Union of Councils for Soviet Jews
Talk:Yevgenia Albats
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive37#Boris_Stomakhin_.28Result:Action_done.29
Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-02-10 Boris Stomakhin
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive190#Please review my block
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive36#User:Biophys reported by User:Vlad fedorov .28Result: Biophys commended.29

Colchicum 13:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Why not tell the mediators? I'm in a bit of a rush so can't provide a link, but it should be easy enough to find the page. If you can't find it, drop me a line at my talk page tomorrow.--84.9.74.52 20:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Whoops, wasn't logged in at the time. My talk page can be reached by clicking on 'Man' in the signature. Hope you sort it out.--CarrotMan 20:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

NavFrame Won't Hide to Start

I've been having some difficulty with this code here, whenever I enter it to my homepage (which is where I want it), it doesn't automatically hide the template I've put in - unless I say style="display:none" in the navcontent - but then the hide/show starts out as hide even though the content is hidden. Any ideas?

<div class="NavFrame">
<div class="NavHead">User Talk Templates</div>
<div class="NavContent">
{{User:Pilotguy/Warnings}} </div> </div>


Thanks for any help you guys can give (oh and note: if I use {{Hidden}} and say 2={{User:Pilotguy/Warnings}} for the second parameter - it works, strangeness.Daniel()Folsom T|C|U 21:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

HElp

help! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by រ (talk • contribs).

What do you need help with? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Choosing a readable username, by the look of it; his name just appears as a question mark to me – Qxz 08:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I see a square. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Esperanza

Hi! I would like to request for assistance regarding the now inactive project Esperanza. There has been some recent discussion that now can be viewed on this archive regarding edits made to this following section on WP:EA:

A month later, Esperanza was once again nominated for deletion. Noted complaints included:

  • The overhaul, which was allegedly done to prevent the deletion of Esperanza rather than to actually fix it, was unsuccessful in reforming Esperanza.
  • Esperanza had a "holier-than-thou" belief that without Esperanza, Wikipedia would melt into the ground. Likewise, there had been noted complaints that non-Esperanzians were treated as inferior.
  • Esperanza had set non-Esperanza members apart through their activities, such as Esperanza Collaboration of the Month.
  • The bureaucracy at Esperanza is anti-Wikipedia; the council made binding decisions through off-wiki conversations which were only made available after the event.
  • Esperanza was a nice idea but impossible to implement; additionally, a large project isn't needed to spread hope and good cheer.

Here's a little background on our situation. There was one edit made on Febrary 8 2007. Editing on this page was scarce until this point in time, since that one edit ignited an edit war. The edit in question attempted to fix some biased statements in the essay currently present on Esperanza. As you can see, the edit was eventually reverted, and I then unsuccessfully tried to reach some middle ground on the situation. I was then reverted, then an edit was made again in which the information in question was removed, then another reversion was made, in which I attempted to introduce my edits again.

A meaningful edit was made in the purposes of calming down the edit war by adding unbiased language. (see following minor edit if needed) All edits have been reverted due to claims that consensus wasn't reached because discussion was not held on the Village Pump. Another edit was made to the page, which was then reverted. I then reverted in the hopes of stopping the edit warring, but was then reverted.

As you can see, we (over at WT:EA) simply cannot reach a decision on how we are going to word the essay currently on WP:EA. I have sent a note to one of the participants in the edit war ([1]), but no replies have been made to that comment as of now. We are clearly in a deadlock, and I just want to resolved this matter right here in the interest of gaining a further consensus. Should we edit WP:EA in the interest of keeping an unbiased page (WP:NPOV), or shall we keep the essay in its current form?--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 01:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you trying to keep the project, or are you trying to create an article for historical purposes? If you're just looking for historical reference, the article could be edited a little to make it more informative, but perhaps should be done by someone with NPOV regarding Esperanza? It seems to me, from what I read, that the project was quite controversial. However, since it seems to have spawned several projects, an article by the name is relevant as a historical reference. If it were me, I'd ask someone not involved to rewrite it, then protect the article so the edit wars don't continue. (I'd be happy to help, for what it's worth.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TomXP411 (talk • contribs) 06:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC).
The essay was composed through consensus editing. I personally feel people should just move on, and that perhaps protection is the best bet. The biased statements Ed refers to are indeed biased, since they refer to complaints made at the mfd. Now I'd aver that removing or rewriting such complaints would be a POV. Esperanza was criticised, it was criticised in such a way and I think we need to accept that and move on. Maybe the page should simply be protected. Let's just clarify what is said at the mfd and what is said in the essay. I think it is unfair to state the dispute is " simply cannot reach a decision on how we are going to word the essay currently on WP:EA". The essay has already been written, it's been fairly stable for a month. The dispute is over changes to the essay.

Picking it apart

So let's have a look at the disputed text then, and the basis for each bulleted point within the essay.

The overhaul

In the second mfd:

The Esperanza essay states: "The overhaul, which was allegedly done to prevent the deletion of Esperanza rather than to actually fix it, was unsuccessful in reforming Esperanza."

Holier than thou

In the first mfd:


Referenced in the second mfd:




The Esperanza essay states: "Esperanza had a "holier-than-thou" belief that without Esperanza, Wikipedia would melt into the ground. Likewise, there had been noted complaints that non-Esperanzians were treated as inferior."

Set apart

In the second mfd:

The Esperanza essay states: "Esperanza had set non-Esperanza members apart through their activities, such as Esperanza Collaboration of the Month."

Bureaucracy

In the second mfd:

The Esperanza essay states: "The bureaucracy at Esperanza is anti-Wikipedia; the council made binding decisions through off-wiki conversations which were only made available after the event."

Nice idea

In the second mfd:

The Esperanza essay states: "Esperanza was a nice idea but impossible to implement; additionally, a large project isn't needed to spread hope and good cheer."

Fair summaries?

The question, therefore, is whether the essay correctly summarises criticisms, since all the above listed criticisms are introduced within the essay as follows: "A month later, Esperanza was once again nominated for deletion. Noted complaints included:" Are complaints therefore summarised fairly, or unfairly? Is it a POV to include these criticisms, or to not include them. Ed writes: "Should we edit WP:EA in the interest of keeping an unbiased page (WP:NPOV), or shall we keep the essay in its current form?"

I put it to people that the essay in its current form is unbiased in its presentation of the criticisms and that the criticisms are of note in an essay which should describe "its history, philosophy and its fate". Thoughts appreciated. Steve block Talk 10:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

While I understand the rationale behind discussing this on the village pump (to get broader input), are we going to bother the folks at the village pump every time someone proposes a change to the essay? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Is the essay something that's going to need changing a lot? I'd hope not. I hate to say it, but I can see a point where the essay itself gets listed for deletion if it ends up generating debate here every week. Steve block Talk 19:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
If it's protected, and it asserts is own importance as a progenitor of other active projects, do you think that will happen? -- TomXP411[Talk] 21:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't know. Really, I don't know. How long has it been since it was closed down and we're still discussing it. Steve block Talk 22:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
It is nobody's fault that this edit war began. However, I agree with Steve block's opinions stating "I put it to people that the essay in its current form is unbiased in its presentation of the criticisms and that the criticisms are of note in an essay which should describe 'its history, philosophy and its fate'". Well, that makes sense, but the other side of the arguements (counterarguements) were not presented. In order to preserve Wikipedia's reputation as an unbiased source and in the interest of satisfying both sides of this immense debate, I think that we must be able to present material to our future readers and editors in an unbiased tone. Yes, the anti-Esperanza opinions are dominant in Wikipedia society today; do we need to rub that information in to other editors? We must "Let the facts speak for themselves", and allow future visitors to WP:EA to form their own opinions about this group. Therefore, I think that the essay should be edited for the above reasons.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 00:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
What about abbreviating the whole thing? Instead of giving a blow-by-blow, just state that "Esperanza started out as a way to accomplish several goals, xxx included. Since the original group encompassed too many goals to be effective, new projects were created that focused on specific objectives." Simple, concise, and not gonna offend anyone. Bringing up bad feelings and arguments isn't necessary and is probably counterproductive. -- TomXP411[Talk] 02:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Ed, what does this section do if not establish the project and which the complaints counterpoint:
You can't counterpoint criticisms which counterpoint the points already made. Maybe it would help if you could explain why you feel so aggrieved. What is it that upsets you here? The essay basically does this: Here's what Esperanza was set up for, here's what it hoped to do, here's where the wider community felt it went wrong and it was decided to shut it down. Now we can do that, as Tom above notes, very briefly. We can say Esperanza was a project founded "to support the encyclopedia indirectly by encouraging a sense of community". However it proved contentious, with two deletion debates eventually decentralising the project as it had become "overly hierarchical". But that doesn't satisfy the close, so to me feels like the wrong thing to do. What do you want here? What more do you need the essay to say? Let's cut to the chase, say you had two sentences to address all of the above, what would you write. And don't dicker about only having two sentences, work with me here. Let's try and put this to bed. What exactly is the issue. Do you not agree that Esperanza was shut down because the community felt it had gone wrong? What's your take? Steve block Talk 09:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to say, I find it absolutely extraordinary that Ed is basically trying to whitewash Esperanza's history by downplaying the criticisms and emphasising the good points given he voted to delete and co-nominated Esperanza with me. I just don't get why everyone can't leave this alone. The essay was fine and stable for a month until Quadzilla came along and removed a sentence that no-one else had a problem with until Quadzilla decided that WP:OR applies to the Wikipedia namespace and rmed it. Unsurprisingly, he got reverted, but Ed and Natalya used it as a catalyst for all kinds of changes that no-one agreed on and then accused me of starting an edit war. Ultimately, none of the suggested changes bring any benefit to the essay with the exception that it fudges the reasons why Esperanza was deleted - if you were to read Ed's final version, you would not understand why it had been deactivated at all, that the community apparently took the decision to shut down a thriving and successful organisation at random. But that's not what happened, what is described in the essay is what happened, and it seems to me that Ed and his fellow ex-Esperanzans really don't like that and have been trying repeatedly to change it to make way for a possible future Esperanza II. Note Ed's change of " Esperanza was a nice idea but impossible to implement" to " Esperanza was an excellent idea but very difficult to implement" here - what exactly did this do to improve the essay besides downplay the criticism and "big up" the positive points? It's been like that throughout this debate. The essay as it stands is fine and gives due weight to both sides - obviously the criticism is given greater hearing because it outweighs the good; that's why Esperanza was deleted in the first place. Ed's only credible argument is that the essay needs to be "neutral" - which it is. Ed et al keeps stirring up this entire thing over and over again, and I think everyone, certainly me, would appreciate it if they would stop, because it's only wasting everyone's time. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

(session data lost):*You keep complaining that Esperanza has been recently edited after weeks of inactivity and should be left alone; this, however, happens all the time in the real world. Would we leave a cold case alone, or would we still try to pursue the case in order to bring justice into this world? No, or else the legal justice system would become unfair to those who hasn't received justice yet. Would we cease to update Wikipedia articles as time passes? Of course not, since doing so will give readers inadequate information in the present time. Likewise, it is beneficial to our editors to continue to edit Wikipedia pages as our encyclopedia evolves.
  • I also don't appreciate the fact that you seem to be attacking me in your previous post. If you oppose anything in this discussion, please oppose the topic being discussed, not the person discussing the topic.
  • Editing WP:EA in the interest of neutrality is not a waste of time. Consider the following: There are 3 million editors with accounts along with several more anonymous editors. There are 1.6 million articles, most of which belong to a certain WikiProject. Numerous editors would have worked on a particular article 1 year after its creation. Therefore, editing a page not in the main namespace is not a waste of time.
  • Nice is generally weasel-wordy and should be removed from Wikipedia pages in order to give the encyclopedia a more professional look. You should have learned in 5th grade that you should never use the word "nice" when writing something.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 23:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Nice is a direct quote, and content policies don't apply to Wikipedia space content. At some point can we not let Esperanza go? I mean, the comparison with a murder inquiry? Is that a realsitic comparison? Yes, it is beneficial to keep editing our articles, but not this one essay which shouldn't matter. Is it not possible to close this chapter and move on? Steve block Talk 23:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
If we can directly quote statements against Esperanza, can't we directly quote statements in favor of improving the community? The statements don't necessarily have to be pro-EA, but it would be nice if there were statements still encouraging editors to reach out to the community.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 00:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
All this back and forth is another reason I think the article should be edited to a bare summary, as per my above comment. -- TomXP411[Talk] 02:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Or we can delete the essay itself. That can end this dispute.-Ed ¿Cómo estás? 04:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Do you think it's a good idea to simply erase parts of Wikipedia's history, even if it's bad history? If enough people are throwing the term around, it might be good to have something around to give people context. Make it a simple article, don't list all the drama. Just state what the group was and name the groups that were created in its downfall. -- TomXP411[Talk] 05:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
No, we cannot delete the essay. It was part of a close endorsed by deletion review. And you'd never get consensus on what to replace it with. The idea was to use the essay to let people know what went wrong and why such organisations are a bad idea. I'd be happy to let this back and forth go, seriously. But that takes two. To answer Ed's point about including a direct quote about improving the community, I have to ask again, why? Why are we still arguing about Esperanza this long after it was shut down for being divisive. Why do we still need to be divisive about it? What more lessons do we need to learn about divisiveness? How is this helpful to the encyclopedia? Steve block Talk webcomic warrior 12:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
This debate is not a question of divisiveness; it's a question of whether it's ok to edit WP:EA! What is wrong with changing an essay that hasn't been edited for a month? Is that not healthy to the encyclopedia, since it encourages improvement in all areas of Wikipedia? To me, it seems that the other side of this debate is not open to change! It seems like they love to revert edits that actually do no harm to the essay! For example: this edit was reverted because of the following reasoning, "it wasn't an excellent idea - it's been months, please move on". Well, if it wasn't an excellent idea, then why insist on calling it nice? Also, since when did time become a valid arguement for keeping a page in its previous version??? Over time, things change! Society changes! Civilization around the world evolves! Our expectations of things adapt to new technology. Therefore, why is that editors are not accepting the WP:BOLD edits to the essay and keep reverting the versions to those of January when it's February???
To answer Steve's question about divisiveness anyway...I think that this is helpful to the encyclopedia. Think about it: what would the world be like today if there were no debate, criticism, inquiry, doubt, change (oh! that word again!), skepticism, dispute, or uncertainty? If that were to happen, this would turn into a very boring world that does not evolve and follows the same boring daily routine that follows the same boring tradition that has never change for thousands of years...my point is: this debate is healthy to the encyclopedia.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 14:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Ed, if you are going to keep ignoring the points put to you, I feel I mustr withdraw from debating the issue with you. The reasons why Esperanza was to be shut down, to be replaced as an essay and to be left alone and moved on from were made at two mfd's and a deletion review. There's nothing more to be said. Give it up. Article policies apply to the article namespace. Here we are in the Wikipedia namespace. We decided what to do. We did it. Let it be. Steve block Talk webcomic warrior 14:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Steve, I would like to point out the edits you and Dev made during this debate in the interest of trying to keep the essay at its current state:
[2][3][4][5][6][7]
Likewise, I would like to point out the edits that other users (Quadzilla99/Ed/Natalya/Richardshusr/User:Chris is me/EWS23) have made to improve the essay to a certain point:
[8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]
As you can see, you and Dev are the primary editors trying to revert changes made to this essay. These changes have been made by 6 editors which outnumber the reverters by 4. Clearly, there is a desire by other editors to change this essay to reflect opinions about this organization in an unbiased manner. This biased essay would put ideas into future readers who never even hear of Esperanza. The essay would give the impression that helping the Wikipedian community is a bad thing. As I said before, Let the facts speak for themselves! I propose that we just add basic summaries of the MfDs and the DRV and the pre-deletion conflict, and then we'll be done! No opinions are needed, nor are statements supporting a particular point of view needed.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 17:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we are. Why? Because these changes you suggest do not improve the essay. They attempt to skew it to talk about how marvellous Esperanza was and what a pity it was shut down. That you said "The essay would give the impression that helping the Wikipedian community is a bad thing." is very telling, as it says no such thing. It says that Esperanza is a bad thing: surely you have learnt by now that Esperanza != community? The community made it very clear where it stands on Esperanza, and the essay reflects that. It is you who insists that the essay needs to be unbiased - unbias does not equal equal weighting. Due weight is given to the feelings of the community, the community which DELETED Esperanza. They didn't say "Oh look, what a spiffing idea Esperanza is, I know, let's close it for fun.", they made strong and valid criticisms that are listed. Read your comments, you are chafing against the reverts themselves, not your edits that have been reverted. You don't have anything to say about WHAT changes you would like to introduce, just that we won't let you. And that, I think more than anything, demonstrated that you are just replyng now to wind everyone up than because you actually want to make meaningful, constructive edits. You just want to whitewash. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I already established a few examples of changes that I want to introduce! [18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27] These changes were already proposed by 6 editors! This is why we are here to discuss the essay. We cannot reach consensus on the matter!
Let's take a closer look at the close of WP:MFD/EA:
Note how the closing admin wants the essay to describe the history, philosophy and fate of Esperanza. Now, let us break down each paragraph of WP:EA one by one:
This paragraph is mainly history, but touches lightly on philosophy
That's most likely about philosophy
This probably might talk about history.
History or Philosophy?
Probably history
This is most likely history
The first sentence touches on history, but do the bullet points discuss either history, philosophy, or fate? No, these sentences only discuss criticism, remarks, opinions, and arguements from various editors.
This discusses EA's fate.
This discussed either fate or history.
As you can see, this essay is already a violation of the MfD closure! I recommend that we replace this section:
with this sentence:
The suggested change above would still encompass the first 4 bullet points. IMHO, the 5th bullet point is merely opinion and cannot be supported by multiple arguements. Basically, the change I'm proposing sort of "tones down" the comments against Esperanza. It both helps the essay with the MfD closure while trying to satisfy the arguements of everyone in this debate. Any ideas?--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 19:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
So you admit your stated intention is to whitewash the essay. Right. Well, sorry, but I'm not interested in dialoguing with you anymore when you clearly have an agenda to push. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
In that case, what exactly are you interested in? Everyone involved in this conflict wanted to discuss here, so here we are! Why is it that you and Steve no longer have an interest in discussing this topic? Does this mean that you want to have an edit war again on WP:EA? This is what it sounds like to me. I don't see the problem with my edit. It is both harmless and satisfies both sides of the debate for the following reasons: it tones down the arguements against Esperanza, but it still criticises EA for its faults. This is an attempt to make the essay more neutral; I would not call this an agenda. I don't see why you're all so hesitant to welcome edits in this page!--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 19:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I want to get on with improving Wikipedia. You want to keep "discussing" and edit warring. Steve and I have made it clear why we do not wish to allow your "improvements" to stand, and you are simply ignoring us so you can continue to whinge. I have wasted enough time trying to engage you in a dialogue you are not interested in, and thus I withdraw. I will repeat myself on final time: the essay is fine as it stands, it was stable for a month until one user decided to remove stuff he disagreed with, Esperanza is DEAD, please move on. Even if you still cry over Esperanza's demise every night, I hope you will have the decency to allow the rest of us to get on with our work instead of having pointless discussions like this. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The condition of the current essay is not "fine". That is merely your perception. You have not made any counterarguements with my proposal above. You (and Steve) are the ones who are ignoring the suggestions of 6 other editors so that you can further your own plans. You have not responded to my arguements stating that the essay already violates the MfD closure; although it was stable, we need to edit the essay to satisfy a consensus established on the MfD and a DRV supporting the MfD. That is why the essay should be changed.
Why don't we just delete that particular section in its entirety? If we're going to keep going back and forth in this debate, why not remove it?--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 21:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Bye bye Ed. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion

This edit war is pointless. Esperanza is inactive, and it shouldn't be wasting any more time. I suggest doing the following:

1. List notable arguments given in favour of Esperanza from its MfDs. 2. List notable criticisms of Esperanza, again, taken from the MfDs.

Please stop this edit war. If anything, it only serves to illustrate how divisive an issue Esperanza became, and continues to be. --Kyoko 00:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

So, that would in effect be the essay we have right now then? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Now, as in which revision? I thought that the bulleted list of criticism was a good idea. Match it with a bulleted list of pro-EA arguments, and maybe everybody will be satisfied. In order to counter possible charges of POV, maybe these bulleted points should all come from the MfDs. I think the list of criticisms was directly from the MfDs, and the comment about not needing a large project to spread hope was said by User:Tohru Honda13 on the EA talk page, in January 2007.
I was perfectly happy with the essay as it stood for a month, though. --Kyoko 01:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict with Kyoko; God do we think alike!)::Not exactly...the essay right now doesn't quote any pro-Esperanza statements; I do like Kyoko's idea, however. Perhaps we should explain in details the arguements for keeping Esperanza in the first MfD. Then we can explain, in detail, the arguements for deleting EA in the second MfD. The version of the essay that we have been debating over was like a big glob of jelly! How can we outline the criticisms against Esperanza if we don't provide the reasoning of those who wanted to keep Esperanza?--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 01:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I had been thinking of something a bit simpler: say that Esperanza was a project with a certain founding intention, list the programs it started and what happened to them, list a few (maybe 4 or 5 at most) arguments for and against Esperanza, quoted directly from the MfDs, and say that as a result of consensus, Esperanza was made inactive. I don't think that the arguments should be explained in detail, because that opens the door to bias for or against Esperanza. --Kyoko 02:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Old image version delete

Not sure where to ask for this but could an admin delete the older version of the image Image:Argon ice 1.jpg ? It contains exif data that I do not want published. Thx.--Deglr6328 07:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe the proper thing to do is place {{db|don't want to publish private data in EXIF information}} on the image's talk page. —EncMstr 07:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
ah, well whoever did it, thanks!--Deglr6328 08:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
It was done quickly. I was about to do it, but when I clicked the deleted link it was already gone, and that was a couple of hours ago. ViridaeTalk 08:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Summary style is failing

This is not the announcement of an essay praising the German Wikipedia :) Instead, as a bewildered newcomer, I'm asking if there are any projects that deal with synchronization, merge and redundancy issues. The closest I could find was WP:ʃ, but I'm more concerned with keeping subarticles in sync with the main article, where they are supposedly "summarized". In many cases, the subarticles deteriorate (the first "main article" link from Evolution currently looks like this), but in some cases the parent article suffers (God has lost very important material to its subarticle Conceptions of God). Maybe this project called Wikiproject Modular Articles is what I'm looking for? Anyway, I'm also very interested in any thoughts on the problems of summary style and redundancy in general, and if there is anything I can do about it. --Merzul 02:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Trivial articles?

A person is creating articles for sites all over his hometown in Iran. The thing is, these are all minior tourist attractions, but I'm not sure whether they qualify for their own articles. I think that maybe they they could be in one article, or merged in to the existing article on the province.

One of them is Khaja Barookh's House. Another is Sarab Niloufar. The user in question is Rahman Amiri.

What is the criteria for geographical sites? Is a house, with no significant history, notable enough for its own article?

-- TomXP411[Talk] 16:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:LOCAL seems to be what you're looking for. I'd say a merge for those is in order. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. That gave me exactly the info I needed. Is there a "short list" of these kinds of things? It would greatly help editors if there was an index to these guidelines. It would also help if newcomers were linked to these when they create a new account. -- TomXP411[Talk] 18:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
WP:NOTE is the main notability guideline, and it has a "short list" of some of the more accepted individual guidelines on the right sidebar, but WP:LOCAL isn't on there because it's still in the proposed stage. Getting consenus to change the main welcome template is neigh impossible, but several people (including me) have made variations with different links. Personally I'd add links to the notability pages to Wikipedia:Your first article, which is linked from Wikipedia:Article development, which is in the welcome template. Frankly this place is a confusing maze for newcomers. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 19:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

lemma Ridley

I just stumbled upon the article about Ridley (a fictional figure from a videogame). There are many more disambiguations for that name and I simply have a feeling that the current standard article seems to be the wrong choice. On the other hand I don't know what other Lemma should be choosed as the direct article. Any ideas on that? --87.167.218.146 11:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the disambiguation page should be the direct destination. I'll move it and see how long until it gets reverted. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 15:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I changed my mind and decided to suggest it on the talk page first. It's been suggested. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 15:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Formatting Hebrew names and dates

In several articles about Israeli figures, there is a formatting problem in the first line with the name in Hebrew and the date of birth. The use of double square brackets round the date of birth, immediately following the double brackets round the name in Hebrew, causes the line to break incorrectly, like this: Moshe Dayan, DSO (Hebrew: משה דיין), (May 20 1915).

After much experimenting, I have noticed that it will display correctly if there is at least one English character (not a space or punctuation) between the two sets of brackets. In several such articles, I have placed a letter in white font: <font color="white">a</font> between the two. This works, but it is clumsy. Does anyone have a better solution? So far, I have seen and corrected Moshe Dayan, Yitzhak Rabin, Rafael Eitan, Rehavam Zeevi and Moshe Sharret]]; I assume that there are many more. RolandR 11:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Why not just add the word "born" so that the line reads: Moshe Dayan, DSO (Hebrew: משה דיין), (Born: May 20 1915). Blueboar 14:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

help: transform an article because of copyright

Hello, I am on the french wiki. I was about to traduce the article Singidunum when I so that it came from a copy of this website(especially in this part of the wiki article: Pre-Roman influence): http://www.beograd.org.yu/cms/view.php?id=201172. Winona Gone Shopping was the author of this extract. So, I try to join this user but this user have been banned. Please transform this extract or join your patroller. Thanks. Bashar-fr 00:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC) (Bashar on the french wiki)

I looked the article over, and I looked at the web site in question. The two pieces of text don't look anything at all alike. Are you sure you linked to the correct web site? -- TomXP411[Talk] 02:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate User and Discussion Pages

This user is using their discussion page and talk page as a message board for their friends. I know this is a violation of Wikipedia not a messaging service but I did not want to delete the content on someone else's user space. As a result, I put up this tag {{notaforum}} on both pages. However, no one seems to be responding to the notice. I am unsure of how to proceed. I believe an admin should be the one to delete the content. --Cyrus Andiron t/c 15:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks like you just put the notice on today. You don't expect instant responses, do you? The user in question does not seem to have edited since the 17th. Give them some time to respond. Perhaps add a politely worded personal note welcoming them to Wikipedia and letting them know that Wikipedia is a encyclopedia to soften the touch of the big orange box. If the behavior contiues you could go to the admin's noticeboard or miscellany for deletion. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I've replaced the banner with a more personalized message. I'm also going through some related accounts and informing them of the relevant policies and guidelines.--Isotope23 19:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I created an MfD for the page. He deleted the warning, so he's obviously been here. He also apparently hasn't actually contributed anything. -- TomXP411[Talk] 05:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm new and probably doing things wrong.

I have been a reader of wikipedia for a long time now, and I sometimes see vandalism and remove it. I decided to make a userpage and participate more, but some of my methods may not be correct.

For example, when explaining how to deal with vandalism, it says to "revert" the vandalism, but when I cleaned up vandalism prior to starting a userpage, I would "edit" the vandalism out, by selecting "edit this page" and simply removing it by hand.

Is this bad for some reason, or does it make things difficult for other Wikipedians in some manner?


Thank you for your help. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SeriousCat (talk • contribs) 04:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

Welcome SeriousCat. Besides being tedious and hard to do, that is error prone: you might miss some vandalism. See this article for step-by-step instructions to revert. At first that won't seem any easier than a manual edit. But after three or four reverts, you should find it quite straightforward. After getting the hang of that, install a tool like popups for even easier reversions.
By the way, don't sweat making mistakes: we all do it. As a regular user (versus an administrator), there's nothing you can do that breaks anything that can't be fixed by a revert or two. Just be nice and most editors will cheerfully fix anything they see needing it. —EncMstr 05:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


The simple way to revert a page is to use the page history (click the history tab at the top) and then click the last revision before the vandalism. Then click Edit this Page, type "removing vandalism" in the summary box. Then click "Save Page".

You should also go to the vandal's talk page and leave a warning. Vandals won't be banned until they've been warned, so even though you don't have the power to block a user, you can warn them. Template:Vandalblock has templates that you can include to warn vandals. Here's an example:

putting the text {{subst:uw-vandalism2}} in their talk page will display:

  Please do not add unhelpful and non-constructive information to Wikipedia. Your edits could be considered vandalism, and they have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

I hope that helps.

You can also create a test user page to use as a sandbox. Read Wikipedia:Subpages for more info on that.

Also, remember to sign your posts on talk pages. To do that, hit the ~ four times, like this: ~~~~

-- TomXP411[Talk] 05:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Seriouscat! The problem with just editing out the vandalism is that sometimes the vandal will have deleted some important text as well, which can cause problems later. I mostly notice that they delete the "External Links" and "See also" sections, or categories, but other article sections are sometimes deleted. Reverting back before the deletion is the easiest way to restore the text. If someone vandalizes a page by deleting a section, and then a well-meaning editor just deletes the vandalism without restoring the section, other editors could come to the page and not realize that those sections were deleted. -sthomson06 (Talk) 15:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, thanks everybody. SeriousCat 18:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

a question about searching

can i get a list of the top twenty most "controversial" posts?208.188.56.203 04:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I doubt it. If you want to see naked controversy, you might start with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 05:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk: L. Ron Hubbard

Background: see Talk page history, starting with 17:12, 23 February 2007 edit by 217.87.112.138 address. Since the edits were immediately repeated by User:Conqaxxx, I'll presume they're the same individual.

Obviously, any number of policies apply to indicate that Conqaxxx's remarks were inappropriate and unproductive, as well as at the border of (but not conclusively) libelous. The question that has arisen is how the remark should be treated. Antaeus Feldspar merely gave a polite response, trying not to scare the newbie. Justanother removed remark and followup, in the apparent belief that the libel and accuracy issues of the remark per WP:BLP governed. I attempted to revert to restore the discussion, believing that WP:TPG governed without formal invocation of WP:LIBEL, especially due to the problems I percieved from the "actual malice" and "reasonably believable" requirements for libel of public figures. Justanother, in an apparent attempt to find a middling postion, removed the name of the living party; I felt adding an indicator that text was removed by other parties might make that a reasonable response. Antaeus Feldspar did not agree, based on prior actions (unspecified) by Justanother, and reverted back with further remarks. Justanother inquired over at the BLP Noticeboard, to which WilliamThweatt responded by removing the whole discussion — a response I would consider more sensible if there wasn't (from where I sit) an abundance of good faith in trying to determine the best response, and if that hadn't already been tried.

Obviously, the best-of-all-possible worlds would be Conqaxxx striking his own offensive remark, or removing it while indicating that it had been removed. I ain't holding my breath.

I believe all parties (aside from Conqaxxx) are acting in good faith. However, it indicates that the relative priorities of the policies are unclear. I'd appreciate if a couple of administrators (so as to indicate as consensus exists) could follow up with all concerned, to clarify what policies should take priority in responses made by editors and administrators to remarks on talk pages that may be some mix of unproductive; insulting; libelous or possibly so, in whole or only in part; of editors or non-editors; and/or of public or non-public figures.

That the error would happen among parties of good faith also seems to imply that revision of the relevant policies should be made to increase their clarity in such currently ambiguous situations. However, that's a problem to be addressed on a longer timescale. Abb3w 19:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

User removing context

Dcandeto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is removing context, like the country from Jacksonville Skyway, and claiming that "Wikipedia norm" is to not include it. Please assist. --NE2 08:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Im not (yet) a good enough editor to ....

I noticed Jubei Yagyu (disambiguation) has only a single entry on it. I thought it would be better as a Redirect. I followed the dierctions on Help:Redirect but got hung up on 1 part. The title of the page STILL contained (disambiguation) ??? I reverted myown work ... but would appreciate anyone directing me how this would be corrected. exit2dos2000 05:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Jubei Yagyu (disambiguation) shoudn't exist. Jubei Yagyu should be turned into a disambiguation page. Currently, Jubei Yagyu redirects to Yagyū Jūbei Mitsuyoshi. According to guidelines, a (Disambiguation) page is only appropriate if another major article is taking the "main" name. In this case, the other name is a redirect. What I would do is move the content from the (Disambiguation) page to Jubei Yagyu (include the link in the existing redirect) and then mark Jubei Yagyu (disambiguation) for speedy deletion. including {{db|not needed}} at the top of the page should do the trick. Make sure not to remove the single entry that's already in there. -- TomXP411[Talk] 06:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I'll go ahead and to it... take a look at the pages after I'm done, and you'll see what I did.
Also, remember to use the "What links here" link over on the left side of the page. Navigate to those pages and fix the links to point to the correct page. -- TomXP411[Talk] 06:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Although ... everything past "Jubei Yagyu (disambiguation) shoudn't exist." lost me. I knew it was more than I should be biting into. one day... but not today. ;-) exit2dos2000 07:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Geographical / Town article layout questions

I just started an article on a vacation spot where I have visited several times, Chacala, and am unsure exactly how to lay it out. I looked at articles on different 'places' and they seem to vary as to how they're laid out. I checked the manual of style and didn't see anything. San_Diego,_California seems like a good article. Is this the preferred format? (obviously not all the catregories would apply to a beach town of 300!) Would Flora and Fauna be a subsection in Geography, or a separate section? Any other places on Wiki where issues regarding Geographical / City / Town articles and their formatting would be discussed? Can a small spot like this that has only a 2-3 significant small hotels, all of which are notable for their luxurious accomodations or cultural reasons have the names of those hotels and even links to them, or is that 'endorsement'? Note that I didn't even 'name' the hotel of Laura del Valle over these concerns. Thanks ! - FaAfA 01:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

My Family

Hello my name is Jack Wifladt my father was born in Honefoss feb. 28 1904. But I do not seem to be able to find any thing on him or his brothers or sisters. I have one Dapsattest of his brother Gustav from Norderhov Ringerike but even finding this any were I am at a loss. <e-mail adress removed>—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.179.247.97 (talk) 19:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

  • Unless your father was notable for some reason, it is unlikely you would find an entry on him here at Wikipedia. --Durin 19:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
You don't really want to put your e-mail address out for everyone to see like that. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Denny Klein

This article is in need of attention, an AfD has had very limited outside comment. Without suggesting anything (certainly not meant as votestacking!) could someone take a look and freely give their opinion on the matter?Nomen NescioGnothi seauton

Norman, I don't think the article needs to be deleted, but it does need to be cleaned up and the title needs to be changed. Perhaps you could take it on yourself to figure out what the title should be and propose a move in the talk page? -- TomXP411[Talk] 16:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

My Wiki-Stalking

Alright....

this user has been a thorn in my side for a LONG time. The user is User:Silicondirect/User:24.103.242.178/User:Sonysnob (the first account is named after a place i work for), and posts my work place, real name (spelled both correctly and incorrectly), and continually trashes and blanks my pages, and even comprimises them at times.

The user also used user:nullified1 to do the hacking, and continually tries to comprimise my hotmail and yahoo mail accounts. The wikistalker in question probably knows me in real life, as i do not tell those things to people i know online or in real life, which is even more puzzling as to how it's getting out. He currently uses User:Sonysnob


I am 90% sure this user's real name is <Removed>, a person taht has been having a 2-year-long grudge with me.

Here are the following accounts used:

I'd like to see these accounts permanently banned or blocked, as they've become quite annoying, especially since i had to move accounts twice.

I've also been around to several different pages that tell me to "go see <page>", and then i go there, and i end up at another one that says the same thing. please help! RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 23:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried requesting Admin assistance at WP:ANI? Blueboar 16:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes. they sent me here. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 19:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

What do I do when someone copies GFDL content without crediting the author?

See the March 14, 2005 "I Drew This". The left-hand panel is pretty derivative of Image:Villainc.svg. What's proper protocol in this instance? Ask him to include a thank-you to J.J. and a link to the image page? I shudder to think of writing one of those high-handed doomy cease-and-desist letters; is there a better alternative that preferably doesn't involve thundering that someone is in breach of copyright, even if they are? grendel|khan 14:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Hm. That does bear a striking resemblance. Might I suggest you drop the artist a quiet note and point the similarity out? Knowing the artist, he shouldn't react poorly. (For reference, it's actually at Image:Villianc.svg) Tony Fox (arf!) 19:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. That'll teach me not to preview before commenting. And to assume that the original uploader could spell... grendel|khan 19:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Picture removal

User:Durin keeps removing a picture off my webpage that is of my son. He says my use of it is blatantly false and has said some very nasty things about me, apparently obsessed that I am really a user called User:Husnock. He has called me a liar and one of his friends threatened me by saying that he had a "friend of a friend who lived in my area" and that he'd "been in touch" [28] seeming to state that I was in for trouble if I didn't remove these pictures from my page. I've done nothing wrong on this website and have reviewed the policies about images. Durin's personal opinion about an image is not reason to delete it and because he is involved in a dispute he shouldn't be deleting the material himself. Durin has dropped hints about blocks and bans if I don't do what he says and I don't want to trouble. I just don't think he can simply remove this picture just because he wants to. I ask permission to re-upload this picture and ask that Durin be told not to delete it. Thank you. -Pahuskahey 18:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

An addition: I obviously have more than one picture of my son. If I upload another one would that be acceptable? Whatever Durin may think of this one picture, I don't think he would have the right to delete any and every picture of a family member I uploaded. -Pahuskahey 18:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

  1. I have no friends on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a social networking site, and I do not use it as one. How someone else decides to act is no reflection on me. They are responsible for their own actions. Period.
  2. I don't care if you are a sockpuppet of Husnock or not. It matters not to me so long as you are not disruptive to Wikipedia. Having sockpuppets is not against policy.
  3. You originally posted the image making a claim that your son died in Afghanistan. Investigating the source of an image is not violating your privacy. Further, since I do not know your name, there can be no violation of privacy. I simply investigated the claims that the image was of a soldier who died in Afghanistan. Using a variety of sources, this is provably false. My stance on this image is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact. Even so, I did not act in isolation but sought confirmation that I was correct. Two other people came to the same conclusion as I did, independent of my own work on this I might add.
  4. I have no intention of blocking you or banning you.
  5. I have now noted to you on your talk page that "Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site" and "Wikipedia is not a general hosting service" (see WP:UP). While there is nothing inherently wrong in posting a free license image on your userpage, it contributes no value to the encyclopedia. That is afterall what we are here to do. These claims regarding your son are, at best, contentious. At worst, some of the claims you have made regarding this individual break the laws of the United States. I fail to see that the juxtaposition of placing an image on your userpage that places the project in a less than desirable position vs. the net gain of no value to the project is a situation we should place ourselves in. If this were an image going onto an article, perhaps there would be better legs for this dispute to stand on from your chair. However, it isn't. It's an image that is intended solely for your userpage. If you have such a strong desire to post images of your family, there are plenty of hosting sites out there that will quite happily give you the webspace and provide hosting for you. --Durin 22:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Having seen some of the evidence that links Pahuskahey to Husnock (who is in his early thirties and can not possibly have had a son who died as an adult), I concur with Durin, and urge Pahuskahey not to persue this any further. We hope that you will continue to edit Wikipedia, and I am sure nobody will mention Husnock to you unless you make it necessary by insisting on uploading pictures of which the source is very dubious. There is no need to have those images on your user page, or, indeed, anywhere else on Wikipedia, and it seems that this issue will simply cause more pain and stress for you if you continue. Musical Linguist 22:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

My response on the matter

My apologies for not writing sooner, things picked up a bit where I am and for reasons I will go into in a moment, I no longer edit this site from my home or office, only public computer locations.

First off, after reviewing the website policies, I am more than happy to remove family pictures from my page. I was experimenting with the site and if someone had POLITELY explained it to me, I would have complied. Instead I was called a liar and accused of being someone else. About that, I challenge most strongly that Durin, or anyone else for that matter, would ever be able to prove that I am in fact another person or that I don’t really have a son. I have explained numerous times that I was drawn to this website by postings on a newsgroup of the Husnock affair and that the case against him was bookmarked in a public computer lab. So, of course I knew who he was and looked at some of the articles he edited.

As to the sockpuppet issue, I say again when I first joined this site I didn’t know what that term meant and thought it was actually a vulgar saying. I apologize now for my initial reaction. But, now that I know what that means, I don’t see how it can be applied to me. I have not used multiple accounts to edit the same articles nor have I ever even defended Husnock. Indeed, I am rather neutral on the subject and feel he probably did go over the line on several policies and most likely had multiple accounts. I am just unfortunate enough to have edited from the same area as he. On that issue, I say again that these edits which so many people said were one person came from multiple areas across the Middle East with Husnock himself making a post from apparently the United States. Is it at least within the realm of possibility that these were really different people? Or is Husnock somehow capable of posting several messages, from at least three different countries, within hours or minutes of each other?

The issue with my son has become somewhat upsetting and I do not wish to go into it any further. I will only say to Durin that it was a low blow going after my family like that and it is impossible that some mysterious source confirmed that my son isn’t a real person. Durin never had any details about my son, not his name, where he was stationed, where he died, or anything like that. What Durin did have was a string of assumptions. He assumed my son died in Afghanistan, which I never actually said (Yes, I said he didn’t come home from Afghanistan but never confirmed or denied an actual place, cause, or country of death); he assumed he was in the Army when he died, which I never actually said; and he assumed he was a posthumous recipient of the Silver Star in the rank of Staff Sergeant, which I certainly never said (And experimenting with a Shadow Box graphics program doesn’t mean I ever said those things). And, even if I did post those things on my user page, which I didn’t, I have not been able to find any regulation of this site that states material posted on a user page must be proven as being true. If I put that I am a vampire and President of the U.S. on my home page, that is obviously not true but wouldn’t get me in trouble with Wikipedia as far as I know.

So I will never confirm or deny any of these things about my son and am happy to let the matter drop as many have suggested. I just say that it is apparently a fact that Durin contacted agencies of the Army and researched records to find out who my son was and thus find out who I am. That alone is a gross violation of my privacy and very hypocritical unless Durin is going to every single user on Wikipedia, who claims to have received a high military decoration, and researching them as well. I think I can safely say he is probably not.

My final matter to discuss is that I am now scared to death of this site and will probably seriously curtail my editing. I bring to everyone’s attention that I was openly threatened and nothing was done to the person who made the threat. This Charlesknight stated he had a friend of a friend who lived in my area, stated that he’d been in touch, and commented that this friend had my picture and I better think twice about being on Wikipedia [29] . Whatever his intention by saying that, I saw that remark as very clearly implying some kind of real world retaliation and I do not appreciate it and think that this user should be spoken to by Wikipedia authorities. Especially after Husnock, was lined up against the wall about a similar comment, and was brought before an arbitration committee for making it.

I’ve said my bit and I hope this clears it up. I will remove my family pictures since I don’t want any trouble. It would be nice if Durin and his allies admitted that there is at least a slight slimmer of possibility that I am in fact a different person and stop posting that I am alternate personality for this naval officer which you apparently hate. Thank you and good night. -Pahuskahey 11:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

  • First, this isn't a response to Pahuskahey. It is to anyone else who is reading this. I have long had debates with this person and have no wish to continue debating with him. I made no assumption that the person was a staff sergeant. That piece of evidence came from the image that Pahuskahey generated which can be viewed (by admins) at [30] (see rank insignia on bottom of image). Second, I did not make an assumption he had been posthumously awarded the Silver Star, only that he had been awarded that medal. Referring to the same image, it's the upper left medal. By way of this image, Pahuskahey stated these things as *fact*, and I made no assumption. Further, the rank insignia he associated with this person is from the United States Army, thus again I did not make an assumption that this individual was in the US Army; it was stated as fact by Pahuskahey. Another bit of information that I had was the statement by Pahuskahey that this individual was born 1977 and died 2004, making them 26 or 27 years old at time of death (see caption on deleted photo at [31]. Further, as Pahuskahey notes, he did indicate that his son was in Afghanistan as a member of the US Army in December of 2003 (see [32], which shows him in uniform, in Afghanistan). Pahuskahey indicated this person died in 2004, and was serving in the war on terrorism from which Pahuskahey himself said he did not return. Thus, he was serving in Afghanistan at the time of his death in 2004. I did not contact the US Army to ascertain the veracity of the information about this person. There are multiple public records available online of the military deaths in Afghanistan. Comparing what information we have; staff sergeant, serving in the US Army, age 26 or 27, against the list of casualties it becomes trivial to conclude there was no such person who died in Afghanistan in December of 2003 or all of 2004. Even allowing for +/- five years in age reporting problem and +/- one rank in reporting deaths, there is still no match. Nobody matching this description, or even close, died in Afghanistan in that time period. Since the source of the image is therefore dubious, we can not be certain of its copyright status. As such, and especially given that the image would never be used on an actual article, the value to the project of having this questionable image is zero. Lastly, the image was tagged as {{pd-self}}. This was inaccurate; Pahuskahey indicated the image was received via e-mail; he didn't take the image. He does not hold rights to it. The photographer, whoever that was, does. The image was unusable here on Wikipedia and as such it was deleted.
  • As to "gross violation of (Pahuskahey's) privacy", I made no attempt to ascertain Pahuskahey's name. I acted solely on the information he provided regarding the image. Further, I do investigate a large number of images on Wikipedia; several thousand to date.
  • Lastly, as I have indicated several times, I don't care if Pahuskahey is a sockpuppet of Husnock. Sockpuppets are permissible under our policies here at Wikipedia. I do get concerned when users act in ways that serve to disrupt Wikipedia. That is my focus. Posting an image with highly dubious source, and then reposting it after being informed of the problematic nature of the image begins to be disruptive behavior. --Durin 15:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Durin, what “long debates” are you referring to? You’re first edit to me ever was to state that you had nothing to say to me [33] and then after that you’re comments were confined to accuse me of being another person and other infractions against this site. Regarding the image that you state is a smoking gun, it was a shadow box graphics program and I never confirmed or denied any of the information in that image. As far as you know, I could have just been experimenting with a graphics program and posted it to this site to see what it would look like. I’m not saying that one way or the other, just that this is a possibility. It is also a possibility that my wife and I could be working with a congressman to get our son promoted posthumously and awarded the Silver Star after the fact and wanted to see what a shadow box would look like in that case. The point is who knows? What does matter is that I posted a picture of my son and you called me a liar and stated I was falsely saying he was a Silver Star recipient as a deliberate attempt to defame Wikipedia. [34] You would be hard pressed to find an actual edit where I stated any of the things you are saying. The only edit that I recall making was that my son didn’t come home from the war on terrorism. And what about my other concerns? About your refusal to admit that I am not this person for which you have such a hatred? And what about this ally of yours who came to your aid [35] and then posted that he had friends in my area and that he had been in touch [36]? When all is said and done I’ve done nothing to harm this site and have done my best not to break any rules. I have tried to clear the air but now you are saying that you will not even respond to me. Is that how a Wikipedia Administrator should behave? I think not. I guess we will agree to disagree and go our separate ways. Farewell. -Pahuskahey 16:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

  • You appear to have serious concerns with my behavior as an admin. I suggest you conduct an RfC on the matter, as that is your best path to resolution. You may conduct an RfC by following the instructions located at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Request_comment_on_users. If you would like, I can help you get that process started. Just let me know. All the best, --Durin 16:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not wish to file any complaints against you. In fact, I’ve updated my user page to remove my family pictures. I’ve done this more for my own safety than complying with your demand, but I do admit after reviewing the policy it is clear this site does not like user pages used as webspace/homepages. Even so, my main reason for removing such photos is that you and others have shown an indication of taking this business into real life. I never got an answer about what (if anything) was said or done to the person who so openly threatened me. If I said, “Durin, I have friends who live in the same town as you and I’ve been in touch” I would probably get banned from this site. But, it seems okay when someone says that to me because they think I am another user that they don’t happen to like. In any event, none of this has anything to do with editing articles so it is a foolish thing for me or you or anyone else to continuously pursue. It would be nice if I got some kind of acknowledge that there exists at least a chance that I am in fact a different person from this Husnock, since I would like to keep on editing here without a label or tag above my head following me around wherever I go. I also would hope that the individual who said he has friends in my area is spoken too since I truly believe that this comment was highly inappropriate and actually frightened me, making me fear for my safety. Lastly, whatever source you read or person you talked too about my son, I simple ask you to please leave my family out of this. There is no reason for you to be checking with government agencies or conducting a background investigation on my relatives and that too is a very frightening and disturbing thing. With that said, I bid you farewell with the pictures you were so concerned about removed from this site. -Pahuskahey 10:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC) P.S.- Still hoping for some neutral comments from outside observers; this is one of the reasons I posted to this page. -Pahuskahey 10:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I made no demands you remove the pictures from your userpage that you recently removed [37]. I made no attempts to take any of this into real life. I have done no such thing nor would I. I will repeat myself a thousand times if necessary; the sources I used were available on the web. I did not contact any government agencies. I used information provided by you and compared that information against publicly available, on-web resources. I am sorry you are apparently frightened at the prospect of people surfing the web to verify the authenticity of a photograph. However, this is routine business at Wikipedia. --Durin 15:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Wanted: Alert observer

Could someone please keep an eye on Bushism#Other_famous_Bushisms and Talk:Bushism#Explanations_of_Bushisms for me? I don't spend that much time editing Wikipedia, and I tend to lose track of my old edits. It took me two months to notice the explanations get deleted the first time. ><

I'd really appreciate it if someone could let me know by email or on my talk page if something happens that I should notice. Replying here won't work well, I'll probably forget about this post in a couple of days.  :(

Thanks! --FunnyMan 22:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I've removed your e-mail address to stop you getting spam. Tra (Talk) 23:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
And I've put it back because I don't care. According to Gmail, I got over 6,750 spam messages in the last month, of which I saw next to zero. A little more won't hurt. Besides, the address is on my user page as well. --FunnyMan 23:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for an admin to edit a template

Hi, I don't know who has this template on their watchlist, so I'll just place a pointer to the request that I made in the talk page for the {{hang-on}} template. The template is protected, so I can't make the change myself. Template_talk:Hangon#Awkward_wording Sanchom (talk) 22:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. -- Rick Block (talk) 20:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Table of Contents help

I just dont get table of contents! Anyway, an article I've done a minor edit on needs TOC to be moved so it "flows" with the text Manga cafe, if anyone could do this for me I would be thankful! -- Librarianofages 01:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The help you seek is at Help:Section. The TOC in Manga cafe is not extremely long or anything - why must it flow? -- Rick Block (talk) 03:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Firefox and Wikipedia

I installed Firefox yesterday, and now Wikipedia seems broken. Monobook skin has all the left sidebar stuff and top stuff collected and appended in a section at the end of the page called "Retrieved from " and the page URL. Classic skin approximates the look I was used to, but is not quite right either, since the language variants list doesn't appear in the sidebar. It is possible that I might have triggered something by typing "ALT-END" into Firefox just before going to Wikipedia, but a boot of my system hasn't fixed it. Help! I want the real Wikipedia back! 66.167.77.201 14:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Help! It is still broken after another reboot. I allow cookies from Wikipedia. What could be making Wikipedia broken in this way? Doesn't anyone have any suggestions that might even help diagnose this problem? 66.167.77.164 22:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Problem is likely at your end. Other than ctrl F5 I'm not surewhat yuo could do.Geni 22:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow! That fixed it! Brilliant! I looked up ctrl F5 and it seems to force a refresh of the cache. I guess somehow one of the skin files got corrupted or something. Ctrl F5 is one of those small things that if you don't know how to look for it is very hard to find. Many thanks! 66.167.77.164 14:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

WIkipedia:Esperanza (again)

I have recently nominated WP:EA for a WP:DRV on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 27. I guess that was the wrong place to go... Anyway, with the suggestion of the editor who commented on that page, I am pasting my comments here...

<Nevermind...I can't seem to paste my entire text onto this page. Please read the DRV nomination over there instead.>

I would seriously appreciated some thoughts on this situation.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 03:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Runaway template discussion

Somebody needs to look at [38] and close the discussion. I can't do it because I proposed it. The debate has been going on for almost 3 weeks, and we seem to be just rehashing the same material over and over again. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

referencing techniques: an essay

I've tried to write an essay summarizing the current trends in referencing methods, it's at User:Circeus/Referencing styles, and I'm looking for input and comments on stuff that I might have obviously missed.Circeus 19:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism on page Connetquot School District

A lot of this page seems to be obvious vandalism. Not being familiar with the subject matter, I can't figure out where the real information stops and the vandalism starts. I'm not sure how to handle it. Maybe someone else could have a look and try to figure it out. --Coppertwig 19:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like someone whacked the article with a really big revert-stick. Vandalism's gone, but the article may fail WP:NOTE unless other information is added. --FunnyMan 22:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
You're right. The article looks OK now, as far as I can tell. --Coppertwig 04:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
But why would "Jesus Christ" be there too??? ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 01:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Pratas Islands

hello I have e little problem with the article Pratas Islands. Like noticed by another user since december 2005 in the talk page, I think that is very strange that a person with him email adress is mentionned in the History section of the article.

It describes what was observed, especially bird life, during a visit of two days whilst the Surveying Ship lay at anchor. More information on this item may be obtained by reference to Malcolm Sealy at mallarray@aapt.net.au who holds a copy of this relevant journal.

--Gdgourou 12:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Scalene•UserPage•Talk•Contributions•Biography•Є• 08:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Mutual contributions tool?

Is there currently a tool which lists all articles that User:X and User:Y have both contributed? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 07:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know of one specifically, but you could write a script in linux that would remove all the duplicates in a persons contrib history and then take the smaller file and take each unique item and check the larger one to see if it appears?--Crossmr 03:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Adding a Project

My question is undoubtedly answered somewhere, but the problem with Wikipedia is the sheer number of places to get help. In any case, if someone would be so kind as to point me in the right direction I would be grateful. My question concerns the physical act of putting up a project page. I understand from the WikiProject Page all about how to make them and stuff, but how does one actually start. If one does the standard thing and follows a non-existant link and then creates the page, I realize that would work, but is it added to the community portal under "New WikiProjects," and is it added to the database of WIkiProjects? Does this have to be doen manually? Is there some official registration for WikiProjects? Thanks so much N i g h t F a l c o n 9 0 9 0 9 T a l k 15:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe it's all human-powered, but have you looked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals? It might be a way to get people involved before starting the project up. Or maybe deciding that a WP:TASKFORCE would do instead of a full-blown project. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh yes, I haven't decided anything really just looking around... thanks for your help! N i g h t F a l c o n 9 0 9 0 9 T a l k 12:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Using photos from Wiki commons

Is there please a simple way to load a photo already in Wiki Commons into a Wikipedia article so that it will display in the article, or does one first have to individually upload it to Wikipedia? I have looked all over (I think) and can't find the answer to this in the existing FAQ sections. --Smerus 10:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Just use it. All images from wikimedia commons are automatically available for use on wikipedia with the [[Image:]] tag. --Random832 13:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Aha! Many thanks.--Smerus 13:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Template help?

Can someone peak their head in at ECRUSH. I'm having an issue with the template. When I put the lowercase template followed by the verify template, the lowercase one isn't showing up. Yet when I preview its there. Makes no sense.--Crossmr 03:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The lowercase template contains an id tag that triggers javascript magic to actually put "eCRUSH" in the title header. --Random832 13:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah okay, so it no longer shows up as "the correct title of this article is..." thing?--Crossmr 16:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
It does in non-javascript-enabled browsers. --Random832 17:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding a picture I uploaded

I've uploaded the image Image:Type54frigate.jpg for use with a existing article here on Wikipedia, and I can't figure out how to properly tag it. The image is posted on a public forum that someone took (I've linked to the exact forum posting where I found it). It is the only image of decent quality that is available for the article. How should I tag it? ThePointblank 00:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You'll need to actually get confirmation from the person who took the picture that they release it into public domain or GFDL or whatever. --Random832 13:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Eh, another vandalism question...

When a peice of vandalism has gone unnoticed and become "buried" underneath good faith edits, what is the usual procedure? If I revert to an "old" version, the good edits will be lost, so I have just been fixing the vandalism by hand. Is this right?

P.S. Am I putting this question in the right place? - 06:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC) 64.24.105.71 06:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
This is the right place, and you're doing the right thing. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Generally, the best thing to do is to make sure that the vandalism didn't delete any important content that has not yet been restored. If it hasn't, then just delete the vandalism. If it has, then go back to the version before the vandalism, copy the content that was deleted, and re-add it to the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sthomson06 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC).
Incidentally, the undo feature may be useful in this situation. Sometimes it is complex and has to be fixed by hand though. --Random832 14:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sandbox

Can somebody please add "hr:Wikipedija:Stranica za vježbanje" link into the Wikipedia:Sandbox article, users search a Croatian ecvivalent but fail to find it by searching the English version.

Thanks in advance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.131.1.108 (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

I'm a little confused about why you want to link to a non-English article on the English version of Wikipedia. -- TomXP411[Talk] 23:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Um... you've never noticed that box on the left of every page with a foreign-language equivalent? Anyway, I added the link. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Regardless - stuff in the sandbox tends not to survive. You can ask that it be added to the sandbox header, but that tends to get removed often. --Random832 13:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikitables

Hello, I have a question, how do you create wikitables? Do you type them directly or use a program? Do you create them easily or not? I visited a page in Internet which converted HTML tables to Wikitables. But I don't know how to make HTML tables. I make tables with MS Word, but they aren't HTML, and in Frontpage codes have many surpluses and they'll corrupt Wikipedia. So what do you suggest? Thanks a lot --♥MehranVB♥ ☻talk | ☺mail 17:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Geocities has a HTML table creator... ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 01:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
See Help:Table - it's much easier than html. --Random832 14:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

M. Scott Peck

I just added some biographical material to this article, then noticed that somebody had recently (and maybe inadvertently) deleted a lot of similar stuff. I don't know how to easily restore that which was deleted, or whether it was quality material or not. Surely the article needs material about Peck, and not just about one of his books. Maybe somebody can fix it up by taking it back to where it was. (Look at it first, though.) Lou Sander 17:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

There was a lot of other material deleted, too. I've fixed this and done my best to incorporate stuff from your version that the other version lacks. Please look at the article and see if it could use any more improvement. --Random832 18:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Citations and NPOV needed at Eliot Tokar

Eliot Tokar - we're finding it hard to find sources, lots of us working on it are too inexperienced at finding sources to do it. I also would like to know how noteworthy he is, and we really need sources to back up the article and verify it. Please help:)Merkinsmum 17:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

One word, many meanings?

Over on the Alcoholism page, we've run into a situation that we haven't seen on Wikipedia, and we're not sure how to handle it. The word Alcoholism has multiple meanings, but this equivocation is not recognized by any of the usages. Some people consider it to be the excessive consumption of alcohol, others consider it to be an active alcohol addiction, while others consider it to be a persistant craving for alcohol, whether or not alcohol is actually consumed. The primary issue is that everyone who uses the word is absolutely convinced that their definition is the only one. How would some of the veterans handle this? -- Robert Rapplean 01:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Probably explain which definitions are held by which major groups, which are generally assumed by news media, etc. Be sure to include lots of references and take care to avoid implying that one group's view is the "right" one. --Random832 18:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Citations needed at Supreme Court

The article History of the Supreme Court does not have any references. Could someone look at this and maybe at a citations needed template? (I don't know how add that). Richiar 00:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I added the {{verify}} tag. GhostPirate 16:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Category of Cities

Hello, I am working on a category of cities that is auto-generated via {{template:Infobox city}}. The category is Category:Cities in the UTC timezone. Currently it has placed most of the cities that use the template in their respective UTC timezone. However, there are more than 200 cities that have not been properly identified with their corresponding UTC timezone. (ex.: see the main category above) A good exampel of a category that works is UTC-5, or Category:Cities in the UTC-5 timezone. To make things even worse some people don't think this category is usefull (which it is now part of the category:Geography and of the category:Geography by time.) and have nominated it at CfD. Thank you for any help or comments. --User:CyclePat 22:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Keeping article that was transwiki'd to Wiktionary

I have no idea where to properly take this up; I originally put it at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Glossary of the French Revolution, but it's been over 48 hours with no response, so I am taking it up here. I have slightly reorganized my comments.

Glossary of the French Revolution and its talk page were tagged a few weeks ago as having been transwikied to Wiktionary. Neither tag indicates any place to discuss the matter, and I have absolutely no idea why a tag should remain on the article page (this would seem to be of no interest to a not-editing reader). Furthermore, the tag on the talk page implies that the article is nothing but a dictionary definition, which is absurd. It includes (inter alia) lists of the various constitutions and government organs of the era and of events commonly known by their dates in the French Republican calendar. It is, precisely, a glossary, not a dictionary entry; in theory we could split this out to a dozen or so separate "list" articles, but it seems to me that would be of far less service to our readers.

Similarly, perhaps more appropriately, moved to Wiktionary: Humpty Dumptyism. Seems to me that there is article potential on the history of this term: for example, how exactly did it enter academic usage after starting out in a famous children's book?

Anyway, (1) I have no idea why the tag should remain on the article (vs. the talk page) in either case, but I am hesitant to remove it. (2) I think Glossary of the French Revolution is incontestably an article we should have, but the tag on the talk page seems to suggest that if I tamper with the tag it will simply be re-added, and strongly implies that the article as it stands is inappropriate (but gives no indication of who decided that, what the process was, or how I can dispute it. Where is one supposed to discuss the further disposition of the article on Wikipedia?

I am quite frustrated by having templates placed on articles that seem to suggest that there is some process in place and rules to be followed, but does not tell me how to enter the discussion. Especially on articles I largely wrote. Increasingly, when I deal with Wikipedia I feel like am dealing with a bureaucracy of pedants blindly following arbitrary rules, instead a community of scholars using their minds. - Jmabel | Talk 18:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You've been here since 2003 and you are only just figuring this out? Where have you been hiding? Blueboar 18:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
First of all, the tag on the article page includes the phrase "Being transwikied in no way affects the disposition of the article on Wikipedia", thus there is no active plan/process/intention to remove it from Wikipedia (which is probably why you couldn't find where to discuss the matter). Secondly, I agree with your assertion that the tag shouldn't remain on the article page (I'll be bold and remove it), but should stay on the talk page (no reason to pull it there). Third, yes, you are correct, this magnificent yet messy beast we call Wikipedia can be frustrating to deal with sometimes - thanks for hanging in there. -- MarcoTolo 05:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Pages needing attation

Almost 75% of the pages that belong in Special:Uncategorizedpages are either vandalised, orphaned or are a stub. Af648 08:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Clearing wikipedia's history of previous searches

I cannot find an easy way to clear wikipedia's history of previous searches. There must be a way - what is it?24.45.12.114 16:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

What browser are you using? Tra (Talk) 16:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Internet Explorer 7
Go to Tools > Delete browsing history > Delete forms > Yes but bear in mind that this will delete the search history from all the websites you've visited. Tra (Talk) 16:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Input solicited

We need some input from several editors here please Talk:RateItAll. A post was made on the conflict of interest noticeboard, but its been sitting there for quite some time. Editor is asking for "neutral review", the details are on the talk page regarding the evidence of a conflict of interest.--Crossmr 18:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Vote

A vote is currently being held on whether a coordinator is needed or not for Wikipedia:WikiProject Awards. Because of the nature of the project, voting is open to all. Express your views here. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't one of the reasons for the deletion of Esperanza because of excessive bureaucracy? Corvus cornix 21:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
The poll awaits your comments. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I think you are correct, however, the WP:BS page is not as bureaucratic as Esperanza was. Also, the recal was driven by an internal conflict. Posting it here at the Pump is almost a {{Rally}}. --South Philly 14:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Lol. Requesting external input from absolutely anyone on Wikipedia who wants to vote is such blatent votestacking. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Experienced editors needed

Wikipedia:Transwiki log contains a list of hundreds of articles which have been copied to Wiktionary, Wikisource, Wikibooks, etc. Once copied there, the original article still remains here with its major problems, as it is just a dictionary definition, or contains the entire text of a song or book or whatever. This list of articles needs experienced editors to go through and decide what to do with the article, and then cross it off the list. Many need to be deleted, others redirected to something else or merged with something else, some are fine as they are and just need the "this article has been transwikied" tag pulled off the article. The main list needing work is Wikipedia:Transwiki_log/Articles_moved_from_here/en.wiktionary. Please help! --Xyzzyplugh 06:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Usage Statistics by Country

Following the creation of Conservapedia, I've been looking for Wikipedia usage statistics by country. My contention is that there are more international users of en.wikipedia.org than American users. Any help?

Thanks!

Daniel

Alexa, a subsidiary of Amazon.com, shows that around 21.7% of Wikipedia users are American. However, these statistics might have a sampling bias, as Alexa only collects information from users who've installed the "Alexa Toolbar".--TBCΦtalk? 06:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This pump and the help desk

What is the difference between this page and Wikipedia:Help desk? They both seem to serve the same purpose, or at the very least, a purpose similar enough to warrant merging the two. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 06:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The Village pump is more for discussing news and policy amongst experienced users. The Help desk is designed to assist new users who are unfamiliar with Wikipedia. GhostPirate 17:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
The policy pump is for discussing policy. But this is the assistance page, which states "The assistance section of the village pump is used to make requests for assistance with Wikipedia". The help desk states it is a place to "ask questions about how to use Wikipedia". These seem similar enough that we could put them together. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 18:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
But, but... if we do that, we won't be able to give conflicting advice anymore. Where's the fun in that! Blueboar 18:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking this just the other day. It probably needs running by people though, but I would suggest the Assistance subpage of the pump redirects to the Help desk. Neil (not Proto ►) 11:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

MSN explorer program deletion from windows XP

while on pc explorer canstantly pops up asking to create new user account. would appreciate any info on deletion from operating system, or just stopping the popups. fairly new to IT please keep it simple72.172.55.64 17:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)bdbhuck0_1@yahoo.com

Help with a template

I just made a navigation template for myself in my userspace, but it looks messed up. Can someone with experience help me. The template is at User:CG_janitor/Navigation CG janitor 04:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I've gotten it to look good, at least. The little links in the corner still don't work, but I'm working on it. -Amarkov moo! 05:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, well, every single navbox I can find is set up to be based on about 10 different templates, half of which are protected and all of which are ugly. I'd have to code from scratch to get anywhere, which will take a while. -Amarkov moo! 05:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. Don't worry about those links. At least it works now. CG janitor 05:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, that does the trick well enough! Great teamwork, thanks. CG janitor 05:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Joseph Stefan

I have a question regarding the article of Jožef Stefan, which deals with his Slovene name. It has been entered on english wikipedia as Joseph Stefan, what is a bit strange, becouse a person can only have one name (original). On IJS english website the name has been writen as Jožef Stefan. Even Michael Schumacher the driver is not being entered as Mike Shoemaker. Prunk 16:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Transcription from Russian

Could someone possibly help setting this straight: Two Russian cross-country skiers (father & son) carry the same name. However, their names have been transcribed in wildly different ways. The father/son combination in question is Vasili Rotchev and Vassilij Rotsjev. I suspect both forms are wrong. Trying to fix this by undoing the last move (made by User:SndrAndrss) leads to name conflicts. Could an administrator look into it? Best regards Guaca 11:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Note the style guide says to use the conventional english spelling, so we wouldn't necessarily use the same spelling for both if they have different established spellings. This situation is the same on the French wikipedia, with fr:Vassili_Rotchev vs fr:Vasily_Rochev.
Based on google searches, the correct name for the son is overwhelmingly "Vassili Rotchev", with 16,800 hits (in quotes) vs only a few hundred for other combinations. Searched in combination with "1980", "Vasily Rochev" (no quotes) has 644 hits and seems to be the winner. My recommendation (as awkward as it sounds) would be to name the article on the father Vasily Rochev and the one on the son Vassili Rotchev, same as the French wiki. Both of these searches result in reliable sources in the top ten referring to the respective individual - among them TIME article referring to the father as "Vasily Rochev" and Torino2006.org profile of the son.
The current situation is as follows
Vassilij Rotsjev - Article on father
Vassili Rochev (1 link)
Vasili Rochev (1 link)
Vasily Rochev (4 links)
Vasili Rotchev - Article on son
Vassili Rotchev (10 links)
Many of the direct links to Vassilij Rotsjev come from transclusions of templates including the name, which were edited by the same person who did the page move: [39]
Vasili Rotchev does not appear to have a page move in its history, but should probably still be renamed to two S's in the face of overwhelming evidence in favor of this.
--Random832 13:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I have moved (there were no conflicts, I don't know why you weren't able to) Vassilij Rotsjev to Vasily Rochev and altered the template. The situation with the son's article's name still needs to be looked at. --Random832 13:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Help needed with redirect/move

I am trying to redirect/move Masonic Temple (Providence) to Renaissance Providence Hotel (the building's new name). I have sucessfully copied the material into the new article... but need help closing down the old one. Please help. Blueboar 19:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Never mind... I figured it out. Blueboar 19:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

In fact you did not quite figure it out. I have reverted your manual copy-paste move. -- Petri Krohn 04:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
So I see. Well, I have started an RFC on the name issue... that asside, how does one redirect when trying to rename an article? Blueboar 18:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Category Member of Political Party

I noticed many (Belgian) politicians are in several categories "Member of Political Party" because they switched parties. (for example Hugo Coveliers)

I think it's kinda weird to see "Member of Volksunie" under Hugo Coveliers when the Volksunie doesn't exist anymore and he switched parties two times.

Is this supposed to be like that?

Just wondering.

213.119.10.232 22:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello everyone, please give me your opinion.

Sorry to interrupt.

Please look at this.

I want to know what he thinks of me.

In my opinion, it seems that he wants my sweetlove ardently.

What do you think ?

- Garilx 14:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a User page - so what's the issue? Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 15:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your concern. I can't organize my feels... Neways I keep thinking of him, and I've never felt this way before. Lemme know what you think ? - Garilx 17:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Umm, is the Village pump really the place for this (whatever it is)? GhostPirate 18:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry about it. It's some guy (presumably whose vandalism I once reverted) posing as me. He keeps redirecting his userpage to mine too. garik 23:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

COMPUTER HIJACKED FOR MONTHS - PLEASE HELP ME

Hello all you computer folks!

I am a simple, plain jane computer user. I enjoy doing research on the internet, sharing emails and photo's with friends and just being your all-American techno-challenged yet nice, quite intelligent, nonjudgemental, mind my own business American gal.

I have a great deal of respect for all of you who know how to program and are smart enough to know how to get into other computers (for good, not to wreak havoc on innocent individuals who you probably don't even know)because, I'm not even close to that...I don't have the math capacity or desire.

I am disabled (no big deal usually & please no sympathy, I've adjusted) - so my computer used to provide me a great deal of joy - now when I use it, I have to accept that someone else is using my computer as well...how, I have no idea. My computer use has declined probably 80% because of this - my privacy and joy is being stolen everytime I turn on my computer. Needless to say, I used internet shopping as my main source of home goods, linens, books, software, CD's DVD's, etc. Shopping is history.

I think it's someone with dial up that likes my broadband. Yes, they use the 127.0.0.1 "loopback" address mentioned herein so that these intrusions look like my computer is trying to break into itself...my netbios, bootstrap protocol, and more. They disable my McAfee, add programs that takes my memory and in general, treats my computer as their own. At any rate, I think you get the general idea...Is anyone willing to help me learn to put an end to this and put some joy back into my life? I have tried bringing it into a computer technician, I have had technicians from my cable provider come to my house and switch modems, I have called everyone imagineable and, of course, all first mention getting a firewall and then I let then know that I have the latest McAfee product - however whoever this person is has diabled most of it.

You all are the knowledgeable folks, how can someone get through my 2 firewalls, why doesn't spyware detect them, How can they keep getting back in after I have reloaded my operating system (Windows XP) at least 8 times, I can tell it's a remote call procedure-how can that be when I check boxes or uncheck boxes relating to remote call procedure so it appears RCP's are not allowed however, they always seem to get in - I guess you can detect my frustration since I'm going on and on...This person is probably downloading music at my expense, they have opened an AOL account using my old email account, they lock me out of my own programs...what kind of person thinks this is a fun way to spend time?

Will anyone out there please help me? I'd sure appreciate more than you can ever imagine....I want my privacy and my computer joy back.

Thanks very much, Hackertakesmyjoy

Try asking on computing reference desk. That would be a more appropriate place to ask. –Llama mantalkcontribs 02:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Artaxiad violating WP:Stalk

I would like to report a case of harassment by User:Artaxiad. He has been following my edits, to identify myself with certain other physical identity without any proofs at hand. My creation and editing of this page [40] of a poet who lived in early 20th century, served as a faulty ground for User:Artaxiad to claim my identity based on false name associations and some information he found on Internet about a certain individual in California. His first case of intimidation was here [41]. User:Artaxiad further pursued harassment, trying to associate again User:Atabek with someone else and use an article on Internet as a basis for claiming that someone else as friend of another Wikipedia contributor User:AdilBaguirov right here [42]. I will not add extra evidence on User:Artaxiad following my edits to pursue revert warring, all of this evidence is well summarized at [43], [44], [45]. I am just wondering when negligence of disruptive behavior of this user is going to end. While being an experienced user, he walks away free with confirmed sockpuppets [46], gets involved in heavy revert warring, which is presented in ArbCom case [47], clear attempt to remove all of the images related to a certain country admitted here [48], accusing others of "lying" [49], and now clear case of harassment and stalking. How long this is going to go on? Atabek 11:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Date redirects

Hi!

I noticed there are a lot of dates (like Aug 01) that don't have a rederect and a lot (like Feb 16) that do.

That seems a natural for a 'bot? Thanks, Saintrain 01:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

All redirects of this form without a leading "0" already exist (like Aug 1). There are only about 100 that are missing. Feel free to make a request at Wikipedia:Bot requests (or just create them). -- Rick Block (talk) 03:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Did it. Somebody's already working on it :) Forgot to say ... Thanks! --Saintrain 07:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Cinema & Film?

What is the difference really? And, why do we have Category:Cinema by country and Category:Films by country separately? Aditya Kabir 17:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

A cinema is where you watch a film. Is this what you are looking for? x42bn6 Talk 10:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
For the categories, the answer is because Category:Film by country and Category:Films by country would be even more confusing. The films category is for individual films (Suzhou River (film), Jules and Jim). The cinema category is for film: everything to do with films and film-making except the films themselves, and the cinemas. Comparing the contents of Category:Russian films and Category:Cinema of Russia should make it clearer. It's one of these things where the names are always going to be less than clear. As for why we have Cinema and Film, Cinema is a disambiguation page, and film is just one of the meanings of cinema given there. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. That would be all I wanted to know - the Cinema category is for everything that has got something to do with cinema (and, cinema is not just the theater, please, a bit more English could have helped us Wikipedians), but the films themselves, and the Films category is for the films themseves, right? I guess the Bangladesh cinema and film categories got a bit confused there. Thanks again. Aditya Kabir 07:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation discussion for Talk:Styx (disambiguation)

Please take a look at this and contribute to the discussion. OverMyHead 15:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Iranian sentiments

Tons of uncited info, POV pushing. Come one, come all. Free frisbees for the first two dozen who show up to help clean up the article and not get scared away at being called a racist. :)Arcayne 03:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Can't see non-Roman characters

When looking at pages with non-Roman characters (Japanese, for instance, or Chinese), my computer only displays ????? instead of the foreign characters. How do I fix this? Please reply at my talk page! --DrGaellon (talk | contribs) 13:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

See Help:Multilingual support (and I'll post this to user talk:DrGaellon as well). -- Rick Block (talk) 17:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Eyes of March

Could anyone give me a link or links to more information on this History for March 15th, supposedly like the worst of all Friday the 13ths. Thanks Patricia <email removed>, thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.93.238.8 (talk) 13:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

Do you mean Ides of March? That was one of the worst days for Julius Caesar.... —EncMstr 23:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Adding assessment scale to template

The project Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment is about to start doing assessment scale, so what should I do? I am totally lost and need someone to point a direction to get things started. The template already exist (e.g. Talk:Hydrogen economy). It just needs to add the parameter for assessment scale. I have asked in a couple of places and they point to other directions where I couldn't get an answer. OhanaUnited 14:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Using the bot is what you're looking for. Try reading over that. I have created the first category, Category:Environment articles by quality. Create the subcategories if you know how to. I'll try to help out later tonight. The current {{Environment}} does not accept ratings. I'll see if I can fix that. It might help if you look over some examples. GfloresTalk 16:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Magic sword

Magic sword was marked as suitable for Wikidictionary -- why I can not imagine. It was transwikied, but apparently someone cleaned it up, since it's in neither of the links given by the template.

I cleaned up the template on the main page saying it should be expanded or deleted (It was already expanded), but should something be done about the tag on the talk page saying it was transwikied? The tag itself says it will just do it again if the tag is removed. Goldfritha 01:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Macintosh tools

I posted a request on this page a long time ago, and have recieved no answer. Are there tools for us Macintosh users? —ScouterSig 16:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at WikiGuard (OSX specific) and Vandalfighter (Java). -- MarcoTolo 17:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

How do I resize images for articles?

I have uploaded Image:Sale Peacock Inn.jpg and Image:Mak Sai Ying Signature.jpg and tried to place them in the Mak Sai Ying page, but the pictures are way too big for the purpose. How might I get smaller images? DDB 11:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Put in the image size when you code it. So rather that having [[Image:Example.jpg]]
type [[Image:Example.jpg|thumb|right|150px|Caption]] You can change the alignment, size and caption of the image that way. Adjust the number before "px" to create a smaller or larger image. GhostPirate 14:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Better yet, use the thumb parameter and skip the size: that will resize the image to what the viewing user has specified in their preferences. This is particularly nice for users with slow connections or limited displays, such as PDAs. [[Image:Mak Sai Ying Signature.jpg|thumb|right|whatever text to display for a caption]] The right floats the image to the right margin of the viewable area. —EncMstr 16:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
See WP:IMAGE for more about how to control images on Wikipedia. --MECU≈talk 16:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks heaps :D DDB 19:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Authorization Management Program

Qestion crossposted to Computing reference desk, so removing from here. --Ouro (blah blah) 07:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Mangled article

I ran across the article Unholy Alliance some time back and thought it sounded somewhat POV and had no sources. Adding tags that pointed out these deficiencies prompted a lengthy discussion with an IP editor on the article's talk page. The editor promised to clean up the article with cites and less POV language. However, edits by this editor and another IP editor have left the page in worse shape than ever. I don't even know where to begin trying to clean up the article, nor do I have the intimate knowledge of Wikipedia policy it would take to convince the editor my edits were justified. Would anyone be willing to take a look and see what can be done to make this a decent article? I'll be glad to help with the clean up once I see it moving in a positive direction. Acdixon 15:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It is up for deletion, see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unholy Alliance Blueboar 19:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

My account logs me out whenever I log in

My account logs me out every time I log into it. It says that the login was successful, then when I click to go to another page, I'm logged out all of a sudden. Could it be the system doesn't recognize commas in names or could it just be the Internet connection which I'm using at the moment? 69.19.14.27 20:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Please disregard this. I've switched to my other Internet connection and its working fine Life, Liberty, Property 22:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I have a similar problem when I'm going from Wikipedia to Commons or Wiktionary or Meta, or from one of those sites to Wikipedia. I've told the computer to remember me next time I visit the site, so when I go from Wikipedia to, say, Commons, I can still see ElinorD at the top of the page, but as soon as I click on any link, my status changes to that of a not-logged-in user. When I try to log in, it tells me that I have to change my settings to accept cookies. I know that my computer does accept cookies, but somehow Commons doesn't recognise it. The first few times this happened, I tried setting my internet options and firewall to a lower security level, but I still couldn't stay logged in. I have found that if I switch off the computer and switch on again, and then go on to Commons, it recognises me and keeps me logged in. If I then go to Wikipedia, I see ElinorD at the top of the page until I click on any link, after which I become logged off. I'm then unable to log in, because Wikipedia thinks my computer doesn't accept cookies. The only way I can log in and stay logged in is to switch off the computer and restart, in which case I can then either use Wikipedia but not Commons or Commons but not Wikipedia. I can go without problem from Wikipedia in French, German, English, etc. to another language, and still stay logged in (assuming I have an account there), but if I've been logged in at Wikipedia, I can't get to Wiktionary or Meta and stay logged in unless I first switch off the computer. Strange. ElinorD (talk) 23:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

BLOCK,

204.186.5.98 someone block this guy as hes going into articles and screwing them up,--McNoddy 15:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

If he vandalizes articles, use the appropriate vandalism warnings here. If he continues to vandalize after the final warning, report it at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism and he will be blocked. GhostPirate 16:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

How do I tagged orphan?

I nuked a fair use image from an article because it wasn't needed... I seem to remember reading somewhere that I'm like supposed to put it in some category of orphaned fair use images. Is that right, and if so, what category do I put it into? Milto LOL pia 07:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Go to the image description page, click edit, and type {{subst:orfud}} on that page and save with an edit summary of something like "Orphaned fair use image". Be sure to then notify the uploader on their talk page by following the tag instructions you'll see after you save. --MECU≈talk 15:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Userboxes

I'm addicted to userboxes. I have too many of them, I can admit that. My To-Do list is full of userboxes, all of which I will add to my page once I create them. But right now, the most pressing problem (Aside from my intervention-needing userbox addiction) is that my userboxes are out of control. I've organized them with the {{Boxtop}} X {{Boxbottom}} Template, so that resolves some issues, but they're placed horribly. They're also intruding on the text at the bottom of my page. Can someone help me? --Scorpios 16:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Notability

Please excuse my unforgiveable ignorance on this topic.

Could someone tell me whether it is, or is not true, that High Schools, anywhere in the World, are intrinsically notable? I have seen it stated, but had some difficulty in understanding why it should be so.--Anthony.bradbury 11:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

  • This is a terribly devisive issue these days - the short answer is that high schools with souced articles are almost never deleted, but nominated all the time. So de facto this is almost true, de jure it's true if they pass WP:RS I think, but there is no consensus. WilyD 15:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Ditto. It's very much the case that the vocal minority in favour of this notion is loud enough that the community is sick and tired of having to put up with it every time someone tries to do something simple such as editing in line with the policies and guidelines. Chris cheese whine 17:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Email confirmation

After several tries, I can't get the email confirmation to work. I tried to look for an answer in a long list of FAQ, but could not find any asnwers either. I gratly appreciate any help or suggestions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sandachi (talk • contribs) 08:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

Are you trying it on WikiMedia, or do you have your own wiki? What symptoms are you seeing? —EncMstr 16:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

help eco-village design team use wikis

I am with non-profit organization (www.groundwork.org) that is working to design and build an eco-village in China. We are attempting to establish an international team (designers, community members, officials) collaborating via the internet. It looks like wikis would be a good way to do that. I am looking for someone who would be willing to give us some advice on how to go about doing this. Is there anyone here that might want to do that or can you tell me of a forum or other place where I might ask?

Thanks for any help,

Huck —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Huckrorick (talk • contribs) 16:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

You might want to contact the Wikimedia Foundation. The software that powers this site is available free of charge, though I'm not certain how to obtain it. DurovaCharge! 05:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I was hoping to find someone knowledgeable about wikis who could help guide us. It seems there is a lot of software and also quite a few wiki hosts and also software we can use on our own computer, but knowing which way to go seems to require someone with experience. Again, thanks for any guidance.

Huck

well the software we use can be found at http://sourceforge.net/projects/wikipedia/ but this may not be ideal for smaller projects. If you want an existing wiki host rather than setting up your own I'm not sure what option would be best.Geni 00:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I just found out that SharePoint seems to have the capability to create a wiki. The wiki hosts I found were rather expensive. The web host we use for our web site (www.groundwork.org) is inexpensive and a modest upcharge for using SharePoint. Does anyone know if SharePoint is a good solution for creating and maintaining a wiki? Huck

There is a new book due out this month called MediaWiki Administrators’ Tutorial Guide that might be helpful. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Smithfield Foods help

Hi,

I was looking up Smithfield Foods, and found the article to be read rather strange, almost like a member of the company wrote the majority of the article. I have no proof of this, it just reads funny to me. It may very well just need a rewrite due to its POV, or a Cleanup Template. Anywho, if someone could check it out, and get it another opinion, I'd appreicate it. Thanks Zidel333 04:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I looked at it. I can't see any strong self-promotional point of view on it, as it does have some negative or balancing controversial aspects included. It seems to be a notable company, as it is (allegedly) the largest pork producing company and multinational. However, where its place is in an encyclopedia, I'm not sure. I'm not sure that it has encyclopedic value, and that might be the question to ask. Richiar 17:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Odd statement, However, where its place is in an encyclopedia, I'm not sure. It's a major multinational company; the article has 10 footnotes, and clearly meets WP:ATT. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Any idea on the length of article sections

I vaguely remember that I have seen an essay or a guideline or something on the length of article sections on Wikipedia, like pros and cons of longer and shorter sections or something in that line. May be there is something to tell me how long or short I should make a section. Can someone lead me to those pages? Aditya Kabir 18:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I recall a page but can't find it now. That said, it should really be a sensible figure, such as 4-5 lines maximum on resolutions with width 1280 or greater, or 6-7 for ones below that. Any articles in particular you would like to have advice on? x42bn6 Talk 19:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I had the article on Jayne Mansfield in mind. But, it's a general question as well. Is there anything like - "5 to 12 words a sentence, 4 to 10 sentences a paragraph, 2 to 5 paragraphs a section - on the whole 50 to 200 words a section" (I'm sure nothing in reality would resemble this example, but you get the idea). I really need to take a look at the policy, guideline or essay or whatever. Aditya Kabir 13:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles? -- Rick Block (talk) 23:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. But, is there anything more elaborate? Aditya Kabir 19:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Summary style and Wikipedia:Article size. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Adding Voice

I would like to add voice files to my page and give it the additional dimension of voice is there any way to add voice files as produced by Voice 2 Page example at [williamgreen.info]V2P

Can you please clarify? You can add audio content to a page using [[Media:Example.ogg]], but otherwise I don't know what you're saying. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nol888 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC).
It sounds like you want to add a voice message to your user page(s) so that whenever someone goes there, they automatically hear a voice message from you. That's not possible here - individual users don't have access rights to install the needed program for this. Moreover, per WP:NOT, this is an encyclopedia, not a social networking site; there really is no reason why someone going to one of your user pages should be talked to (literally). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

F-104 Starfighter

Could someone please add a voice of reason to the edit war I currently fight with Clawson? He just stopped discussing entirely and fell back to just reverting. Thanks. --217.235.210.177

It is obvious that he did not find any more arguments to persuade you. The F-104 Starfighter is no longer used and, therefore, should be referred to in the Simple Past tense.--Orthologist 20:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

College residence halls

I recently put a residence hall (Carman Hall) of Columbia University up for speedy delete. In retrospect, I probably should have made a redirect instead. (And someone did just that after I tagged it.) I was wondering if someone could point me to guidelines for residence halls or dorms of colleges and universities. I assume that, unless the building itself has a notable and verifiable history, these are usually incorporated into the main college article but I'm curious if there's specific info on this. Help? --Pigmandialogue 02:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Article that needs to be on more watchlists

Reuben Singh needs to be on more watchlists. A very determined vandal consistantly changes it to an attack piece. As I'm currently extremely busy in real life, I'm posting this here to ask people to keep an eye on it. It's a living person. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 01:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Spaming? need answer

I don't where else to take this, but I think this is spam. This user is adding links to quite a few articles from AOL video [50]. Correct me if I'm wrong.--Paloma Walker 21:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I would agree, and left a warning. Before I rollback the edits though, I would like 1 more opinion. Prodego talk 21:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Looks like commercial spam to me. -- MarcoTolo 21:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Yup - plus copyright questions, as with any video of commercial product. - DavidWBrooks 21:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
All cleaned-up. -- MarcoTolo 22:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

My First Edit War

I've done 2,274 edits without asking for help or having an edit war, but it looks like one's starting at American Maritime Officers. If anyone feel like sheparding a n00b through the process, I'd appreciate any input. Thanks! Haus42 16:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any discusson on the article's Talk page - maybe that would be a place to start? - DavidWBrooks 16:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Okie dokie, I'll get on that. I noticed another user added a template to a user talk page. I'm learning stuff left and right. Haus42 16:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmm... The content that User:Wills26 dumped in is copyrighted. Cf. http://www.amo-union.org/AboutAMO/Present.htm Haus42 19:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Removed --83.253.36.136 09:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Resolving disputes does a pretty good job of laying out the process, starting with informal discussions. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Positron emission tomography

There is a horribly offensive picture that pops up when you view Positron emission tomography. I'm not sure what the problem is, I suspect someone has edited one of the pictures that used to be there, as when you open old versions of the page the image still displays.Flying fish 02:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Not sure what you're seeing - the article looks fine now and hasn't been changed in two weeks. WilyD 13:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Reference at Matthew Sanchez

Can somebody help me? If you look at the References section of the Matthew Sanchez article, one of them is linked to Matt Sanchez, which is just a redirect here on Wikipedia to Matthew Sanchez. But when I go to edit the reference links, they look okay. What am I missing? Corvus cornix 22:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

In the cite (which no longer exists in the article), one of the items is "authorlink". That was set equal to "Matt Sanchez". "Authorlink" is used to point to a Wikipedia article on the author of a citation (and so the double-brackets are added when the template is "read" by the software); it just isn't a particularly useful item when it appears in a Wikipedia article about the author of the citation. (It still would be useful, I'd guess, if someone copied the article, since I think the wiki software is essentially suppressing the URL.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Monobook.*

I'm having trouble finding the monobook files, such as monobook.js or monobook.css. Can anybody show me what I need to do find find it? //Mac Lover TalkC 15:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Monobook.css and MediaWiki:Monobook.js. For the global ones - you appear to have found your own quite nicely. x42bn6 Talk 17:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, that's what you were looking for, Mac Lover? GracenotesT § 22:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it is. Thanks.//Mac Lover TalkC 02:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Please help

I have no idea how to to file the right kind of request for comment or mediation or arbitration, or whatever. I have a determined troll following me around "proceduring" me to death. He has been following me around through a series of articles that I have been working on, constantly editing things while I am in the process of editing them too, demending changes, moving things around.

One of the big problems, frankly, is that the topics I am working on require some knowledge of Hebrew and a lot of knowledge of Jewish philosophy and theology. This editor, who knows nothing about these matters, is simply creating one stumbling block after another, always citing some wikipedia procedure. He appears to be going to my contributions file to see what I am working on, and then going there to mess something up.

I frankly don't want to know all the Wikipedia policies and procedures. I want to write. I've been doing so for about a year, and so far, I've been very happy with it. I've asked him to back away. I asked him to come back and edit the article later in the day, or in the evening. I've offered for both of us to leave and come back in a week, to allow some other writer a chance to work. Whereever it is I am working, he seems to want to be there.

Wikipedia needs contributors who are writers, who know a subject well, who do careful research work in the subject and write well balanced and thoroughly sourced articles. I am such a person. I don't claim authority in any field, like an advanced degree. (I do have a degree, I just don't claim that it matters here on Wikipedia.)

What I can do is easy to see from what I have done. I have started dozens of articles, and never had one deleted, working some of them through to completion. Many of them are on serious scholarly topics. I enjoy writing. I don't claim to "own" these articles. If I wanted that, I would write somewhere under my own name.

What happened to me over the last few days was an incident of procedural harassment. I have never experienced anything like it. User:ZayZayEM has been following me around through a group of articles that I have been working on, creating a long series of procedural problems. Each time, he cites some Wikipedia policy for why he is of course right.

I'm not interested in arguing about Wikipedia policy X or Y. I am interested in writing. I am not interested in going thourgh some kind of elaborate Wikipedia arbitration determination procedure, in which we somehow determine who was right.

It's very simple. There are 1,697,500 articles on Wikipedia that this person could be working on right now, and most of them do need work. User:ZayZayEM could be working on any one of them, but instead, he chooses to harass me.

Looking at his recent logs, his last RfC was a few days ago. I've never had one. I didn't even know what an RfC was until a few days ago. This user is simply looking for fights.

If I'm supposed to go to some kind of arbitration panel and write some kind of elaborate defense or request, I'm outta here. I'm not interested in spending time doing that. I've never bothered to figure out how to cite logs, and I don't want to. User:ZayZayEM has presented an endless series of procedural hurdles, and such a process would be more of the same, and a complete waste of time. I'm sure that once the process was finished, he would be back to more of the same.

He knows nothing about the topics that I am trying to write about. I would welcome a collaborator or two who does, but this fellow isn't that collaborator. He simply creates endless headaches. Each time, he cites the wikipedia policy under which he is of course "right," but if I then try the same thing back, or try to suggest something else, there is some other Wikipedia policy under which he is also right, or he switches to something else that he wants.

I've read that Wikipedia is interested in the product, not the process. Well this user is obsessed with the process, and presents endless hurdles to improving the product.

If your answer is that I'm supposed to file wiki-dot-colon-xxxcite-procedure and wait for a wiki-xxxxarb-med-committee to volunteer to handle the case, my answer is no. That's his game, not mine. I'm sure he is good at it too. --Metzenberg 05:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

If what he is doing is serious enough to be considered vandalism, report him to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 15:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
You could always try citing WP:IAR... ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 16:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't feed the trolls

There are a (small) number of contributors whom I have come across in my normal course of editing, vandal-watching and AfD monitoring who aren't really doing anything that fits into a warning template but their contributions are still either non-constructive or disruptive. For example, one keeps nominating AfDs in a manner that appears that he's trying to prove a point, but it's difficult to prove and it's getting ridiculous. Another is a self-proclaimed troll who is a newly registered user, but seems to have knowledge of the inner workings of Wikipedia beyond the usual new user. He contributes either obviously contrary or wholly unconstructive (or even inflammatory) comments in AfDs, and he has also created userspace templates which allow him to add several hundred thousand characters of text to talk pages under the guise of "spreading the Wikilove."

I know that I could ignore them (the best course of action with trolls, I know), but Wikipedia is no place to be a troll. Are there some pertinent user warning templates that I could use in order to kindly let them know in an official manner that their behavior is neither condoned nor appreciated, and if necessary, bring them to the attention of administrators in process? LaMenta3 03:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't use a template, carefully construct and appropriate friendly message. If there is no suitible response, try WP:AN. ViridaeTalk 03:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the WP:AN recommendation. When you open a thread please provide specific usernames and diffs along with a summary of the problem. The first of your examples appears to be a WP:POINT problem and the second sounds like a probable WP:SOCK violation. DurovaCharge! 05:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Re-Using a Reference

For the life of me, I cannot figure out how to put together the references when the same reference is used more than once (^abcde). As you can see on my great project, Reagan assassination attempt, I've used the same references for several statements, but cannot figure out how to put them all together. The Post references were put there with the assistance of another user. The help guides weren't helpful at all in showing me how to do this. Need help! Thanks. --Wasted Sapience 23:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You need to name the references. <ref name="something">{{cite ...}}</ref> the first time, and then <ref name="something" /> for subsequent uses. Chris cheese whine 00:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Wow, someone explained something in plain English for once, and now I understand. Thanks. --Wasted Sapience 00:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Stylesheet Substitution

Is there any way to make it so that the stylesheet at say, MediaWiki:Monobook.css is disregarded and instead a stylesheet that I made is used? I know that I can go over and write display: none; on all of the classes/ids, but that would take a while. //Mac Lover TalkC 03:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Depends on your browser – which one do you use? [Oh, Firefox I see]
With Firefox, you can turn off page style with View > Page Style > No Style (or something like that, I have a Swedish Ffox, so the above is my own translation). Install the Firefox extension StyleSheet Chooser Plus to make Firefox remember this setting. Install the Stylish extension to specify your personal stylesheets. (Some more stylesheet and CSS extensions (sorted by rating).)
With Safari (on my old 10.2 system), you can specify one personal stylesheet at Preferences... > Advanced, which will be additional to and have higher precedence than page-supplied styles.
Note that * { display: none } will hide elements, not turn off styling. --83.253.36.136 15:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
You can run personal CSS under your personal monobook. Your version takes precedence over the default. Prodego talk 20:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

a vandal-ish account

This guy seems to be slowly deleting stuff (vandalize) all over WP, Special:Contributions/Jahleeldaruis, can someone do something? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Patcat88 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

Warn the user and, if it continues, report the user to WP:AIV. –Llama mantalkcontribs 23:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Reliable site?

Would this be a reliable site for the release date of Mario Party 8? It just seems unlikely to me that it would come out in the UK before the US and I thought that we needed a source from Nintendo. I could be wrong, though, and I don't want to start an edit war. –Llama mantalkcontribs 21:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The source looks fine to me since it has no reason to be unreliable or purposefully incorrect. Also, a company that sells the game seems like an ok source for an article about a game. I could be wrong, so sorry if I am. Captain panda In vino veritas 01:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
But Best Buy and other stores are very often wrong in the release dates of games. –Llama mantalkcontribs 19:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
(Reposting, as I got no reply to my second comment previously) –Llama mantalkcontribs 22:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(assistance)/Archive_O&oldid=1084289106"