Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 16

• Village pump
  • Policy
  • Technical
  • Proposals (persistent)
  • Idea lab
  • WMF
  • Miscellaneous

Village pump (miscellaneous) archive  

This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (miscellaneous). 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, T, U, V, W, X · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78

CheckUser data now kept for five months instead of three

Thought I'd point out this change to MediaWiki, since they have a tendency to make these changes without telling anyone. (Your browser's user-agent string is stored, too, in case you didn't know) -- Gurch (talk) 09:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a default. I remember hearing at one point that wikimedia keeps checkuser data forever. --Random832 (contribs) 17:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, I heard it's kept for "a couple of weeks". The fact that your user-agent string is stored isn't that surprising, it's mentioned in WP:CheckUser. What would be interesting is if CheckUser is able to reveal anything not available in the apache server's access.log or whatever the access log is. Calvin 1998 ^(t·c) 22:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

And the fact that the two of you heard completely different things, both wrong, only proves my point. Wikimedia's checkuser data is kept for the default amount of time specified in MediaWiki. Anyway, turns out that Tim Starling didn't like the change, so reverted it -- Gurch (talk) 13:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Can I create a wikipedia entry about myself?

I'm not famous or anything, but can I create a mini autobiography on wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jojorules83 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Only notable people can have articles about them in Wikipedia. You could add a bit about yourself to your user page though. It's here. Algebraist 01:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

isn't notability just a guideline?-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 07:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't mean it isn't used in deletion decisions. WP:CSD is policy, and that says that not asserting notability is a reason for deletion, the only part that's a guideline is what you do with false or inadequate assertions of notability. --Tango (talk) 08:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Notability is a guideline because the rules laid out on the project pages are just the general rules of thumb. The notability of any given subject is always decided by community discussion of that particular article. --erachima talk 08:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

See WP:AUTO for our policy on auto-biographies. In short, if you're not notable you certainly should not write one and if you are you should ideally leave it for someone else to write. --Tango (talk) 08:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

But, surely editing the most important encyclopaedia in the world must make someone notable! ;) --UltraMagnus (talk) 21:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Survey of Wikipedians

Can anyone help me by explaining when the preliminary results of the survey of Wikipedians undertaken by the Wikimedia Foundation and UNU-MERIT are likely to be available. I believe they were reported to the recent Wikimania conference in Alexandria. I am writing a book on Wikipedia. Dano'sullivan (talk) 17:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Which survey is this? (link?) --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe he is referring to m:General User Survey and wmf:Press releases/UNU survey agreement or m:Tell us about your Wikipedia. MBisanz ^talk 16:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

yes, that's the one - the UNU survey mentioned in the press release.Dano'sullivan (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Asphalt Mother

I need some help with Asphalt Mother. The thing isn't an encyclopedia article. I put the {{rewrite}} tag on the article, and the original author keeps removing in, even going so far as to lie about me in their edit summaries. I'm not going to revert them again if they remove it once more, but could I get some further opinions? Corvus cornix_talk 05:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, the first obvious question is if it's a notable single or not... if it isn't, then just nominating the thing for deletion may be the best route. I've put a tag on it for inappropriate tone, which might get the point across better, though I don't have great hope in that regard. I'll try talking with him. --erachima talk 06:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I do think it's notable based on the band, so that's not my problem, it's just with the tone of the article. Corvus cornix_talk 19:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for a simple bot to update some links

A while ago, the article at constituency used to refer to multiple definitions of the word, both the "people represented" and the "area represented" definitions. The article at electoral district is now no longer a redirect to constituency, and is instead a focused article about the "area represented" definition. Constituency, meanwhile, now is focused on just the people represented - though the article does need expansion, I don't think it's likely to move any time soon since there isn't another word that means the same thing for that definition.

Regardless, there are now a few thousand links that refer to the "electoral district" definition but point to the constituency article. Eventually, every one of them will have to be checked by hand by someone, but I think that enough of them refer to "electoral district" that a bot is justified, and then the few "people represented" exceptions can be reverted by hand. Does someone have a simple bot they can adjust to do this? Scott Ritchie (talk) 05:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You can request bots at Wikipedia:Bot requests‎. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 19:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment regarding a John Lennon album

I wanted to ask a question on the appropriate "request for comment" page, but the template system for posting is apparently broken, and you can't ask a question over there without going through the template. So may I ask it here?

Another user wants to change the infobox status of Unfinished Music No.1: Two Virgins from "studio album" to "soundtrack" because Lennon and Ono also made a sort-of-homemade film to go with it, and used the music in the film. I disagreed with this change, because the album is not generally regarded as a soundtrack, was not marketed as one, and it's likely the film was made to promote the album, rather than the music being recorded with the film in mind. The other user came back with "proof" that it's "a soundtrack and not a studio album" (well actually it could be both), citing a reference that covers what was already said. My response was, I'm not contesting that the film exists, but this still isn't what is meant by "soundtrack album". I also suggested that if it were to be classed as a soundtrack, the article should say something about the film. Although the other user changed the article to his proposal, he has not followed this suggestion.

The other user has changed the article twice, and I have reverted both times. I'm hoping to get another opinion and stop an edit war. If you are familiar with the album, have a look at the full discussion on the talk page, and respond there. Thanks. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Articles selected for Version 0.7

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD and available for free download later this year. The Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7 based on WikiProjects' quality and importance assessments. A selection algorithm incorporated this assessment data to choose a total of 30,506 articles for this release.

We would like to ask everyone to help us review and improve the articles chosen for this selection. For ease of use, we've divided the articles by WikiProject, but we've also generated listings sorted by overall score. For example, this page shows the articles with the highest scores overall.

If there are any specific articles that you believe should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release to complete topics by following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is also available. The list is dynamically generated and updated every hour by seeing if an article includes any cleanup categories, so its data is current. If you see any articles from your WikiProject with urgent problems, please try to fix them if possible. Also, a team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, and additional contributors are encouraged to join.

We are asking WikiProjects to select a "clean" version for the release, and the index for this task is located at User:SelectionBot/0.7. WikiProjects are advised that on October 20, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected.

For the Version 1.0 Editorial Team, Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Knol and Wikipedia

Hi! I'm a Spanish user (I have the sysop flag in Spanish Wikipedia) and I've seen that many Wikipedia artcles have been copied by some Knol users. I don't know if that has been comented here before. The problem seems important, there are a lot of articles copied, in some languages. The problem is the license, because I think Creative Commons 3.0 is not compatible with Wikipedia licensing. Knol shows that problems with copyright must be communicate by mail (not e-mail) but may be there are another way to delete those articles. The language most copied is English, but also Portuguese or Spanish. I've shown that in Spanish Wikipedia, but I've thought that It's better to comment here also. I've started to write a compilation of articles and user involved in a user page, es:Usuario:Millars/Knol (It's wrote in Spanish, but I think it is easy to understand). Is there any expert user in licensing issues? How can we act against that? Knol is new, but when more time past, biggest will be the problem. Thanks a lot and sorry for my English. --Millars (talk) 10:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer, but I seem to remember that at least one CC license is GNUFDL compatible. --UltraMagnus (talk) 11:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

If Creative Commons 3.0 is compatible with our license, then they have to show the origin and main authors, and in almost all those article that information doesn't exist, and the author of the knol apears like the author. --Millars (talk) 12:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

No CC licenes are GFDL compatible in the GFDL->CC dirrection.Geni 04:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed in considerable detail before (Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 15#Google Knol to copy Wikipedia?). Perhaps you can find some answers there. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Did You Know hooks for the main page

Dear all, I had an idea; many of the one-liners that appear on the front page of wikipedia (from wikipedia's newest articles) are obscure - not surprising really with with 2.5 million articles already written. As I have wended my way 'round the 'pedia, I have noted loads of stubs on some pretty notable things. Recently valhalla was expanded five-fold. Thus, a mini/informal competition of sorts, if folks see something notable/general/humorous/essential knowledge as a stub (i.e. article of fewer than 150 words), why not list it here or better still try and expand it five-fold (with appropriate references) for eligibility on the front page? If you have not the time or resources, listing some really obvious ones might be fun for someone to pick up (and there may be some funky barnstars out there...) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Invited to participate in Wikiproject Attica!

HelloVillage pump (miscellaneous)! You may as well contribute to Wikipedia:WikiProject Attica! By adding your name to the list of the participants By expanding articles that you find at Category:Attica-expand By beginning one of the suggested articles By promoting the project, adding its userbox template at your user page. You may ask of one's participation with this template Merry Contributions!

--Dimorsitanos (talk) 00:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

And here I thought it was about Attica. Or Attica. Corvus cornix_talk 20:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Professor Wikipedia

Hey, if anyone is interested, here is a humorous parody of Wikipedia (also, of Encyclopedia Britannica). — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 17:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Corporate self-editing of Saxo Bank

The article Saxo Bank and its talk page have been self-edited by an IP number from the company, removing critique. I tried to use WikiScanner to find further edits, but WikiScanner's result didn't even yield those edits I already found manually. On the talk page you'll see that a user accuses Saxo Bank of employing computer technicians who, among other things, "go on the internet and make good publicity for Saxo bank". It was also claimed that the early version of the article "reads like an advertisement". I can't say whether the former accusation is true, but at least there is evidence now that the article was edited directly from Saxo Bank. The latter accusation, "like an advertisement", seems to be true about those early versions of the article, of which a substantial part remains. This does not prove, however, that the bank itself deliberately did it. Those edits could come from admirers or happy customers. Corporate self-editing is not acceptable. I think there is very good reason for keeping a close eye on the article! I'll start scrutinising the edit history and I hope somebody will help.--Sasper (talk) 06:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Corporate self-editing, like personal self-editing, isn't an out-and-out no-no but it should always be treated with suspicion, so you're doing the right thing in checking it out. However I don't see a problem with editing the talk page. In fact people who find something wrong with "their" article are recommended to bring it up on the talk page, so that others can decide whether to change the article. I would have thought that it was alright for Saxo to do that too. -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but they didn't just address issues on the talk page. They simply deleted a critical post. In that post a user asked for more information regarding a rumour about Saxo Bank's employment policy. That user did the very right thing, searching more knowledge before writing in the article, but the bank deleted his post, thus obstructing his request for information. I have now written a long blog post about their self-editing, with ample sources and links: Exposé: Saxo Bank remove info about themselves on the web It is in Danish but you'll be able to see the Wikipedia version differences by the links marked [Se forskel] and see all edits when you click on the IP numbers. --Sasper (talk) 18:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. That is bad behaviour on their part. Let's hope that people of influence in Denmark take note of your blog posting. -- Derek Ross | Talk 21:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Can't find article on Fresh Water

"Indeed, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to collect knowledge disseminated around the globe; to set forth its general system to the men with whom we live, and transmit it to those who will come after us, so that the work of preceding centuries will not become useless to the centuries to come; and so that our offspring, becoming better instructed, will at the same time become more virtuous and happy, and that we should not die without having rendered a service to the human race."

Why if I type in "Fresh Water" into the Wikipedia search engine the result informs me of the Album name of an Australian Rock and Blues singer by the name of Alison McCallum?

Is it not incumbent on such a media as Wikipedia to consider Global life threatening issues such as available " Fresh Water " and prioritise where such facts come when search engines are being used.

--outsider (talk) 21:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia article titles are case sensitive. The article you are looking for is at Fresh water, not Fresh Water. --erachima talk 21:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out my lack of knowledge concerning the case sensitivity, but I think you may be missing the point. Maybe the majority of people surfing Wikipedia will be as uneducated as I, should VITAL Global issues rise above case sensitivity? are you really saying that if I search all other devices known to man,in the manner I did, they will offer me details on an Australian Rock and Blues band? --outsider (talk) 23:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone trying to sort global life-threatening issues should probably look harder before finding some to complain to. Had you done so, you would have found the helpful text

For other uses, see Freshwater (disambiguation).

at the top of the page. Algebraist 23:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Now you are talking, Thanks. --outsider (talk) 23:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Cultural Struggle, the Weapon of Effacement, and a Theory of Hierarchic Wikis

• GENERAL LANDSCAPE

In the ambiguous zone of cultural struggle to which falls discussion of politics, philosophy, and religion, citation for Wikipedia page construction amounts to the presentation of cultural support for bias. Where esoterica becomes so sparse as to glean insufficient cultural support in the way of books, journals, or even many web pages, the contested contributions are repeatedly created, then "edited" (effaced) by opposition factions to stubs, then removed.

• SPECIFIC EFFACEMENT TACTICS

One encroachment device serving to facilitate this is the category marker. Proliferation of the use of pejorative category identification facilitates the infringement of pages and categories with critical oversight from which this effacement may take place. Those who have a vested interest in seeing particularly targeted categories or pages effaced merely patrol the zones of their interest and repeatedly employ the Weapon of Effacement.

• INSTANCES OF DEPTH PRESENTATION OF EFFACEMENT

At least 3 instances of attempts to bringing this problem to greater light have recently been attempted here at Wikipedia. I presume that there may have been others, but how to see and recognize them is not immediately apparent to me, let alone how to address it with any deftness, or start campaigns or proposals to rectify it (i have neither the time nor the interest to do more than analyze it and comment upon it, myself). Therefore i'll point out these 3 instances here so that others might track them down somewhat if they have the interest to do so and/or use them to their advantage:

-- One instance of bringing the matter up on the Village Pump as a cite taging and culture war, along with a suggestion for a solution to this problem: edit-credits.

-- One instance of attempting to address a particular user's employment of the Weapon of Effacement, presented as an ANI-Proposal.

-- One instance of attempting to launch a protest removal of abused Pseudoscience category tags, subsequent discussion about that protest, and an explanation as to the abuse of the Pseudoscience tag as part of cultural struggle.

-- Realizing the depth of the cultural struggle ongoing at Wikipedia, another tactic was attempted in association with this problem: the placement of defensive category tags upon the categories and pages under assault. Here is the discussion of the Call for Deletion of these new tags, wherein the whole of the issue is aired with particular reference to Pseudoscience as an abused, pejorative category tag and the remedial, defensive category tag is supported.

• HIERARCHY OF WIKIS: The Bowl-Shape Wikipedia

Imagine that the ideal Wikipedia is a sphere-shape of knowledge or data. What is being created instead, by virtue of the Weapon of Effacement, is a bowl-shape of hard scientific data supporting a fuzzy or fluffy fluctuating residue of unchallenged popular culture, entertainment, and other matters which those employing the Weapon of Effacement have little interest in combatting. Repeated attempts are being made to extend this bowl toward greater depth of record and therefore toward the spherical shape of its ideal, and in some cases (at least temporarily) these extensions remain, often under a heavy burden of supporting the point of view of scientific skeptics who have infiltrated their categories and required conformance to their citation and support-standards alongside their negating evaluations.

Those who are not willing or interested in arguing with or combatting with the editors employing the Weapon of Effacement (i.e. without an investment in Wikipedia.org specifically) are gradually shifting to wiki projects that are more friendly and supportive of their interests. These, by virtue of their experimental nature and their dependence upon private individuals (rather than institutions) to support and maintain them, will of course have a fluctuating existence en par with what are called MUDs or, in general, web pages. They will come into existence, thrive for a time, and then go out of existence due to a lack of administrative/technical support or participant interest. Their GNU Licensing feature, however, makes it possible for what is constructed on these wikis to be archived and moved forward to other venues if obtained prior to their disappearance.

With the proliferation of wiki software and the growing interest in it as a means of presenting knowledge, more and more wikis are coming into and going out of existence. The more that exist, the more specialized is their application and what type of material that they are hosting. We are already seeing numerous wikis that feature the works of prominent authors, for example. These are but the preliminary wave of the type of condition which may yet come to be, along with numerous specialized wiki projects by factions whose principles or policies are different than that of Wikipedia (whether with regard to participation, such as with Citizendium and its requirement of full disclosure for participants, or with regard to article writing/editing itself, such as Kiamagic, whose premise is apparently anti-authoritarian).

Projecting into the future somewhat, and supposing that nothing about the methodology of Wikipedia will in fact change due to its momentum and the character of those assembled to pursue its aims, what will develop will be numerous wikis with differentiated protection and orientation within the zones of knowledge in which they may seek to specialize. Rather than bowl-shapes, they will assume all manner of appearance, metaphorically speaking, and be comprised of less and more coherent and supportable data as well as coverage. Due to the fact that so many of these wikis are accepting the GNU Licensing standard for text, however, this makes possible what we might call a 'meta-wiki'¹, which will effectively become a 'Best of Wikis', using the 'You Edit It' wiki backdrop as raw material to incorporate information from all of the various protected wikis operating, but excluding by editing standards and top-down direction (much like a conventional encyclopedia or other print reference source) the factional disputes and net results of the Weapon of Effacement that may be employed at any specific wiki due to cultural struggle.

• HIERARCHY OF WIKIS: Spectrum From Personal to Meta

With this in mind, contribution to wikis will perhaps change somewhat in that wiki software (or something much like it, displaying knowledge sets more adroitly) will be employed extensively and having a wiki will become as commonplace as having a web page. What will apply at that point will be what i call a 'hierarchy of wikis'. Individual users will create their own knowledge sets of varying type, quality, and extensiveness (prolific writers of encyclopedic knowledge effectively replicating or improving what has emerged from conventional wiki projects), and these may or may not accept the GNU Licensing standard of copyrights. Focussing solely on those which do, the interchange between them will reduce what we are seeing now as the employment of the Weapon of Effacement (due to our limited perspective on wikis and their importance to overall knowledge presentation) to the character of a boundary-setting device used by factions and editors to limit what is contained within any specific wiki based on its standards of knowledge vetting or inclusion.

Extending from these individual wikis operating in numerous literate places in cyberspace will be intermediate 'edited wikis' which feature collection caches from GNU Licensed personal wikis of a specialized type but which do not attempt to achieve the same level of inclusion as an encyclopedia. Up on the top of the heap of these individual and edited wikis (or at the bottom of a collection trough, if you prefer) will be what i am calling 'the meta-wiki' which attempts to actually produce the sphere ideal that Wikipedia may one day become.

• CONCLUSION

As long as Wikipedia supports and allows the employment of the Weapon of Effacement in its policies and procedures, so it will effectively exclude to other wikis those editors whose efforts might have been employed to achieve its lofty goals (and thereby lose valuable resources). Instead of a complete encyclopedia, what will be created by Wikipedia is a restricted edifice of substantial worth to a specific group of people, a helpful reference source on topics substantiated by conventional citation or so fluffy and peripheral as not to interest any in dispute.²

Let this post stand as a prophetic and referential strand between the Wikipedia that exists today, the wikis that exist in comparison to it, and the Meta-wiki that Wikipedia should eventually become. It should be seen as an interested attempt to describe or troubleshoot from a distance what it may take decades to realize and effect in pursuit of encyclopedic coverage of contested zones of knowledge. It is based on peripheral observation of the dynamics and social policies which currently exist, as well as a brief and intriguing foray into Wikipedia before moving on to wikis where esoteric data is allowed greater protection against those opposed to it.

• NOTES:

1 -- This is not to be confused with the "Meta-Wiki" which coordinates all Wikimedia projects.

2 -- This may seem to be burying an evaluation of what is ostensibly a significant problem at Wikipedia, but as there doesn't seem to be any obvious place wherein such problems might be brainstormed, and i have here no specific proposal to put forward, this will have to do. Feel free to copy this essay with proper reference to other venues should you desire, or simply make reference to it in the archives of Wikipedia's Village Pump, where it will lay indefinitely for future generations.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 18:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

At a quick skim, the above may have something to say. It seems, however, to make an awful lot of use of neologisms and imprecise jargon; I didn't have the patience to slog through it, and there seems to be nothing like an executive summary. Does someone care to provide one? - Jmabel | Talk 18:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

transplanted with additions from JMabel Talk:

* EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The current policies and atmosphere in Wikipedia are not conducive to fostering coverage of esoteric subjects in any depth. Instead, it facilitates effacement of substantative articles, using such mechanisms as hostile cite-tagging, hostile category tagging to categories and pages, and the Weapon of Effacement, by those opposed to such coverage, and those whose interests extend to esoteric topics that want to work within a wiki are making their own wikis rather than attempt to negotiate for their existence and contributions. Predictably, the result will be an array of wikis focussed and covering a variety of topics, leaving for some future 'meta-wiki' the kind of edited inclusion which should be the ideal and aim of Wikipedia. ... -- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 19:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If something is actually "esoteric," doesn't that pretty much preclude anyone with inside knowledge writing about it in an encyclopedia, in a citable manner? Conversely, certainly there is nothing to stop those people from publishing elsewhere, either in a wiki or in any other form. - Jmabel | Talk 02:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

re 'esoteric' -- see the Wikipedia org page which linked from that original essay. 'small' or 'inner' as regards the terminological portion 'eso' is relative. some esoteric subjects are very well-sourced, even by unaffiliated individuals, academics, and are broadly covered by a variety of quality interests, pro and con. there is nothing consistently which makes esotericism secret, though some of it may be so. citation is strictly possible, but it will depend on interest in keeping supportable data in Wikipedia by those who aren't exercizing hostile cite tagging, hostile category/page tagging and the Weapon of Effacement to eradicate to stubs what they oppose, ideologically (there is already Wikiversity interest in this matter, and i suspect that some portion of this message is getting through the hostile editors mentioned).

re elsewhere publishing -- very obviously so, but it is NOT in the interest of Wikipedia to see substance-contributors flee there based on hostile editing, and it is not to the public's best interest to see Wikipedia, which is given heavy weight by Google, show up above it with less substance and depth than third-party interests. we're not talking about function here but the application toward and against principles. supplementally, re 'meta-wikis' -- there appears to be one in existence already at Veropedia. I contend this is a trend that will continue in part as a response to the enabling of the Weapon of Effacement and cultural struggle as it continues unabated.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 19:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The poster appears to be complaining about the existence of Category:Pseudoscience in the most roundabout way imaginable. They also don't like {{fact}} tags because they think the demand for scientific references with regard to subjects that claim to be science is unfair. --erachima talk 19:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

tl;dr. Corvus cornix_talk 20:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Abridged version: I think the poster is complaining about mass amounts of percieved bias in articles concerning Pseudoscience. He's been doing various edits and most are deleted or removed by editors, check his contribs. Basically he's saying most editors, admins, and bureaucrats are biased and in some sort of cabal, and Wikipedia's structure does not allow opposition, as we use policies for deletion. Something about original research, too.

He cites a Village pump policy discussion and an ANI-proposal by his wife (who in turn seems to have a conflict of interest problem regarding WP:AUTO), a request for explanation of his very major editing concerning Category:Pseudoscience, a reverting of all of it because of that, a proceeding complaint about how the category is currently biased, and the creation of an "opposing" category which was deleted with an overwhelming majority, citing WP:POINT. They also have their own web pages. [1][2][3]

I strongly suggest finding someone to explain Wikipedia to him, but he has noted(at the bottom) that he is unwilling to make a bigger, perhaps proper protest due to this bias, and the tediousness of the policies. I suggest something like ANI if everyone believes that it cannot be done. Either way, I don't think this belongs here. - Zero1328 _Talk? 21:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

where does it belong?-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 19:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

tl;dr. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I already summed it up as best I could; read my version. I didn't read most of it either y'know. - Zero1328 _Talk? 22:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

In all seriousness, beyond evangelizing, the original poster doesn't propose a solution to address his perceived problem, nor ask for help developing one; what exactly do you want us to do? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 05:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If this is not the proper place where such an observation of a perceived, extensive, ongoing problem at Wikipedia may be stored and allowed to remain, for reference by interested others, then please point out where it should be moved and i'll helpfully do that. I could move it to a non-Wikipedia website (more hostile and less cooperative ventures have been undertaken by such sites as (especially) WikiTruth and WikiReview, for example), but i understand that Wikipedia may have some forum or outlet for discussion and/or consideration of such things and i am attempting to get it recorded for future reference rather than, as with the data about which i am complaining is evaporating, simply effaced from perception by those who have a vested interested in perpetuating their agenda. btw, a helpful description of this 'game' employing the Weapon of Effacement and other hostile technical tagging is a brief essay called 'What is Wikipedia)', which see.

This is in part why i didn't want to place it on the Policy, Technical, or Proposal sections of the Village Pump, because i could see that it didn't actually qualify for those spots either. Thank you for your constructive assistance.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 19:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Zero's summation, and repeat Celarnor's question: What do you want? Just that this exists? Ok, you've written it and it exists. Your userpage would have been better since you don't seem to have a solution or a request attached. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

What do i want? An end to the influential cabals in Wikipedia that Jimbo says should not exist. An equitability between Editors and Writers (esp. in the esoteric cats) such that Wikipedia doesn't continue looking like a hack and slash MUD where the content is merely being used for target practice in a game to entertain Editors. A greater accountability than Wikipedia is providing with its anonymization-support about which Larry Sanger and others have objected, left, and which enables the sock-puppetry which is being used in hegemonic cultural warfare. An end to the employment of tactics like hostile cite tagging and hostile tagging of pejorative categories or the enabling of some defensive zone wherein esoteric topics under cultural assault by convetional science apologists may be adequately covered in depth without having to provide real estate for opposing viewpoints. The termination of futile newspeak (it is Orwellian) contending that Wikipedia is not a Battleground (when it is in some places), that cabals should not exist (but they do), and that there are no rules (when there are). Those are the ones that occur to me off the top of my head that are related to this posting.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 15:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Orwell also wrote about Double-Speak. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 19:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, that is what you want. Some of those things (an end to pseudonymity, a space where fringe ideas can be described without reference to mainstream thought) are unlikely to happen as they go against very fundamental cultural aspects of this project, but others are theoretically achievable. What means do you think are most likely to achieve those ends? Naming problems at Wikipedia is trivially easy—believe it or not, you're not the first person to hit upon the MUD analogy, or the first person to get mad about "deletionism". Do you think that posting lengthy and, frankly, somewhat impenetrable sheets of text labeling other editors as "hostile elements" is the way forward? Do you think that by treating Wikipedia as a battleground yourself, you'll convince others to beat their swords into plowshares? If there's a roadmap to becoming a marginalized, foaming malcontent, then you are on what is sadly a well-trod path with a predictable terminus. Venting frustration is potentially a useful preliminary step before taking action to improve a situation; I'm wondering whether you've given thought to making that transition. MastCell ^Talk 23:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

What means do i think are likely to achieve those ends? Those within the scope of this project may be addressed by somehow bolstering writings-security in opposition to effacement. No, i don't have specific suggestions on that as i am not a programmer, but i shouldn't be expected to solve the problem(s) about which i was writing, to my understanding. If there is no solution, so be it. If a problem recurs or poses a significant roadblock to one or more of the inherent goals or principles of Wikipedia, then something may need brainstorming by those involved to problem-solve it. Having named it once and archived it may be insufficient for its resolution. I am not mad about deletionism, but i am disappointed at the likely result, and will take my writing efforts where they are better accomodated. I do think that some of the way forward is in broad overviews that only some with an ability to follow will understand, yes. I also think that 'on the ground' discussion grappling with the tools of such effacement (such as pejorative category tags -- in this case Pseudoscience -- and its proper employment on its appropriate talk page) is also conducive to refining what seem to be newly-constructed tools of editing. I am doing that, and clearly explaining my proposed solution. Multiple levels of engagement can be helpful. I know that i can't do it all myself, but i am receiving encouraging feedback and assistance from those who have similar values and areas of concern. Avoiding newspeak, calling a space a spade, is helpful in identifying problem areas and attempting to forge real solutions. Protective gear for those in the trenches might also be helpful, if possible. Thank you for your caution and your feedback. If you notice any of the problems to which i am pointing and think you have constructive suggestions for any with an interest in fixing them, please contribute that too. In good faith, -- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 22:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Questionable article title?

Calling an article "9/11 Truth Movement" bothers me. I don't know about anyone else. Northwestgnome (talk) 10:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

You could argue the article name isn't NPOV. Suggest you raise on the article talk page. AndrewRT(Talk) 22:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Neurotically Yours?

What happened to the afformentioned Wikipage?JIMfoamy1 (talk) 18:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It was deleted following this AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Ian Mathers. DuncanHill (talk) 18:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

fact mentalism?

I know Wiki editors sometimes require citations for just about everything but honestly, have you seen List_of_the_first_female_holders_of_political_offices_in_Europe? I bet a penny to a pound that we don't have citations on many of the individual articles, so why has this page got so many? Over-caution? doktorb _words^deeds 22:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I sympathise with the taggers myself - the article is asserting that these are the first female prime ministers etc so this fact should be supported by a source. AndrewRT(Talk) 22:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sources are good, especially for things like firsts of something, as these are frequently stated incorrectly. My quick glance at the page revealed at least one totally made-up person. Algebraist 22:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal of werewolf and lycanthrope

I was looking at Lycanthrope and werewolf, and figured I couldn't think of anything I would have in one article and not the other, and that the terms are synonymous. Please join in hte discussion at Talk:Werewolf#Merger_proposal. I am placing this here as I am figuring it is a pretty significant article and worth some wider consensus. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FA Template Protection Bot approved.

Hi, I have recently approved Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FA Template Protection Bot, an adminbot that has currently been running for a month. I believe that all concerns are taken care of. Please feel free to add comments. Xclamation point 03:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

DMCA demand information?

I went over to the Wikipedia Signpost for information on the recent DMCA demand that a bunch of articles be removed that named TV stations, but it hasn't been updated. Is there info anywhere? Tempshill (talk) 21:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll answer my own question; it's at [4]. Tempshill (talk) 21:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Please contribute your opinions on proposals at Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC

Is Bill Ayers a former terrorist? Is his wife, Bernardine Dohrn? Even if so, should Wikipedia say so in its articles on them? Should the term be used on related pages Weatherman (organization) and Obama-Ayers controversy? A Request for Comment page was set up at Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC "regarding whether Wikipedia should describe the Weathermen, and their various members, as "terrorists" as the RfC puts it. Sources, links to Wikipedia policies and guidelines and proposals are on that page. Please take a look and consider commenting. -- Noroton (talk) 03:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC) regarding whether Wikipedia should describe the Weathermen, and their various members, as "terrorists".

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia

Since people are using this as an attempt to silence people discussing various issues, I've written a new essay, to compliment it, and would appreciate thoughts/additions. Cheers. Majorly ^talk 09:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Uhm... no offense, but that page really doesn't seem to say much. Reminds me of something reassuringly meaningless you'd tell a little kid who was feeling picked on, perhaps concluding with the statement "now let us skip and sing!" --erachima talk 10:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't say much to you, but some people are forgetting this important fact. Majorly ^talk 14:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The essay is completely accurate and important to consider. It says that Wikipedia isn't just the thing that is being made, but is also the project which is making it. Some important parts of that project are mentioned in the essay as a way of redirecting attention to them. Thank you, Majorly.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 13:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh Wikipedia, what a nice encyclopedia you are! You always cheer me up with your fascinating facts! You're so knowledgeable, I'll bet that you're the most popular encyclopedia in town! And of course you're so much more than an encyclopedia: you're a study guide, a self-help manual; and a shoulder to lean on, too. Thank you for making the world a better place, you old bundle of bytes, you! -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

O hai Derek, good to see you about. Perhaps Wikipedia's greatest achievement is in becoming the most massive source of virtual serendipity on the planet! (link to check I've got that right, yeah, looks ok.) By a remarkable coincidence I've just added a stub on George Graves, a chap with a somewhat improbable Scottish connection. Where would we be without Wikipedia? (rhetorical question, answers like 'out on the golf links' not appreciated). As for the new essay, not sure I see the point of it, but someone somewhere will surely find it invaluable. . dave souza, talk 18:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Dave. Yes, they haven't managed to get rid of me yet! I read it too. For a complimentary essay, I thought it was a bit short on compliments. Hence my urge to add a few to this thread. Perhaps they should be added to the essay to complement the non-complimentary material. I see that George Graves is up to your usual high standard. I admire your devotion to fleshing out all Darwin's influences and contacts. My own favourite was always Patrick Matthew. I was always impressed that he outlined the theory of evolution by natural selection 30 years before Darwin as part of the appendix to a book on growing trees for shipbuilding of all things! Don't know if that counts as serendipity but it certainly counts as curious! -- Derek Ross | Talk 21:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, of course, that Wikipedia *is* an encyclopedia. The essay you wrote doesn't deny that, despite its bold title. In fact, the essay says nothing at all about why Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia or what it is, if not an encyclopedia. It's not a forum, it's not a blog, it's not a self-help guide... quite frankly, Majorly, it's a compilation of articles on many different topics for the purpose of offering factual information about those topics. In other words, it's an encyclopedia. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 18:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Where does it deny it? The title isn't "Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia". It's not just an encyclopedia. The fact we're editing this non-encyclopedia page, and discussing a non-article proves my point. Majorly ^talk 18:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see I've misinterpreted something again! Me and my big mouth... I read too fast! I missed the "just". But personally, I've never used "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" against anything other than trash articles. It doesn't apply to non-article space, IMO. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 18:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

SourcesDiffs would have been good, then we'd have known what people, and where, and when. That way we could have made an informed decision. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

A deletion debate isn't moving at all. How do we get users to pay more attention to AFDs?

There's an article I'm trying to delete - Wolgot.

In the past few days, Its AFD hasn't gotten any votes and had to be extended once because not enough people are voting on it. Therefore, could I please get more people to vote on the AFD (and maybe edit the Wolgot article, if they so choose?) --Let Us Update Special:Ancientpages. 06:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, you, or someone else categorised it under "AfD debates (Media and music)", which probably doesn't help -_- --UltraMagnus (talk) 08:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Lack of votes *is* a vote - in the sense that nobody is enranged/irritated/offended enough about the article to think it needs to be deleted. If almost nobody says 'delete it' then don't delete it. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 11:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with David on that one- close it as no consensus, defaulting to keep. Many users do participate in AfDs, but if they look at one and aren't interested one way or another, it means there's neither enough people who really think it should be kept nor enough people who really think it should be deleted. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 17:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. By that logic, we need to get rid of the WP:PROD system, as that's basically how it works. Someone tags an article for deletion, gives a rationale, and if no one refutes that rationale or provides a different rationale for keeping, it is deleted. Once challenged, the onus is on those wishing to keep something to explain why it should be kept. Mr.Z-man 17:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're absolutely backwards on this. The onus is on those wishing to delete, not save. If there's little or no support for AFD then the article should't be deleted - there does not have to be opposition to the idea. (After all, the default on no-consensus is "keep", not "delete") The problem is that any schlub can slap an AFD on any article; I've seen AFDs placed on an article three minutes - THREE MINUTES - after the article was created. Delete is too strong, too un-revert-able a process to be followed through on a whim. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Here, here, I quite agree. There's also a certain subject bias at work on the AfD pages. Specific topics seem to receive a higher proportion of AfDs, while others go almost untouched. This is particularly true of any entertainment-related topic (films, games, musicians, &c.) I'm not quite sure why. Perhaps it reflects a bias in the article generators?—RJH (talk) 20:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

And once someone provides a reason for deletion on the AFD, its up to the people who want to keep the article to refute it. Why on earth should we "listen" to people who don't care enough to leave a comment on the AFD and ignore the person who cared enough to nominate it? That's not backwards? We just assume the people that didn't make a comment want to keep it? Why? And since when is deletion unrevertable? Special:Undelete still works for me and WP:DRV seems to still be a blue link. Mr.Z-man 23:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Echo this. We should always err on the side of content, and the onus is on those providing reasons for deletion. Although, as an aside, Z-man, I do think we should get rid of PROD, as it lets things slip under the radar without actual consensus, but that's beside the point.

Since when do we need consensus for every little thing? WP:BOLD anyone? Mr.Z-man 23:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Killing off articles isn't a little thing. Consensus there, while slow, is desirable. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 00:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Articles aren't alive, they can't be killed. We delete 100s of crap pages a day. Are you willing to discuss them all? If not, please don't make unreasonable suggestions. Mr.Z-man 05:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

<Outdent> I am having a similar problem with regard to categories and their removal from usage (specifically that of Category:Pseudoscience), as i have entered into the Talk page and everybody else has gone silent as i have begun to disagree with them and propose alternatives to what was going on based on my understanding of the subject and my dispute with an arbitration on policy implementation by 8 Wikipedians ruling 7-1 on 5 areas of dispute in the category's application. What does it mean? Does their lack of dispute mean they agree or that i am out of line to continue discussing it with them based on my position? I am about to proceed effecting my 'Second Call' items to which nobody has objected and guess i will find out for myself. Unlike the deletion of articles, the removal of categories may be done by ordinary Wikipedians.

You've mentioned PROD, but this requires a 'Second' and so you have to at least have 2 agreeing Wikipedians to effect it. You've also mentioned Deletion Reviews, and yet it seems that in order to effect the change you need more than one person refuting the deletion to continue it, and if nobody does so, then the outcome would seem to be that the deletion should be made.

In general, the Deletion Policy for articles is such that Administrators undertake to effect or revert it based on consensus. If no consensus is being reached due to a lack of input, then the Administrator would presumably refrain from acting to implement the proposed change. If you can't get people to 'pay attention' (attend) to your arguments for deletion, then i gather you have no force to persuade any article deletion whatever.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 17:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Splitting an article into two (or possibly three)

Looking at Graham, I would like to split it into a "proper" disambig page (Graham (disambiguation)) and a page for the given name Graham (Graham (name) or Graham (given name)). Graham (surname) already exists. Two questions:

1. What is the right way to split a page into multiple pages (possibly leaving a dismabig page at the original title) without infringing the GFDL terms, and
2. Is there a consenus about how name pages are titled? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The safest way to ensure GFDL compliance here is to start each subarticle with an edit summary of "(splitting [describe content] from Graham)"; for example for Graham (given name), "splitting given names from Graham".

Naming conventions for dismbiguation pages are covered at Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Page_naming_conventions and at WP:NC. If those don't help, ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation, or take a look at the actual conventions in Category:Disambiguation pages and pick one you like. Hope this helps, the skomorokh 13:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:NC was the first place I looked before coming here. I don't think you'll be surprised to learn that it doesn't seem to cover given and surnames. I'll ask at the disambig project talk page. Thanks for your suggestions. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

You don't need a Graham (given name) to disambiguate, just use special prefix: All pages with titles beginning with Graham and All pages with titles beginning with Graeme. If you follow that, you can see there's too many for a disambig page anyway, and almost impossible to maintain. I've put this on the Graham page. The old version can be accessed through the page history if you do ever find a use for the limited and incomplete list previously there. Gwinva (talk) 05:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

One and only one Julianna?

Currently Julianna is redirected to Uliana of Tver without providing any link to other possible Julianna. It doesn't look like the conventional practice in Wikipedia. --Quest for Truth (talk) 08:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

It's now a disambiguation page. If you find things like this in the future, feel free to make the changes yourself. Gwinva (talk) 22:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Images of Vehicles (cars, buses)

Hi there. I am just wondering if we need to censor the license plates of the cars/buses in an image for privacy concerns? Thanks --Jackl 08:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm always amused by what to me seems to be totally spurious "privacy concerns". If you ever take your car out onto a public street or road anybody can see the licence plate, so what is the big deal? The same rubbish is spouted about security cameras in cities: "Invasion of privacy!!" some people shout. Then I ask "Since when is anything you do on a public street a private act?" Roger (talk) 14:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

"Drinking Cool Aid"

Question moved to Reference desk, where there are editors to answer these sorts of questions. This page is for issues relating to wikipedia. Gwinva (talk) 08:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikis Take Manhattan October 4

News you can use if you live or work in the Northeast US...

Wikis Take Manhattan Next: Saturday October 4

Wikis Take Manhattan is a scavenger hunt and free content photography contest aimed at illustrating Wikipedia and StreetsWiki articles covering sites and street features in Manhattan and across the five boroughs of New York City. The event is based on last year's Wikipedia Takes Manhattan, and has evolved to include StreetsWiki this year as well.

LAST YEAR'S EVENT

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan/Spring 2008 (a description of the results, and the uploading party)
• Commons:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan/Gallery (our cool gallery)

PRIZES Prizes include a dinner for three with Wikipedia creator Jimmy Wales at Pure Food & Wine, gift certificates to Bicycle Habitiat and the LimeWire Store, and more!

I hope you can make it to the new time, and bring a friend (or two)!--Pharos (talk) 00:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Man.... I wish I lived in Manhattan. - Icewedge (talk) 00:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The Need for a WIKI Vocabulary

WikiPoke: Def. To forward a Wikipedia entry to someone

WikiWork: Def. Homework done by copying sections from Wikipedia

WikiPert: Def. Person with pretensions of expertise on a subject base on reading a Wikipedia article

etc.

82.81.159.95 (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Rube Vogel

WikiSpeak: the already-existing WIKI Vocabulary. the skomorokh 16:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hm. I didn't know about that one, but it seems redundant to Wikipedia:Glossary. Corvus cornix_talk 22:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Erm... read the two different entries on 3RR. Night and day differences between those two pages. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw after reading further.  :) Corvus cornix_talk 00:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately, one is serious (glossary) and one is humorous (wikispeak), so it's not critical that entries be very similar. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Question

Someone can answer to these questions? --Superchilum^{(talk to me!)} 07:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you're not getting much of a response. You might try the help desk. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Need help with advanced wikitext

Hi all. This is probably not the exact correct place to ask; but then where is? I want to know the wikicode for the expanded "plus" (+) signs on the following page +. I have checked the source but can't see where the code is transcluded from?!? Any help would be most welcome! Cheers :-) fr33kman _s 03:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

They're just bolded plus signs, aren't they? What's the problem? Algebraist 11:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Out of interest, how would one view the source of those plusses? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Categorytree-expand-bullet. Algebraist 11:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, how do they expand? The code on the meta page is simply [<b>+</b>] true, but how exactly do you get them to expand when you click on them? Cheers fr33kman -s- 17:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

It's done with Javascript, I believe. See mw:Extension:CategoryTree. Algebraist 16:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much! I can use that page, cheers! :-) fr33kman -s- 22:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Posting HTML-3 Logo on Home Page.

Hey, guys, I had a question. How do I put the HTML-Level 3 sign on my home page? TheMathinator (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

If you're talking about your user page, the issues are (a) is the logo in the public domain or licensed as free content (if not, the answer is you can't); (b) assuming the logo is public domain/free content, has it been uploaded to Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Commons; and (c) do you know how to create a link to an uploaded image? (You'll find my information, under "copyrights" and "images", in the editor's index).

Also, a better place to ask such questions is the help desk. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Let me go to the help desk. TheMathinator (talk) 19:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Great articles

What is wikipedia's greatest article? If there is no clear winner, what are the contenders for the title? Lucas Brown 42 (talk) 20:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The articles which have assessed as the best are listed at WP:FA. Corvus cornix_talk 20:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say Odwalla, but that's a bit biased on my part. ;) Intothewoods29 (talk) 23:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Elephant, of course! The only Wikipedia article so great, it had another article written about it! --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 05:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Taube in Polish?

Bizarrely, the article Taube (which lists people with the surname "Taube") (and so the de:Taube article) has an interwiki link to pl:Gołąb. A polish speaking person can confirm it's an mistake? --Serged (talk) 15:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The German article (correctly) has links to both Taube and pl:Gołąb ("Gołąb" and "Taube" both mean "pigeon" or "dove"), and so the interwiki bots think that those two pages should also link to each other (incorrectly). You should remove the Polish interwiki link from Taube, and hope the interwiki bots don't interfere. (Or use {{nobots}}). -- Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 16:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Featured list contest

A Featured List contest has been proposed to drum up some interest in writing WP:LISTS and nominating them at WP:FLC. Hopefully it will get some interest in the process and provide users with a challenge, as most will be working with lists in topics that they have previously done little work with. It will also help populate some of the under-represented FL categories. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

What do I do?

Hi. A warning is going around about two users, SkyWriter (Tim) and -LisaLiel who have - though warned not to - adamantly defended their right to change material that has been agreed on by those contributing to articles. I have noticed that several members have contributed to the YHWH article and feel that though several discussions have been taken place, recently, these two members have still tried to go against such a consensus. The consensus was that at least two sentences should be included about the Name Yahweh on the YHWH article. This warning has gone to several other [members]. Your input would be greatly appreciated as this behaviour by these two members is not justifyable or reasonable. Thank you. Kurdle12 (talk) 11:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Also they've been deleting huge chunks out of other articles, and they do so very slyly. I would appreciate if these action could be reversed, as several members are tired of the lack of discussion and poor initiative these members are taking to push their own POV forward:

• [5]
• [6]
• [7] etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurdle12 (talk • contribs) 12:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC) Kurdle12 (talk) 12:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You're very much in the wrong place; see our policy on dispute resolution for the various options you should consider. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Self-fulfilling verifiability

Cross-posting from WT:V#Self-fulfilling verifiability - raising an issue there that may be of interest to watchers of this page Fritzpoll (talk) 10:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Footprints in the sand

When I was young I wrote a sort of poem titled "FOOTPRINTS IN THE SAND". It became popular and then several thieves began claiming it. Their outrageous claims appear on your Wikipedia web site and when I tried repeatedly to correct the falsifications by telling the truth and supporting my truth with the results of a high level polygraph test which I passed in the range of NDI (no decite indicated). My polygraph test results were edited out and I was mostly removed from your site and then the edit capability was blocked. The predjucial conduct of your action has discouraged me from any further consideration of supporting donations to your project until you correct this deliberate mis-conduct.24.21.45.224 (talk) 00:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC) 24.21.45.224 (talk) 00:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.45.224 (talk) 00:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as there is an awful lot of question about the actual reliability of polygraphs, coupled with the fact that nobody has any idea who you truly are on the Internet, no, I personally refuse to "correct this deliberate mis-conduct". Several possible authors have been laid out in the article (which one are you, by the way?) and there is no conclusive proof that any of them actually wrote it. They all say they did and provide evidence to support their claims, but obviously not all of them are right. Thus, we cannot say "so-and-so did it for sure" simply on the hearsay of an anonymous person with no actual facts. An uncited polygraph doesn't count. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 05:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately for your case, a polygraph test does not supercede verifiability, one of our core policies. Besides, the article doesn't even state a definite author, and to just add you immediately would likely cause a similar discontent from the other people in your position, albeit probably with different evidence. — neuro 10:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

How is wikipedia organized?

Is it alphabetical? Or by Classified/topical categories? This is for a paper and I can't quite figure out the concept... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.68.253 (talk) 17:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a database that can be acessed in any order. There are various organisation schemes (categories and alphabetical) but those are not that significant to the underlying database.Geni 18:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The existing organizational schemes used on Wikipedia are generally based on categories (see Wikipedia:Categorization) and cross references (links). There are also interwiki links between articles about the same topic in different languages. We also in some article use infoboxes to supply many links to related articles. There is a complete alphabetical listing available at Special:Allpages, and it uses a hierarchy to help you narrow down on the area of the alphabet you want, but it's rarely used compared to other schemes. Dcoetzee 23:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It is organized into two piles: 1) Those articles containing references to The Simpsons; 2) those articles to which such references have not yet been added (a much smaller pile). - DavidWBrooks (talk) 00:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not 'organised' as such. We have a series of lists (called categories) which are indeed listed alphabetically, including subcategories. For an example of this, go to somewhere like Category:Hip hop albums. Aside from categories, there is Special:Allpages, and that lists all the pages in alphabetical order. — neuro 09:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Treatment of fascism

It seems to me that repeatedly when the topic of fascism or Nazism arises in Wikipedia, the mainstream view that these are right-wing ideologies takes the back seat to a minority view held mainly by people whose ideology descends from Austrian School economics (which places fascism and Nazism on the left). I noticed this most recently in the far right article, but I've noticed it over time in about half a dozen others. Seems to me like a matter of undue weight. Yes, I'm aware the Mussolini was an ex-socialist, as were several other people around him, but the operative part of that is "ex". Yes, I can also quote examples of the Nazis claiming to be the true socialists, and yes the Nazi party had "Socialist" as part of its name, but if I call a duck 'Fido', it still doesn't make it a dog. - Jmabel | Talk 06:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

This posting is very much in the wrong place; see our policy on dispute resolution for the various alternatives open to you when you disagree with the content of articles. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I suspect jmabel, having been around here longer than the rest of us put together, already knows all about those places :) but I am still not sure where to go with this idea. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 04:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

How to get more editors involved with behind-the-scenes WP issues without spamming watchlist-notice

A significant RFC (trying to resolve issues with it once and for all) for WP:N was put up at the start of September, and announced across as many public notice boards as possible (the VP's, WP:N's page and the subnotability guidelines, and many project pages affected by notability). Up to about 4 days ago, about 20-30 editors responded and various debates ensued. Before we started the RFC we asked at Mediawiki:watchlist-notice if we could include this RFC for the watchlist and it was agreed; it just wasn't added until 4 days ago. Since that point , we've had well over 100 editors get involved, with more continuing to come.

Clearly, there seems to be a problem encouraging editor participation in such critical issues. I know that our policies for consensus suggest that silence is a valid response, but clearly it wasn't that people were silent, they just didn't know until this noticed popped up on top of the watchlist. Now, I completely agree that spamming the watchlist-notice is not a good thing, but if the only way to catch editors eyes to issues that are significant across all areas of WP, then either we're not doing a good job letting editors know these exists, or editors aren't watching the right pages to know these exist.

Short of more watchlist spamming, is there a way we can counter this? It's hard to force editors to watch pages, but we need to encourage them somehow. (In the specific case of WP:N, until the big input push of the last few days, it was the same 20-30 people that have been trying to work this out for the last year-ish, so really it was a dead end in discussion and I feel a consensus gained from that would not have been acceptable to the community at large; the larger input is defintely a boon here). --MASEM 20:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

For the benefit of those like me to whom "WP:N" is gobbledygook, this is about Wikipedia:Notability. - Jmabel | Talk 00:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It might help if you gave us a link to the discussion. Corvus cornix_talk 19:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I finally found it at Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise. My syggestions: List it at the proposals village pump and Wikipedia:Centralized discussion. --Apoc2400 (talk) 09:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

But that's the thing, we did list it at all these places at the very start, and yes, it gained maybe 3-4 editors that weren't part of the discussion before. Only until the watchlist notice hit did the responses pour in. It is clear editors pay attention to what's on top of their watchlist, but either overlook WP-level pages or fail to have them included on their watchlist. --MASEM 12:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

You could encourage more widespread use of {{cent}} on user pages. --Eliyak T·C 06:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

For notability and other big proposals, you might post quickly on the mailing list as well. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 04:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Voting on a Move Request

It has been proposed to move Objectivism (Ayn Rand) → Objectivism.

The argument has been made that the Objectivism (Ayn Rand) is the primary topic for Objectivism. Those supporting the move are saying yes it is a primary topic, and those opposing the move seem to be disregarding this argument and raising concerns about the definition of Objectivism.

My question is: should the voting be strictly on if the primary topic argument holds up (the evidence is sufficient or not) or is raising other concerns and imposing other criteria within the larger community consensus on wikipedia policy for making a primary topic move?

Thanks, Move supporter Karbinski (talk) 21:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. Voting doesn't resolve things here, Consensus does. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 21:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

And how, you ask, do we know what the consensus is, if not by voting? Ah, that's what makes wikipedia so entertaining! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 22:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

"We" know what consensus is by discussion, not by voting. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually those opposing are using all the criteria for primary subject not just the one that supports your view Karbinski. How many places are you going to post this without telling engaged editors? --Snowded TALK 17:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I am starting to lose count. Karbinski has now raised the issue twice at the [Village Pump] as well as at the [DIsruptive User talk page] and with the [Mediation Cabal].KD Tries Again (talk) 19:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Bottlecap shooting

I am not sure what to do about this. This seems to have some following since I am able to see some youtube videos. Can this be categorised as an original research?

And speedily deleted - go ahead. (What's next, a how-to guide for conkers?) - DavidWBrooks (talk) 23:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

David, we need your views on the talk page now. Author is opposing the deletion there. --Anshuk (talk) 01:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

And there's a posting at WP:AFD now... Everyone might as well comment there. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Aural alerts in modern aircraft

I am looking for a list (preferrably at Wikipedia!) and sound (provided by Wikimedia) which gives an overview of electrical or mechanical alert sounds. Examples:

• Autopilots
  • "Whoop Whoop", advises the pilot to pull up the aircraft (listen)
  • "Bingo Bingo" warning, goes off in F-16 Fighting Falcon cockpits to alert pilots of low fuel (listen)
  • Announcing the distance from RWY while landing — "100, 50, 20, RETARD! RETARD!" or similar (listen)
  • Autopilot Disconnect warning (listen)
  • "Evacuate! Evacuate!" advise (listen)
  • "Bee-Bop Windshear!" warning (listen)
  • "Terrain! Terrain! Pull up!" warning
  • Master Caution Alert
  • Fire bells (electronic/mechanical)
• Intercom
  • "Ging Gong" chime, Flight attendant call
  • and many more

Most sound is not standardized, it varies upon the aircraft companies and the components they use.

Who could create such text and/or sound, or where do I post a request at Wikipedia?

Thanks, --Scriberius (talk) 14:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia isn't a directory or an indiscriminate collector of information. We generally don't take requests to create pages that are simply lists of things that someone is interested in.

You might try the reference desk; perhaps someone knows of a website that collects these. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

→ Bitching Betty/Bitching Bob (but w/o sound)

@John: Thanks for your advise. --Scriberius (talk) 00:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

New essay

I've had some requests in the past to create a WP:SAUCE, or Wikipedia:Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, essay, since I've referred to the principle in question sometimes in my discussions. I've finally created it... enjoy! *Dan T.* (talk) 02:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Haesuus.jpg

The uploading editor has released Image:Haesuus.jpg under the GFDL license, but is this not a copyright violation of the American Idol logo? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 21:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The best place to list this image (and get someone to assess it) is at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Phishing site?

Is wikipedia.tv a phishing site? I posted this on the help desk also. Please tell me! 75.175.127.114 (talk) 03:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Please don't post in multiple places at the same time; it results in duplicate work. If you don't get results in one place after a couple of days, then is when it's okay to post elsewhere.

At the risk of duplicating what the help desk said, this posting implies that the wikipedia.tv domain was owned by Bomis in 2001. And given that it appears to be a total redirect (a google search using site:wikipedia.tv returns no results), I'd guess that it's now owned by the Wikimedia Foundation. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

George Wallace's 1963 Inaugural Address

Is George Wallace's 1963 Inaugural Address copyrighted? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 02:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I would imagine so. Even if it isn't, it's not the sort of thing that should be on Wikipedia. If it is public domain it should be moved to WikiSource. Otherwise it should be deleted. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Wallace's 1963 Inaugural Address. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it just me or has Wikipedia been running slow?

Is it just me or has Wikipedia been running slow? Lightmouse (talk) 17:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• I noticed it also recently. Seems to stay in READ longer before displaying a screen. Broadband connection, same as before. — Becksguy (talk) 17:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

div background-image in wikipedia

Hi, i don't know is this the right place to post this question or not but can someone help me please,
I want know how i can use background-image with adjustable transparency in DIV tags here in wikipedia; or any other way that i can use background-image inside a frame.   ■ MMXX^talk  19:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC) PS. a same message is also posted in Wikipedia:Help desk

Please don't post a question in multiple places simultaneously. If you don't get a good response at the help test, try the Technical page of the Village Pump, rather than the Miscellaneous page. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Scavenger Hunt

In order to complete the Wikipedia Scavenger Hunt, i am posting a comment here at the pump. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.187.0.164 (talk) 22:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd say you fail. Sorry, better luck next time. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Changing image names on Wikipedia

Because there is no 'page move' for the renaming of images on Wikipedia, could somebody please tell me how to change the names of images which I originally uploaded to Wikipedia and which I have now transferred to Wikimedia Commons. Thank you. While I now realise that I should have changed the name of the image for Wikimedia Commons, I originally unfortuately thought that I had to use identical names when transferring images, and this had led to the problem of duplicated image files on both Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. I would be grateful for any help regarding this. Figaro (talk) 18:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The only way to rename an image is to reupload it with a different name and delete the original. But why do you want to move it, anyway? If there's an exact copy on the commons, the image on Wikipedia should be deleted. Algebraist 19:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I will see what I can do about having the duplicated images deleted on Wikipedia. All the best. Figaro (talk) 21:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a template for this, I cannot recall what it is (Twinkle has it, but it is disabled on my account for the moment due to me being a new user). — neuro^(talk) 10:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

From Images for Deletion: "Redundant or duplicate images do not have to be listed here. Please use

1. {{isd|Full name of image excluding the "Image:" prefix}} for speedy deletion if the other image is on Wikipedia, not on Commons
2. {{subst:ncd|image name on Commons}} if the image now exists on Commons, or {{subst:ncd}} for images with the same name on Commons" Rmhermen (talk) 01:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Correcting references to processor names e.g. [[8086]] ->[[Intel 8086|8086]]

There is an article title Intel 8086 and it redirects from '8086'. I am thinking of writing a bot that will find any instance of [[8086]] and replace it with [[Intel 8086|8086]]. I would do the same for other digit-only references such as '6800'. It is relatively easy to create the code.

However, I am not a processor-nerd so I would either:

• offer the entire task to somebody else who knows more about processor terminology and about bots.
• work as the bot author in collaboration with somebody that knows about processor terminology

Any comments? Lightmouse (talk) 13:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I could help but I couldn't give a complete list. Mike92591 (talk) 19:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Your help would be welcome, even for an incomplete list. For example, a list of source name ('xxxx') and target name ('Acme xxxx') would be useful. I could then set the bot free. I could then refer people to you if they said "Actually, the full name of the 'xxxx' processor referred to in that article at that time is 'Emca xxxx'". Lightmouse (talk) 21:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Just saw one of these edits; isn't this going against WP:R2D? JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 14:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

A fair question but I am not doing this just for the sake of it. I am doing it because people are delinking 4 digit years and 4 digit processor names come up as false positives. You could say that the people delinking years should work around it but since they are redirects anyway, fixing them is easier. Lightmouse (talk) 14:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

You might want to drop a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

What are you suggesting I say? Lightmouse (talk) 21:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll be making a list at User:Mike92591/list of numbers that do not link to dates and their fixes. Mike92591 (talk) 20:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I went through that list and I think I have converted them all. Unfortunately some editors reverted one or two instances of what I did. Lightmouse (talk) 09:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

A special rule to cite a book?

I noticed that in the article List of possible exceptions to the democratic peace theory, the page number of a citation is written after the </ref> tag. For example:

“ <ref name="WEART98">{{cite book | author=Weart, Spencer R. | title=Never at War | publisher=Yale University Press | year=1998 | id=ISBN 0-300-07017-9 }}</ref> p. 253-254. ”

I supposed that the pages parameter of {{cite book}} should be used like this:

“ <ref name="WEART98">{{cite book | author=Weart, Spencer R. | title=Never at War | publisher=Yale University Press | year=1998 | id=ISBN 0-300-07017-9 | pages=p. 253-254}}</ref> ”

A significant number of reference is written in such style, leading me to think that there should be a reason behind. But even if they all need to be corrected, the correction will be quite time-consuming. --Quest for Truth (talk) 16:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Its just a matter of personal style, probably depending on which normal citation format the editor is used to (MLA, APA, Chicago, etc.). I don't think either one is "wrong" to the point that it would need to be corrected. The problem with the citation templates and the <ref name="Foo"> is that if you set page numbers in the main ref, there's no way to change them for other refs to the same book. So if one book is used heavily throughout an article, you can just include all the page numbers in the first citation (|pages=1-250), though that's not particularly helpful. But if you use <ref name="Foo"> to refer to the same book, there's no way to provide any information that's not the in the original ref (page numbers used to cite a specific piece), short of putting it outside the ref tag. Mr.Z-man 17:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Another option is to use the {{Rp}} template, which puts the page numbers in superscript, right next to the footnote number. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

might be historical reasons. For a long time pages wasn't a parameter in the short version of the template.Geni 23:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It's better to use the {{Rp}} template in this case then, as the page numbers should be superscript for higher readability. --Quest for Truth (talk) 15:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Clean-up tags

Just thought people might like to know the number of new clean-up tags SmackBot is picking up on a daily basis seems to be falling gradually, from around 1000 a year ago to around 600 now. Maybe the project is approaching stability, slowly. Rich Farmbrough, 09:02 9 October 2008 (UTC).

Either that or our standards are lower... --DerRichter (talk) 19:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Or SmackBot's standards are lower.  :) Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 01:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Does the bot only pick up articles that weren't categorised by date when tagged? If so it could just be a sign that people are adding the date parameter themselves. Hut 8.5 19:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Citations needed

I thought that when an article was tagged with {{Fact|date=October 2008}}, it was automatically put into a category along the lines of: "All articles needing citations" or something of that sort. Has that policy been changed or was it just a figment of my imagination? Thanks. --DerRichter (talk) 19:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a hidden category. See also: Wikipedia:Categorization#Maintenance categories Nifboy (talk) 01:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Reliable reference

in this article Egyptians there are some references which needs to be verified if they are reliable because they are used to promote exceptional claims and these sources are:

• http://www.islamreview.com/aboutus.htm#background
• http://www.copts.com/english/
• http://www.almasry-alyoum.com/article2.aspx?ArticleID=61604

Please see Talk:Egyptians for further details. Egyptian lion (talk) 10:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

new portal

Hello! visit a new portal and contribute!

--Dimorsitanos (talk) 18:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

How to cite wikipedia as a whole?

How would I cite Wikipdia (for a formal paper) as a whole? Not just a page/article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.68.253 (talk) 15:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Why would you need to cite Wikipedia as a whole? That makes no sense. If you are doing a scholarly paper, you would cite the specific passages that support the statements you are making in your paper. You should always be as specific as possible when citing something; for print works this means you would want the page numbers you found the cited information on. If you could let us know what sort of information you are trying to cite, we may be able to help you. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure. How would you cite a web site? I suppose you could give authors as "Numerous", list the date as a range (2001–), title "Wikipedia" and publisher as "Wikimedia Foundation, Inc."—RJH (talk) 19:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Recentisation

If that even a word, I'm not sure.

I'm not sure if I'm putting this in the right place, but here goes, I'm sure if I'm not someone will be kind enough to point me in the right direction.

I think the use of the word recent (and simular ones) needs cracking down on on Wikipedia. People use it so often, but after a while it becomes redundant. I read alot of football (soccer to any Americans reading) articles and people will put stuff like this for example (this didn't happen it's just the first player and team that came to mind) - Robinho recently signed for Manchester City for a fee of £32m. Well for how long is the word recent relevant for? A week a month a year? Do they come back and correct it? Not likely. What wrong with using the date?

One I saw yesterday, which was the one that prompted me to write this was on the G7 page. Some had put "The G7 held their most recent meeting on 10 April in Washington DC" which I suppose is fair enough, it will be their most recent meeting until they hold another, but the someone followed it up with, " They held another meeting on 10 October........etc" Thats awful! That means someone has come on addressed the fact that someone has already mentioned the Washington meeting and there is a line about and it say recent, and then proceded to just add the next line, seemingly oblivious to the fact that the word recent become completly redundant the moment you add the next line.

I probably sound like I'm ranting, but I've seen so much of it it's starting to annoy me. I try and change what I see, but I can't see it all. So hopefully me writing this will help other editor pay more attention to it, and remove it.

JimmyMac82 (talk) 09:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like you agree with Wikipedia:Avoid statements that will date quickly. Algebraist 09:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Aha! Cheers. I was never aware of this page. Thing is thats all well and good, but seems people don't pay much attention to it. JimmyMac82 (talk) 09:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I usually put a tag on such statements if I don't have a source for the date. Roger (talk) 09:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

News Channel and News channel

News Channel redirects to NewsChannel (one of names of U.S. local news cast) while News channel redirects to News broadcasting. -- JSH-alive ^(talk)_(cntrbtns)^{(mail me)} 15:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

News channel is a disambiguation page that includes a link to NewsChannel, if the user is trying to get there. If the user types "News Channel" with capitalizations, he is likely trying to get to NewsChannel, and so he gets sent there directly. But if he wasn't trying to do that, the note at the top of the article has a link to the disambiguation page. It all looks good to me. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 22:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Worst Article EVER!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Second_World_War_(Churchill) A whole MESS of supposition, conjecture, and unsupported critique. That article is essentially a rant. The critical conjecture in it should be supported with source materials, the pastiches of facts should have supporting articles as well. Its a 750 word article without a single supporting reference. Nor is there a single mention of the Nobel Prize that the 6 books were largely responsible for him winning. No wonder academics like me think of Wikipedia as best suited for cataloging episodes of Three's Company. 71.102.49.157 (talk) 02:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice about this article; I've tagged it with several tags that will hopefully draw editors in to work on it. You're more than welcome to edit the article yourself to bring it more into standard, if you'd like - this is a volunteer project, as I'm sure you know, and sometimes it takes an editor with knowledge of the subject to improve articles on topics that not everyone might know about. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Homophobic?

Could someone take a look at Talk:Jerome Corsi#Homophobic?? There seems to be a difference of opinion. Thanks. Redddogg (talk) 05:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Happy Sukkos!

float

To all my (es)rogue admin and (lu)loved editor friends, have a happy Sukkos! Don't be a stranger, all guests — Jew or Gentile — are always welcome in the sukkah! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 13:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Long Articles

What is Wikipedia's longest article? Lucas Brown (talk) 18:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Special:Longpages. Hut 8.5 18:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Toyota Land Cruiser FJ40 VIN Search

I have my original paperwork for a 1970 FJ40 that I bought new off the showroom floor from The Sports Car Center, Cathedral City, CA on Feb. 23, 1971. It shows VIN: FJ40-088053. I’m wondering if anyone knows of a registry for these old numbers that might help me track down my long ago sold vehicle (I only kept it for a year - stupid me)? FYI, with tax the total price was… $3.686.30. Those were the days, eh? Of course I was only earning $3.60 an hour. Thanx, Ross – Irvine CA —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpinyan (talk • contribs) 18:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Questions like this belong at the reference desk. Hut 8.5 18:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Saint Paul's

Question moved to the reference desk, who are more likely to provide the answer. Follow link to read replies. Gwinva (talk) 01:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I am an Italian wikipedia user, and I need help from English mothertongue.

Question moved to the reference desk, who are more likely to provide the answer. Follow link to read replies. Gwinva (talk) 01:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

What happens when a user page becomes part of the story?

I was going to leave this alone, but I thought I should ask

Here's the story. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/en:Wikipedia:Press_coverage#August

• Cohen, Noam (2008/08/31). "Don't Like Palin's Wikipedia Story? Change It". The New York Times. Retrieved 2008/09/02. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)

  Many edits, of a generally positive nature, appeared on Sarah Palin's Wikipedia page in the day before she was named John McCain's running mate, by YoungTrigg (sic: the actual username is User:Young Trigg). The article discusses suspicions of whether YoungTrigg may have been a staff person for the campaign:

"The coincidence of the user’s name, and the sudden spurt of activity just before news broke of Mr. McCain’s choice, has raised suspicions that YoungTrigg was a campaign operative tasked to make sure that her Wikipedia article was ready for prime time, much as handlers have been assigned to do the same for the candidate."

After reading the whole story, I checked the facts myself, and I found evidence that the user actually acted as if he was a complete beginner, lying to other people which made it obvious for me that he was a campaign operative. I wrote in the talk page a comment "I can't assume good faith anymore" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AYoung_Trigg&diff=241140887&oldid=238734769 Then I left the page alone.

However later the user Young Trigg, supposedly retired, changed all his talk page, eliminating all the critical opinions, including mine http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AYoung_Trigg&diff=242435781&oldid=241995988

I kind of dislike the fact that my comments, which I fully believe were not vandalism and that I wasn't harassing anybody, were eliminated. Right now, if anybody wants to check the controversy, they won't find anything except by checking the history page.

So my question is this, can any user do whatever it wants with its talk page, even if that talk page becomes part of the story? I have heard that usually that's correct, but I wanted, if it's OK, confirmation

I'm guessing this is kind of a touchy subject, considering the US elections, but I thought I should ask. I haven't done anything in the Sarah Palin article, btw. --Quijote3000 (talk) 23:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally speaking, after looking at the edits in question, I didn't get the impression that Young Trigg was either a beginner or related to the campaign, and I think the news stories were ridiculous and unfounded. But opinions aside, I think users do have the right to remove messages from their talk pages. It's unfortunate that casual browsers might not know enough to check the history, but I do agree that it's still the right of usersto remove comments on their talk pages. If it was official notices (block notices, for example) by an admin, then I'd say it should be left there, but otherwise, it's really up to them. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 18:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It's generally accepted that users can remove comments from their user pages. Removing block notices and rejected unblock requests while still blocked may be frowned upon, but that's about it. --Tango (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Correct. See Wikipedia:User page#Removal of comments, warnings. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Capitalization question

MOS:CAPS does not answer my question. The album obZen is officialy not written with capital "o". It is just "obZen". Should it be at the beginning of a sentence with capital "O" or not? obZen is blah blah? ObZen is blah blah? Can at the beginning of a sentence be a word with a lower case letter?--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 14:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you just missed it: see MOS:CAPS#Mixed or non-capitalization. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 15:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah...but there is still an ambiguity. Does the "iPod rule" for "trademarks beginning with a one-letter lowercase prefix" cover obZen? Can it be expanded for "trademarks beginning with a two-letter lowercase prefix"? Or is it more like the "adidas"? The term "obZen" is a fusion of the words "obscene" and "Zen".--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 16:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

You may get more interest (responses) if you posted at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (capital letters) rather than here. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

How else should I contribute this article?

I already added 2 things to it. I don't think I've been the first person whose worked at it in years! lol This is the article: Hurr —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.72.25.210 (talk) 01:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I took a look at your changes, and unfortunately they weren't really helpful to the article. A few issues: you added an unrelated trivial section to an article on a specific topic, signed your contributions in the middle of the text, and while your intent to change a name throughout may have been good, it's probably something that should be discussed first - and your spelling of the name changed as you went through the article. I have reverted your changes, and suggest you take a look at how to edit for some good tips. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

You can click on the history tab in the article to see who else has edited it and when. Rmhermen (talk) 16:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Help with possibly innocent pseudo spam

Yesterday some other users (with whom I have not discussed this) and I discovered that a number of Judaism-related articles had been edited by an IP 80.58.205.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to include references to a two-volume, Spanish language, self-published book on Jewish history. These mentions include a mention of lulu.com, a vanity publisher. Today I got a User_talk:Steven_J._Anderson#IP_80.58.205.101 long post on my talk page from the same person at another IP telling me that he's the author of the book and why he wants to make these edits. He seems to be perfectly polite and respectful.

Here's why I'd like some help responding to him.

• His native language is Spanish, a language I do not read or write. I think it would be better to communicate with him in Spanish
• The reasons his edits are not good are a little complicated WP:EL doesn't really apply because he didn't really create an external link, just included the URL as text. I suppose it's a combination of WP:NOTE and WP:WEIGHT, along with WP:RS.
• He says that he tried to create an account on Spanish Wikipedia but was unable to do so. Perhaps someone can help him with that.
• I just don't have the energy to deal with it today. He seems honest and well-intentioned and probably deserves a response faster than I can get to it.

If anyone can help with this, I'd appreciate it. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

A WP contributor cannot use his own book as a source because that violates the No Original Research rule which is absolutely fundamental to the integrity of Wikipedia. Anyone else is naturally welcome to use his book. Roger (talk) 17:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it's fine to cite yourself, as long as you would be considered a reliable source. Self-published books usually aren't. Hut 8.5 21:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, WP:V#Non-English sources applies.

If you don't get any help here (with regards to an editor who speaks Spanish getting involved) you might try Wikipedia:Babel and/or Category:Available translators in Wikipedia. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Dablink

Those {{dablink}} templates seem like a nuisance to me, as they just clutter up the hatnote area and are likely of little interest to most visitors. Is there a way to only make them appear when a visitor arrives at the article by way of the associated redirect? Thank you.—RJH (talk) 17:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Short answer: No. Long answer: No, when you go to a redirect, it just adds the little "Redirected from" note and then gives the full content of the redirect, and that's it. The only way you could do something like that, I think, would be to transclude the article like a template rather than redirecting, and then either adding the dab template to the redirect page or doing something complicated with the code of the template to detect whether it was being transcluded on the redirect or the main article. I don't think either of those options would be a good idea, personally. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 04:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

That's unfortunate, but thanks for the detailed response.—RJH (talk) 17:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

kaltura

i was in my drs office the other day when i came across an article in the july 2008 issue of esquire that highlighted the best and the brightest Ron Vekuteil, the CEO and founder of Kaltura says:

"It's the first time open-source platform that lets multiple people collaborate and create stuff together by way of rich media. We just finalized a deal with Wikipedia, and we're going to do with video what they're already doing with text." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.70.160.252 (talk) 07:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

In understand he said that yes. The deal is not however what you may think is being implied.Geni 13:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia logo project

Hello! This is a message to inform all the Wikipedias that there is an ongoing project to fix the errors in the Wikipedia logo. There's also a plan to add more characters in the blank spaces and find characters for the other sides of the globe. Feel to visit the page on Meta-Wiki and discuss it on the talk page.

Please also share this message with whatever projects you feel appropriate. Thank you, and see you on Meta! Bastique ^demandez 16:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

don't know if...

I can report a troll here, but I'm gonna try. Someone with IP 93.86.12.205 is constantly "contributing" to the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekatarina_Velika. Is there a way to ban him/her?

Svenaj (talk) 12:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

You're best to report issues like this to WP:AIV when it's occurring. The IP made four edits several days ago, so can't really be blocked at the moment. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

You might start by adding a warning notice to their talk page by means of templates listed at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace, beginning with level 1 templates and working your way up if they ignore the comments.—RJH (talk) 17:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for the tips... Svenaj (talk) 11:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

VALKYRIE NEW TOM CRUISE WAR PICTURE POSES SOME INTERESTING WHAT IF POSSIBILITIES ABOUT THE END OF WW2

Fellow Wikipedia history buffs,

I recently caught a movie trailer on the new Tom Cruise war picture, Valkyrie, which I think poses some interesting "what if" possibilities in World War II. If the German general staff had killed Hitler on July 20th, there was a possibility that an internal civil war might have broken out between the regular army and the SS/Gestapo. The war could have thus ended a lot sooner. I'm just curious what the average anti-Nazi could have done at that time, given the fact that the SS, the Gestapo and every other Nazi had Germany in an iron grip. In such an extreme totalitarian society as Nazi Germany, with no access to a free press, a functioning opposition or even friendly military backup, I just don't see how anyone could have knocked the Nazis out of power, short of the type of overwhelming military force that the U.S., Soviet Union, Britain, France and Canada threw into the cauldron. Apparently over 5000 people were killed after the failed assassination attempt by Von Stauffenberg (the German played by Cruise). Although Von Stauffenberg's attempt at a coup was courageous and daring, I believe it was the exception. Daring and courage always seem the rule in the movies, but in real life, it's always amazing to see people rise above circumstances to overthrow tyranny.

ChampagneLeader October 15, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Champagneleader (talk • contribs) 16:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The sad fact is that most people support the authority under which they live. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

What is the point of this post? Wikipedia does not do "what if". BTW, please sign your posts properly Roger (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

1. Germany would have won the war.
2. You've obviously confused this with Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities.
— CharlotteWebb 17:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

You could also go to Google-groups and look up "history what if" I think you will find some interested conversationalists there. And check out Alternative history Steve Dufour (talk) 07:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it ok to create articles with the intention that it will be deleted in future?

I was looking for Joe the plumber since I kept hearing about the guy on the internet, but didn't know who he was (I don't live in the US). So out of habit I looked it up in wikipedia (rather than google) and found out what all the fuss was about (mainly nothing). Even though I reckon the article should be deleted (some time in the future) I thought that it was rather useful for me at the time.

Does wikipedia allow for this? That is, creating articles about a topic that is in the news with the intention that, when all the hype dies down, the article will eventually get deleted? 124.171.207.1 (talk) 00:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Recentism is discouraged on Wikipedia, but I think it's useful for building up our raw content. In practice, articles about topics like this don't get deleted wholesale - they get condensed and merged into parent articles like United States presidential election debates, 2008. That this information is preserved in some form is evidence that they were worthwhile to create. Dcoetzee 00:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Our sister project Wikinews ([en.wikinews.org en.wikinews.org]) is really the place where stories of only temporary interest ought to be covered. It looks like they only get about five hundreds per day, though, so I'm sure they're quite interested in recruiting more writers. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I doubt very much that the folks that created the article intended that the article eventually be deleted; among other things, Wikipedia policy is that when something is decided to be notable, it stays notable. And even if that was their intention, no one at Wikipedia "owns" an article, so whoever created that article has no right to plan on deleting it at some later point.

The above comments address this as a general issue; if you have problems with the specific article, you should make a comment at deletion review, where the article is being discussed after a deletion discussion resulted in a speedy keep. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Must a former porn star have a WP bio?

I ran across the case of Ginger Jolie on the BLP notice board. She is a former "Penthouse Pet" who wants to leave that behind and get on with her life. She has asked WP to delete her bio and it is now up for AfD. The votes are tending towards keep with many people citing WP's special standards for porn preformers. I really think the purpose of these standards was originally to keep publicity seekers out, not to force someone who meets them to be the subject of an article.

Some may not relate to this but I also think there is the issue of WP's image in, how shall I say it, "mainstream society." I could also mention that I have two children about Ms Jolie's age. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

If she meets the guidelines of WP:PORNBIO, and the AFD is certainly trending towards saying that she does, then the article is quite likely to remain. The discussion at one place seems to be a healthy conversation at this point. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

But must "the guidelines of WP:PORNBIO" be an ironclad rule? I think this is a bigger issue than just one article or one person, which is why I brought it up in several places. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

If she's asked, couldn't we initiate WP:OFFICE? Dendodge|Talk^Contribs 17:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

We couldn't, no. The office could, but probably wouldn't unless there was a legal risk involved with the article. --Tango (talk) 18:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a decision for AFD. There is significant support (although probably somewhere short of consensus) for the idea that marginally notable people should be able to choose to have their articles removed, but I don't think there is a clear definition of "marginally notable". That's what AFD needs to decide. --Tango (talk) 18:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm glad to see that some other WPers are concerned. Part of the problem I see with the AfD is that those who happened to have noticed it are not necesarily representive of the WP community as a whole. I do think that Ms Jolie's notability is very slight. Anyone can take off their clothes, although it is true that not eveyone is going to get paid for doing so. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Anyone can take of their clothes, but not everyone is singled out for it. That's the distinction. (kinda similar to what you said) EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I still think that she is not so notable that WP is compelled to have an article about her. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Who's compelling Wikipedia to do anything? Someone created an article on her, and now the WP community is deciding whether we should keep it or not. No compulsion is involved. In any case, the AfD is still the right place to discuss this. Algebraist 19:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Speaking frankly, the reason I mentioned it here and in a couple other places was to bring the AfD to the attention of a wider community of editors than would be usually be following porn-related happenings. And I am discussing it on the AfD page.Steve Dufour (talk) 20:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking to get in contact with a model Wikipedian

Hi,

This is probably not the best place to put this. I tried going to the IRC channel, but I'm not too familiar with the protocol and from the looks of it I can't get in behind our network's firewall.

I'm a student in a Boston college and I'm working on a short, documentary-esque project which is supposed to show "what it means to be a good citizen." We're doing ours on online volunteers and would like to interview a Wikipedian in good standing who frequently contributes valuable, quality content and/or edits to the site. Someone in the Boston area would be preferable for the purpose of taping the interview, but we may be able to use video conferencing software if our professor allows it.

Anyway, again, not sure if this is a good place to ask or anything, if it isn't, a hint on where I ought to post would be appreciated. Thanks for your time.

--Ted (199.94.76.172 (talk) 02:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC))

You could try asking at WikiProject Boston. Gwinva (talk) 02:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try that. --Ted (199.94.76.172 (talk) 03:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC))

Hey. Me again. I tried over there, no response, the best I can figure is that they're not interested. We just got the go ahead for video conferencing based interviews from our professor, so that opens up our range a bit. We're very constrained by time though, so if anyone is interested, please let us know. -- Tedd (199.94.76.172 (talk) 04:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC))

Arbitration Committee selection on other Wikipedias

In trying to gather together how the different projects select Arbitration Committee members, I have set up Wikimedia Arbitration Committee election processes at Meta-Wiki. If you are proficient in one of those languages that is not yet described, your help/input would be most appreciated. Cirt (talk) 16:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

re;Schooner Shennedoah

I was reading about the downeaster schooner Shennendoah, and it said that she was largest vessel of her kind w/out an engine but citation needed. I was wondering if any one had considerd that perhaps she uses her yawl boal like a cheasapeake craft.to either pull or most likely push her i am all ears about this subject,

l burchett ,allumni,boat shop cheasapeke bay maritime museum —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.222.191.173 (talk) 22:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

You'd probably be better off posting at the page Talk:Shenandoah (schooner). And if you don't get a response there, try the reference desk. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

NEED answer to trivia question about "The Sixth Sense"!!!

I am literally in the middle of a scavenger hunt and I have this seemingly simple question to answer but I can't figure it out! I need to know: What is the name of the Philadelphia street/park from “The Sixth Sense”? I guess there are a variety of answers possible but I know it isn't Washington Square or Rittenhouse, and I guess it would be a park named after a street or the answer is both the name of a street AND a park. You are my heroes if you can answer this quickly and correctly! CouplandForever (talk) 23:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment is what you're looking for. The Village Pump is just for Wikipedia-related issues that may arise. The reference desk is for asking those kinds of questions that you have, Metros (talk) 23:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Linking common terms—countries, states, etc.

This discussion was originally posted in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music (meaning it only applies to music-related articles). Please add further discussion under the line. Thank you!

I've noticed in pretty much every article (musicians, songs, albums, so on) have common linked term such as American, UK, countries (in release histories and such), etc., and my question is, since there is a script to unlink these common terms, is it correct to unlink them completely from these type of articles? DiverseMentality^(Boo!) 23:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, apparently. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Not just in music-related articles.The last item of Wikipedia:OVERLINK#What_generally_should_not_be_linked suggests that to readers of the English language Wikipedia, these terms would already be familiar, and I've seen some Twinkle users going round unlinking them. To be honest, what do they add? I wouldn't mourn their loss, but you may wish to raise a community-wide discussion on that. US and UK may be fairly obvious, but Azerbaijani-based musicians may beg to differ, and the question then is where the line should be drawn. --Rodhullandemu 23:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Rodhullandemu, that's the problem with the script (or maybe it was intended this way?). It delinks the common countries, I shall say, but not countries of rarity (I'll learn to get better words later). So I really don't know where to draw the line, and I think I will bring a community-wide discussion later on tonight. DiverseMentality^(Boo!) 23:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It's very common to see links like the ones you're talking about. The WP:LINKRELEVANT guideline says, "Only make links that are relevant to the context.... It is generally not necessary to link... [items] that would be familiar to most readers of the article, such as the names of major geographic features and locations, historical events, religions, languages, and common professions." I'm reading that to mean that it's okay to undo those links, but I'd be interested other editors' opinions also. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

And the problem with scripts is that they're pretty dumb and are open to accusations of bias. I'd be interested to see where its cut-off point is. "Relevant", from an English-language point of view, is open to interpretation; arguably, the G8 nations should be there, but that would exclude Australia, a significant English-speaking nation. That leads to the question of New Zealand- much smaller, but do we really need to link it? A minefield as far as automated editing is concerned. --Rodhullandemu 23:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The guideline is talking about something being "relevant" in the context of the article, not about whether a country is relevant or important from a geopolitical perspective. For example, if an article is about a rock group from New Zealand, we might not want to link "New Zealand", because it's a common term that most readers are familiar with. But if the article is about the geography of the South Pacific, then "New Zealand" should be linked, as a term that is very important in that context. Of course this is still open to interpretation by whoever's editing the article. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I was talking about general familiarity to our readership, not in geopolitical terms. I'd assume that any reasonably competent English language reader or speaker would be familiar enough with the English-speaking world as not to require an unnecessary link; however, within the context of this project, it could be assumed that readers don't need such links. In wider terms, readers who come to Wikipedia as part of learning the English language (and we have an invaluable tool for that), may find such links invaluable in that process; that's why I suggest a wider discussion would have some value. --Rodhullandemu 23:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes sense. Where will this wider discussion take place? I'd like to see it when it happens. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Several ways; WP:CENT is a forum for wide-ranging discussion, but it might be better to start at the Village Pump to see whether previous discussions have taken place and take it from there. --Rodhullandemu 00:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

---

Apparent school project abusing Wikipedia as an essay hosting service

• Teamamazing900 (talk · contribs)
  • Downfall of Microsoft in Home Entertainment Industry (AfD discussion)
• Madrose611 (talk · contribs)
  • Microsoft Security
  • Microsoft Security Case
• Btempl27 (talk · contribs)
  • Micrsoft's Strategy in the Gaming Market Since 2005
• MIS301-Microsoft (talk · contribs)
  • Uncertain Future of Microsoft

In the past few days we appear to have suffered from a rash of essays about Microsoft. In light of this edit, and the fact that all of the essays use an identical citation style that doesn't match our house style for citations, it appears that we have an undisclosed school project, not listed at Wikipedia:School and university projects, on our hands. Uncle G (talk) 22:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• The best solution is to get in touch with the instructor by asking the students who it is, and explaining the issue to them. That way this will be avoided in the future and no student will be held accountable. Dcoetzee 01:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

As best I can remember, that's the way it was handled the last time something like this occurred. There was a large rash of term papers as articles. The class instructor had recommended that the papers be used to create articles, not understanding how WP works, nor did the students, who basically just uploaded the term papers. Some of them were quite interesting and well done, but unfortunately not suitable for WP articles due to several issues in the forms they were uploaded in. To contact the professor/teacher/instructor and discuss the issues is the best way. Lets not bite the newbies. I believe that if we treat students appropriately and sensitively, we may gain readers and maybe a few good editors as well. — Becksguy (talk) 03:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• A reverse DNS of the IP addresses, User:128.62.212.122 and User:128.62.148.252, used to edit one of these files, traces to the University of Texas at Austin. Geo Swan (talk) 03:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Using that and the name of the latest account to add one of these essays (added to the list above), I deduce that this is "MIS 301 Information Technology in Business" at the McCombs School of Business. Consulting the Autumn 2008 course schedule reveals that today is "Microsoft Group Project Due". So expect a rush of these essays within the next few hours. The instructor is either Elota Patton or Katie Gray. Uncle G (talk) 12:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

More:

• Mis301msp (talk · contribs)
  • Microsoft's Internet Strategies using Internet Explorer and Java
• Wapfel20 (talk · contribs)
  • Microsoft's move toward mobile and embedded devices

though these are better written. Hut 8.5 17:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

How about WE grade the papers? Save the teacher some time and effort! LOL! Roger (talk) 18:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone contacted the instructors to ask them to discuss with their students the proper use of online encyclopedias as not being hosting for their essays? Tony Fox (arf!) 16:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

district of columbia

what is "columbia" in the phrase district of columbia? that is, why was the word columbia used to describe the capital of the united states??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronpopp (talk • contribs) 06:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

See Columbia (name). Algebraist 07:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

why do wikipedia doesn't have describtion of some Canadian national park's attraction?

for example,Banff National Park. Where can I get information about attractions like in Jasper National Park#Attractions?--24.78.51.208 (talk) 21:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Did you try the Tourism section of the Banff National Park article? I notice that the Banff article is a Featured Article while Jasper is not. Rmhermen (talk) 23:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Fireproof (film)#Unsourced NPOV

May I get some comment at Talk:Fireproof (film)#Unsourced NPOV? I am in a conflict with another user who doesn't do anything but add a comment that Kirk Cameron is a "childish jerk" and "hates women" to Fireproof (film). No one will give any comments and it is stressing me out. Please? Thank you. -- American Eagle (talk) 03:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Curley Money

Hello, I tagged the article Curley Money as a copyvio, because it was copied (in part) from another page. Today, the original author of the article conacted me and said, that he doesn't copied the article (I think another user did it) and put on a new version (see Curley Money/Temp). Now, what shall I do? The yodeling cowboy (talk) 14:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not necessarily important to figure out who did the copyright violation, though letting them know they did something wrong is useful. The issue is (a) whether the current version is a copyright violation (it sounds like it is not, but if it is, it should be tagged or reported), and (b) dealing with older versions, assuming that it in fact is clear that older versions are copyright violations. Old versions that are copyright violations still need to be fixed (hidden from public access) - see Wikipedia:Copyright violations on history pages. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks a lot. The yodeling cowboy (talk) 15:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Advice for parents

G'day all, after a little bit of editing at the above, I thought I'd mention it here for general review :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 07:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Ref tag feature

Hi,

Is the "group=" feature for the <ref> tag now standard in wikipedia? I couldn't find any documentation for it, so I'm not sure if it is okay to use everywhere or if it is in beta. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 16:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• MW:Extension:Cite/Cite.php#Grouped references Uncle G (talk) 17:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you.—RJH (talk) 17:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Always up-to-date details for every municipality in Finland

(Earlier discussion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Finland#Is project interested in automated population and acreage data for Finland municipalities?)

Hi project, I just wanted to let you know we have launched a project called FMPortal in the Finnish Wikipedia.

The purpose of the project is to provide up-to-date statistical data about Finnish municipalities. We have set up a centralized portal for this project in the toolserver. If you would like to utilize one or more of these templates, please fill out the localization details and adopt the Wikipedia page. After localization any bots, which can read details over the HTTP protocol are able to update the template details as follows:

1. Population count: updated once per month from Population Register Center of Finland
2. Acreage details: updated once per year from Land Survey of Finland
3. Tax rate details: updated once per year from Tax Administration of Finland
4. Demographic information: updated once per year from Population Register Center of Finland

A total of 12 different templates provide almost all of the important information about Finnish municipalities and are easy to adopt. The core templates can provide the date when a source was updated and a reference link for this. You can localize the reference links to use your wiki's format and every date is provided in the ISO 8601 format, supporting fully {{#time}}. The actual values output have no thousand separators and use the dot as decimal separator, so the values can be localized with {{#formatnum}}.

If you need help setting up the templates or require further details about the project, please contact Agony@fiwiki. --Agony (talk) 10:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Question about original research

Not sure where would be the best place to ask this so apologies if it isn't here.

I have almost no experience at this side of Wikipedia and am a bit unsure as to whether something I would like to do constitutes "original research". I would like to edit the article Rakahouka to remove the statement "Rakahouka is the only named locality on its route", because Roslyn Bush (also mentioned elsewhere in the article) is situated on the same State Highway. However I can't cite any authoritative source for this other than official topographical maps (and in any case my primary source of this would be my personal knowledge of the localities concerned; any reference to NZMS 261 sheet E46 would be an afterthought).

Should I just go ahead with this edit and explain myself on the "Talk" page, or avoid the matter entirely? Daveosaurus (talk) 10:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• The converse applies just as equally: Does a source exist that supports that statement? If not, the material is unverifiable and is subject to challenge and removal using the normal procedures.

  I notice that the article cites no sources. As someone local to the area, perhaps you know of some published histories, surveys, censuses, and suchlike. If so, please improve the article with some source citations as further reading, so that editors following you will know where to look for sources to use in expanding the article from a stub. Uncle G (talk) 11:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

" ...other than official topographical maps". We surely don't need sources other than these. Just cite these maps as sources and make the change. A publshed source does not need to be online to be cited. Those maps are published documents and as such are just as citable as any book in a library. If we don't have a suitable citation template, then just use the generic template, or no template at all as long as you fully describe the publisher of the map. This is not OR: it is a cite to a reliable source in the true sperit of Wikipedia, which is to say: the editor knows something, the editor finds a rliable source, the editor makes the change and cites the source. -Arch dude (talk) 03:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Portuguese version of Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

Hello from Brazil. I want you to include the portuguese version of Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) in the InterWikis. The portuguese version is Wikipedia:Esplanada/propostas. Thank you very much. --Gu$†a\/oB1††Encour†Co$†/\ (talk) 15:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Done. Rmhermen (talk) 23:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

big thingy at wikipedia.org

I notice you've changed the format of that yet again. Now what's the new criterion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.131.105.46 (talk) 22:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

That depends; what format exactly are we speaking of? DiverseMentality^(Boo!) 23:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

What determines the order in which the Wikipedias appear around the big globe thingy, you know, the logo?74.131.105.46 (talk) 22:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Number of articles. DendodgeTalk^Contribs 23:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Used to be number of articles - now I believe it is number of visitors, or something? Rmhermen (talk) 23:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Michael Lucas to David Shankbone on the Iraq War.ogg

Please move this contribution if it should be in another section, but tell me if you do so
I know the generall rules of relevance of wp, but maybe it's a bit different on en.wiki.
Please tell me if Image:Michael Lucas to David Shankbone on the Iraq War.ogg, which is in use on Michael Lucas (director), is relevant for this article. I don't know if audio files in which somebody tells what he thinks about history is important for wp or rather useful.
Please listen to it and tell me if it's relevant for wp.
thanks --D-Kuru (talk) 16:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Does nobody can help me with this file?

--D-Kuru (talk) 09:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

If you don't get any response here, try the help desk. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Pretty worrying...

Ok. I use the merged account thingy. Now I checked my preferences and it said I was active on 7 Wikimedia sites. However, I've only edited English, Simple English and German Wikipedia so far. Is it glitch, has my account been hacked or have I made a mistake and I have edited on some other sites? Yowuza ZX Wolfie 18:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

An active account is an account that exists, and has been unified. These accounts can have no edits. Clark89 (talk) 23:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it has just automatically registered you on all of the projects as part of the merger. It doesn't matter if you have edited them in the past or not. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Public Domain?

Hi. I am just wondering, can I scan an public-domain-expired image from a book or newspaper and put it on Wikipedia? Can the image be free (public domain)? --Jackl 09:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, that would be great! You might want to consider uploading the image to the Commons, which is a repository of free content that can be easily used on any Wikimedia project, but this isn't required. Also, you might want to double-check that the book is actually in the public domain (at least in the U.S.), as there are some edge cases. If it's an old book from the early 1900s or before, it's almost certainly public domain. —Slowking Man (talk) 11:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

But what if the book is brand new, but the images inside are old? Also, my book is copyrighted. --Jackl 11:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Choose your template carefully for Commons - in most nations, the author of the image must have been dead for at least 70 years. But "a few countries have copyright terms longer than 70 years: Mexico has 100 years, Colombia has 80 years, and Guatemala and Samoa have 75 years. This image may not be in the public domain in these countries, which moreover do not implement the rule of the shorter term." Use the PD-old-100 template if applicable. Dcoetzee 23:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

For uploading to Wikipedia, any image that was published before 1923 in the U.S. is Public domian, the age-limits don't apply. Rmhermen (talk) 23:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

A point to stress there is that it has to have been published before 1923, not just created. If there's no information or evidence of publication prior to this recent book, then the old photos may still be copyrighted. --dave pape (talk) 15:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

What is different from "bold green mark" and just "green one" on one's watchlist?

I notice that the green mark to indicate "addition" on watchlist is changed, but don't know why and what difference between the normal green one and "bold one"? Any one could enlighten me? Thanks in advance.--Caspian blue 23:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it has to do with the amount of text added or removed, bold = larger amount.. initially the feature was like that on all wikis - then I seem to recall we had the bolding removed here because it was distracting.. it seems to have returned. --Versageek 23:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking at my watchlist, it seems that everything over 500 is bold. --Tango (talk) 01:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer. --Caspian blue 19:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Cold fusion

HELP! We have Cold Fusion proponents dramatically asserting ownership over cold fusion. I need all the help I can get. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Cold fusion is in need of a major rewrite and if the argument goes on, mabye even ArbCom. A previously FA has degenerated into squabbling, recentism, POVing, and bad citing. It has gone from GA to C class.--Ipatrol (talk) 23:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I avoid controversial topics like the plague; they too often suffer from edit wars, subtle vandalism and time-consuming debates, so it just doesn't seem like time well spent. Sorry I can't help you here.—RJH (talk) 19:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

One article at a time or many articles at once?

Which would you say is more efficient in working towards the ultimate goal of having all articles capable of achieving WP:FA to be FAs: each person working on getting an article to FA, or each person doing tasks that fixes one problem on many articles (such as Wikification)? Voyaging^(talk) 03:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Short answer is that I think most editors will have a preference towards one type of work or the other - and you can't really tell volunteers to do something other than what they enjoy. There are some people who "just want to help" and would be happy doing either, for which this is a useful question. I guess if I had to choose between the two I'd say getting single articles up to FA is more valuable, provided they're also articles on particularly important topics that lots of readers care about. Dcoetzee 03:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

As Dcoetzee said, the most efficient thing is to have editors work on what they enjoy - that way, they have a reason to continue editing Wikipedia. Moreover, not only do interests vary, but so do skills. A lot of people, for example, don't think that they are very good writers (for example, English might be their second language); thinking about working alone to get an article to FA status would just be intimidating. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

And as an extension to that, there are some editors (like myself) that, while English may be their first language, suck at writing. I can edit someone else's work, finessing and rewording, but generating copy myself? *shudder* EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Hack?

(from VP Technical) Hack? shows me deleting 5 of my previous edits and someone else's. If it had been one paragraph on its own, or even 2, I would have written it off as my mistake. But it would have been a lot of work to do this, I would have remembered, and well, I just wouldn't have done it. Anarchangel (talk) 01:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Please someone help me on this. If it isn't possible to deal with it here, can you please direct me to where it can? I don't want to be banned for these edits: they are very extensive removal of editor's statements.
Obviously the more important issue by far is that someone has the power to insert edits under someone else's username. Although the usage of it is trivial, and my account, as much as it means to me, is nothing to the integrity of WP, this is potentially a threat to Wikipedia.
Please contact me/investigate this/point me in the right direction/discuss ...something, please. The diff (using outside link) [8] More and more I believe that the diff doesn't help, as it is just my word that I didn't make it anyway, but there you go, I am in a tight spot, and the diff is all I can provide as evidence. I do note also that the fact that the hacks have subverted the Wiki code means that they are by definition hard to trace, but something has to be done, or at least tried. Anarchangel (talk) 03:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

No new hacks, but I thought I ought to add the above to here for additional &/or better chance of a response. Anarchangel (talk) 04:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Well the obvious suggestion is... Change -- Your -- Password... to something more complicated like the title of your favourite book or the name of your favourite Czech hockey player. I only suggest this because you didn't mention that you'd done it and the easiest method by far for some hacker to insert entries under your name is for them to guess your password. My apologies if you've already tried changing your password but it is the Number One thing to try. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

And if you did editing from a public computer (say, in a library or internet cafe), make sure that you log out. Simply closing all Wikipedia-related windows/screens doesn't log you off. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Were you drunk? (Kidding) :P --User:Cuervo, not logged in --76.176.98.151 (talk) 01:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Is WP:NOTE applicable here?

WP:NOTE states "Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability." At this AfD at "Russell Brand prank calls row", many people have voted to keep this article as it has many celebrities involved, and it's headlines in many news channels. But isn't this a classic example of a news story about a single topic? I'm new to Wiki and I want to make sure my understanding of WP:NOTE is clear before I vote at that AfD. Thankyou. Antivenin 14:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Well it is more than just a short burst of news reports as it has escalated to the point where questions are being asked in the house of commons. So I would say that is enough to justify notability. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the help! Antivenin 06:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Archiving sock/troll

If there is a persistent sock who is daily adding plebish, pseudo-plausible statements to an article talk page in an effort to troll, is it acceptible to continually archive their additions on a forked page that is linked from the talk page? The net effect of the trolling has been to discourage normal discussion, and several of its attacks have been removed. I thought by archiving the troll/sock messages to a different page, it may encourage more helpful discussion about improving the article. Multiple warnings and permanent blocks of the troll's accounts have had no effect. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 18:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

It can be acceptable. We do it on Talk:Gödel's incompleteness theorems for example, where the off-topic stuff goes to Talk:Gödel's incompleteness theorems/Arguments. But if it's just one editor, we should probably focus on outreach instead of making a dedicated page for them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. My preference is to focus on improving the article; I'll leave "outreach" to others. =) —RJH (talk) 19:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

help:footnotes

Golden Shield Project#Unblocking why cannot note#18 display correctly? --Liangent (talk) 07:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

You need to add a leading colon to interwiki links to make them not appear in the sidebar. Fixed. Algebraist 08:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

thanks--Liangent (talk) 09:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia wins an award

• The Economist magazine has awarded its annual Innovation Award for Business Process to Jimmy Wales and Wikipedia , for "developing public collaboration as a form of product and content development"."Wins for Wikipedia, YouTube and the Gates Foundation - Announcement of the winners of the 2008 Economist Innovation Awards". The Economist. Pitchengine. Friday 31 Oct 2008. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) Lumos3 (talk) 09:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Substituted templates and the GFDL

Sorry if this has come up before (I tend to find that most things have) but when a template is subtituted onto a page there is generally no attribution to the authors of the template. Is this not a violation of of the GFDL license under which the content of templates (text, design, etc.) is released? Guest9999 (talk) 01:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The text of the GFDL does not even include the word "attribution". 68.48.107.77 (talk) 20:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Elgar School

http://www.elgar.worcs.sch.uk/ links here under the title "Elgar Wiki" calling it "The College Encyclopedia". That's ridiculous surely, and messing with the logo is wrong too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.37.233 (talk) 23:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The link is simply to the article Elgar Technology College. Yes, the description of the link is misleading (stupid), but it's also not a problem for Wikipedia - we can't control how websites describe their links to articles. And messing with the Wikipedia logo isn't so good, but again - this is a backwater website (minimal traffic), and if they want to make themselves look stupid, more power to them. 68.48.107.77 (talk) 20:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Fundraiser

I was just looking at the designs of m:Fundraising 2008 and noticed that they weren't as good as the ones from last year. Remembering how those were redesigned a few times after they where put up site wide, is it possible to alert interested people about this using the watchlist notice feature? — Dispenser 03:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Probably best to post this suggestion at MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a rather interesting way of implementing a feature. Cross-posted at MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details#Fundraiser — Dispenser 05:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Astrosociology

Hi, the debate and deletion of astrosociology involved claims that the subject was only proported by one person and not a notable feild etc. I have gone through the links provided by the pro deleters. I have found books by 14 authors including NASA reference guides (albeit the NASA books are 40 years old), also an African culture book but mainly American university books. Although, as argued, a search of Google Scholar brings up only 47 hits mainly based on a website called www.astrosociology.com , a search of normal Google brings up over 3,500 hits from a wide range of sources. The arguements leading to the deletion of this article were largely based on Astrosociology not being a recognised field in Sociology. Although this is a notable finding, it is not enough to delete it. i.e. if Astrosociology was a musical band with a religious cult, although largly unrecognised by sociology in academia, that doesnt mean it hasn't got sections in NASA reference books and thousands of hits on the search engine from a huge variety of notable sources. Besides this it is a little frightening that the study of human behaviour as affected by the awareness of outer space can be deleted as non notable. I was hoping to read about this subject but I guess I will have to go to www.astrosociology. com or go through the search engine. ~ R.T.G 16:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You may be looking for deletion review if you feel the deletion decision was incorrect. Note that in the close of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astrosociology (2nd nomination) there's a comment from the closing admin that suggests a new article, properly sourced, wouldn't be a problem. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I had a brief look at the article when it existed. It was quite large and concensus was that the article was largely based and sourced around the views of the most notable person coining the phrase. It did require extensive clean up but a quick scan of the article suggested it was absolutely on topic, hence my wish to read it. Sociology of outer space (suggested renaming which Tony seems to refer) is entirely original research, is debatable as to wether it was on topic (rename outer space would be different), and is hardly possible to work on, or rename an article that is recently deleted. Funny enough, a count of the concensus reveals that 7 suggested to keep and 8 suggested to delete. Is that enough to delete articles? ~ R.T.G 17:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who wants to look at the deleted article on Astrosociology can (for the moment) still see it in the Google cache. If someone wants to create a keepable article with a different title, let us know and it is likely than an admin will provide you a copy of the article that you can work on in your own user space. EdJohnston (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

[9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] Although good references to astrosociology are difficult to seperate from reference to Dr Jim Pass and his website, the truth is out there. Although the deletion panel made comments such as "A search of Google Scholar shows a book suggesting that astrosociology" would be suitable for a student and therefore it is not notable on the highest level vis a vee delete the article (what??), I looked at the same search the guy linked and found dozens of references some old and the newer ones suggesting that this guy Dr Jim Pass was making the subject notable indeed (including many seminars at AIAA) A search of Google Books shows two 1960s NASA books, an African culture book, and quite a few others mainly American university books all about or in large part about astrosociology (which is minute for the topic). The deletion panel claims that astrosociology was started by Dr Jim Pass in 2004. Nonsense, and very common nonsense on the internet, but nonsense anyway. Even he claims he intends to broaden the subject not claims to have created it as reported in the deletion topic (and also misreprested as such occasionally on search hit sites). One of the editors on the deletion panel claimed that after two years the article can show a proper source or not. The only reference source on the article was www.astrosociology.com and a search for astrosociology shows over 3500 hits from all sorts of websites (mainly educational) almost entirely referencing that website as some sort of authority. I agree that the article was not sufficient and perhaps not much work was ongoing on it but it certainly has some strong points of support regarding reference and notability. The arguement for the deletion was to the contrary of these facts. The first time I remember setting eyes on the term "astrosociology" was on this deletion request but for me it is an obvious topic covering the effect being aware of space has had on human behaviour. It is surprising that the topic lacks reference or notable works and that should be acknowledged routinely I think with astrosociology as a prime example. Space topics have had countless dramatic effects on human behaviour. Search engines make it appear that Dr Jim Pass is the only basis of astrosociology but that is obviously not the case. Part of the deletion panel put forward deletion on the basis that "astrosociology is not a recognised discipline in the field of sociology" but neither is astrology in the field of astronomy (both covered by astrosociology lol). ~ R.T.G 22:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

User:RTG seems to have made a study of this matter. Now he needs to decide whether (a) to challenge the deletion at WP:DRV, or (b) to volunteer to work on an improved article. Long postings here that question the outcome of the AfD may not advance the matter. This board is not the proper place to request undeletion. EdJohnston (talk) 22:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I have of course entered this on the review but my point is that although astrosociology has been left out of popular studies multiplied by the fact that Dr Jim Pass gets a mention in almost all web references it is a surprising one to get deleted with only a few votes. It could be any major topic left out of major academic studies (academic notability being quoted so many times on the deletion discussion) ~ R.T.G 22:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Newfoundland death threat

The other day, there was a death threat made on-Wiki against a professor at Memorial University of Newfoundland. Here's a followup news story: http://www.vocm.com/news-info.asp?id=32171 Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 20:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

He never went through with it; it was just some kid being whiny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.8.65 (talk) 06:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I need Help

I am trying to find out if my fiancé will get in trouble for having sex with me. I am 16 and he is 29. If I turned up pregnant would he be able to marry me instead of going to jail for Statutory Rape? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericsbbygrl08 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not give legal advice. Please consult with a licensed professional. GlassCobra 18:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

We cannot offer legal advice. Please see the legal disclaimer. Contact your lawyer. Please use a descriptive title in future questions. Please sign your post by typing four tildes (~~~~) or clicking the signature button above the edit box which looks like this: . Do NOT sign in articles. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 18:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Ow, my browser. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyway even a lawyer couldn't answer the question based on what's been said. If the anon lives in Yemen, she's old enough if she's 9 years old; in Tunisia on the other hand, she'd better wait until she's 20. But she didn't say which country she lives in, so... -- Derek Ross | Talk 21:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Help !

Hi, I read the comment of "Joyous" in regard to the picture of the Capri pants. And I totally agree. We would like to replace it with the historical first photo of the original Capri pants as well as the first photo with acress Mady Rahl instead (we own the copyright); however, I don't know how to do it? Could somebody possibly help us with this? Thank you.--Eleonora De Lennart 11:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delennart (talk • contribs)

If you post a photo of which you own the copyright to Wikipedia you are actually giving up your copyright. Thats how the GFDL works. You have to really be sure about it before you irrevocably destroy the potential or actual commercial value of the photo. Roger (talk) 13:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Please use a descriptive title in future questions. Please sign your post by typing four tildes (~~~~) or clicking the signature button above the edit box which looks like this: . Do NOT sign in articles. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 18:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Roger is incorrect - his statement applies to text contributions but not images. Images are not automatically placed under the GFDL upon upload, and a person can in fact upload a picture they own the copyright of to use under fair use, but we strongly recommend releasing your images under a free license before uploading them in order to facilitate wider reuse. Dcoetzee 07:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Article Recommendation System

A friend of mine pointed out something via Twitter today - something that I think I've seen before, but can't remember where. A system that would recommend articles to read/edit based on the articles you've edited in the past (and therefore what you're interested in). He asked for something based on reading history, but that's not possible with the information stored by WMF. Do I remember a toolserver tool doing something like this, or is it just me? Thanks in advance if you can help, Alex Muller 22:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The tool for recommending pages to edit is SuggestBot, and is based on your previous contributions. If you regularly edit pages you read, then this might work. Gwinva (talk) 23:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Integrity

Hi there, why cant the Bruce Lee page be edited? Ive been trying to maintain some form of integrity on that page for almost 3 years now. Every few months ive been stopping by to try to help keep this page free of childish over exaggerations and outright untruths surrounding the remarkable life and most untimely death of one of the most dynamic martial arts actors of all time. At the beginning there was a hell of a lot of work that had to be done as the entire page was peppered with the most ridiculous statements like;

"Bruce is one of the greatest Martial Artists of all time"

"Being kicked by Bruce Lee is the same as being hit by a family car going at 40mph"

"Bruce was so fast they had to get him to slow down so they could see him on film.."

"Bruce could do 1 fingered pushup's"

I'm sure many of these comments where not put there intentionally to deceive people but have probably been written by children simply repeating what they see on these '3 days of Bruce Lee' kind of television events. I appreciate that most children are not going to understand that TV programs are only there to fill up the gaps in between the advertising breaks.

Ive been doing my best to try to exposed the real truth behind the Bruce Lee legend in several video documentaries and then writeup the facts on the page. I almost fell off my chair backwards when i realized he didn't even hold a black belt in ANY Martial arts. There is no way someone would be allowed to teach martial arts to students in my country unless they hold a valid instructors license and to do that you need to be a black belt in something. It took me a few years to get my black belt and it ,seems total madness that the so called greatest martial artist in the world hadn't completed his training;

Put it this way..... there have been any times in my life that ive had to run to get somewhere on time But that doesn't automatically make me a sportsman. I couldn't go round calling myself the fastest guy on two legs without ever competing in a race.

So i decided to make some videos exposing Bruce Lee for the BS artist that he obviously was in reality.I went searching for every BL interview ever filmed and was stunned to find out he only did a handful in his entire lifetime. As far as i could see there were more bits of film of Osama Binladin available then there were of Bruce Lee.So i went though what he had said line by line looking for ammo for my video. I looked and looked and after a few days still had nothing People would ask him 'how many boards can you break?' and he'd reply 'id probably break my hand' This was starting to p**sing me off.lol. Id been at it for a week before i was forced conclude that Bruce DIDNT think/claim the be the best martial artist in the world, he never even said he was any good!!

Next i started to to take a look at what he'd been teaching in these famed martial arts schools of his. I watched a whole bunch of b&w so called 'JKD training films' with some of the worlds most famous film stars at the time. But i couldn't understand why big Hollywood name actors would pay money to be taught by someone clearly unqualified for the job? I was even more shocked when i saw the video. he wasn't trying to teach them to fight he was trying show how to act like they could fight it the same way he did. Its not hard to see that James Coburn was a better martial artist than Bruce.

Finally everything started to make a whole lot more sense.

Q - How many films was he in? A - about 28

Q - How many were martial arts films? A - About 8

Q - Why didn't bruce finish his training? A - Because he was to undisciplined to be any good and to lazy to see it through

Q - Why didn't BL ever compete against world class martial artists of the time? A - He was an Actor and a Dancer . . . not a fighter.

Q - So why didn't someone who could really fight try to put him in his place? A - He wasn't world famous (Enter the dragon was his only American film) and he certainly didn't claim to be a great fighter

Q - Why did he open up martial arts schools if he couldn't fight? A - Because it was to expensive to ship stuntmen from Hong Kong (notice how many of his 'students' star in his films?)

Q - So what happened? A - He is a VERY bad teacher. its hard to define a style when your making it up on the spot. Actors like James coburn very quickly realized they were learning absolutely nothing of any real value from Bruce.

Q - Why has JKD got no set moves. A - Because it never existed until BL was dead and buried.

Q - Why is there's no video of bruce actually demonstrating JKD when there's loads of him doing Wing Chung and Thai chi and karate. A - Because it never existed until BL was dead and buried.

Q - Why did he die? A - Because his head swelled up so much it killed him. lolol.

Q - Why does the Lee Estate refuse to show us all his private home movies? A - Because this family lives off profits created by the myth.

Q - So why do all of his old friends say he was the greatest? A - Because they all have books to sell.

Q - So where did JKD come from? A - His actor/students were out of a job with him being dead.

Q - But the 1 inch punch is real, ive seen it. A - walk a person to the center of an empty room Put a rickety collapsible chair behind them (preferably one to small for them) no more than 2feet away from them.

A - Then get them to hold something close to their body at chest height so they cant use there arms to counter balance.

A - Make sure they keep there legs together while standing there.

A - This setup is so effective ive seen people do this trick and not even strike the person in front of them, yet they still fly backwards into /over the chair behind them.Its just simple NLP. think about it for a min. If the chair wasn't an essential part of the illusion then they wouldn't even have it on stage, how many other times have you ever seen a flimsy wooden chair used as a piece of sports safety equipment? All the guys he did the OIP(one inch punch) in public were like 3rd Dan black belts .Do you honestly think they need a dam chair to sit in to stop them from the pain of falling to the ground?

I could go on and on and on with this but im saving all the really good stuff for my video.Anyone who thinks i must really hate Bruce is wrong my mission here is expose the people trying to make money by telling us lies. Bruce specifically instructed them NOT to go around trying to profit from his film work by saying they had 'special knowledge' of bruces On screen fighting abilities. It would have only taken 1 person to get seriously injured training a fake martial arts based on some choreographed fake fight scenes and Bruce would have been sued into oblivion. Bruce didn't make the claim he was any kind of real fighter let alone the best fighter in the world. He even went as far as revoking top level passes that he had given to 2 couple of his students so they could help him train the stuntmen. After bruce died they just ignored his requests and started to invent the Bruce legend that was going to make them millionaires.Hell, the plan is so utterly fool proof id probably have done the same myself.

Now im not going to waste my time providing links to the facts ive uncovered here because tbh im not interested in some kind of debate . As i explained ive been contributing to that page for a while and couldn't believe my eyes when i saw that EVERY SINGLE thing i have written on this subject has been replaced by what could only really be described as misrepresented facts and downright lies that only serve to keep the Bruce Lee money machine chugging along for a bunch of rich people who cant even honor the wish's of the person they pretend to live in awe of.

so heres my questions.....

Q - Why are the Admins allowing people to take down good factual no bias info and letting them replace it with a giant Infomercial for the people holding the rights to his films ...etc?

Q - How can someone change all that text on the page and then get it locked? is this a case of someone abusing their position at Wiki because they are some kind of 'Fan' by any chance?

Q - Both bruces parents were actors and he famous child ACTOR in china who was in 28 films altogether.He learnt fake stage martial arts from the age 5 onwards yet only the actions films get mentioned on this page...is this a fair representation of his acting career?

Q - A number of times ive added facts about Bruces Cha-Cha dancing achievements or the fact he was rejected from joining the army because of a retracted testicle but every time i check the page its been swapped for something like "Bruce was so fast he has to slow down to be filmed..." (yes they asked bruce to slow down but it was because they didn't have the money to buy a second load of higher speed film just for a few fight scenes. Its not like hes the only person it happened to for gods sake.lol)

Q - Isnt this whole mess what the wiki system is designed to prevent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.45.226.149 (talk) 06:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You need to read (and re-read) our policy against original research. Basically, the only content that is acceptable for articles is what has been published in a reliable source. If you post your conclusions, or your synthesis of what you believe, then other editors should remove that information. If other editors add sourced information - text that is backed by a reliable source - then you are wrong if you remove it.

Wikipedia has a process for resolving content disputes - see WP:DR. This page is the wrong place to complain about what you consider to be incorrect content. You need to either follow the standard dispute resolution processes, or go elsewhere, to another website where the rules are different. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Re protection: Since the lengthy protection appeared to me to be an oversight, I contacted the protecting admin who removed the protection. Contacting the admin on their talkpage is the appropriate first step to take when you have an issue with an article's protection. The sort of insinuations you make above about motivations behind the protection are inappropriate and I find them inaccurate here. You are now able to edit the article, but please review the original research policy. --BirgitteSB 02:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• How to be taken seriously as a Wikipedia editor (In just two easy steps - no purchase required!) One - get your "self proclaimed research" published in reliable media and accepted as true by recognised authorities in the field of martial arts actors. Two - Register a proper username and login when you edit articles. Contributors who don't bother to get a proper username/login are generally not taken as seriously as those who do. "IP editors" are assumed to be vandals until proven otherwise. Roger (talk) 14:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • — not by those of us who hold that lack of an account is not an indicator of bad faith, they aren't. Uncle G (talk) 17:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Calling it an "indicator of bad faith" is putting too strong, but in my experience (approx 200 articles on my watchlist) about 80% of edits by IP editors are vandalism. Whenever I see a very recent IP edit on my watchlist I make a point of checking it. Roger (talk) 18:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
      • You're still supposed to Assume Good Faith, though, even with anonymous IP editors. (Which is not to say you shouldn't watch them more closely -- I do, too.) —Steve Summit (talk) 03:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)