Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive I

< Wikipedia:Village pump (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This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (miscellaneous).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

I quit and will not contribute to a biased organization

Bye. --AI 02:18, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm still available for discussion at my discretion only, but I am not going to contribute to any content articles any further until some problems with the "Wikipedia system" are resolved. See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks#Article talk pages --AI 06:19, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Photo of gross male genitals at "Mary Magdalene" entry

You guys ought to run the government. No one gives a more thorough run-around than you do. I am new to Wikipedia, sampling some articles. When I landed on "Mary Magdalene," I was at first confused as to why there would be a photo of male genitals under the heading "From the Series on Christianity" sidebar to the right. Finally decided somebody had vandalized the page and I wanted to alert someone. Tried and tried and tried and tried, but finally decided to do it this way. Maybe somebody will see this. Hope so. Anybody looking up Mary Magdalene is certainly getting an eyeful. Oldguy

I don't see any such image on that page; if you mean a page linked from the sidebar, then there are a lot of links there, and you'd have to be more specific about which one. Also, if you find vandalism, you're able to fix it yourself through the Edit function. *Dan* 21:59, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Curious, curious. Believe me, I was not mistaken. I linked back to "Series on Christianity" where the offending photo was revealed to have originally been a cross. Then I rekeyed "Mary Magdalene" on the main page search window and got the same photo again. Let me go check it again. ````

It was on Template:Christianity, which is the sidebar you are speaking of. The vandalism has already been fixed; clear your cache. --cesarb 22:08, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
I've protected that template as it didn't seem to be getting many legitimate edits at present.
As far as getting a "thorough run-around", what did you try that did not work? We can't fix it if all we have to work from is that you "tried and tried and tried". -- Cyrius|✎ 22:12, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikiquote down

Wikiquote is unavailable to my many repeated attempts for access. Anybody else? Sveden 16:23, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

    • Ummm ok I can get it now. Guess I shoulda waited longer. Sveden 16:24, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Strange profanity on Carl Friedrich Gauss page

I'm using osx 10.3.9, Safari 1.3 (v312), and I see the following strange line on the Carl Friedrich Gauss page immediately under the "Biography" heading:

"MOTHER F**KER | BASTARD | SON OF A B**CH | BLOODY PROSTITUTE | PAKISTAN ROCKS"

It doesn't show up in my copy of Internet Explorer, nor does it show up in the compare versions in the history page. It seems nowhere to be found in the Wiki code, but when I use Safari to 'view source' it shows up as a

tag with said text inside. Can anyone corroborate this, or is it on my computer alone?

Thanks... I'm new to Wikipedia-behind-the-scenes, so forgive me if I posted in the wrong spot or anything...Greg

I think you may just need to force-refresh your browser. It was added in this diff and removed in this diff. It does not appear to have been re-added. So, if you viewed the article in the few minutes that phrase was there earlier on, perhaps your browser has cached that version and needs telling to fetch a new one. -Splash 04:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Ah yes. It's gone now. I had gotten mixed up with the cache-flushing indeed. Thanks. -Greg

i just wanted to say this is very cool. i spent the past 45 min learning about hiroshima in a very different way

Copyright question

Am I right in thinking that old drawings maps and photographs from before c 1920 are in the public domain?. Only I've found some old maps and drawings from the 18th zand 19th centuries which I want to upload. But I just wanted to make sure it's OK. G-Man 22:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm no copyright expert, but I think it has to do with when the original creator of the work dies. There's more detail here: Wikipedia:Image copyright tags — J3ff 01:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

It varies from country to country. IANAL, but I suspect that you're fairly safe with things over a century old unless the creator's estate has extended the copyright - and that's unlikely for maps. Grutness...wha? 01:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

For the English-language Wikipedia, U.S. copyright law is the relevant law, and, assuming the map or photograph was published in the U.S. prior to 1923, you can use {{PD-art-US}}:
Jmabel | Talk 04:34, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
I dont think it was published in the US but was in the UK. However the drawing in question dates from 1886, and the map from 1731. So I think I'm probably OK. G-Man 19:56, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Handy table: [1] If it was published in the U.S. before 1923, it is public domain in the U.S. If it was published outside the U.S. before 1909, it is public domain in the U.S. and also for our uses. Rmhermen 15:25, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Bio article

I want to create an article on a particular person. He is a moderately famous journalist in India. A google search lists 64,500 results to his name (with quotes included). The problem is that he is a wikipedia user. Would I be wrong in making a page about him? User:Nichalp/sg 18:10, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

No. WP:AUTO suggests that other people will write about you if you are famous enough. Plus, if he contributes pseudonymously, and keeps it that way, we'd never know who it is. Of course, if it reads like fanity (f, not v) it'll wind up on VfD, but I imagine you've been around long enough to avoid that! -Splash 18:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
No no no, I'm not writing a fan page about him. Its just that this person's id is also his name. He does not contribute regularly. He pops in once in two months and makes some edits related to his area of expertise. User:Nichalp/sg 18:27, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
Well, we have articles on other Wikipedians in some cases written by themselves. We do not usually ask the person in question first (or take their article down if they so request, unless it's a copyvio), but there's no harm in doing so. If they are notable, and you reckon it would stand up to a VfD (which would probably never be brought), then I'd say go ahead. -Splash 18:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Ok, the person in question is Fredrick Noronha (User:Fredericknoronha). User:Nichalp/sg 18:44, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
You misspelled his name. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for correcting the name. User:Nichalp/sg 05:50, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
ISTR we actually have a categories called something like Category:Wikipedians with articles somewhere, anyway. Grutness...wha? 01:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
The category was deleted for violating "no self-references". There's still a page for it. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Louvre pyramid : Legal threat

Pictures representing the Louvre pyramid may cause legal troubles. Pei, the architect of the pyramid and so beneficiary, forbid to take photos of it. It should exist a solution : It's impossible to take pictures of the Louvre under some angles without having the pyramid on the picture, but one picture of en: still is poblematic : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Invertedpyramidlouvre1.jpg This picture contains almost no architectural elements of the old parts of the Louvre. Traroth 08:40, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

On what basis does Pei forbid photographs? What is the law in question? Surely the pyramid is clearly visible from public property. Bovlb 13:29:32, 2005-07-27 (UTC)
Author right. It's a work of art. He's the author. Traroth
Yes but it is in a public place. Architects can't forbid people to photograph their buildings. I can't see how he can possibly forbid it. Then again, IANAL gkhan 15:45, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
Actually, the problem is not with *taking photos* but *publish these photos*, like we do. Traroth
Publishing any photo of any structure that can be seen from public property is perfectly legal in the U.S. (where the servers are). --mav
Hmph. Another possible Commons move bites the dust. Any info on this legal status in other countries? — Ambush Commander(Talk) 19:52, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
If ever proof were needed that the balance of "intellectual property" rights is unbalanced, this is it. What do Google Maps and MSN Virtual Earth show? A blank spot where the pyramid is supposed to be? What next, are the heirs of Cheops going to sue people for publishing pictures of his pyramid? O tempora, O mores. Dpbsmith (talk) 09:57, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
I remember that another Pei building, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland, tried to prevent a photographer from selling pictures he took of the building. If I remember right, the courts ruled the Rock Hall couldn't copyright a view of its building. Mwalcoff 00:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia in danger of turning the web into one big circular reference?

It is getting truly scary how often Wikipedia hits are near the top of Google searches. Where will this all stop? And often I see web pages with text that looks like it is right out of Wikipedia, but not credited, so no one really knows the source. Won't the web get less credible than it already is? Spalding 23:01, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

You can always search books instead --Alterego 23:11, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
But if our content is being forked (sometimes without credit), is it really our fault? Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, an' all that... I just use the CustomiseGoogle Firefox extension and filter out any mirrors and forks, that way they don't bother me. GarrettTalk 00:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
But Spalding, you seem to be saying that the web would become less credible if Wikipedia becomes the number 1 source of research... I would prefer to think the contrary. We always strive to be as accurate, reliable and comprising as can be. Sure we still have a long, long way to go, what with the present pace of growth and all, but people should feel confident in the information they are getting from Wikipedia. That's one of our goals. Call me an idealist, but I'd like to think that the web will get more credible because of everything you said, eventually. Unless you meant that the problem is the lack of crediting. In that case, I second Garrett's words. Regards, Redux 01:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Well, one issue is that people copy our content - content which once copied has a very short expiration date. Google can't spider our history pages, which is a very good thing. But old Wikipedia content is all over the web which could be seen as bad. I think it's a problem better left to the search engines, personally :) --Alterego 01:57, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
I was just surmising that old, possibly incorrect or misleading Wikipedia content that was quickly corrected in Wikipedia itself will just float around as unverifiable info, sort of like space junk or urban legends. Maybe I just worry too much. But something with so much apparent leverage and influence over the web seems to me to be a pretty big deal! Spalding 03:42, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
When it becomes large enough wikepedia will be taken over by FOX, articles twisted, and all users kicked off. Then we have wiki-propaganda over the internet................................or not, just saying Uber nemo 03:04, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Which - The servers currently used by wikipedia.org (owned by the Wikimedia Foundation), the content currently licensed under the GFDL (which can be "taken over" by FOX already, if and when they want it) or something else? In the comments on Dvorak's latest attack on Wikipedia someone made the same strange claim. I really don't see that it makes any sense. What can FOX take that we are not already giving them? (Other than the updates by all the Wikipedians, which would effectively prevent them from "twisting" it except by putting in more work than the rest of us combined(which would make you wonder why they would bother with our work... oy, my head is hurting...)) JesseW 07:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Garrett, how do you do that?? I have customizegoogle. Maybe add instructions to Wikipedia:Tools? - Omegatron 03:13, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Yes please! JesseW 07:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
It occurs to me that what you'd have to do is find out all forks of Wikipedia content and then block 'em via the remove results thing. All we need is someone to compile a list. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 19:37, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia: Mirrors and forks. Deco 02:55, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
I've made a start on this. I announced it in a new section below so that it gets more eyeballs. -- Jeronim 21:43, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Mmmm... eyeballs. - Omegatron 03:02, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Speaking intelligently

I able to speak intelligently with my son on current events. Kuddos Wikipedia

Lyrics

Does anyone know the lyrics to 'Les Rhythmes Digitales' - 'Jacques your Body'? I have scourec the web and can find none! I will accept Frenxh ones as I can translate them with Google :-)

You might have more luck over at Wikipedia:Reference desk, which is designed for answer questions. -Splash 19:58, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


dual liscence user sub-pages?

I'm not sure where this belongs, so I'm putting it here, if there is anywhere better please feel free to move it (but let me know where to!).

Would it be OK for me to say that all users contributions to specific pages in my userspace are dual liscenced e.g. to the public domain. I would obviously make this explicit and obvious in advance and not retrospectively. My reasoning is that it will be easier this way to legally integrate work on propsed alterations into the main article. e.g. User:Slambo and I are currently working on improving the colour scheme of the custom TOC for List of rail accidents at a page in my user space (User:Thryduulf/rail accidents toc). Thryduulf 00:09, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think an attempt at imposing your own licensing terms would go over very well. -- Cyrius|✎ 07:47, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Category phrasing

Why/when did the phrasing on category pages get changed to "at least X articles" from "X articles"? -Splash 17:37, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

According to the page history of MediaWiki:Categoryarticlecount [2]:
  • 02:46, 10 August 2005 ABCD (change the msg temporarily, so that it no longer tells a blatent untruth when #/articles > 200 and $1 == 200)
  • 23:20, 11 August 2005 ABCD m (Reverted edits by ABCD to last version by MediaWiki default)
Beyond this I don't know. Thryduulf 00:02, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. -Splash 19:59, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


Admin: namespace

What? This Wikipedia needs more cabal.
You can help by adding more cabal.

I think we've seen way too few conspiracy theories about admins as of late. Therefore I propose an Admin: namespace where certified admins can talk amongst themselves. Regular users would not be able to access these pages. In other words, the reports of the cabal's death have been greatly exaggerated. The first task can be to discuss how to enforce stricter editorial controls. That is not a discussion that any old editor needs to take an interest in, and is better served by a decree. Thoughts? — David Remahl 22:55, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Probably needs a password. And I think the various discussion headings should be visible to all, but not the discussions themselves. Joyous (talk) 23:01, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
There Is No Admin: Namespace.... :) Func( t, c ) 23:05, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

This actually already exists, we just don't tell anyone about it. The discussion is ongoing at Admin:Empty Paking Lot Late at Night, which is the Cabal version of the Village Pump. But then, that link is red to ordinary editors :)--Pharos 23:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Oi, I thought I was in the cabal! [[smoddy]] 23:16, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
I think we should have a Beautiful: namespace where only the handsome wikipedians can read and edit, to bridge issues with the bulk of ugly wikipedians.
I don't understand what the admins can say to each other that others shouldn't listen to. Are you sure you're not really wanting a separate forum for developers/stewards? Admins are just old wikipedians, I don't see any differences (apart from the functional ones) between them and other wikipedians. — Sverdrup 23:17, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
You seem to imply that adminship is not a big deal! ;-). — David Remahl 23:28, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, it kind of isn't. It's just some extra technical abilities, with no extra clout in disputes or the like. ~~ N (t/c) 23:46, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Somewhere along the line, the satire got lost :-P. I'm sorry. — David Remahl 23:48, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
There already is a Beautiful: namespace. It is hidden from most editors out of fear they would be blinded by our combined beauty. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:57, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Submitted to BJAODN, btw. JesseW 07:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Obscurantists are now trying to eliminate ANY place to take exception to what they are trying to do with the article, truth [3]

the obscurantists are now trying to eliminate any place to discuss what they are trying to do in the article, truth [4]

they protected te talk page, now they are trying to speedy delete the talk_talk:truth page! --172.197.76.251 22:48, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Hmm. Would labelling the majority as Obscurantists be an "ad-hominem" attack? Dear God.--Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 22:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#DotSix. Bleah. It got so bad that they protected the Talk page. Crazy... — Ambush Commander(Talk) 23:00, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Talk_talk:Truth? What? Ohh, I get it, cause the template prefixes the article with Talk. And if it is a talk page.....well......recursive fun ensues! People, please use subst in these kind of situations, and then edit the template code gkhan 23:05, August 14, 2005 (UTC)


Amazing

Hello, I just want to say what an amazing idea and a brilliant display of trust you people have displayed in setting this up. This is what the internet should be used for, and it's a marvel. That's it!

Articles with 1000 hits

I'm made a list of articles with at least 1000 hits as of June 2005, complete with links to each. These articles should be carefully examined by more editors, because they're the most visible of our articles. Particularly important are the stubs, such as semi-automatic handgun and clitoridectomy. In a way it's a bit sad that of our million articles, only a tiny fraction get significant traffic. Please spread this link to other forums that may be interested. Deco 21:18, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Probably in a lot of cases they get more hits because they have more links and therefore more robot traffic. List of French people? —Wahoofive (talk) 23:06, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
No idea why on that one. Some of our pages get more hits than others due to a link from a popular external site. A robot shouldn't visit an article they've already seen. Deco 00:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Interesting list. Some strange articles in there, too. Seems a lot of people wanted to know about complexity classes P and NP, Anton van Leeuwenhoek, and Commedia Dell'arte. Grutness...wha? 01:43, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is the first Google hit for "NP-complete" (which is such a common and confusing term that I imagine a lot of people would be looking it up), and in the top 10 for "Commedia Dell'arte" and "Anton van Leeuwenhoek". I don't imagine those two are very common search terms, though. ~~ N (t/c) 15:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Given the high place on the list of Casualties of the September 11, 2001 attacks, would it be better to replace the red-link with a "soft redirect" to the Sept 11 Memorial wiki where the article was transwikied? See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Casualties of the September 11, 2001 attacks. Thryduulf 21:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Considering how badly our article covers the casualties, we would be better off rebuilding that article here. Rmhermen 23:38, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Something wrong with the Tigrinya language page . . .

I just noticed something . . . the front page of the nearly article less Tigrinya language section of the Wikipedia (http://ti.wikipedia.org/) has a bunch of links to different pages on http://passion.sexwebsites.com/ at the bottom of the page! How could that happen?!

Vandalism. Some smaller wikis don't have protected main pages, for some reason. ~~ N (t/c) 00:14, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
The reason is that they don't need to be due to less traffic (the vandalism is within their ability to deal with reasonably). Remember, protection is a last resort. Deco 00:34, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Israeli terrorism

Oh, COME ON! This article has FIVE editorial templates on it! Zoe 21:17, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Well, the article is a joke, that only highlights it. Merging it where it belongs will fix that. Jayjg (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Yup - those templates sure make a WP:POINT dont they? 62.252.0.7 10:53, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
It's a stub, too. Not that that's bad - it just means that it needs another template. Grutness...wha? 01:33, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

RfA change

I thought it would be good to make this public here: at the request of the Bureaucrats (proposed by Uninvited Company), there are no longer separate lists for nominations (users nominating other users) and self-nominations for Adminship. We now have a single list, in chronological order (newest requests at the top). Regards, Redux 03:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


Liberalism

User:67.173.181.67 has apparently been—singlehandedly, without discussion, and with no further edit summary than "disambig"—changing almost all (maybe all) former links to Liberalism, often making what strike me as very polemical choices. Someone may want to go through this IPs entire contribution list and see which of these should be reverted or otherwise changed. I've stumbled across half a dozen in my own watchlist so far; all but one struck me as poor choices. Among other things, nothing I've seen is being redirected to American Liberalism: where that might be appropriate (like the NAACP, the redirection is to left-wing politics. Even in talking (at Jacobin Club) about the opposition of the Bourbon Restoration to liberalism, that was redirected to left-wing politics (those notorious left-wingers who propagated the Napoleonic Code, I suppose. Elsewhere classical liberalism was substituted with reference to thinkers such as Thomas Paine who are embraced by all modern-day currents of liberalism. If there is someone who was more simply "liberal" without needing a qualifier than Paine, I can't think who it would be.

This is insidious stuff because (1) it's half-hidden, because there is no meaningful edit sumary and he/she isn't removing the word liberal from the visible text, just making it redirect elsewhere, and (2) it's easy to make a ton of edits like this if you don't take any time to discuss the matter, but for those of us who feel a need to state a justification when making a substantive edit (like a reversion of these) it probably takes 10-20 times as long.

Anyway, I personally am not taking on either the task of "negotiating" with this person or looking through these (probably hundreds) of edits, but I think someone ought to. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:48, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

I did wade in, and have reverted most but not all of the edits, as some seemed appropriate to me. Several other editors also reverted some of the edits. It might have been better not to have reverted them but to have changed the text to refer to something more appropriate than Liberalism, but that would require expertise in many fields I don't have expertise in. In any case, left-wing politics was rarely the best place for the link to go to. You can see the discussion with User:67.173.181.67 at their and my talk pages; I believe that this is a user who was dutifully carrying out a Wikipedia maintenance task but wasn't aware of the nuances of political terms.-gadfium 01:48, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
I apologize for any problems I may have caused, but be aware that I was editing using the understanding that historical figures in the British and American veign be redirected to classical liberalism, left (and left historical) figures be redirected to left-wing politics, political parties be redirected accordingly, anything that could not meaningfully be redirected to any of the above to the catch-all liberalism. Please see my user talk page, as there is an editor, El C (for El Che, who is editing with the interpretation that classical liberalism is to the right. This is far out of the mainstream interpretation of liberal to conservative in any country, except perhaps China circa 1949. Since it appears that all arguments are with my redirections to left-wing politics, please change those to liberalism if necessary but bear in mind that the both argument that Thomas Paine should be considered a left-liberal and that classical liberalism ought to be considered to the right are both arguments specifically propounded by Frederick Engels in his essays on "the origin of the family, private property, and the state," and should be recognized as revisionist history, or at the very least highly controversial. 67.173.181.67 02:34, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, I am not nor have I ever claimed to speak for the mainstream of liberalism, be it reform liberals on the left of the continuum or the classical one on its right. But calling left-wing politics Liberal and right-wing politics also Liberal is problematic. El_C 02:39, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
And there you have it. But note the addition to Fascism pointed out a controversy and labelled it a controversy. The controversy is that socialism is not confined to the left, and may be on the right as well. For whatever reason, the article completely ignores two-thirds of the available historical analysis out there, instead choosing to accept the neo-Marxian view that Nazis only "pretended" to be socialists as an electioneering ploy. This episode is leading me to believe that Wikipedia is hostile to the norm in historical analysis, and I'm getting turned off. Schlessinger is not the only historian out there, and having my edits reverted, which are comfortably within 90% of the published work out there, is quite devastating.
Even this complaint, which I initially took to be legitimate as presented by Gadfium, I have found is initiated by Jmabel whose edits show him/her too far to the left to be objective in the matter, and propegated by an avowed Marxist. Consider me disillusioned. 67.173.181.67 02:56, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel disillusioned over this matter. I think you walked into a hot topic with good intentions, and got burned. I hope you will continue to contribute to Wikipedia in other areas.-gadfium 03:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Liberalism worldwide is loaded with links to articles on the liberal traditions of specific countries. In many cases these are the appropriate links. In other cases it might be Liberal theory of economics. Etc. In some cases (e.g. Thomas Paine) it is almost certainly just Liberalism. And by the way, it amuses me greatly that every alternating week I seem to be accused of being too far to the left or to the right to edit objectively, with left leading right only by a small margin. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:01, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, every week you get droves of hate mail from extremists, none of which has any basis in reality. I bow before the appeal ad hominem, and, thus disproved, retreat. 67.173.181.67 03:08, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Nothing I said above was ad hominem, but if you want ad hominem here it is: the vast majority of the people who disparage my work in Wikipedia edit anonymously, hence making their own record impossible to determine. I'll happily stand on mine. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:46, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
The edits Jmabel made to Liberalism and related articles generally take in mind that liberalism has various meanings around the world and contribute to an article embracing an objective view on liberalism. I can agree with most of his edits. Electionworld 09:05, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Asking for help

My name is Basheer Al-ni'ma a proffesor assistant in yhe university of Mosul, college of sciences, department of Biology/Iraq. During collection of water sampels from a freshwater lake near my city i found a macroscopic red algae at a depth (2-7)meters. I am facing a proplem in the identification of this algae since i have shortege in the identification key also the taxon was not included in the published check list of iraqi algae.Can you help or support me for the identification of this species.I am ready for cooperation and willbe happy to hear good news from you Thank you very much in advance sincerely yours B.A. basheer Al-Ni'ma E-Mail babasheer2003@yahoo.com


Searching for Shani Mootoo

The author Shani Mootoo lived with our family as a student in London, Ontario in the 1970s. We are searching for her. Does anyone know how to contact her? It is rather important. Thank you for your assistance. Please contact Judy Chambers at [e-mail removed]

Thank you

Although I am new and really not sure were to post this, and don't know what I am doing. I guess I'll just put it here. I think wikipedia is great. I believe in your goals, and I'm pretty sure I understand them. I will refer to the article about Islam. I went there,So I could try to get a small understanding of that believe,(I don't believe in any of those religions or philosophies) I just wanted information. I believe that article gave me the information I was looking for. Someone had tagged it as nonsense, then on the talk pages. 90% of that, seemed to be nonsense, it really had nothing to do with the article. So I really didn't feel like I should make a comment on why I believe the article should stay, I had the impression that I would be digging in a trash can. Anyway, today the tag is gone, so this only strengthens my believe that wikipedia is great. Thank you! Spongehead 8\15\05

  • I'm glad you find the project useful. As to the tag you saw on the page, controversial subjects often end up gettingcontentious, biased, or even vandalous edits, and it could be that the tag you saw referred to that in some way. The talk page (for discussion among editors about a particular page) can often get quite heated on those pages, too, so it's no surprise that the conversation there seemed to stray from the point. Grutness...wha? 02:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

A welcome to Peter C. Wayner and the hundreds of good articles his class is about to contribute

Peter C. Wayner (who wrote some books on cryptography and one on the free software movement) is again giving a course on computer science for non computer-science majors. One of the assignments is to contribute an article to Wikipedia.

Last year, his students contributed about 600 articles. As he says on his user page, "Some were great and some were just quick hacks turned out to get some credit." Most of them went completely unnoticed by Wikipedians. There was nothing in particular to identify an excellent article on an unpublished work by Jane Austen as being the product of a Dartmouth class exercise.

But. Maybe ten per cent of these articles were puff pieces on subtrivial aspects of Dartmouth student life, student activities described in language appropriate to a recruiting brochure, rules for traditional games played in certain living units, and so forth. The sudden arrival of a few dozen pieces of Dartmouthcruft brought out the very worst in the Wikipedian community.

The final disposition of most of these articles was that they were cleaned up and merged into Dartmouth College, which is a much better article than it was two years ago, so even these articles were beneficial, but along the way there was a great deal of unnecessary incivility and hurt feelings.

This year, let's welcome the Dartmouth students and the hundreds of decent articles they are about to contribute.

We will probably get a few articles on topics that seem too narrow to be encyclopedic. Let's remember that redirects are cheap and that anyone can merge-and-redirect, which is a far gentler process than nomination for deletion. If we do feel a need to nominate any of them for deletion, let's really adhere to the policies of

Nobody is trying to spam us. And we have a standing invitation to professors to engage in just such projects.

Welcome back, Big Green. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Welcome! I'm sure this will work out much nicer this year.
I would like to reiterate one piece of advice given to Peter last year...I believe that it would become a much better assignment in cooperative work if the assignment permitted / encouraged students to _enhance_ an article that is already in the 'pedia. Wikipedia and the FOSS movements are all about collaboration. I see that the assignment permits it to some extent, but I think it could be made better... Also, it might be a good idea to point the students to the lists of Wikipedia:Requested articles or Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles for students who seek inspiration beyond college life. I'm an inclusionist just like Peter and have no real complaints about such articles either, but they might be more useful as part of a larger article than standing alone.
As an aside, I've suggested to my mother — an elementary school teacher — that she should integrate Wikipedia into her classwork next year. She has a fifth-grade class in Sweden (so they will probably work on the Swedish language Wikipedia, and maybe the really bright ones on simple. She will probably work around a similar model to that suggested in andy's excellent blog entry. — David Remahl 13:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
I've put together a start for a brief "guide to students" at Wikipedia:School and university projects - instructions for students, per a discussion on wikien-l, if anyone's interested. Shimgray 18:39, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
As long as he can keep them from writing articles about drinking games and their dorms... -- Cyrius|✎ 04:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree, let's welcome the students, regardless of the article quality. However, I also think a project involving improvement of existing articles is not only more beneficial to the students, but also considerably more practical. Their changes are likely to have more impact, and besides, just finding a good topic we don't already cover is a project in itself nowadays. Deco 04:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

At the Oxford Computing summer school

I'm participating in an online study program with Oxford University in computing. This is mostly done at home with a computer, but each year they do a mandatory summer school for students. While I'm a fairly experienced programmer, most of the students are not; many were at the Word-and-Outlook stage when they started the course, able to use a computer for basic tasks but not really skilled with one.

I know you're saying "what's this got to do with Wikipedia?" I'm getting there.

Last night was the final night of the summer school, so we had a celebratory dinner. And as often happens in British school settings involving dinners, the head of the program stood up to make an after-dinner speech. As part of it, he listed a number of milestones in the Internet's development in the last ten years.

One of these was the foundation of Wikipedia in 2001. At this point, he stopped and asked the gathered students, "How many of you have contributed to Wikipedia?" I was one of three or four people who raised their hands.

He then asked, "How many of you have used Wikipedia?" I was amazed to see about half the hands in the air, and grinned afterwards when someone commented that they'd have to look into that "Wikipedia thing".

Our hard work is much appreciated.

—Brent Dax 07:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency

[Template:DecencyWikiProject]]

Take a look at the above, then vote at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency

CensorshipOfCensorship 07:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay I've finally done it

I've gone wiki crazy. see this:

America Online Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Time Warner Inc., has since launched a major assault on spam, significantly reducing unsolicited e-mails.

if that were on wikipedia, I would either edit that or slap a NPOV tag on it. Shame, shame on AP. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 02:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes... you've been infected too! MUAHAHAH! NPOV is contagious. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 02:42, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
Amazing isn't it ... I used to write that way myself. Heh. Antandrus (talk) 02:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
You should look at some of my talk archives from 2 years ago (when I was 11!!!) I can't believe how much more maturely I write now. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 03:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Autofellatio IFD *again*

WP:IFD#August 15. The horror, the horror. ~~ N (t/c) 13:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Clearly, the next logical step is to nominate it for FPC. --Golbez 14:29, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Speak, and it shall be done. — Xiong熊talk* 06:40, 2005 August 18 (UTC)

Translation issue

Hi. I've come across a series of articles (click here for links) that seem to have mistranslated a term into English. It is rather common to see the words deputado (in Portuguese) and diputado (in Spanish) mistranslated into English as "deputy", when the correct word is congressman. Now, I've just found that Câmara dos Deputados (Portuguese) and Cámara de Diputados (Spanish) have been mistranslated apparently into "chamber of deputies", when it would appear that the correct translation would be House of Representatives. Even worse, as I said, a series of articles have been created using the mistranslation. Before we start moving all those articles, however, I wanted to make absolute sure that this term "chamber of deputies" cannot absolutely be used. Has anybody (from English-speaking countries) ever seen or heard it used? That looks completely wrong to me. Thanks for the help. Regards, Redux 23:46, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for bring this up here first. I have seen "Chamber of Deputies" used many many times in respected English-language publications; it is a perfectly acceptable and appropriate term. English is a language that is not uncomfortable accepting more than one meaning for a word.--Pharos 01:54, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Imho, deputies is the better translation. Calling them congressmen would seem to be putting an American spin on the translation. -Splash 02:02, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
I certainly wouldn't use congressman. Agree house of representatives seems to be a good, probably better, translation of Câmara dos Deputados and Cámara de Diputados, but as these are proper nouns, another alternative is not to translate them at all. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English); The question is, do English speakers most normally use the translated name? In this case, it's a line call IMO, so personally I wouldn't translate. Andrewa 04:08, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
If the term is perfectly usable, all the better for us &#150; less moves and probably less controversies. There might have been a generalization though. Perhaps the terms "congressman" and "House of Representatives" would be more fitting for countries with a bicameral Congress — many of them actually copied the U.S. model, with just minor modifications (e.g. Brazil and Argentina). We could also consider leaving the terms untranslated, as Andrewa suggested.. Regards, Redux 13:55, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Sometimes, foreign institutions have official English translations. For example, the Czech Statní zdravotní ustav literally translates to "State Health Institute," but the organization calls itself the "National Institute of Public Health" in its English-language publications. I don't know how Spain translates Congreso de Diputados, but the International Parliamentary Union translates it as "Congress of Deputies" [5]. The Brazilian Câmara dos Deputados calls itself the "Chamber of Deputies" in English [6]. As a result, I think "deputies" is the best translation. Mwalcoff 03:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Very interesting. Indeed, it would appear that "Chamber of Deputies" would go for most cases. I now believe that the current names in those articles should be changed only for the cases where the institution in question might call itself differently in their English-language publications or website (which many of them have). We should use the name that the institution itself uses in their official references in English (and use redirects to make sure that querries like "Brazilian House of Representatives" find the appropriate article). Regards, Redux 14:38, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Good idea. It would be useful to create redirects. (Do we have "redirects are cheap" as official policy somewhere?) –Hajor 19:48, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Chamber of Deputies and deputy are certainly correct, but can cause confusion, especially in the U.S. where deputy means "deputy sheriff". I'd usually say something like Chamber of Deputies (lower house of parliament) or deputy (member of parliament). -- Jmabel | Talk 22:26, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
That's in the back of my mind. I'm familiar with both U.S. and British English and I also know my way around Australian English. But still, whenever I hear "deputy", I think of second-in-charge. Could that be a relevant factor when it comes to the average reader? This being the English-language Wikipedia, I believe the decisive input here should come from users hailing from English-speaking countries. Regards, Redux 02:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Italy has a Camera dei Deputati. It describes itself in English as Chamber of Deputies. It also says The deputies are the representatives of the citizens who elected them: the word "deputy" actually means "representative".
Luxembourg has a Chambre des Députés which is translated either as Parliament or Chamber of Deputies. The Czech Republic has a Poslanecká sněmovna which they translate into English as Chamber of Deputies. A search of the web reveals the term 'Chamber of Deputies' is used in respect of Bahrain, Belgium, Bolivia, Chile, Egypt, Lebanon, Mexico, Romania, Tunisia, Turkey, and Paraguay. The EU spends a lot of money on translation and employs a lot of translators. It uses the term 'Chamber of Deputies' as the translation in several places. The term means to have power on behalf of somebody. That is why 2nd in charge sometimes has the title Deputy Something'. A deputation is a group of people sent on behalf of others. For British English, I think the term Chamber of Deputies is better than House of Representatives. Similarly, unless a term like 'Member' is used, it seems self-evident that a Chamber of Deputies has Deputies. Bobblewik 18:05, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
In absolute agreement with Bobblewik, but let's not make this a UK/US thing. The translations of the world's couple of hundred national legislatures used on our Politics in XXXland page are very good and, of course, all those "politics in..." pages originally came from the guys at www.state.gov. In serious (encyclopedic) writing, surely it's better to use translations of the official name, rather than hamfisted attempts at localization or the transferring of one country's concept to another's context (as referring to Brazil's CoD as either a House of Representatives or (shudder) a House of Commons would be). –Hajor 18:41, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
(In case anyone's unaware of its existence, we have our own consolidated list, displaying global diversity in all its glory, at List of national legislatures. –Hajor)

http://nl.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia:Ontmoeten

Op zondag 11 september zal een eerste ontmoeting plaatsvinden ten behoeve van de oprichting van een Nederlandse afdeling van de Wikimedia Foundation. Iedereen die wil komen, is van harte welkom. Groet, Gebruiker:Dedalus 14:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Sunday 11 september 2005 the first meeting will be held regarding establishing a Dutch chapter of the Wikimedia Foundation. If you would like to attend, you're welcome. Greetings, Gebruiker:Dedalus 14:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)


Thank you

Hi I just discovered this wonderful site. I was just wondering what the maximum recorded depth of the Amazon River is and I followed a link that led me to wikipedia. I must say that this is a wonderful concept and wish you well. When I am able I wish to contribute some funds for you guys. Keep up the good work... one question how do you filter false information??

Best wishes, Jeremy

Peer review is our weapon against those who would try to insert false information in the encyclopedia. And it is quite effective in general. On average, wrong data and vandalism are removed rather quickly. Regards, Redux 02:56, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject Holidays

You may be interested in the WikiProject, WikiProject Holidays, a WikiProject that will focus on standardizing articles about Holidays. It has been around for quite some time, but I'm starting it up again, and would like to see some more members (and our original members) around the help out. Cheers. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 21:13, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Template insanity

Today's featured picture. One picture, six templates. Looks like a new record (or not, shudder...) Kosebamse 09:05, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

  • That's because the info from the Commons is also inserted. - Mgm|(talk) 19:57, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia 2, Canadian censorship 0

I have created an article on convicted school shooter Todd Cameron Smith. In Canada, it's illegal for the media to identify juvenile criminals, but that restriction was lifted for the 24 hours or so of Smith's escape from a halfway house. That means it's now illegal for Canadian media to reprint their own stories from yesterday!

As with the sponsorship scandal, Wikipedia allows Canadians to skirt censorship laws and read what the government says they should not be able to. Hopefully, this phenomenon will help Canadian policy-makers wake up to the futility of censorship. Ray Oiler 19:28, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

There is a difference between censorship and protecting privacy. Swedish media usually don't publish names of criminals except in rare cases (Mijailo Mijailović comes to mind). I think this is a very good policy, especially in cases where someone hasn't been found guilty yet. A news-story that falesly indicates someone in a crime can effectively ruin their lives. gkhan 10:33, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
First of all, whenever the government restricts speech or expression, it's censorship. You might think the censorship is justified, but it's still censorship. Secondly, this is not a case of a person who has yet to be convicted. This is a convicted murderer. And his name was already all over the media. Anyone can go to the library and find his name in Tuesday's newspapers. Wikipedia just allows people to get around an absurd ruling that prevents the media from reporting what they already reported. Ray Oiler 13:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes I realise that he was a convicted murderer, I was reacting to the way you talked about the law. It is not stupid nor is it futile. The kid will be in prison for a long long time, that will be his punishment and should atleast be given a chance to repay his dept to society when he gets out. He was very young when he commited the crime and as a juvenile there must be extra care taken to take care of his rights. The law is not designed to limit speech or to throw people in jail for saying things that the government don't like, it is a humanitarian law designed to protect it's citizens. Not all censorship is bad (although most is) gkhan 13:52, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Whether it's in a good cause or not, or desirable or not in a given case, censorship by one country's government just doesn't work in this age; Internet servers elsewhere are free to diseminate the banned information. *Dan* 14:29, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't he get a new identity like the kids in the British Jamie Bulger case? (or is that some myth I heard?). - Mgm|(talk) 19:51, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Is the Wikiserver Breaking?

Hi all, I have been a Wikipedian since May or so. At first, the server seemed quite fast and I happily edited or wrote numerous articles. When the new software took effect, I did notice some slowdown, but nothing too drastic. But in the past week or so, I have noticed a pronounced slowdown, with half of my edits (or more) timing out before taking effect. Needless to say, this has put a damper on my activities. Any idea what might be going on?---22:07, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

You're noticing it too? I thought things slowed down quite a bit after the ten minute server crash we had a while ago. You can find reports on [7], although I was the one who last updated them. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 22:25, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I sure am noticing! But I've been seeing this quite a bit in the past few days. Very frustrating when I'm doing (I think) useful work, but half my edits time out!

Another thing I've been noticing is that "Search" instead of "Go" ofen fails in recent days. That is, the search engine can't find a page which I know exists. Sometimes, if I remember the exact name, I can get there using "Go".---CH (talk) 22:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... actually, I haven't noticed that. Are you using Firefox? Because if it times out or says "Server returned no response", you can just press back and you're edit is still there (in the textbox). Usually, if it says "Wikimedia Server returned no response", your edit went through. That's how I'm coping. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 22:38, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, AC, I am a bit confused on a key point--- are you saying that you too have been experiencing a greatly increased frequency of "Wikimedia Server returned no reponse" error messages in the past few days, as I have? Or are you talking about something which happened a few days ago? Are you saying that the database server crash someone mentioned elsewhere is the likely cause of the behavior I have been seeing for the past few days? And yes, I am using Firefox, and I take the point: better to reload the article than to try to resend an edit, because the edit will probably have taken effect before you can reload the article, so any duplicate edit will just increase the load on the server.---CH (talk) 23:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

are you saying that you too have been experiencing a greatly increased frequency of "Wikimedia Server returned no reponse" error messages in the past few days, as I have? Yes. Or are you talking about something which happened a few days ago?, Yes I am talking about something that happened a few days ago. Are you saying that the database server crash someone mentioned elsewhere is the likely cause of the behavior I have been seeing for the past few days? Not really, actually, I'm just saying the percieved slowdown seemed to have taken place shortly after the crash. The crash itself was caused by something else. And yes, I am using Firefox, and I take the point: better to reload the article than to try to resend an edit, because the edit will probably have taken effect before you can reload the article, so any duplicate edit will just increase the load on the server. Good. I see this phenomenon a lot on Talk pages: First edit adds a comment, second comment increments the time on the signature. ;-) — Ambush Commander(Talk) 00:28, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

I get the same sort of thing: Sometimes when I go to save an edit to a section of a long page I get a proxy server error "Cannot fulful request" or similar. Yet when I check the article, I find that the save has been made. Normally it doesn't matter if a re-save goes over the top, but if you're saving a "new" section on a talk page you can end up getting multiple new sections. People in the know would almost certainly avoid this happening, but for someone with a bit less wikisavvy (or someone as forgetful as me) it can cause problems. Grutness...wha? 03:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

  • This points up the need to get more money so we can pay for better service.
  • Meanwhile, this reminds us how good it is to use an external editor. — Xiong熊talk* 06:18, 2005 August 18 (UTC)
  • An external editor makes absolutely no difference - you still have to save your text into Wikipedia at some point, and you can't do that with an external editor. Grutness...wha? 01:07, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Please note that sometimes when you save an edit, it seems to fail, but actually gets through. Always keep a window open on the related history page. A few hours ago, my edit seemed to fail, but when I rechecked the log it actually took 3 times even though I checked after each attempt. - Mgm|(talk) 19:46, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

revision history format changed?

Is it just me, or has the format of the revision history been changed? No offense, but it looks ugly as heck. --Ixfd64 17:44, 2005 August 20 (UTC)

Changed since when? When did it last look OK to you?
It seemed to have changed today for me. --Ixfd64 03:17, 2005 August 21 (UTC)
Try logging out and not logging in again, but instead view one of the history pages that looks bad, this time as an anon. That guarantees you are using the default skin and no stylesheet overide, which should be the best tested combination. Any changes to what you saw before? Do you still have the problem?
What exactly is wrong? Also, your browser and screen resolution are still relevant. Andrewa 06:36, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
What skin, browser, and screen resolution are you using?
If you're using a stylesheet (CSS) overide that's important too, but if you don't know what this means, you almost certainly aren't using one.
It's impossible to test new versions of anything on all possible platforms and scenarios, so these things do happen. Andrewa 21:23, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


Featured list nomination - they're joking?

I just stumbled upon List of countries with nuclear weapons, and found that there's an entry on Australia! Ah, but it's in a section States formerly possessing nuclear weapons or programs. This heading is perhaps vague enough for us just to qualify, we did some research on centrifuge enrichment once upon a time, but I'm not convinced. Still, List of countries with nuclear weapons is a strange name for a list which includes Australia, a long-time advocate of IAEA safeguards and non-proliferation.

The references and external links at the bottom of the page seem largely (perhaps entirely, I haven't checked them all) from anti-nuclear organisations. The entry on Australia contains some errors of fact and other statements that are at the very least controversial, which I will document on the talk page.

But the reason I raise it here is that I see from the top of that talk page that it's been nominated and accepted as a featured list. How it qualifies under Wikipedia:What is a featured list? criteria 2 and 4 is a puzzle to me, but it passed unanimously, and so according to that notice, I should now be wary of compromising previous work by updating the list.

I thought of raising this as a policy issue, but it's not primarily a policy issue although it does raise a few of them. We've got a sort of Wikipedia approval mechanism working here, or perhaps not working.

It seems a bit daring to pop both an accuracy dispute notice and a POV dispute notice onto a featured list, but what else can I do? Is there a candidates for unlisting featured lists somewhere? What constitutes compromising previous work? Who decides this?

Comments welcome. Andrewa 02:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, there's three separate issues here - two regarding the article, and one regarding editing a FA. First, as regards Australia's listing, I don't see any problem. Australia is not listed as being a country with nuclear weapons - the article makes it clear just what involvement the country once had as regards nuclear programmes and that those programmes no longer exist. It's far more accurate that way than ignoring any previous involvement that Australia may have had in nuclear camplaigns.
The point is that these programs never existed. Unlike the United States Atomic Energy Commission, which took over all the programs of the Manhatten project, the Australian Atomic Energy Commission's brief was specifically peaceful uses of nuclear technology. No weapons. Despite a lot of digging by political researchers, there's no evidence of any weapons program, ever.
Hmmm. In that case, yes, raise it on the talk page, and suggest changing it to something like: Australia is not believed to ever have had a nuclear weapons program. Rumours relating to a program persist, relating to (summary of what the section currently says), but no evidence has ever emerged of their validity. In these circumstances, I don't think there'd be any objections to a change like that. Grutness...wha? 01:05, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
As far as the potential bias in that part of the article, there should be no problem in rewording or reworking that section to correct any incorrect or misleading parts - that would certainly come within the ideas of editing any article, FA or not. With the external links, finding some other links to redress the balance a little should be no problem - it must be possible to find some governmental websites at least commenting on nuclear policies of various countries.
The final point is a trickier one - how much editing can be don to a featured article? This will be open to interpretation between editors, but certainly listing potential things that need changing on the talk page is a good move. Personally, I'd be happy to change (reword/lengthen/amend) individual paragraphs or even small sections, but I wouldn't change the page layout (as regards things like the order of sections) without consultation with other editors on the talk page. More topical or controversial areas - such as nuclear policy - may requre more tact than other articles, however. Grutness...wha? 01:55, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Sounds good. I've put my exact problems with the listing at Talk:List of countries with nuclear weapons#Australia?, and will follow it with a specific suggestion as to how the article should be changed, taking account of comments both here and on the talk page. Thanks for your input. Andrewa 20:51, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, it is a featured list rather than a featured article, but the same principles apply: it was voted through featured list candidates as a good example of Wikipedia's lists (and you should have found the discussion archived at Wikipedia:featured list candidates/List of countries with nuclear weapons , but it is still a Wikipedia article (well, list), and changes are welcomed that will make it a better article (correcting existing content - fixing spelling, grammar, typographical or factual mistakes - or adding new content - extra wikilinks, externals links, or new prose). That is what the wiki process is about. Even (perhaps especially) the front-page featured article is open to editing by anyone: despite the many instances of mindless vandalism that the front-page featured article attracts, many of the changes are for the better.
I did find that discussion. That's what I was referring to above when I said it passed unanimously.
The talk page template does not ask you to refrain from making changes, just to consider whether they will be helpful changes first because we think it is already a "good" article. FWIW, it sounds like your proposed changes are entirely justified, but it would be a good idea to discuss them with the main authors of the article on Talk:List of countries with nuclear weapons first. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:07, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I have already put more detailed comments there. I'll put the specific proposed changes on the talk page before making them. I was just concerned that the talk page traffic is low, even among the article's original authors, and wanted a bit more exposure, that's why I came here as well. Perhaps I should also give a heads-up to those who voted on the featured list discussion. Andrewa 23:34, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks to all who have contributed to this discussion, I'll continue to watch for more comments here but I think my questions have been well answered. Andrewa 17:18, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

It's driving me wikinuts!

I am here to report a wikicrime that I myself have been, on several occasions, wikiguilty of. Can we please stop prefixing every frickin' word with wiki! We have wikibreaks, wikistalking, wikiholics, wikipedians, wikistress, I even hear wikivandals from time to time! It is getting on my wikinerves! Now, I am too wikitired to wikicare, and I want to go to wikibed. Now, tomorrow, barring that I am getting wikilucky with some nice wikigirl and is in a better wikimood, I will serverly wikipunish all who does this atrocious wikiact! We are wikitalking major wiki-h4X0rZing! Goodnight gentlemen and wikiwomen! gkhan 21:42, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Maybe we should create a new guideline page, Wikinaming Conventions, to reduce this problem. Aquillion 21:45, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Go wiki yourself. --Golbez 21:56, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
No, please don't. See WP:VAIN. (SCNR :-) Lupo 10:05, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
Humm, yes it's a little annoying, but I wouldn't call it a "problem". I don't think people would go for a guideline that would be designed to deal with this specifically. Wikiwiki, Redux 22:50, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
This reminds me of a Tom Tomorrow cartoon:
"ePardon eMe, eDo eYou eHave eThe eTime?"
"eNoon."
It doesn't wikiannoy me. ~~ N (t/c) 23:22, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
You should try being an editor from New Zealand. Try typing "Wikikiwi" a few tiimes! Grutness...wha? 02:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


Suicide Methods

I stumbled across Suicide methods while RC patrolling the other day, and looking at the article it looks like a how to of suicide and discusses your various options for doing so. However, the last thing a suicidal person needs is a weapon or a plan. I'm not saying we should remove the article. As a wikipedian, I see its encyclopedic value. However, as a person, I'm a bit disturbed by it.

Would adding a template/table like the one at the top of this article be unreasonable? -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 21:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Moved the rest of the discussion to where it belongs: Talk:Suicide methods. JRM · Talk 22:11, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


Banno and the obscurantists are still trying to control content by force of numbers

Banno, Nate Ladd and their group of obscurantists are still trying to control content by force of numbers in true and related articles, including epistemology and knowledge. That ain't right.

  • Please read WP:NPA, comment on the content, not the contributor, or at least backup your claims. To be clear, labelling people as obscurantists without overwhelming evidence may rightly be construed as a personal attack. If you have some issue or dispute you want to discuss, then it would be reasonable to bring it up, but just labelling people obscurantists is just an inappropriate, non-constructive criticism. --Mysidia (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Additionally: While force of numbers should certainly not be the sole determinant of what ends up in Wikipedia, it is still a valuable way to reach a consensus and keep things going without having to constantly resort to more complicated measures. In other words, if virtually everyone on a page is against you, remember that reason may very well be because you are wrong. If you're convinced that you're right and opposition be damned, consider posting a Request for Comment on the article to draw more uninvolved attention to it. (Don't jump to request comments on the users, especially not if you've only had one dispute with them; asking for comment on the article itself is much more likely to accomplish your goal.) Aquillion 03:38, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
I've been monitoring that huge dispute over on the Truth page for a while now. I have no idea how that anonymous bozo has the time to keep messing with the article every time it is unprotected (as opposed to getting a life like the rest of us). He or she must be a retiree or homeless or something! --Coolcaesar 19:39, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DotSix. --cesarb 20:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

advice against self-promoting articles

I spent some time on the votes for deletion page today, and I was appalled at how many clearly-offtopic, blatantly self-promoting "vanity" articles there are lately which are (quite obviously) in need of deletion. I realize that most of the perpetrators probably haven't read and don't care about the existing rules and guidelines against what they're doing, but it occurred to me that a useful litmus test to explain somewhere would be:

Self-promoting articles
Wikipedia strongly discourages articles which promote non-notable topics, or which are written in a promotional tone at all. There is a very simple technique you can use to make sure your contributions don't end up being objectionable in these ways: simply do not create articles about yourself or about companies, projects, or other entities you're associated with. If you or your company or project are notable enough to be included in wikipedia, someone else will create the article, sooner or later. Furthermore, that someone else is much more likely to compose a neutral, nonpromotional description.
It is nearly impossible to write an article about yourself which does not have aspects of self-promotion in it. Moreover, no matter how neutrally you might write such an article, many observers are likely to infer a measure of self-promotion just from the fact that the subject of the article created the article, and criticize the article (perhaps proposing it for deletion) on that basis alone.

Do we have advice like this anywhere?

Steve Summit (talk) 22:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Indeed we do: WP:AUTO. -Splash 23:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Splendid! Thanks. Steve Summit (talk) 00:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, we do sort of. But I note that Wikipedia:Autobiography is now in Category:Wikipedia essays which is described as Essays about Wikipedia and related topics. These are not policy and are primarily opinion pieces. (Emphasis is mine.) But it's also in Category:Wikipedia guidelines, and has the standard notice to that effect. I would have thought these two categories to be mutually exclusive.
See also Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and its talk page (it has no official status yet), and Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines which does. Andrewa 07:52, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • They are mutually exclusive. I've fixed WP:AUTO. Radiant_>|< 12:53, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Translation issue

(moved to Talk:Chamber of Deputies. –Hajor 00:52, 3 September 2005 (UTC))

Gmail

Sigh...does anyone still have any of those "gmail invites" that were all the rage several months ago. The current method of signing up for one involves google sending out a text message, and my poor ancient cell phone doesn't do SMS. Thanks, Func( t, c, @, ) 20:10, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

E-mail me. [[smoddy]] 20:16, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
I have 50, if anyone wants. Andre (talk) 01:40, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
I have 100. Didn't User:Ludraman have a subpage exactly for this kind of messages? - Mgm|(talk) 19:41, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

USS Evans (DE-1023)

I was clicking the random article link when I came across that article. It doesn't seem to belong on wikipedia, I just thought someone should know about it. Deyyaz 07:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Between Lotsofissues and me it seems to be fixed. Thanks for letting us know. Bovlb 08:56:52, 2005-08-31 (UTC)
I'm not sure that a redirect from the main article space to the talk space is the way to go. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 22:58, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
(I remember responding to this yesterday, but there's no sign of it.) I had it as a redirect to the main page, but Lotsofissues objected because they aren't the same ship. Perhaps what we should have done to start with is to move USS Evans (DE-1023) straight to Talk:USS Frank E. Evans (DD-754) instead of copy-and-pasting the text. Bovlb 18:13:58, 2005-09-04 (UTC)

Special:Statistics wording

This page has the phrase "Traffic for all MediaWiki sites". Shouldn't that be "Wikimedia"? ~~ N (t/c) 00:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

An admin can fix this by editing MediaWiki:Userstatstext. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 23:01, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
Done. Talrias (t | e | c) 01:17, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

disabling downloading for certain images?

Are certain images prevented from being shown on non-related articles? For example, there is a vandal that likes to insert penis images into pages. However, from this edit [8], the image used to vandalize only comes up as a link, not as the actual image, while retaining the correct format.

Is this a new feature used for fighting vandals? --Ixfd64 09:29, 2005 September 1 (UTC)

Never mind, I just found out about Mediawiki:Bad image list. --Ixfd64 09:35, 2005 September 1 (UTC)


Redirect Hell

I ran across a link to Senator Joseph Biden, which redirected to Joe Biden, which is a redirect to Joseph R. Biden, which is a redirect to Joseph R. Biden, Jr.. In fact, checking "What links here" for the actual article, I found 175 double, triple, and quadruple redirects! This is nuts! I normally fix redirects, even triple ones, when I find them, but this would take me half a day!

I thought we had some kind of automated redirect fixing going on, since so many people simply create links without checking them and move pages without fixing the redirects. But when I went to Wikipedia:Redirect to see what's going on and how to post this question, I found that a reference to Wikipedia:Secondary redirect redirected to Wikipedia:Double redirects. Looking to see if Biden was on the target list, I read that "The most up to date list of double redirects is at the computer help desk…", with a link to Wikipedia:WikiProject help desk/cleanup, which is a redirect to Wikipedia:Computer help desk/cleanup, which lists no active projects. This is obviously not the most up-to-date list. Backtracking, I found several links to other possible avenues to check, without ever feeling I'd gotten a single definitive answer. That's why I'm posting this here, in the hopes that someone has a better solution than manually editing 175 articles. Now I'm redirecting myself to the project this discovery interrupted. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

This would be a perfect job for a bot. If someone with a database dump can make an up-to-date list of doubleredirs, I'd be happy to create and run one. ~~ N (t/c) 22:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

There only seemed to be about six redirect pages to fix, but perhaps someone had gotten to it first. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:25, 2005 August 31 (UTC)

(in a deep voice) As Jeff Q has found out, we see how a short little venture into that realm of sight, sound, and imagination can turn into a never-ending cycle of redirection, a redirection into that peculiar Web … known as the Twilight Zone. —"Rod" 07:19, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

I'm having trouble suggesting a new wikibook...

I want to suggest a kid-friendly wikibook on evolution and the chronicle of one-celled life to man, but for the life of me I can't figure out how to do it. And I'd like to think I'm not the only one confused about this. Would anyone like to make this suggestion for me, or guide me in doing it? Citizen Premier 05:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Um, that would fall under Wikijunior. Go to the talk page there. GarrettTalk 08:15, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Mea culpa, that should actually be b:Wikijunior:New Title Suggestions. GarrettTalk 08:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


Caught them red handed!

I went into the history on the List of Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends episodes and found the following people contributing "fake episodes":

  • 82.32.34.184
  • 172.170.17.19

I've fixed that at the top by warning them that is they try again, they will be reported to a higher authority...a supervisor! NoseNuggets 2:30 PM US EDT Aug 29 2005

    • UPDATE: Another abuser has been found.
      • 66.189.47.112

NoseNuggets 3:00 AM US EDT Aug 30 2005

Category usage

I made four new catergories:

Category:Documentary Feature Oscar

Category:Documentary Feature Oscar nominee

Category:Documentary Short Subject Oscar

Category:Documentary Short Subject Oscar nominee

After doing so, I went to the Oscar article and inserted the appropriate category into the various films. However, I note that IMDb lists the producer as the Oscar winner/nominee.

Question: Should we use the above category(s) for the Producer as well. Ted Wilkes 14:26, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

This question is probably best asked and answered over at Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Academy Awards. Grutness...wha? 00:54, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

acronymfinder.com template

I've created a template for looking up acronyms on acronymfinder.com:

{{acronym}}

I don't know if it'll be any use, but hopefully it will be helpful. :) --Ixfd64 05:15, 2005 August 29 (UTC)


MediaWiki:Sitenotice

As per a request, I added the approximate euro total to the fundraising message (as per xE) to help our european friends across the pond. If you don't like it, then remove it I guess. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 01:15, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Meetup

In case any of you could join, I would be happy to share a meal and wiki time with wikipedians around Pretoria, South Africa. I will be there from tuesday the 20th till saturday evening the 24th of september. Anthere 19:18, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

See http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-September/028404.html

See Wikipedia:Meetup/Pretoria

Template:User ie

LOL. When Wikipedia:Babel was built, this future template was previously 'called' for the native speakers of occidental language (later called interlingue), 'ie' being the ISO 639-1 code for this language, and the prefix for the interlingue Wikipedia. But it happened what had to happen with the creation of templates for computer languages or browsers, etc.: Template:User ie is now, in fact, the template for users of M$-ie (Microsoft Internet Explorer). It would have been so simple to create separate hierarchies and very differentiated template names. Maybe it's more comic to mix everything... In the same way, category:User languages, first created to give list of Wikipedians by human languages, gives also the list of the data-processing languages. Wikipedia:Babel, on EN, with the 'work' of only one, became a huge [censored]... Hégésippe | ±Θ± 12:01, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Only two pages link to it. It’s easily fixed. Sam Hocevar 12:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Done. I renamed it to Template:User MSIE. Sam Hocevar 16:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Sayonara

Well, I see that it has become somewhat pointless to remain here, since most of the time I go to add an interesting fact or tidbit to an article, someone has beaten me to it. I see also that the number of Wikipedians who make 100 or more edits is increasing at a rate of about 350% per year, and thus should reach 10,000 by the end of 2006[9]. Thus, my presence here will become more and more superfluous, but at least I can say that I was on Wikipedia before it became cool. 24.54.208.177

Certainly no one can force you to stay, but there are innumerable ways to contribute in addition to adding interesting facts and tidbits. Have you checked out Wikipedia:Community Portal's open tasks list? I don't think anyone's help here is superfluous. -- Rick Block (talk) 20:09, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
If you were to select a user name you could build a watchlist of your favorite articles. Perhaps you could monitor a public watchlist. We need your presence. 22:14, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
I'll echo the previous comments - there's no real need for anyone to feel superfluous here. If nothing else, by building a watchlist you'd be able to keep an eye on items of interest. What other people add might trigger a few more thoughts of your own, or you might spot things that are incorrect and be able to fix them. There are also a lot of articles which need help - perhaps if you have a look at some of the tiny stub articles in the ubcategories of Category:Stub categories you might find some mini-articles that you know enough about to expand. Every little bit of help, erm, helps. Grutness...wha? 01:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I have never gone to this VP(misc) before. Nice scale of conversation. I will be back. Ancheta Wis 22:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you - we do our best :) Grutness...wha? 01:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Just the facts, Ma'am

VotingIsStillEvil, and what's worse, contentious debate does not truth make.

So long as this Project is built to provide facts to the public, rather than mere opinion, it's pretty plain that we need to adhere to basic rules of discourse. Nobody is entitled to advance a position without being able to support it; if challenged, a response is required. If you don't want to respond to a challenge, that's fine too -- but it's automatic: If you don't respond to a rational challenge, you have abandoned the position.

All of the rules you may find expedient in barroom arguments about the size of J-Lo's teats are irrelevant in a scholarly context. Many sound ideas have been attacked over the years -- such as the notion of manned heavier-than-air flight. Many foolish ideas have been proposed -- famously, a bill passed the 1897 Indiana House redefining pi. In every case, what emerges from the dust and smoke is the truth -- and yes, insofar as there is only one single Universe, there is only one set of absolutely true facts. Men can fly; pi is an irrational number; and with all due respect to dissenters, the Earth is not flat.

The strength of the Wikipedian Community is that we have diverse backgrounds, so we're able to contribute in ways that a narrower group could not, in ways that traditional scholars cannot conceive. The weakness -- and it is very weak indeed -- is that far too many of us have no idea what constitutes fact, opinion, thesis, challenge, support, objection, demonstration, proof, or disproof. Nor does this stop us from commenting -- loudly, stridently, repeatedly, at length, and for all that, foolishly.

I suggest we need to promote an increased understanding of these tools of rationality, before we slip any closer to some mediocre forum for advertisement of mob sentiment.

— Xiong熊talk* 11:48, 2005 September 11 (UTC)

Fragmented discussion merged from Wikipedia talk:The Wiki Way -- please avoid fragmented discussions.

Without expressing any opinion on the contents of the essay in question, I will again express my concern for you. You continue to evince this misapprehension that a failure of others to state an opinion on some piece of writing is the same thing as agreement or support for that piece of writing. That is false.
"Consensus" is not created according to whims and dictates. Neither you (nor I, nor anyone else) can create a consensus by diktat. That much is obvious. But what you don't seem to understand is that you don't even get to define the rules of how consensus is formed. Editors are free to express support of a given policy proposal, opposition, or no opinion at all. You may choose to pretend that by failing to express an opinion that editors have supported your policy proposals, but that does not make it so. Nandesuka 11:57, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

If you fail to formulate an objection -- if your only statement is a vague "uh" -- then there's not much of a way for anyone to address it. Therefore, it is a requirement of discourse that you state your objection in order for it to possess any validity. This is not some private definition of my own; it is fundamental to logic, rationality, and civilized discourse. Any other interpretation is a Humpty-Dumpty definition.

Of course, that "uh" does not constitute support; when did I ever say it did? You can express any opinion you like; but if you don't engage in discussion, then you aren't building consensus; you're just throwing peanuts from the gallery. If you confine yourself to insubstantial comments, then you neither oppose nor support -- you don't even make a useful, neutral contribution to the discussion. And that's pretty much my point. — Xiong熊talk* 01:30, 2005 September 12 (UTC)

Fragmented discussion merged from Wikipedia talk:The Wiki Way -- please avoid fragmented discussions.

Your characterization of my comment as an "attempt to discredit" is hamfisted and inaccurate. Your desire to manufacture consent by fiat is, still, antithetical to the nature of collaboration. I hope you figure this out soon.
On another note, I should observe that your moving my text from one section to another of this page is exactly the same sort of ex-libris edit that Redwolf and cesarb made. There is no distinction between what they did to the main page, and what you did to my text. Therefore, if I were Xiong, I would now be making the argument that in making a mechanical change to the page my text is on, you have by implication adopted my position wholesale, since you did not boldly change the body of my text. So thanks for saying that you agree with me, I guess! (And if you don't like that claim, then now you understand why others view your attitude in this matter to be high-handed.) Nandesuka 01:41, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

The world of intelligent discourse is both much larger than you suspect, and of a different shape. That is, it includes far more possibilities than you entertain; yet excludes some you appear to think worthy. I'm heartily sorry if that appraisal offends you; it is the mere, obdurate truth -- not something I can manipulate.

There is a vast arena between support and opposition. I do not seek to manufacture support for anything -- what a silly idea! I suppose I could grow a legion of socks for the purpose -- but I don't think anyone would take them seriously.

If you do not desire to discredit a page, why apply inaccurate labels to it? Speak of it as it is. I do not sneakily undermine, say, an officer's authority by calling him "the so-called Mayor". If he's a thief, I call him a thief; if incompetent, a blunderer; if a fool, a clown. I do not call a fish a cat. Say what you mean -- and you will discover great power in the technique of remaining silent when you intend to say nothing.

Talk pages are substantially different from all others. This is a wiki; that means all pages are open for collaboration. Explicitly, they are not owned by anyone and have no authors. Talk pages are, in a sense, not pages at all -- they are the back side of other pages. Talk pages are devoid of content. They merely comment on content.

While Talk pages are still common property, we do understand that each editor's comment is "his own" and that we must explicitly endorse or oppose each other's views, if at all. Otherwise, we move or archive them impartially, no matter how we find them. If we wish to modify another's opinion, we do so by writing our own comment -- if you like, a copy of the first opinion, with our modifications added -- and our names signed to the new comment. We do not edit each other's comments except in the most extreme cases, or the most trivial manner.

The only changes I routinely make to any other editor's Talk is to refactor the indentation and paragraph breaks; I do this to make the text readable, as so many editors have a deplorable habit of running all comments together into one indistinguishable blob. It's important that we know who speaks on Talk. I also collect chunks of Talk, all on one topic, onto the correct page. This is most useful on User talk, where careless editors often allow a discussion to fall apart into two seperate halves, each as individually incomprehensible as one side of a phone call. It's really good to keep all discussion on one topic in the same place.

If you check diffs to see what other editors have contributed before coming in with your own comment, then I think that experience might better inform your remarks. As it is, I thank you for your second illustration of the point I was trying to make when you so conveniently provided the first.

— Xiong熊talk* 06:07, 2005 September 12 (UTC)

I have replied to some of your comments in the appropriate place, here. The only other reply I think that's appropriate here is to say that I believe that the crux of the matter is that your characterization of the labels placed on your personal essay as "inaccurate" is sui generis, as is your statement — I paraphrase — that those labels somehow magically transform that personal essay into a widely-held and beloved community principle that is the consensus of all. Such ideas, while refreshingly unique and novel, are false. Personal essays in the Wikipedia namespace are personal essays, not tar babies. Kindest regards, Nandesuka 06:49, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Intelligent Design

I've used the word "lucid". And lucidity applies ... after intelligence and consciousness have been addressed (as I've said). But the jump from intelligent to lucid (with regard to wikipedia, as an example) fails to explain what consciousness has to do with coming up with the correct answers (though this is also addressed a bit later on — such that its writers have a conscience, they might discern what is "right" ... both in a moralistic sense and also in the sense of arriving at correct answers). Which is to say, applying an intelligent design conscientiously might lead a wikipedia to be *right* by preponderance, as I've suggested (whereby mentioning lucidity at this point begins to make sense). This is not to say that it *makes sense* to be intelligent and conscientious and still lack lucidity ... as a matter of choice, for example / or in seeming violation of what it means to be intelligent in the first place (to the contrary). So I might have said that wikipedia isn't necessarily intelligent (even though an intelligence). Or I might have said that being intelligent doesn't necessarily mean conscientiousness will prevail (in the case that her writers don't have a conscience, for example). But I've said that both of these are "necessarily" so (if an entity is intelligent, then it is conscientious). And so there's (still) the matter of lucidity (and awareness, and agency): The mention of lucidity (regarding wikipedia) early on in this comment foreshadows the explanation of what it means to be lucid ... which is then expressed "in the negative" (whereby lucidity is not that which overcomes the intelligent design of its database but is that which overcomes the necessity that humans have a conscience). (from Intelligence and the Art of Imagination)

--Mindrec 20:48, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

"References" "External links" "Sources" section titles

What thoughts do people have concerning the use of "References", "External links", and "Sources" as section titles? I notice sources being described as references and references being described as external links and external links deleted because "Wiipedia is not a link farm." WAS 4.250 15:07, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

  • "References" and "sources" are interchangeable terms. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:43, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
Vigorously restore external links. WP is not a link farm -- but what does that mean? It means that there is some extreme point at which external links are redundant, or perhaps that there are an excessive number of broken links or those likely to break in the near future. In the case of articles which relate to commercial products (and so many do), there is a concern that external links serve no better purpose than advertisement. But of course, the primary source for information about a proprietary product may very well be the website of its manufacturer.
Far more important than "not a link farm" is Cite your sources! WP is not a collection of personal essays, either -- nor is it a journal of original research. You must cite sources in order to support your edits to an article. It is irrelevant whether the section is titled "External Links", "Sources" or something else; personally, I prefer the explicit title, since I like to know right away when I'm going off-wiki.
If the list of external links just appears too long, then by all means, whittle it down to a small number of good, authoritative, complete sources. But then copy the entire list to the article's talk page. Never delete a source -- even if the link is broken, you can often retrieve it from one or another public archive, such as Wayback Machine. — Xiong熊talk* 01:45, 2005 September 12 (UTC)

Exif stuff

Could an admin please change Mediawiki:exif-make-value, Mediawiki:exif-model-value and Mediawiki:exif-software-value from "$1" to "[[$1]]", that way Exif infoboxes will link to the camera make, model and software articles. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 14:49:50, 2005-09-10 (UTC)

Appears to have been done already. — Catherine\talk 02:51, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

alumni alumnus vs former students/graduates

This has come up a few times at CfD, but despite posting lengthly "rants" each time I've never gotten any answers to by concerns and the votes have pretty much been me against the rest...

Basicaly there seems to be a preference among some (what I presume to be) US editors to change "former students" and the like into alumni or aluminus or whatever the various forms of the term is. I have tried pointing out that it's a fairly US sentric term (at least in the way it's beein applied). At least that's my impression, it's scertainly extremely rare where I come from in fact I can't remember ever coming across it before I came here. Quite frankly I fear that usage of the term might cause unnessesary confution along readers outside the "Anglosphere", even if they are otherwise fluent in English. Even among english speaking nations that commonly use the term it seems to have slightly different meanings. From what I have gathered in the US alumni referes to all former students from a school (seems to be the de-facto "house" definition around here). In Canada it only referes to graduates and in Australia it usualy only refers to former students to actively keep in touch with the school after they graduate/drop out (at least that's how it's been explained to me). Am I just overly biased because I happen to come from a nation where the word is practicaly alien or what? Some thoughts from other Wikipedians would be nice, especialy from other Wikipedians outside the so called "Anglosphere". If I'm just "inventing" a problem based on my own ignorance feel free to let me know :P --Sherool 00:05, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

As someone in the Anglosphere, but nott in the part you mention, I'd just like to add that in New Zealand the term is used officially by Universities to refer to graduates, but these graduates almost always call themselves "former students". The only place I've ever seen myself described as an aluminium is on my university library card. It is also - without exception - only used for universities. I have never, ever, heard the term used in relation to NZ schools, colleges, or polytechs. Grutness...wha? 00:58, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm from the U.S., and I've only heard alumnus/alumni used to refer to a graduate (never a dropout), although it is used here to refer both to individuals who have kept up a connection with the alma mater and to those who have not. Maybe people are changing the term forgetting that you can be a former student without graduating? -- Avocado 03:08, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
The question is - is it ever used for high schools in the US? Or is it just for universities? Grutness...wha? 04:37, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Alumni is sometimes used in the U.S. for high schools, but is more commonly used for colleges and universities. And at the college and university level, to say someone was a former student as against alumnus/alumna or graduate suggests strongly that the person did not graduate. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:47, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
Cambridge dictionary defines alumnus as someone who has left a school, college or university after completing their studies there. It goes on to say plural alumni MAINLY US.
Useful Google search keys (each search works with either alumnus or alumni)
  • site:ac.uk alumni
  • site:edu.au alumni
  • site:ac.nz alumnus
  • site:ac.za alumni
  • site:ac.in alumnus
This indicates that the term is in official use in several countries. However, I think the term has differing levels of obscurity in different countries. Some universities use it in parallel with other terms or avoid it altogether. I do not find the term alumni clear at all. It seems self evident to me that people that have graduated are graduates. Bobblewik 00:48, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Riemann zeta function

I'd like to hold a survey regarding the article Riemann zeta function, to help determine its general comprehensibility and identify areas where it may be incomplete. Please indicate your perceptions of the article below, and feel free to expand the survey or article as you see fit. ‣ᓛᖁ ᑐ 21:07, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Do you really have to clutter up VP with this? Put it on the talk page of the article and add it to WP:RFC, or at most just a reference to it here.—Wahoofive (talk) 05:44, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree. I've moved the actual survey to Talk:Riemann zeta function. Angela. 12:57, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Sindhi Language Problem

The link : http://sd.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

says :

" Welcome to the New Website for the Sindhi language Wikipedia. If you think a free online Sindhi encyclopedia would be cool, start writing here " ..

but in actual this page does'nt include even a single character of Sindhi Language .. I was amazed to see that .. Please check this out .. This is NOT Sindhi Language .. Hindi Characters are there there instead of Sindhi Characters ...

Please check this out.

    • My mother language is Sindhi so I know it very well.

Advertising

 
Example Wikipedia advert

What does Wikipedia (or Wikimedia) do to advertise itself? Does it use a part of the donations? CG 12:41, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Does it advertise itself at all? I would think it gets enough free publicity that that would not be necessary. However, there's around $2000 US for "promotional" expenses in the 2005 budget, which I assume comes out of the donations. —Charles P. (Mirv) 13:42, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
What kind of advertising does it makes. Does anyone knows? CG 21:10, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
The only ads we run are ones that are offered to us for free, such as the AdWords ones, and those that were runing in The Onion yesterday. We've never paid to advertise in this way. The budget item is to cover promotion such as that done at conferences and other events. For example, giving out Wikipedia leaflets and setting up an event stands. See m:promotion. Angela. 13:24, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
The issue is not advertising; we're a very well-known site. I don't think Google pays a red cent to make anybody aware of their core product. The issue is building a business model adequate to support our vastly increased popularity, including a marketing strategy. — Xiong熊talk* 01:50, 2005 September 12 (UTC)
Google do advertise, online, in print, and on radio. See this Google ad on Slashdot for example. I think the "we're a very well-known site" only applies to the larger language Wikipedias. The rest have had little, if any, mention in the press. Angela. 22:48, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Screenshoot from Game Boy

How can I get screenshoot from Game Boy and save image on computer?

Err... illegally? ::goes silent:: — Ambush Commander(Talk) 19:39, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
I suspect the easiest way would be to take a digital photograph and crop it to the screen. IANAL but I don't see how this would be any different legally from a screenshot. Thryduulf 23:41, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

See this: [10]

A digital photograph would be horrible... ever try taking a picture of screen before? That's why we don't shoot a digital camera at our computer: we use a screen capture. And, if you wanted to do it that way... you'd have to get an console emulator or something. And the ROMs are generally illegal. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 22:40, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
The "Best" way to do it is to use a Gameboy emulator, download the ROM, find the section of the game in question, and take a screenshot. And a ROM is not illegal if you own the game as well. The ROM is just a backup of the game you legally own. Of course, if you don't own the game, THEN it is illegal. Phidauex 17:38, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
At least in the US, in order to be fully legal, you can't download the ROM image. You have to make it from a ROM cartridge you own. --Carnildo 22:44, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Page tagged for VfD since July.

The page Egg (person) has been tagged for VfD since July. The consensus seems to have been "keep." Is it okay to remove the tag? ♥purplefeltangel 23:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

No, it wasn't actually listed on VfD until September 4, so that is the day the count begins. - SimonP 13:42, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Getting a grip on cross-cultural disagreements

There's a phenomenon that appears in Wikipedia that is, I think, unique to the nature of this endevour. Specifically, I've discovered that there are "facts" that are belived in my country (the US) that are completely at odds with the "facts" believed in other countries. I'm not talking about obvious things like George Bush is good/bad -- pretty much everybody understands that there is a range of opinion. Rather I am referring to historical issues that I never knew were even a point of controversy.

The example that I've run into has to do with the invention of the airplane. People in the US are taught, and generally believe unquestioningly, that the Wright brothers invented the airplane. As it happens, Brazilians have the comparable belief about Alberto Santos-Dumont. He is the undisputed "father of aviation" in Brazil, as well as many other places. Upon closer examination, I have to say, that the Brazilians have a good point. The matter is reasonably open to question.

But the dispute goes further. In fact, several countries lay claim to the inventor of the first flying machine.

My thought is: I presume this is a general phenomenon. I supposed that historians might even make a study of such localized beliefs. And I think that Wikipedia may be uniquely placed to discover and catalog these surprising (at least to myself) cultural differences. Is there even a name for this issue? (i.e. things believed to be universal but in fact are not.) Is there a reasonable mechanism for identifying and collecting such things somewhere in Wikipedia. Blimpguy 14:58, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I believe it's called Edisonism ;) --Tagishsimon (talk)
This is quite an interesting subject - I would suggest you start up a page, like User:Blimpguy/Cross-cultural controversies, and start listing controversies you come across there. If it gets to be a large and interesing list, annouce it here. Good luck, it does sound like fun. JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:37, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
This is a very interesting concept, and applies particularly to science and technology topics. The priority of invention is mired with nationalistiic attribitions. In the UK James Watt invented the steam engine. He did not but improved the engines of Newcomen and Smeaton. The Russians hold that Polzinov (?? spelling) was the inventor. As we have seen, the Brazilians have Santos - Dumont for flight. I will put something on the History of Technology page about this. Apwoolrich 12:24, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Katrina Help Wiki

Katrina Help Wiki. Pretty amazing. Came together very quickly, building on work done after the Indian Ocean tsunami. People-finder, links to resources, places to request or offer help, keeping an eye on the scams, even Ham Radio Resources. They probably could use some miscellaneous skills help, and we certainly ought to (at the very least) put together an article on them, probably ought to display something about them more prominently than that. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:54, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Babel templates

Getting no sign of answers for my questions in Template talk:User language category#Discussion (and also a few words in the user page of Cyber Skull), I repeat here what I have wrote :

This template [read : Template:User language category] is a bit « foolish » and « dangerous », because it will add interwikis to foreign pages which do not exist. For example, Category:User xh. There are no Babel templates and Babel categories in all other languages for xhosa languages. Examples: de:Kategorie:User xh es:Categoría:Usuarios por idioma - xh, etc. do not exist.
I think the only one is fr:Catégorie:Utilisateur xh (with subcategory fr:Catégorie:Utilisateur xh-1), which I have created just before creating the fr:Modèle:User fr-1 (linking to fr:Catégorie:Utilisateur xh and fr:Catégorie:Utilisateur xh-1). :o) Hégésippe | ±Θ± 19:14, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 04:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Are WP: shortcuts listed somewhere with targets?

Is there a list somewhere, or creatable, that lists all the WP: shortcuts and where they go? I know there's what links here for {{shortcut}} and Special:Allpages starting at WP:, but both do half the job. Is there somewhere they are joined up? -Splash 14:36, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WP. Talrias (t | e | c) 14:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks! -Splash 14:48, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Notice that the list there is always incomplete. People always create new shortcuts without updating there. --cesarb 16:19, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Here's the link for Special:Allpages http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AAllpages&from=WP%3A&namespace=0 - if there are ones missing from Wikipedia:WP, they should show up there. JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:03, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

After months of Wikisilence, Britannica moderates tone

"Wikipedia isn't a bad thing, said Tom Panelas, a spokesman for Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc. "It's just a different thing." Times-Dispatch (Sep 3 '05) That's Britannica's new line. The office has gone from explicitly lambasting us in late '04 to only hinting at our existence "An encyclopedia isn't just a conglomeration of everything that anyone can think of putting in there" (Boston Globe, July 21 '05). Now wikipeace? lots of issues | leave me a message 22:02, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

And neither are we, eh? At least they've admitted we don't suck. ~~ N (t/c) 00:50, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Minor edit, you missed a quote. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 01:10, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Minor edit, indentation. :-P ~~ N (t/c) 01:13, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
What flatulence. Yeh, I said it. Any ground a traditional encyclopedia stands upon is eroding so fast a sandcastle built in Jackson Square looks like a safe refuge. The only thing EB has going for it is professional standards -- and while I respect those highly, the marketplace couldn't care less.
We should issue a press statement allowing as how EB isn't a bad thing, if you don't care if your information is current and you don't mind spending Cash Money for narrow essays. If you can afford to really indulge in the luxury of a printed set, you're guaranteed hours of entertainment, not to mention intimidation of guests gullible enough to believe you've somehow absorbed the entire contents. For some markets, EB is a great value.
EB's Alexa ranking is 3,730; ours is 53. (Of course, they're still making more money than we are, because we lack a business model.) It's nice they're okay with us. We have nothing to fear -- until, of course, Somebody comes by with a fork, a business model and the determination to foster some content standards. — Xiong熊talk* 12:28, 2005 September 11 (UTC)

Problems with articleless entries on disambiguation pages

I was just reading gas centrifuge (I like nuclear technology) and clicked on the link to cascade, a large disambiguation page. It took me several seconds to realize that the chemical engineering meaning was the intended one. And this can't be fixed, because there's no larger article on cascade (chemical engineering), and there probably never will be. It's annoying, but I can't think of any way to fix it other than splitting cascade into sections which can then be #-linked to - wasting a lot of vertical space. Suggestions? ~~ N (t/c) 03:51, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

If there's no article on the desired subject, maybe there just shouldn't be a link in the gas centrifuge article at all. —Wahoofive (talk) 03:54, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Since the article talks about the "gas centrifuge uranium enrichment process", and "cascade" is mentioned twice, perhaps there should be at least a parenthetical sentence in that article on what a gas centrifuge cascade is. A picture or diagram of the setup might be useful, too. Just a thought. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:03, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
There certainly needs to be some way to explain what it means by "cascade". ~~ N (t/c) 04:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
I hate to use the Wiki mantra, but you, as the reader of this article, might have at least a vague idea of what cascade (chemical engineering) might mean - at least enough to write a one sentence stub. So fix it - write one, and redirect the gas centrifuge article's link to it, then add {{sci-stub}}. It's likely then that someone will find your tiny article and expand it (no double entendres intended!). Grutness...wha? 04:22, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure it has potential to be anything other than a stub, and might get merged back into the dab page, but I'll be bold and try it. ~~ N (t/c) 04:32, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Good! Looks a lot better than many other stubs in the Chem-stub category! Grutness...wha? 01:57, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
In this case the dab page really needs to be rewritten to conform more closely to the recommended style...see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation). —Mike 06:02, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
Done (and did Cascades (disambiguation) as well for good measure). We had quite a lot of articles on various "cascades" that weren't on the disambiguation page! Still, we could use a good stub on electron cascade -- anyone up for the challenge? — Catherine\talk 04:08, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

U.S. Edition?

I was just reading through "Wikipedia is always a work in progress" at TimesDispatch.com when I came across this:

Wikipedia was formed in early 2001 but only in the past few years has it flourished, growing to almost 700,000 articles in the U.S. version. The encyclopedia has reports in 100 languages, though just 10 of them contain 50,000 articles or more.

U.S. version?! How blinkered some people can be! violet/riga (t) 11:08, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Jeff Kelley has kindly replied to my email and said that he will take steps to clarify it. violet/riga (t) 21:52, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
I would like to answer your question, Violet, but we USians don't know what "blinkered" means. ;-) Func( t, c, @, ) 02:08, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Blinker is another word for "blinder" (you know, the stuff you put over your windows), so I suppose Violet is referring to how some Americans are "blind-ered" to the outside world. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 02:44, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

It was more like this definition of blinkered derived from horse blinker (redlink!), though that was very close!  :) violet/riga (t) 09:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Precisely. But in America, those are "blinders". -- Jmabel | Talk 18:13, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
The author is merely another supporter of us:. — Xiong熊talk* 12:05, 2005 September 11 (UTC)

I need help with information

First, I love Wikipedia. It has so much information on it I could lose myself for days at a time here! However, I'm very bad at sorting and processing information and putting it to use in my life and I am in the middle of a problem having to deal with law, moral/ethical codes, and religion/faith. I'm looking for someone to help me outside of Wikipedia who will help me research and process the information available, and maybe get me out of my problem. If you are willing to help me and would like to know my situation, send me an email and I'll fill you in, then you can make your decision. Thank you, I appreciate any help I get, I'm so miserable!

Rita image on Main Page

I don't know if it's just me, but the image of Hurricane Rita's track on the Main Page is not loading. What happened to it? - dcljr (talk) 20:42, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, wait... it's back. Nevermind. - dcljr (talk) 20:43, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Main page

Am I wrong in concluding that there is a revert war of sorts going on the main page today (Sept 19)? It keeps flipping between Montréal-Mirabel International Airport and James I of England. I'm not sure how it gets edited but this is disappointing as whoever gets to edit it is presumabely an admin at least and should know better. Marskell 12:19, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

It's not edited. It's dynamically included from a template depending on today's date. Perhaps one of the several web servers has the wrong date. --cesarb 15:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Looks like I was wrong; see Talk:Main Page#Featured article changed?. --cesarb 16:47, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Automatic interwikies - your language knowledge is needed.

Hi. I am improving automatic interwiki linking for the auto-generated articles, and need your help. Please go to formats page and review/add any month / year / numbers / categories pattern that have been generated by bots. For example, January 2004 is listed there and allows linking with any other language's month of the year pattern. Please let me know if you have any questions. --Yurik 05:18, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Unattributed mirror?

Turned this up when checking copyvios: http://www.choam.info/title/ba/back-pain.html -- Avocado 02:18, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I've added this site to m:Non-compliant site coordination and Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:58, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Copyvio

I thought I'd let you know about two changes to the structuring of Wikipedia:Copyright problems.

  • It now has a subpage-per-day, much like WP:CFD and WP:IFD (but not the multiple subpages of WP:AFD). This should make it quicker to file a new copyvio and reduce the agony imparted by an edit conflict on such a long page.
  • There is a template {{article-cv}} intended to be used as:
    {{subst:article-cv|PageName}}
The output of which provides easy access to the various links that need to be checked by admins clearing out WP:CP (hint, hint).

Those of you using Bmicomp's autocopyvio script will need to file by hand until it is updated (or update it yourself), mainly because of the subpage structure. Thanks. -Splashtalk 02:54, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

My autocopyvio script has been updated to accomodate for the change. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 04:30, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

the libertarian socialist article only refers to men "he" why doesnt someone fix this i am a straight white lazy middleclass male in the military w/a ged it breaks my heart that something so simple would be left unchecked for so long on an article that speaks of such a great idea i would do it but i told ya im lazy maybe if i were a chick usa all the way baby please shoot me$};( i dont know how to do this 213.13.212.192 13:30, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

*Making new entry*

Either me or somebody else needs to add a definition for "Active reader" or "active reading"...because I have this question I have to answer for school about it, and I can't find it anywhere on the internet...it should be put on wikipedia...

--Zaboo 20:24, 15 September 2005 (UTC)LeonLover16

Um, there appears to be quite a lot of stuff on the net. [11]. From [12] "Reading that involves the active use of the cognitive system. Can be contrasted to reading that simply involves mouthing words without active comprehension of what the words mean".
PLease direct any questions to the reference desk. Dunc|☺ 20:37, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Another publication cites us

In Comics Buyer's Guide #1611, page 24, Andrew "Captain Comics" Smith interviews J. Michael Straczynski, and says in the introduction that "JMS, as he's often known, sold his first professional work at 17, according to Wikipedia, and never looked back." *Dan T.* 00:18, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

There was also a large editorial about Wikipedia in Writers' magazine a couple of months back, which I forgot to report here. Unfortunately, among other things it encouraged writers to add autobiographies to the site :(. I sent a letter to the editor pointing out that that is against Wiki policy but encouraging writers to use the site and add other encyclopedic information to it (which was published in the latest edition!) Grutness...wha? 00:48, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Appropriate for Wikipedia?

I am not certain even if this is the best discussion section for this, but...

I have two brief articles which I had considered posting, but I was hoping to get some opinions on their appropriateness for Wikipedia, as they are a) term definitions, b) rather obscure pieces of slang or jargon, and c) very similar to each other. I suspect that they would be better submitted to Wiktionary, if anywhere, or possibly as an addendum to an existing article. but I would like any advice on the matter that could be offered, as it would clarify some aspects of Wikipedia policy. The two article proposals are:

Ozmagendered A term used in some science fiction, fantasy and sequential art fandoms to describe characters whose sex or gender has been altered through magic or advanced technology for an extended period of time or even permanently. The term, which was coined on the 'QueerComics' mailing list, is taken from the character of Princess Ozma of Oz, who was magically disguised as a boy for several years. Compare ranmagendered.

Ranmagendered A term used in some science fiction, fantasy and sequential art fandoms to describe characters whose sex or gender has been altered through magic or advanced technology briefly or repeatedly. The term, which was coined on the 'QueerComics' mailing list, is taken from the character of Ranma Saotome, whose sex varies due to a magical curse. Compare ozmagendered.

Any recommendations?

Short answer: No. Long Answer: See WP:NOT, specifically "WP is not a dictionary" and WP:NOR which applies to neologisms. --Sean Jelly Baby? 21:36, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough; that was more or less what I had expected. Thank you.

Adevertising with Wikipedia

Hello,

WE offer accommodation in serviced apartments in Tallinn, Estonia. What are the terms and conditions to be listed on your site?

Please visit our web page www.redgroup.ee for more information.


Thank you in advance,

Nele Tehu nele@redgroup.ee

Wikipedia is sustained purely through donations. It does not have advertising. Period. --Golbez 14:58, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Sadya / Sadhya

In the article Sadhya, the word is spelt Sadya. Which is correct? The page should either be editted or moved. MAybe a redirect from the other made. Anyone know Malayalam? -- SGBailey 08:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Closure of Bridal Path at Longwood Gate

Why has this been allowed to happen, it seems that the Building Contractors decide what happens in Longwood now, not the residents or Council.

I agree! Wait, what are we talking about? --Golbez 17:48, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Is this a "bridle path" (for horses) or a "bridal path" (for weddings?)... I'm confused. *Dan T.* 18:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps this is for horses getting married. Or perhaps this needs to be moved to Wikipedia:Unusual requests... Grutness...wha? 04:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Horses see Bridleway. No idea why the one at Longwood Gate is closed or even where it is. MeltBanana 23:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
It may well be the Longwood Gate in Longwood, Huddersfield. Grutness...wha? 07:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Free temporary access to biographical dictionary

Hi, for anyone writing biographies, the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography will be free from September 23 to 25; normally it costs 200 pounds a year. It contains 55,000 biographies of British people who died before December 2001 and looks like a great resource. If interested, sign up here. NicSix 01:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

This has now been spammed twice so I feel the need to point out that this is probably not a good source. OK, so we use info from it - how do we cite it? Say, "Oh, yeah, you have to pay $500 to access this site, but trust me, it's true!" And if not, then we open ourselves up to copyright suits. Much like when the Windows source code was leaked and people advised Linux developers to not look at them, I doubt if this is better than a curiosity. But maybe I'm wrong. --Golbez 01:31, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Well you cite it like you would any other major reference work which the ODNB certainly is. This is a standard work and its many papery volumes are in every major UK library and probably in other countries. As long as there are no straight copies of text there should be no problems. MeltBanana 01:40, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
I wasn't aware it had a print edition as well. --Golbez 01:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Free access to Dictionary of National Biography online

this weekend only [13] Arnie587 21:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

The Simpsons episodes

The cruftier among you may (or, indeed, may not) want to know that a large number of The Simpsons episodes articles are presently listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2005 September 21. They thus fall to the axe somtime after the 28th. If anyone wants them rescued they should either a)get WP-compatible permission or b)re-write the articles on their /temp subpages (please write them there; it makes life easier for the clearing admin who does not have search the diffs for the versions to restore). -Splashtalk 00:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

A test for Wikipedia

List 10 famous Americans who have died in the last century. I will compare the accuracy of our entry against the NYT obituary. lots of issues | leave me a message 23:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  1. Thomas Edison
  2. Henry Ford
  3. Jonas Salk
  4. Tennessee Williams
  5. Orson Welles
  6. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
  7. Dwight D. Eisenhower
  8. Martin Luther King, Jr.
  9. Emma Goldman
  10. Charles Lindbergh

There are ten off the top of my head (if that's a good method).--Pharos 00:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

How about some who are famous but not quite so famous? On the assumption that they are a better test... and throwing in a few famous "mystery" deaths

  1. Ambrose Bierce (mystery about death)
  2. Carrie Chapman Catt
  3. Aaron Copland
  4. Judge Crater / Joseph F. Crater (mystery about death)
  5. Amelia Earhart (mystery about death)
  6. Jack London (dispute about death)
  7. Huey Long
  8. Margaret Sanger
  9. Billy Sunday
  10. Thornton Wilder

Dpbsmith (talk) 01:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

  1. Eleanor Roosevelt
  2. Aimee Semple McPherson
  3. Grandma Moses
  4. Helen Hayes
  5. Margaret Sanger
  6. Mary Margaret McBride
  7. Grace Hopper
  8. Ida Lupino
  9. Jeanette Rankin
  10. Georgia O'Keeffe

User:Zoe|(talk) 02:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Listcruft. -Splashtalk 02:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

So as to take up less space: 1) Fritz Leiber; 2) Janis Joplin; 3) Mary Pickford; 4) Will Keith Kellogg; 5) Mark Rothko; 6) Eugene O'Neill; 7) Gordon Jump; 8) Allen Dulles; 9) Billie Holiday; 10) Candy Darling. Grutness...wha? 02:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC) (who was suprised by a lack of article for Opal Whiteley)

Let's see: 1) J. Paul Getty; 2) Marilyn Monroe; 3) Frank Sinatra; 4) John F. Kennedy; 5) Ben Hogan; 6) Mark Twain; 7) Jesse Owens; 8) The Wright brothers (let this count as just one); 9)Woodrow Wilson; 10) Ella Fitzgerald. Redux 03:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions, more than enough for now. I'm slowly plowing through the list and recording my observations. lots of issues | leave me a message 11:42, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Requested Moves

Wikipedia:Requested moves could use the attentions of both more admins with the patience to do the moves and more regular users to comment on the proposals, so that things aren't being decided based solely on the opinions of one or two regular voices. Dragons flight 00:29, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

What is this namespace?

I noticed User:Rayc/Flik (User:Rayc/Flik) on a category page. It appears to be an entry for Flik. I don't understand why it has User:Rayc in front of it, so I hesitate moving it. Is this a mistake in creating the article, or is that naming convention used for something normally? —Długosz

It's a subpage of User:Rayc's user page. If you look at his user page, you see at the bottom that that's a draft of an article he's writing. --Golbez 20:04, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

scn.wiki

Hi, I'm the bureaucrat on scn.wiki. Recently we have had a bit of vandalism (it's a rare thing for us minority languages!) but it looks like the moron(s) has/have migrated to some sicilian articles on en.wiki, namely Sicily and Sicilian language. Could I ask that one or two sysops keep an eye on these and ban the dickhead the next time he comes around (it's usually a he). I imagine it's some frustrated italian xenophobe with a massive chip on his shoulder and a very misplaced air of superiority (obviously). Thank you. --pippudoz - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 08:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Help me to edit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/nedumpally

(added by an anon with a copypaste of the whole article)

No. Don't do that please. Furthermore, this word only gets a handfull of google results. --Golbez 06:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Reliability and Validity of Wikipedia Entries

--Chris Manning 20:59, 15 September 2005 (UTC) Dear Wikipedians

I am an information systems researcher with the University of Queensland Business School, Brisbane, Australia.

I posted the following to the Association of Information Systems List Server the other night and would like to invite you to comment as the developers of the wikipedia:

I am just marking some undergrad Info Management assignments and I have noticed that quite a few of the students have used references from the online wikipedia.

The following explains the wikipedia system (taken directly from the wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Introduction):

"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written collaboratively by many of its readers. Lots of people are constantly improving Wikipedia, making thousands of changes an hour, all of which are recorded on the page history and the Recent Changes page. Nonsense and vandalism are usually removed quickly, and their creators banned.

How can I help? Don't be afraid to edit pages on Wikipedia-anyone can edit, and we encourage users to be bold...but don't be reckless! Find something that can be improved, either in content, grammar or formatting, then fix it. Worried about breaking Wikipedia? Don't be: it can always be fixed or improved later. So go ahead, edit an article and help make Wikipedia the best source of information on the Internet!"

I am interested to get an idea of what you all think about the reliability and validity of the information provided by such as source.

Some questions:

1. Does the idea that errors and other acts of mis-information or dis-information will be irradicated by the number of "faithful" users editing the site validate the wikipedia?

2. Does the non-disclosure of the source for the information improve or degrade information reliability and validity?

3. Is the wikipedia just another unverified WWW site - where information should be treated as "mis or dis" until proven otherwise?

4. Is the wikipedia just another online forum where reliability and validity are relative?

5. Do you think that the wikipedia is the first step to replacing the "traditional" search engine?

This is a concern to me, because I think these tools are here to stay and we as individuals and as a community/discipline should have some sort of response. This response is necessary because we should position ourselves to have voice in these online information issues.


Cheers

Chris

___________________________________

Chris Manning Lecturer in Information and Knowledge Management UQ Business School The University of Queensland 11 Salisbury Road Ipswich QLD 4305 (w) +61 7 33811226 (f) + 61 7 33811227 (m) 0400 483883 UQ Business School - Personal Information Page <http://www.business.uq.edu.au/staff/academic/cmanning.phtml> <http://www.business.uq.edu.au/> "The spirit silently and calmly looks on, as the ego eats the bitter and sweet fruits of life" ___________________________________

My opinion is this:
  1. To some degree yeah. However care should be taken on more controvertial topics.
  2. What non-disclosure? Lack of verifiable sources are actualy a criterea for deletion last I checked (although if the article is not a hoax, links to sources are usualy added rather than the article deleted). Depends on the nature of the article naturaly, but if an article does not back itself up by any sources then that defenently decrease it's reliability.
  3. Well I scertainly would not say that everyting you can find in the Wikipedia is gold, but in my experience most articles (not including the short lived hoax articles) provide usefull and acurate information. If the content is disputed it's usualy clearly labeled as such. Original research is another deletion criterea, so in theory you should be eable to find all the information that's in the Wikipedia elsewhere (though not nessesarily online).
  4. It's scertainly not just another forum, but yeah reliability is relative, but then it always is. Some people don't trust information published by scertain governments because they consider it "propaganda", others don't trust anyting that's not been aproved by a government agency.
  5. No. Wikipedia is not a search engine. It's a collection of information. Even if the Wikipedia eventualy contain all human knowledge you would still need a "traditional" search engine of some kind to find any particular piece of information you are looking for. That said once you have found a relevant article the web of links that connect it with other related (and unrelated) articles do reduce the need for searching quite a bit, so maybe I just lack imagination.
--Sherool 01:24, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
And my opinion:
  1. To a very large degree, yes it does. The best argument for it is just too look at Wikipedia itself, it is obviously working. Articles where there are errors are almost exclusivly very small and narrow topics where there has just been one or two users to edit an article, those articles cannot necessarily always be trusted. Paradoxically, I think the best articles that WP has to offer are those on very contentious topics where many disagree and there has to be many kbs of discussions for each sentance. For instance, I think that Terry Shiavo is an magnificent article, probably the clearest and most neutral documentation of the facts anywhere in the world. Yet, it has been a battleground for editors, a real hell to edit. And that is why it is so great.
  2. First of all, there isn't really a non-disclosure of the writers to the article. The history contains all versions off the articles that have been made, and you can easily see who put in what by using diffs (comparisons between versions that clearly states what a user has added or taken away. Second, even though I understand what you are getting at, I think you have misunderstood somewhat of the philosophy of wikipedia articles. What you implying I think is that if there is accountability you can trust an article more, but that is really a faulty idea. Articles that are accurate, sourced, well written, and correct (such as the article on Serial comma :P) are great encyclopedic articles, no matter who wrote them. We strive for articles that are objectively good articles, and when you have that, you don't need accountability.
  3. The fundamental difference between a wiki and the rest of the internet (be it WWW, forums, usenet, etc.) is that it is much more fluid. Where both the internet and normal encyclopedias are static tomes of information, wikipedia is a living beast (I think I heard that metafore in wired). People say "Wikipedia will become just like usenet, overrun by spammers and trolls..." and "Wikipedia is no more reliable than other pages on the WWW because it's the same jokers that.....". Both of these statements are fundamentally incorrect. Wikipedia is a fundamentally democratic process (for any regualrs who read this, yes I realise WP:NOT a democracy, but that is not my point) in that the crap to good ratio will be equal to or lower than the crap users to good users ratio. Where one bad guy can pulverize a forum with spam and trolling and whatnot, in wikipedia he will promptly get blocked. If on the www a guy posts a biased, horrible article, it will stay there in perpetuity. Not so here (see answer #1). So no, WP is not another WWW site, it is unique.
  4. See answer #3
  5. It certainly has for me.
Cheers, --gkhan 05:26, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
A man stands on the beach thinking "This ocean thing looks awfully dangerous. All manner of things could go wrong. Look at the size of those waves. How can I tell whether this swimming business is safe ? How can I trust something that I cannot control ?". He attempts to conduct a scientific survey of bathers by shouting through a megaphone, but most are having too much fun to answer him. Gandalf61 16:12, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Why should you believe the answers we give to your questions? Are the blog like responses from individuals better than the constantly updated data wikipedia has about itself in its articles? Are either more valid than your own research? Why not do your own first hand research? Start anywhere. Spend time. (and if you seee an error, please correct it. you don't need an account) (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check, Wikipedia:Verifiability) WAS 4.250 22:21, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

And see Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:08, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

--[Chris Manning]210.49.34.59 12:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC) Thanks very much for your reponses Sherool, Gkhan, Gandalf61 and Jmabel.. I particularly found Gandalf61's quotation a great example of the research / practice perspective problem. It would seem that sometimes it is a matter of "horses for courses" - researchers actually have fun investigating the bathers and perhaps in this case as well as the beach, who is wearing them! Having said that though - I understand where Jmabel and Gandalf61 are coming from.

My viewpoint:
1. Well, we do what we can. The wiki principle is that people have more of an inclination to do good, than do bad. We have various measures to deal with vandals, but in many ways, our reputation is what helps defend our reputation.
2. I suspect you mean the anonymity of our editor base. Well, we have a strict rule of No original research, which helps prevent invalid assertions from cropping up. Anything that is entered should be either uncontroversial and well known, or backed up by appropiate external sources. So, does this degrade or improve things? Both, really. While we really want more authoritative editors, the 'we don't care who you are' approach does prevent arrogant individuals from embedding their own special views. Which is not to say users are totally anonymous - we can find out what else each editor has done, so internal reputation does matter.
3/4. Well, wikipedia is better than an internet forum. Is it as reliable as a direct source, say an academic paper? No, of course not. But we aren't trying to be. We aren't trying to replace google, or the entire internet here, but to aggregate some of the more reputable information out there, summarise it, and connect them to each other. In a way, wikipedia is evolving a micro-internet, one that is based on our own set of guidelines, and one that reacts better. For unimportant, uncontroversial stuff, wikipedia is very likely to be reliable - about as reliable as anything else out there. For important stuff, an user should be taking advantage of our history page, and using wikipedia as a complement or starting point to research, not just copy everything.
5. No. Definitely not. Wikipedia evolved as a research tool. The internet evolved to sell you things.
--Fangz 13:18, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

You might also be interested in this discussion on the pump from last January. It concerns a news report of a boy who wrote a letter to the Encyclopedia Britannica complaining about mistakes he had found in several of their Polish related articles. We checked how Wikipedia compared - on two out of the three topics mentioned, Wikipedia's pre-existing articles appeared to have the facts correct. On the third we didn't have an article, but a couple of days later (as a result of the focus) we had quite a nice comprehensive page on the subject.

Its a small sample, but it shows how the Wiki approach can exceed the traditionally editted encyclopedia. -- Solipsist 06:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

___________________________________

I use Wikipedia as the first place I go to look something up.

How to evaluate the validity? The discussion page, the references listed, and Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection tecniques.

Terrorism Act 2000

[14]

The above link contains 15 more international terrorist organisations that have been added by the Home Secretary. If someone could gradually add them, I'll add some too. But I don't have time right now.

Thanks,--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 17:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

fn_ (footnote) template appears to be broken

Something must have changed in the implementation of footnotes. usually I can enter {{fn|21}} to get a footnote superscript.

At the footer, I can usually enter {{fnb|21}} or its alphanumeric equivalent {{anb|Alpha21}} and I get the corresponding internal hyperlink.

Now it looks like its broken. Ancheta Wis 10:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

It's at least not universally broken. What page are you talking about? -- Rick Block (talk) 14:00, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia on Nerd TV

Probablby can't be considered a major news source exactly, but "Nerd TV" (sponsored by PBS) recendly did an interview with Tim O'Reilly, where he mentioned the Wikipedia (in passing near the end, but still). Those interested can pop over and download the interview (or any of the other ones). Heh I see it's also linked fom O'Reilly's article so I guess most interested parties have already seen it, but just in case. --Sherool 20:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

New article doesn't show up in search

Unless I type the exact title of my page, Wikipedia doesn't find it with search (neither does Google for that matter). Does it take a while before they're "officially" indexed? --Steerpike 13:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Google won't find it for a while, but I'm not sure how long it takes. What article is it, and what are you typing into the search box?--Sean Jelly Baby? 15:48, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes articles take a while to get indexed by Google. You can help speed up the process by wikifying the text and including links to the article from relevant articles. I don't know how or when the Wikipedia search engine is updated. Also note that Go will take you to an article by the exact name you typed. Search will do a full text search when available. - Mgm|(talk) 21:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Message from the Microsoft Regulation Unit (MRU)

Please see this account's user page (User:MicrosoftRegulator). This explains exactly what Microsoft is regulating Wikipedia for.--REGULATOR (contact) 16:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I've blocked this account indefinitely as an account with multiple users (5, as they say on the user page). These accounts make it impossible to reliably attribute edits as the GFDL demands, and can be used for malicious purposes by multiple users at a time, although that has not been done with this account. -Splashtalk 17:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Please. This user was obviously a troll. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:48, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

How to copy from PlanetMath

Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/PlanetMath Exchange is a project to exchange content between Wikipedia and PlanetMath, which is a web-based encyclopaedia whose contents is available under the GFDL, much like Wikipedia. We do this by slapping {{planetmath}} at any Wikipedia article which incorporate content copied from PlanetMath.

Recently, some doubts have arisen whether this procedure satisfies all legal requirements. For example, the GFDL seems to require that we list at least five (or all, if there are less of five) authors of any material which we copy from PlanetMath, which we do not do at the present. Please see PlanetMath's embedding article (specifically, the discussion under the article itself) for the issues raised by a user of PlanetMath.

It seems that none of the participants on the PlanetMath Exchange project knows what to do about this, so we would be grateful for any help in understanding the legal requirements at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/PlanetMath Exchange#PMEX and GFDL. Probably, similar difficulties exist when copying material from other GFDL sources like the Free On-line Dictionary of Computing (FOLDOC).

Thanks in advance for your help, and please forgive me if I posted in the wrong place. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Suicide_Methods

Can someone please remove the annoying text at the top of the page telling people not to commit suicide? Even if the author of the article wishes to express that sentiment, do so in a more thoughtful and less "in your face" way.

  Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:43, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Hey, it's a disclaimer, to keep people from suing Wikipedia out of its cash. Not that dead people can sue...Davidizer13 16:36, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
The trouble with disclaimers is that they tend to increase liability somewhere else. If we place a notice on suicide methods saying "Don't do this, it's dangerous", but then fail to place a notice on some other article that describes something dangerous, Wikipedia is potentially exposed to a lawsuit. Wikipedia has its general disclaimers that are linked at the bottom of every page; we need no more and no less. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:26, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
I see it as a moral issue. While it's unlikely, this disclaimer could encourage a suicidal person to get help. ~~ N (t/c) 19:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Free Millie Mcfiffin Campaign

Please consider joining the petition to free Millie Mcfiffin. -- Solipsist 19:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Saint/St. Louis (ship)

There are two identical articles :

My two questions are:
1. How are we supposed to wright, in general, regarding a (ship) name : "Saint" or "St." ?
2. What title is better and should stay : "MS" or "SS" ? (and of course "Saint" or "St." ?). The Wikipedians are welcpme to help editting it.
Danny-w 08:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Better to ask this qustion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships. Rmhermen 20:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Nobel prize disaster

If my count is right, we only covered two of the eight laureates in physics, medicine and chemistry before the announcement (one of them one day before only). And I've seen statements, that there are no more articles to write, because everything is covered. Ouch. --Pjacobi 16:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

  • It's not a disaster exactly, but you're absolutely right that people consistently underestimate the size of the task we have here. Not only are we missing biographies of a number of important people, but, more important, we have virtually nothing on many very basic topics.--Pharos 01:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Here's a stat to ponder: No winner of the Nobel Prize in Literature has ever had a Wikipedia article prior to the announcement of the award. –Hajor 01:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Er, there have only been three since we've been around, correct? That's not a great sample size. 134.10.44.224 02:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Four, if Wikipedia's right in saying the site went live in Jan 2001. But, essentially... yeah. Not a great sample. Anyone taking bets for 2005? –Hajor 02:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Maybe this says more about the Nobel Prize committee and the often obscure writers they choose, than about Wiki-inadequacy. Sure there are Wiki-gaps, but there is no existing list of the names of all the notable people in the world, dead and alive. If there were, it would probably be called Wikipedia. Wiki is essentially about people adding new articles as they become aware of gaps. JackofOz 10:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
The Nobel Prize committee is improving: this year's choice was a much better one that the last 3 or 4 years, we already had a non-stub article: Harold Pinter. -- Eugene van der Pijll 12:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Everybody knows Bob Dylan will get it this year ;) -- Rune Welsh ταλκ 21:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia started out quite small; it's hard to believe that V.S. Naipaul wouldn't have had an article by now even without the Nobel Prize, but I'm not sure about the others. Things are looking up for 2005, though: our article gives a long list of blue links for 2005's top contenders.--Pharos 02:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
I've been going through some of the winners of the less well-known scientific awards, on the basis that those gaps should be filled first, and that they are the likely pool from which future Nobel laureates will be drawn. For example, I put together articles for James Till and Ernest McCulloch because I knew them from the Canadian Medical Hall of Fame list. Since I started those articles, they've gone on to win Lasker awards for their demonstration of the existence of stem cells, and they're candidates for a future Nobel. Actually, the whole list of redlinks at the Lasker page would also be good articles to write....
In an interesting contrast, I only see two redlinks in the entire list of Cy Young Award winners. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:48, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Category:Science and engineering prizes is a good starting point for this work. I've checked some entries in Hughes medal and Max Planck medal. Very sorry state of affair. Even Nikolai Bogolubov and Ludwig Faddejew are missing. --Pjacobi 12:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Links with pipes

Is there a term for Wikilinks that use a pipe to point at an article other than the linked text, such as this link to my user page? I've been using "pipelink" for a while, to the confusion of other editors, as that's the term E2 uses for such links. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 13:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

How to edit a page refers to them as piped links. --GraemeL (talk) 14:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes. I've seen "piped link" used much more commonly on Wikipedia.--Pharos 16:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

man made cartilage for knee

How can I find out any new situations about new man made cartilage for knee. ?

Publisher of Wikipedia?

Who is the publisher for wikipedia and were can i find this information?

Have you read the Wikipedia article? Anyway the wikipedia.org sites are operated by the Wikimedia foundation so I guess you could say it is the publisher. Since all the content is licenced under the GNU Free Documentation License anyone can take content from the Wikipedia and publish it, and there are numerous "mirrors" of the Wikipedia, for example answers.com, that are in no way afiliated with Wikimedia itself. --Sherool 19:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Clarifying the above: anyone can take content from the Wikipedia and publish it with appropriate acknowledgement. Also, on the offchance that the real thrust of your question was "how do I cite this thing?" see Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

1934 $100,000 bills

What about them? (Other than it must be really hard to get change for one...) *Dan T.* 16:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Would be worth $193,400,000. ESkog 03:33, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Dtobias appears to be asking about the $100,000 bill of 1934 and ESkog appears to have misinterpreted it as meaning 1,934 bills with the number referring to a quantity of bills rather than a date. Georgia guy 20:20, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I suspect ESkog was making a joke on purpose —Wahoofive (talk) 17:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
I wasn't actually asking about anything, just responding to a cryptic message consisting of a header with no actual question, such as seems to be unfortunately rampant here and in the help desk. *Dan T.* 21:36, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Maybe they were looking for Large denomination bills in U.S. currency, it has of photo of the bill.--Commander Keane 17:23, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Wiki hits counter?

Just curious. Is there a way to find out how many times a particular page gets visited? I think it would be interesting to track daily article hits and come up with some sort of global pulse based on wikipedia similar to what the google guys do with the most popular search terms.

Also interesting would be the same kind of daily log on edits. David Bergan 18:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

A variety of statistics are available at Wikipedia:Statistics, but not including daily edit logs (which, as far as I know, are not currently published anywhere). Also please see Wikipedia:Technical FAQ#Can I add a page hit counter to a Wikipedia page?. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
With a bit of work you can find out all the daily edits based on the recent changes page I would think. --Sherool 18:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Kate's Edit Counter Down!

Mayday Mayday Mayday!! Kate's Edit Counter is down!! Mayday Mayday Mayday!! Babajobu 14:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

It's been moved; now at http://kohl.wikimedia.org/~kate/cgi-bin/count_edits (same as before, without the ".cgi" suffix). -- Rick Block (talk) 14:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Mayday Mayday Mayday!! Thanks!! Mayday Mayday Mayday!! Babajobu 10:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
A redirect would have been nice. :"D - RoyBoy 800 19:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Former mayor of NYC cites Wikipedia

The former mayor of New York City cites Wikipedia in this [15] editorial. Wyss 23:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

And we're on the BBC again... check the list of definitions at [16]! Grutness...wha? 06:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

A horrific thought

Something that has occurred to me from time to time when editing articles: has anyone every considered what would happen to Wikipedia if Jimbo turned evil? Babajobu 16:44, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

What, even more evil? --fvw* 19:19, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, like really evil. "I don't care about Wikipedia anymore, it's a piece of crap" evil. What would happen? Babajobu 19:25, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
That's not very evil. The Wikimedia Foundation would still go on, and even if, in his hypothetically developing evil ways, he managed to shut that down, everything's still GFDL. Wikimedia doesn't have a very large budget anyway; if everyone on the board just went evil, the whole thing could be recreated again. So, as long as there is some remnant of sugary goodness left in this world, the free encyclopedia will abide.--Pharos 19:40, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Foundation owns the Wikipedia servers? And it can act independently of Jimbo's wishes (evil or otherwise)? Babajobu 19:49, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
If I recall correctly, Jimbo plus his employees have a 3:2 majority on the board, however I think he promised to always vote with the two community representitives as long as they were agreed. --fvw* 19:58, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, but he's evil now, remember. Fortunatly, that is never going to happen. Wikipedia was his vision, he's not going to give up that. gkhan 22:15, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes, that was my point: If he becomes evil, he can go back on his word and have control of the board. But we still have the content, so I'm sure some other sucker would rise up to pay for all the expenses the fund drives don't cover. --fvw* 23:27, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Forking Wikipedia is not a very easy task, as any of the developers will tell you. If the site were to go down tomorrow and never come up again, we'd have a fairly turbulent time getting it back up. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 21:01, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Scary to think that one person's weirdness or flakiness or emotional burnup could bring this entire enterprise crashing to a halt. Let us all pray for Jimbo's continued goodness and mental equilibrium. Babajobu 21:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Please, if the fact that their CEO/Board of directors is/are the quintessence of evil meant that an enterprise would cease to exist then FOX would not be around, or JP Morgan, or Philip Morris, or...  ;) -- just kidding. Or am I?? Redux 02:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Tim and Michael have a free will, even if they are Bomis partners. There's no guarantee that they would vote with Jimbo if Jimbo went crazy. The main risk is if a majority of the board are able to benefit financially by transferring assets (such as domain names) from Wikimedia to a for-profit corporation. I'm not sure if that would be legal, but rumour has it that it is. -- Tim Starling 05:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
I thought this was already an established fact. See for example, Image:Lirus img small.jpg, and lets face it, most of the other examples at User:Jimbo Wales/Funny pictures. -- Solipsist 20:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Did not like founder's remark about Libertarian Party members

Hello, my name is David Greene. I am not yet registered on this site, but will likely register today.

This morning I watched your founder on C-SPAN. He was interviewed by the founder and head of C-SPAN, Brian Lamb, for one hour.

I was quite favorably impressed by the man (your founder). And the interview cast Wikipedia in an excellent light, and I believe justly so.

During the interview, when pressed by Brian Lamb for his political opinions, he described members of the Libertarian Party as "lunatics."

I am a former member and official of the Libertarian Party, and I know and knew many people active in the party. I disagree with your founder's remark, and feel that many party members are brilliant.

I appreciate the fact that your founder is a highly intelligent and friendly person, and I also appreciate the fact that he was put on the spot by Brian Lamb (as is Mr. Lamb's job). Still I am a bit stunned that he would make such an impolitic, and to my mind, incorrect remark.

You will find that there are editors of all political stripes here on Wikipedia. Jimbo Wales was pressed for his personal opinion; it wasn't meant to reflect a Wikipedia policy. Rest assured that Wikipedia has no official stance with respect to any political party.
If you would like to discuss Jimbo's personal political opinions, you would be best to approach him by email or through his talk page. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:43, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Hi David. I'd like to welcome you to Wikipedia, and to second Ten's sentiments. Many people in the Wikipedia community are quite sympathetic to libertarian perspectives. To provide just one recent example, on September 9th, Anarcho-capitalism was the featured article of the day. And although Wales did use the word "lunatics" in the interview, he immediately followed up with "Freedom, liberty, basically individual rights, that idea of dealing with other people in a matter that is not initiating force against them is critical to me." We're always glad to have new contributors, and I hope you don't let that interview discourage you from getting an account and helping us to build something beautiful here. --Arcadian 18:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

And hell, I'm a [former] officer of a county LP in North Carolina (hence the former), and we're pretty much insane. :D --Golbez 15:00, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Libertarians are lunatics in much the same way that Einstien was considered a lunatic in his time. Society just isnt ready for libertarians yet, some dont even know what views libertarians have yet still consider them crazy. There is too much societal brainwashing for people to understand these things. Although, I did see a guy on the Daily show with Jon Stewart who claimed to be libertarian and was giving out toy guns to little inner city children to protest a toy gun ban. Might have given libertarians a bad name? Note: I hesitate to label myself or my veiws, but most consider them libertarian. --AGruntsJaggon 10:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Although this is probably not the place to hold a real debate over this... The world's political graveyards are full to the bursting with movements that said the same. --Aquillion 10:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Introducing a new template to counter most harmful vandals

Take a look at one of the top responses to a Wikipedia related topic on slashdot today (mod down please):

"I love sneaking my name into articles. So far I've taught a famous guitarist how to play, worked for NASA during an Apollo mission, and got shot out of a cannon."

True or flamebait, I can't verify, but I have encountered this behavior previously. Most vandals are manifest, but some jerks alter digits, insert their names into the background, make up battles, etc. In one case I rolled back only after it went unnoticed for a year. These users are more than nuisances, to protect the integrity of info, we need to do more to identify and squash these ppl. I have created this template ({{hoaxer}}):

This user has a history of intentionally inserting hoax information. Please feel free to scrutinise and readily delete his or her work.


This template is designed to spread information and make the vandals feel unwelcome. When you spot a hoaxer, please drop this template and add the userpage to your watchlist.

lots of issues | leave me a message 12:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Looks like an engraved invitation for vandals or POV-warriors to stick this notice onto any user's page they have a confict with. —Wahoofive (talk) 15:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Then revert it if it seems to be false and let the 3RR solve things. ~~ N (t/c) 17:08, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
How does it help in improving quality of Wikipedia articles? Pavel Vozenilek 00:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Vandals who drop hard to detect fabrications exist on Wikipedia. Their damage will not be spotted in a short time. Once noticed and reverted, we do not want the cycle of vandalism and slow detection to play itself out again. This template is useful for infomration sharing. By quickly spotting these vandals, the damage they do to content will be minimalized. lots of issues | leave me a message 02:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but if someone is slicky enough to disturb Wikipedia with "subtle attacks", then this person could simply remove the template from the page, and keep removing it again, and again, and again. Ultimately, the only way this could be guaranteed to work is if the userpage is protected after insertion of the template. And to prevent misuse, as Wahoofive suggested it could happen, it should not be taken seriously when found if the page it's on is not protected (Admins would see the "unprotect" tab, whereas regular users would see the dreaded "view source" tab) — instructions to as much would have to be included in the template, of course. Huge problem: this would mean that only Admins would be able to enforce the template properly, which means a lot of transfered work, and many, many more posts on the Administrators' Noticeboard. Redux 03:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Everytime this template is dropped, the user page must also be watchlisted. The category acts as an upper layer monitor. All very simple solutions, there is no management issue. The suggestion of any possible problems (minimal) must be weighted against benefits. Do you want a constant vandal to degrade entries without notice for months? lots of issues | leave me a message 12:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
I think this will not work as proposed, but would work far better if there were a way to indicate the particular hoax edit(s) in question. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Go whack some of Willy on Wheels thousand or so users with this. Davidizer13 16:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Date articles

I've noticed that Pcb21 (talk · contribs) has started creating a series about specific dates: January 1, 2005, January 2, 2005, January 3, 2005, and on up to (so far) January 28, 2005 February 7, 2005.

Is this kosher? Isn't this too granular a level of detail? --Calton | Talk 00:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Faaar too granular. Almost no single day is worth its own encyclopedia article. We don't even have on on September 11, 2001 - only the attacks that occurred that day. --Golbez 00:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Bad idea. That's why we've got articles on January 1 and 2005. There's no need to break it up any further. - Mgm|(talk) 09:39, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
What is it with dates and Wikipedia? Has Wikipedia stumbled on a thirst for knowledge about dates that has been unsatisfied in other encyclopedias? Or perhaps, as I think, dates are massively overlinked in Wikipedia. Sigh. Bobblewik 13:36, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Actually, in the long term, cataloging individual dates could be a very useful use of Wikipedia. In some ways, the massive hypertext data of Wikipedia enables a better cataloging of the events of an individual day than ever before. However, currently we can only search it by year and day only, not the two combined. Wikipedia should eventually be considered a resource for social science data mining. Combined with semantic tags, maybe we could discover for example whether people are more or less likely to commit suicide on days with bad news or disasters. Or whether different periods of the year are more likely to be associated with different types of historical incidents. Don't cut Wikipedia short. Tfine80 22:01, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't believe that Wikipedia editors are all linking dates to support social science. It is almost certainly because of a popular misconception of how date preferences work.
I cannot believe that the following examples of multiple date linking are for the benefits of social science: Wikipedia:Offline_reports/This_page_links_many_times_to_the_same_article. Bobblewik 17:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Someone want to check these to see if they belong?

Starting from a questionable link on Dragon, I tracked a new anon IP user who got a username. I removed some edits as being nonnotable references to commercial books on certain pages, but not sure on some of these others if they are legit, or vanity, or spam or what... Thought someone could take a look at them (sort of a RfC sort of thing, but they are a variety of topics and edits so I figured I'd toss it here): Wren Blackberry (delete vanity?), Myles munroe (very least a move there, if not a deletion), Martin Sexton (vanity? copyright?), and in general the edits of User:Hopper5. DreamGuy 23:32, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Altered Text

Apparently a page has been edited (if this is possible) and the inserted text is annoying and stupid. The following page is a entry for Windows Vista: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista Someone has put in a line in the article that does not belong: IT WILL COME OUT IN 3928 A.D. AND IT WILL STINK SO BAD THAT IT IS NOT WORTH USING and it disrupts the intent of the atricle. Thanks, Rich

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs changing, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit any article by simply following the Edit this page link. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to...) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use out the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome.--Sean Black Talk 01:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Babel Templates

So I thought it would be cool to have a page that centralized all the different little Babel Templates I've seen running around, just for fun. I'd like to add examples, and maybe have links to the different templates people are using. I know there's the language ones and the various operating systems one, I thought it might be cool to have one place to easily find them. So I started a page here, just thought I'd let people know (it's bad right now). Cheers! Ëvilphoenix Burn! 20:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

craigslist in other states

Hi there - I'm from the bay area and use you all the time and want to know if you offer services in other states like Washington for job searches? Thanx

You seem to have taken a wrong turn somewhere in the Web if you think this page, in the Wikipedia site, is somehow connected to Craig's List. *Dan T.* 12:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia as an ontology or semantic network

Did anybody think about using WP as a basis for building a semantic network (for instance, "article A is in the list of Bs" is close to "A is a B"; "article A becomes to category C" means there is a close relationship between A and C; disambiguation pages, as well as commas and brackets in titles, help solve ambiguities)? Apokrif 15:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

See meta:Semantic MediaWiki for various links related to this. Angela. 02:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Misspelling redirects

Is there a wikipedia policy on redirects from misspellings to the correct article? e.g. when I found museli blank, I wondered whether it should redirect to muesli. Are we waiting for the mediawiki spellchecking edition to solve the problem without lots of redirects? Ojw 20:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Common misspellings are quite often used as redirects. I'd say that meusli and possibly museli should be redirects here. So do it. The worst that can happen is they'll later be deleted, but in the case of redirects to words with unusual spellings this doesn't often happen. Grutness...wha? 00:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I too find these redirects useful, but perhaps there should be a specific category (o comment in the code) to flag spellchecking redirects (this could, among other things, be used as a basis to build an automated spellchecker) Apokrif 15:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
As an aside, I am stunned by the many Wiki contributors who seem to have a very strong grasp of their subject matter but whose spelling and grammar is ... well, rotten. What a telling statement about our education systems this is. Much of my time here is spent in fixing up spelling and grammatical errors. Admittedly, I'm an editor professionally and I enjoy this type of work, so I'm not complaining too much. But why is it that so little focus seems to be given to these things in our education systems these days? These things really matter. JackofOz 13:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I must be a rare specimen. I lack in both subject knowledge and grammar knowledge! Jaberwocky6669 | ☎ 14:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Surely not. You're being too hard on yourself. JackofOz 14:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
:)FWIW, I used to mark first-year university students' essays (if the sig is anything to go by, this was on the other side of the Tasman to Jack). About 20% of them showed written language skills that were worse than I'd have expected from an average ten-year-old. And if that's university students, what are those who didn't go on to tertiary education like? (If you're interested in a little exam humour, my postgrad supervisor collected a lot of the "howlers" that we found in finals exams - not the spelling ones but the just plain weird ones - and put them on his website here... Grutness...wha? 14:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Excellent. Thank you. JackofOz 14:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Oh, and yes, we are trans-Tasman cousins. Greetings from Melbourne. JackofOz 15:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
OK, I've put up a "sample" redirect page there, using the template:misspelling template. If we decide that's a good way of marking them, should we let wikipedia:manual of style know about it or something? Ojw 18:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
There already is a template for just that: Template:R from misspelling, and it is used by quite a few articles. All of the templates for redirects are listed on Wikipedia:Redirects. --Vclaw 12:15, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Also consider listing them on Wikipedia:Redirects from misspellings, which allows people to regularly go through and make sure nothing links to them. - SimonP 16:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Authentication Label (c)

My name is Martin Folkes, I am a retired Private Investigator in Australia. I have worked for Local Courts and Insurance Companies for the last twenty years and am seeking to develop a tellular based tracking device.

I have approached Australian Telecoms to no avail, and would like to seek alternate support from telecommunication based engineers and/or companies for sponsorshhip.

For an overview of the project and its applications, I can be contacted on:

Martin Folkes

<address removed>

Ph: <removed> Fax: <removed>

Mob: <removed>— Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.134.211.21 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

...Okay? I'm not entirely sure what you're asking, but see WP:NOT. Does this have anything to do with buildiing an encyclopedia? Hazarding a guess, I'll say no.--Sean Black Talk
What Sean Black was trying to say is that a query like this is best placed on our Reference desk.--Commander Keane 08:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Boxes

I don't like this box.

Preceded by Commissioner of Baseball
1984–1989 		Succeeded by

I hate it it saids "Preceded by" "Succeded by".

Here's what I like better.


Preceded by
Pierce Brosnan
1995-2002 		James Bond actor
2006- 		Succeeded by
TBA

That's MORE LIKE IT. "Preceded by" and "Followed by" is better rather than that corny "Preceded/Succeded" succestion box crap.

Spencer Karter

Preceded/Succeeded are natural opposites. If you change one to "Followed by", the other should be changed to "Following" to match. Which looks very odd. Grutness...wha? 23:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
It seems particularly odd to me that a succession box would not talk about succession. — File:Ontario trillium sig.pngmendel ☎ 17:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Domain dispute panelist cites, but misspells, Wikipedia

From a recent WIPO decision in a domain name dispute under UDRP: [17]

Annexure D includes a range of print outs showing, amongst other things, that various databases on the Internet classify over 3,000 films under the category “Anime & Manga Movies”. It also includes a print out of the <wikepedia.com> entry for Manga which fills 10 printed pages.

It's wikipedia.org, guys... *Dan T.* 13:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Promotional images

The requirements at Template:Promotional for promotional images strike me as somewhat over-restrictive, beyond actual legal requirements of fair use. I've proposed a couple of possible changes at Template talk:Promotional. I just thought I'd post the here as the issue is one that has rather broad impact.--Pharos 05:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

The International Bluegrass Music Museum

I would like to have a link to the International Bluegrass Music Museum placed in the section for "bluegrass". How do I do this? There is a place for it but it doesn't have anything there. Thank you. Sincerely, Mike Lawing

John Gotti image

Hello

I am writing on behalf of the Open University, UK. Our course team would like to use the image of John Gotti found on this web link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:John_Gotti.jpg in an educational course. Who does the copyright of this photo belong to? and if it belongs to John Gotti, could we have a contact adress for him please in order to ask for his permission to use it?

Many thanks t.adekunle@open.ac.uk

The image was uploaded by Raul654, so if you leave a message on his talk page he might be able to tell you where he got it from. The other solution would be to search google images for other pictures of John Gotti that have better copyright information than ours. --Cherry blossom tree 20:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Humour

Here is a Dilbert cartoon I saw today which sounded strikingly like some exchanges I've heard around here :) Wyss 13:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

High school edit conflict

There is currently is a content dispute on Commonwealth School. The school administration has come in and deleted most of the old page (which may or may not have been encyclopedic) and replaced it with their marketing material. They also made a public announcement about it. If anyone can come and help us make a good encyclopedia article, come have a look. 68.166.50.142 16:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

In addition, they have expressed concerns that when we add things to the page (even well-intentioned things), they have to watch the page and check them for accuracy. Is this not how Wikipedia always works? Is it reasonable or not to request editorial control from the students at a school? --68.166.50.142 16:28, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
It's perfectly reasonable to monitor an article they have an interest in. Wikipedia:Autobiography applies, however. I don't know what your last sentence means. ~~ N (t/c) 16:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
My last sentence was asking whether it is reasonable for the administration to ask that students run proposed changes by them before posting them to Wikipedia. --68.166.50.142 17:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
It would help if you told us which IP or user is the administration. ~~ N (t/c) 16:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
I believe it is this IP, which belongs to the school computer network. 68.166.50.142 16:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
There is also another IP, 141.154.120.149 (talk · contribs), which appears to have made some of those changes. --68.166.50.142 16:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Where was the public announcement? ~~ N (t/c) 16:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
The public announcement was something along the lines of "An alum told us about the page, we found some things we didn't like on it, we erased it, we know that was wrong". Then another couple teachers began explaining more, and blew it a little out of proportion, saying there was "gossip" on it with people's names. (The only names listed were those of publication editors and award winners; there was no gossip.) --68.166.50.142 17:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for advertising of any kind. Mercilessly remove any advertising material that is inserted — it almost certainly violates the core policy of WP:NPOV. As Nickptar says, it is fine to watch over an article you have an interest in, but it is not ok to always replace it with your preferred version: that's edit warring and will not be tolerated. However, it's great that someone's checking the page for accuracy, we need more articles that get that kind of attention! -Splashtalk 16:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

What's considered advertising? Is flowerly, somewhat puffed-up content from our website advertising? Is removing all the bad things about the school while keeping the good things advertising? --68.166.50.142 17:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
The language of the article should be what you would expect to find in any other encyclopedia. It should be neutral and factual. It should leave the reader to draw their own conclusions based on the facts that are presented; it should not analyse the facts itself. Typically, puffed up language makes claims that are hard to verify in their exact interpretation, or are clearly phrases that someone who (though perhaps miserly) could disagree with. See Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms, and, seriously, read WP:NPOV. I personally generally take the view that if someone could reasonably think that the language is inflated, it probably is. Non-inflated language is usually pretty obvious. The common exhortation round here is to be bold in editing: you don't need to ask for permission to make what you think/know to be good changes to an article — don't be afraid to make improvements.

One of the things the administration said was that there were several things they "didn't want prospective students or parents to see." At what point is that not a good excuse for removing things? Some of it was absurd, but some of the things they didn't like simply added character and detail to the description without insulting or demeaning anyone or the school. --68.166.50.142 17:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

There is rarely a good excuse for removing things the subject of the article doens't like. You've read WP:NPOV by now, so you'll know that presenting the good with the bad is a key part of the way Wikipedia articles should be written. Obviously, we can't libel, but we can say that bad thing X happened, as long as we don't include judgemental writing on that fact and as long as it is verifiable from reliable third party sources. -Splashtalk 17:44, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

It is not appropriate for the school adminstration to require approval of changes to the school's article. Ideally the school administration would not be involved in editing the article at all, as they would be inclined to make vanity edits, although the same argument could probably be made for students of the school as well. As long as the information is verifiable, encyclopedic, and presented from a neutral point of view, it should not be removed or subject to the school's approval. Kaldari 17:37, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)/Archive_I&oldid=1145854946"