Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Village pump/Archive AR

< Wikipedia:Village pump
Village pump archive  

This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump. 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, Y, Z, AA, AB, AC, AD, AE, AF, AG, AH, AI, AJ, AK, AL, AM, AN, AO, AP, AQ, AR, AS, AT, AU

Tracing a reverberating inaccuracy (or at least a dubious statement)

I would like help tracing the origin within Wikipedia of a questionable statement. The statement apparently appeared in Wikipedia at some time in the past, but I can't find it within the History page of the relevant article.

Nicolas Chuquet is credited as the first person to put down in writing the systematic series of number names byllion, tryllion, quadrilion, etc. But did he use the long scale exclusively? I was fascinated by Robert Munafo's report that Chuquet was inconsistent: [1]. Munafo exhibits a page image showing Chuquet's use of the long scale, and a quotation indicating that he used the short scale. This has, however, been strongly disputed by Michael Chuquet, particularly in Talk:Binary prefix, where he says "One knows that Nicolas Chuquet used the long scale exclusively.... But, a falsified quotation, taken again by hundreds of Web site and a pseudo-scientist "lucky find" (A double use of Chuquet himself !) let believe the opposite." (Michael Chuquet is a strong proponent of the view that the long scale is historically correct and that the short scale is erroneous).

I contacted Munafo for the source of the quotation, and he replied:

It is from an earlier version of the web page http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Chuquet , which I downloaded on the 22nd March 2004. Because it is a Wikipedia article, it is no longer available.

Yikes! A dubious assertion of fact in Wikipedia was picked up, pruned of Wikipedian attribution by a process of quotation and requotation, promulgated to a number of other websites, and then (alas) picked up by me as a source to reference in working on current Wikipedia articles. Munafo relied on the fact that he had seen this quotation not only in the Wikipedia mirror but other places, particularly bilingual sites. I relied on Munafo, whose "large numbers" web page is fairly well known and admired.

He quotes the article in full. Part of it reads:

In 1484 the French mathematician Nicolas Chuquet wrote in his article "Triparty en la science de nombres": Au lieu de dire mille milliers, on dira million, au lieu de dire mille millions, on dira byllion, etc..., et tryllion, quadrilion...octylion, nonyllion, et ainsi des autres si plus oultre on voulait procder.
Instead of saying thousand thousands, one will say million, instead of saying thousand million, one will say billion, etc..., and trillion, quadrillion, ..., octillion, nonillion, and similar as far as you want to proceed.
Around 1550 it seems that a Mr Pelletier introduced a second system, the term "milliard". This new system was used in England and Germany and part of the rest of Europe, but USA and France itself did not change to the new word.
Then it became really complicated:

I said to myself, "Well, if it is a Wikipedia article, the full history should be available." Apparently not: the history for Chuquet simply shows a redirect, while the history of Nicolas Chuquet does not contain the seem to contain the version Munafo is quoting.

Why can't I find the article quoted by Munafo in the History for Chuquet or Nicolas Chuquet? I tried using the http://www.archive.org Wayback machine on http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Chuquet but nationmaster uses a robot exclusion protocol and is not indexed by Wayback. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 09:30, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC) P. S. Googling on the exact phrase "Around 1550 it seems that a Mr Pelletier introduced a second system" is a way to turn up many currently extant copies of the article as cited by Munafo.

Where within Wikipedia can I find the version of the article that Munafo used, and, in particular, the name of the user who inserted the disputed quotation allegedly from Nicolas Chuquet? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 09:46, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Chuquet was originally a redirect to Billion. The history of the insertion of this quote is in Billion. The original quote in French was inserted by User:Fantasy [2]. She also added a "computer generated" English translation. The fact that the translation was generated by a computer was removed by User:Patrick [3] Mintguy (T) 10:21, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Thanks. Doesn't look like a computer translation issue, though, as "au lieu de dire mille millions, on dira byllion" seems clear enough... isn't it? the question is whether the French quotation is accurate, I think. Left a note with User:Fantasy. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 10:29, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC).

about natural gas exploration

i don't clearly know what is the most qualified source rock for generating natural gas?

Template help

I created {{Template:Nuremberg Trial judges}}<nowiki> (seen to the left) and put it in all of the articles on the [[Nuremberg Trial]] judges. What I'd like to do is put a flag next to each pair of judges, indicating their nationality (a British flag for the top two, American flag for the next two, French last for the next two, and a Soviet flag for the final two). The problem is, I'm not exactly sure how I can do this. Can anyone help? ~~~~

Can somone do a quick image chop for me?

File:Barack Obama campaign logo.JPG

The bottom? Thanks. :) [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 18:31, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

ummm, i did but how do i upload it?Cavebear42 18:41, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
You could use Special:Upload -- except I already cropped and uploaded it ;-) --Diberri | Talk 18:44, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
thx, i got it but then i uploaded it and screwed your's up, think i reverted back to yours though. I'm gonna have to go play with this some more.Cavebear42 18:46, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
turn's out it was teh brouser cache. A good old "Ctrl-F5" showed the real vertion. either yours or mine will work.Cavebear42 19:13, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Taeglin

Can someone quickly delete Taeglin? In an attempt to move Teiglin there I accidently moved its talk page… [[User:Anárion|File:Anarion.png]] 18:35, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Blocking spree

It looks like a number of newly-bred administrators are on hunt. More and more instances com to my ears when someone blocks someone else without an attempt to talk, simply quoting a wikipolicy. Bang! You are dead! What is more they seem to genuinely believe they are doing right thing. An still more disturbing is that quite a few barnstars are given away "for dealing with trolls and vandals", thus somehow giving an idea that policing is a job more important than contributing. I will not list particular userIDs here. Please, someone more eloquent than me, tell these people to cease fire, to be more tolerant, less trigger-happy, and talk before shooting. I hate the idea to file formal complaints against these otherwise good people. Mikkalai 20:14, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

OK. I looked into the List of blocked IP addresses and usernames and see that the above constitutes a tiny-weeny fraction to the total block number. Still, people who are busy blocking true vandals may get their hands harden and shoot a couple of inoocent bystanders. I know by myself, it is so tempting "to do the right thing" right now, right on the spot, especially when you are busy with more important things to do. Folks, be careful with handguns! Mikkalai 20:30, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My computer keeps freezing up when I try to view Ferdinand Magellan

A vandal vandalized the Ferdinand Magellan article. Another user reverted the vandalism. When I use the Diff function to see what was reverted, my IE keeps freezing up on me. I have tried about five times, and have even rebooted to check it out but every time I try to look at that article, my computer freezes up. RickK 04:59, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

My guess is that IE just can't handle the formatting on a diff of 717 kilobytes of "die admin wanker". -- Cyrius|✎ 05:10, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I believe Cyrius is correct; I have the same problem and I have observed it before in similar circumstances. Antandrus 05:16, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The user who did it has a stupid yet interesting user page... User:Pooman --Allyunion 07:23, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Reading deleted articles

(moved from Help:Contents [4])

  • How to read a deleted article as an ordinary user (COULD SOMEONE INCLUDE AN ANSWER TO THIS PLEASE?)
  • If you're not a sysop, the only way to do it is to get a sysop to send you a copy. RickK 05:00, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Which shouldn't be hard. I'll gladly handle requests for this (as I think will most sysops), barring that the reason for deletion was a copyright violation. (If the article is indeed deleted. On the other hand, if you mean accessing an earlier version of an existing article, just use the "History" tab. -- Jmabel 05:07, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC))
I don't believe it is possible. If you have a specific article in mind, I might be willing to help get the contents for you, but I'd rather do it if you register, so I don't have to leave messages for an IP, since there may be a problem with that feature. Or, if you have a specific concern, I could try to help with that. Niteowlneils 05:17, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC) Talk

Light relief

I've just had an email from a friend to inform me that he'd "fixed a typo" on Wikipedia because he "felt it was important" not to have a typo "in an encyclopaedia". Such innocence. I feel like grabbing by his chubby cheek and giving it a shake. I'll have to stop laughing first. --[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod » .....TALKQuietly)]] 02:13, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

I think I'm missing something. Like a punchline. Meh :P Darksun 11:06, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Well, I'll spell it out, for the sake of other viewers. I have been known to spend stretches of 4 hours doing nothing but change typos etc... tens upon tens of them. I'm sure I'm not alone in this (except, perhaps, in the amount of time I have on my hands). In spite of the fact I told my friend, to some degree, how Wikipedia works he still finds it notable that a typo should exist within our pages.
Perhaps you'll be amused when I point out that his email said "I fixed a typo again on Wikipedia...", which was referring back to his last eagle-eyed edit about 2 weeks ago. ;o) --[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod » .....TALKQuietly)]] 02:29, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps instead of taking him by his chubby cheek, you could point him to Wikipedia:Cleanup? There's always plenty there for pedants like us to work on. :) - jredmond 15:21, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Every time you fix a typo, a pedant angel gets its wings. Spatch 20:46, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

When/how to de-speedy?

Just how bold should one be in removing {delete} tags? An article that's been around for almost a year, editted by several long-time Wikipedians, about a Web site that has an alexa ranking of 20,000 suddenly showed up in the speedy cat. If it was more borderline, I'd put it on VfD (like I have with several articles, but that doesn't seem right, especially since it survived vfd 11 months ago. The three options I can think of are: just remove it with a brief rationale comment in the edit summary, put it on vfd to get a consensus so I can't be accused of being arbitrary and/or unilateral or whatever, or pointing out the above on the tagger's Talk page. If it had been tagged by an anon, I would probably feel OK going with option 1, but the fact it's someone who's been here twice as long as I have gives me pause. Niteowlneils 00:36, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If the article survived VfD 11 mnths ago and it's such a large website, I suppose you could de-tag it...it just depends on what the article is. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 00:42, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Little Green Footballs for the curious.

You are a respected, dilligent wikipedian of long standing - if you think it's not a speedy, it's not a speedy. If there's any doubt that it's not a speedy, then it's not a speedy. Non-notability is not a criterion for speedy deletion. Anything that has ever survived VfD is plainly not a candidate for speedy (unless, I suppose, its contents have been migrated elsewhere). Remove the tag. Don't nominate it on VfD unless you thing it should be deleted. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:52, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Niteowlneils, my suggestion would be to drop a note on Wetman's page, since it looks like he was the one who did the nomination. Web guides aren't speedy candidates anyway (hence no one has deleted the page). They'd be VfD material. Since this has survived VfD, it's likely that Wetman just made a mistake. Let him know what you're doing and why, and I'm sure he'll be reasonable about it. Geogre 00:56, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I removed the tag. Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion lists eight very explicit qualifications for a speedy deletion candiate, none of which remotely match this article. -- 01:01, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Aha! You have fallen afoul of the "signing with four tildes as the last line on a long page doesn't get the job done" bug. As, perhaps, might I. - Nunh-huh 01:07, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I may simply have fallen afoul of my own incrompitence. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:15, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Incrompitence - portmanteau of increments and incompetence, meaning stupid in a number of small amounts. --[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod » .....TALKQuietly)]] 01:41, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
    • Dictdef. Transwiki to Wiktionary, then dele...oh. Whoops! I guess I've been spending a little too much time on VfD. — Gwalla | Talk 01:57, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

5 tildes is just a timestamp.

6 tildes is just a cigar 01:12, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)~

Thanks everyone for so much feedback so fast. VfD seemed like the easiest/safest solution, but it also seemed like the least desirable, so I'm glad my gut seems to have been right. I see Wetman's already removed the speedy tag from it's talk page. Niteowlneils 01:21, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Attack of the Living Dead Proposals!

Apparently, it's not enough for the community to reject a flawed proposal -- in the dark of night, they rise from the grave as re-animated Wikipedia:Semi-policy.

Not only that, once they've become zombie-policies, anyone trying to edit them gets reverted repeatedly, Apparently, one user is entitled add headers that change old failed proposals into "semi-policy", but no one else is allowed to question that new designation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Remove_personal_attacks&curid=349178&action=history and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:What_is_a_troll&curid=801686&action=history

Compare: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia%3AWhat_is_a_troll&diff=0&oldid=5507189 or http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia%3ARemove_personal_attacks&diff=0&oldid=5507254 and you'll see that the more things change the more they stay exactly as one user wants.

Collaborative editing is clearly outmoded bourgeois sentimentalism!

Nothing seems to be safe from the living dead proposals! http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia%3AProposal_Not_Accepted_By_the_Community&diff=5551691&oldid=5551543

Perhaps we ought to agree to simply call all proposals "semi-policy", and avoid all the fuss and muss of actually voting. After all, given that nothing stops the re-animation of failed polices ignores the community consensus as voted, voting seems a bourgeoisof a waste of time.

Theresa Knott has a (humorous) solution: simply call everything a "semi-policy" as on Wikipedia:Those who disagree with Angela must not sign their comments.

But her serious compromise header isn't acceptable to one user: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Remove_personal_attacks&diff=5546852&oldid=5546805

But more realistically, we must ask, why is a lone user going to all this trouble to turn non-policy into the curiously named "semi-policy"? Cui bono?

And why is he willing to ignore community consensus to do so? -- orthogonal 23:26, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • The first person who tries to act on "semi-policy" will get slapped up against "actual policy," in my opinion. Geogre 01:01, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Also, I really ought to make this a separate heading, but let me express here (and later) my utter dismay at policy proposals made in the dark places and votes conducted in arbitrary time frames and the absence of dissent being taken as an expression of consent. I have my own policy proposal ideas to correct this last. One word suffices to explain it: quorum. It's absurd to think that a community of 200+ Administrators and thousands of active Wikipedians is to be ruled by policies voted on by 15 people. Geogre 01:01, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • My father used to drag me in to help make his quorum on occasions (I won't reveal what for, but I was a member of the Foo Association - of course - and technically allowed to help make up the numbers despite my youth at the time). My father assumed that I would just stick up my hand whenever he gave the nod. Pity the presumptive father, how little he knows me... --[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod » .....TALKQuietly)]] 01:20, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
      • My country of 60 million people is governed by a cabinet of about 20 people. Shocking! Pcb21| Pete 15:24, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
        • Are they elected to rule, can they be unelected, and are they constrained by any Basic Law? -- orthogonal 17:42, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Do they get to change the constitution in the middle of the night with only as many legislators as they call on the phone, plus a bunch of proxies in their own handwriting? Geogre 12:44, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Broken image

See here. This should be on WP:IFD, but there's no way to even go to the description page. grendel|khan 21:43, 2004 Aug 30 (UTC)

XHTML-errors in MediaWiki:Googlesearch

Hi, there are a few XHTMl-errors in MediaWiki:Googlesearch, which I have fixed at de:Benutzer:Hendrik Brummermann/Artikel/MediaWiki_Googlesearch. As MediaWiki:Googlesearch is a protected special page, an admin should copy the new content to that place. Thanks --Hendrik Brummermann 18:01, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Watchlist count

Many people here claim that vandalism will become unmanageable with growing number of articles, because e.g. the RC patrol will become overwhelmed. On the other hand, many vandalism, or even just addition of sloppily checked facts, are noticed and corrected because most Wikipedians have those articles to which they have contributed on their watchlist. So, in analogy to Linus's With enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow., we could say: As long as enough people watch an article it will stay reliable.

Hence, the number of users having an article on their watchlist might be a useful indicator when assessing the reliability of a Wikipedia article one is reading. So, what about a line like This article is watched by NN Wikipedia users. in the article footer? Would you consider it as useful? Or would it just clutter up the frame?

Oh, and to start a related topic: Hit counts. Wouldn't it be great to be able to check, whether anybody has actually read my great, lengthy article on this in my opion so terribly fascinating niche subject of the history of the foo subveriety of bars within bazes? Wanted? Feasible? Or distracting? Simon A. 16:14, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

An article with a "This article is watched by 0 Wikipedia users" would mean "vandalise me! no-one will notice!". In practice most vandals attack a number articles in sequence, until they hit one that's on someone's watchlist. Then that person backtracks and fixes all their vandalism. The resulting "panopticon" effect should give the vandal the idea that everything they do is scrutinised, even if it really isn't. For the same reason, I generally prefer to revert vandals rather than block them; after a while they get tired and dejected and go away. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 16:23, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I think "how many Wikipedians watch this" would be a useful heuristic for the reader. A lot of WP peer review is implicit, and this would seem a cheap way to make it slightly more explicit. Finlay McWalter points out that a "0" score would be an open invite to vandals, but to resist vandalism, each page should have at least one person watching it anyway; this would identify weak spots for Wikipedians, too. To rely on a "panopticon" effect — an illusion that Wikipedia is maintained universally well — is a security by obscurity argument. — Matt 16:34, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It is not security by obscurity, it is analogous to a random search. What would happen if airports printed on your ticket "you will not be searched at the security checkpoint?" Rhobite 21:02, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
Hmm, OK, perhaps it isn't a security by obscurity argument. I still worry, though, about little-tended pages. "Random search" at an airport works quite well, because the consequences of getting caught are severe, even if it's not certain you'll get caught. On Wikipedia, the consequences of being caught vandalising from an anonymous IP are minimal. My point is essentially that, ideally, we shouldn't just give the impression of scrutinising everything, but we should really be scrutinising everything. I think a "how many Wikipedians watch this" score would help. — Matt 22:46, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
If there were a safe way to have a "list of articles that aren't watched by anyone" special: page, this would accomplish the same problem. But that has just the same advertisment-for-trouble problem. We could, however, have a special: page called special:changes to unwatched pages, which works just like Recent Changes. So someone can still find a list of things to vandalise, but there's a concomitant means whereby the dilligent can notice. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:02, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Re hit counts: I believe there once was such a feature, but it's been disabled because it slows things down too much. You can get still hit counts for, say, August from stats pages like: http://wikimedia.org/stats/en.wikipedia.org/url_200408.html

The page is pretty large though, you'll almost certainly want to stop it downloading before it's complete...— Matt 16:40, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Could make the watchlist message only show up for logged in users so anonymous vandals wouldn't be privy to the info. —siroχo 21:26, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

How about only showing such watchlist counts in the watchlist and RC lists? Therefore, someone sees an edit on a page with 500 people watching, you can know that someone else saw it to. A page with 1 person watching, you might want to look at that edit. --Golbez 04:06, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

Adding a count of how many people are watching an article could have a corrosive effect, by providing a mechanism for authors who are motivated by having a large audience, to work on the most popular articles (to the exclusion of articles that really need help).

I propose an alternative feature that would allow authors to find the shortest articles, to make it easier to determine where one's efforts would make the biggest impact. --DV 07:20, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, an author motivated by wanting to write with a large audience can already consult the hit counts (link above), and, to me, it seems desireable that popular articles are given more editorial attention in any case.
For shortest articles, have a look at Special:Shortpages. — Matt 14:51, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Wow, that's a pretty big list of short articles, but there's no categorization or sorting of any kind, which makes it rather disorienting to peruse. Is there a way to sort lists, or download them into a spreadsheet or database somehow? If you could point me in the right direction with a link that would be awesome. --DV 08:46, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Keep in mind that "n Wikipedians are watching this page" might be interpreted as "Warning: you will start an edit war with n/2 Wikipedians if you edit this page!".... ;) -Sewing - talk 00:02, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Cross-referencing to Wiktionary

If I search for an article using the Search button, I get search results (unless content search is down as it is currently), or some Google and Yahoo search field. If I then click again on the search term, I get this Wikipedia does not yet have an article with this name. page. This latter page contains the actual usefule phrase Perhaps there is an entry Foo in our sister dictionary project, Wiktionary.

Shouldn't this notice go already on the first page, the search reply? That might be quite helpful for the disappointed user who might already be happy with a short explanation of a word. Simon A. 16:06, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Possible vandal

It seems that a user using IP 24.15.64.67 has vandalized the article 2008. He or she has added the information "March 28 - Sunday. The Death of Edgar Ham Louise." to the article. Is this a known vandal? Has this IP been used for such edits before? Aecis 13:47, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The user's contributions list would be a good place to start. Johnleemk | Talk 14:14, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It is rather unusual for either a murderer or a suicider to state their intention so far in advance.... ;-) I can't locate an "Edgar Ham Louise" on the Internet. I assume it's a joke. AdmN 14:49, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Might be someone either taking The Death Clock too seriously, or Wikipedia not seriously enough. Nohat 20:22, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Darn! I only have until 10 December, 2036... thank goodness it's a Wednesday. ;-) AdmN 20:29, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Press release

Please help to write Wikimedia's next press release at m:Wikimedia press releases/One million Wikipedia articles. Angela. 13:03, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

We'll reach the milestone in mid-September, so our tentative schedule is to try and have the press release written by 7 September, to allow a week or so for translation into other languages. With this timeframe, help from as many people as possible would be greatly appreciated. --Michael Snow 21:49, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Does this count the stubs? If we are to claim this milestone, I would just like to see it came by rightly. Cavebear42 22:25, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Strange image problem

Image:Gclinton.jpg used to be a photo of George Clinton (funk musician). It has now changed to an image of a previous George Clinton, U.S. Vice President George Clinton (politician), I blieve. However, no history of the change appears on the Image's page. Anyone have any idea what might have happened. Gentgeen 12:32, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It hasn't changed. It's still the musician. Is it possible someone uploaded the politician picture, realised their mistake, deleted their picture to upload with a new name, meanwhile you viewed it and haven't refreshed your cache? (would that appear in the page history?)Theresa Knott (The token star) 13:06, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
it must be in the cashe somewhere between me and the 'pedia's servers, as I'm still getting the politician. :( Gentgeen 16:11, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I'm getting the politician too. — Gwalla | Talk 17:16, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I'm also getting the politician - this is indeed a problem. DenisMoskowitz 17:19, 2004 Aug 30 (UTC)
Now I'm getting the politician! Theresa Knott (The token star) 18:06, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The Funkmaster is back, evidently. ffirehorse 04:02, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
No, I still see the politician. Can someone with real power go see what's actually happening under the hood here? DenisMoskowitz 15:57, 2004 Aug 31 (UTC)
Just a wild guess: someone uploaded "Gclinton.jpg" showing the funk musican. Someone else uploaded "gclinton.jpg", showing the politician. (Or maybe vice versa, or maybe ".JPG" and ".jpg"). This confused our software. Someone with more time on hands could try this with some test images and see if that is where the bug lives. -- till we ☼☽ | Talk 10:53, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

International History Project

I would like to use some material from the International History Project [5], but their license is "Copyright © 1985 - 2004 International World History Project All rights reserved All world history material found on this site may be freely used for non-commercial, educational purposes only." I assume that it is not possible to use this without them relicensing it under the GFDL (because of the non-commercial part)? If so, I can send them a Wikipedia:Boilerplate_request_for_permission if no one has already done so. Secondly, is there a list of projects/websites that have granted permission to use material on wikipedia? Wuzzeb 06:01, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Oh, and a list of sites which have been sent a letter and said no... I don't want to send a letter if they have already refused. Wuzzeb 06:02, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • yeah, if such a thing doesn't already exist then I think some kind of log or database of approaches and responses would be a great innovation. As more people become editors we're more likely to become unintentional spammers with people independently seeking similar permissions. --[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod » .....TALKQuietly)]] 18:19, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

I need some American eyes, please

I don't know if this is an act of vandalism or a fair deletion of bad content. Can an American with an interest in politics check it out please? (Of course, be careful, someone may deal with it in the meantime anyway). --[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod » .....TALKQuietly)]] 03:37, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

  • It looked like vandalism to me. Seeing as no reason for its removal was provided, I am inclined to keep that content. →Raul654 03:41, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • It's vandalism. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 03:49, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • An argument could be made that making a list of "political flops" is inherently POV. Rhobite 03:51, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
    • In fact, this entire list seems POV and, frankly, dumb. Much of it could be legitimately refactored as a list of significant commercial failures, but "major flops" hardly seems encyclopedic. Austin Hair 03:59, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
      • I agree the name of this page should be changed. The knowing the reasons why commercial/scientific/engineering projects failed is important for future developments, and stops people from re-inventing the wheel. Comprehensive listings on Wikipedia would be a service for researchers IMHO. Apwoolrich 07:47, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Agreed with the above. Some of these don't seem at all like flops to me, such as the Betamax (which did quite well for a while before losing a format war in the consumer market; AFAIK it was still a format of choice in professional productions for many years), or failed comebacks by Vanilla Ice and MC Hammer (was it widely expected that they would have commercially successful comebacks?). Other things that are unquestionably considered failures (such as the Titanic) are not listed. Seems like a fairly useless and inherently POV list; hype does not necessarily engender an expectation of success, especially considering the multitude of ventures that failed despite (or even because of) hype. I agree with Austin Hair - this should be refactored into a list of commercial failures, if it should be kept at all. -- Wapcaplet 04:30, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • As a relative newcomer I've noticed a tendency for people to be much quicker to suggest that any indication of failure or negativity is regarded as inherently POV in a way that celebrating success or positivity isn't. I think that probably cuts to the heart of the British (I'm British) v American demeanour ;o) I don't think you can argue that it is inherently POV and then say but the Titanic is unquestionably a failure - it seems more like the word "flop" is too casual for some tastes. --[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod » .....TALKQuietly)]] 04:39, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
      • I was objecting more to a list of political flops. After all, most elections have at least one loser, but what constitutes a flop? Is it a landslide defeat? An expensive campaign that loses? A haughty candidate? Rhobite 04:47, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
      • What I said was that the Titanic is unquestionably considered a failure; poor choice of words I suppose. I guess what I'm getting at is that it's tricky to gague failures because the scale by which those failures are measured is subjective. As an unsinkable passenger vessel, the Titanic was a failure; as the object of treasure-hunting, major motion pictures and historical documentaries, it has been pretty successful. Whether something is a "flop" might be even more subjective; many things fail, in that they do not meet expectations or intentions. A flop, to me, is a disastrous failure. I don't know whether that makes it easier or harder to keep it NPOV... -- Wapcaplet 16:37, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Monobook.css

Changing the external link color. Discussion moved to MediaWiki talk:Monobook.css

User:Yardcock/OlympicWinners

Some footers to fill out. All red links are requested articles. Remember to keep events that replaced another one together. (e.g. pentathlon for heptathlon). I'm going to the land of Nod. Dunc_Harris|☺ 00:07, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Impressive stuff. Just wanted to point out that one of the boxes includes the year next to the name, which seems a good idea. Of course, this is one of those times when I feel awful, cos I know I'm not the one who is going to do the work... (though I did put all the gymnastics scores on the British team's page, which was less than a scintillating hour) --[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod » .....TALKQuietly)]] 03:57, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

Ages of wikipedians

Do we have any reliable idea of the age spread of Wikipedians? I have just noted a contributor to a talk page who says he is 82. I thought I was on the very upper edge at 65 years, since I see from the various pictures of the meetings that Wikipedians there look about the ages of my children. Apwoolrich 20:00, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Try m:Wikimedians by age. The oldest listed Wikimedian is CoppBob, born in 1921. The youngest listed is SuperNoddy, born in 1992. --Slowking Man 20:09, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
Shoot, I was born in 1991...so close to being youngest :(. Lol — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 22:39, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Darn you, I'm a 1990 kid. Johnleemk | Talk 07:10, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
THere is apparently a 7-year old here, he's probably the youngest if he is really 7. Adam Bishop 07:14, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
From some of his edits, I'm fairly sure he is really seven. That said, he seems to be an exceptional seven year old in a number of ways: 1) Perseverance--despite many of his contributions being reverted, sent to cleanup, changed to redir to a more standard name, and at least two of his new articles were sent to VfD, he's still making contributions almost two months after he started. 2) Attention span--he created most of U.S. Highway 3 and U.S. Highway 4 (kind of a unique layout, but at least they're consistent with each other, and follow the same general pattern of other US highway articles) his second day of editing (at least as a reg'd Wikipedian). About three weeks later, he came back and fixed a couple of the internal links from full URLs to just the article title (not sure why he didn't fix the all, but still...)--he even internalized a link that someone else had created, at Mount Vernon. 3) Interest in things outside his neighborhood--I don't remember knowing or caring who was mayor or governor of my own city and state when I was seven, and yet he created Cordelia W. Bennett (the mayor of a city in Delaware, even tho' the user is from Georgia), is proud of the fact he has shaken hands with the governor of another state, and created List of Delaware state parks (a table, no less) after only about two weeks on WP. One of his most recent edits was to try and section off the external link at WGCL-TV--even tho' he used the non-standard just "Links", at least he understands the concept--pretty abstract for a second-grader. He even added a (mostly) proper disamb sentence to the top of Shadwell. He does make mistakes sometimes (like, I need to research it further, but I think I'm going to have to undo his work on Fort Kent (town), Maine and Fort Kent, Maine), but everybody does. Niteowlneils 21:32, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Meant to mention almost 700 edits, in just under two months. Granted, many aren't in the main article namespace, but on the other hand, using Talk pages and adding himself to Wikipedia:New user log shows a level of sophistication I wouldn't expect from a seven year old. Niteowlneils 21:41, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC) (PS I am going to review all of his edits, but my Internet connection here at work is so slow, I'll probably do most of it when I get home. Niteowlneils 22:03, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC))
A kid who's acting like 7 but isn't? — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 00:28, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Possible, I suppose, but everything I've seen from him so far seems very sincere, and he has reponded favorably to input on his talk page. I think it's more likely he really is seven, just with a wider world view and/or experience and/or intelligence than most his age. Some of his entries are dead on, and most of the ones that are problematic (well, at least since Meelar got him to understand that copyvios weren't welcome) are just because they don't fit WP formatting/style/naming standards/conventions, which, if you look at it objectively, are in some ways fairly strict and arbitrary. Niteowlneils 01:01, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I think he's for real, and I second all that Nightowlneils says above. I have been having a look through his contributions and he does need watching. It's good to have one so young contributing, who knows, he might be some sort of Mozart figure who starts young and grows up to be the greatest Wikipedian ever with over a million edits to his name. For now though I think as long as people are aware of his presence we can discreetly go round tidying up after him if he adds something not quite right. — Trilobite (Talk) 05:13, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Yeah needs some watching, but it's great that he's here. For those who missed it it's User:Patricknoddy. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 10:03, 2004 Sep 1 (UTC)
This rather strange conversation reminds me of an often used device in comedies, in which two people are talking about a third person in the abstract, while the person being spoken about is standing in the same room. Eventually the person being spoken about objects to being spoken about in the abstract and interjects, "You know I'm standing right here, right? Hello? I'm standing right here!".
The similarity to this situation is that whenever a user page is linked, the link can be discovered by the linked user by clicking on the "What links here" link while visiting one's own user page. So at this point, I expect Patrick to bust in here at any moment and ask why all these people are standing around talking about him.
As an adult, I would probably be a bit curious or perhaps even flattered to discover a lengthy conversation had been posted about me without my knowledge. However, I can't imagine what a young kid might think about this. And as a parent of two young children, I would be a bit disturbed to find a bunch of strangers talking about my son or daughter on the internet without my child's knowledge (and more importantly without my knowledge).
As a friendly, constructive suggestion, in the future, I'd respectfully suggest the small courtesy of inviting young folks to comment early on, in any conversations concerning their contributions, before continuing a lengthy conversation about the young individual in their absence.
(By the way, has anyone checked to make sure that this young child's parents are somehow supervising his interactions with other contributors on Wikipedia? I have noticed that many of the sites my children visit have some sort of check to try and prompt younger visitors to ask their parents before they are allowed to communicate with other users of the site.)--DV 09:34, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
My own twins just turned 8. Wikipedia is safer than most places, but it's not exactly safe, and in particular people can definitely be abrupt. For adults, it's no big deal. I don't suppose there is a way to ask and get a meaningful answer about whether parents are supervising, because, truthfully, what on earth does a kid want with writing encyclopedia articles, when there are other sites that use a near-wiki model that don't have all the "crazy deletionists" and things? Well, never mind that. I applaud and welcome all, but Wikipedia is a reference work, and, while anyone can edit, it isn't really an entertainment product by design. Geogre 04:28, 3 Sep

2004 (UTC)

This is a very good point about involving a child's parents, and should be addressed, though I can't guess by what means. The messages left on the talk pages are no problem since they are open and can be accessed and read by anyone. Its the direct editor to editor email facility where problems could arise. British Child Protection policy has brought this home. It seems to me that Wikipedia is very vulnerable through the extensive use of pseudonyms for editors, and maybe some thought might be given to re-jigging the rules so the Foundation does not become liable. Maybe somebody knows who could give advice about how we organise things to cover this.Apwoolrich 06:07, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Summarised sections

Overwrite redirects

  • Please could an Admin move Lalaine Vergara to Lalaine (currently a redirect)
    and also Donovan Leitch to Donovan (also a redirect).
    Both are more commonly known by their first names, I could simply move the text from one to the other, but the bulk of the history would then be lost in the redirecting page.
    SimonMayer 04:59, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Done —siroχo 07:00, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

Can an admin sort this out?

India and weapons of mass destruction (1) redirects to Strategic Nuclear Command (2) which is supposed to redirect to India and weapons of mass distruction (3). Notice the misspelling in 3. The article in 3 should be moved to 1, and 2 should just be deleted. But since 1 exists, 3 can't just be moved, so 1 needs to be deleted first (copying and pasting would work, but would lose the history). So... can someone sort this out? This is beyond my abilities. --Fastfission 04:48, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Done. →Raul654 04:51, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

Removing visible user instruction notes

Hi Bobblewick- may I ask why you are removing visible user instruction messages from pages like List of musicians in the first wave of punk music etc? As a person who spent lots of time and sore fingers alphabeticising some of these otherwise totally randomly ordered lists I think it's better that editors are reminded to insert their new contributions in the correct place rather than just stuck on the end of what is already there. Maybe there is a policy on this now that I missed (I used to be very active but only dip in now and again these days), but I'll post this message to village pump as well in case anyone else wants to discuss quercus robur 19:29, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Removing visible user instruction notes

(copied from bobblewick's talk page) Hi Bobblewick- may I ask why you are removing visible user instruction messages from pages like List of musicians in the first wave of punk music etc? As a person who spent lots of time and sore fingers alphabeticising some of these otherwise totally randomly ordered lists I think it's better that editors are reminded to insert their new contributions in the correct place rather than just stuck on the end of what is already there. Maybe there is a policy on this now that I missed (I used to be very active but only dip in now and again these days), but I'll post this message to village pump as well in case anyone else wants to discuss quercus robur 19:29, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Increasing exposure to sister projects

Hi,

currently links to Wikiquote, Wikisource and Wikibooks show up like links to any other project. How about creating nice little boxes for these types of links? As an example, a Wikiquote link:

{{quote|quotename=Galileo Galilei|quotelink=Galileo_Galilei}}

This could be right-aligned with the "External links" section.

What do you think? Overkill? Too much like a banner?--Eloquence*

Too big, but otherwise a good idea. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 02:10, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Good idea. Could add to a possible 'Internal Links' section. :D
I've improved the template and put it in use on the Galileo Galilei page. This is what it should look like. I've also created Template:Bookshelf for Wikibooks, which is currently in use on Mathematics. I'm sure these look ugly in some browsers, so please help to improve them.--Eloquence*
A nice idea, but what if something has links to both Wikiquote and Wikibooks? Then what? Dysprosia 09:01, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I added it to George W. Bush. It actually looks very nice. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 13:58, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Actually, it looks fine using PC/Win browsers IE5.5, Netscape 7.1, Opera 7.02, Firefox 0.8, and Mozilla 1.4. Niteowlneils 14:38, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
How about something like this?

See also our articles on Wikipedia's sister projects:   Wikibooks |   Wiktionary

Except I don't happen to have any 16×16 images of the logos, which would fit well. (Wikiquote logo doesn't want to be resized to 16px. :() [ alerante | “” 14:40, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC) ]
Something like this if we need multiple project and the more specific box if there's just one, I'd say.-Eloquence*
Just throwing out an idea - I think we should keep the text to a minimum, even by only having the picture and it itself is the link. Then if there was more than one they could stack sideways. If people want some text, the caption over it could read "more on...". Also a link to Wiktionary would be appropriate for some articles. LUDRAMAN | T 17:13, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
P.S. I think I made this suggestion a while ago but no-one took any notice - I guess you need a picture to catch people's eyes :-). Its times like this I wish I wasn't so hapless with images :-(.

I think it's a great idea! Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 17:48, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I also think it's a great idea. For what it's worth, I have considered making an interwiki box for plants/animals with up-to the following links:
Wikipedia article (apple)
Wiktionary entry
Wikibooks Dichotomous Key
Wikibooks Field Guide
Wikibooks Cookbook
Wikiquote Quotes concerning apples
It may be worth experimenting with similar ideas. I don't see any problem with promoting other WikiMedia links when available. Tuf-Kat 06:32, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

Would this box be in articles? If so I very strongly oppose doing that since it is Wikimedia-centric. See Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. --mav 00:00, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Something Bitchin' This Way Comes

I'm confused why this is still here with no VfD tag. It was listed on vfd for just under 7 days, and had 2/3 majority to delete. Am I missing something? Niteowlneils 02:54, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wikitravellers in portuguese

I am seeking contributors to make a wikitravel ( a wiki travel guide ) in portuguese.

Two links:

this project in portuguese wikipedia

www.wikitravel.org wikitravel

Starting point to wikitravel in portuguese

VfD Madness

Check out some VfD discussions: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/ACORN and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Asheron's Call 2. Now I'm all for letting VfD be as long as it needs to be, so each article gets a fair trial before being deleted or kept, but this is absurd, such VfD discussions should be removed as it comes to light that they are not actually proper, heck one was never even voted for deletion, simply "cleanup" on the vfd page. Such discussions make it harder to sift through the material that actually might deserve deletion, and make accurate votes. Is there a policy to remove such discussions before they lapse, or should we start thinking of one? —siroχo 18:54, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

My understanding is that fixed articles can be removed from VfD, but I'm not about to be the one to remove them. anthony (see warning) 18:57, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It should be a condition of listing something on VfD that if there's an immediate consensus to keep and no possibility of the article being deleted, you have to withdraw your nomination rather than have the article pointlessly listed for days on end. This is particularly relevant to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/ACORN. I have used this example before, but if someone was to list George W. Bush for deletion it would immediately be taken off. No one would allow the VfD tag to sit on the top of the page for a week, but on more minor articles there is no explicit policy (as far as I know) about removing spurious listings. — Trilobite (Talk) 19:57, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Instead of talking about it why doesn't someone just remove it? And then, if you get reverted, then take it here, so we have something specific to talk about. anthony (see warning) 20:47, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Done. People really should be a bit bolder! Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 22:27, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hah! In some ways there is a culture of fear on Wikipedia. People are often afraid to take major action, for fear of the nasty response. Those who aren't afraid to take major action are often the inflictors of nastiness. Throw in the whole vandal/troll lot and it's a delightful little mix. But for the fact I regularly abstract myself from the whole thing and indulge in some light reading, editing my favorite topics, etc., I'd get wikistressed in a week and leave! (a regular wikipedian)


I find wikipedia a pretty nice place on the whole. Vandals never bother me, they always lose thier battles because we outnumber them. Trolls are more of a problem - if only we could get our act together and sort out a decent trolling policy- but still they are a bunch of losers who get their kicks out of startinfg trouble. They wouldn't do if they had girlfriends/boyfriends, I'm certainly not going to let them bother me. Inflicters of nastiness? I agree, they can be more of a problem. But there really aren't that many around. Most people here are very nice (group hug anyone?). Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 00:29, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I object to this unwarrented attack against those of us who do not have girlfriends/boyfriends... ;-) Sometimes, it really doesn't seem worth it to be bold when you know that someone else is just going to turn around 2 seconds later and revert, owing to some obscure POV that he or she (and possibly 2 or 3 other people in the whole world) believe in. I haven't found a culture of fear here, but I do find a fertile battleground for the extremely marginalized to wage whatever wars they are obsessed with. AdmN 00:48, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
(I really don't know if if I should be responding to a bloke who has shown me a picture of his longfellow and has publicly stated that "[he wants to] examine [my] Hilbert space with his unitary operator. But I suppose it's ok since he did offer to buy me Carbonara)Anyway on to my reply. Yes being bold does mean you sometimes get reverted - but in general I've found it rarely happens to me. Yes there are POV pushers, but they are very much in the minority. (Of course it doesn't always seem like that because POV pushers tend to be loud). Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 10:42, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Look, folks, you guys are really acting out of line. I am dead set against people using VfD to make a point, and that includes Anthony's serial "keep" votes as well as people who list each others' user pages as well as people walking their political demons. All of this is abuse. However, we have the community. The ACORN vote was 100% keep, so what was the harm of its being listed? Leave it there for 5 days. It was going to be kept, and the whole of the vote would have gone in the discussion page -- making it instantly a quick removal in the future, if anyone nominated it again. We don't need to do the trollish thing and start removing VfD pages that we think shouldn't be there. If the community is voting "keep," that stupid VfD tag will do no harm for five days. It's just 5 days, folks. Yes, you can ask for early removal. But let's do this by the rules. You'll notice, btw, that I voted to keep the ACORN article & even accused the nominator of making a point, but that doesn't mean we should break the page to settle the score. Doing that is fully as bad as a hostile admin doing a speedy delete on a page he or she doesn't like. Geogre 02:49, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The point on ACORN is that there was never a vote to delete! Not even the nominator did, he just wanted cleanup. That is abuse of the system, and makes VfD a tougher place to work in. I understand your desire to allow the policy to work itself through, and agree that no valid discussion should be removed early but as i'm sure you know, VfD has grown in leaps and bounds alongside Wikipedia, and we have to have some protection against people abusing VfD to suggest cleanup of articles. —siroχo 04:00, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
Back before VfD got all legalistic, I used to routinely remove entries where the article had been fixed and there was no longer any reason for deletion. So did everyone else. I don't see why it is "trollish". VFD currently generates 674 KB of HTML, which takes quite some time to load on my 56 KB modem. I agree with all your other points about using VFD for stunts. Perhaps it would be useful to bring back the concept of moving long discussions off the main page, just leaving a pointer. -- Tim Starling 04:00, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

Exactly. What's more I disaprove of all the legalistic nonsense. I didn't remove the listings to "settle a score" and I doubt very much that the original listers were deleberately "abusing VfD" .I mistake was made, which I corrected. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 06:58, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, y'all will notice that on the VfD page itself I said that the nominator could remove the tag, but it's not me who's legalistic. VfD has already been used as proof of "troll" charges. That means that we've got to follow the rules to the letter. Again, I would like it if it were as Tim describes it. (Kurt, btw, didn't make a mistake. He said he did the listing because he had heard that VfD is where real Clean Up takes place.) Anyway, I just think that it's worth having a request, in the votes, for an admin to make an early removal. If there are no delete votes at all, I agree with an admin (Theresa, Siroxo, me, any one of the 200+ of us), making the removal, but I don't want to see VfD dragged into yet another RfC. That's why I'm acting legalistic: it has been made evidence, so now it needs to have some kind of regulation. Geogre 13:18, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Also, btw, I want to propose a different category of delete, too. I'm working on a proposal now for a kind of "Nonsense, but not speedy delete" that is handled differently, with a default to keep. If we have a managed removal from VfD, we should also have a managed removal of articles. (See my talk page for the ongoing discussion of the "manage delete" proposal that is almost ready for prime time and namespace.) Geogre 13:18, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A practical suggestion

Sometimes, the consensus to keep an article is clear because:

  1. 24 hours have passed after the article was improperly listed, and there are at least 2-3 keep votes with no delete votes; or
  2. 24 hours have passed after a major rewrite that makes the listing invalid, with no further delete votes.

VfD discussions about these articles are relatively short, but they still clutter up the main page, resulting in ridiculous download times for modem users. Instead of summarily removing the discussion from VfD (which will raise eyebrows), wait 24 hours, then replace:

{{Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/PageName}}

with:

''After 24 hours, the unanimous consensus is to '''keep''' this article, though you are welcome to read and contribute to the [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/PageName|discussion]].''

This will prevent the contents of the discussion from being displayed on the main VfD page while leaving the discussion quickly available. If the consensus changes (i.e., someone votes delete), then this can be instantly reverted to re-include the discussion back on the main VfD page. To prevent ridiculuous revert wars, if the discussion is re-included for any reason, then don't un-include it a second time. • Benc • 04:59, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

But that still leaves the vfd note on the page itself which is bad. Honestly what's wrong with raising a few eyebrows now and then? Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 06:58, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nothing's wrong with raising a few eyebrows, actually... it's when they're lowered that things go wrong. ;-) Seriously, I suppose you could remove the {{vfd}} tag from the page for obvious incorrect listings without arising anyone's ire. But, like Geogre, I don't recommend the unilateral complete removal of entries from WP:VFD. Just un-include them like I suggested above, keeping a link to the discussion. Keep at least some of the paper trail in place. It'll go away in a few days. • Benc • 07:16, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That seems sensible. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 10:26, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I'm afraid I disagree. The VfD tag should be on all and only those pages actually listed on VfD.
If the first few votes are to keep, IMO the person who listed the article should seriously consider closing the discussion and delisting it. An article should only be delisted early if all the votes are to keep. If anyone says delete, it should stay the full five days. Essentially, in delisting, the person who listed the article is changing their vote in the face of consensus against them. Such moves should be applauded and encouraged.
An article should never be deleted early unless it is a candidate for speedy deletion, and even then I preach caution. Andrewa 10:46, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I find I must retract the last two paragraphs. They are contrary to policy, which allows early removal in some of these cases, and on reflection that's a good thing. See below. Andrewa 17:11, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I like Benc's suggestion, but I agree that the tag does no actual harm for 5 days. If folks are being lax about removing tags at the end of 5 days, we need to be shaken and throttled for it. But I really don't see what the tag does that's so evil for such a short time. At any rate, what's going on is the the nominators really need to close discussion early. I know that I've done it several times. When a nomination is made for hobbyhorse riding, that's when we get trouble. Like I said, we're in a mess with VfD because of the way it's being used, since it's being abused, the obligation is for us to be more regular and legal than otherwise. I don't want trollish nominations or trollfeeding removals. I do, by the way, have a specific example in mind, where an admin took an article with 33 delete and 13 (or 8, depending on sock votes) keeps and unilaterally decided it should be kept, as that admin had voted to keep. There is no way to argue with that admin if we establish practice. Geogre 13:25, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I fail to see how removing a ridiculous nomination feeds the trolls. As for an admin not deleting an article - I don't think that has anything to do with early removal of ridiculous votes. Remember that the only nominations that we are talking about are those who should never have been listed in the first place. Also remember that this is a wiki, and so a dodgy early removal can easily be put back. We should be flexible and use common sense. (Anyway I'm pretty convinced that being legalistic encorages trolling, as they think of ways of causing trouble but without actually breaking the letter of the rule) Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 15:18, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Theresa, I think things have gotten legal in response to VfD being used as evidence in prosecution. All I'm saying is that someone who believes that a nomination is absurd -- other than the article author -- should ask for consensus on removal. Let 24 hours go by, and then an admin can do the removal, with copying of decision into the discussion tab. If we do that, I think we'll be ok. What I'm worried about is folks acting without notice. I agree with you far more than you might suspect, but I'm worried about, well, I won't say who, people who will use the whole thing as proof of the caballa or proof that they're being persecuted or proof that someone is a troll, etc. Geogre 16:39, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I seem to be a common scold, but what I objected to was invisible and silent removals. That is bad. Just announce it, folks. Geogre 16:39, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
That IMO makes a lot of sense. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 16:48, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Looking for consensus

Am I correct in thinking that no one here objects to the original nominator removing a vfd candidate early if voting suggest that there is another way of dealing with it or if there is clearly no consensus to delete? (We could add this to the policy if we have consensus) Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 15:23, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'd certainly support that, although it's a lot bolder than what I suggested above, and I have a confession to make: I now see that is already policy! See Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Unlisting a page from VfD.
So it is! (I really should have read the policy first before trying to gather support to add in what's already there) Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 22:05, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Although I take (and agree with) your point about legalism above, I think that we should also develop the policy to make VfD more concise, and to move the rhetoric elsewhere. I think this is already the intention of Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Commenting on a nomination for deletion. But it's not explicit and IMO should be.
What concerns me most about these long debates is their tone. In particular it concerns me that some of our more active admins on VfD seem a little short on wikilove. While adminship is no big deal, I think it's reasonable to expect admins to set a good example, and in fact personally I don't think Wikipedia can survive if this trend keeps up. If that's true we'll need to address it someday, and asap is my advice. Andrewa 16:38, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I agree with you, of course, Theresa. That's what I was aiming at. All I want is that we make it known that we're removing a page, that the VfD goes into the talk page (to prevent a future debate, if nothing else), that it be done by an admin, and, I hope, the time frame be 48 hours instead of 24. In the past, admins removing nominations have been done only in truly outrageous cases (VfD'ing the main page, or Richard Nixon or something like that). Geogre 16:42, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I don't think there's anything in policy that says you need to be an admin to remove a listing from VfD if the article is to be kept. And there's certainly no technical reason you need to be one. You do need to be a signed in user IMO, but that's all. Andrewa 17:22, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I know, but I do want it to be as regular as possible, so I'm actually asking for a change by desseutude (rather than a de jure change). If we agree, by practice, to look for an admin to do it, we can at least be sure to have someone to blame or encourage. I don't want to open the lid on policy, just asking that we, by practice, try to leave it to administrators -- the ranks of which grow every day. Geogre 00:08, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I really don't think that is necessary. I don't like admins having special authority. The point is, if someone removes an article early without cause, it can easily be reverted. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 07:47, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Oh, crud! Now Netholic is on VfD deciding things for everyone after an hour because he wants quick removals. He points to a discussion going on somewhere else altogether. Let's not make unilateral decisions, please. Geogre 01:56, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I presume Netholic is doing this because he/she thinks it's appropriate, but please Netholic, what you are doing is way beyond any consensus and very liable to make others insist that it's never OK to do anything before the full five days. -- Jmabel 08:15, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
I think it's much worse than that, Jmabel. I have been asked to open an RfC on Netoholic for what he's doing, and I refuse, but I can't say that others will be as conflict-averse as me. Further note that this is a proposal to do away with VfD, and he's going ahead and acting upon it. I can "propose" that Wikipedia delete all Pokemon and redirect to Games, but I can't imagine acting upon that. (I also don't like the idea of edit wars over reverting redirects or the servers filling up with redirects for every possible deletion candidate. I don't trust myself to determine if some things are deletable, and I sure don't trust anyone else. That's why I trust everyone else in a VfD forum.) Geogre 01:21, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Proposal - suspension of VfD

Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion#Proposal - suspension of VfD. The proposal is to completely discontinue VfD (except for speedy deletions and copyvios) by encouraging editors to merge and redirect as best as possible. -- Netoholic @ 02:10, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Alternatively, don't see red at the extremist suggestion above, and instead join in the discussion with the intent of looking at how to fix VfD, make VfD better, cut down on use of VfD – generally review VfD as it is now. That is my stance (I'm not an anti-VfD person, but the current situation is a mess). zoney ▓   ▒ talk 13:20, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Duplicate Article

I wasn't sure where to put this but maybe someone wants to take a look and fix this up.

Thanks JillandJack 16:07, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, they should be merged. I've added notices and listed them on Wikipedia:Duplicate articles. Rhobite 16:14, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
Done. Also fixed a few minor errors in the process. -Sean Curtin 04:30, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

A rare oasis

Wow. Just wow. As I cruised around the Pump, I noticed talks about how old people were. As a 16 year old, I'm supposed to be jaded on the world, but the fact that there are kids younger than myself gives me an unexplicable hope. Wikipedia has the greatest minds on the internet, and I look forward to working with them. I haven't even written my first article yet, but when I do, expect me to look to younger users for advice.

At 16 you're supposed to be jaded? ;o) I mean, I was... but then I ended up in psychiatric care. Go out and run in the fields! Make daisy chains! Don't listen to depressing music! --[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod » .....TALKQuietly)]] 17:38, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
At 12 (soon to be 13) I ain't jaded at all. There's some articles I don't undrstand (or have the attention span to read ;P). — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 01:10, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
That's true for all of us. Age has nothing to do with it. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 08:30, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
As you get older your attention span... -- orthogonal 08:43, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I ...ooh shiney object. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 21:22, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Hah! I'm approaching the quarter-centennial! :o) zoney ▓█▒ talk 09:21, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
'Wikipedia has the greatest minds on the internet' that has made my day! 13:14, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Though my physical age may be over a half-century, nevertheless my mental age remains callow and immature. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 14:14, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

True enough, age has nothing to do with it. But the fact that the young are out in force here makes me smile. And I said a was *supposed* to be. Never said I was. ;B

Is Zoney reaching his quarter-centennial, to be sure? Oh dear, I am reaching my three-quarter centennial, and occasionally am still able to find my way to the play-station. Not very often, mind. Dieter Simon 21:43, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Need a minor image editing job done

Re: [[:Image:Frontier flying service logo.png]]<!--Non free file removed by DASHBot--> right Currently, I do not have access to image editing software. If someone with image editing software would be willing to edit this image, in order to take out the fragment of web page design element from the upper right corner of this image, I would be grateful. Kevyn 18:54, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

np, doneCavebear42 19:20, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Cut-n-paste move of Fox Trot

It appears that Fox Trot has been moved to FoxTrot by a cut-n-paste. Can someone fix this? PhilHibbs 19:35, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I fixed it at about the same time you posted this message :-) --Diberri | Talk 20:48, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

Template help

I created {{Template:Nuremberg Trial judges}} (seen to the left) and put it in all of the articles on the Nuremberg Trials judges. What I'd like to do is put a flag next to each pair of judges, indicating their nationality (a British flag for the top two, American flag for the next two, French last for the next two, and a Soviet flag for the final two). The problem is, I'm not exactly sure how I can do this. Can anyone help? [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 22:31, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have added the flags to the template using some tables. [[User:Krik|User:Krik/norm]] 22:54, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Thanks, Krik! [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 22:55, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Looking at this, it was momentarily unclear that the alternates were by nation. (I was reading it as two column, and analyzing the second column as lacking national designations. Would anyone be adverse to adding the flag at the right margin too? Oh, hell, I'll be bold and try it, and you be bold and tell me off if you don't like it. -- orthogonal 08:49, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Hopefully, we can get a Soviet flag that doesn't look like just a red rectangle. And is the UK flag slightly squashed vertically? But overall Neutrality, this looks really cool. -- orthogonal 08:56, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Actually, the French tricolore is the odd man out in terms of flag aspect ratio. This probably needs fixed. Actually, are the ratios correct for the current situation, or for the relevant historical period? zoney ▓█▒ talk 13:58, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The UK flag is okay, but the soviet flag needs bolder yellow. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 21:23, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that with the French flag, and made it slightly smaller to compensate. As for the Soviet, making it big enough to clearly show the hammer & sickle makes it very large indeed. -- orthogonal 09:28, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Can I sell my old user name?

I currently have a sockpuppet account under the name of User:Shquid. I no longer need this account, as it was created for a bot that I never wrote. I have a friend who would like the name Shquid for her own use. Since the account has no contributions, can I sell her this username? I'm considering creating Shquid on other Wikimedia wikis and selling it as a package. Is there anything that says I can't do this? — i386 | Talk 15:07, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • I don't see why not—if someone is foolish enough to pay real money for a Wikipedia account (which they can easily get for free) then there's no rule against it as far as I know. —No-One Jones 15:16, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Sure, but I don't see who would buy it. It's not like Wikipedia accounts are like Gmail accounts, or that Shquid is a particuallarily desirable username. Darksun 15:34, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Yeah, just give it to her. :P — Golbez 15:40, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • I fear you may find the fair market value of this name to be disappointing. C'mon, why not be a sport and treat the lovely lady to this enchanting username? User:Schplat!!!! 15:38, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, she's a big fan of The Shquid, so I thought she might like that username, but maybe I'll just give it to her free. Can I have that user's talk page deleted so that she can start over new, or will she have to blank it? — i386 | Talk 15:55, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Oops! There was a mistake with that link. The real Shquid site is here. Sorry about that. Can someone give me more information on how to get that old User talk page deleted, and do you need confirmation from User:Shquid for that? — i386 | Talk 17:09, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Log in as User:Shquid and either blank the page or tag it for speedy deletion with {{delete}}. Be sure to explain what you're doing. —No-One Jones 17:13, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Okay, Shquid's tagged it as speedy. Once it's been deleted, will that edit disappear from Shquid's contribs? — i386 | Talk
  • Must have user name Shquid! Will exchange for sister! — orthogonal 16:26, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • actually [ie, "opinion"] "Shquid" goes rather well with "carptrash". What are you asking? Carptrash 17:20, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I was unable to get either link to work for me. I did a yahoo search on Shquid, and came up with nonsense - one page was in all in russian except for "single-threaded shquid". I think "Shquid" is a better name than "i386", but what do I know, my name is "nroose". I do think, however that it would be sad if Wikipedia, which is free in both the monetary sense, and in the freedom sense, ended up having an open market for user names. nroose Talk 17:57, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • "i386" is a computer term, it's either a name for an old Intel chip or the directory where Windows NT is installed from. Either way, Shquid's talk page has been deleted, and I've changed Shquid's password so that I can give it to her without any problems. I think that this is all I needed. — i386 | Talk 18:04, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Selling the sockpuppet that you used to vandalise the logo with? Surely you jest.
    • How is it troll-like to give away an old user name? Why are you referencing old RfCs that claim that the logo was vandalized? Why am I arguing with someone who can't spell "vandalize"? — i386 | Talk 19:48, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think some of you guys have been hoodwinked here. I just checked the page and the deleted talk page has the following text on it (after some "don't vandalize wikipedia" warnings)

"Hi Shquid. You should probably know that some people not only claim that you vandalized the Wikipedia logo, but that your user account is a "Sockpuppet" of myself. I think you should know and be ready to defend yourself at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/33451. As you are a newcomer, I hate to do this to you, but I believe you have the right to know. — 33451 | Talk 14:09, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)"

This whole charade was in fact a way of getting rid of this page. For this reason I'm going to undelete. Of course if the community wants to forgive and forget that's fine with me but let's decide that rather than be conned. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 19:28, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Huh? What the hell? I haven't been conning anyone, I genuinely wanted to give away that name. Why are you bent on thinking that I'm a troll? Don't you think it's possible for a person to change? — i386 | Talk 19:48, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Worth adding or unencyclopedic nonsense?

I was thinking of adding this little article, and then had second thoughts about it, as I can see how it could be seen as not worth it and maybe even a little silly... But then again, there are plenty of articles on various other such bits and bobs of popular culture from around the world... Any thoughts? Angmering 15:29, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As you say, it has entered popular culture, and personally I think one of Wikipedia's strengths is its coverage of little bits of popular culture. Trilobite (Talk) 15:38, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I like it. It is however stubby and I can't see it ever exanding very much. I wonder if wictionary is a better home for it. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 15:43, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

All your base are belong to us, so why not? -- Wapcaplet 15:44, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's cute, it's interesting, and there's plenty of space available for such tidbits. If somehow it ended up on VfD I'd vote to keep, so I say add it.  :) Antandrus 16:03, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
As the token Mr. Deletion, I suppose I'd say that I'd want to see some evidence of spread. Being in the US, I haven't heard it, even on BBC comedy series or BBC World Service, so I'm about as clued-in as an American can reasonably be to British culture. It is also somewhat lexical. For whatever it's worth, that's how I'd respond to it. I love collecting slang, but I don't know how much Wiktionary does of it or how much of it Wikipedia would do. I think "All Your Base" is a bit different, and if you look at that article, it establishes that this was an early Engrish thing, as well as an early (and therefore notable for being pioneering) bit of the viral spread of geek culture on the Internet. Geogre 16:33, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
17,900 Google results. Non-inclusion in BBC comedy series or the output of the World Service doesn't strike me as a particularly good guide. There must be thousands of obscure phrases and cultural references not present in US comedy series or not picked up by their viewers. — Trilobite (Talk) 16:40, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Definitely add. Or at least incorporate into an article on Ronseal. More recently, a toothpaste manufacturer (Aquafresh?) has begun a similar advertising campaign (here in Ireland at least) stating that its product "does exactly what it says on the tube". I would perhaps veer more towards having the content at Ronseal, just a tad more encyclopaedic. zoney ▓   ▒ talk 17:58, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Didn't Ross once say to Rachel "All your base are belong to us?" ;-) I also watch as much British tv as one can get in my broadcast area, (which isn't much), and I am still constantly surprised by terms like tosser. I like Angmering's article. In truth, I'm rather confused by the various Wikipedia is not a discussions. Either there is lots of hard drive space for covering the endeavors of humanity, or space is at a premium, and therefore hard decisions need to be made about what's in and what's out. I use the analogy of Captain Picard speaking to the Enterprise computer. If he were to ask, "tell me about Xyz," I wouldn't expect to hear Majel Barrett's voice pop up and say:
  • Xyz is non-notable, therefore, you are not allowed access to it.
  • Xyz is in the Star Fleet dictionary, and not the encyclopedia, so please wait while I transfer to a different namespace.
  • Xyz only occurs in a List of three letter words starting with the letter x''.
AdmN 18:01, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Confused? When you go to a restaurant, do you expect hardware to be sold there? Encyclopedias are encyclopedias. Dictionaries are dictionaries. Neither is an atlas. Neither is a business listing. The "Wikipedia is not" is not about "YOU MAY NEVER HAVE THIS INFORMATION": it's about "this is an encyclopedia, perhaps you're looking for a dictionary." Geogre 13:49, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Hi, Geogre. :) The thing is, I am of a generation that was the very last to use printed encyclopedias as a first and primary source of information. People today use the Internet, ie: connected, distributed databases of information. The things that make the Wikipedia project special, in my opinion, are the hyper-linked cross-references and the collaborative content creation. Unlike space-limited books, a database doesn't need to worry about what is noteable or to make any distinction regarding what kind of information something is... it just needs to have a good way to get the exact information the user is looking for.
When I go to an Ikea, I expect there to be both a restaurant and hardware. ;-)
func(talk) 02:36, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I agree that making us transwiki back and forth is fine. It's just that we need to keep the nuts and bolts out of the condiment racks, and we need to keep the ketsup out of the rows of paint cans. I'm of the print generation, too, and I see my students performing research by typing in "keyword.com" into a URL field and hitting return. There is a point, even in the Internet age and the hyperlink era, to having information organized with like by like and unlike elsewhere. This is not merely a matter of logic, but also of usability. If "Black widow" turns up "A spider that is very poisonous," the article doesn't inform. People use an encyclopedia because they already know what the words mean, and they need a discussion and context. That's what the "Wikipedia is not" things are about: they're trying to ensure a consistent and consistently useful experience for users. Geogre 03:06, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Please add, even if, contra Geogre, it is only known on "that sceptred isle/That earth of majesty, that seat of Mars/That other Eden" (warning, paraphrase): it's that whimsically useful article that reminds us wikipedia can be fun as well as useful. (PS, Geogre, when I use "that... article" as a stand-in for a whole class of articles, as I did above, there's I'm sure a (Greek?) term for this, but what is it? Synecdoche?) -- orthogonal 09:25, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Okay, as the general response seem to be in favour, I have now added it (with a redirect at Ronseal too). Thanks guys! Angmering 11:18, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The Phrase and slight adaptations has, in my experience become widespread in the UK even if people forget about Ronseal. Last week a new name for a financing branch of my company was discussed and an external agency commented that one "shows exactally what it does on the tin" meaning the name shows clearly what is on offer even though there are no tins involved! Dainamo 15:33, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

File:Shadow mask.jpg

Shouldn't this be removed? See for yourself.

Shadow mask picture

File:Shadow mask.jpg Shouldn't this be removed? See for yourself.

NPOV resources

Do we have (and if not, should we have) a page of external resources on understanding/developing/encouraging the Neutral Point of View? It's not always an easy concept, even for experienced editors, and we're all prone to falling into errors. This is a fantastic resource, and I feel it should be on some sort of "recommended reading" list. For example, how many of us can claim we've never fallen victim to confirmation bias? --195.11.216.59 14:49, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Your link gives a series of articles on fallacies and bad arguments. Poor reasoning, including confirmation bias, isn't necessarily an impediment to NPOV. I could, for example, reason very badly and conclude that the moon is made of cheese; I could still write from a neutral point of view about the moon's composition. The ability to reason soundly is a skill that we should encourage, but I don't think it necessarily correlates with neutral writing. — Matt 22:25, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Confirmation bias is still something Wikipedians should be wary of, especially when trying to write about current events. On a similar note, Wikipedians should also be careful of using weasel words as support for a debatable statement. —siroχo 07:50, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

The key fallacies occuring on Wikipedia seem to be the Argumentum ad nauseam and the Argumentum ad numerum. 145.36.24.29 09:06, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Indeed. The former really drives me nuts - it's an understatement to merely say that politicians use it! Our entire govt. runs by telling people how great the govt is, is defiance of the minor trickle of really dodgy stuff they get up to. It works. People mostly vote the same old, same old, despite us having a highly representative voting system (vote your preferences, vote always goes to someone). zoney ▓█▒ talk 16:58, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

jpgs in Internet Explorer

Anyone know why I can only save jpgs I come across on the internet onto my computer in bmp format, and not jpg format, the format which they are in? I can't copy and paste them either. It's bloody annoying. I tried looking in tools/internet options but I can't see it. Alternatively, know anywhere where I can get help? (please respond on my talk page thanks) Dunc_Harris|☺ 19:10, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Here's a Microsoft Knowledge Base Article on the problem (and it's apparent solution/workaround): Internet Explorer Does Not Save Graphics Files in the Proper Format. Some people have said it doesn't work, though. - 21:36, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC) Lee (talk)
I absolutely hated this "feature." I would end up converting the gigantic BMPs back to JPEGs, doubling the number of JPEG-related artifacts in otherwise high-quality images. The ultimate solution was to get a clue and stop using Internet Explorer altogether. MSIE has always been an inferior piece of software, but only recently have alternatives become smaller, faster, and easier to use. --[[User:Ardonik|Ardonik(talk)]] 17:20, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

clean up Swanscombe!

Whilst I concede the village itself could do with a bit of work, the item listed as Swanscombe at Wikipedia has been in my view unjustly listed for clean-up. As the original contributor I have gone back to it and made such efforts as I deem fit, but can not really see a problem with its content or style, but having removed the label from the page after checking it again, I have left the comments on the clean-up page in case anyone disagres. If so please go and improve it for us all! I will in due course return to it as I do with all my pages to see what else I have to offer it. In the mean while I find it frustrating that a page not in need of further attention should be treated in this way, (clearly no one else has bothered to add to it or change it at all!), and when I ask for help, all I get is silence! ref:(Henry Hoese). Faedra 10:55, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps you could make it have better sections and subsections – have "History", "Tourist attractions" and "Companies", or something similar. violet/riga (t) 11:00, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I think the cleanup task was not quite necessary. The editor that added it probably wanted some more polishing. The article itself looks very nice to me. Thanks for your nice work. -- Chris 73 Talk 12:32, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

Hiding the "edit" link for sections

In WP:PR, the instructions are in a template, like WP:FAC. The instructions themselves have sections, all of which have "Edit" links which misleadingly edit the PR page instead of the template. How does one hide them? Or will I need to remove the sections entirely? Johnleemk | Talk 12:42, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Adding __NOEDITSECTION__ anywhere on the page will remove those edit links. Angela. 15:00, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
Done.--Patrick 15:11, 2004 Sep 2 (UTC)
Um, why are the instructions in a template? They're only used on one page, which is not protected.--Eloquence*
This used to be to expedite the process of adding new requests, as the page was not sectioned at the time. A similar approach was taken to FAC (but I don't know why, since they did and do have sections). Although it's no longer needed, if it ain't broken, why fix it? Johnleemk | Talk 10:20, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Well, given that the sections in the template break the section counter and therefore section editing, I'd say it's broken and should be fixed.--Eloquence*

List of first names

Should wikipedia have a list of first names, as in this article? I'm really thinking that it's a bad idea considering the sheer number of names and the obvious bias towards English/American names. To include all of them would be madness (a huge article). I mention it here because it's quiet over at the associated talk. violet/riga (t) 09:38, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The page describes itself as a page for names given to nobility and/or famous figures. How the heck this is encyclopedic I know not, but at the very least it needs to be moved to a new name. Johnleemk | Talk 12:12, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
What would the new name be? List of famous first names? We generally don't include "famous" in list titles, as that criterion is true of just about any list. anthony (see warning) 12:47, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
How is this different from List of people by name or Wiktionary's list of first names? I'm not I see the point in duplicating either of those. Angela. 14:58, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
Put in a note on the page directing users to wiktionary. It may be worthwhile having a list of famous persons known by their first name, e.g. Kylie Dunc_Harris|☺ 19:15, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
List of people known by one name
List of people by name is arranged mainly by last name. Wiktionary is a separate project and has little bearing on Wikipedia. This isn't a duplication. anthony (see warning) 13:32, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Besides, even in Wiktionary it's only the appendix. -- User:Docu
List of Wikipedians by first name might be interesting. Rhymeless 08:43, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
As Wikipedia:Wikipedians ? -- User:Docu
They are somewhat interesting, but I'd find more specific lists preferable, e.g. List of Biblical names, Most popular names, Namesdays in Sweden, List of Dutch first names. -- User:Docu

I'm hesitant to reply here because this debate should be on Talk:Acronym; I only posted here to bring some fresh blood into a debate that only few were participating in. However, there are a few misconceptions repeated here that warrant clarification:

  1. I never claimed "initialism" is a neologism. Indeed, the OED says it's an older word than acronym, and has quotations to prove it. I only claimed that it's a rarely-used word, and I think that is borne out by the evidence. [7].
  2. At least one major dictionary supports my view of the definition of "acronym": Merriam-Webster. Part of its definition of "acronym" says "an abbreviation (as FBI) formed from initial letters : INITIALISM", and its definition of "initialism" says, in entirety, "an acronym formed from initial letters". The dictionary clearly makes the case here that initialisms are a subset of acronyms.
  3. There is substantial evidence, delineated on Talk:Acronym, that the meaning of acronym that includes abbreviations like FBI, is in substantial use, not only online, but in published books. Published books are vetted not only by their authors, but by editors and publishers, and because so many examples of the word being used this way have crept their way into published books, it seems disingenuous to claim that this meaning of the word is only used by ignorants and the uneducated.
  4. My opponents have continually claimed that I am attempting to "obscure" the distinction between initialisms and acronyms or that I believe that the distinction is not worth keeping. This is false. My claim is that initialisms are a subset of acronyms, as Merriam-Webster explains; not that they are the same set.
  5. My opponents have claimed that I am trying to insist that my definition is the only correct definition. This too is false. Every version of Acronym that I have supported has included the information that some people and some dictionary definitions support the view that initialisms that aren't pronounced as words aren't acronyms. My only aim is that the article on acronyms treat the two definitions equally and not assert that one or the other is correct. This is what I have attempted on Acronym/temp. There are two competing definitions of "acronym". Both are supported by dictionary definitions. Both are supported by usage in published books and on the web, and I don't see any valid reason why both shouldn't be treated equally on Acronym.

Please do not respond here. I have posted the same content to Talk:Acronym, and you can reply there. Nohat 17:59, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Call to linguists

I ask that those who have formal training in linguistics pay a visit to Talk:Acronym and try to help me explain how if a large number of people use a word to mean a certain thing, then that certain thing is therefore a legitimate meaning of the word. I have been trying for several days to get this point across, but many people seem to be laboring under the mistaken belief that the only valid meanings of words are those that are set down by the Oxford English Dictionary. Nohat 04:58, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

More accurately: should, as Nohat wishes, the distinction between initialism and acronym be completely obscured, or should acronyms be defined as they are defined in dictionaries, with a note that some people also call initialisms "acronyms"? [[User:Anárion|File:Anarion.png]] 11:39, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
---
As you (Nohat) point out, only a lilliputian minority of people call acronyms (or a subset thereof) "initialisms", and you've already namechecked the prior (martial) art: descriptive v prescriptive grammar.
God's primary source for the "initialism" usage appears to be... er... Wikipedia. [8]
chocolateboy 01:30, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This Nohat drove me away from the article with his insults and intransigent attitude after I courteously tried to open a discussion on the talk page (rather than simply correcting the article without notice). It was a very unpleasant experience, and I am not here for that. That's why I dropped out from Wikipedia for more than a year. I don't want to drop out again, so I am glad others are in there working him over. He seems to think it is his article.
It is pernicious to wilfully confuse technical terms in the way he seems determined to do. I will not participate further, but you are welcome to see my description of the problems of the article (and his responses, judge for yourself) on the talk page.
I assure you (as I did him) that I am no prescriptionist, quite the contrary, I firmly believe you cannot hold back the tide, but, as for technical terms, used to sort out technical meanings, precision (not prescription) is still the requirement. If everybody in the world confused a squid with an octopus, and a great many do, it would not matter, it would still be wrong. Usage rules in the long run, of course, but it is the duty of a reference work to try to make things clearer, not more confused. Looking things up in dictionaries does not make you a prescriptionist. There is no modern prescriptionist dictionary, they are all descriptive, as is every linguist. Insisting on the undiscussable correctness of one's own opinions, now that's prescriptionist. Ortolan88 02:30, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I dispute the mistaken notion you and Nohat apparently share that initialism is a neologism. The word initialism dates from the late nineteenth century. Acronym pops up in main common usage only in the early 1940s. Also note that originally acronyms were a subset of initialisms, and certainly only had the strict meaning: initialisms which could be pronounced as a word (NATO), rather than a series of letters (FBI). At some point it seems some people began calling ALL initialisms acronyms, at which point initialism was restricted in meaning to 'acronyms which cannot be pronounced as a word'.
As Ortolan88 above I also note that Nohat's insults and his generally intransigent attitude over "his article" are the major problem here. Except for Nohat all contributors seem reasonable and wiling to work out a compromise. [[User:Anárion|File:Anarion.png]] 14:00, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
By the way, Nohat vs reason ;-) (not intended to be taken seriously!) [[User:Anárion|File:Anarion.png]] 14:03, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm unaware of the dispute in process, but according to current dictionaries there is a simple, clear distinction between "acronyms," which are pronounced as single words (examples given by AHD4 are WAC, and radar), and initialisms, which are pronounced letter-by-letter (e.g. WPA, IRS, TNT, ESP). There's nothing hard to understand about that. All modern dictionaries profess to report meanings and spellings on the basis of frequency of usage. Referring to initialisms as acronyms is not a "meme on the rise," it's just imprecise. It is frequently a subtly disrespectful usage; people who don't understand the actual terms and believe they are intentionally obscurantist propellerhead jargon show their feelings by not bothering to use the proper terms for the terms themselves; that is, people who aren't interested in what TCP/IP is, are not likely to be interested in the metadetail that TCP/IP is an initialism rather than an acronym. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 14:11, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Exactly! Finally someone who understands :) [[User:Anárion|File:Anarion.png]] 15:33, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
For the record, I don't think initialism is a neologism. I don't think I share anything with Nohat. For one thing, I have lots of hats.
Nice to see that other people think the distinction between initialism and acronym is understandable and worth keeping. On the Talk: Acronym page I point out that the article is also hopelessly confused about portmanteau words and suggest anagrams as another category of words made from words Ortolan88 16:43, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC) PS - I do wish people would indent these discussions. This is my left margin.
No doubt the distinction exists and is correct, but the common perception of acronym should be alluded to and explained. —siroχo 17:20, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
Yes, with acronym the name of the game is pronounceability as if it were a normal noun. UNESCO, OPEC, and NATO spring to mind here. Dieter Simon 23:49, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

about natural gas exploration

question moved to Wikipedia:Reference desk by User:Finlay McWalter

Consistent spelling

Do we really have a rule to be consistent within an article on color vs. colour? Personally I just always write "color" but always leave "colour" when it's there. There have been a few times that I "fix" what I thought were misspellings but got reverted and then realized it was just an alternate spelling. I think the key here is tolerance. This isn't an issue worth mass-changing anything over, and it's not an issue to get into a revert war over. It probably does make sense to be consistent within an article for this one, though, as it could get quite confusing otherwise. anthony (see warning) 12:53, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't know if it is a policy or not, but inconsistent spelling withing an article looks really amateurish. I go by the following rules, which I may have read something similar to in a style guide:
  1. Context - if it's about a U.S. subject, I use U.S. spelling; UK subjects get UK spelling.
  2. Precedence - I try to find out which was the first spelling used, and adjust all spelling to that dialect. So, if 'color' was used and then 'flavour' was added later, I will change it to 'flavor'.
  3. British - being British, I use British spelling if there is no precedent.
PhilHibbs 09:55, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Capitalisation of 'I' in Internet and 'W' on World Wide Web

Not sure if we might need a bot if we choose to go the way of Wired Magazine and The Guardian. Have a look at this BBC story then our article Internet. Personally I'm all for de-capitalisation. --[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod » .....TALKQuietly)]] 02:33, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

The fact that "Wired" made a style choice (and in its justification doesn't even recognize that the reason Internet is capitalized is because it's a proper noun) needn't dictate our style choice. Newspapers, magazines, and websites often make peculiar style choices: as Wikipedia aspires to be an encyclopedia, not a news purveyor, our style choices should reflect prevailing styles used in publishing books, not newspapers. As yet, such style guides uniformly recommend Internet. Not until they change should we. - Nunh-huh 02:42, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Comment posted by anonymous user 195.158.6.178:

"It's ugly. Internet and WWW are not proper nouns. The internet, and the world wide web should not be capitalized. It's distracting and unnecessary."

[NB: This user also scattered vandalism throughout this page, which I rolled back. It was only later I realised he or she had also made a valid comment, and restored the edit. Sorry for any inconvenience - Mark 05:40, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)]

Coincidentally(?), this topic had just come up on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Capitalization of computer terms. World Wide Web is certainly a proper noun phrase, unless you can demonstrate that another one exists and goes generically by that name; the same goes for Internet in all cases where you're referring to the Internet. You needn't take my word for it, of course, though you should that of Tim Berners-Lee and the Chicago Manual of Style. Austin Hair 05:29, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
Don't you mean "This Topic"? You are talking about a particular topic, right? anthony (see warning) 12:56, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
No. The word "topic" was not coined to describe this discussion thread, and is not a proper noun. You yourself even quoted my use of the adjective this—an unequivocal indication, in the absence of an article, that the noun in question is a generic one. Austin Hair 00:10, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
The word "internet" was not coined to describe any particular internet, either. It's a descriptive term, just like telephone network (or even telephone itself). anthony (see warning) 16:49, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

So is the "Atmosphere" a proper noun that should be capitalized as well? I'm neutral on this issue, for now, but if given enough evidence that using lowercase is widely accepted as the standard I'd be willing to accept that standard. anthony (see warning) 12:51, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There's a distinction between the Internet and an internet (see note on Internet). Using a capital for the Internet is very unambiguous - and is consistent with general usage. So I believe actually, that the Internet is a proper noun, while "internet" is not. The World Wide Web is a more academic question, as usually WWW is used (which being an acronym, should use capitals). Interestingly, WWW an unusual acronym in that it is longer to say out loud than World Wide Web. zoney ▓█▒ talk 12:55, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
But if you read the article, it mentions that the same distinction can be made in other cases, such as the Atmosphere vs. an atmosphere, but this is nearly universally ignored. With World Wide Web it's much more clear, as this is more obviously a name, not a description. But then, with Web, it's less clear again. The Internet is more of a description, similar to the Telephone Network, which I would assume is usually not capitalized even when referring to the specific one encompassing most of the globe. Another factor is that the knowledge of which internet is being talked about is really based on context. It is in many ways similar to saying "Let's go to the ocean" (not "the Ocean"), even though you know you're really about a specific ocean. anthony (see warning) 13:05, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Atmosphere in the specific sense, is not being used as a proper noun. It's not much more than the difference between "the" and "an". It's not really a relevant example to the discussion (not remotely similar to the difference between earth and the Earth, an internet and the Internet) and probably shouldn't have been included. The example sentence is simply leaving out the "taken for granted" word of "Earth's" (the Earth's atmosphere exerts a pressure). In this case, the Internet is a specific network. Someone could come up with an alternate internet and call it Globelink. To talk about "the internet" is just incorrect - our article on the Internet is quite right to point out the difference immediately with a dab. zoney ▓█▒ talk 13:15, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I don't see the distinction. Saying "the Internet" just leaves out the taken for granted phrase "that most of the world is connected to." Or should I be saying "that most of the World is connected to?" Internet is a description more than a name, it just happens to be a description of something which most of the world currently uses only one of. Going back to my other example which is probably more applicable, should we be calling it the Telephone Network? anthony (see warning) 13:21, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're saying about the different between earth and the Earth. According to this source, you should only capitalise earth and sun and moon when used in a list of celestial objects or part of another name. [9] But it's not clear to me whether you're arguing for or against this distinction. Earth, Sun, and Moon, are proper nouns, right? anthony (see warning) 13:29, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
If one is to believe standard histories of the web, internet, as a contraction of interconnected networks, refers generically to any network of interconnected networks. By this version, the big "I" Internet is a specific instance of such interconnected networks (which has grown to such an extent as to have virtually eliminated alternatives). However, I'm not aware that small "i" internet was ever commonly used to refer to any actual alternative networking system. It seems that it is used primarily to make a pedantic, mostly theoretical, distinction, and it may well be that the distinction is purely pedantic and not based in actual (or at least in common) usage. Despite this possibility, I have no problem with treating the Internet like a proper noun since that is currently the most common usage, even though the purported rationale may not have much bearing on reality. [[User:Bkonrad|older≠wiser]] 13:47, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Planets other than Earth (capitalized, in this context—the enumeration of other planets is implicit) have atmospheres. I'm surprised at you, Anthony—this distinction is one usually learned no later than the fifth grade, and I know for a fact that you're a native speaker. Austin Hair 00:10, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
This is a strawman. I know that other planets have atmospheres. That was my point. anthony (see warning) 13:35, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Both the Microsoft Manual of Style for Technical Publications and the Chicago Manual of Style give Internet and World Wide Web. Why is this debate even happening? 145.36.24.29 14:51, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I should point out, the distinction may not be apparent to any non-techies (and even to some techies), but as a qualified Computer Engineer I can tell you that to talk about "the internet" is just wrong! The parent poster is right - this debate should not be happening. The only reason that it is, is due to the idiotic "style" decisions of two media companies. Permit me to say "GRRRRRrrr" (I'm fed up being nice - it's a stupid pointless debate). zoney ▓█▒ talk 15:53, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Fair enough - I'm happy to go with the prevailing style manuals. I strongly suspect that decapitalisation will creep in regardless of the rights or wrongs, just through overwhelming common usage of lower case. But I withdraw my I'm all for decapitalisation in light of the arguments above. --[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod » .....TALKQuietly)]] 17:33, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
I didn't know they let "qualified Computer Engineers" determine what is right and wrong capitalization. Captialization rules in English are quite arbitrary, and in this situation there isn't a clear right or wrong. All we can go on is common usage, imposing strict rules on the matter is not any more appropriate than imposing a rule that colour is the wrong way to spell color. anthony (see warning) 13:39, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I'm pointing out that the ensuing ambiguity, is from that point of view, appalling - something perhaps not obvious to those judging merely on terms of "style". I will however, refrain from further Grrs, it was a momentary lapse. zoney ▓█▒ talk 16:52, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It still looks pants. The Worst Style Decision in the World will haunt Us in The Future, I just know it. Still, The Population of this website seem to want it, so I guess we have to go with The Majority Opinion. Oh Well. 213.206.33.82 12:04, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

They should be capitalized, because I like seeing them that way. This may well be a transition that's in the process of happening, or it may not be, but I would like to wait until authoritative print sources such as the American Heritage Dictionary decide it has actually happened. Wired is trying to be cool and ahead of the trend. They hope to be tastemakers. The print version of Wired (does it still exist?) had very weird typography and layout, too, which some saw as cool, but was not widely followed by mainstream periodicals. (The alternating use of what I can only call "inverse video" in their page numbers, for example). There's no logical reason for capitalizing anything. This is all a matter of prevailing taste, style, and custom. Print encyclopedias tend to be present a dignified, conservative typographic personality and so should Wikipedia. Which should be capitalized, even though it can easily be understood without it. I will now lose all claim to credibility by noting that I still spell Hallowe'en with an apostrophe, and used to put a dieresis over the second "o" in coöperate, and hyphenating it (co-operate) if I was using a device that lacked a dieresis. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 13:48, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I mostly agree with these comments (except for liking seeing it that way). Right now there is no real standard in this area, so mass decapitalization would be inappropriate. anthony (see warning) 16:47, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Then we should do what we do with US and UK English, consitent within each article, but tollerate diversity within The Encyclopedia. 195.158.9.78 10:35, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This makes sense – how can people debate this when some articles use "colour" and others say "color"? For me, the capitalization is the correct way of doing it (and should be in a -pedia) but the common person writes them without the capitals and, tbh, few know the associated grammatical rules. "Internet" has left the jargon compsci world and has been adopted into popular culture – try referring to anything as an internet without people thinking of the Internet. This is the explanation that should be given in the main Internet article. violet/riga (t) 10:53, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Just a note—The Economist decapitalized the “internet” long before Wired. Personally I'm inclined to follow The Economist blindly down any dark path it charts. T-bomb 02:15, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Main Page Category browsebar

There has been a flurry of activity on the layout of the Main Page, centering on changing the use of the Wikipediatoc to the use of 'Browse by Category'. But we need help from the community on the categories of the browsebar for the Main Page.

Interested parties on refining the categories for the browsebar are invited to contribute to Category talk:Fundamental. I have copied the Main Page discussion on the categories for the browsebar to that talk page. Ancheta Wis 02:06, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Illegal blocking by Guanaco

Hello there,

I would like to inform you that Guanaco blocked me for 24 hours for allegedly violating the three revert rule which states, "Don't revert any page more than three times within a period of 24 hours."

Reverts to page "Clitoris" by User:Cantus:

H(4) Revision as of 01:39, Sep 1, 2004
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Clitoris&diff=5581620&oldid=5580088
D(4) G(3) Revision as of 20:44, Aug 31, 2004
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Clitoris&diff=5580088&oldid=5553795
C(3) F(2) Revision as of 20:14, Aug 30, 2004
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Clitoris&diff=5553795&oldid=5552239
B(2) E(1) Revision as of 16:44, Aug 30, 2004
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Clitoris&diff=5552239&oldid=5548095
A(1) Revision as of 15:10, Aug 30, 2004
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Clitoris&diff=5548095&oldid=5537404
  • The fourth revert "D" falls outside the 24-hour limit started by revert "A"
  • The fourth revert "H" falls outside the 24-hour limit started by revert "E"

The fact is that there are no four consecutive reverts within a 24-hour period. I did not violate 3RR.

I ask you to please undo this block as soon as possible, and de-sysop User:Guanaco for flagrant abuse of admin powers.

Thank you.

Cantus. (I hope you don't consider this as me evading a ban. It's the only way I can defend myself)

You've been unblocked. If you still want to complain, this belongs at RfC. Guanaco 01:21, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
You don't have any right to tell Cantus where he can and can't complain. anthony (see warning) 13:47, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Recklessness

I'd like to remind people that the other side of Be bold... is ...but don't be reckless. Recently, on a lot of inherently highly charged topics (e.g. Fascism, Liberalism, Conservatism), people have made very large edits, including removal of material from the articles, without so much as making a comment on their intent. Sometimes a single edit moves large chunks of material around the article and quietly deletes a few paragraphs outright. Our change tools do not readily point out such a deletion, and with no change comment and nothing in the talk page it is very hard for anyone else to understand what has changed.

Please note that part of the policy sketched out at Wikipedia:Be bold is:

...if you want to change or delete anything substantial in the text, you should either:
  • Move it to the Talk page, if it is a sentence or so, and list your objections.
  • Only list your objections to the section on the Talk page if it is longer.

Quietly removing material is not simply bold, it is reckless. It undercuts others who are making honest attempts to build a consensus article. I, for one, find it particularly objectionable when (as has happened) well-footnoted material is quietly removed and replaced by unsubstantiated POV; this has happened several times lately.

I want to spend my time on wikipedia writing new content, working out how to enhance articles, and (at worst) honestly debating issues about articles. I am very frustrated when I am stuck sleuthing out what surreptitious (and often detrimental) changes have been made to an already strong article.

If anyone thinks I have misunderstood policy here, I would very much appreciate an explanation. I had the frustrating experience in one recent case of asking someone for a summary of even the intent of his wholesale edits to one article and received the following not-so-useful response: "No." That's it. Verbatim.

-- Jmabel 23:16, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

I agree, but this is probably just preaching to the choir — few people who make these kind of edits frequent the pump. As a sidenote, this can happen to less controversial articles too. One anon kept deleting material he claimed was POV from Coca-Cola when what was wrong was really the wording, and not the content. No explanation more than the word "NPOV" (erroneously thought by him to mean POV) was provided either on the talk page or the edit summary until I contacted him, in which case the user posted a one-sentence explanation on the talk page, and deleted the material again with a similar edit summary to his comment on the talk page. Johnleemk | Talk 07:28, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Improper block

This is VeryVerily. I have been blocked without proper justification by User:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason. Could an admin please undo this? I will start an admin review action in due time. - VV

We should let Ævar explain his actions before doing anything, IMO. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 22:34, 2004 Sep 1 (UTC)
No he should have explained in the summary. He saig "breaking the three revert rule" which is not a reason the block in the Wikipedia:blocking policy. Theresa Knott (stroke the ant) 22:50, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I've got to strongly agree with Theresa Knott on this one: blocking is, next to banning, the ultimate sanction available to a sysop. The sysop is entrusted to exercise this power not by right but on behalf of the community, not in his own person but as an agent of the community, and so owes the community at least the respect of explaining why he used the powers delegated to him by the whole.
If the sysop for whatever reason did not show enough respect to the body from which his powers derive, to state the reasons for the blocking -- and reasons which the community as a whole have agreed are sufficient to justify that action and not mere reason of personal pique -- then let that sysop's actions be overturned quickly and then give him the leisure to explain to a board of review whether he, the sysop, is in fact serving the community. -- orthogonal 23:24, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I don't believe for one minute that Ævar was acting for reasons of personal pique. I think it was probably an honest mistake. Admins need to be able to make mistakes - it's only human after all and inhuman admins would be very bad. Never the less, the revertion of a mistake should happen immediately. (That was the point I was trying to make earlier) Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 23:40, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Er, I'm the one who should clarify. "Pique" was poor choice of words on my part; what I meant is blocking for a reason other than those established by policy as valid reasons. I didn't mean to impute anything about Ævar's motivations, but that in the general case no one shouldn't be making up policy on his own. I apologize to Ævar and anyone one else who took it as an imputation about Ævar. (Er, Theresa, your signature keeps changing. Is it connected to a random number generator somehow?)-- orthogonal 23:52, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
No I change it in my preferences every now and then. A while ago I had this image as a sig.   where my username changed into an anagram every now and then. I've stopped using it because people complained it was distracting, but one user complained that it was scary and going to give him nightmares (he was joking (I think)) I invited him to come up with a nicer anagram and several people chipped in a came up with lots. It would be ungrateful not to use them. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 00:39, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Wow, that IS scary. I was looking at your username and nearly jumped out of my skin when it started transforming. And I'm not kidding. T-bomb 02:08, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I have started an RfC, making basically this case. Input there would be helpful. (See also User_talk:24.7.126.117.) VV 23:30, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I delisted the RfC after Aevar explained himself. VV 00:40, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The article that was being fought over (Henry Kissinger) is now protected. Lots of people (most of them quite experienced wikipedians, VeryVerily among them) were in there reverting one another. May I suggest that now that the article is protected, all concerned should be unblocked? I don't believe any of the parties involved have a frequent history of this sort of thing. -- Jmabel 22:56, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

Who else was blocked? Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork)

I unblocked VeryVerily and protected the article. As far as I know no one else was blocked except for IP autoblocks, which have also been undone. --Michael Snow 23:14, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Episode template

I've just created template:Infobox_Episode. The One With the Sonogram at the End, a Friends episode, has been updated to show it in use, though that article itself is a stub and not a great one at that. Now, I'm not too sure if there should be all these articles for every episode of every series so I guess that's question one – should every episode appear on here or just important (series-changing or famous) episodes. Secondly, what do you think – especially, is it better than the tables currently used (see The One With the Thumb)? Apologies if it's all wrong – I've not played around with templates before! violet/riga (t) 18:26, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Very Brit-centric. In the US, they're seasons, not series. RickK 19:11, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

Good point, but it would be difficult to choose one over the other. Can't think of any other word that would work either. Perhaps it should be season for US programs and series for UK shows, in which case the Friends example would be wrong. violet/riga (t) 19:17, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It should be "Season" since it is an American show. I think the way things usually work around here. I really like the template you've used on The One With the Sonogram at the End, but I would like to see it use a smaller font. The current one takes up too much space. See this as an example of the size font it should use.
Despite the fact I like the first one better, I think the "footer" one you have in the Thumb article is usually how these things are implemented. Just MHO...:-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:37, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
Changed the font sizes – thanks. I've seen the footer as the de facto, but don't really like that way of doing it, to be totally honest – it looks a little messy. Oh, and I've added the link to the list of episodes. violet/riga (t) 21:06, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, now that I think about it, we should probably use season for US shows and series for UK shows. What about Australian/Irish/Canadian/European shows? What term is used there? RickK 21:54, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

For Australia - in the context of the infobox shown above, the word 'season' would fit. A series is generally the name given to the entire run of a show (all seasons). Though I am probably against creating articles for each individual episode of a show (except for particular stand-out episodes - for example, Who Shot Monty Burns) -- Chuq 03:22, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I agree on both points. The term "Season" is used in the UK for US TV series, and also I don't think all episodes deserve individual entries. PhilHibbs 11:16, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I wonder if for many series the full name of the episode is that important, maybe short links << Episode 123 >>, or even a footer with "Episode 123 of 1994 September 29", is sufficient. -- User:Docu

Perhaps an entry for [[Season 4]], for example, with anchors for each episode and a short description of each? That'd be my choice. But getting back to templates (if they're going to be used after all), I think the small serif font is hard to read. I know I suggested using the smaller font, but if you do, the sans-serif font is much easier to read. Sorry to be such a pain. :-S — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:58, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Season template

Just created template:Infobox Season ("season" is more sensible than "series", I reckon). This makes more sense when only some of the episodes of a season have articles (you'd get deadends following the previous and next links from template:Infobox Episode). Two problems, however:

  1. The infobox shown is quite big
  2. The infobox entry for each article is rather long and must be copied into each episode article.

Not tried it yet but perhaps you could have template:Infobox Season 1 Friends which is the episode list passed into the main Infobox Season. Not sure if this is possible or appropriate. violet/riga (t) 10:23, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Episode list template

I've created Template:Infobox episode list which is more versatile:

I think it works quite well and helps towards consistency. Comments? violet/riga (t) 15:32, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A template box for games ?

I was uploading and adding a few cover scans and thought if it would be possible to add a side box (such as the one for music albuns) with detailed info on the game, including:

  • name
  • cover
  • platform / media
  • developer
  • publisher
  • release date
  • genre
  • screenshot
  • pre/sequel

I'd avoid adding a review field, since most large site such as gamespot and IGN are highly biased towards some games.

Does the current number of videogame related articles justify this ?

The current number of videogame related articles justify a whole WikiProject.Take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and Video Games where several different infoboxes and templates are/were being discussed. - 18:36, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC) Lee (talk)
Great, I'm having a look there now. WolfenSilva 18:39, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Cut & paste move

Seems to have happened with Lolium to ryegrass. Since there's only been one contributor to the articles, I don't know how important it is to get the history connected back to the text, but I don't really feel qualified to do it, so I figured I'd mention it here, so that anyone who thinks it's worth cleaning up can do so. I have left a message on the user's talk page suggesting using the Move tab in the future. Niteowlneils 15:53, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Community Input for a new WikiProject - Fact and Reference Check

Hello!

First time post, glad to be here. I would like to announce a new Fact and Reference WikiProject ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Fact_and_Reference_Check ) and am writing this post to get community input.

This project's goal is very ambitious - having facts in Wikipedia verified by multiple independent sources to make it the most authoritative source of information in the world. Even if this goal is never reached, the project is still useful in having facts referenced will help deflect one of the largest criticisms of Wikipedia - that it is not a reputable source of knowledge.

Any community input is welcome but some questions you might consider commenting is: Do you think its a good idea? Do you have suggestions or recommendations? Do you have a plan of action on how to best fact check wikipedia? All input is welcome, excellent criticisms have already been very helpful.

As well, if you have any knowledge about designing wikimedia that would be very useful. This project and these ideas likely could not be implemented without a programmer contributing his or her time to code an automatic referencing system. Programmers who are interested in helping are very much encouraged to have a look.

It would likely be easiest for people to review your ideas and comments if you write in the project discussion page here ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fact_and_Reference_Check ). My talk page is also open :). --ShaunMacPherson 15:14, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Images from other Wikipedias

Is there a way to link to images in other Wikipedias, or should they be duplicated? PhilHibbs 11:19, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Linking does not seem to work (tested on de with [[en:Image:Anarion.png]]), you’ll have to duplicate them. Add a lang link to the original image on the copied image page, and lang link to the copy from the origin image. [[User:Anárion|File:Anarion.png]] 11:47, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
[[en:Image:Anarion.png]] adds an interwiki link, which is useful if the same image is uploaded in both wikipedias to keep the connection between the two. There is a proposal of Wikimedia Commons which can serve as a central repository for language-independent really free images (and other non-textual stuff), but so far it's just a proposal. andy 12:15, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia average?

What the hell does this mean?

"Please remove this notice and the listing on "Pages needing attention" after the article has been revised to Wikipedia average." It's part of the "attention" tag thingy thus:

You must add a |reason= parameter to this Cleanup template – replace it with {{Cleanup|reason=<Fill reason here>}}, or remove the Cleanup template.

Is there some dialect of English in which the bit about "Wikipedia average" makes sense? 138.37.188.109 07:23, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Not as far as I know. Why not go to Template:Attention and be bold? Best wishes, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 07:32, 2004 Sep 1 (UTC)
Aha - someone has done just that and it now reads much better, thanks. Nevilley 07:19, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
My only comment would be that a standard one person finds acceptable, another may not. Darksun 09:38, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

New template: Deletion Utility Belt

Deletion tools
Policy (log)
Articles (howto · log)
Templates (howto · log)
Categories (howto · log)
Mergers
Page moves
Speedy
All speedy templates
Unfree files
Transwiki (howto · log)
All transwiki templates

I created the "Deletion Utility Belt" as a useful resource. Feel free to put it on your userpages/talkpages. Also, if you want to create a version with the Editor's Barnstar and give it as an award, go ahead. The template is {{Template:Deletiontools}}. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 02:45, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I made the text a bit shorter and changed the formatting a bit. How is that: Template:Deletiontools -- Chris 73 Talk 05:15, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
Is there a list of these tools anywhere? Yours is very useful b.t.w. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 10:09, 2004 Sep 1 (UTC)
Love it! I almost want to change the text to "For Deletionists," but that would be mean. :-) Geogre 19:15, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Neutrality, do you mind if I add copyvio on there too? I think people working to get things deleted (KILL KILL KILL!!!) also check for copyright lots of times... - Vina 21:42, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Sure, go ahead. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 02:46, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Very nice! May I suggest replacing {{Resources for collaboration}} (which is rather bulky) on WP:VFD with this one? VFD is huge enough. Actually, this could go on *FD as a navigational template. • Benc • 05:41, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Protest to universal addition of metric measurements to US topic articles

I would like to protest the mechanical, universal addition of metric measurements to all US topic articles that is now occurring. I would like to see what the consensus is, and if there is support for my position. Please see my more complete entry at Wikipedia Talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Protest to universal addition of metric measurements to US topic articles. Thank you. --Gary D 00:09, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Metric is not an anti-US system, it is a worldwide system - which should be preferred even within the US. As such, certainly it warrants inclusion on US topic articles. It is the only sensible measurement system for scientific purposes. Having both sets of measurements though, provides a useful unambiguous value (so as you don't lose probes going to Mars for example). Besides, I haven't a clue how many strides are in a yardarm (well, OK, feet-yards-miles) - we aren't taught anything but Metric here. Many people won't have a notion as to what the local measurements mean - conversions are always needed. zoney ▓█▒ talk 12:53, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't use the metric system, don't like it, don't care about it. That said, I absolutely agree with the automatic conversion units being added. I always want metric units to have conversions so that I can comprehend them (especially with temperature, where the formula is weirder than my tiny brain can hold and perform), and I don't think that I should be the only one given that courtesy. Geogre 14:27, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a worldwide encyclopedia, so metrics are needed. It makes the articles more useful for non-US readers--even if the article is about a US topic. I don't use metric (though I think we in the US should adopt it), but I whole-heartedly support the auto-conversion for all our articles. — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:58, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
I definately agree all articles should have both the US and metric measurements, with which is more predominate based on the topic of the article. However, as some people on the talk page have pointed out, if the automated conversion results in odd fractional amounts for the converted values, that probably is not a good thing. Niteowlneils 15:14, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I oppose auto-conversion, if that means a bot. I don't think all the possible situations can be handled in this manner. anthony (see warning) 13:58, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Could specific pages where problems might occur have a no bot property added? Even a nobot tag similiar to nowiki? This might help with protecting things like "9mm (name of gun)". AdmN 20:05, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Voting begins on Wikipedia:Administrators/Administrator Accountability Policy

Voting on the proposed Administrator Accountability Policy has begun. Voting will last until 00:00 UTC, 8 September 2004. blankfaze | (беседа!) 00:21, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have one suggestion to help clarify the poll itself. Can you change
will last until 00:00 UTC, 8 September 2004
to
will last until 23:59 UTC, 7 September 2004?
Ending a poll at midnight is always confusing; some might look at it and think, "oh, I can vote on September 8th" when they actually can't. • Benc • 01:43, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

War over circumcision

This edit war over circumcision is really starting to bother me. Articles such as Circumcision, History of male circumcision, foreskin, infant, and even violence have been taken over by POV warriors who refuse to compromise and introduce their own activism into the articles. It's destroying the quality of previously NPOV content, which is what's so annoying. I'm requesting help from other impartial editors to reel in the insanity. Sorry if this is the wrong place, not enough people seem to read RFC though. Rhobite 22:29, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

Yeesh, the flames of war burn hotly over at Talk:Circumcision; not sure I'd want to wade into the fray without learning what everyone was talking about. I never realized that cutting was such a hot-button issue. --[[User:Ardonik|Ardonik(talk)]] 01:22, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
Ick, is this the Intact Day guy back? He wanted to make circumcision a crime against humanity. Some folks need to see what real oppression and suffering there is in the world and devote their energies to helping there, not worrying so much about their winkies. Geogre 03:16, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Yes, and he brought friends. To be fair there is also a pro-circumcision editor causing trouble at Talk:Circumcision. Rhobite 04:40, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

Can someone take a look at Infant? They keep adding "Circumcision is to remove the foreskin, usually of a male newborn. The act is usually committed to remove a portion of the genitalia. This is known as Genital modification and mutilation, and its effects last into adulthood." I'm not willing to break the three revert rule over this. Rhobite 04:21, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

I've done my first revert. We'll see how long that lasts. The topic shouldn't even be on the Infants page. Irrelevant. -Vina 20:58, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Lots of us have now done reverts... they just won't give up the blatent POV. They're starting to get under my skin... (joke). AdmN 19:58, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)


and foreskin and Ridged band. These people have clearly come from a newsgroup or similar. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 07:15, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Also penis. Looking at the contributions of User:Robert Brookes, some of us in #wikipedia considered ArbCom action...But if it is a large number of POV warriors involved, it becomes even more complicated... — David Remahl 07:20, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Start a WP:RFC rfc on this user first. Arb com is the last phase of wikipedia:dispute resolution Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork)
Ah, yes. Of course. I forgot about RFC as a arb com 'lite'. It is the obvious place to bring this up. Thanx for reminding me. — David Remahl 10:35, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't know if you've done this yet (I'll chack in a minute but looking at his latest edits, he is refusing to compromise, work with people or work to NPOV. I'm happy to second the rfc. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 17:01, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've started one myself. If other people could add more evidence and certify (If it's not certified within two days it get's removed). Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 18:41, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Here is a link to the RfC page for Robert Brookes; would those involved in edit wars with him please join us there? --[[User:Ardonik|Ardonik(talk)]] 19:07, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Mind if I skip my own Salem Trial folks? Perhaps you need to be aware of who exactly is running an organised POV offensive against wikipedia.You need to know where the source of the problem is and why the rush to nuetralise Robert Brookes. Here is a post from an anti-circumcision list:
To: intact-l@cirp.org
Subject: WikiPedia.Org, David Peter Reimer, et al
From: =?UTF-8?Q?=C5=ACalabio?= <Walabio@MacOSX.COM>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 05:31:46 +0000
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Content-type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Reply-to: =?UTF-8?Q?=C5=ACalabio?= <Walabio@MacOSX.COM>
Sender: owner-intact-l@cirp.org
¡Hello!
¿How Fare You?
The vote on WikiPedia.Org went strange:
Genital Integrity and Intactivism are now the same article now.  I 
would like to thank:
1.Ŭalabio
2.Hugh7
3.Acegikmo1
4.DanBlackham
5.Rwinkel
6.User:DanP
7.Hayford Peirce 20:51, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
8.Sean Curtin
9.Dittaeva
10.User:Michael Glass
11.Modargo 06:22, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
12.ScottyBoy900Q 05:19, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
13.Jao 06:24, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
14.Radoneme
Since I knew that circumcisiophiliacs would ballot-stuff.  I invited 
others to counter the circumcisiophiliacs.  Since such activity is 
impossible to hide, I admitted this in vote.  I went about compiling a 
list of people voting against us who joined after the vote.  By the 
time I had the list, it was a moot point, so I never  exposed them, but 
one the circumcisiophiliacs, Robert Brookes, is an huge vandal.  Robert 
Brookes vandalizes existing articles, rewrites archived talk, and 
starts insane articles like this:
--
Foreskin fetish
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Foreskin fetish is one of the many fetish variants that are 
proliferating in era of the internet and the accompanying explosion of 
pornography. A difference from other fetishes is that those with this 
variant appear to be active in anti-circumcision activities as opposed 
to the standard "live and let live" approach of other sexual fetish 
adherents. Both males and females who have such a fetish are unkindly 
known as skin freaks.
--
That Robert Brookes is an insane vandal.
  • Robert, please respond on the RfC page. If you don't, the disagreement may go to the Arbitration Committee and the admins might get involved. This is part of our policy and one of the responsibilities that comes with being a Wikipedian! Also, see my conversation with Ualabio in Talk:Violence. My complaints with the "intactivists" are the same as my complaints with you: a frustrating refusal to acknowledge the opposition and a complete lack of desire to reach consensus. I've said it before and I'll say it again: I have nothing invested in the argument either way. All I want is to see NPOV adhered to. You're obviously not the only one at fault; join our conversations and let's make this right. --Ardonik.talk() 00:59, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • The situation around the circumcision related articles is of your own making. You should never have allowed the dogs in. Now you have to deal with the consequences of a string of POV articles. There is of course a simple way to sort this all out. - Robert Brookes 01:15, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • I agree, the simplest way would be to block you all. In your case I don't think we even need go through the AC as I'm not sure I have seen any good faith edits. My view at the moment is that you are a simple vandal, and can be blocked under current policy as such. However I will wait to the what the rest of the community has to say on the matter first. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 06:18, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

NY-LON

This must be being broadcast in the States, but by whom? Dunc_Harris|☺ 21:21, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Nobody. They can set a show in Zimbabwe, doesn't mean it will air there. -- user:zanimum

The Critics Are Right

Yes, I'm afraid to say it, I have been contributing and proofing a lot on Wikipedia this last couple of months. But today I finally needed more to use than be a part of Wikipedia. And I can now inform you all: Wikipedia is useless for research, after all.

Because where I should have gathered all my facts and written my piece I have, instead, spent 3 hours toying about, nudging a bit of formatting here, wikifying a year there, adding an external link somewhere else... and my productivity has been precisely ZERO. ;o) --[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod » .....TALKQuietly)]] 20:48, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

  • Don't underestimate the power of proofreading. Many a college textbook lost some credibility in my eyes due to an overabundance of typos, poor formatting or presentation. I remember when I was first learning C++, I made the mistake of picking up one of those "Teach yourself C++ in 21 days" books; typos on every page, including in code examples. Hard to learn C++ syntax when the examples won't even compile. There was another course-required text I paid about $50.00 for that clearly consisted of Xeroxed-and-bound articles from a hundred different sources, each formatted differently, with poor copy quality, written by hacks and amateurs, most of them rife with inexcusable spelling and grammar errors. Uh-oh, I have a feeling that description applies to more than just that textbook... Well at any rate, at least here there's something we can do about it. -- Wapcaplet 21:11, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Oh, absolutely. I always feel very worth and righteous after a good bout of proof-reading and fixing - and fortunately I enjoy it too, so when I stumbled on Wikipedia it was like finding the voluntary work I was born to do. But some days you need to get something done, and on those days I need to learn that it is more important I get it done than to italicise titles in the article text ... --[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod » .....TALKQuietly)]] 14:02, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

Who hacked into the system and changed the logo? -- user:zanimum

edit conflict paste strange logo unpleasantness
Eek! I've got a new top left logo. I use the old [standard?] skin. Just a second ago the logo changed to a sun-like, magnetic compass style thing. It's much more distracting in style - but this is the really bad bit: It's large enough to cover the first letter of any article title and, because it is too wide, I now have a vertical line cutting down the first centimetre of any page text - it reaches down as far as donations in my left hand navigation bar.
Anyone know what's going on? It's horrid. --[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod » .....TALKQuietly)]] 20:18, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
Fixed now ;o) --[[User

A developer appears to have fixed it now. We need to track down who did this -- user:zanimum

It, it, glowed! The goggles, they do nothing! -- orthogonal 20:23, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What's with the ugly wiki logo today? Kevyn 20:12, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The logo has been fixed. Hard-refresh your browser if you still see it (Ctrl+F5 in IE). --Slowking Man 20:20, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

That's weird media:Wiki.png doesn't indicate that anyone changed it today until it was fixed. Mintguy (T) 20:25, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Anyone have a cached copy of the "logo"? -- user:zanimum

On Opera 7.54 the black lettering under the globe is very attenuated and not very legible on the blackl background. I suppose it looks better in different browser. Can somebody fix it please Apwoolrich 20:32, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Front Page

Wikipedia is already short on certain areas and the front page addition of the following will only serve to make it worse because many newcomers will see it and leave thinking Wikipedia is a site for intellects only.

browse: Humanity | Nature | Mathematics | Philosophy | Physics | Technology | Academia | More...

Worse, is the "Fundamental" list. Instead, may a suggest additions to the list plus other measures to encourage newcomers to the biography and other areas where much work is needed. JillandJack 18:19, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Complaints about the main page should be directed to Talk:Main Page. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:10, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Copyright Permission

What is the preferred method for an author to indicate that he/she is giving permission to use material. I asked an author to add such a statement to ACORN but couldn't say exactly how to do it. Rmhermen 16:25, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Life cycle of the ideal article

I recently finished the first draft of this new Wikipedia page. It is intended to be an intermediate-level guide documenting the various ways one can help improve articles. I'd like some feedback on it, please (positive and negative, of course). Thanks, • Benc • 15:05, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This page is an excellent idea! I added a few comments to the project's talk page. -Sewing - talk 20:22, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

List_of_people_by_name:_Se

Someone is running a script on this page in an attempt to wikify the years on it. This script is broken, and is messing up the page (see for example "co-founder" which is changed to "co]-[founder"). Also, de fact policy is that we don't wikify the years on these pages in the first place. However, I have agreed not to revert more than twice a day, so I'm bringing the issue here for the help of the community. I have tried talking to this person, but reverted again after putting a message on my talk page. I don't know how to deal with this. anthony (see warning) 11:54, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I reverted and left the following on the user's talk page: "=List of people by name: Se=Please stop introducing multiple errors to this page. Niteowlneils 16:51, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)" I am not very familiar with these pages--is the 'de facto policy' documented (in any fashion) anywhere? Niteowlneils 16:54, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Do you mean a de facto policy on "List of people by name" pages? Certainly most other lists have wikified dates. Rmhermen 17:01, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
These pages just have years, not dates. For a discussion on wikification, see Wikipedia_talk:List#Formatting_of_lists. -- User:Docu
I don't feel I can state a firm position for all lists, but on these lists, I see no point in wikifying the years--I can't imagine anyone navigating to the List of people, then wanting to go to a year page. They might after they read the person's article, but the year should be there and linked already. I don't think it's a big enuf deal to suggest that existing year-links be removed, but I would consider adding any more a complete waste of time. Niteowlneils 05:03, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Slot

An anon has created Slot as a redirect to Wiktionary, to an article which does not exist. I can't get to the article to edit it. How does one fix this? RickK 05:54, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

Ah, I figured it out -- edit it from the History page. RickK 06:00, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

Difficulty of editing is the number one reason that direct redirects to other projects shouldn't've been used in the first place. If users are creating red links to an article that would only ever be a dicdef, editors can put the template {{wi}} at the target to create a Wikipedia:Soft redirect to wiktionary. Pcb21| Pete 06:11, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I think that's a much better solution than having to constantly list dicdefs on VfD. No matter how often we delete them, well-meaning newbies are going to constantly create new dicdefs. • Benc • 09:48, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I like this idea so much that I've started a discussion about it here: Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Policy proposal for dicdefs: soft redirects. Comments appreciated. • Benc • 10:53, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Summarised sections

Edit tool bar

How can I get rid of that irritating item? Filiocht 14:26, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Kerry Vandalism

I see the George W. Bush article just got protection. I hope I'm not stating too obvious a fact in pointing out that John Kerry needs the same—9 acts of vandalism in the last 45 minutes. dreish 18:21, 2004 Sep 8 (UTC)

Summarised sections

The links below indicate where the discussion has been moved to.

Baring Island, Northwest Territories

Can anyone see this article? I wrote it, it has me in the history, but it isn't showing no matter how many times I hit reload. -- user:zanimum

Finding A Star- HELP

Hello everyone,

Just wondering if anyone would be able to help me. I have just named a star after my girlfriend and would love to be able to actually show her the star. Does anyone have any ideas on how I can go about this? We live in London and none of the observatories nearby have a service to see specific stars. Any help would be greatly appreciated. My e-mail address is damianevans25@hotmail.com Many thanks again.

English to Hebrew?

Hi, I want to find these two names written in Hebrew: 1)Lance 2)Lacie. Does anyone here know where I can find this? Thank you, jennie 9-8-04

English to Hebrew?

Irrelevant post moved to Wikipedia:Reference desk. Trilobite (Talk) 03:06, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Improperly blocked

Hello dear WikiPedians, My wikipedian account has been blocked by a Snowspinner. Please reverse this illegal blockag. ·

Edit tool bar

How can I get rid of that irritating item? Filiocht 14:26, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Special:Preferences, then Editing [ ] Show edit toolbar. [[User:Anárion|File:Anarion.png]] 14:45, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Thanks, should have worked that out myself. Filiocht 14:54, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Good Press

Well, we've been getting all worked up about the Syracuse paper's comments. See, though, the Raliegh News and Observer for Sept 8, column by Paul Glister here. A very, very fair and balanced assessment of Wikipedia, IMO. He writes as if he's a contributor, because he definitely knows about new page and RC patrols. Also note that the Raleigh N&O is the hometown paper for the Research Triangle in NC (where Redhat is, e.g.). Geogre 13:33, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Spotted [10] this when looking through the BBC news site. Darksun 21:27, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Shadow mask picture

File:Shadow mask.jpg

Shouldn't this be removed? See for yourself. -Anon

Um no. Why do you think it should be removed? Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 09:59, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Is this a Rorschach test of sorts? Because it does look like, er, something. . . —No-One Jones 10:05, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It could be construed as an *ahem*. At first I thought it could be a couple of tinted windows, but the "frames" aren't mounted at right angles. Too blurry though. Johnleemk | Talk 10:15, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Whoa! That made me do a double-take, but on closer inspection, it just looks like a spaghetti strap to me... T-bomb 14:04, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Looks more like a thong in someone's ass to me, and perhaps them removing their pants. But I bet that says more about me than it does about the picture :) Adam Bishop 16:29, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I'd have to agree with you on that one. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 20:21, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Agree. What do we do about it? zoney ▓   ▒ talk 23:48, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oh, yeah... I think you're right, actually. Hmm. Any volunteers to stub Thong in ass with this picture? :) T-bomb 16:34, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sounds like fun... — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 20:21, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Um... what is being discussed here? I see an elongated object that doesn't resemble any body part. Did the anon think it looked like a very thin penis, or what? This reminds me of the silliness over the Starbucks poster [11]. func(talk) 20:31, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think it's funny. Keep it and let our readers wonder, or walk past in innocence. [[User:Sverdrup|User:Sverdrup]] 20:46, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Does anyone know exactly what - if anything - the original picture is? Who uploaded the image? Darksun 22:05, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't know what the anon thought it was. It could be a strip of white cloth like the shoulder strap of a blouse, or any other white strap, but the image is an illustration of a shadow mask, isn't it? It's a video edit filter. It's one of the mask filters you can lay over an image in Photoshop, inter al. Geogre 01:01, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Not an Anon, it was Paranoid. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 01:16, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Who contributes a lot to sex and porn related articles... [[User:Anárion|АПА́ДІОП]] 08:05, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Er... do you want to know what's funny... on my Mac, the image is very bright and clear, if incomprehensible. On my sister's Windows machine, however, the image is much darker and, um, yeah, it does look like a thong. func(talk) 02:15, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

White points and colour temperatrues on Macs and Win boxen typically are quite different. [[User:Anárion|АПА́ДІОП]] 08:05, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia and child protection?

A few days ago there was a discussion about the ages of Wikipedians, during which somebody mentioned a 7 year old. I have started a debate about what child protection policy might be appropriate on the discussion page of the draft privacy policy of Wikimedia. All comments welcome. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Draft_privacy_policy. Apwoolrich 06:47, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Help! How do I delete this one after making a mess of the heading, in favour of the corrected version below? Can somebody with know-how sort it out, please. Many thanks Apwoolrich 06:52, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
No need, Village Pump is editable just like any other page. I fixed the title. TPK 06:57, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Odd stealth log-outs

The last 2-3 times that I've logged in, I've checked items from my watchlist & made various edits to them (SOP). But somewhere in the middle of my edits, Wiki has mysteriously logged me out. This has happened 3 or 4 times. For example, somewhere between 17:51 and 17:54 today, in between a couple of Save Pages on The Intelligence of Dogs, I got logged out and was never aware of it, so blithely continued editing other pages from my watchlist until I realized that I didn't have the Revert option showing up any more. It clearly can't be a timeout for lack of activity, because there were only 3 minutes between the two saves. Anyone know what's the deal? Elf | Talk 04:57, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Anything funky going on with your computer's time? Could be cookies expiring prematurely. Johnleemk | Talk 07:52, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Not that I'm aware of; date and time match my wall clock & calendar. What kind of thing might I look at or for to determine cookie expirations? Elf | Talk 08:45, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It happened to me last night as well, but so far today I've not seen it. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork)
Me too! Interestingly, sometimes I didn't need to relogin - some pages opened almost at the same time in the MonoCrap skin (the default) and some in the Classic (my preferences). Also several times I came to Wikipedia from Google search and wasn't logged in (again, judging from the skin), but clicking on any link opened a Classic page, showing that I am logged in. Happened during the last few days. Paranoid 15:56, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump/Archive_AR&oldid=1180230596"