Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 18

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

Village pump (miscellaneous) archive  

This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (miscellaneous).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

---

< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80

Happy New Year!

Sorry for the late message but Happy New Year for to all Wikipedians and visitors. Let's hope in 2009 there are no edit wars, no POV pushers, no sockpuppetry, no trolls, no vandals...Oooh well it was a good hope while it lasted [1]. Nil Einne (talk) 00:33, 1 January 2009 (NZDT, UTC+13)

Well, since Wikipedia is on Zulu time, technically it's still 2008. Don't forget the leap second. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

What Nil said, & I'm glad to be back after a long break:-)dick (talk) 21:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Dalet School

What would be the proper place to verify the interwiki links at Dalet School? The article seems to have quite a few, let's just say enthusiastic users, who inserted a couple of interwiki links there. One was to sv:Elementary school which I removed as clearly inappropriate, but I'm wondering about the others. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

That and the related article, Assemblies of Yahweh, may not meet WP:Notability standards. An AfD might be justified. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

In addition, they also read like they have been written by the organization's PR department, almost G11able. – ukexpat (talk) 16:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Straw poll on 'trial' implementation of FlaggedRevisions

The discussion on the implementation of a 'trial' configuration of FlaggedRevisions on en.wiki has now reached the 'straw poll' stage. All editors are invited to read the proposal and discussion and to participate in the straw poll. Happy‑melon 17:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia survey

I am taking a survey about Wikipedia. The question is:

How many minutes per day, on average, do you spend on Wikipedia?

If you don't know exactly, give your best estimate. As always, please answer honestly. Thank you for answering this question!

Deathglean^er 04:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

In an average picosecond, I spend 0 minutes on Wikipedia (there may be a small rounding error in this value). Or did you have some other period in mind? Algebraist 12:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Very funny. Question revised. Deathglean^er 03:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Why not use the data from one of the many other surveys to ask the question?Geni 00:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to get my own data, but where's the other data located? Deathglean^er 22:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistency in titles such as kilometre, milliampere, etc.

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Article titles about multiples and submultiples of units. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 18:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Chinese Typing

Just a suggestion. I think Interesting! I cant find it in Wikipedia.

CHINESE TYPING

One types in, phonetically, the word you want, let's say "Ma" or "Hu" or "Min", in Latin letters - M A or H U or M I N. On the screen then appear all the words that consist of these sounds, no matter what the tonality and thus the meaning of the said word might be. The writer gets a choice of Chinese written signs, and clicks the one he wants, which then appear in the text. Works best with a split screen, I imagine. Some people can do thid really fast. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jroider (talk • contribs) 16:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe they have implemented this at Chinese Wikipedia?

Sounds like the built-in Chinese-language input for Windows; which I've always thought was pretty cool. I'm not sure why WP would need to implement its own version of that, which would presumably require a client system to download quite a lot of data in order for it to work. I'm sure the other major OSes have methods for doing this as well. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

See Input method--balloonguy (talk) 01:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Definite articles and indefinite pages

Is my memory shot or did the link at the top left of article and article talk pages used to read "article", not "page"? Either way, I like it better the other way. "Article" is more encyclopedic and more accurate: everything here is a page, but only certain pages contain articles. Rivertorch (talk) 00:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's the diff,[2] and the discussion about it is at MediaWiki talk:Nstab-main#Proposed change. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm not entirely clear about the rationale for the change—when the word "developer" enters the picture, I suddenly feel extraordinarily dense—but I think the result is unfortunate and have commented at MediaWiki talk:Nstab-main#Proposed change. Rivertorch (talk) 05:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

6000000 GET

To the doubters, the goal was met... :D--Cerejota (talk) 16:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

what does this mean? CommonMaster (talk) 03:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe it means that six million dollars was raised. —Noah 07:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

african american category in the catalan wikipedia

Hi. I'm of the ca:viquipèdia and we have a problem. Excuse my english. In my wikipedia there are a discussion about the conveniency of category:African American. I consider it's its a category necessary and convenient, but there are people what explain it'snt convenient because it's racist. I consider that african american are an human group with his own history and peculiarities. I've put the exemple of wikipedia in english, and other wikipedias. I'like very much if there are some specialist in history or culture african american come in catalan wikipedia and help us. The lind its: ca:categoria:Afroamericans. In the page of discussion. It's in catalan language, but if you read spanish, italian or portugues, you can understand it well. There are too the embassy, where you can talk in english: ca:Viquipèdia:Ambaixada. Thank you. --Pitxiquin (talk) 22:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC). The lind its in [http//www.viquipedia.cat/catalan wikipedia]--Pitxiquin (talk) 22:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC) [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pitxiquin (talk • contribs) 22:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The English wikipedia also has discussion (but not much) about this as necessary or as racism here[4]. Anyway, the category still has the same title. Julia Rossi (talk) 06:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Pointless Redirects

Can people stop using pointless redirects?

Here's an example:

Kre'fey

So, from that, can anyone tell me what Kre'fey is? Not really, eh? Given that the term isn't mentioned at all within the linked to article. What's the reader to think? That the term is perhaps a synonym for the book series?

This really needs to be a guideline. A redirect that leads to a page that does not even mention the subject does nothing but frustrate the reader. AFDs that result in the article being changed into a redirection should imply (a) a check of the target, (b) a merge, however minor, if necessary, (c) a removal of potential self-redirects, and (d) the redirection itself.

Because do it in any other order, and people will forget about the other steps and indeed the whole business and someone coming back afterwards to fix things wouldn't even have the original article to refer to figure out what exactly is missing.

Anyways, rant over.--Fangz (talk) 03:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it's particularly irritating to find a redir that isn't mentioned in the article. In all odds, it's the character Traest Kre'fey. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps the content was initially merged and later removed? - Mgm|^(talk) 13:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

What's this about "page" instead of "article"

Has anyone noticed the change in the name of the main namespace? Look at this cache of a deleted article.--Ipatrol (talk) 14:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Noted. It saves .0001% of article size maybe? I suspect it is because the same code is used on other pages which are not technically articles? In which case, ought not "project page" be similarly changed to just "page"? It is a puzzlement to me. Collect (talk) 14:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Note. The thread immediately above this one answers the question. See the discussion at MediaWiki talk:Nstab-main#Proposed change. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually it does not offer an answer as such -- just the same link to the MW discussion -- thence back to WP(technical) (all of which I had already read, by the way) where it looks like no consensus was reached on changing "article" to "page" nor was any solid technical reason given for such a change. The main reason appears to be that someone made the change, not that there was any need for it. Collect (talk) 13:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/Fritzpoll

This is a notification to all interested parties that I have accepted a nomination to join the Bot Approvals Group - the above link should take you to the discussion. APologies for the delay getting this notice out, but I've been busy over the holidays etc. Best wishes, Fritzpoll (talk) 10:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

need information

<moved to WP:HD#need information> flaminglawyer^c 23:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Category: Hoaxes

I put the article on Vrillon into the category of hoaxes, based on the idea that it is a likely hoax (either that or a message from an alien race!) only for it to be removed as pushing my own opinion. Am I right in thinking that it's not unreasonable to put this into the hoaxes category, or is the fact that it can't be 100% proved with certainty that this isn't a message from an alien race, it doesn't fit in the hoaxes category? I'm loath to get into an edit war, but this does seem like a common sense categorisation... Richard Hock (talk) 12:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It appears to be a "signal hijack" event -- and the writing makes it quite clear that it is about that type of event, though it does provide a transcript of the rather odd event. Not technically a "hoax" but definitely a "vandalism event" to be sure. Collect (talk) 12:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Which version of English should be used in the Max Cream article?

Resolved

 – ukexpat (talk) 02:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Max Cream is an American who has played for both American and Irish football/soccer clubs. Should the word be "football" or "soccer" in his article? An anonymous user just made an incivil edit to switch soccer to football, and I've reverted, but I'm not sure which way it should be. AnyPerson (talk) 05:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Solomon needed? Where the team is North American, use "soccer" (as in North American Soccer League or any team thereof). Where the team is outside North America, use "football." I know this means "inconsistency" within an article, but it seems the fairest way to handle it. It is also likely how the various cites which would be used would handle it. Collect (talk) 15:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. AnyPerson (talk) 02:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Bad faith editors

What can be done about editors who discuss something in bad faith? For example, someone says A is true, then someone proves that it is not true. The original person then comes back and says "A is true and no one has refuted it." This is only an example. 80.126.66.106 (talk) 15:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Editors are encouraged to assume good faith on the part of others. Of course there are times when lack of good faith is apparent, but I don't think it's always true for your example. When talk page discussions get long and complicated, it becomes easy to lose track of who said what, or to review all past discussions over and over before posting each time. The user may have said "no one has refuted it" because he doesn't remember, or it was buried in a lot of discussion. There are also times when a poorly defended or poorly explained refute is regarded as "virtually" no refute (I've probably been guilty of saying that, but in a way, I feel justified). So it can be a matter of opinion as to whether a valid refute was made. I suggest that when you see this, remain calm, assume good faith, repeat the refute, cut and paste if you need to. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 17:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Unfortunately, this is a discussion that has been going on for two months and my assumption of good faith was destroyed at least one month ago by the actions of the editor. My question was really what could be done in a situation like this? 80.126.66.106 (talk) 18:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You are probably not going to get a more specific response without giving a more specific example. WP:ANI is the place for this. Cheers, Jake Wartenberg^Talk 05:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there a record for the longest period of vandalism by a single user?

This page appears to have targeted by the same single vandal or group of vandals 63 times since its creation more than five years ago in October 2003. Is that a record for keeping up the same puerile vandalism over the longest period of time, or is that not something that gets recorded on here? -- role^player 16:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:DENY - not something we record. Mr.Z-man 17:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh OK. -- role^player 21:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

although in pratice George W. Bush would likely win by a fairly clear margin.Geni 02:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Are articles about a proprietary product allowed? How do we prevent marketing?

Yesterday while researching I came across a topic discussing at length a proprietary process, namely Confidence-based learning. I wonder is this sort of thing OK. How do we prevent marketing? I am fairly new (few months) so have not met this issue till now. I've have had a quick search for past posts but found nothing in discussions, so will raise it here.--AlotToLearn (talk) 00:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes articles about proprietary products are allowed so long as they meet policies and guidelines - notability, reliable sources, neutral point of view, not spam, etc. See Kevlar for example. Promotional material/advertisements masquerading as articles are usually speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G11, or if they slip through that net, after an Afd discussion. Similarly user accounts with promotional names are blocked, usually after reporting to WP:UAA.  – ukexpat (talk) 01:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Translation

Can anyone add the name of the ship in English?

Or, even better, add the IMO number of the ship? --Stunteltje (talk) 07:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, you could post this at the language desk[5] where more linguists are likely hang out. Julia Rossi (talk) 05:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Name in Japanese is クイーン宗谷. クイーン is Queen. 宗谷 can have multiple pronunciations, but according to this page, the ships name is "Queen Soya". --Apoc2400 (talk) 00:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Aerial Sharon

Can any one confirm if Sharon is still alive. I think of him so often especially as his country is going through such r=terrible times and would like to know if he is at peace. Margaret —Preceding unsigned comment added by M.CIANNI (talk • contribs) 15:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

According to Ariel Sharon he is still alive. – ukexpat (talk) 16:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The article also says that "he is in a persistent vegetative state with extremely low chances of recovery." --Apoc2400 (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Domesday 1986: a reliable source?

I'm just interested in people's views on this really? Domesday 1986 was a schools project managed by the BBC in the mid-1980s to create a national survey of the UK to celebrate the 900th anniversary of the original Domesday survey. There is relatively little consistency in the formation of each 'article' about any given area of the nation, and of course, most of it was written by schoolchildren. Would users consider this to be a reliable source on its own? I'd quite happily use it as supporting evidence to back up another more formal source, but how do people feel about this? For reference, the data can be found at the Domesday1986 website

Tafkam (talk) 14:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Um -- seriously? A project written by schoolchildren with no factchecking controls is likely not to have been factchecked. It might provide "fun quotes" which could be ascribed to it -- but as a source for factual stuff? Nay. Collect (talk) 14:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Not all of it was written by schoolchildren, there were significant contributions from academics too. DuncanHill (talk) 15:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, seriously. Is it considerably less reliable than the locally-published book of local history by the local schoolteacher? There is relatively little historical reference, but a considerable amount of contemporary description and comment - much like the Domesday survey itself. And of course, the project will have been locally managed by teachers as well as nationally managed by the BBC. Tafkam (talk) 15:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Use for "fun quotes" but any RS is only as reliable as its worst parts -- if someone disputes a section, it is not going to survive. See also previous discussions about using local tourism brochures as sources. I will not comment on the perfection of the BBC on historical matters <g>. Collect (talk) 15:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

God yes, we don't want any essays by professors sullying our pages. DuncanHill (talk) 15:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I fear you misread my comments. The query was as to the source being usable as RS as a general rule. And, as a general rule, it does not meet WP RS rules (just like the local tourism brochure which also "might" have been written by a professor.) The aim is "verifiability" and sources which do no factchecking and provide no references for claims are unlikely to meet WP guidelines. Nothing to do wuith being biassed against local professors or Girl Guides at all. Collect (talk) 15:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The essays were commissioned from recognized experts in their fields, not whatever you mean by "local professors". DuncanHill (talk) 15:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The material on Sark did not have any special source -- that was the sample I used. How many samples should I have looked at to assure that the source is generally done by recognized authorities, and how do you make sure the only parts which get cited on WP are by such? If we allow 10% to be not by "recognized authorities" then I would have to see at least the next 19 samples to all be by recognized authorities just to think that was likely. OTOH, is 10% being possibly unreliable too much for a source to be considered "reliable" on WP? Anyone else have an opinion on how much is too much? Collect (talk) 15:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

January 13th is miscellaneous Good Deed day...

OK, everbody's Good Deed for the Day today...help someone else write an article!, --> Go to WP:PR, take 5 mins (or more, but even a quick peek may be helpful) to look and drop a few notes on a PR candidate, anything, doesn't matter, pretty quick and easy to find some content or prose issues. Go for it and make WP a better place! Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Questions about tagging and source credibility

Hello, I found an article that I believe lacks credible sources for surprising claims. I do not mention which article here, because it's irrelevant to the questions. My first question is, what constitutes a credible source? Surely the credibility of the source must go up as the claims get more 'surprising'? My second question is, which tag would be appropriate to add to an article that I believe lacks credible sources? My third question is, is there a list of such tags somewhere that I can browse, for future reference? 71.231.102.197 (talk) 22:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Before tagging it - an act that should be a last resort - raise your question on the article's Talk page, where it is likely to be seen by people with some insight. Perhaps you are wrong and you can be shown that the claims have other, unstated supported evidence - which can then be added to the article, to improve it. Or perhaps you're right and the claims are, as you say, a bunch of baloney - in which case, if nobody can support them, you can remove the claims from the article. But please, don't just slap down a tag and think you've solved the problem. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 23:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

David, I agree that tagging the article does not solve the problem with the article. However, what about the people who read the article before the problem is resolved, and perhaps come away with false ideas because of the lack of credible sourecs? Shouldn't the lack of credible sources be flagged at the top of the article, so people can make their own decisions as to its veracity? Also, would you mind telling me what the tag is? I will also, of course, raise my objections on the talk page. 71.231.102.197 (talk) 00:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• David meant that a lot of people tag an article without actually raising the issue on the talk page. That last part is crucial in getting issues resolved. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The list of cleanup tags at Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup may be useful. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I meant that you should raise the issue on the Talk page before you put down a tag. Once a tag exists it tends to linger far beyond its useful life, so try to solve problems first; if that doesn't succeed, then a tag is appropriate. (This is particularly the case with all those "cleanup" tags, which usually deal with subjective opinions about appearance and organization, rather than serious content issues that readers need to be warned about). - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Quote field in references

In inline referencing templates, it is possible to take a selection of material as a quote which is displayed for a reference. This is done with the {{cite whatever|quote=Quote goes here}} syntax. I just discovered it recently, and have found that it may save time for people double-checking references. Do many other people use this feature? The only two possible shortcomings I can think of is a lack of context (without reading the entire work), and potentially increasing the page size considerably if done on a page with a good number of references. ←Spidern→ 16:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of it, but it looks like a useful feature to me. DuncanHill (talk) 16:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I use it but very rarely. It's most useful in non-online references such as books, reference behind a pay site, or references which are likely to go stale or move to a pay site such as online newspapers. It's also useful to help find a small part of a very large reference if page or paragraph numbers are not available. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Special:BlockMe

I discovered by chance that Special:BlockMe existed. Right now it says, "This function is disabled". Does anyone know what the page was for? A way for administrators to give themselves wikibreaks by blocking themselves? 140.247.249.150 (talk) 06:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly this feature doesn't seem to be documented over at the MediaWiki webpage. Seems likely that's the purpose however; a method to request a forced wikibreak. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

This has been more thoroughly discussed at Village pump tech.--Commander Keane (talk) 01:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Editing Page Names

Is it possible to edit the formatting of page name of a wiki? For example, changing "Kiefer sutherland" to "Kiefer Sutherland". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Callthecoroner (talk • contribs) 17:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, see WP:MOVE. Algebraist 17:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

Could something similar to the 'Random Plot Generator' (see web) be set up under a variety of headings (history, science, sport...) - and categories (Wikify, stub etc): might generate more activity and development. Jackiespeel (talk) 15:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

If it's what I think it is (an app that generates random game or story plots), it doesn't look encyclopedic. It wouldn't stop someone from the outside accessing Wikipedia to get assets for their own RPG, however. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 15:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I meant for Wikipedia, to go in the 'Open tasks' area or similar: so a group of 'articles to be improved' are called up - and thus encourage people to resolve some of the pages needing development. (The library computer was timing out.) Jackiespeel (talk) 23:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Exceptionally destructive vandal

Resolved

 – ukexpat (talk) 15:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not quite sure where to post this. [6] This is the worst vandal I have seen. Please advise.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Which edits, exactly, would you consider vandalism? At a cursory glance I don't see anything outrageously flagrant. In general, how to respond to vandalism is described at Wikipedia:Vandalism. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I was mistaken. It was just the "mug shot" edit on Rod Blagojevich ‎page that made me think he was running around changing stuff at will. I was too hasty. Pardon me. Nevermind.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Japan certifications

Hi. I have a question: Anybody knows abut a company in Japan which do a certifications?, like RIAA in USA?. Thanks a lot. --190.222.81.90 (talk) 18:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

See the reference desk. Hut 8.5 21:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

my article was deleted

My article was deleted on said day of 2:11 Pm on this day of 6th January 2008. The sources I embedded are accurate, and are in my username, and email account possession. They are valid 100%, why was my article deleted. I posted this article, because when I die someday, I doubt they'll write books on me, these are all accurate facts of me, I was born April 5th, 1984, but because birth certificates are copyrighted, I can't post that up here. I'd like to know 8 reasons why my article was deleted. I edited the text, I checked for typos, the content is very mature, and the article stubs are accurate and about me, no one has helped me create the sections this article comprises of, and no one will. I asked Wikipedia and they didn't tell me this or that, I searched numerous times on article deletion. I believe my article was deleted out of unfairness in that, I worked for like 29-35 hours on it rewriting it 100s of times til I got it refined, My mother, father, friends, bandmates, ex bandmates, and family can testify that this article is 100% real, genuine, and accurately sourced, I deserve to know why it was deleted. It didn't ramble, it got the point, and all facts can be proven in court, through documents that my mother and father have, and actual links. I followed many guidelines, the sources still exist. I did nothing wrong, seriously you had no right to delete something I worked hard on. That's cruel, selfish, I want all my bandmates, and friends, and family to see this so that someday when I die, they will know the truth, I don't want any books written on my life, this is good enough, there is nothing wrong with creating a biography, no one else in my family or life will help with this task, so I'm doing it myself. Again, everything is sourced accurately. You're fortunate I saved this as a template etc in my programs, however you have no valid and proven reasons to delete this, It met all guidelines. and was submitted correctly. I edited my userpage once I figured out I can only have a Wiki article, and a separate user thing. You still have to put my article back up here, being that it follows guidelines, is very organized, and again "gets to the point without rambling" . I think you just deleted this because I'm new here to Wikipedia, and read the rules and followed best I could, I think this is favoritism, and if this happens again someday before I die. I will sue you in court for negligance and opression of freedom to create a biography. This is hypocrisy, and I will not stand for it any longer! I demand to know why you deleted it, and if you tell me it's not favoritism, then you're out of line, because plenty of articles get deleted on that meet all standards, this place sometimes promotes favoritism. How would you like it if we the community who works hard at these articles were to delete your articles you the administrators worked on. I bet you'd feel pretty bad, yet you have no pity on those who pour their hearts, sources, souls, and lives into creating on here. If you delete this 2 more times. I will take it to court someday, and sue you for gross incompitance and negligance, and opression to submit a biography that is 100% accurate.

Daniel Steven Grosskreuz —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Steven Grosskreuz (talk • contribs) 20:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Your article violated rule number 7 of Wikipedia:CSD#Article. For an article to be included in Wikipedia, it has to say why the subject is important. To keep the article from being deleted again, include some information about what major accomplishments you have made and why you are a historically relevant figure. Add some references to books and newspapers that have discussed you. Also, because this is an article about yourself, ask some other users to review it for neutrality before posting it again.--Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Also note that because of the obvious conflict of interest, you are strongly discouraged from creating an article about yourself. If you are notable, someone will write an article about you in due course, or you can request that it be created at WP:AFC. If you are not notable by WP standards, there are other places to post your bio: Wikipopuli and Wikibios for example. – ukexpat (talk) 20:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I must admit, however, that I would love to see a lawsuit over "opression of freedom to create a biography." That would be a fascinating court case. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Any judge worth their salt should throw out such a lawsuit as frivolous and award costs to the defendant. – ukexpat (talk) 20:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

User warned about legal threats, nonetheless. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, now I'm really curious what his article looked like. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 21:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

A long and rambling autobiography. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You don't happen to live in TRENTON, NEW JERSEY, do you? Just wondering. --Kbdank71 22:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL. I haven't heard that reference in years. - BanyanTree 11:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Say, wouldn't a copy of this whining ramble serve as a pretty good example of "How NOT to ..."? Smolk (talk) 04:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

A small point – has anyone mentioned wikipedia does not host personal web pages? Just saying, Julia Rossi (talk) 05:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't live in TRENTON, NEW JERSEY (but I do work in Eatontown, NJ). Is that where Grosskreuz is from? Just wondering, what happens to articles that get deleted? Are they forever and irrevocably deleted, never to befowl the secondary storage of Wikipedia evermore, or are they archived somewhere for a while (or forever) before eventually being deleted? If it's the latter, the wikisource or resulting HTML of Grosskreuz's work could be sent to him so he could slap it up somewhere else on the Internet. Not saying it's a recommended course of action for every deleted article—or rambling autobiography—but if it's still archived somewhere and isn't hard to get to, it could be passed onto the author. Actually, if the archive is readily accessible, just the URL of the archived/deleted page could be given him so he could retrieve a local copy of his work, even if it's not Shakespeare. Just a thought... — Frecklefσσt | Talk 14:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It's actually in the history of his userpage if he wants to retrieve it from there. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Admins can access the content of deleted articles and some, upon request, will undelete to a user subpage (a process referred to as "userfying"). Most deleted articles also end up on Deletionpedia, a website unconnected with Wikipedia. – ukexpat (talk) 15:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Side note, souldnt the image [7] be deleted as well? no need to waste space.--SelfQ (talk) 11:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

That image is on Commons, so even though it's useless there's not really any rationale for deleting it. File:Headbanging.jpg, however, is just on WP, and has been listed for deletion. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 17:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

This mockery is not at all like the professionalism I usually see from Wikipedians. We all understand the lack of notability in this case. I googled him and got facebook -- that's it. But the man spent a lot of time on something that was flushed. Please be gentle.

Daniel Steven Grosskreuz, if you are reading this, they were right to delete it. You are apparently not notable. If you are, and we are mistaken, please dig up some newspaper articles, or something to show people as references. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not facebook. Don't threaten to sue people, don't write your own articles, read before you write, move out of Trenton for heaven's sake, work hard on your music, get famous, then everyone will write about you. Your friend, Anna. --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Possible fair use gallery in Entropa

Would anyone care to weigh in here about an idea some of us have had in editing the Entropa article, and whether or not it would be acceptable fair use? Here's the gist: Entropa is a sculpture with satirical representations of 28 nations in the European Union; the article currently contains one big fair-use picture of the sculpture, and a list of the nations depicted (each with a brief description of how they are depicted). Someone raised the idea of making small cropped images of each nation in the sculpture and putting them in a gallery, with the captions being the descriptions of each nation's depiction, to minimize the scrolling back-and-forth. It would certainly look nice, but might be too many fair use images. Any thoughts? (If you leave comments at the article talk page, rather than here, they'll probably be noticed faster.) Thanks, Politizer ^talk/_contribs 21:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Whether name is ordinary user or has special status

Resolved

 – ukexpat (talk) 19:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Have come across some edits signed by "Newsroom heirarchies". Sounds a bit official so thought this might be some group such as an editorial team, but cannot find anything listed under that name in Editors index. Is it just an ordinary username? --AlotToLearn (talk) 00:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The infallible way of checking a user's rights is to use Special:ListUsers. This reveals that Newsroom heirarchies does not exist, while Newsroom hierarchies is an ordinary user with no special privileges. Algebraist 00:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that tip--AlotToLearn (talk) 05:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Main Page and improving articles

I've been monitoring Robert F. Kennedy assassination, which is today's featured article on the main page, and the editing pattern there has led me to some pondering. There are a significant number of vandal edits, which in this case has largely to do with the conspiracy theory surrounding the topic, but in their midst there are some really good IP edits. One of the problems I had was getting input from other editors, and today has seen a couple of rewrites from editors that have really improved the article.
What this has made me wonder is: what about articles that need cleaning up or where more input is desired? One of the problems with some articles is getting enough eyes on them to improve them satisfactorily. I wondered if it might be an idea to allocate some limited space to the main page, or to do something else in a similarly high profile area that would assist in getting anon edits and other editors looking at the articles. Perhaps placed on the main page (or elsewhere) by request of other editors of that article? Placing it here because it's a little vague, but it seemed to me that getting more people looking at some of our not-so-good work would be as beneficial as showing off our "perfect" stuff. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

There've been a lot of attempts at this, although I'm not sure if it's been proposed to actually put "less perfect" stuff on the main. I'm thinking of the rescue squadron, for one, but that's really a group of current editors that pay attention to that stuff, not new editors/IPs. Basically though, trying to get a major change to the mainpage is a bit like trying to sell a bottle of sand in the Sahara. Keeper | 76 15:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a shame - one of our big problems in improving content is getting editors to the pages we'd like to see get more attention. Anyone else got any thoughts on this? Fritzpoll (talk) 11:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC):

Hm, interesting idea. As of now, the purpose of the mainpage is to showcase Wikipedia's best content.
However, this sounds neat, perhaps we could add a strip under the POTD? There'd be some links to beginner help guides, along with a collaboration of the day or week. It might be an awesome method of improving articles as well as boosting participation (we need more active regular contributors), I rather like it, though it's unorthodox. Puchiko (Talk-email) 14:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this was the general idea behind DYK, to get new, short articles that could be improved by being on the mainpage. However, the experience level required to know how to nominate something for DYK, usually means that the articles listed are of above average quality compared to the encyclopedia as a whole. Not sure though how would could set a bar of "good enough to be in the 'pedia, but sucks to read" as a new spot for improvement. MBisanz ^talk 17:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought we could look at an appropriate category of the cleanup backlogs, select a few articles and put them up as a small list. I agree that this is vague though and would need a better process. Needn't be complicated though Fritzpoll (talk) 17:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Additional information for infoboxes of actors, singers, etc.

Is it possible to have the field "language" added in the infoboxes? I wish to have that field category for additional information of artists' infobox and the like. Thanks. - Lee Heon Jin —Preceding undated comment was added at 08:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC).

Most infoboxes are associated with a WikiProject. You will probably get more help if you find the appropriate WikiProject and ask on one of its discussion pages. —AlanBarrett (talk) 15:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Translation needed

Hello!

I need translation from Japanese to English:

Amette tanoshiine
Doko kara tomonaku futtekite itzumo
tanoshiku utatteru
Dakedo hitorigia utaenai
Nakayoshi koyoshide atzumatte
Yaneto isshyoni ton ton ton
Tzuchitto isshyoni pin pin pin
Hanato isshyoni shan shan shan
Minnato tanoshiku utatteru.

You can hear the song also at:

http://it.youtube.com/watch?v=XmgKiioec1o

Thank You! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.88.82.94 (talk) 14:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You want WP:Reference desk/Language. Algebraist 14:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Where is the statement: majority of new articles are by new editors.

I read somewhere on wikipedia that the majority of new articles are by new editors. Please, please, please, I am not here to solicit opinions on this statement, I am simply interested where this factoid is found, I thought it was on WP:BITE but I can't find it now, even in the edit history. travb (talk) 01:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Just check out Special:NewPages (and patrol it too!). The vast majority of new articles that Jayvdb doesn't catch with his bot (about 1/3 of all articles) are by new editors. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 02:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this will apply to most such websites - people have an initial burst of enthusiasm, adding to the whole, and then tick over with pet interests. Jackiespeel (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Also note that "new articles" include the 1000+ that are deleted every day, most via WP:CSD. So perhaps a better question is "Are the majority of articles that have survived (not been deleted, not been replaced by a redirect) by new editors?" -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

How should I name THIS article?

I am not sure how to name my User:Gun Powder Ma/List of exactly what? List of Greco-Roman roofs fits the subject, but sounds somehow strange, doesn't it? Is List of Greco-Roman roof constructions or List of Greco-Roman roofing better? And: Greco-Roman or Greek and Roman? Any suggestions are welcome. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Comparison of Greco-Roman roof structures -- Gurch (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I second that choice. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

But "....Greco-Roman roofs" isn't wrong, either, isn't it? I could redirect to this expression, while using "...Greco-Roman roof structures" as the main title. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Or "Comparison of Greco-Roman rooves". – ukexpat (talk) 15:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

how do you remove inappropriate pictures

Does any one know how to remove inappropriate pictures from articles?Skye Novacek (talk) 01:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You can just click "edit this page" at the top of the article and remove the code for that image (looks something like [[File:Example.png|...]]). But please make sure you give a good reason why you are removing the image; you may want to familiarize yourself with the guidelines at WP:IMAGE and the basic policies of Wikipedia. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 01:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "inappropriate"? If the removal of an image link is likely to be even the least bit controversial, it should be discussed on the article's talk page. And please remember that Wikipedia is not censored. – ukexpat (talk) 01:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Pictures of penises on applies or a lion cub on the article about doors is obviously inappropriate, but we don't cater to people's specific sensitivities. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please see the Censorship section of the editor's index regarding removing pictures that some readers might consider inappropriate (which is very different than removing vandalism or removing pictures that mistakenly off-topic). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

A lot of talk-pages have been categorized

Category:Rockets and missiles have loads og talkpages [8]. This can't be right?--Ezzex (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

{{WPRocketry}} does that. It possibly shouldn't. Algebraist 19:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I changed it to Category:WikiProject Rocketry articles. It will take a while until all the talk pages get updated and moved. --Apoc2400 (talk) 12:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Infobox use by category

Resolved

 – ukexpat (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a discussion going on about which of two infoboxes to use for Japanese railway stations. One is easy to number, the infobox japan station, as it is only for the Japanese railways. The other, the universal infobox station is harder as we would have to filter the total number by using a category, for example Category:Stations of East Japan Railway Company (there is no unifying single category).

Is there a way to do this sort of count? Cosnahang (talk) 12:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

As listed at Help:Magic words, {{PAGESINCATEGORY}} will count all pages in a category. Note that it won't look in subcategories. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The m:CatScan tool on m:toolserver can do this. For example this scan finds all articles in Category:Stations of East Japan Railway Company (and subcategories up to 3 levels deep) including template:infobox japan station. It says there are 288 of them. Pretty much all toolserver tools are currently running on out of date data, but this will be fixed soon. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

That is the answer, thanks Cosnahang (talk) 14:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

DVD/CD of Wikipedia

please make a cd/dvd of wikipedia and introduce it into the market as an encyclopedic cd/dvd.so that the people who do not have internet can have encyclopedia and gain knowledge.we will be very much thankful to you.

posted by a poor indian.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.224.195 (talk) 13:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

There already are some distributions of Wikipedia via CD; and discussions of distribution via DVD: see Wikipedia:Wikipedia CD Selection, Wikipedia:Wikipedia-CD/Download, and Wikipedia:DVD.

Also, please because Wikipedia's content is free, and free to redistribute, anyone can download articles and make their own DVD(s), then sell or give away the DVD(s), without needing any prior permission to do so. And no payment would be owed to the Wikimedia Foundation for (re)using Wikipedia content. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

My edit count

Okay, this is a bit editcountitis. For some reason my edit count differs in both where it shows up on the preferences and in the tools by almost 700 edits. Why is this? Simply south not SS, sorry 23:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Any edits you've made to pages that were later deleted are not counted by the tools but are counted in the preferences. OTOH, any pages you've moved are counted twice by the tools but only once in the preferences.

The difference between them is counted as your deleted contributions - which means that if you tend to edit established articles (that don't get deleted) and do a fair few moves, it's quite possible to have a negative number of deleted contributions. Pfainuk talk 23:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Which edit count would you recommend i use? Simply south not SS, sorry 00:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

To a certain extent it depends on the context. I personally think the preferences version is a better measure in general - bearing in mind that edit count is not a measure of editor quality - because it counts every action, whether deleted or not, and only counts moves once. OTOH the version you get in the tools can be broken down into namespaces and suchlike, which can be very convenient. Pfainuk talk 00:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I track my edits pretty regularly with wannabe_kate, primarily so I can see where I've been spending my time. However, for just the raw number of edits I've made, I use the preferences count. EVula // talk // ☯ // 07:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Featured sounds

Featured sounds has recently restarted, and we could really use some more people to evaluate the sounds. It's at WP:FSC. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/Foxy Loxy

This is a notification to all interested parties that I have accepted a nomination to join the Bot Approvals Group - the above link should take you to the discussion. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 03:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent Article for deletion debates

Do you have an inspiring Article for deletion story, where the article was rescued?

I am interested in really excellent articles for deletion debates, where the article was saved because of the mental prowess of one editor. I am hoping to collect some Article for deletion stories on several topics, particuarly notability, because that is the most common reason for deletion. Anyone care to share a link? travb (talk) 22:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The best argument against deletion of an article is making the article into something worthy of an encyclopedia. Real cites are paramount, as if there is enough published on a topic, folks will not claim it is just "non-notable." And remember de mortuis nil nisi bonum is still sound advice. Collect (talk) 22:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nailin' Paylin was kind of fun. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Collect, have any examples? travb (talk) 01:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

If you look at ones I weighed in on, you will find I have worked on several in order to at least make the AfD discussion based on an "older version of the article" which can very well affect opinions (and reduces the impact of earlier opinions with any luck). I make sure that I do not try simply saying "keep" to everything, as there is, in fact, a lot of deletable material around <g>. Collect (talk) 15:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I was involved in this one: Evanston Public Library, AFD discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evanston public library. – ukexpat (talk) 01:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Look for article rescue barnstars and see what articles got rescued, then check the AFDs with dates immediately prior to the award. Go to the "what links here" links for each of these images: File:Rescuebarnstar.png, File:Barnstar search rescue 02.png, and File:Barnstar search rescue.png. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Note:The following 2 comments by Davidwr at 02:26, 13 January 2009 and by Peregrine Fisher at 03:38, 13 January 2009, were deleted at 03:44, 13 January 2009 and restored at 4:17, 13 January 2009. Intermediate edits were made without these comments present.

David you are always so helpful and awesome, thank you. travb (talk) 03:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for inadvertant deletion...--Buster7 (talk) 03:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Was that a joke?[9] Anyways, here are the comments I made. Still a bit lost in that edit.

Another good one was KevJumba. You can read some of the AfDs at Talk:KevJumba in the bottom AfD history template. I think ony an admin can look at it now, but I think it was prod'ed maybe once, and speedied several times, some of the times at the alternate spelling Kevjumba. I think it was deleted a total of maybe 7 times! Anyways, I got tired of it being deleted so I took it to GA status. I expect that a lot of TV episode articles have been put up for AfD and then made into GAs as a defense. What would be interesting would be to find the FAs that had been nominated at AfD. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, just to toot my own horn a bit -- I was pretty pleased with this one. WikiProjects are invited to establish standards the "exceed" WP:NOTE, but there's a lot of sloppy thinking out there about what "exceed" means. I am fairly certain that the original intent -- and the best policy -- is the WikiProjects may establish guidelines that are more inclusive, but they can't override the notability standard (in other words, they can't say "these articles should not exist, even though they pass WP:NOTE). The deletion debate about footballer Alex Nimo centered around this issue, and I was able to persuade some people who initially argued for deletion; I believe everyone, myself included, came away with a clearer understanding of how those guidelines apply, in addition to a decision about that specific article. -Pete (talk) 01:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Great suggestion, an editor mentioned Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precambrian rabbit. travb (talk) 14:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is another one, offered by FT2:

Tunnel Running was a long ago (but very visible) rescue - see its AFD for how this evolved (if examples are needed). FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Ikip (talk) 11:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I am including all of these ideas at: Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Hall of Fame Ikip (talk) 01:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

A Preferences question

This, that and the other _[talk] 06:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

On "my preferences", what does "Enable "jump to" accessibility links" mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnyPerson (talk • contribs) 00:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The meaning of each option in "my preferences" (except for the gadgets tab, for which see Wikipedia:Gadgets) is discussed at Help:Preferences. In this case, when I tested this item a year ago, for the book on Wikipedia editing that I was writing, it seemed to make no difference whether the box was checked or not. YMMV. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) It actually does have an effect, although one which is hidden for most people. Browsers lacking CSS support (or with CSS disabled), or screen readers for low vision people (hence the name "accessibility links"), will display/read out these links. See image. This, that and the other _[talk] 06:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, if you're using a regular browser, you won't see any effect at all. EVula // talk // ☯ // 07:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe so. But the main thing is, there is some effect. This, that and the other _[talk] 10:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The description at Help:Preferences says (in total) Provides or hides the two links "Jump to: navigation, search" at the top of each page, to the navigation bar and the search box. The description at m:Help:Preferences is lengthier; it adds These links are visible in Myskin skin, hidden in Monobook, Simple, Chick and Modern skins (can be made visible by site or personal CSS) and are not present in 3 other skins. But - if I understand the above comments correctly - the meta help page description is misleading in that "providing" these links does not normally make them visible for most people. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I was agreeing with you, This, that and the other. ;) Accessibility features like that are very important for non-traditional browsing devices. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

This feature as implemented is mostly useless anyway. New users (including screen reader users) will never see it since the default skin hides it via display:none. And regular users will have found the other more-efficient shortcuts to reach these sections of the page. --GregU (talk) 22:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidates

Reviewers are lacking at WP:FAC. It may be helpful for editors to transclude User:Deckiller/FAC urgents to their talk pages (by adding {{User:Deckiller/FAC urgents}}, to watch for articles they may be interested in reviewing relative to the featured article criteria. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Flash mob time again...this time short intros

Hey everyone can practice writing leads, which should be short summaries of the most important facts of an article - so why not everyone take a look at what links to this template and spruce up some leads....Robin Williams had totally lost his....Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

...and then I found this.... :( Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Editor run amok

Resolved

 – ukexpat (talk) 20:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm a Senior Editor here on the 'pedia, but I don't have much experience with this type of issue and need some guidance. A new user named DChoc keeps changing the Digital Chocolate article. Not only do they add highly POV statements, they also violate Wikipedia standards left and right in terms of formatting and use of extensive lists. In short, they're trying to turn the article into an advertising vehicle.

I've reverted the article several times, but they keep changing it back to their version. Can someone with the power please protect the article or deal with the rampant user? I fear that blocking them from editing won't be enough, as they may just create a new username and keep up their work. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 20:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like fun. Where'd I put my Admin Cluehammer, again...? In future, you might want to take something like this to the conflict of interest noticeboard or Incidents board for quicker response. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help (and the links)! — Frecklefσσt | Talk 21:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Book Image

Resolved

 – ukexpat (talk) 20:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, this is completely random, but I've been wondering for a long time; what is the title/link of the image of an open book in the background of all Wikipedia's pages? Does anyone know? Thanks, and have a fun day! BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 20:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2008_July_10#What.27s_that_image.3F. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Gratzias! BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 02:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Lake Manitou article currently under attack

Sorry for this unconventional posting but I thought that the usual routes might take too long, "protecting the encyclopedia" and all that! lol This article is currently #10 on the reddit front page, with over 600 hits in the last 15 hours. I'd wager that it's because of that, that we are presently getting a deluge of vandalism directed at the article and at least a short term form of protection is needed on it. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 18:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Deconstructhis (talk) 19:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Secure multi-party communication: looking for advice

Hello. Some editors have been promoting their own work on the page on Secure multi-party computation. I have undone their actions several times, but they keep reverting me. Their work is not published yet, though I have just learnt that it has been accepted for a conference. At present, it is not clear that this work is particularly notable, so I'm not sure what to do. I am trying to maintain good faith while being concious of WP:COI. (PS. I wouldn't call myself an expert in the field.) 87.112.55.49 (talk) 20:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a straighforward WP:NOR violation. They will have to wait until after someone publishes something about their work (secondary source) before it can be included but even then it shouldn't be done by the originators of the work. Roger (talk) 07:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Page moved inappropriately

Resolved

The Hobbit and its talk page have been moved to The Hobbitt (allegedly to correct a "mispelling"—itself misspelled!) and no one seems to have caught it. The original spelling was the correct one. Sorry to ask this here, but I have to run and have no time to do the move (and, I assume, request the speedy deletion). I'm assuming good faith, but the picture of the book at the top of the article does show the title. Rivertorch (talk) 07:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I have moved it back to The Hobbit. There a few double redirects to fix. -=# Amos E Wolfe ^talk #=- 08:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

How can I get uploader privilege?

I'd like to experiment in the sandbox, but can't upload images to do so. I understand that this requires an uploader privilege. How can I get that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keyesdav (talk • contribs) 19:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

When your account is autoconfirmed (10 edits and at least 4 days old) you will be able to upload. – ukexpat (talk) 19:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

What article has survived the most AFD attempts?

Under the category of pointless wikipedia trivia, I wonder what article has survived the most attempts to delete it. List of unusual deaths has been nominated six times (the first under its delightful original title, List of people who died with tortoises on their heads) - DavidWBrooks 02:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It was finally deleted but Gay Nigger Association of America survived 17 of them. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America (18th nomination). Icewedge (talk) 02:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I used the search facility to try to figure this out, and here's what I got:

1. Gay Nigger Association of America - 18 nominations (deleted)
2. Daniel Brandt - 14 nominations (deleted)
3. Cleveland steamer - 9 nominations (merged)
4. Railpage Australia - 8 nominations (kept, spurious bad-faith nominations)
5. Al Gore III - 8 nominations (deleted)
6. Allegations of Israeli apartheid - 8 nominations (moved but kept)
7. List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck" - 8 nominations (kept)
8. Girlfriend - 7 nominations (kept)
9. Angela Beesley - 7 nominations (kept)
10. LUEshi - 7 nominations (merged)
11. Eep - 7 nominations (merged)
12. Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars - 7 nominations (kept)
13. List of films considered the worst - 7 nominations (kept)

And I stopped after 7. I've summarized the final outcome of each above. I consider the winners to be:

Allegations of Israeli apartheid:

1. no consensus, May 29, 2006
2. speedy keep, July 15, 2006
3. no consensus, August 8, 2006
4. keep, 30 March 2007
5. no consensus, 19 April 2007
6. speedy keep (non-admin closure), 26 June 2007
7. none, 3 September 2007
8. no consensus, June 2008

List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck":

1. No consensus, VFD December 24, 2004
2. Keep, AFD May 25, 2005
3. No consensus, AFD January 2, 2006
4. Keep, AFD July 10, 2006
5. Keep, AfD February 23, 2007
6. No consensus, AfD 28 January 2008
   • No consensus closure endorsed, DRV 4 February 2008
7. Keep, AFD March 14 2008
8. Keep, AFD October 16 2008

Angela Beesley is interesting because her last AfD came out "delete" but was overturned at DRV. Eep deserves special mention because it's an especially old one that used to be on BJAODN and went to VfD as well.

They're actually quite an educational bunch of contentious examples to look at. :-) I'm glad you asked. Dcoetzee 07:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Holy toledo - I guess "Unusual deaths" is an AFD piker! Thanks for the work. (I'd forgotten about that endless Daniel Brandt debate) - DavidWBrooks 14:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

If the GNAA AFDers had spaced nominations at least 3 months apart, there would've been a lot fewer of them. The final, successful AFD was several months after the preceeding one, but there were at least 2 runs of several-in-rapid-succession nominations. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I have always assumed there was an unspoken minimum waiting period between allowable AFD attempts; three months sounds about right. List of unusual deaths' series is nicely spread out: Keep, 17 January 2009; Keep, 12 June 2007; No consensus, 29 March 2007; Keep, 12 December 2006; Keep, 23 May 2006; Keep and Rename, September 2004. - DavidWBrooks 17:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Help:Edit_conflict

ive just looked at the Help:Edit_conflict and i noticed in the master box at the top there is a link to hhhhhh. is it supposed to be there? rdunnPLIB  09:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

New school project

I've come across a new school project with dates January 22 – February 12. The professor appears to be from the University of Toronto and editing under EEB356Prof. I've left the best message I could at their talkpage and here and was wondering if I could have some extra eyes. So far I've found users Leemin2-356, Bajrobin356, Mr Insect, User:Bealelor356, and Rodri101; they are editing Wheat weevil, Forficula auricularia, Tree cricket, and Cheiracanthium inclusum repectively; though Mr Insect has also created a few other articles that were not tagged as projects so he may be a keeper. That's 1/4 of their project I've been able to dig up due to direct links to the prof's page. Thanks, §hep • ^Talk 05:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

American spider beetle (Bocciaja356) §hep • ^Talk 01:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

A problem with references

This may not be the correct place but anyway.

On The Chaser APEC pranks in the "The Chaser's response" section, there is an entire section cited by the radio interview on Source 44. The problem is that the website containing the media file is not dead linked. Since then there has been two tags added questioning the reliability of the source.

Now I listened to that radio interview, and while I couldn't possibly remember it, I know that all that information is correct when it was written. I suggested this source on the talk page to another editor (Jasewese) who then wrote that section and sourced it.

Now while archive.org does store the website, the media file dosen't play. So it is probably lost.

Is there a way to get rid of the citation questions around that source.  The Windler talk  11:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Transcripts can be RS -- the actual radio recording is generally called a primary source, and that makes it difficult to use as a cite on WP. Ask on WP:RS/N perhaps. Collect (talk) 14:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll ask there!!  The Windler talk  20:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Google warnings?

Hello, my apologies if this is already known - I only noticed it today, but google.co.uk flags en.wikipedia.org pages as potentially harmful, and directs people to a holding page before passing them on, like so: http://www.google.co.uk/interstitial?url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walrus At the moment, the diagnostic page 502's. Odd.Random name (talk) 14:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Google has recently started flagging every site as potentially harmful. I assume this is a bug. Algebraist 14:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Shoot, it didn't occur to me to look further down. Perhaps Google is speaking out about Internet security in general. ;-) Random name (talk) 14:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, "This site may harm your computer." appears for every result in google web searches, this is already in the news [10]. Cenarium (Talk) 15:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Hah! My post beat all those news stories by two minutes! ;-) Random name (talk) 15:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

All fine now. Algebraist 15:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it appears fixed. This is the danger of too much filtering... Cenarium (Talk) 15:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

US and UK-wide photo-gathering contest

See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art for a massive collaborative contest to gather illustrations for as many articles as we can! Add your name under participants!--Aervanath (talk) 17:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Please don't post the same message to every part of the village pump. I've removed it from the others. Algebraist 17:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Vital Articles

I wasn't sure if new WikiProjects are "announced" anywhere, so I thought that I'd just mention here that I've started a Vital Articles WikiProject. All assistance would be appreciated! -Drilnoth (talk) 00:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Copyright / Copyvio question

Here's a conundrum - when is a copyvio not a copyvio? ...presumably when it's an administrator looking at it?

This issue has been at the back of my mind for ages, and it came up three times today in three separate areas I was lazily clicking through. Not being one to ignore such a clear sign from the wiki gods, I thought I'd bring it here for.. you know.. review ;-)

So it's illegal to break copyright, right? - and if an article, or image on a wikimedia foundation project breaks copyright then it gets deleted. I just wonder how the copyright owner feels about the article / image still being available to over a thousand (and growing) number of unidentified people - that's illegal, right?

I've had this in the 'don't really care' bucket for ages - but as part of my forays into sexual content on wiki, came across this image (now deleted) which I believe was very (very) close to being an illegal image, because it sexualised a child.

Anyone reading this who's an admin at commons can view the image - isn't that a bit wrong?

The fact is that wikimedia's administrators have unfettered (and apparently un-monitorable) access to a huge, and ever growing body of copyright infringing work. Doesn't seem sustainable to me. Privatemusings (talk) 05:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)I've posted this in a couple of places to try and figure out where the best fit is... please feel free to move elsewhere / refactor etc. :-)

I'm only going by US law here, other countries may vary: When a copyvio is deleted, unless admins make a copy of it and distribute it elsewhere, its questionable whether or not its still a copyvio at all. Copyright holders have the right:

“ to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending; ” — [11]

The deleted revisions aren't being used for distribution like articles are, but as a historical record/audit trail. Also, the actual fair use laws allow a lot more than Wikipedia's fair use rules, many things deleted as copyvios may, legally, be acceptable under fair use. Remember that most of this "copyright infringing work" is copied from other websites, admins would have just as much access to it on the original site as they do in the deleted content. Mr.Z-man 17:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

We do need a way to permanently delete ("purge" or "eradicate") things from the database that need to be permanently deleted, and a developer can intervene to do this if necessary. In practice, the reason that copyvios being available to admins is not a problem is because the copyright holder doesn't number among their ranks, and so has no way of discovering that their work is available to anyone - someday a vindictive admin may request that a work on which they own copyright is purged, but it ain't happened yet. Dcoetzee 07:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

thanks for the reponses, guys - I'm still thinking this one over - I'm not really sold that there's no legal issue in regards to copyright, nor am I sure that developer intervention is a scalable solution for stuff that needs to be permanently deleted - I'm most uncomfortable with any illegal image being available to admin.s to be honest.... Privatemusings (talk) 03:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You aren't raising a legal issue. Copyright law is not there to stop people from "viewing" a work, it's there to stop people from publishing and distributing it. Privatemusings, you give almost nothing to this encyclopedia except argumentation. Why don't you try writing some articles, taking a few photographs or doing something besides acting as the eternal turd-stirrer. Maybe then people will actually care what you have to say. --David Shankbone 04:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, that's not fair - Wikipedians who primaily contribute to project discussion are still making a valuable contribution. It's called specialization, we all have our role to play. Dcoetzee 09:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree with David. Dcoetzee, I have some pointers for you which makes Davids response more understandable: [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] & [18]. Have fun reading, multichill (talk) 12:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Notwithstanding any prior contribution of Privatemusings (and I do in fact have strong disagreements with his attitude about censorship of sexual content), an argument or discussion should be considered on its merits independent of the person presenting it, and I do think there is pervasive disrespect for people who contribute to Wikipedia in ways other than working on articles, including vandal fighters, policy lawyers, and social support roles. I think perpetuating this attitude is damaging to the project. Dcoetzee 00:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You can hold whatever opinion you like, but comparing vandal-fighting (and those people get TONS of respect) with someone who never lets an issue drop, continues to argue it even after told by the entire community to let it go, forum-shops a non-issue like the one above, and then has the audacity to argue that the BLP he was ArbCommed over might be ripe for him to start in on again, well, I think you can find better people on this project to defend. Your welcome to hold whatever opinion you like, but it's Privatemusings who I find disruptive on this project, as well as those who simply stir the turd, while rarely helping to build the bowl. You might have some kernel of wisdom in what you're saying, but I think you've chosen the wrong person as an example. --David Shankbone 05:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh I don't disagree that Privatemusings is disruptive, and I'd like to see his vendetta stopped. I'm afraid I got overenthusiastic about philosophy. Dcoetzee 07:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

< fwiw - this is the most useful response I had on this particular question - interestingly this whole thing seems tied up in the 'are we a publisher or not, or what' type questions. Also, fwiw, I think it's rather too easy to slam the door on some of this stuff, without taking care not to catch one's allegorical fingers. With the recent 100MB expansion, and a clever 'convertor' which will oggify things like videos on the fly, I'd predict the uploading of copyvio material is something which may increase in the mid-term. If the owners of the copyright are cool with administrators having unfettered access, then I certainly have no complaint :-) As I mentioned above, my primary area of concern is in potentially illegal material (like [this image, in my view) - I believe it would be desirable to have a 'genuine and full delete' option in this case. Privatemusings (talk) 23:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)ps. I love you guys, and if you wanna talk about me, or offer further advice etc. - please do swing by my talk page - I hope you don't disagree that that ain't not half bad an idea.

The love is not returned, Privatemusings. Your behavior on the site is abhorrent and disruptive; just because you do it with multiple :) smiles, ! exclamation points and glib turns-of-phrase might mean newbies think you seem all "let's just work together, shall we!" but for long-time users, your M.O. is transparent. Regardless, such statements like "If the owners of the copyright are cool with administrators having unfettered access" are nonsensical, because unless admins and/or uploaders are hacking into people's computers to upload their private reserve of photography, images, graphics and/or video, they are able to have "unfettered access" to it somewhere on the Internet. Is Wikipedia a publisher? Yes. But having creative work that is publicly inaccessible for viewing and distribution makes that work...unpublished. Just like if you download a Peter Klashorst photo on to your office computer, and it sits there on your company's servers...it doesn't make it published, unless they throw it up on their website. This is pretty obvious. --David Shankbone 23:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

ah come on, show me at least a little love, DS - I'm a sort of 'wanna be' Shankbone in many ways, with one of my favourite contributions to wiki being snaps of various notable folk (mine are unfortunately not as good as yours, but I'm learning) - either ways, though we might not ever really see eye to eye, I hope we can avoid using 'abhorrent and disruptive'. If you find the 'glib and  :-)' annoying, then I'm happy to talk seriously. Would you like to? Privatemusings (talk) 00:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)ps. is Wikipedia really a publisher?

I'll tell you what, PM, when you start writing more articles (which you rarely do) or uploading more files (which you rarely do), and stop trying to force your perspectives on the entire community (which you do ad nauseam and with little regard for consensus)...when you stop the egotistical forcing of your views through endless proposals, BLP problems and discussions about these issues, then we can talk. Until then, I will gladly say we aren't in the same league, whether you "wanna be" or not. I simply do not have much respect for you, nor anyone who never listens to a community that he consistently! professes! to love!  :-) Otherwise, if you were banned - nobody would notice! Certainly not our readers :-) The last word is yours, as always. --David Shankbone 00:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Announcements

Anyone who has a view about WP:ANN, particularly whether having a bot would help it (or not), speak here! - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 12:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Requesting an opinion

While doing new page patrol once in a while, I run across an article that may be worthy of an AFD. In those cases of which I am not sure, I think it would be useful to ask the opinion of a few other editors, without going through a formal AFD process. Is there any process in Wikipedia to ask a few editors for an informal opinion on a subject’s notability, before nominating the article for AFD? •••Life of Riley (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Not really. You could WP:PROD and see what happens. – ukexpat (talk) 00:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Twenty five percent of wikipedia is fiction articles?

I keep hearing the figure that 25% (one fourth) of wikipedia is articles on fictional topics (television, movies, novels), does anyone know where this figure comes from? Ikip (talk) 02:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I made it up. OK just kidding. One way to find out is to get someone with access to a list of all 2.7 million articles to give you a representative random sample of say, 500 non-redirect articles. You could then analyze these and you'd get an answer that's probably correct +/- some margin of error. 500 may be more than you need, if you are willing to have a bigger margin of error, 100 or even 50 might do. I wouldn't rely on Special:Random, I've found if I run it 20 times on one day, then 20 times on another, the distributions of topics are way different from day to day. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is one user's study. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 03:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Oh, that is beautiful, statistics, of course, my SPSS professor would be proud. You are a gem davidwr. Ikip (talk) 03:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought it maybe a scholarly study. Man, I love wikipedia, so many smart and helpful people. Thanks Melodia. Ikip (talk) 03:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

As per above, I wouldn't rely on anything drawn from Special:Random unless you know how random "Random" was at the time the study was done. I've added comments to User talk:Knulclunk/Random to warn other users. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I count 23% arts and entertainment and 2% fiction. Maybe that's where the 25% came from. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

True, good point, it is better than what we have now, though: zip.

I would have to pull out my SPSS book to see how many articles you would have to sample before getting a acceptable error rate. First you would have to know how many actual articles we have. I think 6,904,735 (Help:Magic words: {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}) is inflated, with redirects, etc. Ikip (talk) 03:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

See: User:R. fiend/How many articles does Wikipedia really have?, but this editor also uses Special:Random.

Recall that in elections, polls can randomly sample 1000 people, for a population of over 300,000 million (how many of these are registered voters?) and determine within an error rate of about 3% points the opinion of the nation. so 200 articles, if actually random, maybe acceptable for 2.7 million articles, if there are that many. Ikip (talk) 04:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

According to Margin of error the margin of error with a 95% confidence interval is no more than 0.98/(sqrt(n)). Since n=200, that's 6.9%. To get down below +/-5% we'd need to sample 385 articles. Bear in mind that this "margin of error" applies where half of the sample is "yes" for a given measurement. If it's less, say, 23% or 2%, the margin of error in percentage-points is much lower. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I know that User:Pixelface has stated that ~25% of WP articles fall under Category:Fiction. The numbers are too large for AWB and other category tools to quickly work out. --MASEM 04:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Masem and David, I will message Pixelface.

David ask a question here: Wikipedia:VPT#How_does_Special:Random_work.3F Ikip (talk) 14:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

help! lol

I'm seeking the aid of an administrator in regard to the Selwyn Dewdney article. For the past month, a series of anonymous IP editors have continuously attempted to add material to the article in the form of dubious claims and posting citations in support of them, which not only do not back up what's being contended by the editors, in the most recent examples they actually specifically refute what is being claimed. I have attempted (at length) both on the discussion page of the article itself and on various talk pages of those making the edits to engage those involved in a discussion regarding these matters. These attempts are simply ignored and the material is constantly reverted without comment on either the articles discussion page or my own talk page, in the vast majority of cases not even an edit summary is utilized. This continues, despite the fact that I have posted specific quotes from the references that are being posted on the articles talk page which clearly demonstrate their complete inappropriateness in this context. Although, I've been attempting to maintain "good faith", it's appearing more likely to me all the time that what's perhaps going on is retaliatory 'tag-teaming' in nature in response to my anti-vandalism activities in other articles. I would appreciate any help in this regard, especially some sort of even short term protection for the article in question. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 18:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Protection policy and if you think your situation meets the criteria for semi-protection, request it. There's a link on that page to the protection-request page. Note that if this is purely an editorial dispute, the request probably won't be granted. If it's a case of repeatedly adding material without reliable-source citations, then that could be considered vandalism and grounds for semi-protection. You might also ask for a third opinion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. The difficulty in this situation lays in the fact that the editors involved at first glance are posting what appear to be properly formatted citations sourced from subject appropriate journals. That immediately falls apart when you actually pull the articles as I did, three citations are on offer, one includes no support at all for the claim being made, it's not a difference of interpretation, it's simply not there. The other two specifically and directly *refute* what's being contended. This makes me somewhat suspicious of what's actually going on here, but still having to deal with the fact that if someone took only a cursory glance at the situation (ie didn't actually read the source articles) they might conclude that I'm merely whining and attempting to obfuscate an ordinary editorial disagreement. I've attempted to overcome that by providing direct quotes from their claimed sources in the talk page of the article, but as it's a "low traffic" topic with a fairly dense subject matter, it's tough to get people to even give it a look. Thank you again for your time. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 23:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You might want to look at some of the citation-doesn't-say-what-the-article-says-it-says templates listed at Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup. In particular, {{failed verification}} is very useful in cases like this.davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh needs more editors on it

This article is only being edited by editors with a pro-Rush Limbaugh POV, who typically cite only to Rush Limbaugh's own website as a source. I am posting here to ask for more editors on the article. An example is the I Hope Obama Fails section. The section is written only explaining "Rush's" side (the editors on the article call him by his first name in the text). This section only presents Limbaugh's statements that he hopes Obama fails, and why he would say that, with no explanation about what made this controversial, or who found it controversial. User:Furtive admirer, backed up by User:Soxwon, are putting in a WSJ op-ed piece that I read and has nothing to do with the "fail" controversy (that also had a race element to it), but Limbaugh continuing to criticize Obama. That's Limbaugh's job - to criticize Obama, and it is distinct from the particular controversy. User:Furtive admirer uses POV language like "The Democrats escalated the issue", and when I revert, I get bizarre talk page messages about how liberal I am and how Obama needs a teleprompter to speak. I'm no longer watching the article, so it could use other editors who care more about WP:NPOV than about their own POV. --David Shankbone 23:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like you do not want "more editors" but "more editors who you agree with" -- the style issue of whether to use a first name or last name in an article is ... a style issue. Making mountains out of molehills does not work all that well. Collect (talk) 14:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, you're one of the Dittoheads, so I'd expect such a response, especially given your nonsensical reasoning on the Talk page to support your "Ditto Rush" POV. I mention quite a few things, and you choose one - Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Subsequent_uses_of_names to comment upon. By the way our "style issues" (I brought this up as an indication of pro-Rush POV, so sorry that went over your head; it didn't many other people's, I'm sure) are one of the reasons Wikipedia is credited with being more successful than Google's Knol. --David Shankbone 15:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

As I am not a "dittohead" by any stretch at all, I consider your personal attack here to be a splendid example of how some appear to view any who disagree with them on any page. Might you redact your charge? Thanks! Collect (talk) 11:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

A fascinating historical page

Anyone whose interested in Wikipedia history should take a look at a page I just unearthed from the Nostalgia Wikipedia, Wikipedia talk:List of Wikipedians in order of arrival/Archive 1. Some of the early Wikipedians talk about ownership of articles, whether attribution is needed, whether Wikipedia will become popular, and other topics. It's fascinating reading. I'm amazed that it sat dormant at the title Talk:Wikipedians/History for nearly seven years. Graham87 12:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

What's the date on that discussion, do you know? It must have been before the fourth ~ was added to the instant signatures. - DavidWBrooks 17:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

As I recall that was in late 2001/early 2002 and we didn't have any form of instant signature then. In fact I don't even think that we had a User: namespace at that time. User:Derek_Ross

In fact there's a clue which dates the discussion to November 2001 which is not only before instant sigs but even before the MediaWiki software had been written. -- Derek Ross | Talk 21:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

All the history is preserved at Wikipedians/History talk on the Nostalgia Wikipedia, and the earliest edit appears to be this one on 4 November 2001. Even though the edits from Nostalgia Wikipedia are from 2001, all the modern special pages work there. For example Special:Mostrevisions shows the pages with the most number of edits in the database on 17 December 2001. I found the above page there. A few of the pages in Special:Mostrevisions on the Nostalgia Wikipedia seem to be gone from the current Wikipedia database permanently, such as Wikipedia Religion and Mythology standards. Graham87 05:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The Nostalgia Wiki is hosted on MediaWiki software. Its content was just transferred from an old ModWiki instance. That's why the modern special pages all work. We don't use the ModWiki software on any of the servers nowadays. However at the time that the discussion was originally held we didn't use anything else. A lot of the original page edits were lost because of the way that ModWiki worked, including quite a few of my own, so I'm not surprised that MostRevisions reports revisions that no longer exist. Oh well, I suppose that we should be glad that so many survived. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia legends

I've put up User:Orngjce223/Wikipedia legends. Am I duplicating some sort of effort here? If not, could you add what you can to it (yes, you have permission to do that)? Thanks, ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 15:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You might try adding to Wikipedia:History of Wikipedian processes and people, though some of the public stuff is already in History of Wikipedia. Note that we decided not to name vandals as part of WP:DENY, so please don't try to create a list of vandals. Someone will likely come along and remove it. - BanyanTree 22:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I noted that. Okay, so he moved pages, it took me ages to figure that out and even longer to get over the aspect of "knowing" that always seems to be an insider thing.~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 03:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not really an insider/outsider thing. More of a earlycomer/latecomer thing. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

There used to be extensive information on Willy. I wrote an essay on him. Most of this stuff has been deleted because of WP:DENY. I argue that the info is useful to admins and should be available on some kind of private wiki. Dcoetzee 15:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Designed to Sell conundrum

The actress Chi-Lan Lieu stated on her personal blog[19][20] that the show Designed to Sell is only producing 11 new episodes in one of four of its airing locations, to be aired in 2010 (so noted because she'll be taking over hosting duties in these episodes), and that these will be the last new episodes as the show has not been renewed. I'd like to update the show's article with this information, as I'm reasonably confident there will be no issue with notability concerning the source. What I can't figure out is whether this is a good idea or not. I'm mildly worried that since HGTV has made no official announcements, I could potentially get the actress in trouble by adding this info to the article where the producers could see it (if she hasn't already done it herself by posting this info on her blog for everyone to see). Since this could sort of be an indirect issue along WP:BLP privacy concerns, I figured I would ask the community to be safe.

For the record, the reason I skipped past the show's article talk page is because said article receives updates so rarely (months in between edits at times) that I had a feeling nobody would ever see my question there. Arrowned (talk) 22:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

We're not in the position to protect people from themselves. If they post something in cyberspace, it's free game. Just MHO. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 23:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I dont feel that the blog would meet our reliable sources guidelines even if it is the blog of the host. The RS notice board may be your best bet for a feel of where community consensus is. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

How far is notability inherented (notability is not inherented)?

I couldn't think where this would actually fit as a question - are individual buildings of an notable entity notable? For example List of MIT undergraduate dormitories? If random tower block x is notable for a university - is random storage building y notable for the BBC (as an example)? --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

In general, no. That's not to say that we can't have redirects to point such articles to a parent topic, but notability is not necessarily inferred in this manner. --MASEM 17:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

See WP:NOTINHERITED. Dcoetzee 23:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind that WP:NOTINHERITED is an essay. "Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Heed them or not at your own discretion." See User:Eusebeus/School Notability, and especially Wikipedia:Inherent notability, which goes into much more depth, both are as authoritative as the WP:NOTINHERITED essay. Ikip (talk) 01:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually the MIT list has notable buildings therein -- none are "random tower blocks" as they include architecture by Gehry, Aalto, Pei and Saarinen inter alia. I trust you consider such architects "notable"? Collect (talk) 11:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's not get too wrapped up in the specfic example but in that example, some seem to be notable due to their architect or history, while other *do* seem to be just a modern random tower block - that's why I ask the question. Going back to my BBC example, if half of the storage buildings were designed by notable architects, then following the MIT list, I should be able to include them all because *some* of the type were notable. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Nope. What I did say was that since a number are specifically notable, and lists (for some odd reason) tend to try to be relatively complete within a category, that the inclusion of some non-notable items in a list is reasonable. Note that the list does not assert notability as being inherited from the location, but that some of the elements of the list are notable in esse. Were your putative list of BBC buildings in a given class to consist of a substantial number which were of architectural or historical note, then by all means include all the buildings in that class in your list. Nothing to do with the entity which owns them, as your initial question asked. Collect (talk) 13:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Products

Feel free to add your own products to this new list! Everyone must have made something in their time here :) Majorly talk 19:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't get it. Of course they're not real products. Is it just a bunch of inside jokes? — Frecklefσσt | Talk 20:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Inside jokes. Example, I am well-known as someone who "badgers" people on RFA (or did anyway). Majorly talk 21:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Someone will probably say inside jokes are elitist. And I guess that will be a bad thing. Although I didn't hear anyone in Pittsburgh apologizing for the recent success of their Steelers. Elitism is primarily a problem when the home team loses. --Teratornis (talk) 10:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Reusing content, and complying with the GDFL

Firstly, apologies if this is not the best place to post this - most of the talk pages for the relevant policy pages are quiet and I wanted some good eyes on it. AN and ANI didn't seem like a good fit for this enquiry.

Secondly, I have already looked over some relevant pages, including Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content and Wikipedia:Verbatim copying, but none of the scenarios given there seem to cover what I want to do.

Okay, basically, what I wish to do, is to use segments of some articles (in most cases, the lead section of biographies and band articles) on my own website. My idea includes:

• It will not be a full verbatim copy all of the time, as I will be removing cite markers and Wiki-specific markup. However, in some/most cases it will.
• I'm aware that I have to credit it to "Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia", and include a link back to the original article. Is it best to link to the "live" article, or the diff that the content was taken from?
• How much attribution is required? Is it sufficient to attribute and provide a link to the GFDL licence text it in a HTML comment, in a pop-up element on the page, or do I need to announce that it's under the GFDL in bold-face 32 point text with the blink element applied? Is text along the lines of "The Wikipedia content included on this page is licensed under the GFDL." in the footer of the page sufficient?
• Will including such content throw the GFDL over any other content on the page, stuff that I have created?
• Is there anything else I should consider that I am plainly not considering at the moment?

Any insight would be greatly appreciated. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC).

Answers.com uses a simple "copyright" link to [21] and does not link to WP's original article. It also links to [22] for its disclaimer. I looked up "Millard Webb" and it does not seem to have any "live link" to a current article. I do not know whether answers.com uses a "released" version of WP, perhaps someone else can answer that. It definitely does not provide "edit history" for articles. I would, however, trust the answers.com copyright notice to be sufficient. Collect (talk) 13:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'm aware that I can probably "get away" with that, but I just wanted to adopt best practice rather than doing the bare minimum. The presence of other copyrighted non-Wiki material on that site would indicate that anything else I include alongside the re-used content (for instance, text I've written myself that is not directly related to the Wikipedia text) will not be treated as a derivative work and require release under GFDL as well too, would it not? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC).

The short answers are:

• It's typical to link to the live article, so that the user can see the latest version when they click it; you can also link both.
• A subtle link to the GFDL license at the bottom is fine; it does need to be visible and legible in the rendered page.
• You may be forced to release your other content, or you might not, depending on who you ask. It's a fuzzy question of interpretation. Wikipedia apparently doesn't think so, considering our habit of putting Creative Commons images into GFDL articles.

Hope this helps. Dcoetzee 07:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Gripe about tagging stub articles with maintenance tags

Was it the point of adding a {{nofootnotes}}, {{refimprove}}, {{onesource}}, or even {{expand}} tag to an article that already has a visible stub template. The article obviously needs expanding that's what the stub is telling the reader. A short article with only one source and no inline footnotes qualifies to be tagged with all four of these maintenance tags or it could just have one simple stub template. I'm fine with BLP stubs with {{unreferenced}} tags but I will remove these other tags from most other stubs I see. OlEnglish (talk) 21:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I also know what the stub template means, but not all Wikipedia editors do (yet). Someone might learn something from one of those other template messages, annoying as they are. For example, not everyone has read WP:FOOT, WP:RS, WP:CITE, etc. Maybe someone's first introduction to an important aspect of article development will come from one of those templates. I read a statistic somewhere to the effect that some unbelievably high percentage of our 48,201,588 registered user accounts have 10 or fewer edits. Thus there are apparently millions of Wikipedia editors who have barely gotten into the dabbling stage. The more instructions we add to stub articles, the more ways there are for inexperienced editors to learn what to do. However, it would be nice if we had some user preference setting to indicate one's experience level. For example, you could check an "expert" box and then you wouldn't have to be redundantly reminded of what a stub article needs. A "beginner" box might trigger additional explanatory material in the user interface, and possibly some hiding of advanced features. --Teratornis (talk) 10:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

law terminology

we recently purchased a vehicle here in Florida. Our credit was OK and we were told that a bank now is the lien holder and the vehicle is ours. Two (2) days later we get a call from the owners wife stating that my wife had committed fraud and submitted a made up or false pay stub. I was there when my wife told the sales manager that she doesn't get pay stubs yet because they are still moving into the new offices and there are only 4 people working at the office right now , so the owner just gives her a check for her weekly pay and he will give her a 1099 for this period of transition, but soon he will start taking out taxes and she will at that time have pay stubs. The sales manager just said don't worry about it, that he would take care of it. He apparently got very creative in order to get the loan passed. He also changed some things on the original application like how long my wife has been working for the company and how long we have lived in our present home. We didnt do any of this. At the end of the day after we had been there 5hours and we were exhausted he called us into his office and congratulated us on the purchase of our new used vehicle. we ask him if the bank picked up the loan, and his reply was it was a tough one but I got them to take it, the vehicle is now yours and he even told us who the lien holder is. on the bottom of the bill of sale paper a box is checked which states that the loan is assigned with out recourse. Since we did nothing wrong I dont feel that we have to return the vehicle, especially to the dealership, because the bank is the lien holder and we have yet to hear from them. I really need to know what the term means assigned with out recourse. I plan to fight this thing hand and fist. We are not responsible for what the dealerships people do to get people loans through the banks that they use. The owner of the dealership has threatened my wife and myself with arrest for auto theft and fraud. I told her just go call the police I have a bill of sale and as for fraud we did nothing wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.254.97.243 (talk) 21:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Please consult a lawyer, we cannot give legal advice. – ukexpat (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Berlin Murder

Moved to WP:RDM#Berlin murder--Patton^t/c 23:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Fact and fiction mixed up?

I suspect the article Jack Jones (banker) doesn't describe a real-life person of this name at all. Is there any template or place to bring this to the attention of experts? Or administrators for that matter? I mean, something that will make somebody have a look soon, not just when he runs into it. Debresser (talk) 09:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Through the help of a fellow Wikipedian I can now prove from article "Jack Jones," aka Larry Hagman as a composite character based in Dallas that this is not a real person. What should we do now? Debresser (talk) 16:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

prod it. Algebraist 16:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Somebody just did that. Now, though, the article has been rewritten to a Category:Film character stubs. Still, I think even as such it should be deleted, and I endorsed the prod. Debresser (talk) 17:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The article is now the subject of an Afd discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Jones (banker). – ukexpat (talk) 18:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Concern about motivational speakers

Those of us who remember the last recession may have been touched by the huge number of rogues and charlatans amongst the real and tested motivational speakers who came out of the woodwork and parted those desperate to find work, any work, and money, any money, from that money by selling courses that ranged from the mundane to the somewhat useful.

These people are skilled at self promotion, write excellent marketing puffery about themselves, often support each other because they are creating the market for their services. It starts to look very like incest with money.

The object is to establish notability and to sell, sell, sell books, tapes, courses, the lot. Who can blame them? They have to make money too.

Our duty is, of course, to report even handedly on the good, the bad and the downright appalling in a wholly factual manner based upon reliable sources. This is a great place to ask editors to go through biographies and rip out the puffery and the non verifiable stuff, and to ensure that these biographies are balanced and worth including in our encyclopaedia in the first place.

So I am alerting folk here to Category:Motivational speakers which contains many of them, and suggesting a jaundiced eye be passed over the contents with a view to validating, through AfD if necessary, the presence of the articles here. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

categories - people from sports clubs

Hello. Is it correct categorisation, if I add Category:People from České Budějovice onto Category:HC České Budějovice players (HC České Budějovice is a hockey club in a town called České Budějovice), or if I add Category:České Budějovice to the page, or if I create a new Category:HC České Budějovice? I apologise, if I am not writing this question at the right place. --Voletyvole (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I personally would not make that link. For the most part athletes in team sports do not represent the places they are from, so it would be misleading to suggest that those who play for HC České Budějovice are from České Budějovice. The players category is already in Category:České Budějovice, which I think is a much better representation of the link between the hockey team's players and the city for which they represent for a time. Resolute 06:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Current Software Development Template

Resolved

Where do I request for a "current" template? I'm looking to add one to the Office Live Workspace article. Currently, there is only a {{future software}} template, but nothing for a current or a "in beta" template. Where could I request that such a template be made?Smallman12q (talk) 01:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:RT §hep^Talk 02:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!Smallman12q (talk) 20:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Drawing board needs assistance

The Wikipedia:Drawing Board, where new contributors can go to get feedback on articles (and are encouraged to do so at WP:YFA), is in need of a contributor or two. It is very low traffic at the moment--with a request every 2-5 days or so--but requests are going unanswered. We had a bit more participation in responders last autumn, which was good because we were busier then (see Wikipedia:Drawing board/Archives/2008/October, for instance), but they seem to have moved on.

The primary value of this board in my opinion is that it gives us an opportunity to educate contributors before they hit the WP:CSD point. Most responses boil down to pointing out the relevant notability guideline, explaining how to verify, and discouraging non-neutral contributions. Usually, it's an opportunity to say, "You really shouldn't create that article" in a friendly, non-bitey fashion. There's a lot of repetition, because evidently they don't read each other's questions and answers. Occasionally, we get an opportunity to help a new contributor with a good, notable subject figure out the wiki way.

Anyone up for watchlisting and pitching in? I've been one of the more consistent maintainers for well over a year now, and though I'm a bit burnt out on it, I hate to see it wither on the vine. I checked on it yesterday and found unanswered requests going back to January 24th (I've caught it up), which kind of suggests that at the moment it has no other eyes.

If anyone knows a better place to "advertise" the position, I'm all ears. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Publicity suggestions:

• An article about it at Wikipedia Signpost
• Wikipedia talk:Help desk
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation
• not forgetting Template:Wikipedia ads

Enjoy! --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 06:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 06:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I will publicize accordingly. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I need something to edit/do.

I'm bored of vandal patrolling and I'm probably doing it wrong anyway. I need something really constructive. Could anyone look into my edit history and pick something? Try not to be random about it... Elm-39 - T/C 14:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, just what I wanted to do! Look for something for other Wikipedia editors to do. Let me look into my crystal ball here... Well, I see you have at least one video game edit in your history. How about dropping by the video games WikiProject and see what they're working on (look at the talk page). They usually have tons of stuff that needs work. HTH — Frecklefσσt | Talk 15:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Ask SuggestBot, which is designed for exactly what you ask.-gadfium 19:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that anyone could have trouble finding something to do on Wikipedia. OlEnglish (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Have a look at Wikipedia:The Cure for WikiBoredom which was created for exactly that reason(even more so than suggestbot).Smallman12q (talk) 01:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Hey guys! What happened to the big survey whose results were to be announced a few months ago. I participated in that and I'm curious to see the results. I am talking about the survey of wikipedia users and their usage habits. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 13:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The last semi official statement was that they were still working on processing the data. Me I'm thinking it is keeping with the usual practice that we never see the results of any survey of wikipedians.Geni 13:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

We rarely get to see the results.Smallman12q (talk) 01:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Altering a timestamp

Hi. Does it make any difference to a proposed deletion if a user alters a timestamp? -Ddawkins73 (talk) 00:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Proposed deletions are not automatically deleted, the deleting admin relies on the timestamp to know when to delete it. You could do a PROD then alter the date to 4 days ago and it would "expire" a day from now. If you were caught gaming the system like this it would get you into trouble. I've personally invoked WP:IAR and reset the clock forward on a couple of articles for various reasons which I've forgotten. The alternative would've been to either let the article get deleted when the PROD originally expired, de-prod it, or send it to AFD. Memory is fuzzy but I'm sure I thought about all the possibilities and thought invoking IAR and extending the clock was the best call. I don't remember what happened to the articles in question. When I reset the clock like this, I was very clear in the edit summary and/or HTML comments what I was doing. If you ever find yourself in that rare situation where extending a PROD is the right thing to do, I recommend you document what you are doing and why, so there aren't any "what did you do that for" questions or outright reverting. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Not me :-) "A user", another user. I just wondered if the user that did it could change anything. Obviously they can, so I need to chase that up with an admin. Especially as the article is blatant OR. Where do I go? Thanks. -Ddawkins73 (talk) 05:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Try WP:ANI. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 03:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. An admin dealt with it independently, so with luck that's the end of it, but I'll keep that link for next time (if there is a next time). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddawkins73 (talk • contribs) 05:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Articles with significant overlap

[I'm not sure what is the right place to ask; please redirect me if this page is inappropriate.]
I recently noticed that List of Tamil people and List of people from Tamil Nadu had almost the same content, and nominated the latter for deletion, although I later realized that it was not the right thing to do. This is a more general problem; several pairs of Wikipedia articles have a significant amount of content in common, and this has some issues: mistakes fixed in one article might fail to be corrected in the other, or content that should get added to both might get added only to one, etc. Is there some (technical, policy or anything) solution to keeping such articles "in sync"? Or is this a less significant issue than I think and should just be ignored? Thanks, Shreevatsa (talk) 07:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You have spotted a problem which has afflicted Wikipedia since its beginning. The way we address it is by standardising the names of articles according to policy. This is the reason that our articles on Kings and Queens are, according to policy, called Name N of Country, even though the individual concerned may not have that title. Of course not everybody bothers ro read our naming policy before creating a new article and so we end up with similar articles, as you have discovered. When we find this we generally make a decision on whether the articles concerned should be merged into one or left separate. It is a significant issue but not overwhelmingly so. Therefore we normally just handle cases one by one as they arise. In this case your action was very much along the right lines. -- Derek Ross | Talk 08:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, in this case, it was argued that the two articles are properly separate lists: one is ethnicity and the other is geography—which often do overlap. So I was wondering if it might be acceptable to create a (hidden?) article for the intersection and "transclude" (?) it into both so that edits to the two don't go out of sync. Shreevatsa (talk) 16:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't be acceptable (sorry) or even technically possible: if you transclude two pages (A and B), all you end up with is a combined page, with A at the top and B at the bottom. What you want is for (somehow) the software to detect duplicates and remove them. That can't be done; plus we don't have such a thing as "hidden" articles, anyway. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Ideally, each of these entities would be described by a set of metadata that could be used to dynamically generate lists based on queries. This is done to some extent using the category system, but it can only describe entities for which we have articles, and the presentation is very limited. Maybe in the future. Dcoetzee 19:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The question of where to put overlapping information (list or otherwise) is generalized and pretty fundamental to Wikipedia. See Saturday Night Live for an article that struggles with this. The Tamil example is a fairly simple one but it illustrates the point. To get that one right one has to know a number of things, e.g. that Tamil is both a nationality or region and an ethnicity, that it applies to people, and so on. In other words you need to know the meaning in order to understand how to categorize it. Attributing meta-tags to things, where the meaning of the meta-tag is part of the system (I'm sure this could be said better) is a huge and very important, the subject of Web 3.0. We're just 2.0 here at Wikipedia, using hand-coded hyperlinks, categories, templates, etc. Wikidemon (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Try doing a merge. See WP:MERGE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smallman12q (talk • contribs) 01:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia icon (IE)

Anyone realize that the icon for Wikipedia in IE is currently that for Facebook? It's both on the address bar and the favorites list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juggins (talk • contribs) 13:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Fine here. Must be a problem at your end. Algebraist 13:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

And, the AOL icon was set for Google. Got it fixed, did a disk clean-up. How do these things happen?.....Juggins (talk) 14:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the cache index got messed up and pointed to the wrong cache objects. A disk cleanup will get rid of the cache and hence fixes any problems of this type. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The cache probably got mixed up. Try deleting browsing history and cookies.Smallman12q (talk) 01:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/Jarry1250

I have accepted a nomination to join the Bot Approvals Group - relevant discussion is just a click on the link above away. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 20:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe its necessary to post an invitation here.Smallman12q (talk) 01:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group specifies that applicants for the BAG must "make posts to relevant community noticeboards to invite community participation" in their review to ensure that there is a wide participation. It's common for BAG applicants to post notifications to VP miscellaneous. - BanyanTree 11:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't hurt. I stopped short of notifying the admins however, they have much more important things to be doing. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 18:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

New tool for finding references

Next time you need a reference for a fact, please try the WRS project's search engine. It is based on Google but only shows results from a few hundreds "reliable websites", making it faster to find a good reference. Open the search page and enter a fact (for instance: Obama born in 1961). Your feedback is most welcome :-) Thanks Nicolas1981 (talk) 14:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Promotion/advertising

I'm fairly new here, and I'd like to add some info about the pubs, shops, etc in our local villages as I think this makes the pages more interesting and would be useful to visitors... However, I don't want to be seen as advertising any particular businesses - is it ok to put links to pubs, etc? I'm aware I should just say 'there is a pub' rather than 'there is a really good pub'. Thanks Minute7 (talk) 20:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for checking here first. Two relevant policies are WP:NOT (specifically, that Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collector of information, nor is it a guide), and WP:NOR - no original research (or, if you will, WP:V, information must be verifiable by some reliable source). In short, if there is a well-known establishment that has had a number of press stories, then it's okay to add something like "The village also includes the well-known shop XXX [and cite your source]". Otherwise, not.

Oh, and adding links to websites of local businesses also runs afoul of our rule regarding external links.

Instead, you might consider adding such detail to the Wikitravel wiki, where it is quite welcome and appreciated, and personal opinion - what is good and what is not - is also valued. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for this, it's really helpful advice, and I'll have a look at the travel section. Thanks Minute7 (talk) 20:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict - my two cents that cover some of the same ground) Please take a look at WP:NOT#DIRECTORY and also WP:CORP. Wikipedia isn't set up to be a travel guide. That's not the purpose and there's no way we volunteer editors could do as good a job keeping things accurate and up to date as, say, Frommer's or Yelp, Inc.. As a result, for a restaurant, pub, or local shop to be included there has to be something unique about it due to historic events, size, acclaim, or some other reason. Chez Panisse started a food movement. The busiest restaurant in the United States is not mentioned but Tavern on the Green, the second busiest, is. That's still useful to a visitor - if they are on google and they type the name of the establishment or town they may see the Wikipedia article. You might want to peruse categories like Category:Pub stubs, Category:Drinking establishments by country, and Category:Pub chains to see what others have written about pubs. Not all of those are great but that should give you some ideas about content, style, format, which templates to use, etc. I like the fact that there are a few fictional bars, like The Moon Under Water. Wikidemon (talk) 21:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Graphic Labs needing advertising

Image Workshop (make a request) | Map Workshop (make a request)

Hello ! The Graphic Lab is a project where graphist create or improves images, for free, of course. You need an illustration for an article ? you need to improve a photography ? Come there, and request graphist to improve your photo, or create a scheme.

Recently, we opened a Map Workshop : that's the same, come there, request a map creation or improvement, we (graphist) do the image creation work.

Note: we need advertising, to let user know about these images-creation possibilities. Please, help us to spread the news accross suitable wikipage and wikiprojects.

Yug (talk) 16:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:The Beatles

This ongoing discussion could use some more feedback/activity. Comments, questions, concerns, anything else, etc. etc. etc. about Portal:The Beatles would be appreciated. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 02:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Help. I have created a monster!

I think that the AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia Art, which I started, has got badly out of hand. I don't think I have handled it very well and now it is turning into some sort of art intervention which might be worse than the "article" it seeks to delete. I am beginning to wonder if I should have put speedy deletion on the article and never been drawn into discussion about it. It seems that somebody is yanking our chains and I have fallen for it. Please can somebody help or offer advice? --DanielRigal (talk) 02:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry. If some jokers want to make a stupid article about nothing, they're welcome to try. Rest assured it's gonna be deleted, cause it fails... well... nearly every one of our rules. No admin would close as anything but delete, no matter how long the discussion gets. You don't need to do anything or feel bad. Big debates about nothing are what bring in the majority of registrations :) Equazcion •✗/C • 02:26, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I am just getting worried that somebody is going to archive the whole discussion and the postmodernists are going to hold an exhibition of "Look how we made the encyclopaedists dance" with me as the star attraction. --DanielRigal (talk) 02:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Well if you're worried about that, you can just remove your comments. If you feel you acted inappropriately there's nothing wrong with deleting your own comments to correct it (I think). I would just replace each comment with a copy-and-pasted note like "comment redacted". And remember not to touch anyone else's comments. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:37, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but there is no point. It is still in the history and still licensed under the GFDL. Besides, it would probably only encourage the disruptive element to think that they have the better arguments. I was just wondering if there was any scope to shut down their playground early. Of course, I wouldn't want to compromise the integrity of the deletion process. It was concern for the integrity of Wikipedia that got me involved in this in the first place. I just find it depressing and unedifying that a gang of artists, supported by somebody who claims to be a professor, no less, can indulge in such folly and that I have helped them. I am kicking myself for not putting speedy deletion on when I had the chance. Ho hum. I have learned my lesson. --DanielRigal (talk) 02:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes it's difficult to avoid being baited. I think the key now is to avoid further fueling any controversy/avoid attracting further attention to the matter. Speedy deletion and other unusual actions are therefore probably not recommended -- slow and steady wins the race. Baileypalblue (talk) 05:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Let the debate run its course. I personally have no clue how this could close as anything but delete. Just let everyone have their say in the meantime. Resolute 06:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I, as an observer of that project, am sorry to see this reaction to it. Although I do know the artists, and have voiced my support for it in spirit, there is no way to have seen how it would have turned out. Either way, the emergence of the entry either constitutes a conceptual project that may have turned into a breaching experiment, or its removal results in a historical event. Either way, the entry, while reacted to quite poorly, seems closest to that of conceptual experiment or relatively benign breaching experiment, or even tactical media project. Regardless, I am the "professor" Daniel referred to, and I am one, teaching media theory in Chicago. I'm also a published curator and academic publisher. While my role has been primarily one of intense interest as a matter of research (as I am not one of the "artists", although I have been supportive), the interaction between the members of the community has been interesting, and I am sure that they had not imagined this response.

--Patlichty (talk) 06:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I ended the circus as a routine A7. — Werdna • talk 06:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Illegally, I might add. It has now been requested for review, and not by me or any of the artists.--Patlichty (talk) 07:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Equazcion compromised the integrity of the deletion process. Artintegrated (talk) 07:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Care to back up that accusation? Equazcion •✗/C • 07:26, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC)

WP:DFTT applies here... Mr.Z-man 08:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Artists, critics and media researchers, not trolls. Had the Wikipedia community acted more in line with its own rules and regulations and let the matter take its course rather than reacting as it did, at least 90% of this would not have happened. The difference between the artists and trolls is that trolls "Do it for the lulz", i.e., without ideology. Art has intent and/or ideology beyond eliciting a response. While Wikipedia Art as a project trod the "Don't use Wikipedia to make a point" line, it deserved its 24 hours.
It's now an art-historical event/intervention, and 1: will be part of an upcoming book chapter, 2: is being taken in consideration as material for a reference article as such, and 3: is being considered as an inclusion in an exhibition on art that addresses Wikipedia.

In short, the article. by Wikipedia's own rules, should have been given its time allotment.

Secondly, it also has shown in relief the shape and social dynamics of its user community and its social norms. I'm not being critical on this one; I'm just surprised that much of what I have found in Wikipedia reminds me of communities like Second Life, or many other large social spaces. --Patlichty (talk) 12:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Why in the world would that surprise you? Powers ^T 14:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Terrorists have ideology too. Just cause you think you have a good reason for breaking the rules doesn't mean you get to do it. I could toss some paint on someone's house and write a book about it later too, perhaps even call it art. That doesn't mean the community at large won't still regard it as a simple act of vandalism. You're correct that the situation wasn't handled correctly -- the article should've been swiftly speedy-deleted immediately. This was a mistake in that it was allowed to develop into a lengthy discussion, giving its authors a false sense of hope. For that I think we all apologize. Next time such work will be gone much quicker, I assure you. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:00, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Wow. That's a fine example of Godwin's Law you got there, Equazcion. --Trivialjim 00:07, 18 Feb 2009 (UTC)

Hah; Why, cause I opened my paragraph-long argument with a common analogy? You're ignoring the remaining 90% in favor of quipping at the first 4 words. That's a fine example of pigeonholing you got there, Trivialjim, not to mention trolling. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:05, 18 Feb 2009 (UTC)

I'm with LtPowers. The amazing observation that a minority breaking rules, saying they don't apply, and attempting to impose a new frame to encompass all the old ones... pisses people off. Subversive art, as Tristan Zara astutely intimated, has to charm someone. - Ddawkins73 (talk) 15:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully think this article did not meet A7 or any other speedy criteria. "Speedy delete: reason=WP:IAR, AFD process is getting out of hand" with a detailed explanation "on the record" would've been much better. I'm surprised the deletion review got snowed so quickly, I guess people were more concerned with the final outcome than process. In any case, the article needed to be removed from the main article space. Personally though, letting the AFD run the usual 5 days would've been better for the project in the long run. It's obvious from the DRV that the consensus is with you on this though, and I'll respect that. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

IP issues

I am amused by the use of the word "illegally" above, and it got me thinking about the legal issues, specifically trademark infringement. As it says at the foot of the main page "Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a U.S. registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity.". This may mean that the use of the term "Wikipedia Art" as the name for a project, domainname and a website is an infringement of this trademark. I would also like to suggest to anybody seriously thinking about writing a book about this folly that everything on Wikipedia is licensed under the GFDL and any book that is largely culled from such sources would probably also have to be so licensed. Of course, I am not a lawyer and this is only speculation. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget that the full text of the GFDL would have to be printed in the book too. ;) Resolute 19:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Call for meat puppets

see http://nathanielstern.com/blog/2009/02/15/wikipedia-art-retaliation/. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Is this and this a violation of the GFDL? The information seems to be the same as the articles on Wikipedia, but, although they reference GNU Free Documentation License 1.2., they don't reference the Wikipedia pages. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The Scott Kildall article was substantially written by Nathaniel Scott (which is why I put the COI tag on it) so it is probably their copyright to republish as they see fit. The Nathaniel Scott article is probably not. They can easily solve this by complying with the GFDL. I am not sure how they can avoid the trademark issue. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

That would be the downside to posting something so flagrantly against Wikipedia's policies - things that might have slipped by unnoticed suddenly become noticed after one opens themselves up to a critical eye by participating in something that so very obviously ran counter to the purpose of this project. Its nothing to worry about, really. Wikipedia has been the subject of other meatpuppet campaigns in the past, and if anyone actually responds to this call, they will likely get bored very quickly once they realize they aren't getting anywhere. WP:RBI. Resolute 21:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

This is nathaniel stern. I've entirely avoided any discussion on this project, and have no aliases at all on Wikipedia, because of my own bias. I do feel I should set the record straight on a few things.

That link (above) was not a "call" for retaliation / meat puppets; it was saying that you, Daniel - and others - were retaliating against Scott and I - not to mention Brian - on Wikipedia. You can try to hold up a pretense of objectivity, but you yourself have said that this situation was not handled as it should have been, that rules were broken and bad precedents set by yourself and others - not us.

The GFDL issue will be resolved - that site was not meant to be public (our wiki); it was a draft for our own purposes, but must've slipped through the cracks through link backs. It will later serve as an archive, and will be done legally through GFDL. We have no desire to break copyright.

re: Kildall's page, we only met for the first time this Fall. I wrote that page on him quite a while back b/c I was simultaneously researching him and his work for my PhD; it was through that respect that I invited him to talk at my University, which is when we came up with the idea for Wikipedia Art. I have not edited his page since we met.

Sherwin and I have never met in person. He emailed me to do an interview about my work after he found me online - possibly through Wikipedia (I don't know). Since then, we've maintained minimal contact, and only a professional relationship.

I know a lot about copyright, and we did not break that with Wikipedia Art; trademark, I know less about. but as far as I know, there's a small amount of fair use precedent even in trademark: this is satire, transformative, and commentary. I may be wrong, and in that case, Scott and I will await the owners of the trademark to contact us before acting any differently. NathanielS (talk) 23:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Re-reading the above later I can see how it might sound antagonistic. It is not meant to be. I just wanted to try to set a few things straight. NathanielS (talk) 00:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

There's some past history on the Wikipedia side that has led to a regrettably hostile response to your proposed project here. First, the goal of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedia -- we just happen to use a Wiki to accomplish this. FWIW, you're not the first ones to miss that point; we've had people who wanted to use Wikipedia to sell stuff, promote their ideology (both fringe & mainstream), publish their "discoveries", & look for sexual partners. Second, "interactive artists" is one of those terms that have been appropriated by troublemakers -- people editting Wikipedia in bad faith to stir up trouble -- to defend their edits from reversion or deletion. These troublemakers have so contaminated the term that no veteran Wikipedian can assume that it means anything but a fancy label for vandalism.

On the other hand, you three have an intriguing idea here, & Wiki software would be a good choice of a medium to explore that idea in. I suggest that you contact Ward Cunningham for advice of where/how to do this. Not only is he the "father" of the Wiki, he is CTO over at AboutUs.org (where he has an email account as "ward") & would likely know a good fit for you -- but at least definitely be interested in hearing about this. -- llywrch (talk) 19:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Art and media restoration?

Pat Lichty has not replied to my post to his user talk, but he posted several times to the Village Pump afterward so he's probably seen this. Other artists from Wikipedia Art would be more likely to notice the opportunity here.

A group of editors have been restoring historic images and audio files from the public domain for encyclopedic use.

• Encyclopedic image restoration
• 
  Scan from a seventeenth century sketchbook of military designs.
• 
  After restoration, illustrates the camera obscura article.

Not exactly art for art's sake, but quite useful. Our goals are to persuade more museums and archives to digitize their collections in high quality files, and to mobilize a network of active restorationists. If we had 100 people each doing 2 restorations a week, Wikipedia could gain 10,000 featured pictures in one year. And since Wikipedia exists in nearly 300 language versions this material would have global application.

Encyclopedic restorations cover a wide range of subjects and genres from the Civil War portraits of Matthew Brady to the children's book illustrations of Louis-Maurice Boutet de Monvel. We would very much like to recruit restorationists, and to gain access to high resolution digitized files from more archives.

Portrait of Mark Harmon by Jerry Avenaim. Scheduled to run on Wikipedia's main page as Picture of the Day tomorrow.

Active photographers and other artists may also qualify for exposure on the main page of Wikipedia in the Picture of the Day section. Wikipedia's main page receives an average of 6-7 million page views daily. This is a fine opportunity for artists to collaborate synergistically with Wikipedia. As the contributor of ten percent of Wikipedia's featured pictures, I would gladly work with professional artists and academics toward a more successful variety of collaboration. Please contact me here, at user talk, or via email (available by link at my user page). Best regards, Durova^Charge! 06:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Honestly Commons would be a better venue for this, since it is where most public domain images are uploaded, and a lot of image cleanup already occurs there. See Commons:Commons:Media for cleanup. That said, Wikipedia would be a great place to advertise and mobilize such an effort. Keep in mind when restoring images that sometimes you might want to keep the original under a different name, in case an article wants to use it in that format (for example, to show it precisely as it appears today). Dcoetzee 19:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The parent project for restorations is Wikipedia:WikiProject Media Restoration. As you may have noticed, I am also a Commons administrator. Durova^Charge! 04:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey - i doubt my own work is suitable for this project, but for what's it's worth I've re-posted your blog post about this to my own blog. I hope you get some takers. NathanielS (talk) 03:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much Nathaniel. :) Best regards. Durova^Charge! 04:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, Durova. I have been on the road doing come lectures, during which time I have been discussing Wikipedia art. I agree with Nathaniel, and appreciate the contact. --Patlichty (talk) 15:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

In regards to illegality, I was not meaning US copyright or GNU, I was referring to the conflict with Wikipedia's own policies. I assure you that any re-presentation of any of the documents will be given with a full print/record of the GNU license. The reaction, and commentary (mainly the extremely rude and snarky nature of it) has been a big topic of conversation on my current lecture tour. The way Wikipedia Art has been handled has shown the unpalatable side of the Wikipedia community, and most of my colleagues have been agreement that this this verifies our concerns with the Wikipedia project as anything more than a tertiary source. --Patlichty (talk) 15:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

So the reaction on your lecture tour is that your violation of Wikipedia policy should have been allowed and Wikipedians should let anybody violate policies in the name of "art"? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

online/offline

Resolved

 – ukexpat (talk) 17:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there a userbox that automatically shows whether I am online or offline? Debresser (talk) 14:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, there are not any automatic ones (or at least not any that work). You can manually change it, however- a lot of people use these templates:

• Online: {{User:Nishkid64/StatusChange2|OMG}}
• Offline: {{User:Nishkid64/StatusChange2|OMG2}}
• Busy: {{User:Nishkid64/StatusChange2|OMG3}}

Hope this helps! --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 15:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You'll find a lot of information about how to find the status of an editor, and to change your own, in this subtopic of the Editor's index. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you. Debresser (talk) 19:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Huge copyright violation

Resolved

 – discussion ongoing at WT:F1. ukexpat (talk) 17:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

First off, I apologise if I'm in the wrong place. Several members of WP:F1 have identified a copyright violation in a book that is a direct copy-paste from Wikipedia's articles. Can someone look at this discussion currently ongoing at WT:F1; I'm not sure what step is appropriate next. The book homepage, I think is here, with a screenshot of an example of one copy-vio here. That is clearly a direct copy-vio of Michael Schumacher#Complete Formula One results (albeit slightly adjusted). Thoughts? D.M.N. (talk) 09:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Excuse, but which Wikipedia page is copied in the screenshot you mention. It isn't the Michael Schumacher page as far as I can see. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it may be an older version of the page, or they've slightly adjusted it. D.M.N. (talk) 10:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

They've slightly adjusted the colours, but you can even see the link to the key and the Wikipedia heading in the same typeface, with the same note about races in bold meaning pole position. Readro (talk) 11:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I reported this in the first place. If you would like more examples, I can provide, but all they are are various results and records tables (albeit slightly out-of-date, as the edition I have isn't the latest). I can only presume that they have carried on like this in recent editions. Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 12:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Reuse of Wikipedia content is permissible provided that the conditions set our in WP:Reuse are fulfilled. Is it clear that this book is not in compliance with those requirements? – ukexpat (talk) 19:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It clearly violates Section 2 in the GNU Free Documentation License (verbatim copying), as the content is copied word-for-word (it isn't even as good as that, it is a print screen of the Wikipedia pages!) and there is nothing about the License in the book.

So, what are we to do? Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 21:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks#Non-compliance_process for what to do about this. The original contributors to the article must be the ones to respond. Dcoetzee 22:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Two problems: 1. This is a process for web pages. There is a contact address we can send it to, but we are talking about reproduction in a book. Can we have a revised process for this situation, and if there isn't one, can I suggest that one is created?

2. There are no "original contributors" to the tables. There are so many that have been copied, and so many different people adding to them over the years, we have no idea who did what, without spending days trawling through edit histories. Can we (WP:F1) just nominate a person to do this?

Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 22:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not own the copyright to this material; the contributors do. Representatives of the project that are not major contributors have no more claim to this material than the man on the street. You can, of course, try to get the publisher to stop by asking. But only substantial contributors of that information can take appropriate action about the unlicensed use of the material. Remedies may be limited short of a lawsuit. (See http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html) Wikipedia has no legal standing here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You're right that there is no separate process for print media, because the problem has come up so rarely, and this may be something we want to specify in policy. You can raise this issue at Wikipedia talk:Mirrors and forks and/or Wikipedia_talk:GFDL_Compliance. With regard to 2, this is unfortunately one of the fundamental perils of Wikipedia; the original contributors to the tables are the only ones who possess copyright to the tables, and the only ones who can make a legal case against the publisher. Neither WMF nor uninvolved editors can pursue any action against them whatsoever. On the other hand, if the tables have many editors, it may be considered a joint work, and I don't know much about the enforcement of joint work copyright. Regardless, if the publisher does not respond to you, you will have to go through the edit histories to locate the usernames of the original authors and contact them to see if they want to pursue a complaint with legal force. Dcoetzee 23:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all. I have continued the discussion back on WT:F1, so we can decide our next steps. Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 23:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Our content copied on eBay without attribution

I think I've found some unattributed copying in eBay Reviews & Guides. For instance, compare:

• Arthur Conan Doyle with this guide
• Elisha Kane with the "Biography: section found here

The eBay member in question is named booksuncommon and I would like to contact the member to politely remind them about copyrights and plagiarism, to give them a chance to fix up their stuff. If that doesn't help, contact eBay itself next. Unfortunately, the only contact methods I can find insist that I register and provide a whole slew of information. I don't want to do that, and I don't want to go the "George Bush, 555-1212" route either.

Is there anyone out there who is already registered with eBay willing to make the contact? Alternatively, does anyone know how to contact eBay via email? Thanks! Franamax (talk) 21:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

This page is black listed so here it is: www.squidoo.com/secretnumbers – (scroll way down) tells you how to find the email link on eBay. as you say, even the [report this guide] button needs a log-in user. Julia Rossi (talk) 23:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I went there, clicked on "contact us" top right corner, is same as link under help/scroll. Needs login as well. :/ Julia Rossi (talk) 23:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Julia, even though it's a negative result. Hopefully someone else will turn up with advice - they must have an avenue for commercial contact at the very least - right? Thanks anyway :) Franamax (talk) 07:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

This page may help with how this can be taken care of. I say may, since eBay is usually pretty unresponsive for things that don't affect their bottom line. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• Dwight D. Eisenhower - ebay 380099944623 --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 03:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Help with info table

how does one make a table that contains a name of a band, possibly a picture, origin, labels, etc. on a band's page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by EatSleepBlink (talk • contribs) 23:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

how does one post a table of information containing a band name, possibly a picture, origin, labels, members, former members, etc. on a band's page?

--EatSleepBlink (talk) 23:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

You would use {{Infobox Musical artist}}. All the necessary information on using it is on the template page. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 05:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Complete overhaul of Category:Wikipedia bots

Some may call posting here overkill, but I think it's good to let everyone know what's happening: there is a proposal to overhaul the category at WP:BON and a CfD, but I can't find the link for that one. All comments appreciated. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 16:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

template for citing online archives of newspapers

There are lots of newspapers that have been put online up to a certain date. They are archived online. But you can't use the "archiveurl=" because there is no "url=" to start with. What is the solution? Is there a template that allows for an "archiveurl=" from a paper source? What I usually do is put the online archive as url and add outside the template but still within the reference that "Archived on ..." Debresser (talk) 00:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Use {{Cite news}} with "url" set to the appropriate url. "archiveurl" is for things like the internet archive, not for newspaper's own archives. Algebraist 00:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

In general that would be the logical thing to do. Unfortunately, it's not always that easy, because often these newspapers are archived on sites run by other organisations. Moreover, sometimes it's just a private person who archived an article or one edition of a newspaper on some site. Debresser (talk) 01:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• What does the ownership of the archive have to do with whether or not you are able to place a URL in the url= parameter of a template? Remember that in a newspaper citation the URL is a convenience, not a mandatory part of the citation as the byline, dateline, headline, and publication are. By putting the URL of an on-line archive in to the template, you are making things more convenient for people who want to look up the source cited. But with the mandatory part present, they should be able to find the cited source anyway, without the convenience link, using the archive that you chose or another (such as a microfiche archive in an appropriate library, for example). Uncle G (talk) 13:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Redlinks in disambigs considered harmful?

OK, I'm judging from one observed incident, so the statistics could be better, but anyway:

I fear that redlinks in disambigs mostly escape standard fact checking procedure.

1. There is no article the bullet point can be checked against.
2. In contrast to an article on the topic, the factoid in the disambig will not show up in categories scanned by domain experts

It's more than easy to invent just a fictional person and add it to the surname disambig. And you can even try to insert higher nonsense and laugh your ass off that it isn't detected.

This is my example. More than 3 years undetected.

--Pjacobi (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

No more dangerous that the usual juvenile nonsense in any page that can go undetected for a long time. In any case, red links are discouraged on disambiguation pages, with a few exceptions. See MOS:DABRL. older ≠ wiser 18:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

But your example didn't include a redlink (at least the juvenile nonsense you were pointing out). — Frecklefσσt | Talk 18:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, the anonymous insertion from 2005 got wikified and all over the years.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Danton&oldid=270525183

--Pjacobi (talk) 20:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Well generally, you can't create an article about nothing(hoaxes are better recognized today), so a red link doesn't do much harm. Then again, the reason why the link may be red is because that was the only info the person had. And again, let me stress that a red link is a dead end and hence its very hard to do any real damage by simply inserting a fake red link(though I would be against that). The current standards seem fine. I would also like to point out that many disambig pages do not have a reference section at the moment.Smallman12q (talk) 03:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you could add that to WP:Hoaxes.Smallman12q (talk) 03:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

See what I wrote at Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron#Who is affected when an article is deleted for the other, somewhat larger, side to this coin. Uncle G (talk) 14:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikimania 2009

English: Wikimania 2009, this year's global event devoted to Wikimedia projects around the globe, is accepting submissions for presentations, workshops, panels, posters, open space discussions, and artistic works related to the Wikimedia projects or free content topics in general. The conference will be held from August 26-28 in Buenos Aires, Argentina. For more information, check the official Call for Participation. Cbrown1023 talk 17:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Move creating self-redirect

I do not understand what has happened to the article Shadowlife. Its history seems to show that it existed a few days ago, and was the subject of a move. But now all that remains is a self-redirect that has been marked for speedy deletion. JonH (talk) 18:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, the article is back but I don't understand why there are no logs for Shadow Life, its former location. I can only think it was oversighted, but I can't think of a reason why a redirect would need to be oversighted. I also don't know why Shadowlife was moved when the most recent edit was a redirect to itself, causing a bot to tag it for speedy deletion. Weird. - BanyanTree 23:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• TigerShark performed a history merger (for no apparent reason) and made use of the administrator ability to rename an article without leaving a redirect behind. The fact that the resulting edit history and logs not only confused you but confused a 'bot as well is one of the reasons that we administrators shouldn't do history mergers like this, as normal practice. The only thing that outweighs the introduction of this sort of confusion, caused by history mergers, is GFDL compliance — which is hence why pretty much the only reason for doing history mergers is to fix problems where the GFDL has not been complied with, and other (far less confusion-generating) courses of action (such as forcibly renaming over an existing page) aren't appropriate. Uncle G (talk) 14:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I have now created the redirect. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Nicknames of singers

I've noticed that in the articles about artitsts like 50 Cent, Ciara, Kanye West etc. their nicknames are missing. I thought that I've already seen them on wikipedia (in the background information box) but obviously they aren't there (anymore?). I wanted to ask wheter they are left out intentionally or accidentally because in my opinion this information can be really helpful and is also an important part of an artist's biography.

I don't know if that's the right section to ask a question like that but if I'm wrong here just tell me where I should go ;) 21:09, 23 February 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.155.111.155 (talk • contribs)

This page isn't a bad starting place; you might want to try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hip hop, however. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Montage Atlanta.jpg

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved

 – ukexpat (talk) 17:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Is File:Montage Atlanta.jpg really under the correct copyright? It may be true that the uploader put the pieces together, but the individual images look professionally-made. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The file summary links to the source images on Commons, as well as the authors, and the ones I checked all seem fine. The one questionable bit is that an 'Attribution' license may require actually stating the name of the original photographer, rather than simply linking to their user page. If you don't want to do it, a polite request on the uploader's user talk page probably will do the trick. Oh, and it should be on Commons as a free image, but that's besides the point. - BanyanTree 07:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vandalism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Why every edition I do here (in english wikipedia) is vandalism by my contributions? --Fernando Carrazzoni (talk) 15:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

mebbe your account was hyjacked?  rdunnPLIB  15:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Really, I don't know. How can I do that? --Fernando Carrazzoni (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe change your password and see if that stops it. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I did that, but nothing changed. I'll use my old password 'cause I see that's not the problem. I don't what is. --Fernando Carrazzoni (talk) 01:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Your edits don't appear to all be vandalism. What are you talking about? Algebraist 10:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

He means that some the edit summeries seem to say he has reverted some of his own edits as vandleism.  rdunnPLIB  11:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like they're using TW, maybe it's a hiccup with twinkle. --64.85.220.253 (talk) 17:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. That was the problem. --Fernando Carrazzoni (talk) 18:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Anyone know what went wrong here?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved

 – ukexpat (talk) 17:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I've been working on Portal:NATO, trying to update it, and in updating the news section I seem to have created some strange problem. On the NATO Portal page, Portal:NATO/NATO news/Wikinews renders as a redlink, but the page exists, and links correctly anywhere else I put it. Any one know what went wrong? Thanks. Cool3 (talk) 15:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It's working now, it would appear that I just needed to purge for anyone who's curious. Cool3 (talk) 15:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Plagiarism

Is there a place to report publications that plagiarise Wikipedia, or is that something that Wikipedia is not interested in? 98.66.145.114 (talk) 18:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks.-gadfium 19:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Min 'captioned maps images' sizes needed

• Haven't any recollection to posting this sub-fora these last five years, so thought this was a good occcasion... <g>

Ran across a pet peeve situation in the Japan article today... clicked on the prefectures locator map to get information and the zoomed up size is still too small to read the legend... so didn't get the information here as desired. Sigh...

• Posted a notice on the Commons here suggesting we need a policy to set a minimum width on such maps images. Suggest any suggestions/discussions here be covered there too for the international editors & audience.
• FYI, if you don't know, there is and has been a push by a large group of image specialists to convert images to SVG's, with one argument in their favor being that they are scalable by design. Starting with one, that is too small to read, kind of requires our readers be able to down load the image to a scaling capable graphics application program... which IMHO, means it's pretty useless as an educational accessory, and assumes an awful lot about the interests, abilities, capabilities not to mention free time available to our readers. (Albeit, great for giving a negative opinion of our quality.)

• It certainly makes it relatively useless to embed such in an article... the legends may as well be covered up regardless of it being a SVG, PNG, JPG, or whatever. Including the illegible legend in fact is detrimental, as a cognizant editor wouldn't likely compensate by providing a wikitable in text to compensate; though I've seen loads of pages using that technique with unlegended images. (I could argue that's a better approach overall, since the text is readable without needing scaling, but the downside there is the numbers in the political subdivisions still remain difficult or impossible to read.) The whole maps-legends quality issue needs a good standard.
• I spent big chunks of 2-3 years helping reorganize maps images on the commons, and in my experience, we have a fairly large problem in this respect. We have a quality issue if legends aren't readable. Game, set, match.
• I figure we need to put a limit on this and at least discourgage using such images in articles within some existing guideline. Can someone suggest where to put this into place and any other actions that make sense. Tagging such images as fail (either here or on the Commons) with some priorty replacement template comes to mind.
• I figure the image in question is too small by about half, for those of us with tireder older eyes needful of glasses. (Don't laugh, most of you will hit your forties someday Too! ha hA HA HA! You'll see!) Good day y'all. // FrankB 20:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

This really isn't a good page to post this type of comment. If you have a concrete proposal, you might want to post at WP:VPPR. Or you could look at the "Maps" topic in the Editor's index; for example, there is a WikiProject for maps where there probably would be vigorous discussion. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking for help finding redundancy

I have been working on list of skin-related conditions for the past few weeks and wanted to know if a computer savy user could help me with the following. I want to know what diseases and/or disease synonyms (those names found within parentheticals) are listed more than once in the list. I am not asking for any editing, just a list of what has been listed more than once. Could someone help me with this? kilbad (talk) 00:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I've had a look through the diseases with Excel (but not the synonyms) and the following diseases appeared twice: Acrodermatitis chronica atrophicans, Blastomycosis-like, pyoderma, Chédiak-Higashi syndrome, Chloracne, Dyskeratosis congenita, Ephelis, Generalized essential telangiectasia, Gram-negative folliculitis, Impetigo herpetiformis, PAPA syndrome, Papillon-Lefèvre syndrome, Peutz-Jeghers syndrome, Pyogenic granuloma, Reactive perforating collagenosis, Solar urticaria, Unilateral nevoid telangiectasia and Yellow nail syndrome. There was also Neutrophilic eccrine hidradenitis which appeared three times.

There might be a few more diseases that I missed, since I haven't looked at synonyms yet. Tra (Talk) 01:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I really appreciate your help! kilbad (talk) 02:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I removed those redundancies. Now I just want to know which disease synonyms (those names found within parentheticals) are redundant, that is redundant with respect to other disease synonyms or disease names (i.e. the link). kilbad (talk) 02:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, for example, Male-pattern baldness redirects to Androgenetic alopecia. I can identify all the similar cases for you, but it would be easier for me to just to fix them. However, I'm not sure what you had in mind: could you specify? (Or, ideally, change the page for this example, so I can see where you want to go with this.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Signature won't link to user page any more

This is weird - my signature with four tildes no longer automatically creates a link to my User page, as you'll see at the end of this comment. I haven't changed any preferences that I know of. Anybody have any idea why? - DavidWBrooks 13:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Is 'raw signature' checked in your preferences? If so, uncheck it. Algebraist 13:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:How to fix your signature for more help. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 13:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

"Raw signatures" check it was ... wonder how that happened? Thanks. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Sturmabteilungen in the Italian version

Can someone who speaks Italian clarify with Italian Wikipedians that surely their heading "Sturmabteilungen" is incorrect. There was only one SA (Sturmabteilung, namely the paramilitary organization of the NSDAP. It was the mass noun for this organization, there weren't umpteen of them. In fact, this heading would be the only one in all the languages who have articles about the subject, as far as I can tell. Dieter Simon (talk) 01:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

This probably isn't a good page to ask at. You might want to look at the "Translations" topic in the Editor's index for a better page to make this request at. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you , John Broughton, I have indeed now entered a query about the problem on the "Discussioni WikipediaAmbasciata" and hopefully leave it to them to move (?) the article to "Sturmabteilung", the singular version of the term. Dieter Simon (talk) 00:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Discussioni WikipediaAmbasciata address is[23]. Thank you again. Dieter Simon (talk) 01:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Or you can just get to it by typing It:Discussioni Wikipedia:Ambasciata, like a regular wikilink but with a colon after the first two open brackets. The same principle works when linking to categories. Graham87 03:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

And so you can get It:Sturmabteilungen. Thanks, very useful.Dieter Simon (talk) 00:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Skittles website

There have been several articles popping up on Google News about Skittles turning Wikipedia into its homepage. What this consists of is if you go to skittles.com and then select something on the drop-down "Products" menu, you will be linked to a section in the article Skittles (confectionery). On the face of it there's nothing wrong with inbound links to Wikipedia, though it's a rather stupid idea since the headings within the article could change any second. The more serious aspect is if professional ad people are changing the article to align it with some PR campaign. I can't tell on that front, as it seems the current article format has been like that for a while. (Apparently some other website tried this but quickly ended the test) Joshdboz (talk) 09:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems more exactly that they're hotlinking Wikipedia, since the site shows the Wikipedia page, but resolves still to the URL skittles.com. In fact, you can pull up all of wikipedia as content on the skittles.com site, including the trademarked logo on each page. This may be a violation of Wikipedia's trademark to be reproducing its name for advertising purposes. Huadpe (talk) 10:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Why on earth would anybody bother to do this? It is just stupid. Surely the scope for embarrassment, if the article gets vandalised outweighs any possible advantage? I tried to look at the site but it gets stuck in a loop asking me my age (Why? Its not like Skittles is going to have adult content, is it?). Perhaps somebody needs to try to get in touch with them and explain why this is a bad idea all round. Feel free to bill them for "marketing consultancy services" ;-) --DanielRigal (talk) 13:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hm. I just went to skittles.com and got redirected to Twitter. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah. But then when I look for individual products, it goes to the Wikipedia page. Any way we can either prevent direct linking, or change the URLs so that they can't direct link in to the headings they thought they were at? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Why should we have to balls up the URLs on Wikipedia just to prevent them messing about? Still, it would be funny to intercept the requests linked from their site and serve up something gratuitously inappropriate instead. No! Sorry. Forget I said that! That would make us look worse than them. I say let them do it. It is not like they are hiding the GFDL licensing or anything like that. It makes them look like idiots, particularly the way that stupid box floats over the actual content so you can't read it. Surely, they won't keep it up for long. People will point and laugh. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh wow, this is, ah, something. I'm even logged in. It's somehow just overlaying its site on WP, so it's technically not copying anything, is it? But I can't see how any sane company, especially one that big, could think that this was a smart idea. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 23:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Advertising types are weird. They come up with all sorts of ideas which baffle the general public. They think this is a sign of their superior creative genius and give each other awards for it. The client was probably so mesmerised by the notion of being "Web 2.0 enabled" they didn't realise how stupid the basic idea was. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Getting an admin over to speedy deletions

I've been patrolling new pages for a few hours tonight as well as some other editors, but there don't seem to be any admins currently working on clearing out the speedy delete queue. There's some attack pages and stuff up that could really use to be taken down. So if someone has the time, heading over to WP:Candidates for speedy deletion would be a big help. Huadpe (talk) 10:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Want to investigate a potential copyvio?

Sorry, I just don't have time to look into it now, but African Wild Dog has some suspicious content. Anyone want to investigate? See Talk:African_Wild_Dog#Copyright_violation.3F for details. — Epastore (talk) 23:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Apparently not a copyright violation, but an incomplete attempt at reversing vandalism. See my reply at the article talk page. Baileypalblue (talk) 00:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikimedia survey results

This might be more of a meta thing, but does anyone know what happened to the WP:SURVEY? We all diligently filled it out, and the results were supposed to come out eight weeks after the closure of the survey. That time has well-and-truly passed. We want to know what the results were! Anyone know anything, or where the information is hidden? This, that and the other _[talk] 09:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

What's the deal with Red cunt hair ?

There is an article Red cunt hair and its abbreviation Rch. If it is an in-joke, the 'in-crowd' is very small. I added a tag calling for a discussion but an anonymous IP simply removed the tag without comment. Perhaps I used the wrong tag. Can somebody take a look and see.Lightmouse (talk) 10:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The article itself may, or may not, be defensible, but describing it as "an engineering unit of measurement" on the disambiguation page is simply wrong. I will change that. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The article is reliably sourced, but is it notable? Maybe it should be in wkitionary - do they do phrases? Jezhotwells (talk) 14:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll be nominating for AfD per my comments at that talk page. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:32, 2 Mar 2009 (UTC)

National production images could be formatted better.

The graphics used to represent national production of a certain good (e.g. bananas, see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Banana_production_by_nation.svg) are difficult to read. I don't know which jurisdictions the circles represent. It's clearly not countries. Perhaps we should just color each country a color. Right now most of the map is grey, which isn't too useful. 131.107.0.86 (talk) 01:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I don't understand it either. Far too many dots on the map for the explanation given in the legend. Rmhermen (talk) 14:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Collaboration templates on articles

Hello, the template {{NovelsWikiProject Collaboration}} was added to the top of Shantaram (novel), and I do not believe that adding such templates to the pages themselves have any precedence. Such templates are meant for talk pages. Am I wrong in thinking this? —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd say you're right. Any notices having to do with Wikiprojects normally go on the talk page. The only tags that go on the article pages themselves are notices of problems. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:27, 4 Mar 2009 (UTC)

To follow up on this, Wikipedia:Collaborations endorses such templates on the articles themselves, and I was pointed to this discussion that determined the consensus. The discussion itself is pretty old, so I do not know if it is worth revisiting. Just seems to me, from my time here on Wikipedia, that such collaboration templates seemed too referential, like advertising a wiki-event where the focus should entirely be in the article. Have such templates been frequently used in other areas that I may not have crossed? —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Not that I know of, and I completely agree with you. There's a big difference between calling reader attention to article issues vs. advertising internal Wikipedia collaborations. I don't think the latter belongs on the article page. Such things have always been confined to talk pages, in my experience. If this is being contended now, I think a new discussion is warranted. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:45, 4 Mar 2009 (UTC)

Hey there

um hi im new to wikipedia and as iwas just surfing around i found this place where you can totally make wikipedia better so here goes every time you make an edit you have to sign of with those little twirly things i think they're caled tilds they look like this ~~~~~ and i was wondering if it could be done automatically instead of always having to do it manually. this is just a suggestion and i am a noob so waht do i know but think about it also i need to be adopted so if you're willing go for it (please) oops almost forgotAntiFetch (talk) 09:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It already is done automatically if you forget, by User:SineBot. Algebraist 11:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Many users hide bot edits on their watchlist, so if you rely on SineBot those people won't know you've edited either. If finding the tildes is too much effort, there is a signature button on the top of the edit window you can click. - BanyanTree 11:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Plus SineBot ignores editors with a certain amount of edits. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This should probably be added to WP:Perennial proposals. Automatic signing is too difficult for the software to get right, although SineBot tries. For a start, edits to non-talk pages are not normally signed, but there are numerous exception pages such as this one. Someone who edits their own comment, for example to correct a misspelling, usually doesn't need to sign it again. Comments are sometimes moved between pages or sections, or reformatted for clarity (usually by experienced editors), and automatically signing the result would place a user's signature on material they didn't write.

There is a replacement for the current talk page discussion system being developed at mw:Extension:LiquidThreads. If this is ever adopted, I believe it will largely remove the requirement for manual signatures.-gadfium 19:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

OK coolAntiFetch (talk) 04:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It may be time to shut this down

Merged to Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#It_May_be_Time_to_Shut_this_Down

Sign move notices Equazcion •✗/C • 00:18, 6 Mar 2009 (UTC)

File:Nitefire03lores.jpg

Could an admin add the infomation wich were lost on Commons? thx--Sanandros (talk) 17:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

According to the image description, it was deleted off Wiktionary. Wikipedia admins can't see deleted info on other projects, and the devs have not yet implemented global deleted image review for Commons admins, which was proposed precisely for your sort of situation. You'll have to ask over at Wiktionary. - BanyanTree 05:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any other information on the deleted Wiktionary page (I'm an en.wiktionary admin). The only text was what is now in the text of the file history comment. --Versageek 06:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Uh. Who added "Redundant Policies" to the Village Pump?

Isn't that the same as VPP? ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 04:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Spitfire19 (talk · contribs). I've tagged for speedy, villagepumps template reverted. Seems like someone trying to make a point. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:13, 3 Mar 2009 (UTC)

It isn't a speedy candidate. Feel free to nominate it for WP:MFD.-gadfium 05:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I see it's already been nominated at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Village pump (redundant policies).-gadfium 05:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Looks like someone just did. It's not technically a speedy candidate, but technicalities aside, the page is just ridiculous and should be deleted immediately nonetheless. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:20, 3 Mar 2009 (UTC)

WP:SNOW -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

FOSS. Free software wiki

Note. The first comment was copied from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Software/Free Software

A question for the editors. I am an undergrad at Georgia Tech's School of Public Policy currently involved in a class extending a wiki developed by a prior class regarding open source software and public policy. The goal of the project is create a comprehensive and current understanding of FOSS in the realm of public policy based on peer reviewed scholarly research. The technology we are using is abysmal and I am looking for a solution to improve the way we compile our knowledge base. One thought was to just change the technology but the more I thought about it - developing a way for the class into constructively interface with the wikipedia community might be much more productive both in terms of an educational experience and actually contributing to global knowledge. Unfortunately the scope of the information we are attempting to compile is much broader than this particular WikiProject seems to encompass. For example we are interested in compiling information regarding the FOSS legal issues and cases mentioned above, indexing data useful for evaluating FOSS policy claims, as well identifying local, state and national policy with regard to the use of FOSS, just to name a few. Would incorporating our project into Wikipedia be appropriate or even a good idea from a community development standpoint?

Thanks, Wryen Meek —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.207.180.118 (talk) 11:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Wyren Meek wrote (emphasis added): "I am an undergrad at Georgia Tech's School of Public Policy currently involved in a class extending a wiki developed by a prior class regarding open source software and public policy. ... The technology we are using is abysmal and I am looking for a solution to improve the way we compile our knowledge base."

I think this is important info. Maybe it could be added to Wikiversity? I don't know; so I am asking here where there is more likely to be discussion. Here are some related portals, projects, and categories of interest:

• Category:Freeware
• Category:Free software
• Portal:Free software
• Portal:Free software/categories
• Category:WikiProject Free Software
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Software/Free Software
• wikiversity:Category:Computer science
• wikiversity:Category:Computer science/Software
• wikiversity:Category:Computer science/Software/Free software --Timeshifter (talk) 05:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggest asking for advice over at Wikipedia:School and university projects, which was created especially to assist academic groups in creating mutually beneficial collaborations with the Wikipedia community. If you feel the scope of your project cannot fit within an encyclopedia, take a look at Wikiversity: and Wikibooks: to see if they cover the scope you feel Wikipedia does not. While working across Wikimedia Foundation projects is not as natural as working within one, there are set templates and such to link across projects that make navigation relatively easy. I think you're quite wise to think this through before starting work, as I've seen some truly disastrous results when students are assigned to edit Wikipedia and immediately have their work deleted because they have no idea about the site's inclusion criteria. - BanyanTree 09:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I found this too: wikiversity:Wikiversity:School and university projects. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Would incorporating our project into Wikipedia be appropriate or even a good idea from a community development standpoint? I suggest that your read our policy on what Wikipedia is not; for example, we're not a directory or a guide. It does seem to me that your goals go beyond what Wikipedia is - an encyclopedia that presents an overview of information and provides interested readers with additional, on-line and offline sources, if they want more. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

{{ph}}

I have created that template because I figured it would be useful, however, nobody is using it other than me. Does anybody know how I can promote the template? Should it be deleted? -- IRP ☎ 22:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC), post moved to this page 23:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not very often that people need to link directly to a page's history list. I don't think I've ever seen anyone do that, and I can't really think of any situations where it would be useful. Not sure if that means it should be deleted though. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:17, 6 Mar 2009 (UTC)

Here is an example of how it could be used: Excessive vandalism, as you can see from the page history. -- IRP ☎ 21:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Understood, but it's easy enough to just click the history tab of an article. If need be, people will just make a link the regular way without using a template, which actually seems quicker for me. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:45, 6 Mar 2009 (UTC)

Ethnio

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:CentralNotice&method=listNoticeDetail&notice=ethnio_recruitment

Could someone explain what this is all about ? Thank you.-- ExpImp^talkcon 19:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems like some sort of randomly triggered (20% of the time) notice, something about "Live near SF and have an hour to help Wikipedia?". I wonder if this is still in test mode? And I wonder what, if anything, it has to do with this website? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not in testmode. It popped up on my wikipedia pages, which is why i searched for ethnio on wikipedia. which lead me to the linked page. but i don't quite know what (if any) this has to do with wikipedia, and why it pops up on these pages. and who authorised it, as there seems to be NO discussion nowhere. at least i was unable to find any.-- ExpImp^talkcon 03:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, since it's at meta, perhaps you might post your question at m:Meta:Babel. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I learned it is part of the meta:Wikipedia Usability Initiative More here. Just in case i'm not the only one interested.-- ExpImp^talkcon 11:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that link. The operative words include The target audience of testers are Wikipedia readers who have little or no experience in editing the Wikipedia articles. The banner is displayed within the range of 1:400 to 1:100 page views ... So I'm guessing that most readers of this page would not have seen it. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

the same in french

Does it exist a French Wikipedia Village pump? --Cywil (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

If you're asking if the French Wikipedia has a similar page to this one, the answer is "sort of". If you look at the top-level village pump page, you'll see a box of "languages" links on the left side; it includes a link to the French equivalent to that page.

Such a link isn't here on this page (WP:VPM), I'm guessing, because the French Wikipedia doesn't split up their village pump as much as we do. But I've not looked. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Velascanding

There is an article at Velascanding which has been prodded as being made up. When I did a Google search for the word, there are very few sources, but the word turns up in X Games, http://wapedia.mobi/en/X_Games (which is a mirror of Wikipedia), http://top40-charts.com/pedia.php?title=X_Games_12 (which is also a mirror), and http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_Games, which is the Italian Wikipedia. Are we being hoaxed? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

And the reason you are posting here rather than, say, at Talk:Velascanding and Talk:X Games is ... ? (And you can also post {{hoax}}; not sure if anyone is monitoring the category, though.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I posted on the Village Pump because the Village Pump is the place to have discussions in such matters. It wouldn't have done any good to post on the article's Talk page because nobody would have seen it, and I don't believe in putting a hoax tag on an article that I'm trying to get more information about. I definitely didn't expect to get attacked for trying to get information. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No one has attacked you. Someone has asked you a question. As you're discovering, the village pump is not in general a good place for discussing problems with specific articles. Algebraist 13:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

::::I wasn't asking for a discussion about problems. I was asking if anybody had ever heard of the term before. How cooperative. What's the point of the village pump if valid topics are looked down upon? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You know what, never mind. Nobody wants to be cooperative, why should I care? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Pseudonymous editing and ethics

I've posted this on 'Wikipedia Review - it's related to some 'big picture' stuff about wikipedia, pseudonymous editing etc. etc. - thoughts most welcome anywhere :-) - it was prompted by a post by ex wiki stalwart Doc Glasgow, who said - "Hiding behind a pseudonym, whilst commenting on real identifiable people, is cowardly and deplorable." - a view echoed on akahele.org - "When people hide behind anonymous identifiers or phony pseudonyms, trust breaks down." (those interested in these issue should definitely read akahele - it's very good.

I just wanted to mention (as an pseudonymous person!) that I kinda hope that pseudonymous writing and good ethics / value / humour / quality aren't fundamentally in tension, rather that they will just tend to lead to the whole slew of problems well documented already.

In particular, I thought I'd mention the example of 'Private Eye' - a british institution and fantastic magazine which doesn't generally do 'bylines' (with notable exceptions) - contributors make up silly names and write their stuff... sound familiar?

The fundamental difference of course is that Private Eye is 'published' - and as such is regularly in and out of the courts, with varying degrees of success. The important point is that they manage very successfully to continue to publish, and even though they fairly regularly make mistakes / cross lines and have to pay damages, they're more often 'right' in some sense or other.....

So if one allows that pseudonymous contribution can be valuable - where does 'responsibility' come in? - On the part of the publisher, I guess - and it's the absence of such which I reckon is of higher importance than the identity of author thing.

The more you think about it, the odder it seems that publication wouldn't be a stated goal of a foundation seeking to share the sum of human knowledge. If the tool requires 'self-publication' (which is how I'd describe wikipedia?) - then that's where identification is required - fundamentally because the buck stopping somewhere is a good thing, and should be supported - I don't think many would disagree? Privatemusings (talk) 23:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are good points there. Accountability is and will always be an issue, and identification is certainly an easy solution to the problem.

That being said, where exactly do we draw the line? I've long considered the option of revealing my identity and being open about who I am, but after seeing incidents like that leading to the retirement of H, I'm largely convinced that openness of real-world identity on Wikipedia isn't worth the potential harassment by [profanity deleted] with time on their hands. Yes, this is ironic given your quote of Doc Glasgow, but I would think that it would be obvious that while commenting negatively on "real identifiable people" anonymously may be deplorable, harassing other "real identifiable people" while not anonymous or pseudonymous is similarly deplorable.

What I see as being the main issue in this is not so much whether (optional) pseudonymity is good or bad, but rather what, in practice would happen if we disallowed it. How well would that work? What side-effects would be applicable? What would happen if we suddenly required all editors to identify themselves? If so, how would we verify these identities? What if identification was optional but offered advantages? What if people with particular permissions or under particular circumstances were required to release an identity? These are the sorts of questions which we'd need to ask if we wanted to think about changing from our current system of pseudonymity (which is an obvious application of what you discuss). While the system is not by any means perfect, the status quo might be preferable to any change. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 05:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact we have editors under 13 -- useful ones (supposedly at least one admin who was 12), and which gets into some issues with U.S. law and such. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 11:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Books and editing

OK, this is relatively new, but I guess we need to start thinking about it. Edits for the sole reason of improving the book of a user, instead of improving the article. Do we want to allow such things ? --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a problem - it's benefiting anyone in the future who wants to make a book from that article, not just that one user. Tra (Talk) 21:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Although I think it's probably debatable whether hiding the see also section does actually help individuals planning to print the article. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You wouldn't be able to follow the links in the printed article, so if the see also section was present, it would only be useful if the person reading the book was also sitting next to a computer and was able to search for the related terms. Tra (Talk) 23:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Main Page

The "In the News" section on the Main Page hasn't been updated in more than a day (WP Time) and there is current;y a message on the Main page talk page. Since there's been at least one fairly high profile event yesterday (The Tsvangari Crash incident) is it possible that someone could update? BigHairRef | Talk 04:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

A better place for discussion is Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page and its offspring. There is a semi-formal process for adding items to the list - this isn't something that casual editors should do. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I was aware of the process for the change of ITN candidates, I was merely hoping to prompt an appropriate admin to update once per 24 hours as per the guidelines on the main page talk page. UNfortunately the same has occurred again with almost a 40 hour delay since the last update. BigHairRef | Talk 08:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

help please

hi, whenever i look for something with google i always get lot of sites to get info. And always one of those would be something-Wikipedia,the free encyclopedia but recently when i click on it the message drops down with save or find and i get no-where. Would you help me please to fix it so it will be as it was before —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.71.211 (talk) 17:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Unless other editors can report the same problem (I just tried a google search, Firefox 3, Mac OS X; worked as expected), you're probably not going to get much help at this page (which is for assistance with editing). For problems with reading Wikipedia (or with Google or your computer), you can try the reference desk. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Public Domain picture

Unresolved

Would the picture on Matthew Martin at http://www.richmondfed.org/press_room/press_releases/about_us/2009/mmartin_20090205.cfm be considered fair use?Smallman12q (talk) 00:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Mattew Martin is still alive, so using a Fair Use image of him is a bad idea. (also, I don't see an image there) EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

How about a public domain picture? The picture is at the bottom of the page where it says Photo of Matthew Martin (Print Quality). The direct link is http://www.richmondfed.org/about_us/who_we_are/management_team/images/matt_martin.jpg Smallman12q (talk) 20:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be anything on that page to suggest that picture is in the public domain. At best there's an implied license for press use. Algebraist 21:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

So would that be considered fair use? Also what about the pictures here at http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/bios/banks/pres01.htm . Is that also not usable?Smallman12q (talk) 23:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

As EVula stated, no picture can be considered fair use for Wikipedia's purposes if a free alternative could be made. This includes almost all pictures of living persons. Only public domain or freely licensed images are allowable. The pages you've linked to contain nothing to suggest that the images are PD or freely licensed. Algebraist 23:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Aren't they works of government agencies(Are the federal reserve banks not considered government agencies...if not, then that's a whole other discussion)? Or does that not apply to pictures?Smallman12q (talk) 03:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The copyright notice on the website claims that the bank is capable of holding copyrights. Algebraist 10:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou for pointing that out...now they also have a link to this site http://license.icopyright.net/creator/tag.act?tag=federalreservebankofrichmond ...so how does that fit in? Does this mean the photo for the baltimore office at http://www.richmondfed.org/about_us/visit_us/locations/baltimore/ can't be used?Smallman12q (talk) 13:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Algebraist 11:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes to which one? Can I please get an explanation?Smallman12q (talk) 21:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes to the yes/no question that you asked. Algebraist 21:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

All I'm asking for is a thorough answer. I would appreciate if it if you could provide me with an explanation(I don't follow your last response). Thank you in advance.Smallman12q (talk) 22:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Basically, fair use isn't good enough for living people. Specifically, a fair use picture of a living person fails criterion 1 of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. So if you're looking at a picture of a living person, one you found on the web, it's up to you to demonstrate that the picture is in the public domain or has been released with a free content license. And the lack of an explicit copyright claim is not such a demonstration. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Well perhaps this picture is in the public domain...that's what I'm trying to get at. Is this picture in the public domain? The site is by the federal reserve(which I believe is a government agency) and their copyright license is here http://license.icopyright.net/creator/tag.act?tag=federalreservebankofrichmond (which seems to be a creative commons license). So my question really is...is the picture in public domain?(And if so, why not).Smallman12q (talk) 20:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It's been a few days...and still no answer. I also would like to ask if the Detroit branch is also under CC rather than as a work of a government agency.Smallman12q (talk) 01:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC) ...Anyone want to give an answer?Smallman12q (talk) 01:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The Federal Reserve is not a government agency, it's precise legal status is interesting, but it is not an agency of the federal government, but rather "quasi-public", meaning that it can hold copyrights and its images, works, etc. are not in the public domain. The license you cite reads "A license to reproduce and/or distribute the work unchanged, for non-commercial purposes." (emphasis added). Under the current policy, we're sadly not allowed to use such images. Cool3 (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought that wikipedia was a non-profit organization? Why wouldn't they allow non-commercial purpose images? (Can I please get a policy link)...And if it that is the case...then this I can mark this is as resolved.(I will be a bit disappointed nonetheless). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smallman12q (talk • contribs) 12:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The policy you want is WP:NFC. Algebraist 12:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Well...thats very disappointing. I'm going to assume that these images wouldn't qualify under fair use?--Smallman12q (talk) 20:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Anyone? Would it qualify under fair use?Smallman12q (talk) 19:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It would not. Unless the images illustrate some peculiar, important, encyclopedic feature that it would be completely impossible to get a free image of (Not because there is no such image, but because it's physically impossible to take one. Perhaps because the building burned down.), Or unless the article is about the image itself, then I don't think you're going to be able to fit these into Wikipedia's policies on non-free images. APL (talk) 14:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

WIKIPEDIA- Home of the Free and Bias

Wikipedia promotes itself as "the free encyclopedia." This is not completely true. Yes, it may not costs anything of monetary value to read the articles. However, it costs a great deal to the people whom are reading it assuming they are recieving the truth. The costs of midinformed people is something we need to consider. If Wikipedia chooses to continue with their with holding of truth and political spinning, then they should change their slogan. Instead of "The Free Encyclopedia" they should refer to themselves as "The not Completely Free but Completely BIAS Encyclopedia." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.220.55 (talk) 07:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:General disclaimer. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 11:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

That and wikipedia is Free as in speech not as in beer. --Kim Bruning (talk) 11:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Grind your axe much, IP? Or are you angry over an article about a certain U.S. president? MuZemike 22:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Anyone up for creating a template message we can use every time this nonsense repeats itself, or maybe we just ignore it? Oh, and by the way, IP poster, "bias" (note lower case, not Berkley Integrated Audio Software) is a noun, the word you were looking for is "biased". – ukexpat (talk) 15:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

If he only knew that of greater concern is our systemic bias away from subjects of great concern to people who lack Internet access. Tempshill (talk) 17:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is it that these axe grinders can never understand the difference between "bias" and "biased"? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Unavailable on the mainland

The secure server has been unavailable in mainland China for several weeks now, as are all the English pages on the non-secure server that relate to this problem. Someone who can access them should check whether those pages have been updated. English non-secure pages on other topics are unaffected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.122.115.161 (talk) 05:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)