Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)/Archive H

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

Village pump (assistance) archive  

This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (assistance).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

---

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

Is the homosexuality article unimportant because it's "widely viewed as a deviancy"?

It's been proposed on Talk: List of articles all languages should have, the Meta-based hub page for the Wikipedia page Wikipedia:Vital articles, that because homosexuality is potentially controversial or offensive, it is not important for many language Wikis to have it (unlike, apparently, The Holocaust, abortion, evolution, etc.), and it's unacceptable for anyone to even recommend (the list is purely optional) that comprehensive encyclopedias address the topic. User:Blockinblox, claiming to be enforcing consensus, has argued that homosexuality (unlike heterosexuality) cannot be listed on the page because it is "widely viewed as a deviancy around the world" and dismissed any discussion of adding an article on homosexuality to the list of important articles with comments like "DO NOT force your agenda on the rest of the world. What you do in your country is your country's problem." (I had not been aware that my country was the only one with homosexuals, nor that I had an "agenda" on the issue, but I stand corrected.)

What I'd love more than anything is some fresh perspectives on the matter, whether they agree or disagree with my recommended additions and changes; it will be difficult to keep discussion from getting stuck in the mud with only two users with strongly differing opinions talking the matter over. So, anyone at all who's willing, I'd love some outsiders' views and arguments. -Silence 07:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Samuel Delany (Black and gay) reports that Greece has (or had) a simi-official policy that there are no homosexuals in Greece. What you are up against are people who live in the mirror universe, where Spock wears a beard. It is very hard to talk to these people, because their world-view is so totally different from ours. For example, in their universe, George W. Bush is honest. Rick Norwood 19:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

in their universe, George W. Bush is honest - people, somewhere, actually think this? --Bob 23:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand that there's a major cultural gap in the area, but I don't see how a major global controversy somehow equates to "unimportant". This is a list of important encyclopedic topics, not of uncontroversial or "safe" encyclopedic topics. I suppose what I need most is a little support in this area, on the meta Talk page in question, to dispel User:Blockinblox's idea that consensus is on his side. Once it's safely established that "homosexuals don't exist" and similar views are in the minority, not the majority, I'll have a much easier time improving the list so it can become a useful utility. Discussion of whether "homosexuality" meets the notability requirements may certainly continue (though so far Blockinblox has only disputed the morality of the topic, not the noteworthiness), but at least a window will be opened for the possibility that homosexuality is an important topic. (Which most, and perhaps all, Wikipedias seem to already realize: Of the 25 Wikipedias with the largest number of articles, all but 1 (the Serbian Wikipedia, #19 in size) have "homosexuality" articles.) -Silence 21:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

You are totally distorting the discussion at Meta. I never claimed that I was enforcing consensus on this; I said it was a compromise that had been agreed to, not to require every language to have an article on a non-noteworthy topic, and you broke the compromise bringing the whole problem back again. Yes, it is the noteworthiness I am disputing, not just the morality. As you have noted already, many languages are not going to like being told that they are "required" to give any article space to homosexuality. Serbian is a good examples, and that's just in Europe, to say nothing of other continents. You have the right general idea when you say our world view is totally different from yours. By the way, noone in Greece cares much about whether George Bush is honest since they do not have to vote for him. Acceptance of homosexuality is a cultural phenomenon, it hasn't spread to many places yet, and this smacks of agenda pushing, not allowing encyclopedias in each language to be written independently, without being given a set agenda that they have to follow. Blockinblox 22:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Given that, as Rick Norwood said above, "their world view is so totally different from ours", and every language comes from a culture that indeed has a different world view, that is not the same as yours, and perhaps you are only just now discovering this fact about the world we live in --- why on earth then would you dream of using the wikipedia mechanism, which is supposed to enshrine "neutrality", as a platform to disturb this balance or attempt to make other world views like your own??? Many languages are simply lack encyclopedic words to discuss the concept, because it simplt isn't discussed, except when discussing the western countries where men tend to lie with other men, and not with women. Don't you understand??? Note that I don't object to the article appearing in the English encyclopedia, because no doubt it is highly relevant to English speaking cultures. Blockinblox 22:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

"Acceptance of homosexuality is a cultural phenomenon, it hasn't spread to many places yet..." -- Blockinblox, 2006 AD

"O sweet boy like a girl, I see you though you will not look my way. You are unaware that you handle the reins of my soul." -- Anacreon, circa 550 BC.

"Hasn't spread to many places yet"! Rick Norwood 23:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Ewww, now that really grossed me out! I do try to assume good faith, but dude, you are really dragging down the whole level of decorum on this page with that quote from Anacreon!! Ancient Greece has little to do with modern day Greece, as you well know; they successfully cleaned up their society about 1600 years ago, and it hasn't hurt them any; so what I said, the current modern day acceptance of homosexuality hasn't spread to many places yet, is indeed quite factual. Blockinblox 00:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I can only say that everything you write indicates how limited your experience is. Homosexuals have existed in every society throughout recorded history. Sometimes they have been accepted, sometimes they have been persecuted. There is nothing new about either attitude. Rick Norwood 01:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not they have existed in every society is a whole other question, one which I did not even address, and I would have no way of proving or disproving, although there are certainly those who would dispute it (like what your friend said about Greece in the first place), and if as proponents claim, it is congenital (again it's not convincingly proven and disputed that it is not caused by cultural factors), then I would expect it to prevail more in some populations than in others, like anything else that is genetic, for instance, much like saying that people with blond hair or blue eyes do not exist in every country, because it does not run in their family... Blockinblox 01:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, since it's Wikipedia's self-proclaimed goal to build the self-feeding omni-über-encyclopedia, you need an article on every topic in every language. That being said, I'm sure the articles on Abortion, Racism, Genocide, Homosexualtiy etc. will be different on each wikipedia, because each of these things has a different place with different examples in each society. All you have to do is appeal to the types of people who read the article, you don't just translate a bunch of text about gays in America, England, and Australia to the french and japanese wikipedia, because it wouldn't be relevant to the people reading it. You'd find examples of LGBT culture in France and Japan.--The ikiroid (talk/parler/hablar/paroli/说/話) 01:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that is "Wikipedia's self-proclaimed goal" either, for instance numerous topics have already been deleted from English wikipedia on grounds of being non-notable or non-encyclopedic. No wiki can be expected to have every topic. Unfortunately all too many view it as a means of pushing pov agendas, meaning writing obvious propaganda in order to effect some kind of change in society or in people's thinking, instead of simply reporting on it as it is. I say, let each wiki make its own decisions on what it feels is cultually relevant to add to its body of knowledge, and so far there have been no issues of a central body trying to pressure other languages on what their content "should" be, but this could be the start of a very disturbing trend, especially when applied to such a purpose. Blockinblox 02:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all, if you look at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, it says in bold, italicized text:

Our goal with Wikipedia is to create a free encyclopedia—indeed, the largest encyclopedia in history, in both breadth and depth. We also want Wikipedia to become a reliable resource.

Secondly, if we're going to have a list of articles every wikipedia needs (which seems to already be the case) then you need to add information relevant to the world. Not placing this information in the encyclopedia seems to be quite POV to me. All of the topics on the list have been placed there because the editors feel they are relevant enough to the global academic world to go in every version of wikipedia. Each wikipedia will end up making its own decisions anyway on the final layout of the article, and this list is trying to help keep it so that nothing gets overlooked.--The ikiroid (talk/parler/hablar/paroli/说/話) 02:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

"All of the topics on the list have been placed there because the editors feel they are relevant enough to the global academic world to go in every version of wikipedia." No, it's not like that at all. All topics have been placed on the list, because a tiny group of "editors" has taken it on themselves to determine what is good or vital for every other language wikipedia in the world, and the list overall suffers from a lot of centrism. They have even taken extreme measures to lock the page to assure that their agenda is represented, and cut "editors" like me who disagree out of the decision making process. I thought I was an "editor" too...! But my account has been blocked from Meta, so that only one opinion is left, and that opinion can now proclaim itself "neutral" when it is far from neutral. Now I am curious to know exactly what steps this tiny group intends to take to ensure that every language complies with its vision of what they "need" to look like, because I predict that if these heavy handed tactics are extended to certain wikipedias, you are going to meet up with a LOT of resistance! The way it has worked up until now is that all languages have been allowed to develop their content independently and with their own house rules, without any faceless, mysterious, self-appointed "group" of editors pretending to assume superiority over all the other languages, and dictating what they are "required" to talk about. Blockinblox 14:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Have you ever stopped to wonder why you spend so much time thinking about homosexuality? Rick Norwood 15:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I already know why; it's because I can see American TV channels. You see, back in the 1980's, I hardly ever thought about it at all, because I hardly ever heard anything about it. But now, I hear something about it every day. So it's only natural that I should think more about it. Blockinblox 16:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I suggest giving up watching tv. I have, and I feel a lot better for it. Rick Norwood 17:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry Blockinblox, I was not aware of the cabal-esque situation on the metapage. This suggests a much larger issue is at work here. Perhaps this discussion should be moved the page's talkpage.--The ikiroid (talk/parler/hablar/paroli/说/話) 18:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• There is no cabal-esque situation on that page; anyone is welcome to add to and discuss anything on the page, and it has only been locked from being edited by accounts created within the last week as of a few hours ago, in order to prevent Blockinblox's variable-IP sockpuppets from continuing to ban-evade. If anyone else with a new account is inconvenienced by this semi-protection, please feel free to note any of your edits on that page's talk page and I'll gladly discuss and/or add them.
• Note too that Blockinblox has a long history, I've been told by Mediawiki admins, of disruptive behavior on Mediawiki. This is not to say that any of his points are invalid just because he's sometimes less than civil in his comments; what he has argued should be judged on the merits of his argument, not on his history. But his claims about the situation with being blocked from that page, certainly, are highly misleading and false. He was blocked for 24 hours for (repeatedly) violating 3RR and for making incendiary personal attacks like "Do not force your sicknesses on every people ND in the world, I will continue to expose and resist your sick scheme tooth and nail by any means possible for me, if this is what you have set in your mind that your purpose is to recruit deviant and sick, sinful and backward behaviours to all the peoples and languages of the world." He would have been unblocked before long, had he not used three separate IPs to try to evade the ban and continue pushing his POV on the article, which is what led to his ban being lengthened to a week and to the page being temporarily semi-protected (purely as a protective, not a punitive, measure, since his changing IP can't otherwise be easily prevented from editing the page). I was also blocked, incidentally, for violating 3RR (albeit accidentally), but was unblocked early since I didn't try to evade (nor personally-attack the admin) as Blockinblox did. I'd have been perfectly fine with continuing our discussion in a calm and civil manner despite our strong disagreements, Blockinblox, but you made that impossible with your repeated attacks and policy violations. Hopefully we can continue this discussion more reasonably after things have settled down a bit; no hard feelings. -Silence 23:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, based on what Silence just said and contributions like this [1], I'm led to question the motives of Blockinblox. He stated earlier in this post that the article on homosexuality shouldn't be there because it does not affect the world on a global scale. But in his earlier posts, he makes a case for it corrupting free speech around the world. I'm assuming he doesn't want Wikipedia to be corrupted by politically correct BS, which I understand and support, but he's just not going about it very well.--The ikiroid (talk/parler/hablar/paroli/说/話) 02:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I, too, have a strong distaste for political correctness. But somehow I don't get the sense that that's the main issue concerning Blockinblox in this matter. :) -Silence 04:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It's very easy to willfully distort anyone's words, if they are taken out of context. Fortunately, I am not blocked from responding here, so I can defend myself. Instead of taking this one post out of context, you have to read all the posts that came immediately before, as well as immediately after it, to have any comprehension of what it is about. Don't put words in my mouth, don't twist my argument. I have been pointing out the issue of homosexuality is not a feature of every CULTURE around the world; I did not ever use any phrase like "affect the world on a global scale", nor "corrupting free speech around the world"... Someone here must have a degree in spin doctoring. On the Jyllans-Posten page, I questioned why Muslim and Christian clergymen in Northern Europe (Note: not "worldwide") were legally prosecuted for stating the doctrine that homosexuality is a sin, but newspapers attacking / provoking people for their religion is apparently fair game. The responses to me pointed out that these prosecutions were not actually held up, and that freedom of speech prevails in Europe as long as you do not threaten to kill anyone. So then I drew a hypothetical parallel to the anti-Muslim cartoons, and asked if it would be accepted for a newspaper to draw a cartoon that was similarly provocative to the homosexual community. Read the whole debate for yourself, if you have any more questions. Unfortunately I cannot join the debate on Meta until my block expires. Well, I could anonymously, but it just gets reverted / censored, and the length of my block is extended. The admin who blocked me from Meta was taking part in the revert war there himself, and his talk page proves he had been planning all this beforehand on some kind of chat program with Silence, so yes it seems a touch 'cabalistic' when he himself then blocks me for a week, when he has a clear vested interest that is not neutral. Blockinblox 12:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you tell us who the admin is and provide links to the talkpage you're talking about? I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, I was trying to correctly address what your issue was (sorry).--The ikiroid (talk/parler/hablar/paroli/说/話) 14:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

That's okay, no worries... I can, although it wouldn't have been too hard to find out who blocked me by using the software, and I'm not sure how this can really help anyway; but the relevant talk page is m:User talk:Amgine (see # "Heartless")... Blockinblox 14:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Well...it's sorta iffy, there's a paragraph about them chatting on IRC, and then there's your response paragraph, but you don't have a log of their IRC chat to prove conspiracy. When I viewed the talkpage of this [2], it seems that you have been somewhat shut out, but on the other hand, a lot of it has been caused by your repeated statements that those people against homosexuality are continuously persecuted, and your statement that "in 99.9% of the Earth's surface, homosexuality is likened to bestiality. Just because it is something that YOU practice, or that YOUR culture glorifies, and you claim to be "civilised" and "progressive", does not mean we are not going to resist your forceful spread of it by any means possible. The 1% of the earth's surface where it is considered a "good" thing are the places where you have forced yourself, not where you have been welcomed, and we have noticed this and are determined to stop it." I must say I believe you are somewhat misinformed or disillusioned on the issue. Aside from that, Wikipedia does not endorse something or show sympathy for it because an article about it exists (i.e. Hitler), but since Homosexuality is a large issue, and the community has identified as one, I'd say you should level with their decision and focus on fixing the article itself.--The ikiroid (talk/parler/hablar/paroli/说/話) 19:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, you say "Wikipedia does not endorse..." but each language Wikipedia has its own ground rules and is not dictated to by one of the others. What I am saying is that if YOUR "community" has "identified" it as a "large issue", then it's a "large issue" for YOUR community. Your community, which has shut those who disagree out of the community, is not going to decide what's a "large issue" for other languages; each one is going to decide what its content will be using its own methods, and is NOT going to be dictated to by this cabalistic "community" that you say gets to do the "identifying". Blockinblox 19:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Blockinblox, may the peace of the Lord Jesus Christ, which passeth all understanding, be upon you. Rick Norwood 21:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Blockinblox, you are both right and wrong. I have begun accounts on the french, chinese, esperanto, and japanese wikipedia, and they all have the five pillars as ground rules for the community. It is true that no language Wikipedia dictates the other languages, but they do all work together collectively to exchange information and synchronize the encyclopedia. While there are differences with which articles are acceptable (i.e. the Japanese wikipedia is uneasy about current event articles), those issues are handled accordingly and dealt with using translators from Wikipedia:Babel, and forums like the Chatsubo, the Guestbook for non-chinese speakers, and Bistro for non-french speakers. You have a good idea with multilingual consideration, perhaps we could begin a survey on each language Wikipedia, deciding on what they believe are relevant topics, and see if homosexuality falls under their list of important subjects. If there is a problem with adding an article on Homosexuality into another language's wikipedia, we can discuss it, and a solution will be reached. How would that sound?--The ikiroid (talk/parler/hablar/paroli/说/話) 04:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

In a world with over 6 billion humans eating, shitting, killing, burning, and breeding I think all gay people are to be commended. They can have as many pages as they like, with or without a floral border. John Reid 23:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

List of famous pairs

Will somebody please edit this page? For my money it could be deleted; there is no value in listing everything that happens to come in groups of two. But there is one link in it that I'd like to correct -- assuming the page must stand -- and I can't even fully load the page, let alone edit it. It is far, far too long.

I'd like to ask some kind soul to split the page into 3 or more manageable pages. Thank you. John Reid 21:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it could potentially be split by: real people, fictional people, places, things (esp. food), and other. — RJH 23:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm indifferent as to method. Right now I can't load it past Me-Mo. Too long. Please fix. John Reid 08:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I finally took a look at it, and its associated talk page. The only thing that comes close to leaping out at me, would be moving some of it to List of famous fictional pairs. That should make a dent. Then maybe someone else can take a look at it.--Coro 21:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've moved out most of the fictional pairs over to List of famous fictional pairs. I moved pairs that were either labled 'fictional' or I just plain knew they were fictional. I may have missed a few. The list is still somewhat oversized, but one should be able to get past Me-Mo now.--Coro 23:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you; I made the required edit. John Reid 23:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Michael cleaver -- phony bio article, suggest watch

The article Michael cleaver appears to be a well-written short bio of a deceased Austrialian pro rugby player and war hero, not something that ordinarily would draw much editor attention. But it doesn't check out. A quick look in Google doesn't show a relevant hit. According to the official New Zealand Allblacks list of all players, past and present, there has been no player named "Cleaver" on the team at any time. I added a "Hoax" tag, put a message on the user's talk page, and there's no denial. So I added a "prod" tag.

It's the first and only contribution by User:J-rich.

Am I wrong, or is this subtle vandalism? --John Nagle 17:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it to me. Tagging it the way you have for deletion in five days if not disputed seems like a measured way of going about it, though one can certainly see articles like this tagged with {{db|Hoax - CSD G3. No relevant Google hits. See talk for more.}} or something similar. Nice catch, BanyanTree 03:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Not being either an New Zealander or a rugby fan, I wasn't sure if I was missing something. But so far, no one has indicated that it's valid. No further activity for that user, either. What bothers me is that somebody is creating throwaway accounts to create reasonable-looking fake articles on hard to verify subjects. Those can hurt Wikipedia's credibility if not caught early.--John Nagle 05:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's an issue inherent in how the wiki operates. It's one reason why the RC and new pages patrollers and "random page" clickers are so vital, though of course a standalone hoax doesn't do much harm until it start being copied and linked into other articles, where it is much more likely to be noticed by someone who has the knowledge to recognize the hoax. Someone did a representative sample of new articles on VP Policy a few months back and found that a ridiculous percentage were deleted on sight. There are a lot of very bored people out there... - BanyanTree 05:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Problems with another user

I tried to add a cultural references section to the article Christian views on contraception, but they were reverted by Alienus. Cultural references are very, very common on countless Wikipedia article.

User:Alienus also threatened to ban me even though I was not violating any Wikipedia rules (just his preferences) and he does not have administrative status.

Captain Jackson 00:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no article titled "Christian views on birth control", which is probably just as well, since the Bible doesn't mention the subject, even though Caesar Augustus ranted and raved against it. Rick Norwood 00:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The article is actually Christian views on contraception, which I fixed. My mistake. Captain Jackson 06:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I am being ignored here. Captain Jackson 17:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

You are being ignored because you typoed the name of the article you wanted people to look at. Also, looking at the article, I discover that Alienus did not threaten to ban you, but only informed you that you were apt to be banned if you keep reverting. Rick Norwood 20:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is truly an amazing prick. When someone else is a prick to you, nobody does anything about it. When you're a prick to someone else, you're banned in two seconds flat. It's like we're on a cyber-playground. If you want someone else's subjective opinions dictating what does and does not go into articles, then just turn the other way. Captain Jackson 22:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Extra Space

I noticed that in wikihtml, when we edit, formating has extra space, for example, when we edit a comment, there's a space between the $Subject/headline:$ & the content of the message. Another example is == Extra Space ==$ is also the same as ==Extra Space==$. Does this make comments larging in size as bytewise? Even if not, it could create confusion. So I guess Mediawiki needs to be tweaked/the devlopers\the codes needs a little editing?

Please leave one if you'd like more clarification on this issue. You could also contact me <redacted> [since they haven't instituted the option to delete your account, made their own licence, or the GNUL hasn't changed yet, I haven't signed up].

thanks

24.70.95.203 20:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Institutions

Wikipedia serves as all Wiki Projects' highest form of governemnt; I don't think that's right. I think that Wikimedia should be where Help, Reference Desk, Proposals, Policy, etc. should be located. Also, Beer Parlour & Tea Room should be deleted, etc. & if there are any other institutions like as mentioned in this comment, then they should be deleted to. User pages should also be consolidated into 1 central location, namely Wikimedia, or a separate place, but these are draft ideas, but the general idea, would organize Wikimedia & save resources. Taking the point of saving resources, Accounts should be allowed to be deleted.

Please leave one if you'd like more clarification on this issue. You could also contact me iooiioioo@hotmail.com [since they haven't instituted the option to delete your account, made their own licence, or the GNU licence hasn't changed yet, I haven't signed up].

thanks

24.70.95.203 14:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page Martin 13:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I went to the link, & I noticed that all Wikimedia Projects including Wikimedia is sorely disorganized;, still, the above issue has not been addressed;: on the link, nowhere was there Refernce Desk, Compliants, Help Desk, etc.. Also, Wikitionary has no links in any part of its entirety which would lead to Refernce Desk, Compliants, Help Desk, etc.. Coudn't there be a project or devlopers clean this mess up?!?!

Please leave one if you'd like more clarification on this issue. You could also contact me iooiioioo@hotmail.com [since they haven't instituted the option to delete your account, made their own licence, or the GNU licence hasn't changed yet, I haven't signed up].

thanks

24.70.95.203 14:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Your premise is simply incorrect, Wikipedia has no power or jurisdiction over the other projects. They are all self-contained. Wikimedia is not a project, it is the umbrella organization. Wikimedia is the only organization with power and jurisdiction over the others. And yes, Meta (which is a wiki about wikimedia) is quite disorganized, and they are working on that.

Thanks for the reply.

Your right wikipedia has no power of jurisdiction over the other projects, & I'm glad for it; if that wasn't the case, we'd have a bigger problem on our hands. Excactly, if Wikimedia is the Umbrella organization, then it should have Help Desk, not Wikipedia; in the current state, only Wikipedia has Help Desk, & this is just an example, as you can see with Refence Desk, etc.., which correlates to the fact that Wikipedia acts as the Umbrella organization, in some areas, & I hope that this gets brought up & I hope this changes.

And I'm a bit puzzled by what you mean by Meta.

By the way, you forgot to sign-_-'

Please leave one if you'd like more clarification on this issue. You could also contact me iooiioioo@hotmail.com [since they haven't instituted the option to delete your account, made their own licence, or the GNU licence hasn't changed yet, I haven't signed up].

thanks

24.70.95.203 16:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's help, reference, etc only apply (or are only supposed to apply) to Wikipedia. If the other projects don't have their own, then that's something those projects need to address. Centrallising them just creates disorganisation. Anyway - I doubt this is the correct place to be proposing such changes as it is. --Evan C (Talk) 07:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Redirect problem

I'm trying to redirect Heinrich der Zänker but it doesn't work. What am I doing wrong? Sumergocognito 17:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Use spaces and commas (","), instead of the underscores ("_") and the percent-encoding ("%2C"), so it is

Henry II, Duke of Bavaria

instead of

Henry_II%2C_Duke_of_Bavaria

Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

It still seems to be malfunctioning Sumergocognito 22:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Page move attempt: Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom for use in Scotland

User:Astrotrain has unilaterally moved Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom for use in Scotland to Royal Coat of Arms in Scotland. I have just moved it back.

This move is part of an ongoing campaign by this User to try to claim that these are not the Arms of the United Kingdom, but rather that they are the Arms of Scotland. Note the (presumably intentional) similarity to the separate Royal Coat of Arms of Scotland article (if you can't see the difference, compare in with of).

I urge other Users to Watch this article and User like a hawk. I personally have a poor relationship with the User in question and want to get involved as little as possible with their edits. I would appreciate it if calmer heads than mine were to monitor the situation. --Mais oui! 01:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

He edited the old Talk page so that it cannot be moved back to its original spot, see:

• Talk:Royal Coat of Arms in Scotland, which was moved a few hours ago from Talk:Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom for use in Scotland, and now cannot be moved back. --Mais oui! 02:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Need help with redirecting

Hiya! I was wondering if anyone could redirect the search "bananalamb" to go to the "Super Lamb Banana" page. I don't have enough wikiskills to do it myself. Thanks!

~mikokit

Sign w/ 4 tildes, these things (~) when editing. --Osbus 00:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Type "#REDIRECT Super_lamb_banana_page" as the first and only line of your page PiAndWhippedCream 12:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Merecat (talk · contribs) unhappy with Cite.php reference format

Merecat has posted complaints to Talk:Killian documents and Talk:Rationales to impeach George W. Bush that he does not like the new footnote format introduced with Cite.php (WP:FOOTNOTE) and wants citations to web sources to be listed only as inline URL links. He also posted to VPT that he didn't like the new system, but did not get any sympathy (it's out of the archive but here's one diff [3]). Now he has tagged Killian documents and Rationales to impeach George W. Bush with {{Template:Citation style}}. I worked very hard to move all the references in Killian documents (about 75) to the new format because under the old {{note}} and {{ref}} system, the numbers didn't match and it was very difficult to edit the citations since they were separate from the text. Clearly I am not a neutral party and I will not remove his tag for that reason. However, I would appreciate a discussion of whether one editor can unilaterally decide that the citation format is wrong. Thanks. Thatcher131 03:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

There was a thre-party discussion on Talk:Killian documents in which neither I nor the other editor agreed with Merecat; he tagged the article anyway. Thatcher131 03:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

From what I've seen, most people tend to agree that the advantages of Cite.php outweigh the disadvantages, with respect to the other citation styles available. Inline URLs are not considered proper citations for articles up for featured article candidacy, and What is a featured article? states that "the meta:cite format is strongly encouraged". — TKD::Talk 03:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

List of deaths attributed to computer or video games

Could some more people take a look at this, and read the article? I'm worried by the standard of comment on the deletion nomination that people are voting based on their POV on the video game / violence debate, not on whether or not this is a well sourced, NPOV article. Thanks, For great justice. 19:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

can't edit image description

I've been trying to edit the image description of Image:Closeup_of_an_blue-green_human_eye.jpeg to indicate its correct licensing info, which is { { noncommercial } }, as can easily be verified from the source web page. (Click on "view image license.") However, when I click on "edit this page," I get a message saying that the article doesn't exist. Is this because I don't have an account? Anyhow, the correct licensing info is easy to verify, and I'd be grateful to anyone who could make the correction. TIA! --24.52.254.62 23:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The image is actually on the Wikimedia Commons so the page you want to edit is Image:Closeup_of_an_blue-green_human_eye.jpeg. You seem to be correct about the license, good catch. Dragons flight 23:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) The reason you are not able to edit the image description is the image is hosted at Wikimedia Commons (a shared media repository for all Wikipedia languages, etc). I have marked the image there for deletion as an apparent copyright violation - see Commons:Template:Deletion requests#Image:Closeup of an blue-green human eye.jpeg. Thryduulf 23:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Help needed with Latex forumula pacement

Hi! I am no novice to Latex, but the exact placement of the generated pictures is not clear to me in wiki. Please have a look at Petri_net#Basic_mathematical_properties. It looks very strange on my Konqueror. I would like to hear how it looks in other browsers. Please repair it if you can! Thx, Msoos 20:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

What all do I need...

...to copy in order to have a userbox template work on an intranet wiki? Alternately (if I've posted this in the wrong place), can I get a redirect to the proper place to ask this question?Ecophreek 05:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Veterinary Stubs

I previously posted this on the proposal section as i've no idea where it really should go.

While looking around i noticed the Zoological medicine stubs category.

This of course is of great interest to me as i am a current vet student.

However it seemed like most of the subcats pointed solely to human related articles. Is there any way i'd be able to somehow integrate a purely veterinary perspective on existing stubs or create new ones with a veterinary slant?

eg. if i were to go category:animal anatomy and then click on the "subcategories" cardiovascular system, Arteries and finally selecting Radial artery as a layman and inexperienced wiki user (which i am) i would expect to see the radial artery as described in an animal system, however that is not the case

Any assistance would be greatly appreciated Biliskner 22:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... if an article's scope includes several animals, it is understandable to focus on humans, but not to even mention other animals is a serious omission. Ideally an article should be useful to anyone interested in the subject. If you want to try a conservative fix, for example to Radial artery, perhaps you could add a section on radial arteries in other animals? (Preferably towards the bottom, so as not to confuse the reader...) If, in an article, the information on other animals grows to be larger than the information on humans, then it would make sense to promote the general meaning to the top of the article and encapsulate the human article in a section of its own.

These are just general editorial ideas, since I'm no expert and I'm not aware of the issue being tackled in an organized fashion. (Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy, for example, seems to be dead.) If you want more ideas, you could try searching for articles that you think do a good job and are worth emulating.

As for categories, I think it's inappropriate (and clearly misleading) to list some of those under animal anatomy; I'll remove them. Melchoir 23:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, maybe I won't; not only are the orders of the categories confusing, so are the names. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Preclinical Medicine. Melchoir 23:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

How can all links to a page be updated?

I recently moved the article Country rock to Country rock (music) (and added a disambiguation page at the old location). Is there an easy way to change all 4-500 links to the original country rock page so that they link directly to the new location? Hgilbert 10:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

A Wikipedian doesn't agree others write an article about him in Chinese Wikipedia.

A Wikipedian zh:User:Martinoei recently kept deleting all negative contents in the article about himself zh:黄世泽 as well as other's sayings in the talk page. He calls those contents slander and announced he would accuse MediaWiki or a particular administrator for defaming him. However, most of those contents are just search results from google. Some sugguestions were proposed such as to delete that article, to redirect that article to his user page, and/or to ban him, etc. Please refer to zh:talk:黄世泽(talk page of that article), zh:Wikipedia:删除投票和请求/2006年4月7日 (Afd discussion), zh:User talk:Martinoei (talk page of that wikipedian) or contact me for further info. Did similar cases ever happen in English Wikipedia? If yes, please provide us as a reference. And welcome to join the discussion in Chinese Wikipedia or give some thoughts here. Thanks. -Xiaojeng 22:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know it's completely the same, but you might want to look up article Daniel Brandt. Garion96 ^(talk) 22:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt is a good analogy and I am sure that there have been others though none jump to mind at the moment. Assuming the person in question is notable enough to deserve an encyclopedia entry, it is general policy on en that such materials be maintained to the same standards as any other article, so we would generally not consider deleting it or redirecting it to a user page to be a suitable solution. One item I would point you towards is en's policy of no legal threats. In a nutshell, it says that users making legal claims against Wikimedia or other users are not permitted to edit Wikipedia until such time as they withdraw those claims or they are resolved in an appropriate legal venue. This policy exists to protect both Wikimedia and it's users from those who would use Wikipedia in the furtherance of legal disputes. I would also note, that in most case where a Wikipedian has an article about his or herself, the article does not mention that they are a Wikipedian, since that is usually not part of what they are notable for (of course, exceptions such as Jimbo Wales do exist). Dragons flight 22:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Would Brandy Alexandre (porn star) fall into the same category? What about Jimmy Wales? Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons has a lot to say on the sensitivity of writing about living persons. It is important to be extra-strict about WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT. — MSchmahl… 23:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Good points. Thanks. I will refer them to the Chinese Wikipedian community. But can banning a user prevent him/her from accusing Wikipedia or a particular Wikipedian? And most importantly, will he/she win if he/she does so? -Xiaojeng 00:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of whether he is banned, he always has the right to pursue legal action. Wikimedia is generally shielded by the common carrier provisions of US law, so under most circumstances they can not be held legally responsible for anything written by any members of the community. A individual Wikipedian may be sued for libel in response to something they write on the site. In US jurisdictions, a claim of libel requires that the statements A) be untrue, B) the user making the statements must be acting out of malice (e.g. knowing the statements were untrue) or with reckless disregard to the truth, and C) the statements caused discernable harm to the plaintiff's reputation. Hence for US cases, it is usually sufficient protection that the person making those statements believed them to be true. Depending on circumstances or jurisdiction other sorts of claims may be possible such as invasion of privacy or infliction of "verbal injury". Also, the US concept of truth as an absolute defense against libel is not a universal principle. Other countries may allow defamation cases even in light of statements which were true. I can not speak to the situation in China, or elsewhere, but in the US an editor who adheres to Wikipedia's policies of NPOV and verifiability is very unlikely to be vulnerable to this kind of litigation. Dragons flight 00:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Very clear! Mr. Huang (the wikipedian and the article we talk about) lives (I think) in Hong Kong, which is a special administrative region of China (PRC) and has a different legal system from PRC(only constitution was given by PRC). The contributors of Chinese wikipedia come from PRC (including HK, Macau), Taiwan (a disputed region), and many other places of the world. A specific wikipedian should be judged (if being accused) under the legal system of his/her own country/government. Based on the explanation above, if Mr. Huang accuses MediaWiki which is solely an American company, he will be very unlikely winning. If he accuses an American wikipedian/administrator, he probably will get the same result. However, if the wikipedian he accuses is living outside US or not US citizen, the answer is somewhat uncertain. This will put a threat to all non-US wikipedian. Maybe I'd better discuss this back in Chinese Wikipedia. Thanks for all the information. They help a lot. :) -Xiaojeng 01:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Xiaojeng, Please stop your misleading question in here! Libel law in Hong Kong is similar to US because Hong Kong is using common law system. I have consulted my legal advisor before I make any statement in Wikipedia. I am really disappointed Wikipedian from mainland China asked misleading question like this. --Martinoei 05:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[Bouncing back to the left in order to save space.] I don't know much about law. I have no idea about either (a) Hong Kong law or (b) whether Hong Kong law is relevant to any of the matters raised above. However, if HK law is relevant, you'd better not assume that because it and US law have common ancestry, HK defamation law does not cover statements that are true. In England and Wales, a statement may be defamatory even if it can be proved to be true. -- Hoary 07:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Help

Sorry, I'm sysop in Italian Wikipedia and Italian Wikitionary, but I don't know how I can have assistance here (it's very difficult to add something in English Wikipedia!!!). There is this user kwami who rollbacks all my contributions here. He has asked me some references and I've given references Talk:List_of_languages_by_number_of_native_speakers#Italian_language, actually he says that I've given as references Wikipedia (US CENSUS!!!) and "blank pages" like this Italian Foreign Office (if people follows the links he should have statistics divided by consulate). Excuse me, it's not my sin if this user don't know how read statistics or how read web pages. It should exhibit me his references (not web sites or phylological studies i.e. Ethnologue, but official statistics). I don't know where is my "original" research!!!!!!! No numbers are dreamed by me. --Ilario 22:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Renaming request

Hi there, since I have entirely too many user names on different wikis, I would like to be renamed from "Caesarion" to "Steinbach". Being a bureaucrat on the Limburgic Wikipedia myself I have done the same there quite recently and all new wiki account I create bear this name. Just a matter of uniformity, and it would be much clearer that way. So can some bureaucrat rename me asap? Caesarion 20:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure any bureaucrats frequent this page. You might have better luck leaving a message on a bureaucrat's talk page. A list is available from Special:Listusers. -- Rick Block (talk) 22:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Article Classification

This is an offer of assistance, not a request. It is a repeat from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject#Best_practices_around_article_classification

Although I am not QUITE ready to go public with a generic solution (and may never be) if your project wants to do classification but is daunted by the work in generating tables like these Wikipedia:WikiProject_The_Beatles/Article_Classification, or Wikipedia:WikiProject_Indigenous_peoples_of_North_America#Partial_list_of_pages_covered_by_the_project I have a tool that I can run for you to generate these tables. It is driven by categories. I am interested in doing this for a few projects (you can see an example of what it generates at User:Lar/Sandbox2). To use it you/I need to know what categories the articles your project is interested in classifying are. Either make up a table like this one: Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles/Categories on a page somewhere and let me know where, or give me a text list of categories. If you're interested, drop me a message on my talk page with the name of the project and the name of the subpage where you would like the classification info placed. What I find out doing this for the first few projects to respond will be used to improve the tool. Suggestions where else to publicise this accepted as well.

One question I thought of, though... should the templates the tables embed be made regular templates instead of being subpages of the projects page?++Lar: t/c 18:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Groundhog Day?

Can anyone tell me why I get the same home page everytime I open Wiki - I keep getting the same page from late March. I was hoping to move on with my life but I seem destined to read it over and over!!!

It's not February 2, is it?Agendum 16:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Looking for a world map that includes all small islands

Hi!

There are alot of world maps flooting around on Wikipedia, but I wonder if there is any that includes all the small islands. The oned used for maps of bigger countries dosen't. --217.210.194.14 15:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Redirect Question (maybe)

Hello. I have a question that I think is about redirects, but I'm not sure. At 14:43, 12 April 2006, I edited the IPPF article. (copyedit: Corrected grammar and usage, added headings, added internal links). It appears that shortly after that someone added a redirect to International Planned Parenthood Federation. Here is the diff location: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IPPF&curid=3089555&diff=48153384&oldid=48152236

My edits do not show up at the redirect (obviously), so what should I do?

Any help would be appreciated. My technical knowledge of Wikipedia is not yet deep enough to know the appropriate procedure to employ. Thanks in advance.

A. Kohler 17:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Akohler, I suggest you merge facts from IPPF that aren't in the International Planned Parenthood Federation article into the latter, thereby improving the article with the longer (official) name. This is not a technical process, but simply one of figuring out what goes where. Hopes this helps, Tangotango 15:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. If it is just a matter of cutting and pasting, I will go ahead. I just wanted to make sure that there is not a procedure/policy in place first.

-- Akohler ^Talk@ 21:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Experienced Wikipedians

I am a student at the Unversity of Utah working on a thesis to study wikipedia. I am seeking any administrators or other experienced wikipedians who would be willing to grant me an IM interview. Any suggestions you might have would be helpful. 155.97.209.58 06:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)U of U Student

I suggest you get a username, include an email address, then post a message back here again. -Will Beback 10:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and also post on the CBB. --Osbus 01:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm - CBB? I guess initials mean something to some of you guys. Bruce, aka Agendum | Talk 15:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I created an account and you can email any ideas to me at utestudent@gmail.com Thank you in advance for any help you give Utestudent 05:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

what is CBB? Utestudent 06:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:CBB. Leithp 07:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:Announcements/Community bulletin board apprently. I've been here 15 months and didn't know about that page! Thryduulf 08:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Same here. I've been here for well over two years and have never heard of it! I only recently found THIS page! Agendum 13:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The CBB is fairly new, created on February 10th. It's being incorporated into the Community Portal. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 13:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Signing and dating problem

Can anyone help me with the four tildes problem? I've no idea if this is common - as I am now beginning to use Wikipedia more than ever before, I'm having to post on talk pages more frequently, as well as places like this. And therefore sign and date my posts in the usual way. That no longer seems to work as it should, and I always have to go back in a second time to correct the coding for the vertical line and the square brackets on my 'Talk' part of my signature. Anyone out there know what I mean? It looks like this: Bruce, aka Agendum | [[User_talk:Agendum|Talk]] 15:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC) - I've checked my preferences and updated my signature multiple times, but nothing seems to work! No doubt it will do the same again here: Bruce, aka Agendum | [[User_talk:Agendum|Talk]] 15:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Is "Raw signature" checked in "my preferences" for you? That may be the problem.--The ikiroid (talk/parler/hablar/paroli/说/話) 18:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

That option seems not to be open to me - I can't check that box, for some strange reason. I have, however, tried resetting my preferences - let's see if that does anything to my signature: Bruce, aka Agendum | [[User_talk:Agendum|Talk]] 22:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Testing this again Agendum | [[User_talk:Agendum | Talk]] 08:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Testing again, this time WITHOUT the User Talk. That's better! Agendum 07:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation of sake

I'm requesting a pronunciation audio file for "sake" in the Sake article.

I don't have the necessary recording equipment, but I'm sad to say 酒 (saké) is not "pronounced... "SAH-KAY" in Japanese", as it says in the article :) It's more like the SA from sa'lami and KE from ke'bab, said in rapid succession. -- Tangotango 15:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Like... "Sakkeh"? Or is it more like "Suh'keh"? --Evan C (Talk) 15:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Like "Sakkeh". I've posted another example at Talk:Sake. Tangotango 15:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I was able to make a recording of the pronunciation, which is now on the article. -- Tangotango 07:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Just a suggestion try IPA chart for English for standardized method of indicating pronunciation. --Blainster 23:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

It may be rice wine to you, but it's sake to me. Rick Norwood 22:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Deleting old pages in favour of new pages

I created a new page for The Mooney Suzuki's album Alive & Amplified. There is an older version of the same page entitled Alive and Amplified. I would like to remove the old page completely in favour of the new page.

Please see Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Edit

I have trouble editing some long articles

Sorry to hear that. — RJH 18:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Anyway we can help? --Osbus 23:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

You mean the 32k limit? Sounds like you may need to update your Internet browser. - Mailer Diablo 06:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Cite

What can be done about an editor repeatedly disrupting pages by objecting to the new link style? Se Talk:Rationales to impeach George W. Bush. Nomen Nescio 21:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Try WP:RFC? - Mailer Diablo 06:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

How to remove categories from talk page?

The Talk page Talk:Pantheism somehow has had categories assigned to it (not from templates). The normal talk page editor does not display them, so they cannot be removed. Can an admin assist with this task, or is there a way for any editor to do this? --Blainster 00:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Categories can be assigned to a page anywhere in the wikicode, not just at the bottom. I have removed them now (they were in a large section of article text pasted to the talk page). Hope that helps, Kusma (討論) 04:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with the leading colon. It seems a year-blocked vandal had anonymously posted his preferred version of the article on the talk page to facilitate his POV pushing. --Blainster 06:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I've looked almost everywhere

but can't find or figure out how to archive my user talk page. Last time someone else did it for me but I'll be damned if I can remember how. Any ideas? Theories? Opinions? Suggestions? Carptrash 06:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

How about WP:ARCHIVE? --MJ^(☎|@|C) 08:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I've archived it for you! Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 09:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation!

List of Linux computer viruses

There's a List of Linux computer viruses, but it's grossly incomplete, with about ten entries (a complete list would have hundreds if not thousands), and years out of date. There are virus databases that have current info on that subject. What should be the fate of the article? I'm considering a move to "Notable Linux computer viruses". Presumably virus notability comes under WP:SOFTWARE, although the criteria don't quite fit. Comments? --John Nagle 17:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Watermarked image

Image:Blueship.JPG is a blatant violation of the Image Upload Policy which outlaws the watermarking of images. I'm not sure what to do about this.--Keycard ^(talk) 17:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I was tempted to just revert and protect it, but instead I went to the BBC website and found a different image that shouldn't be subject to this particular dispute. I've changed the articles to use the new image, and have tagged the old one for deletion as an orphan fair-use image. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I also found Image:Bp_logo.gif, which looks like an even better choice for the Blue Peter article. The other image is still in use on Blue Peter badge. --Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Watchlist problem

I've posted this in a number of other places, but I figured that one more couldn't hurt... Since very recently -- the change must have happened in the last two or three days -- I can only see the last 500 changes in my watchlist, which poses a problem if I want to see the changes made *before* 14 hours ago (which I have to in order to catch up to the last three days of activity). Help? Thanks in advance; a notice on my talk page that you've answerred would be appreciated, too. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 20:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The change must be more recent than that, because it worked for me less than 24 hours ago. Would someone please undo this change? It is particularly nasty in conjunction with the new policy whereby every time someone creates an article, even a redirect, it is automatically on their watchlist. I have over 3,000 items on my watchlist, and I typically lag by 4-7 days. With the new policy I am completely incapable of seeing precisely the items I most want to see: the oldest ones that have changes I haven't checked (at this moment, that would be about 700-800 article back, but at times it can be over 1000. I have more than occasionally found unfixed vandalism in articles untouched for as much as 7 days. If I am going to continue to be able to contribute to Wikipedia in the manner I have in the past, either this needs to be changed back in general, or there needs to be a workaround that allows an explicit request to allow over 500 items, or allows access to an older portion of one's watchlist. - Jmabel | Talk 21:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I concur with both of you on this issue. One of the MediaWiki developers has really goofed up this time. I hope Jimbo identifies the idiot and strips him or her of developer privileges. --Coolcaesar 23:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It needn't go as far as that — we all make mistakes sometimes; but it desperately needs to be fixed, stat... —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 23:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Precisely. I'm not interested in punishing anyone, I'm sure he/she will learn the lesson (hopefully in its full generality: do not make major changes to deployed systems without consulting the users), but we desperately need either a fix or a workaround. - Jmabel | Talk 00:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Tim Starling has informed me that this was an accident and is now fixed. It does seem to be fixed. - Jmabel | Talk 05:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Assistance Proposal

I’m a 24 year old, multicultural individual fascinated by the Wikipedia project. As I will start a Master program this fall, I will have 3.5 months of free time. I have seen that Wikipedia requires help in various ways. I’m highly interested in working on this help on a regular schedule during these months. However it is not possible for me to help for such a duration without any monetary compensation. Is there any possibility to help the Wikipedia project and get some monetary compensation for it?

Thanks in advance.

Jeronimomh 16:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Probably not. Usually only developers get paid. Wikipedia is built almost completely by volunteers.--The ikiroid (talk parler hablar paroli 说 話し parlar) 18:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible to become a developer for some months? ... posted at 13:19, 18 April 2006 by Jeronimomh

The simple answer is "sorry, no". -- Hoary 13:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

BTW - I think even the developers don't get paid. The project runs on open source software. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The donations go primarily to bandwidth and to buying more servers, both of which are not free (telecom and computer people are GREEDY). But everything within WP is done by volunteers, I think---even Wikipedia's official "public relations" firm is volunteering its time to rep WP. --4.246.36.59 07:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Bibtex inclusion?

Is it my imagination, or have I come across pages on Wikipedia in which Bibtex has been used to cite external sources? I had assumed this was possible, but now I can't find any evidence by searching through the site! A fault brain on my part? Thanks in advance anyone! - Chris Wood 13:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

to delete category is vandalism?

I find a similar case in here.

I add "A" category to 90 articles. someone delete "A" catedory all.

1. Is it vandalism?
2. I find similar cases in english wikipedia -- WonYong (talk) 13:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

No, it's usually considered a content dispute, especially when the category is non-neutral in its terminology, or seen as pushing a pov with a label that is disputed. Categories can't be qualified like other content, they are either there or not there, so often the issue arises with contentious language disguised in category names. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Deleting Wiki Account

Hi there

How do you delete your own account? I have no need of a Wikipedia account anymore.

Thanks.

Afterthought.cjb.cc 22:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

You can't. Since all of your edits are kept in perpetuity as part of the GFDL license, your account has to be maintained. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, thank you. I'll just leave it then. Afterthought.cjb.cc 00:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

So you just spammed your own site and then you decide to leave? You could have done the same thing with an anonymous IP address.--The ikiroid (talk parler hablar paroli 说 話し parlar) 01:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah well, I was seeing how long I could have it up until someone noticed it (and it happened quite fast). Besides, when I do make proper edits to pages I don't bother signing in anyway. Afterthought.cjb.cc 01:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

You should sign in, even if it's just for little edits. You could turn over a new leaf, be a wikignome or something. You can stay here, just be constructive.--The ikiroid (talk parler hablar paroli 说 話し parlar) 02:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, don't leave. --Osbus 21:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay! =) Afterthought.cjb.cc 21:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Image to page?

Please help with any instructions on how I can add an image that I took to the text that I wrote.

The image was uploaded but Idon't know how to make it appear on the page with the appropriate text.

Thank you User:Wildflowers00

Left a message on how to do it and a welcome note Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 15:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Building consensus on Appalachia, Virginia and Wise County, Virginia

Greetings. If anyone happens to feel inspired to help with consensus-building on a couple of very low-traffic articles, would you please have a look at the recent edit histories and talk pages of Appalachia, Virginia and Wise County, Virginia? Looking at User talk:Davins111 may also be helpful in this instance. It can be very tough to build consensus on articles with very light traffic, so the articles could certainly use anyone who might be inspired to help. Thank you. --Takeel 13:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Crystal Gail Mangum page disappeared by "Dannyisme".

The page Crystal Gail Mangum has been locked by office action, and even its history has been deleted. Supposedly actions by "Dannyisme" are official "office actions". But why? The article was in the AfD process anyway, and earlier today, sources in the mainstream press had been found for the info. So it was safe from a libel perspective. Wierd. --John Nagle 04:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Where was the information cited, other than unverifiable talk radio? A search of news.google.com, representing 4,500 news sources, returns zero hits on the search term provided in the headline. Abe Froman 04:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The citation (to a local newspaper article, as I recall) was destroyed by the office action. I didn't write the article, although I did clean it up a bit, so it was in my watchlist. --John Nagle 05:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Reasons do not need to be given for WP:OFFICE actions. It is probably best not to try and second guess any reasoning.Geni 12:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Mysterious block

A user I blocked apologized and asked to be unblocked. I unblocked him, but he claims he still can't edit. I've checked logs for both his username and his IP and I don't see blocks on either of them. Can someone help me figure out what's going on? The user is Itchybowwow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), his IP is 192.198.151.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). --Woggly 12:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Francs2000 just did a quick block-unblock to clear any glitch that may have occurred. If the user is still having problems, try asking them to edit their talk, which shouldn't be affected at all. - BanyanTree 16:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Francs2000 fixed it. I still wish I understood what happened, but next time I will know one more trick to try before I go running for help. --Woggly 18:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Unilateral alteration to Good Article guidelines

In a bizarre twist to the long-running controversy over the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy article, an editor involved in that dispute has begun unilaterally altering the Good Article Nomination and Dispute subarticles to eliminate the "everyone can veto" stipulation. His first change was made on 22-April (edit comment "why should partial editors be able to fail an article when they cannot pass it"), with an rapid-fire followup and resultant edit-war with another editor from the cartoon article following soon after. After involving a third party (who seems to be acting in good faith, if apparently without carefully reviewing the situation) the user has now begun attempting to extend the change to the related subarticles "for consistency". Editors with an interest in the maintenance of a well-established consensus position on this matter might like to watch the page for further such attempts. &#0151; JEREMY 20:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Jeremygbyrne/JEREMY has apparently failed to read and respond in Wikipedia talk:Good articles/Nominations#Who should be allowed to delist articles?. I am the editor referred to, and as I explain on the mentioned talkpage, I do not regard my "changes" as other than closing an exploit (what I thought would be obvious for everyone other than the one doing it). As I see it, I only have had good response from people on the project - seeing it as an 'update'. JEREMY above seem to be a very heavily biased new contributor to Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, and he didn't argue on the appropriate talkpage, so I have been taking the liberty to disregard his reverting of my consistency-change to a mixed version. I am of course afraid that I have gone too far, and I would immediately bow down to any neutral deciding on this matter. As I have expressed more than once, the last thing I want to do is to go againgst consenus. Yours truly/--Anjoe 20:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I had already replied at the nominations page; I am hardly a "new contributor" to the cartoons article (having first contributed to it on 13-Feb-06) — not that it's in any way relevant to discussions about the GA procedure rules; and as for the "mixed version", I have now reverted the outstanding "Fail" criteria wording, which seems to be User:Anjoe's only remaining objection. I will now withdraw for at least 24 hours and leave this in the capable hands of the editing public. &#0151; JEREMY 21:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, my "only remaining objection" except the one that you now are leaving the rules open to the readily absurd situation, where a known user acting against consensus can start his own editwar and then delist an article from GA-nomination on the grounds of 'unstability'. This is what Raphael1 was doing in the first place, and what I was reacting againgst. --Anjoe 21:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

"any single user may veto" is a terrible idea that will not work anywhere on Wikipedia, and the sooner this is amended the better; with the popularity of WP these days, there will always be 'a single' user with a totally irrational perspective, an axe to grind, or simply fond of trolling; "80% consensus" is good enough anywhere else on WP, including FA, so why not for GA? dab (ᛏ) 10:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, FAC does, in fact, go by "any single user may veto" (or, more precisely, any single actionable objection may veto). It's certainly not the case that Raul654 simply tallies up a support percentage; with the relatively small number of regulars on FAC, it could easily be overwhelmed by the enthusiastic editors of a nominated article. Kirill Lokshin 13:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Created Pages

Is there any tool that will list all of the pages/articles I have created? ~Linuxerist E/L/T 14:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

user:Interiot will create such lists on request, see user talk:Interiot. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Categories in userbox templates

I'm trying to create a userbox, and I've noticed that there's a lot of inconsistency in current userboxe templates regarding categorisation. Specifically, some templates have <noinclude>[[Category:Wikipedia userboxes]]</noinclude> and others don't. Is there any policy or guideline on whether userbox templates should contain this code? Thanks. -- David Scarlett^(Talk) 06:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

There isn't a policy...not that I know of. Rather, I think it's the creator's choice. --Osbus 14:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

cats in a redirect

I was looking at [Georg Antonius of Liechtenstein]. It's a redirect page with categories. Should the cats have been removed when the page was turned into a redirect? Since he is a person he belongs in certain cats, however now that the page is a reirect it seems odd to have cats on a redirect, however it's certainly not hurting anyone to have them there. Is there a wikipedia policy on this? --Bachrach44 18:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, this is perfectly fine. Any policy about this would be either at Wikipedia:Categorization or Wikipedia:Redirect. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Image Use Question

My office has named our conference rooms after presidents, scientists or inventors. I would like to use images from this site for our signs. If the images are listed as in the Public Domain, am I able to use the images for that purpose? This site has been a great reference!

IANAL, but images that are public domain can be used for anything you'd like. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

(top)

Hi, I'm just curious to know what does the (top) on my contributions page mean. It is placed next to some of the articles I've edited. Thanks.GeoW 19:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe it refers to your edit being the most recent. --TeaDrinker 19:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so.There are some much older edits. GeoW 18:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It does mean that the edit was the most recent for the article in question (so you can have multiple (top)s in your contribution history). See Help:User_contributions#Using_a_user_contributions_page, no 9. Regards, MartinRe 20:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Locked areas.

I think a couple of small changes need making to the opening para of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamera (Another well known cover version with link, and a link to The Sandpipers page which it looks like I shall have to supply).

Unfortunately I can find no 'edit' button for this para. Is this something intentional, a bug, or a quirk of Firefox/Linux? Deke42 13:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Since I use Linux and firefox religiously I can assure you it's not that. Checking the history I don't see the page being protected or semi-protected at any time in the recent past. If I may ask, which tabs are you seeing? Also does the edit tab show up on other pages, or are you missing it altogether? --Bachrach44 13:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome message! A quick check of three other random entries would suggest I'm getting it on every page. Just as on here, I get an 'edit' on the RH side of the page alongside the start of each new entry, but there's never one against the very first entry. I'm on the verge of upgrading to Mandrive2006 official edition, but somehow I doubt that's going to cure the problem! Whereabouts on the page does the first 'edit' appear? Maybe if I go and hover over where it should be something will show.Deke42 15:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

OK! I just figured it out! The first para is accessed by clicking on the 'Edit this page' button on the bar at the top.

Jumping in before I can swim again... :) Deke42 16:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Impersonator

A new user using my real name erased my talk page and posted a harassing message [4]. Is there anything I can do about this?--Prosfilaes 05:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked the user on account of the username. If you wish I can delete the edit from the edit history of the page. -Will Beback 05:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC).

Fermat computer algebra system

Stumbled accross Fermat computer algebra system while doing RC patrol today. The page is essentially straight form the manual for Fermat. I initially flagged it as a copyvio, but on the talk page the author claims that he is the author of fermat (and therefore, presumably, the author of the manual). Since IANAL my main question is this: does this get around our copyright problems? Beyond that the article clearly needs some cleanup and wikification (it was, after all, taken straight from the manual), but I want to make sure we're okay on the copyright issues before proceding much further. --Bachrach44 20:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

If the guy wrote it, than it's fine...at least, that's how it should be. --Osbus 21:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Not sure I agree completely... I think there are multiple issues here. If this manual is widely published, it can be cited from for purposes of review, or even, if the author licenses it to WP under GFDL, used in large quantity. But we are not a home for original research. The material may be better suited for Wikibooks. On first blush this article needs to establish notability... some demonstration that this software is widely used. Else perhaps the author is trying to build up notability by placing material here. Hard to know for sure of course. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 21:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Although matrix algebra isn't really my field, I have been playing around with google on this subject, and it does appear that it is notable, at least within the field. It's mentioned in a bunch of places, and mentioned in more than a few published papers. For now I'm willing to say it's notable, elthough I'll admit the page doesn't really establish that fact well. --Bachrach44 01:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Did he create it for himself or for his employer? If he created the book for his employer, then it's a work product and his employer, not he, owns the material. BigDT 00:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Reviewing the Fermat FAQ it looks like it was written by Prof. Lewis, a professor at Fordham. It is a shareware program, and clicking on the pay here link, it appears that the money goes to Prof. Lewis, so I'm assuming he owns it and not the University. --Bachrach44 01:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The site carries this copyright notice: This website contains a variety of copyrighted material. Some of this is the intellectual property of individuals as named, some is owned and copyrighted by Robert Lewis, and some is in the public domain. Except for material which is unambiguously and unarguably in the public domain, no material anywhere on this website, graphical or text, may be copied or further disseminated without the express and written permission of the legal holder of that copyright. This implies that no permission is granted for any commercial use or sale of any of this material, nor for transmission to electronic information and retrieval systems, nor for publication in any journal or compilation, written or electronic, without the written permission of the author. Given that, a formal written release under the GFDL to Wikipedia should be required. That's the price of posting restrictive terms of use on your web site. --John Nagle 02:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Suggest tagging it with copyvio then and leaving a notice on the author's talk page that it needs a formal release? ++Lar: t/c 04:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Clone troopers article fiction

The Clone troopers article is composed of completely fictional content. I can't see how it is appropriate for an encyclopedia. It does have a template warning of unverified sources, but I don't think this is sufficient; fictional material is not verifiable, so this article appears to violate Wikipedia policy. IMHO, the entire article should be removed, except for the beginning paragraph, however, I'm reluctant to do so because it's likely to be reverted. So I'm seeking the opinion and/or action of an experienced administrator. Thanks.

--Lostart 19:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Not an admin, but whatever. The article doesn't seem like fictional content, but if it is, then be bold and remove it, leaving a message on the talk page. If its reverted, then reason it out with the reverter. --Osbus 21:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has articles on other fictional concepts and characters. Consider Hobbit for example. A good article on ficitional concepts or characters should clearly show it's fictional, cite sources (the author's work, or canoncial references if there is non author canon) for assertions of characteristics or information, and show relevance (why the concept is important encyclopedically). On first blush, this topic seems important enough (major concept of an important fictional universe) to warrant an article. Sometimes it makes sense to transwiki to another wiki, if the concept is too fannish. For example, Wookipedia for Star Wars stuff, Memory Alpha for Star Trek stuff. There are others. Hope that helps! I would not remove this outright, or mark it as an WP:AFD candidate, but it may need fixing/flagging... ++Lar: t/c 21:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia certainly can only be helped, not harmed, by having information on pretty much any topic, whether fictional or factual, provided that a) it cites its sources (which it doesn't do sufficiently at present, but the answer to that isn't deletion) and b) someone beyond a handful of people is at least passingly interested in it. m:Wiki is not paper. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. They were helpful. --Lostart 16:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of personal information that's been sitting around for a while

crosspost from WP:AN, where I haven't had a response.

A user has asked me if he can have some personal information deleted from a talk page archive, which he regrets leaving. The trouble is that he made the edits in question months ago and never removed it, and the archive contains many more edits on top of it, all containing the personal information. So far as I can see the only way to delete the personal information altogether is to edit the page to remove it, then delete all the revisions leading up to it. Would that be acceptable? It's a talk page archive rather than an article, so would the signatures be sufficient to avoid breaking the GFDL? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

IANAL, but I don't see why not, if you make sure there aren't any unsigned comments. If necessary, any admin could refer to the deleted revisions for info. Are you sure the user wouldn't be fine with the info just being blanked, but actually wants it deleted from the page history? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, just making sure. He does want it deleted, and I don't blame him after some of the lengths vandals have gone to to harrass people who revealed personal information. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Mapper or Graphical Browser

Is there a tool that allows a user to see a map of pages linked to a particular page? Metaquestion: Where should I have looked or searched within Wikipedia to answer this question myself? David.Throop 04:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Would "What links here" (on the left hand side under toolbox) be what you're looking for? Not a map, but a lits of articles with links to the current one. Meta answer: Help and/or community portal can often lead to the correct answer, but not always (sometimes you have to know the answer to know which section to look in) Regards, MartinRe 13:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but no. I want something that shows all the incoming and outgoing links graphically. I'm looking for some of the funtionality of Concept Maps but in Wiki. – David.Throop 00:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Researching Wikipedia

I am working with another student on a research paper to explore Wikipedia as a means of constructing knowledge. I would greatly appreciate any response to the following questions: (Feel free to email your responses to me at utestudent@gmail.com or post comments here)

Have you cited wikipedia as a source in your own work/projects?

How do you view Wikipedia in terms of credibility?

Do you condone or support the use of wikipedia as an academic source?

How does wikipedia ensure the credibility and validity of the information posted?

What about the Wikipedia ‘peer review process’ validates the work posted?

What authority/experience/credibility/credentials do those who contribute possess in the area of their contributions?

Should people who post on certain subjects (such as science) be required to have some sort of verifiable educational status?

What methods of validating the credibility of the contributors are used, or are there any methods?

Utestudent 01:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

To answer your fourth question: Ideally Wikipedia articles should be backed by citations to good original and secondary sources. However, very few Wikipedia contributors actually know how to do research or how to write citations, which is why so many articles have no supporting citations. I try to provide citations when I can (see Roger J. Traynor and Lawyer for good examples of my work) but I'm too busy most of the time.--Coolcaesar 03:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I link to Wikipedia frequently in my business communication - usually when I use a term with which my audience will not be familiar. I wouldn't use it in my most formal communication, such as a paper that I'd be giving at a conference. The validation varies wildly - many articles are amazingly good (especially considering that everything is built with free labor.) Many other "do not meet Wikipedia's standards". Demanding credentials from authors would kill the process. I've posted a lot on science topics, mostly topics related to Essential fatty acids. I've got a PhD, but it isn't in biology. There's no way I'd have gone through the hassle of submitting my credentials to some committee before I started posting, especially with the possibility that I'd have been turned down. David.Throop 12:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you want me to create a seperate page for this survey and post a message on the Community Bulletin Board? You'll get more responses that way. --Osbus 21:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

That would be greatly appreciated! Thank you for the help! Utestudent 02:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I've created it under User:Utestudent/Survey and have posted a message on the CBB...good luck. --Osbus 21:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to do with regards to a dispute in Rapture

Basically, there is a section of the article called God's 40 Day Warning of the Rapture. The whole thing is copied verbatim from http://truthroom.com/farticle/3#24 http://truthroom.com/farticle/3#24 .

If you google it, the only references on the internet are either from truthroom.com itself, chn-net.com (run by the same organization), Wikipedia, or someone quoting one of the three. It is a new doctrine - not at all mainstream. It's just the opinion of one person.

Even if it were a mainstream topic and even if it were not just copied verbatim, the whole thing is incredibly POV.

I removed the segment and the original author reverted it back. I detailed a number of problems with the segment, including copyright violation, POV, factual errors, original research, and non-notable. The original author only responds to anything I say by accusing me of censorship.

I posted a RFC but that hasn't gotten any authoritative help. What exactly do I do from here?

There are a great plenty problems with the article. Rapture#Scriptural_basis and Rapture#Expected_events are both in desparate need of a rewrite. So this certainly isn't the only problem with the article, but removing a segment that is non-notable, a copyright violation, etc, would seem to be a good place to start.

What do I do from here? BigDT 22:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

If the policy violations are sufficiently clear and persistent, you can bring it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard so that the infringer can be blocked from editing as often as necessary to get him to stop. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

A section on "date setting" might be appropriate. There's a long history of predicted dates for the "rapture" at raptureready.com, and this "40 day warning" approach might go in there. --John Nagle 04:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

IP labeling help

I posted a message at User talk:129.210.13.31 after reverting this anon's edit to Classical Chinese(not malicious, more of a content dispute). Before I was going to post the message, however, I looked up the IP to make sure it wasn't some dynamic AOL address. I found out via WHOIS IP lookup that Santa Clara University holds all IPs in the range of 129.210.0.0 - 129.210.255.255. There are active editors from that college, though no malicious contribs. However, as an FYI, I want to post a notice of the school on all possible IPs from that range in the future, so if any vandalism happens, anyone considering a block will know this is a relatively public IP range. Is there a way I can do that, label a whole IP range?--The ikiroid (talk )^{(Help Me Improve)} 18:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

No, there's not. I could've sworn there was a Bugzilla: request for this, but I can't find it, so you should consider submitting a feature request there. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Claiming accidentally anonymous edits

I was working on an article for quite a while, and my login timed out. I saved the article without realizing, and now the edit is attributed to an anonymous IP address. I realize no one is going to give me a pulitzer for my wikipedia edits, but it's a little bit annoying to not get any credit. Is there a way to retroactively claim an edit? Thanks. AAMiller 10:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you have the same IP address every time you are on the internet? If you do, you can just put on your userpage, "Sometime's I'll be on this IP when I'm not logged in" and then a link to the IP's talk. Many users do that, although it does give away your location, which bothers many users concerned with anonymity (like me).--The ikiroid (talk )^{(Help Me Improve)} 18:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Otherwise, see , and Wikipedia:Changing attribution for an edit. It can't be done at present except by an extremely limited number of people, and therefore it's not being done at the moment. This may eventually change if new functionality is implemented. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Pelvic pain

I need more!!! Please help me. Thank you, brainybassist 23:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

More what? Why am I even asking? --Osbus 23:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

sigh, more information to build the article up, pelvic pain. lol.brainybassist

Oh, I thought it was something inappropriate. --Osbus 21:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

You might try Wikipedia:Requests for expansion. — RJH 21:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Vanished page?

A couple of hours ago I created a goofy little user template. When I looked at my user profile I noticed that the template I created disappeared. The page is not just deleted it is as if it never existed: it is not listed under my user contribution log. Any ideas what happened? User:mdozturk

21:54, 24 April 2006 Doc glasgow deleted "Template:User AG AGN" (t1 - I don't :think genocide is a suitable subject for creating userbox templates).Geni 00:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Rember that the cabal knows what is best for you.--God Ω War 05:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Says the king member of the cabal... JesseW, the juggling janitor 03:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

TINC :) Garion96 ^(talk) 03:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify on the nature of deletion: the kind of "deletion" that you or I can carry out is generally referred to as "blanking" or "removing" or something of the sort. Proper deletion of contributions can be carried out by any one of 800+ admins, according to various policies that you'll find through perusal of my last two links. The difference is that if something is just removed, it remains in the page's edit history, user contributions, logs, etc. If something is actually deleted, then to any non-admin, for all intents and purposes it never existed (except that you can always try to suggest its undeletion, since it's still in the database but only accessible/undeletable by admins; also, it isn't removed from logs, in the case of uploads and moves). —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

James Goss

I can't put my finger on what's wrong with the tone on this page, and what I should do to rectify it. Any suggestions? Thanks--Keycard ^(talk) 12:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I think I've fixed it now, actually. Pls take a look though.--Keycard ^(talk) 12:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmnn...maybe rename the See Also section as External Links. --Osbus 23:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Need support against commercial invaders

Wikipedia policy is currently attacked by users on the SVG page. We need support so we can apply the Wikipedia rules against users that do not accept the guidelines. Spankman 06:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Possible copyvio image

Image:Al-Hadba Minarate of the Big Mosque in Mosul, IRaq.jpg - the border round the edge suggests that the source is an online encyclopedia or travel website. What should I do about it, or should I just leave it?--Keycard ^(talk) 17:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

After looking around online I can't find an exact source for the image, although it looks like it could have been derived from the same source as this image from here. I also found a similar image from here which is copyrighted by the Iraqi Ministry of Information. I wonder what the policy is on copyrights held by governments which have been overthrown? --Bachrach44 18:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Generally, the copyright is considered to be held by the successor government. --Carnildo 21:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

So what action should I take? Thanks--Keycard ^(talk) 10:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Have you tried just asking the user where the image came from? --Bachrach44 00:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Focus-Metaphor

I {{prod}}-ed this, stating concerns over both copyright and OR, and the page author seems to have removed bits of the page, though I'm concerned that it's still someone trying to use WP as a publishing platform. Can someone check it out and AfD as appropriate? 81.104.165.184 10:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

It does look like OR to me, but a bit too soon to afd it. Will drop a note on the contributer's talk page and see what they say. MartinRe 16:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

spammer: di-dehydropepiandrosterone / Pherlure

I noticed that the Pheromones entry contained a spammy link to Pherlure, which seems to be a fraudulently marketed product.

I removed the link and followed it to a redirect page on the supposed active ingredient of Pherlure, Di-dehydroepiandrosterone.

I edited this page to include the very concrete evidence that there is no such compound and that the study which is cited by Pherlure as proof that it works is not only fake, but is mentioned on fake web sites which they apparently created -- the only content on the websites are descriptions of the fake study (as shown by Google: there are no other pages on these sites).

No sooner than I had added this info, the page was deleted entirely.

Whomever added it in the first place and deleted it is very likely a shill working for Pherlure and should be watched.

Also, this page should be added back in so that unsuspecting would-be customers can be informed about the fake study.

What do you all advise?

Thanks. --Jahat 01:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Di-dehydroepiandrosterone -- Send it to Dr. Phil or some equivalent.

That "shill" would be me, who tagged it per WP:NOR. Please remember to assume good faith when questioning editors motives in future. Thanks. Rockpocket (talk) 20:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Preventing an edit war over the Saints

A while ago, the WikiProject Saints set up an infobox template. The last part of that template included a space for a sample prayer.

Recently, there has been some commentary on the talk page about the inclusion of prayers on the articles about the Saints. Two editors in particular, Attilios and Ian Spackman, have been editing the articles pretty heavily. I think they both have an agenda and are pursuing it despite the consensus of the Wikiproject.

It is my belief that prayers in a literary or historic context are NPOV. I can understand that some may consider the inclusion of a prayer to be hagiographic, but freedom of religion is not freedom from religion.

There is a 3RR about to happen on a number of these articles. I am trying to be philosophical about this, but don’t want to yield the point when what is happening goes against the consensus and borders on vandalism. One editor is an Italian atheist who uses very poor English, didn't understand what are NPOV was and left nasty notes in the edit summaries and in the articles themselves.

• "WIKIPEDIA IS NOT THE PLACE FOR PRAYERS. GO IN THE CHURCHES TO LOSE YOUR TIME IF YOU HAVE” [5]
• There was an edit was on Philip Neri that accused the U.S. miltary of torture. [6]
• One editor said he was editing drunk.

This on the heals of the edit war on John Bosco and homosexuality. How do we reign this in before it gets out control?

Thanks! --evrik 14:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• Hi! Here is Attilios, the one accused of starting the edit war. I could revert the matter, and say that equally Evrik is warring. The thing, from my point of view is: prayers are disputed (for instance, they DO offend me), and evrik should think about re-inserting them until the question is settled. As they are now, Saints articles are good and improving (I must say, also thanks to some edits by me) without the prayers too. I have nothing against saints and culture. Also Ian Spackman, in my opinion, and has contributed to WP with good and equilibrate articles so far. My proposal is: to freeze prayers until a poll has been issued to vote for their presence, or against them.

So they offend you. So what? The Mohammed cartoons offended Muslims, but they were deemed appropriate for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not edited around a single -ism's offensensibility, even atheism's. Your offense at the presence of these prayers in no way proves that they ought to be censored from Wikipedia. Do you likewise demand that the Mohammed cartoons be censored from Wikipedia. You began with a vandalistic outburst. When you were called on it, you retreated into cliaming to care about NPOV. Dogface 16:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• • Seeig as until they started editing the articles and they're the ones making nasty comments, I think it is obvious who has the edge and the agenda. evrik 15:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• The comments made by Mr Evrik are so partial as to be beneath contempt; certainly I have better things to do with my time than to refute them line by line. I will say this, however. Although I don’t know User:Attilios—we exchanged a few words about Italian municipality templates—I have often seen his work on articles and he has done a great deal to improve the Wikipedia. Mr Evrik would do well immediately and publicly to withdraw and apologize for the grossly chauvinistic and bullying personal attack which he makes on him above. —Ian Spackman 15:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Are you editing while drunk? --evrik 16:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Spackman--that's yet another guy who has set himself up to censor out all prayers on Wikipedia. Sock puppetry? Dogface 20:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Including a well know historic prayer for a saint is not a violation of NPoV. It gives an insight for the reader on the historic perspective. An article on St. Catherine Laboure should include "O Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee." because that is part and parcel of her fame as a Saint. St. Patrick has traditional prayers, well known to all. If a prayer is disputed or a Saint not recognized by other faiths, like St. Maximillian Kolbe that can be handled without a policy, on a case by case basis. This is not an exhortation to pray. I can't understand why it would truly offend a reader, if it has some historical basis. Dominick ^(TALK) 16:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

How long are these prayers? If we're talking about one or two sentences, and they're mentioned in a historical context, then I have no problem with including them (and I'm agnostic). But if they're long, they should go to Wikisource and a link included in the article. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• Most of them are one or two sentences. --evrik 22:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Offensiveness is not grounds for removing something from Wikipedia (although in more serious cases than this, where many people would be severely offended, it could be grounds for giving the user a choice in advance as to whether to view it; see, e.g., Goatse). Since it should be extremely clear that quoting the prayers does not imply a belief in their efficacy, there's no issue of POV. Therefore, the only question is whether they're useful or informative to our readers. Taking Saint Peter as an example, I think they don't really add much to the articles. Maybe Wikisource would be a good place for them, though, assuming the Catholic Church doesn't claim copyright.

I should note, however, that you would do well to assume good faith and not attack your fellow editors. Argumentum ad rem, please. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC) I notice that Mr Evrik has yet to make an apology for his racist attack and feel that he should be reminded that it is not too late. —Ian Spackman 17:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Cut & paste page move needs cleanup--old so could be messy

When I looked into why the History of beaker (glassware) was so short, I found it was created by cut and paste by User:Snow1215[7]. 24.18.215.132 21:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I've put up a notice per WP:SPLICE. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Legend of Stafy article search and redirect problems

If "legend of stafy" is entered into the search box, the article of the same name does NOT appear. Perhaps it's a glitch in the search software? Also, regarding the same article: there's four commonly used English spellings of "Stafy," and two different forms of the games' title; as such, there's technically eight different ways to search for the game. I propose that the following search terms all redirect to Legend of Stafy:

• Densetsu no Stafy
• Densetsu no Stafi
• Densetsu no Starfy
• Densetsu no Starfi
• Legend of Stafi
• Legend of Starfy
• Legend of Starfi

This is will make it much easier for people seeking information on this topic to find it. Can someone show me how to accomplish this? Many thanks in advance! --Liquidcross 15:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

This is because Legend of Stafy and Legend of stafy are different articles (due to S/s). Redirects are explained at Help:Redirect, but I would suggest not to create all the possible variations, just the more common ones. Regards, MartinRe 15:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Therein lies the problem. All seven of those variations are pretty much used equally among the fandom! Legend of Stafy is the big one, hence my wanting to fold the other seven into it. What should I do? --Liquidcross 18:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Redirects are cheap. There's no problem with making as many as you like, provided someone at some time might be likely to try them. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Category

Hello Im trying to make a category and subcategory for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Virginia_Scholastic_Hockey_League I would appreciate some help Thanks. John R G 07:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I think I have it figured out but I would still like someone to check it over to make sure it is correct. Thanks John R G 07:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems fine, except you should probably put Category:Northern Virginia Scholastic Hockey League inside another category (such as Category:High school ice hockey teams). Nationalparks 07:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

User page help

How do I get my infoboxes in my user page to line up the way I want to? --Micahbrwn 07:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you want them to line up, but I made a guess. Is that good? (If not, you can just revert). —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks … I think. But I don't see any difference in how they're arranged. I had hoped to have them together in neat columns. They're still essentially "all over the place" without much order. Oh, well. Micahbrwn 06:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Is it good now? Or do you want multiple columns, or what? The latter I don't know how to do offhand, I'm afraid. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

It looks okay now. I'd really prefer to have multiple columns, but this is good for now, until I figure out how to do those. Micahbrwn 22:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

User:encyclopedist

I love the name 'encyclopedsit' for Login ID.

May I use it?59.148.129.20 17:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

There are various rules banning usernames at [8] and I don't see any reason why not. This isn't a full list though so you're best bet is to try to register the name and see if it works. Antonrojo 17:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I have tried to regiter the Login ID 'encyclopedist', but the page show out that Login error:Username entered already in use. Please choose a different name.

59.148.129.20 17:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Encyclopedist has recently left the project, and asked that his User and Talk pages be deleted, but his User ID still exists, so that all edits made to him can still be attributed. No one else can use that ID. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Canadair CL215

I originally created this article, as you can see by looking at its history. A new article, which is a cut-and-paste of mine, was created at Canadair CL-215, and my article was changed to a redirect, but because it was a cut-and-paste, my history did not follow. Is there any way to rectify this? Denni ☯ 01:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The easiest solution is to add a note to the new article's (Canadair CL-215) talk page. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I've followed the procedure at WP:SPLICE. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Election Box Metadata

The Template:Election box metadata used to work simply by posting {{Election box metadata}} on the relevant party's article talk page. I have tried with One London and it doesn't seem to be working at all. Is this a problem with my account or a technical issue? Cheers doktorb | words 17:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't help you personally, but if you look at Template talk:Election box that might either explain if something was changed since you last used it, or point you to someone who would be able to help. (PS, have taken whitespace out of your comment, btw) Regards, MartinRe 21:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

At the time you wrote that, the template was blanked. In the future, you can check the page history and revert to the last good version if it's not working properly. User:Newprogressive reverted the blanking 43 minutes after you made your post here. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

aah, I see. Yeah, I tried it a bit later and it was back working.. good job.. Thanks =) doktorb | words 06:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Julie Brown Audio Reading

I did an audio reading for the Julie Brown article. I am just looking for someone's input as to what I should put for accent in the information, as I am American but don't feel I have any particular regional accent. Your input is appreciated. Please see Audio Info

Everybody thinks they don't have an accent. :) I also think you don't have a strong accent, so that would probably peg you as Northeastern US? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

That's kind of funny that you would say that. It makes sense in a totally roundabout way. I was born and spent my first six years in St. Louis, and spent most of my childhood and formative years in Louisiana, but I went to college in New York where I was absolutely stripped of an accent by a bunch of New York teachers. So I guess I've wound up sounding Northeastern. Thank you for the input! Pacian 03:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

wikipedia photographer userbox

God help me, I'm looking for a userbox. Specifically, a userbox that would help locate people who take photographs for Wikipedia. Not particularly "photography as a hobby" or "professional photographer", but simply "I take photos for Wikipedia - do you". I can't find any photo-related userboxes except "I took this featured photo". Stevage 15:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

If you end up making one like this, let me know cause I'd feature it happily. However, if you're looking for other people who take pics, you should probably check the commons, cause that's where most of us dump large amounts of our own work. --Bachrach44 16:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Something like this? — RJH 16:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I take photos for wikipedia—do you?

Reason: too many requests by this IP in a 24 hour period

I created a little wiki page, and I've been using it for a couple of days now. Today, I edited the page for perhaps 15-25 times. And now I wasn't able to view the page any more, and got this error message:

"Reason: too many requests by this IP in a 24 hour period"

After that I turned on the proxy and that's how I'm able to view pages again. My question is, how many requests per IP can I make in a 24 hour period? I was quite surprised that my moderate use caused this. If it is restricted like that, at least there should be some active warning?

This is particularily disturbing because I loose my new edits if this error message appears (I have to start copy pasting everything I write for a backup.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.251.240.117 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you register an account. Certain restrictions are placed on unregistered users, for whatever reason (I can't see any real reason to restrict anonymous accounts too harshly when it's so easy to make a named account). —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I have just registered to Wikipedia. But did I understand something wrong? This didn't help, because I have to log in to my page with the username associated to that. So I'm still using the same administrator username on my page as I was already using (I wasn't using anonymous). By the way, I just realized that this Village pump doesn't seem to be a part of editthis.info site where my wiki page is actually located. I'm a bit of a newbie but maybe you can help me. --Sftadmin 23:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Editthis.info is a seperate site, that uses the software developed for Wikipedia, where you are now. They are not affiliated in any way. As of right now www.Editthis.info is down. Prodego ^talk 22:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Link issue

OK, there is an obvious problem to which I see no obvious solution. On the Clive Barker page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clive_Barker) there is a bibliography of his novels that have been converted into links to the page for each book. That's fine and dandy until one gets to the last item: "Galilee #2" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilee#2_.28book.29) Somehow it has been linked to a copy of the main page for "Galilee" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilee) the geographic location. Where it becomes confusing is that according to the history page for "Galilee #2", it has always contained content on the location, going back to 2001. In fact, both pages appear to share all history. But that is nuts, because the novel won't be released until 2007, and was not even announced in 2001. I suspect that since the novel is not yet released, the bibliography list item on "Clive Barker" page should not be linked at all. I don't know if there is a way to kill the link, since it may be automatic. Alternatively, I don't know if it is proper form to delete the linked page, even though it duplicates the legitmate Galilee page (or whether this would nuke the "real" Galilee page as well) Anyone run into this before, and have a solution?

-Samiam

"#" is a special character in HTML links, it marks the end of the URL separating it from a following subsection name. The link from Clive Barker is to a (nonexistent) subsection of the page Galilee called "2 (book)". HTML links to non-existent subpages take you to the top of the article. There is no Wikipedia entry for the book (yet), looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AAllpages&from=galilee&namespace=0, and when there is it won't contain the character "#". Also see Help:Page name#Special characters. -- Rick Block (talk) 20:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Dodgy article

Is there somewhere I can flag up an article like Mike Bickle, so that an experienced Wikipedian can clean it up? I found this page while searching for another Mike Bickle who is an esteemed geologist. Also, if an article were to be created for the geologist, are there rules which would decide which person the link "Mike Bickle" directs to? 82.36.110.118 17:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The relevent naming rules are at Wikipedia:Disambiguation, and slightly less relevent ones at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people). As for cleanup, you could try something from Wikipedia:Cleanup resources. Incedentaly, the article seems to be a copyvio from the website linked - I'll list it at Wikipedia:Copyright problems in a moment. Hope that helps. SeventyThree^(Talk) 18:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Cheers for that. Article looks much better now. 82.36.110.118 00:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Ju98 5

Is it possible an Admin blocks this user for several hours ? If you wonder why I ask just look at his contributions, it seems like he/she does not know how to use the preview button. There are lots of edits to single article within several minutes creating lots of restore points not really needed if the preview button had been used. I asked him on his discussion page to use the preview button but it does not look like he is reading it. --Denniss 21:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

He could use the preview button more, but failing to do so is hardly a blockable offense. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

But someone with Admin status should give him a small notice how to use the preview button, looks better than a notice from a normal user. Maybe it helps him learning how the wiki works. --Denniss 23:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Tables with Backgrounds

How exactly do you make them? 60.227.18.35 05:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Help:Table has details on markup using tables, uncluding backgrounds. MartinRe 10:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

What about background images? (sigh probably should have added this when I first wrote it.) 60.227.18.35 11:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Request for comment on proposal in Clinical Surveillance article

I've done a fair bit of editing in the Clinical Surveillance article now, and currently have the article divided into two sections. I believe the first part of the article is fine, although it could be expanded, and reflects the established definition of the term. However, the second part of the article is really problematic, as I believe it may have been written by an account made primarily for distributing a certain type of information within Wikipedia. I think it's fine to reflect these alternate points of view, and I propose that it be done by creating an article called clinical sousveillance and making links from one to the other. But I don't think they should be in the article.

What I need help with is 1) what is the established way to fork an article and keep the edit history? 2) I believe that since these are two separate terms this is NOT POV forking, but I would like to make sure before I do a giant edit. Museumfreak 06:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Bulk import of Star Wars wiki by Silver Sonic Shadow

Silver Sonic Shadow (talk · contribs) is busily importing dozens of articles from the Star Wars wiki into Wikipedia. These include Sun djem (details of one style of light-saber combat), Form IV: Ataru (details of another style of light-saber combat), Form V: Shien / Djem So (details of yet another style of light-saber combat), Form VI: Niman (details of, guess what)), and Trispzest (details of aerial lightsaber combat). About forty such articles have been created in the last eight hours.

It looks like this user's intention is to import a sizable chunk of the Star Wars wiki into the main Wikipedia. Most of the articles wouldn't pass WP:FICT; they're about minor Star Wars subjects. Should something be done about this? --John Nagle 04:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Additional note: I put a comment in User talk:Silver Sonic Shadow asking him what he was trying to do. He's deleted that note, but did not reply. He's added four more articles in the last few minutes. --John Nagle 04:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:FICT is a non-binding guideline. If you have issues with his articles, you can try bringing them up at WP:AFD. (Oddly, this doesn't technically qualify for WP:CSD A7, but in any case I'd dispute such a deletion; see User:Simetrical#Notability for my views on this kind of thing.) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Currently, there's an AfD pending for seven of the articles at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Form V: Shien / Djem So. (Current status: 4 votes for Delete, 1 vote for Merge). The mass import of Star Wars article continues. He's currently importing creatures from "The Wildlife of Star Wars, A Field Guide". This is going to take a lot of AfD work. We have another 40 or so articles to deal with. I've put a note on his talk page asking him to hold off on article importing until the AfD vote on his existing articles finishes. So far, messages left on his talk page just get deleted, without reply. I don't think that Silver Sonic Shadow (talk · contribs) is a 'bot, although what he's doing certainly could be done by one. --John Nagle 06:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's fairly obvious that that AFD's outcome, assuming that it's overwhelmingly to delete (not a stretch), is enforceable on all future articles in the same vein. WP:SNOW is suitable for use in a case like this, since a) it's not like the margin is narrow enough that it would plausibly change and b) it would be a great deal of hassle to open up a constant barrage of AFDs to handle such a foregone conclusion. (That's what WP:DRV is for, after all.) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

If AfD says merge, must the text be used?

I recently put torrent shocking up for AfD. After doing quite a bit of research, and previously knowing about bittorrent, I believe it is without basis, and also doesn't come up on google. The result of the AfD was "merge with bittorrent". I do not think that any of the text on torrent shocking is worth saving, so what I want to do is just blank the page and redirect to bittorrent. However, is this against the decided outcome? Do I have to either get a "full delete", or somehow save the text? Mrjeff 12:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I've always considered "merge" to mean "merge what is worthwhile, (if anything!!!), and ditch the rest". If you convert the article to a redirect, then the text you didn't take is still there in the history. If someone else has a different take on what is savable, they've got the source to work with, and can try adding more stuff to the merged-to article, and see what others think. Hope that helps. YMMV of course. ++Lar: t/c 13:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Language issue

As currently we have a discussion in the german wiki about how to deal with different standards regarding correct spelling (german, swiss, and austrian rules show some minor differences) I would like to know whether there ever has been a similar discussion regarding e.g. the use of american or british english? Nico b. 08:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I found the relevant document, pls. ignore :) Nico b. 13:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Uncategorized categories

Does anyone happen to know who I should talk to about rebuilding the uncategorized categories list? Is it something a non-admin can do? -- ProveIt ^(talk) 21:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

user:Beland used to run a script on a copy of the database and post the results to Category:Orphaned categories. It would appear he hasn't done this in quite some time. You might ask him about it. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I will ask him. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 02:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Userbox Limit

Is there a limit on the number of Userboxes you can have on your page? Thanks... Scalene 08:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

There's no hard limit, but there is a bit of an aesthetic limit. Taking your userpage as an example, your userbox column is about 30 times longer than the rest of your page... maybe some prioritising wouldn't hurt so editors know which is more important to you, KFC or Carmen Sandiego :-) --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but if I set it out better, can I keep them all? I mean, if there's no limit... Scalene 06:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

To keep your user page uncluttered, you could create a subpage of your user page (as I have done, see User:Andrewh/Userboxes, though you'll need to visit my main user page to see the boxes themselves) and add all of your userboxes in there. Just add a link to the subpage on your user page. Alternatively, if you're familar with HTML and CSS stylesheets, you can still fit all of your userboxes onto your user page in a fixed height column by putting the userboxes in a "div" tag as below, and using a CSS "overflow" statement. Again, look at the source of my Userboxes subpage to see how its done. Andrew 22:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

<div style="overflow: auto;">
 ...userbox code...
</div>

Zagat rating

Would it be against fair use or copyright to include a zagat rating (not the decsription just the numbers) for articles about clubs or resteraunts and what not? --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 19:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia includes ratings for various bits and pieces (I forget what now), and this may be under the same lines. As I'm unfamilar with Zagat ratings (according to the article, they apply to the US, and I live in sunny England) I would double-check though; can anyone else help out? Andrew 22:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Large-scale reproduction of Zagat ratings is a no-no, I should think. You could ask for permission, though—it's perfectly possible that they'd welcome the publicity from their ratings (but not their extra content) being reproduced. At any rate computer game magazines don't traditionally mind. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

An Email I Received

I got this email from someone who I believe is User:ElizabethMckenzie / User talk:ElizabethMckenzie. This info is not on "my site", it's on Wikipedia. Basically, she wants these warnings (they were for self-promotion, vanity, and recreation of deleted content) removed. In question is User talk:67.86.180.171, which is the IP address of User:ElizabethMckenzie / User talk:ElizabethMckenzie. In addition, this affects User:Johnlekay.

email content removed 17:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Not sure how to proceed. WP:VAND says "users generally are permitted to remove and archive comments at their discretion, except in cases of warnings, which they are generally prohibited from removing". Nationalparks 22:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

This person has removed the warnings from her page and the IP's page. Nationalparks 18:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

So I noticed that you're communicating with Tawker on this, who is a far more experienced wikipedian than I, but I'm going to chime in with ym 2 cents anyway. I would ignore the requests and continue on as if you'd never gotten them. The warnings are to a user, not the magazine. If they're worried about what woprds get associated with their name in google, then they should take it with with Jimbo and/or the foundation - its not the responsibility of an editor or admin to deal with that. The woman is clearly not at all familiar with wikipedia, and I see no reason to even seriously consider her request. --Bachrach44 18:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I got another email from her. It said similar things, and included the line "Do I need to speak to your supervisor about what is going on?????". (I believe that this was regarding my posting of her message here. I felt that this communication should not have been sent over email, but should have been posted on a talk page in the first place. I am not personally responsible for the entire content of Wikipedia :) ) I basically replied that this correspondence should take place on Wikipedia, not over email, since this is not about "my" site (as it appears she still believes), but about warnings on Wikipedia. I told her that Wikipedia is freely editable, so she could edit the talk pages, but then I quoted WP:VAND as above, and said that it might be considered vandalism to blank the warnings. Now, she has blanked the talk pages of herself and the IP address in question. Nationalparks 20:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it too much. Searching for John LeKay in Google, he seems to be a minor artist into self-promotion, with Elizabeth McKenzie his PR person. He has a web site, a blog, and a magazine. He did have some work in a reviewed art show in New York in 1993-1994, but the reviews, with lines like "John LeKay's found object sculptures exhibit a failing common to the genre in that the objects that make up the work have their own social context that is difficult to transcend."[9][10] don't indicate much notability. Just give McKenzie a reading list of Wikipedia policies if there's further complaint from that direction. --John Nagle 21:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The user (User:Johnlekay) is now contacting me about removing his messages from my talk page as well. I really prefer not to remove any messages from talk page when this can be avoided, but I might add that he does have the m:Right to vanish. I would have no problem, if he chooses to exercise this right, moving his messages to an archive and blanking its contents--so that I have the messages available in the history, but so that they don't show up in Google's site indexing. He does seem concerned about something awfully trivial though--his website still shows up first in the search, and the Wikipedia comments (attributed to a user's actions rather than his art) don't appear until 12 or 13 down the list. The warnings were by no means ill-placed: I think I tagged John LeKay and Heyoka Magazine for speedy deletion at least three times a piece, and I then had to request protection on their respective talk pages to prevent reposting there as well, so I'm really not too interested in his PR concerns. He continued posting vanity despite warnings, and there's really no reason to prevent anyone searching for information on him from knowing that. AmiDaniel (talk) 01:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

But an IP address (67.86.180.171) can't "vanish", can it? Nationalparks 01:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is:

1. If the warnings are old enough (a few days) they can be removed
2. You should not remove anything from another user's talk page without their permission, unless it is an IP address, who's talk page may be blanked after a month or so
3. A user has the right to vanish, but only users do, not articles

Prodego ^talk 02:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The vandalism in question occurred April 25-27, 2006. Nationalparks 02:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I could never advocate encouraging users to remove legitimate warnings; however, I don't see any problem with removing the title of the article from the warnings. The accounts User:Johnlekay and User:ElizabethMckenzie could be renamed to some jibberish and their respective talk pages moved as well. Then I'll gladly archive and conceal the messages on my talk page as I proposed above. That way, when searching for John LeKay, the search will likely still turn up "This page has been deleted and should not be recreated...", but the vandalism warnings, etc., will not show up (even those on the IP's talk page, as the titles will have been removed). Google usually indexes only the topmost article versions on WP on a weekly basis, so he could expect to see almost almost no references to John LeKay within WP when searching Google within a week or two. I feel that's already taking on a lot of unnecessary work to boost the PR of someone who, despite warnings to stop, continued to use Wikipedia as an adserver, and I don't feel we could do much more. If he returns and continues to post vanity, then he'll just be SOL. Thoughts? AmiDaniel (talk) 06:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Now, a Google search for "Heyoka magazine" shows the protected Wikipedia page as the first result... Nationalparks 05:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll delete that since they agreed to stop recreating it. Prodego ^talk 14:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

English translation wanted

I am looking for information about a Polish town named Siemiatycze. There is a very small reference in the English version of Wikipedia, but quite a long one in the Polish version. I would like to get an English translation of the Polish article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bocamark (talk • contribs) AmiDaniel (talk) 23:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC).

I'll drop a translation request on Wikipedia:Translation into English#Polish-to-English for you, and hopefully a willing Polish-speaking Wikipedian will come by and translate it. AmiDaniel (talk) 23:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

typo in the name of my article

I just created a page ' Blake Parlette '. The thing is, it's about a person named ' Blake Parlett ' with no E on the end.

Please help. thank you all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ColtsScore (talk • contribs) 21:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC).

It's now been moved to the correct title. Feel free to ask me directly if you need help with anything else. AmiDaniel (talk) 21:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Three-letter abbreviation template for French Guiana

I'm working on a table in my sandbox, and I can't find the three-letter template for French Guiana. (For example, typing {{NGA}} gives the name Nigeria and its flag.) Can anyone help? Is there a list of these three-letter templates anywhere? Thanks, — BrianSmithson 14:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Special:Whatlinkshere/template:NGA might be useful. Perhaps List of IOC country codes? -- Rick Block (talk) 14:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Your second link led me to ISO 3166-1, where I found that the appropriate abbreviation template {{GUF}}. Figures it would be in the French word order. Thanks! — BrianSmithson 14:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Election Box Metada - Question

According to Plaid Cymru the colour of that party has changed from green to yellow. I have changed the {{Election box metaddata}} template to reflect this, so all instances of Plaid in election results boxes has automatically changed to yellow.

It seems the metadata info for the Liberal Democrats is a very similar shade of yellow, which I understand should be altered to a golden colour. However their election box name is "Liberal Democrats (UK)" which re-directs to "Liberal Democrats", so I can't access the metadata (or I don't think I can) to change it.

How can the LibDem template be changed to alter the colour if the template article is a redirect?

doktorb | words 10:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the color in question comes from Template:Liberal Democrats/meta/color. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Template help

Is there a template that says something like, "No other articles link to this one. Please add links accordingly to this article in similar ones, if possible."? I'm finding a lot of crappy articles that need wikifying are largely ignored because no one can find them.--The ikiroid (talk)^{(Help Me Improve)} 02:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

There's Template:Wikify, would this do? -- Rick Block (talk) 12:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Not particularly. After people fix an article they often forget that they have to "advertise" its existence on other pages, or else it won't be any help to anyone. Perhaps I'll create a new template for it.--The ikiroid (talk)^{(Help Me Improve)} 00:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. I created Template:linkless to remedy the problem.--The ikiroid (talk)^{(Help Me Improve)} 14:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

warnings

i am a new wikipedian an i want to know how to issue warnings to vandals.

thankyou Joshuarooney 14:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the club :-). You should probably start by reading WP:RCP. It has a lot of good inof, including how to warn, when to warn, whcih templates to use, and a few tools which you can use to automate the task and make it a little easier. --Bachrach44 15:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't waste your time. Concentrate on building good articles. It is more challenging and productive. If you issue warnings, they will either call you a vandal, or worse, they could be innocent!! Best to avoid trouble. Note. People get very very upset at being called a vandal. This represents a complete and utter breakdown in trust. My advice is never ever to call anyone names. Remember, if you write anything on a computer, it can be always used against you. Wallie 21:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Help with Links

Hello. Half way down the Organometallic chemistry page, there's a link to Zeise's salt that works, but the one half way down eighteen electron rule doesn't. And this one doesn't either! Any ideas why not? Thanks.

You forgot the underscores (these things_). Remember to sign, too. --Osbus 21:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Nope, that's not it. The Organometallic chemistry page doesn't have an underscore but works, whilst the eighteen electron rule page does but doesn't work!! --Brichcja 22:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The article title actually uses a curved quote, while the non-working reference uses a straight quote. There should clearly be a redirect from one to the other, but I'm not sure which one should be used for the article title (I'd vote straight quote). -- Rick Block (talk) 23:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I've changed them all to a curved quote, just to make it work!--Brichcja

Explanation for using links on Rotary_International

There is an edit war in progress at Rotary_International over the addition of text that explains to the blind how to use links in the lists of members. You can see the text in this diff. The reason for its inclusion is stated to be that blind users are unable to know that the links in the lists are links and not plain text. An editor wrote that the French Wikipedia includes similar types of text. The debate can be read on the article's talk page. There was an RfC but I think that did not help much. Assistance anyone? Thanks. -- 127.*.*.1 02:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect user reference in revision history

When comparing versions of a particular document it shows my user name as the editor of some vandalism.

It does not show up in my list of contributions and the 'Article History' shows that the contribution was made by an anonymous IP (131.137.245.200). It was quickly removed by someone else and a little investigation will show that I didn't add the comments.

But it still concerns me that if someone simply looks at the 'compare selected versions' window that it appears that I am the vandal.

Is this a known problem that someone is looking at? And can the current record be changed ?

forgot to sign previously Johnmarkh 17:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

It is probably nothing to worry about, but just to make sure this isn't a bug could you provide a link to the diff please? Prodego ^talk 17:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

final entry on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pentecostalism&oldid=52903809 Johnmarkh

This http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APentecostalism&diff=52903809&oldid=52360126 diff] shows what you actually added. I suspect that what happened was the vandalism was already there and you didn't notice it when you added your comments. If that's not the case, please can you clarify what it is you are asking?

Articles that are unlikely to ever be fully be cleaned up

Global brain (see the discussion immediately below this one) is an example of what I consider an "article unlikely to ever be cleaned up" just like Computer and video game clichés. These sorts of articles are perhaps never fully cleaned up, yet AfDs often fail for them. What can be done about such articles in general? --unforgettableid | talk to me 13:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

You can be bold and clean it up. In the meantime I have place a cleanup tag on the page. Captainj 16:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. Rereading your comments and mine, I realise I didn't directly answer your question (and may have been a little patronising). I just think the answer is to clean them up, one article at a time. If the article is mostly rubbish, maybe that can be deleted (and then what's left nominated for AfD if it still isn't good enough). I keep reading that AfD is broken, I don't pretend to be knowledgeable enough to have my own view on that, but if it is, maybe that is what is causing the problems you speak of. Captainj 16:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Global brain

Hi, Global brain is a popular article, but is it not a fringe theory as per WP:FRINGE? Shouldn't someone AfD it? Also, someone on the talk page mentions "A lot of this article is directly taken from "The Global Brain FAQ" at http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/GBRAIFAQ.html" but I am not sure if that is true. Does Google even index that FAQ? Cheers, --unforgettableid | talk to me 13:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE is only a proposed policy/guideline...btw, if you feel that there's an article that doesn't belong on WP, then go ahead and list at AfD. No ones going to eat your head unless you do something horribly, horribly stupid(which I dont think you will). --Osbus 21:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd be tempted to provide a short definition and add "See Gaia hypothesis". --John Nagle 16:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Deleting user page

How would I have my old user page changed? I recently changed user names, and am now stepping away from Wikipedia per meta:Right to Vanish. Thanks. | Mr. Darcy talk 22:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

See the template on the top right hand side of WP:CSD for a quick reference to all the delete tags. You should be able to just write {{db-author}}. Sorry to hear you're leaving. --unforgettableid | talk to me 22:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Different accounts needed for different languages?

I recently created an account with the Swedish Wikipedia: being equally fluent in English and Swedish, I thought that your members might want to see articles translated. Unfortunately, the English Wikipedia keeps telling me that my account (username: ISNorden) doesn't exist. Will I need to create a second account for use with the English pages? If any of you could help, I'd be very grateful.

Yes you do have to register in each language wikipedia (and other projects). There are talks about a single login, but it's not the case yet. See m:Single login specifications. Garion96 ^(talk) 17:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Setting Picture widths

I have just discovered that the pixel width of pictures on Wikipedia can be set to any reasonable value I like in WP Preferences. The default is 180px which is too small for my 1024 by 768 screen (an old CRT) so I have set it to 250px. My question is: in future should I cease to put a px value in the pic syntax when I place a pic in an article and let the readers Prefs do the work? (If they know nothing of Prefs then they will get the default of 180px which would, for me, be a rather small pic). In other words which syntax should I now use?
[[Image:minchinhampton.church.arp.jpg|thumb|right|250px|The parish church, Minchinhampton]]
or
[[Image:minchinhampton.church.arp.jpg|thumb|right|The parish church, Minchinhampton]]
Thanks for any answers - Adrian Pingstone 17:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Some users don't have px defaults...for exp., me. So I'd suggest putting them in anyway. --Osbus 22:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Articles are not written in the first person, of course

And very obviously so. But where is this stated? Looking at (for example) Category:Wikipedia style guidelines, I can't find it. I know it's somewhere, and probably right under my nose. Link, please! Thanks -- Hoary 06:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Why not WP:NOT? - "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia". Encyclopedias aren't written in the first person. - BanyanTree 02:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

That looks entirely reasonable to me, because I'm familiar with (conventional) encyclopedias and because I took the trouble to look around WP before I ever started to edit. Trouble is, I was recently dealing with a rather grumpy person whose extensive editing activities on WP ... ah, how shall I express this with "good faith"? ... demonstrated no familiarity with encyclopedias in general or WP in particular. When asked not to do this or that, he seemed to want the citation of clear rules, dismissing anything else as merely a matter of my tastes against his. After trying and failing to find an instruction not to write in the first person, I was tempted to find somewhere suitable for me to insert my own instruction of this (to me) stunningly obvious, but first I thought that this might look a bit crooked ("Look, here's a rule ... oh, er, yes, I did indeed write it myself just five minutes before pointing you to it") and secondly I thought that surely it already appeared somewhere else. -- Hoary 04:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

United States is up for a move vote again, PLEASE VOTE

Some newbie (User:Brendenhull) who is apparently unfamiliar with the policy on naming conventions and the common names guideline put United States up for a move vote again. If you care about enforcing Wikipedia policies and maintaining the encyclopedia's quality, then vote against at Wikipedia:Requested moves/United States.

Wikipedia policy is to use common names. In this case, "United States" is the common name of the United States of America. It is used as such in the U.S. Constitution, in thousands of federal and state laws, in millions of American newspaper and magazine articles, and in all major encyclopedias (including Britannica and Encarta).

I believe Brendenhull is apparently attempting to bypass existing policy in bad faith. If he has a good faith argument that the common names guideline should have an exception for official names for countries, he should have raised that issue on the appropriate talk page for Naming conventions rather than requesting a vote so quickly on United States (if he had checked the Talk:United States archive, he would have realized that the issue has been heavily debated at least twice in the past two years and consensus was to keep the existing title). If any admins are following this, I recommend a temporary block on Brendenhull. --Coolcaesar 00:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

As you said, the user is a n00b...why should he be blocked? --Osbus 21:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Existing policy does not apply if overruled on a case-by-case basis by processes such as RFM and AFD. Anyone is permitted to put up anything for whatever process they like subject only to that particular process' procedures (and occasionally common sense; see GNAA). Explicitly saying that someone is acting in bad faith and in violation of policy is as blatant a violation of WP:AGF as you can get, and suggesting that anyone be blocked for putting up a request for move is patently ludicrous.

In the future, I would strongly suggest that when announcing a poll of interest on the village pump, you just post a link rather than a tirade. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I see no evidence of a bad faith nomination. In fact, the vote is fairly close (13-17 against), and several people have made very good arguments for why it should be moved. He simply has a minority opinion. --Bachrach44 13:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

What to do about Jiang, possible edit war

First Round

Okay, what started out as a simple disagreement I now beginning to spiral out of control. It started with the image Image:Rbreich.jpg. I posted the image, listed it as Public Domain, went and got additional permission from the artist because the electronic image was from his website. User:Jiang disgreed with me, but instead of instead of engaging in some sort of dialog, went and posted it as PUI, the discussion ishere.

Not only as Jiang threatened to try and have all portraits of government officials removed because they are not in the public domain, but he is expanding the argument to other pages he seems to think are affected by this dispute.

• Richard Whitney (artist)
• Robert Reich

What do I want

• to remove it from the PUI page because it has been posted with permission, and the source itself is public domain.
• get Jiang to back off.
• Have a copyright attorney clearly explain what is going on.

--evrik 23:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• As stated before, PUI tags are intended for soliciting input on the copyright status of an image. A claim of PD cannot be used to justify its removal because the PD status itself is under dispute. The source itself is not public domain I have a posted this issue to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) and WikiEn-l mailing list in an attempt to get further opinion on the matter. The point of PUI is to promote discussion. Going around and removing tags defeats this purpose. --Jiang 23:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• • Evrik, your personal complaints about Jiang are inappropriate. First, WP:PUI is exactly the appropriate place for Jiang to dispute image copyright status. Second, the PD status of this image is under dispute so your unilateral removal of the PUI tag was not appropriate. Third, permission to "use" an image is not enough for Wikipedia. Fourth, if paintings (not photos) of government officials are determined to be not in the public domain, then they should be removed from Wikipedia unless a fair-use rationale is available. Unfortunately, there seem to be strong arguments for the non-PD status of portrait paintings (not photos, since photos are usually taken by government employees), which you have failed to address or even, apparently, to comprehend. —Steven G. Johnson 02:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • My comments about Jiang are appropriate. There is something wrong with someone who doesn't engage in any kind of dialog, but starts dumping a-bombs on people. At each step in this process, Jiang has gone for the throat, rather than being more consultative. The image had lots of information about it's sourcing, and while listing something as PUI may be okay for images where the sourcing is in dispute, its a relatively harsh step for an images where documentation existed. --19:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • A photographer under contract to the government is no different than a painter, and in many cases photographers are not employees but are contractors as well. Despite the strong arguments for the non-PD status of portrait paintings, we are arguing in a vacuum. It hasn’t been an issue to date, why is this suddenly become an issue, because of one user who was trying to bulldoze his way into getting an image deleted, and has now expanded the argument to a whole class of images.--evrik 19:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• For what it's worth, Evrik, I am a lawyer (bar admission pending my swearing in ceremony this summer), and I posted a very clear and direct explanation of the law on this issue, citing to specific statutory provisions, which you then replied to with complete irrelevancies. Postdlf 03:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• If you've passed the bar, and have not been sworn in, then you should know better to say you're a lawyer, nor should you be claiming to give legal advice. Now, after you've been swOrn in, that's a different matter. --evrik 19:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have put on all pictures the text sent by Mr Whitney, which specifically states that he is releasing the content of his website under the GFDL. This should settle the matter. notafish }<';> 18:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. That's always the best solution. Have you forwarded the e-mail to permissions at wikimedia dot org? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The email *was* in permissions in the first place, I added the reference to the ticket on every single image and the talk page of the article. My mistake for not being clearer in the first place on the article's talk page. notafish }<';> 21:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Second Round

There is now a campaign to have all the PD portatis of public officials removed? Jiang tagged two more images for deletion.

• Image:Clinton.jpg
• Image:Fordportrait.gif

Jiang, you're wrong on this issue. Rather than wrecking havoc, why don't you start a new topic at the village pump and get some clarity on the issue. --evrik 18:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• There is clarity everywhere except in your comments. The issue with the other painting was resolved because of the license the artist granted, not because the painting was concluded to be in the public domain. Everyone else is in agreement on the legal issues here regarding the copyrighted status of works commissioned by the federal government. Please drop the issue unless you have a substantive counterargument to raise. Postdlf 18:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Just because three or four people are in agreement doesn't mean they are right. I have contacted the archivist at the White House to see if I cvan't get a better answer. In the mean time, why don't we see if we can get an Intellectual Property attorney, or another attorney familiar with copyright to discuss the issue. --evrik 19:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• As far as I can remember, there are no copyright attorneys that have weighed in on the issue. --evrik 19:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I spoke to Bill Alman, the White House curator, who said the following.

Generally, the portraits are property of the federal government and are in the public domain. In the case of the White House portraits, the photograph of the portrait may have copyright restrictions, but that it should be generally okay to use the images as long as the publisher of the electronic image is credited.

Is there a copyright attorney in the house? --evrik 20:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:What's in, what's out

Shall we revive Wikipedia:What's in, what's out? It will never become policy, but it is a useful reference as to whether certain things, like, say, most radio stations should normally be AfDed or not. Cheers, --unforgettableid | talk to me 19:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Ruby Fradkin

Happened to stumble upon Ruby Fradkin tonight, and did a basic revert after seeing the shape it was in. User User:Dmfrjf did most of the edits, which I wouldn't call purposeful vandlism; but it does make the page messy.

Placed the basic 'subst:test', and reverted the page again. Then a third time. Not sure what to do because of the 3RR, and it doesn t seem to be blatant vandlism. Landeyda 08:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

2 entires for same subject

There are two different entries for the film "Hell Comes to Frogtown", I didnt want to blank one entry by making it a redirect so what is the proper way to handle this? The entires in question are Hell Comes to Frogtown and Hell Comes To Frogtown ...thanks in advance SkaTroma 00:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

See WP:MERGE for information regarding how to merge two articles together. If you don't want to do it yourself, you can at least point it out by using the merge templates: merge, or mergeto and mergefrom. ~ Booyabazooka 01:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

(I've gone ahead and added these templates for you) ~ Booyabazooka 01:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Ahha, many thanks! SkaTroma 03:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Basic stuff

Is a picture in the commons shared in all wikis? I'm sorry, I'm very new to this thing. --JD

Yes. --unforgettableid | talk to me 03:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Sweet. Thanks. --JD

Please see Wikimedia Commons. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

How to get an entry based on value or null (Revised question)

This is a revised entry of the original question I posted on Technical so I can make it clearer and maybe find an answer.

I want to create a template which is used to get either a specific entry or all of them depending on the parameter.

Let's say I have a list like this

• Item 01 - May
• Item 02 - Critical
• Item 03 - Exact

And I want to put it into a template, let's call it FUZZ so that if I simply use a macro call of {{FUZZ}} I get

• Item 01 - May
• Item 02 - Critical
• Item 03 - Exact

But if I use {{FUZZ|01}} I get

• Item 01 - May

But if I use {{FUZZ|02}} I get

• Item 02 - Critical

I know in some way this requires {{#if:}} or some macro, but I'm not sure how.

Is there a way I can do this? Second, is there a way I can have the macro generate text only if the parameter is null? So that I could put a header if the parameter is null but no header if the value of {{{1}}} is not null.

Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) 22:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is exactly, what you want, but perhaps something like this?

{{#switch: {{{1|}}}
 | 01 = *Item 01 - May
 | 02 = *Item 02 - Critical
 | 03 = *Item 03 - Exact
 | #default = 
  *Item 01 - May
  *Item 02 - Critical
  *Item 03 - Exact
}}

You might want to check out m:ParserFunctions for a better explanation of things. In regards to null-parameters, {{#if: {{{1|}}}|do this if it is set|do this if it is unset (null)}}, is that what you're looking for? Hope that helps! Jude (talk) 02:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I'm already doing something like that now, what I think I want is something like this:

{{#switch: {{{1|}}}
 | 01,#default = *Item 01 - May
 | 02,#default = *Item 02 - Critical
 | 03,#default = *Item 03 - Exact
}}

or

{{#switch: {{{1|}}}
 | 01
 | #default = *Item 01 - May
 | 02
 | #default = *Item 02 - Critical
 | 03
 | #default = *Item 03 - Exact
}}

So that I only have to include each of the items once. For default, it shows all of them, for any one of the entries, it only shows that one. So that for each entry, if it is that value OR null, then it shows the item.

I have tried this in the sandbox and a couple of X templates and it does not do what I want, I either only get one of them for the default or nothing at all.

Doing it the way I stated I can get both modes with only one entry for each item, as opposed to having to do them twice. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) 23:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

You can do this with a series of ifexpr's, sort of like:

{{#ifexpr: {{{1|}}}1 = 1 or {{{1|}}}1 = 11 | *Item01 - May }}
{{#ifexpr: {{{1|}}}2 = 2 or {{{1|}}}2 = 22 | *Item02 - Critical }}
{{#ifexpr: {{{1|}}}3 = 3 or {{{1|}}}3 = 33 | *Item03 - Exact }}

however, if you do it this way the items don't end up in the same list if no argument is provided. Maybe it might help if you let us know exactly what you're working on. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I am working (in Commons) on a system for classifying images according to content. You can find the system at [Image Classification System] . It is borrowed from the public domain Design Search Code Manual developed by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The system provides a 2 digit classification, a two digit division, and a 2 digit section, which together provide an exact class for an image or image fragment. For example, if you have a 5-pointed star, it is classified as Classification 01 (celestial bodies, natural phenomena and geographical maps), division 01 (stars), and section 03 (five-pointed stars), so an image which was, or a significant part of the image included a five-pointed star, would be classified as 01.01.03.

I have several macros defined to reference codes.

I have a macro called ICS which is used in the form {{ICS|01|01|03}} to allow images to be marked with their classification. (This is in addition to normal categories people might put images into.) Now, I can just drill-down through each classification, division and section to get the identifier. But I would like to create, for the description pages, the same list of items. So that, on the description page for stars, I have

{{ICS DIV|01}}

Which could expand to

Divisions in Classification 01
Image classification 01 — Celestial bodies, natural phenomena, geographical maps

    * 01.01 Stars, comets
    * 01.03 Constellations, starry sky
    * 01.05 Sun
    * 01.07 Globes
    * 01.09 Planets, asteroids, meteors, the solar system and atomic or molecular models
    * 01.11 Moons
    * 01.15 Natural phenomena
    * 01.17 Maps or outlines of continents, countries, and other geographical areas

Now, what I would like to do is use the same macro so if I do

{{ICS DIV|01|01}}

I can get something like the following:

Divisions in Classification 01
Image classification 01 — Celestial bodies, natural phenomena, geographical maps
01.01 Stars, comets
Division 01.01 Stars, comets
:01.01.01 Stars with three points
:01.01.02 Stars with four points
:01.01.03 Stars with five points
:01.01.04 Stars with six points
:01.01.05 Stars with seven or more points
:01.01.06 Stars with rays or radiating lines
:01.01.07 Stars with tails or comets
:01.01.08 Stars representing a human face or head of an animal
:01.01.09 Two stars
:01.01.10 Three or more stars
:01.01.11 Incomplete stars

And then, if I do

{{ICS DIV|01|01|03}}

I get, simply

01.01.03 Stars with five points

I suppose, what I can do, is use the label "all" instead of blank for entries to produce all items so that (using a shortened form of the list for brevity):

{{#switch: {{{1|}}}
 | 01 = Image classification 01 — Celestial bodies, natural phenomena, geographical maps
 {{#ifexpr: {{{2|}}} = 01 or {{{2|}}} = all |* 01.01 Stars, comets
 {{#ifexpr: {{{3|}}} = 01 or {{{3|}}} = all | :01.01.01 Stars with three points}}
 {{#ifexpr: {{{3|}}} = 02 or {{{3|}}} = all | :01.01.02 Stars with four points}}}}
 {{#ifexpr: {{{2|}}} = 03 or {{{1|}}} = all |* 01.03 Constellations, starry sky
 {{#ifexpr: {{{3|}}} = 01 or {{{3|}}} = all | :01.03.01 ...etc...}}
 {{#ifexpr: {{{3|}}} = 02 or {{{3|}}} = all | :01.03.02 ...}}}}
 | 02 = Image classification 02 — ...
 {{#ifexpr: {{{2|}}} = 01 or {{{2|}}} = all |* 02.01 ...
 {{#ifexpr: {{{3|}}} = 01 or {{{3|}}} = all | :02.01.01 ...}}
 {{#ifexpr: {{{3|}}} = 02 or {{{3|}}} = all | :02.01.02 }}}}
 {{#ifexpr: {{{2|}}} = 01 or {{{2|}}} = all |* 02.02 ...}}}}
 | 03 = Image classification 03 — ...
... etc ...
}}

So, by this, one macro has all the entries and thus a single call returns the exact items I want (or someone else using this system would want) without the problem of copying from multiple places and potentially getting them incorrect, or having to create dozens of macros for each classification (which is, at the moment, what I'm faced with now.) I will try this and see if I can get it from that. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) 13:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Participatory Epistemology - needs review by philosophy expert

Request expert review of Participatory Epistemology, which seems, from a cursory Google search, to involve providing a philosophical basis for astrology. I encountered this as a new article, and I'm not sure whether it is nonsense, needs neutral point of view work, or actually makes sense. This is either advanced post-Derrida work, or totally bogus. I can't tell. --John Nagle 04:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

And what's the difference between those two categories, again? alteripse 03:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Listing a page for deletion a second time

Insertion sort implementations went through one AfD, and the result was "transwiki and delete." Well, I've done the transwikification, and now it needs to be deleted. The afd template links to the old afd discussion, though. How does one re-list an afd? ~ Booya ^Bazooka 04:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

That's actually two different things. Have a look at the speedy deletion page to see you don't have to re-list it, it's under "Article 5". And aren't there instruction at the bottom of the AfD page for when you do need to relist? - brenneman ^{L} 04:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

No I see that's been taken out. What I do is first edit the template (the one pointing to the old afd) by copy/pasting the old afd name with "Second nomination" or something like that at the end. Then once you save (or preview) you'll get a red link and you simply follow that just as normal. Just remember to put the name of the new afd disussion on the main afd page, not the old one. Here is an example of someone doing something similar. - brenneman ^{L} 04:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Drawball

One of the things I do every now and again, is to clear up (delete) the crap that links to unencyclopedic pieces of rubbish like YTMND from legitimate articles. And that's how I came across the Drawball. It is literally one of the worst pieces of shit articles on Wikipedia right now. Every day, it gets dozens of edits, almost all from anons, and they're all rubbish.

The drawball is a large collaborative graffiti board, anyone can put stuff on apparently. Which incidentally leads to every online group out there (SA, GenMay, YTMND etc etc) trying to cover the thing with their logo. It also leads them onto Wikipedia to show it off, and the majority of the article is comprised of tiny pieces of unencyclopedic subtrivia detailing every online foray onto the ball. Here is an example:

Near the middle of the right side, there was a large yellow duck being erected by the users of The Friend Society. The duck had been attacked by a community called The Betrayed.There was a struggle going on between the communities, and the area was ravaged by both the duck and the mark of The Betrayed. Currently, The Betrayed have ceased any other major attacks on the duck. The Friend Society are now saving up their ink to start cleaning up any excess battle scars, and further improve on the duck's stature.

This reminds me of the rubbish that was in List of YTMND fads, which in my eyes was rightly deleted. They're adding new images to the page every day or so, and uploading a new fair use picture of the drawball every few days. I think those sections should be deleted, but I'm asking here, because due to the massive amount of anons on that article, I doubt any registered user or admin who's seen the article could do enough on their own. Let's do something about this. - Hahnchen 15:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

List it for AfD. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

It's been AFDed before and failed. I'm posting this to WP:AN to get more eyes on it, and then hopefully get it semi-protected so anons don't revert when users remove their stupid additions. - Hahnchen 02:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems as though we're getting spillover from the conflict surrounding the Drawball itself. Nevertheless it seems like a sufficiently interesting topic - I would vote to keep it. If vandalism really is an issue you can ask for semiprotection in the appropriate forum (anybody got a link?) Deco 10:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Question

Article: Citizens Area Transit: Routes. Question: Delete? Or transwiki to Wikibooks? Although I wonder: does Wikibooks want cruft like transit routes? But then again, Wikibooks is not paper. Cheers, --unforgettableid | talk to me 01:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Well there are, for example:

• List of bus routes in Hong Kong
• List of bus routes in Essex
• List of rapid transit systems
• Bus transport in Singapore

and so forth. So it's hardly alone in terms of transit-cruft. :-) — RJH (talk) 19:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

It appears the first article has been nominated for deletion. The quite sensible view devloping there seems to be that the Bus Company's own website is the best place to put that information (and likely to be the most up to date). I don't know about the other articles, maybe wait for the outcome of this AfD and Prod them? Or mass nominate them for AfD? Anyway, if they are anything like the first I would support deleting/redirecting them to an article about the company (with a link to its website which will have an up to date time table!) Captainj 10:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Can a sysop copy edit history for an article split?

I'm looking to split the Hip fracture article in half, but I don't know how to preserve the edit history for the article created by the split. Is it possible for a sysop to make a copy of the whole edit history, so that the newly-created split article will have a copy too? ~ Booyabazooka 00:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

How is menitioning the split in the edit summaries (with page names), as suggested at Wikipedia:How to break up a page, not sufficiient? -- Rick Block (talk) 13:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Sigh, I suppose it does suffice. But you really shouldn't have to trek through (potentially multiple) articles to gather the full edit history of a text, ideally... isn't it supposed to all be right there with the article? It amounts to a cut-and-paste move, and there are reasons against this. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 16:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the significant difference is that with a move the "move from" article is much more likely to be deleted. Directly answering your original question, it is possible to copy the history (how it's done is you move the article to the new name, delete the redirect that's left, and then restore the original) - the question is whether it's worth doing this whenever an article splits (and I think the current consensus is the answer is no). -- Rick Block (talk) 18:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually I don't think that would work. The history moves with the page, so there would be no way to duplicate it unless a developer does it. Prodego ^talk 01:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Email source

Recently some facts were added to the article River Teme quoting a BBC source. As the source seemed to contradict the current sources and there was an email address, I sent an email asking for clarification. Much to credit of the BBC they responded within hours. I have posted their response to the talk page Talk:River Teme#BBC source. But I have never had an email response on a question of clarification, so I was wondering how such things are usually integrated into an article. If you have any suggestions or can point me to the guideline, then please tell me in the section Talk:River Teme#BBC source. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The relevant policy is Wikipedia:No original research. Private e-mails are not legitimate sources on Wikipedia. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 06:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

You can't use new information in the email (per above) but if a reliable source contradicts another (equally reliable), simply have both viewpoints in the article. Captainj 01:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

User:120

hello, I'm a French contributor registered on French wiki as fr:Utilisateur:120 and I would like to use "120" as username to register on English wiki. I can't create my account even if it seems there is no User:120 already registered. What should I do ? (apart from choosing another nick...). Thanks, (you can either answer here or on French wiki)

From the fact that the user page displays a "User contribution" tab, it's almost certain that someone has registered the username but has made no contributions (Heck, our Millionth user hasn't either). There was a discussion on such usernames and the possibility of allowing people to claim them a while back on theChanging Username talk page, but the consensus was to wait until after Single logins have been implemented. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 17:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Basically, your best bet for now is to create a different account (User:One Two Zero maybe?) and just change your signature to "[[User:One Two Zero|User:120]]" in preferences. This'd make it appear as "User:120 17:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)" whenever you signed a post. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 17:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Verification needed?

I added ((citations missing)) to article Zam because, whilst there are many wikipedia links in the article, there are no external links validating all the "facts" in the article. The original author then removed the template stating that the references were the wikipedia see alsos.

How should things like this be handled? Is a wikipedia link a valid reference? I don't want to start anything, but I'm not convinced, especially since google on Zam appears to bring up nothing relevant.

This question is more about the principles involved here rather than the specific article mentioned - though that is a good example. -- SGBailey 10:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Citing sources, Wikipedia articles can't be used as sources. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

No it can't be used for a self reference (otherwise you could get circular references, or users creating one POV article and trying to use it to justify inserting POV into another article - I've seen it happen). Try this: If the Wikipedia articles that are linked to contain good references, then those references should be used. Otherwise Zam and the articles linked to all need the citations missing template. I've added the citations missing tag myself to the Zam article. If there any further problems, I'd be happy to help. Also, it might be worth considering nominating the article for an AfD if no references at all exist. Captainj 17:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The popup things

How do I get popups — Preceding unsigned comment added by NikkiWolfe (talk • contribs)

See Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups. — TKD::Talk 07:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Anti-French sentiment deletion

A paragraph from the article Anti-French sentiment in the United States has been deleted by User:Tocquevil. The paragraph is about "popular anti-French allegations" and lists several news events relating to France which Americans have objected to.

He just deleted it with no explanation and no comment in the talk page. He doesn't seem to have a user page either; I'm not sure if he even exists, since user pages are normally deleted when a user leaves. I believe this deletion is questionable, but if I keep restoring it it violates the 3RR. Exactly how can I handle putting the paragraph back? Ken Arromdee 17:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Report it at WP:AN/I.-- The ikiroid  17:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing an Admin can do yet. First try contacting him on his talk page. I note someone else has already mentioned not removing content without explanation. Revert his edit and explain in the article talk page what you have done. He's probably a new user and will either lose interest, or maybe come around and be productive. Captainj 17:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I need help!

Anybody who can help me with making some great articles please zip me a note at my user page my login name is Annahly. or type Annahly in search you should be able to post me a note.

THNXZ Evry1! Lter! ;)

Annahly

The way the wiki works is that you start the articles with what you know and can verify and then others come along and help improve the article later. If that doesn't get an article to a good enough stadard in a reasonable time, then you could request help for the specific article later. Your request is too vague to work. -- SGBailey 10:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Popups

I have set my prefs to enable popups, and they work fine on my PC at work. At home on my Mac, though, it's another story - the popups appear, but without the actions. All I get is the word "actions", and nothing happens when I click on it. Am I missing something? Denni ☯ 00:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Try asking at WP:POPUP. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)