![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
This is an important part of editing Wikipedia...
Just created a new template to replace one that was limited. The new template is
Template:National personifications. If you check the
history, you'll find that a standard Navbox template was being used. An editor had added a 21st nation, which, because they are alphabetized, pushed the US into the 21st position. Well, evidently the standard Navbox only has 20 positions, because the US (click on "Edit this page" when you check the history link above) was not visibly showing after the UK entry. So I created a template that can be expanded beyond 20 nations. I also turned it into a two-column list to decrease the length. In the process of building this template I improved several of the related articles with stub templates and by adding the [[Category:National personifications]] to the articles that lacked it, as well as several minor edits. This was great fun!
—
.`^) Paine Ellsworth
diss`cuss (^`. 04:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
And now there's an even better version that's much easier to edit and add new countries with their National personifications.
Here's the workpage.
—
.`^) Paine Ellsworth
diss`cuss (^`. 15:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
OPEN for extended content | |||
---|---|---|---|
Ref.:
Template talk:Anglophone states and
Template talk:English official language clickable map
|
I've made a significant change to this template's doc here. It is now possible to include the {{ coord}} template inside Template groups, a.k.a. "Navboxes". E.g....
Pretty cool, eh? This works across all skins, by the way.
—
.`^) Paine Ellsworth
diss`cuss (^`. 06:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Ref.:
[1]
Just added my new
IP sandbox I created as a test procedure for the {{
Selectskin}} template. Wikipedia is SSSSSSSSSO cool!
173.169.209.73 (Paine Ellsworth) (
talk) 09:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
OPEN for extended content |
---|
With
this edit someone using IP
152.16.59.102 deleted almost all of the
Maqbara article for the second time. They cited in the edit summary that they reverted Cluebot because it was a "legitimate removal of text". There also appears to be a {{
coord}} challenge in the
Infobox template on that page. Start
here and resolve the coordinates challenge. Okay, things have changed a bit, and I've left a message about the Coord template challenge
here.
I'm working on this in
another of my sandboxes. My
testcases are here. I want to work on these challenges in my own sandbox before "going public" and putting them in the usual places:
here in the public sandbox and
here on the public testcases page.
Coordinate challengeCHECK TO SEE IF THIS CHALLENGE CAN BE MET BY THE CODE IN TEMPLATE:INFOBOX SETTLEMENT After working on this template
in my sandbox, I have been able to get the coordinates inside the Infobox, as can be seen in the
Template:Infobox Indian jurisdiction/sandbox using the
Template:Infobox Indian jurisdiction/testcases page, and also on my own test-cases page. The sandbox version on the left may still need tweaking from an expert, because it is a very simplified version toward the bottom of the code where the "Coordinates" section is found. I'll continue to see what can be done about the [Show]/[Hide] links hanging over the right edge of these templates (see
India). This challenge is seen in several templates. Should be fun! I was able to add the "type" utility (coordinates) back into the Infobox Indian jurisdiction template this date. Concern raised...{{
editprotected}}
This change should be reverted. I was wondering why the lists suddenly became narrower. Where is the consensus for this? The fact that this was changed not even just without consensus, but even with
opposition is a problem within itself.
position: absolute;
right: 3px;
top: 0px;
(out). I'm not certain, but it appears that this template might need a bit more repair. I have added two versions of the India-article infobox,
Template:Infobox Country, to the
testcases subpage. If this page is accessed with an Internet Explorer browser (confirmed for versions IE7 and IE8), then it can be seen in the sandbox version on the left that one of the collapsible lists, Constitutionally recognised languages has a [Show]/[Hide] link that extends beyond the right edge of the infobox. Please see my
documentation on the sandbox page for a complete explanation. The version on the right side of the
testcases page shows that a local change, removing the line break in Constitutionally recognised
(out). After checking hundreds of articles and templates that link to either Collapsible list or to Infobox Country or both, I have been unable to find another instance of long-titled lists with line breaks. So at this point, I conclude that the overhang of the [Show]/[Hide] link in Template:Collapsible list has been repaired. I'll continue to look for this as a normal course of editing and, if I find another instance of the [Show]/[Hide] link extending past the edge of an infobox, I will pursue a local solution. Thank you, everyone, very much for your help with this template repair! All this lead to... |
OPEN for extended content |
---|
Hello. I just returned and found your question concerning my edit of Maqbara. On 22 SEP 2009, User:Sarabseth pruned the article, with a legitimate reason stated on the talk page. On 25 SEP 2009, anon 122.174 reverted without explanation or discussion on the talk page. On 17 OCT 2009, Sarabseth checked the article again and once again removed the inappropriate text from the article, with the edit summary "deleting all "Madurai Maqbara Hazrats" material, pending construction of a new page for it". Two days later 122.174 returned and began adding that material back. That's when I came across the article, while on RC Patrol. I checked the article history and the talk page, and agreed with Sarabseth. I reverted, with the edit summary "rv to last edit by Sarabseth - this article is about Maqbaras in general". ClueBot triggered on the deletion of a large amount of text (understandably - it is a bot and can't evaluate the text that was removed). I reverted ClueBot and 122.174 returned to once again revert without discussing. I see that in my absence the article has been returned to the state in which I left it, and Sarabseth has once again posted to the talk page to recommend that text not be placed into the Maqbara article. I hope this issue is finally settled. That text really did not belong in the article. BTW, thank you for the manner in which you phrased your question. You wrote in a way that showed you reserved judgement and did not jump to conclusions. I appreciate that. 152.16.59.102 ( talk) 00:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
|
OPEN for extended content |
---|
Weirdological symbol in the India articleSee
Template talk:Coord#Weirdological symbol in the India article. Also noticed in the India article is that the [Show] link for the languages recognized by the Constitution overhangs the right side of the Infobox. The line break (<br />) in the column-one wording causes this. But if it's taken out, then the length of the wording significantly widens the Infobox. Also, need to see if the gurus at
Template talk:Infobox Country#Lats and longs will add seconds to the template. Latest additionTwelve days later
Template talk:Infobox Country#Twelve days later
Additional note: When the time comes, all that will be necessary is to copy and paste the code in the Infobox Country/sandbox to the "live" Infobox Country. The sandbox version is precisely the same TOP to BOTTOM as the live version, with of course the exception that the root seconds parameters have been added to the sandbox version. I've retained a copy in my own sandbox in case the template sandbox is altered. |
OPEN for extended content |
---|
Hi Paine, Thank you for the suggestion that I add justification for the demonym-affixing templates to their documentation pages. I have now done so and hope that my explanation is to your satisfaction. Initially when the templates were created, I attempted to make them work in the same manner as the other continental templates by copying most of their code, however I was unable to emulate the ability to affix strings to the preset country identifiers. If I remember correctly, I contacted a couple of the major editors of the other continental templates to see if they would be willing to fix the code so that the demonym-affixing templates would function properly, however they did not do so. I do not recall if they ever responded to my request. In any case, the templates should serve a very useful purpose if only someone who was wikitext-savvy could fix whatever the templates' problem is. The reason I never did create the templates corresponding to the other continents past Europe and Africa is because I was never able to get those two initial templates to work. If you know enough wikitext to give this problem a go or if you know someone who might be willing to give it a try, I would greatly appreciate any proffered help. Happy editing, Neelix ( talk) 22:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
UpdateRef.:
sandbox and
testcases |
Please see this followup to your proposed chang to the collapsible list template — TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 14:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
OPEN for extended content |
---|
According to statistics found at W3 Schools dot com, Internet Explorer users and Firefox users number 37.5% and 47.5%, respectively, of the total users who browse the Internet. Two more templates that need looking at...
More templates repairThe following templates look like heck in the Cologne Blue skin using Internet Explorer. Some of the titles conflict with the [Show] links:
Check 'em out... [2] and [3] — Paine's Climax 08:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC) Since I'm really not sure how important it is for these templates to look good in the Cologne Blue skin, rather than make the edits that would correct this, I have left messages on the Discussion pages of each template.
So we'll see how it goes. — Paine's Climax 11:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC) Yet another that needs improvement
User:Paine Ellsworth/Sandbox10, which is my sandbox version of
Template:Style, needs fixing. Same problem... some of the titles blend in and conflict with the [Hide] links. |
Ref.: this Talk page entry— also this one
I just recently joined this project, and I've been reading the back 'n forth above with intense interest. It occurs to me that this is about article titles in the English Wikipedia. Is what editor Espoo espouses is that there are non-English letters used in the titles of English Wikipedia articles? If they are indeed non-English (and there are many forms of English) then, of course, they ought to be changed, but if they are English letters, then their usage on the English Wikipedia is then justified. And rather than writing ledes and articles that might make someone from, say, Alabama or Nebraska or anywhere in the United States or the entire globe feel uneducated and perhaps even impotent, it is imperative that they be written in a way that will lift the general reader to a higher level, a higher consciousness level of knowledge and wisdom.
Some readers might see it as "haughty" or "elitist" or even "patronizing". That's one eye of looking at it. However as long as the other eye makes the attempt to make readers feel an increased self-esteem, to educate them, so that they walk away with a feeling of, "You learn something new everyday!", then we've done our job, yes? Systemic bias will never be completely eliminated. That is an impossible task in a world of six-and-a-half billion people, each with their own choice of tinted glasses over their perceptions. However, when a consensus is reached, then progress has been made. And the next time an editor comes along with an idea that challenges the consensus, even more can be learned and more progress may ensue. If we focus upon the needs of the general English reader of the English Wikipedia, then we should be able to keep systemic bias to a bare minimum, yes?
—
Paine's
Climax 18:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
OPEN for extended content | |||
---|---|---|---|
From the template's talk page... Altering coordinates parameterRef.:
Infobox German location/testcases If this looks good to everyone, and I haven't messed things up, then I propose we go to this version. All that will be necessary is to copy the sandbox version to the live version. I have the sandbox version in my own
personal sandbox just in case this public version is altered. If no one objects, I shall request the change to be made in a few days. Thank you very much! Edit request{{
editprotected}} - this template added to the
talk page this date.
See also
|
The Urdu Redirect appears to need some
dabbling
with.
—
Paine's
Climax 00:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Ref.:
Template talk:Infobox Country#Drives on who the hell cares
Here's an option! —
Paine's
Climax 17:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Ref.:
Template talk:Sockpuppet#That last sentence
This one either needs to refocus that one link or delete it. —
Paine's
Climax 23:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Added the Editprotected template to replace the live version with the sandbox version this date.
—
Ellsworth's
Climax 04:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Ref.:
Template talk:Infobox Indian jurisdiction#official languages
I did some language tweaking in this template. —
Paine's
Climax 23:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Refs.:
Template:Infobox islands and
Malay Archipelago
Here's just what I need... another template that needs work. <grin> The other link shows why. A second infobox was added below the first one because the infobox only allows for up to six countries. And the talk page indicates there may be more work needed as well. Good future project!
—
Paine's
Climax 01:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Ref.:
Template:Infobox German location
Hi, wouldn't it be better to include the title coords in the infobox? That is, change "display=inline" to "display=inline,title"? Much better than adding the separate coord template to all articles manually, like you did at Essen. Thanks for the happy holidays BTW, but we don't celebrate Thanksgiving (I guess you meant that) here. We do have
Sinterklaas in a few days.
Markussep
Talk 19:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Prue7.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk) 03:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Note: I reinstalled all of the following into appropriate articles, and then removed the orphan/delete tags... File:Prue7.jpg · File:Paige Sense and Sense Ability.jpg · File:Piper Just Harried.jpg · File:Prue The Painted World.jpg · File:PiperHalliwell.jpg
Ref.:
File:Benjamin Franklin by Joseph Siffred Duplessis left.jpg ·
the decision was to "keep"
Help desk discussion still showing ticklish situation as "unresolved"
— Paine (
Ellsworth's
Climax) 11:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Ref.:
Zeno of Elea
Template:Infobox philosopher needs an alt command added for the image.
— Paine (
Ellsworth's
Climax) 11:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Paine; per WP:NFCC#1, we cannot use copyrighted images in infoboxes for living persons, as they are replaceable by free images. In any event, the Humperdinck image doesn't have a Fair Use Rationale for that article. You might wish to seek out a copyright-free image to replace it. Thanks. Rodhull andemu 20:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Ref.:
File:Humperdinck.jpg— add FURs for both articles where used.23:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Ref.:
File:ChrisSarandon Skellington.jpg— I just uploaded this image to Commons and installed it in the
The Nightmare Before Christmas article. I'm considering using it as the infobox image in the
Chris Sarandon article.
— Paine (
Ellsworth's
Climax) 22:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
See what happens with the image presently in the infobox at Holly Marie Combs – ( File:Hollissy.jpg ). I tried to find copyright info on it and was unable to. It comes from the Charmed wikia, a wiki devoted to the Charmed series. Apparently the uploader thinks this wiki is a Wikipedia project. So if no one else can find cr info on that absolutely gorgeous pic (I wish we could save it) and it has to be deleted, then I'll upload the following from Flikr...
Ref.:
Yet ANOTHER Gorgeous pic of Exquisite Holly! ·
and on Google! ** W * O * W **
— Paine (
Ellsworth's
Climax) 16:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Ref.:
Commons Watchlist ·
HollyMarieCombs02.jpg
Well this might be interesting... I uploaded that Flikr image of Holly just a few mins ago and it was almost immediately deleted for copyright violation. And this even though I had clearly added the Creative Commons attribution 2.0 licensing information. The discussion with the deleter is found at editor
Tabercil's talk page.
— Paine (
Ellsworth's
Climax) 02:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
In reference to this edit. The explanation is at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria and it's #1 under the policy heading. Thanks. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 03:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Ref.:
List of Charmed characters (added 18 Jan 10)
Weakness in the
Charmed articles as well as
one or
two dabs.
— Paine (
Ellsworth's
Climax) 15:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Found him: Role was played by Simon Templeman. — Paine ( Ellsworth's Climax) 10:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
![]() | January 1, 2001. (not 2000) |
Working on this one.
— Paine (
Ellsworth's
Climax) 17:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|----- -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
There is no "year zero". How can there be? Which year would it be? Would it be the year between -1 and 0? or the year between 0 and 1? No, neither. The year between -1 and 0 would be -0001, and the year between 0 and 1 would the very first year A.D. and would be 0001.
Moving to the right on this number line, we see that the tenth year, 0010, ends at the number 10, and this is the end of the first decade. So December 31, 0010, marks the end of the first decade, and January 1, 0011, marks the beginning of the 2nd ten-year period, the 2nd decade.
The argument is that the year 1999 was the final year of the 2nd millennium, so that December 31, 1999 was the final day of the 2nd millennium and that January 1, 2000 was therefore the first day of the new 3rd millennium. If, like most people, we do not take into account any adjustments due to changing calendars, etc., and we just use the straight number-line to find out the truth and reality, then we must conclude that the years ending in zero were the final years of all the decades, centuries and millennia.
The year 0010 marks the end of the first decade, the year 0020 marks the end of the second decade, the year 0100 marks the end of the first century, the year 1000 marks the end of the first millennium, and the year 2000 marks the end of the second millennium. So December 31, 2000 marks the very last day of the first two-thousand-year period and was the final day of the second millennium, while January 1, 2001 marks the first day of the third millennium.
— Paine (
Ellsworth's
Climax) 08:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Ref.:
Talk:Israel
This. It was an obvious reference to the section preceding it, which does not seem to violate the "What goes on an article talk page?" conventions. I'm not sure who you're obliquely chiding, but although there are disagreements about characterizations / accusations in that section, they, and the responses to them, are still within the realm of the article and thread's relevance. --
tariqabjotu 21:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you a lot for the time you spent answering my question on Template talk:Infobox country. It will certainly help us to come to a decision that agrees everyone. Cheers. — Xavier, 22:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
You just signed on for major revisions; could you possibly either delete ClimateGate and the malformed reference, or tag it with a proper reference? I was going to do that, but don't want to interfere with your revisions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Ref.: To DMSBel from Paine
Hi Paine, I am fine with you sending me a message on my User talk page. I felt rather bad about the exchange too, and was sorry to have driven you away, as upon reflection you were initially just calling for people to step back for a few days, and have generally been civil. I must admit that's something I would like to do, but if other comments start flowing in then I tend to re-engage. You are welcome to continue to comment on the page in question. I apologise for accusing you of ganging up – no doubt you were not deliberately doing that. It’s just that those who argue for keeping the disputed content have a POV too in this matter, and its rather frustrating to read comments that try to pin a POV on me from other editors with their own POV.
If I may explain something about the dispute. There are at least two issues involved in the discussion, and sometimes they become entangled.
Firstly there is the video. Now I find it easier to assume good-faith in regards to the uploader of it, even though I do not think it is suitable for inclusion. It is quite possible that he thought it would be helpful and I don't want to start calling names. I think he was mistaken thought if he thought the article needs a video.
The second issue is the photographs. Which I will come to in a moment. When I looked at this article a few weeks ago, I simply commented that the disputed content should be moved further down in the article. I really did not want to get involved in this debate. I looked in a couple of times and the last time I did, before the current dispute, I noticed neither video or photos were in. At that time I commented on the talk page that the article looked better without them. Within a day the video was back - the reason -Wikipedia is not censored. No rationale for including it given. Well "Wikipedia is not censored" is not a reason for putting stuff in, so I deleted it. Immediately I get grilled. Then the page is protected by a jumpy neutral editor. There had been no edit-war. My initial deletion resulted in page semi-protection (because I had not signed in). So one deletion and some discussion resulted in full-page protection.
To return to the photos. Editor Infofreak did some research which is in the archive. He found out that the photos are still frames from a video on a channel on X-tube. The guy who uploaded there is an exhibitionist. The video these stills came from is still there on his channel. I think the actual video may still be in commons, perhaps as an animated GIF file. Now I had less of a problem with the pics before knowing this, although I still question that there is any need for them in the article. Basically when this was made known some editors continued (in spite of evidence to the contrary) to question that they were porn - their rationale was that they are now on wikipedia illustrating an article on a physiological process therefore the original context is unimportant. They are porn when on a porn channel but on wikipedia they somehow shed that association, and that makes it ok. I have a problem with this, besides the fact that I suspect an agenda behind all this. I think material should be judged not on the context it is in but on the context it came from. So material that originated on a porn site made with the intention of exciting sexual lust, does not gain respectibility by insertion into a wikipedia article. I am almost certain that no other encyclopedia either paper or online would just use this "because it illustrates".
Another thing, which I would be interested to hear your thoughts on is this. A dispute is ongoing in this article over a particular piece of content (the video). There are four editors currently (that is within about the last week): Postoak, CIS, Dava4444 and myself who see it as unnecessary. They don't comment a lot but have not changed their view on the material. I don't know why they don't comment more often, maybe they are busy editing other stuff, maybe they are not on the internet all that much, I don't know. Now in your opinion is it disruptive to insert extra material, that is even more contentious, and that even if it is not, is basically redundant, while a dispute is already ongoing? That is what has happened here. That’s probably why I have been a bit bullish in my comments. That and the fact that another editor is frustrating me no end on the page. So I apologise for letting off steam at you. DMSBel ( talk) 21:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Paige in Sense and Sense Ability.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.
If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 07:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. FASTILYsock (TALK) 07:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Must be something up with their servers... the .co.uk link was working (even though the other one wasn't) when I posted it earlier today. Oh well... -- Ckatz chat spy 01:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Be careful when you remove edits with several reliable and official sources, leading to vandalism. For personal opinions and feelings, you have the talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thome66 ( talk • contribs) 06:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
What do you mean by focus? I don't speak english very well —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrei Cvhdsee Brazil ( talk • contribs) 23:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Ref.:
Zeno's paradoxes
FYI:
Disruptive behavior by user Steaphen
Ansgarf (
talk) 13:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Paine, I coincidentally noticed that your first edit here is just over a year ago now. Since I like to occasionally vandalize other people's userpages, I thought a nice registerday cake would be appropriate:
Bon appetit! :) Paradoctor ( talk) 22:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
This is a misnomer that misleads some editors. It is sometimes applied as a need for truth, rather than a need for verifiability. That is why I inserted an explanatory reminder, and that is why I have tagged the
Redirect for speedy deletion. So please consider discussion as "open".
— Paine (
Ellsworth's
Climax) 15:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, if everybody here agrees that WP:PROVEIT can be confusing, then I must ask why we should leave it to editors to have to deal with other editors, mostly new editors, who misunderstand it? PROVEIT is an obvious misnomer that, when taken literally, completetly goes against what WP is all about. It seems to me that it would be so much better to perhaps move it, change its name. Perhaps WP:CHECKIT or WP:AFFIRMIT, WP:CONFIRMIT, WP:SUPPORTIT, anything but WP:PROVEIT. This is a longstanding shortcut that has been confusing for too long.
— Paine (
Ellsworth's
Climax) 17:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Have we forgotten that we want to offer a welcoming environment to new editors? I'll clarify. The subjective effect of the shouted imperative is before the novices follow the link to that policy environment. They don't yet know that it is a common format for a policy shortcut name, they just know someone is shouting a command at them on a talkpage. Either the shout or the command by itself would not be taken as overly rude, but the combination is. Most such shortcuts are nouns or adjectives, not imperative verbs, and this takes much of the sting out of the shout. In fact, I'd prefer to see the whole cluster of shortcuts (PROVEIT, BOP, BURDEN, and UNSOURCED) replaced over time by WP:Proof or WP:CitationNeeded, which are presently unassigned and far less likely to cause offence, but WP:UNSOURCED is a reasonably innocuous shortcut to the policy. User:LeadSongDog come howl 17:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
There is a heated discussion at ANI about how WP:PROVEIT and WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT applies in a particular scenario. The situation is that editors keep citing to a source that they did not bother verifying themselves. Instead they viewed the information on a vendor website that claims to source from Wikipedia and the Adam Gay Video Directory. The problem is they go and cite to the directory where there is evidence that the information is not even in there. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 20:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
This is in no means meant to "kick a dead horse". It is obvious to me that many are blinded by this shortcut's longevity. My brief experience at
MedCab says to me that it would be "quixotic" to pursue formal arbitration. So this issue dies here. But I hope that one thing will continue to exist in the back of every editor's mind: A 15% to 25% potential for incorrect usage of a shortcut can add up to a lot of edit wars, incivility and confusion over time. So maybe outright canning of the shortcut isn't called for. Maybe the shortcut is only the tip of the iceberg, I don't know. I sincerely hope that somebody will eventually arise with a solution that will be amenable to everybody. Best of everything to you and yours!
— Paine (
Ellsworth's
Climax) 08:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Archived from Wikipedia talk:Verifiability - March 2010
Should the shortcut, WP:PROVEIT, be moved to a different shortcut name or deleted altogether?
— Paine (
Ellsworth's
Climax) 00:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
What you don't seem to understand Andrew, is that saying that Bernal "is cited in the major reviews of this field and taken seriously by the major authors in this field" is not the same thing as actually proving it. You have been asked and repeatedly to prove that Bernal is taken seriously as a linguist, and more specifically, that his Kenyan Urheimat theory for the origins of Afro-Asiatic is not a tiny minority view. You have been unable to prove either one of the two things, much less the latter. Instead, you link me to an interview with Ehret saying that he basically appreciates Bernal when it comes to his take on the "Egyptian influence on Greece" although a boat-load of other professionals he collectively labels "Classicists" apparently do not. There is no mention of Bernal's standing in the linguistic community, much less of his very idiosyncratic Kenyan Urheimat theory or his equally fringe "Rift Valley Urheimat theory (you write that "Martin Bernal came to argue for this Urheimat based upon perceived connections between Afroasiatic and Khoisan languages" -- that's classic fringe). Please, for the umpteenth time, stop stalling and produce those quotes per WP:PROVEIT. Otherwise, it's clear that the edit cannot remain in place.
— Causteau (talk) 07:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Though Catherine may have been regent for the Kingdom in 1513-1514 and was certainly Queen Consort at the time, it does not necessarily follow that she bore the title of Queen Regent. For example, the Prince of Wales was regent of the United Kingdom from 1811 to 1820 and was known as the Prince Regent, but Prince Paul of Yugoslavia, who was regent of that kingdom from 1934 to 1941, was not. User:62.56.53.218 said in an edit summary of 09.48 on 5 October 2008 "Just added her ttles in full they are all factual go check". One should not have to "go check"; if you know she was styled Queen Regent at that time then the onus is on you to provide evidence for it. See WP:PROVEIT.
— Opera hat (talk) 13:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
“ | Once again: WP:PROVEIT. Wiki really doesn't care about what your voice teacher can do or your personal assessment of Rose's voice, and neither count as a reliable source. If you can find reliable sources that contradict what is in the article, feel free to share them here. | ” |
“ | Please demonstrate the relevance of why Michael Collins' 12/13th century alleged ancestry is relevant to this article, see WP:PROVEIT. | ” |
“ | You don't see yourself as having an opinion; you see yourself as bearing the Truth. You perceive your biases as neutral. | ” |
Refs.: WP:PROVEIT – RfC: Should shortcut WP:PROVEIT be changed/deleted – [9] & [10]
At present there are five solid opposing editors and one editor, myself, who still wants the WP:PROVEIT shortcut completely removed from Wikipedia, either by moving it to another name or by outright deletion. There are two editors who have suggested a compromise to remove the shortcut from the shortcut box, and to allow the shortcut Redirect to remain and be used sparingly. I still strongly believe that this shortcut must go. However in the spirit of seeking agreement/consensus, I would seriously consider a compromise if opposing editors would also be willing to do so.
— Paine (
Ellsworth's
Climax) 13:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
<backdent> You now have 6 opposing. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 16:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
There is a discussion and RfC in progress on the
WP:V (
Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#RfC status) talk page about this shortcut. I am not out to use MedCab as a stepping stone to the next formal step in dispute rez, however I would like to keep things informal as long as possible. The dispute is about keeping or canning a longstanding shortcut,
WP:PROVEIT, which has been causing problems for a long, long time. It is invoked by most editors correctly, i.e., to get an editor to PROVE that a claim is verifiable by reliable sources. Some editors, however, invoke the shortcut in an effort to get an editor to PROVE that a claim itself is TRUE, which, of course, is not what WP:V is all about. I am still a novice in the arbitration process, so any help you can give me would be appreciated.
— Paine (
Ellsworth's
Climax) 13:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
This is an important part of editing Wikipedia...
Just created a new template to replace one that was limited. The new template is
Template:National personifications. If you check the
history, you'll find that a standard Navbox template was being used. An editor had added a 21st nation, which, because they are alphabetized, pushed the US into the 21st position. Well, evidently the standard Navbox only has 20 positions, because the US (click on "Edit this page" when you check the history link above) was not visibly showing after the UK entry. So I created a template that can be expanded beyond 20 nations. I also turned it into a two-column list to decrease the length. In the process of building this template I improved several of the related articles with stub templates and by adding the [[Category:National personifications]] to the articles that lacked it, as well as several minor edits. This was great fun!
—
.`^) Paine Ellsworth
diss`cuss (^`. 04:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
And now there's an even better version that's much easier to edit and add new countries with their National personifications.
Here's the workpage.
—
.`^) Paine Ellsworth
diss`cuss (^`. 15:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
OPEN for extended content | |||
---|---|---|---|
Ref.:
Template talk:Anglophone states and
Template talk:English official language clickable map
|
I've made a significant change to this template's doc here. It is now possible to include the {{ coord}} template inside Template groups, a.k.a. "Navboxes". E.g....
Pretty cool, eh? This works across all skins, by the way.
—
.`^) Paine Ellsworth
diss`cuss (^`. 06:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Ref.:
[1]
Just added my new
IP sandbox I created as a test procedure for the {{
Selectskin}} template. Wikipedia is SSSSSSSSSO cool!
173.169.209.73 (Paine Ellsworth) (
talk) 09:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
OPEN for extended content |
---|
With
this edit someone using IP
152.16.59.102 deleted almost all of the
Maqbara article for the second time. They cited in the edit summary that they reverted Cluebot because it was a "legitimate removal of text". There also appears to be a {{
coord}} challenge in the
Infobox template on that page. Start
here and resolve the coordinates challenge. Okay, things have changed a bit, and I've left a message about the Coord template challenge
here.
I'm working on this in
another of my sandboxes. My
testcases are here. I want to work on these challenges in my own sandbox before "going public" and putting them in the usual places:
here in the public sandbox and
here on the public testcases page.
Coordinate challengeCHECK TO SEE IF THIS CHALLENGE CAN BE MET BY THE CODE IN TEMPLATE:INFOBOX SETTLEMENT After working on this template
in my sandbox, I have been able to get the coordinates inside the Infobox, as can be seen in the
Template:Infobox Indian jurisdiction/sandbox using the
Template:Infobox Indian jurisdiction/testcases page, and also on my own test-cases page. The sandbox version on the left may still need tweaking from an expert, because it is a very simplified version toward the bottom of the code where the "Coordinates" section is found. I'll continue to see what can be done about the [Show]/[Hide] links hanging over the right edge of these templates (see
India). This challenge is seen in several templates. Should be fun! I was able to add the "type" utility (coordinates) back into the Infobox Indian jurisdiction template this date. Concern raised...{{
editprotected}}
This change should be reverted. I was wondering why the lists suddenly became narrower. Where is the consensus for this? The fact that this was changed not even just without consensus, but even with
opposition is a problem within itself.
position: absolute;
right: 3px;
top: 0px;
(out). I'm not certain, but it appears that this template might need a bit more repair. I have added two versions of the India-article infobox,
Template:Infobox Country, to the
testcases subpage. If this page is accessed with an Internet Explorer browser (confirmed for versions IE7 and IE8), then it can be seen in the sandbox version on the left that one of the collapsible lists, Constitutionally recognised languages has a [Show]/[Hide] link that extends beyond the right edge of the infobox. Please see my
documentation on the sandbox page for a complete explanation. The version on the right side of the
testcases page shows that a local change, removing the line break in Constitutionally recognised
(out). After checking hundreds of articles and templates that link to either Collapsible list or to Infobox Country or both, I have been unable to find another instance of long-titled lists with line breaks. So at this point, I conclude that the overhang of the [Show]/[Hide] link in Template:Collapsible list has been repaired. I'll continue to look for this as a normal course of editing and, if I find another instance of the [Show]/[Hide] link extending past the edge of an infobox, I will pursue a local solution. Thank you, everyone, very much for your help with this template repair! All this lead to... |
OPEN for extended content |
---|
Hello. I just returned and found your question concerning my edit of Maqbara. On 22 SEP 2009, User:Sarabseth pruned the article, with a legitimate reason stated on the talk page. On 25 SEP 2009, anon 122.174 reverted without explanation or discussion on the talk page. On 17 OCT 2009, Sarabseth checked the article again and once again removed the inappropriate text from the article, with the edit summary "deleting all "Madurai Maqbara Hazrats" material, pending construction of a new page for it". Two days later 122.174 returned and began adding that material back. That's when I came across the article, while on RC Patrol. I checked the article history and the talk page, and agreed with Sarabseth. I reverted, with the edit summary "rv to last edit by Sarabseth - this article is about Maqbaras in general". ClueBot triggered on the deletion of a large amount of text (understandably - it is a bot and can't evaluate the text that was removed). I reverted ClueBot and 122.174 returned to once again revert without discussing. I see that in my absence the article has been returned to the state in which I left it, and Sarabseth has once again posted to the talk page to recommend that text not be placed into the Maqbara article. I hope this issue is finally settled. That text really did not belong in the article. BTW, thank you for the manner in which you phrased your question. You wrote in a way that showed you reserved judgement and did not jump to conclusions. I appreciate that. 152.16.59.102 ( talk) 00:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
|
OPEN for extended content |
---|
Weirdological symbol in the India articleSee
Template talk:Coord#Weirdological symbol in the India article. Also noticed in the India article is that the [Show] link for the languages recognized by the Constitution overhangs the right side of the Infobox. The line break (<br />) in the column-one wording causes this. But if it's taken out, then the length of the wording significantly widens the Infobox. Also, need to see if the gurus at
Template talk:Infobox Country#Lats and longs will add seconds to the template. Latest additionTwelve days later
Template talk:Infobox Country#Twelve days later
Additional note: When the time comes, all that will be necessary is to copy and paste the code in the Infobox Country/sandbox to the "live" Infobox Country. The sandbox version is precisely the same TOP to BOTTOM as the live version, with of course the exception that the root seconds parameters have been added to the sandbox version. I've retained a copy in my own sandbox in case the template sandbox is altered. |
OPEN for extended content |
---|
Hi Paine, Thank you for the suggestion that I add justification for the demonym-affixing templates to their documentation pages. I have now done so and hope that my explanation is to your satisfaction. Initially when the templates were created, I attempted to make them work in the same manner as the other continental templates by copying most of their code, however I was unable to emulate the ability to affix strings to the preset country identifiers. If I remember correctly, I contacted a couple of the major editors of the other continental templates to see if they would be willing to fix the code so that the demonym-affixing templates would function properly, however they did not do so. I do not recall if they ever responded to my request. In any case, the templates should serve a very useful purpose if only someone who was wikitext-savvy could fix whatever the templates' problem is. The reason I never did create the templates corresponding to the other continents past Europe and Africa is because I was never able to get those two initial templates to work. If you know enough wikitext to give this problem a go or if you know someone who might be willing to give it a try, I would greatly appreciate any proffered help. Happy editing, Neelix ( talk) 22:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
UpdateRef.:
sandbox and
testcases |
Please see this followup to your proposed chang to the collapsible list template — TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 14:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
OPEN for extended content |
---|
According to statistics found at W3 Schools dot com, Internet Explorer users and Firefox users number 37.5% and 47.5%, respectively, of the total users who browse the Internet. Two more templates that need looking at...
More templates repairThe following templates look like heck in the Cologne Blue skin using Internet Explorer. Some of the titles conflict with the [Show] links:
Check 'em out... [2] and [3] — Paine's Climax 08:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC) Since I'm really not sure how important it is for these templates to look good in the Cologne Blue skin, rather than make the edits that would correct this, I have left messages on the Discussion pages of each template.
So we'll see how it goes. — Paine's Climax 11:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC) Yet another that needs improvement
User:Paine Ellsworth/Sandbox10, which is my sandbox version of
Template:Style, needs fixing. Same problem... some of the titles blend in and conflict with the [Hide] links. |
Ref.: this Talk page entry— also this one
I just recently joined this project, and I've been reading the back 'n forth above with intense interest. It occurs to me that this is about article titles in the English Wikipedia. Is what editor Espoo espouses is that there are non-English letters used in the titles of English Wikipedia articles? If they are indeed non-English (and there are many forms of English) then, of course, they ought to be changed, but if they are English letters, then their usage on the English Wikipedia is then justified. And rather than writing ledes and articles that might make someone from, say, Alabama or Nebraska or anywhere in the United States or the entire globe feel uneducated and perhaps even impotent, it is imperative that they be written in a way that will lift the general reader to a higher level, a higher consciousness level of knowledge and wisdom.
Some readers might see it as "haughty" or "elitist" or even "patronizing". That's one eye of looking at it. However as long as the other eye makes the attempt to make readers feel an increased self-esteem, to educate them, so that they walk away with a feeling of, "You learn something new everyday!", then we've done our job, yes? Systemic bias will never be completely eliminated. That is an impossible task in a world of six-and-a-half billion people, each with their own choice of tinted glasses over their perceptions. However, when a consensus is reached, then progress has been made. And the next time an editor comes along with an idea that challenges the consensus, even more can be learned and more progress may ensue. If we focus upon the needs of the general English reader of the English Wikipedia, then we should be able to keep systemic bias to a bare minimum, yes?
—
Paine's
Climax 18:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
OPEN for extended content | |||
---|---|---|---|
From the template's talk page... Altering coordinates parameterRef.:
Infobox German location/testcases If this looks good to everyone, and I haven't messed things up, then I propose we go to this version. All that will be necessary is to copy the sandbox version to the live version. I have the sandbox version in my own
personal sandbox just in case this public version is altered. If no one objects, I shall request the change to be made in a few days. Thank you very much! Edit request{{
editprotected}} - this template added to the
talk page this date.
See also
|
The Urdu Redirect appears to need some
dabbling
with.
—
Paine's
Climax 00:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Ref.:
Template talk:Infobox Country#Drives on who the hell cares
Here's an option! —
Paine's
Climax 17:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Ref.:
Template talk:Sockpuppet#That last sentence
This one either needs to refocus that one link or delete it. —
Paine's
Climax 23:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Added the Editprotected template to replace the live version with the sandbox version this date.
—
Ellsworth's
Climax 04:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Ref.:
Template talk:Infobox Indian jurisdiction#official languages
I did some language tweaking in this template. —
Paine's
Climax 23:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Refs.:
Template:Infobox islands and
Malay Archipelago
Here's just what I need... another template that needs work. <grin> The other link shows why. A second infobox was added below the first one because the infobox only allows for up to six countries. And the talk page indicates there may be more work needed as well. Good future project!
—
Paine's
Climax 01:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Ref.:
Template:Infobox German location
Hi, wouldn't it be better to include the title coords in the infobox? That is, change "display=inline" to "display=inline,title"? Much better than adding the separate coord template to all articles manually, like you did at Essen. Thanks for the happy holidays BTW, but we don't celebrate Thanksgiving (I guess you meant that) here. We do have
Sinterklaas in a few days.
Markussep
Talk 19:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Prue7.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk) 03:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Note: I reinstalled all of the following into appropriate articles, and then removed the orphan/delete tags... File:Prue7.jpg · File:Paige Sense and Sense Ability.jpg · File:Piper Just Harried.jpg · File:Prue The Painted World.jpg · File:PiperHalliwell.jpg
Ref.:
File:Benjamin Franklin by Joseph Siffred Duplessis left.jpg ·
the decision was to "keep"
Help desk discussion still showing ticklish situation as "unresolved"
— Paine (
Ellsworth's
Climax) 11:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Ref.:
Zeno of Elea
Template:Infobox philosopher needs an alt command added for the image.
— Paine (
Ellsworth's
Climax) 11:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Paine; per WP:NFCC#1, we cannot use copyrighted images in infoboxes for living persons, as they are replaceable by free images. In any event, the Humperdinck image doesn't have a Fair Use Rationale for that article. You might wish to seek out a copyright-free image to replace it. Thanks. Rodhull andemu 20:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Ref.:
File:Humperdinck.jpg— add FURs for both articles where used.23:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Ref.:
File:ChrisSarandon Skellington.jpg— I just uploaded this image to Commons and installed it in the
The Nightmare Before Christmas article. I'm considering using it as the infobox image in the
Chris Sarandon article.
— Paine (
Ellsworth's
Climax) 22:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
See what happens with the image presently in the infobox at Holly Marie Combs – ( File:Hollissy.jpg ). I tried to find copyright info on it and was unable to. It comes from the Charmed wikia, a wiki devoted to the Charmed series. Apparently the uploader thinks this wiki is a Wikipedia project. So if no one else can find cr info on that absolutely gorgeous pic (I wish we could save it) and it has to be deleted, then I'll upload the following from Flikr...
Ref.:
Yet ANOTHER Gorgeous pic of Exquisite Holly! ·
and on Google! ** W * O * W **
— Paine (
Ellsworth's
Climax) 16:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Ref.:
Commons Watchlist ·
HollyMarieCombs02.jpg
Well this might be interesting... I uploaded that Flikr image of Holly just a few mins ago and it was almost immediately deleted for copyright violation. And this even though I had clearly added the Creative Commons attribution 2.0 licensing information. The discussion with the deleter is found at editor
Tabercil's talk page.
— Paine (
Ellsworth's
Climax) 02:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
In reference to this edit. The explanation is at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria and it's #1 under the policy heading. Thanks. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 03:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Ref.:
List of Charmed characters (added 18 Jan 10)
Weakness in the
Charmed articles as well as
one or
two dabs.
— Paine (
Ellsworth's
Climax) 15:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Found him: Role was played by Simon Templeman. — Paine ( Ellsworth's Climax) 10:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
![]() | January 1, 2001. (not 2000) |
Working on this one.
— Paine (
Ellsworth's
Climax) 17:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|----- -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
There is no "year zero". How can there be? Which year would it be? Would it be the year between -1 and 0? or the year between 0 and 1? No, neither. The year between -1 and 0 would be -0001, and the year between 0 and 1 would the very first year A.D. and would be 0001.
Moving to the right on this number line, we see that the tenth year, 0010, ends at the number 10, and this is the end of the first decade. So December 31, 0010, marks the end of the first decade, and January 1, 0011, marks the beginning of the 2nd ten-year period, the 2nd decade.
The argument is that the year 1999 was the final year of the 2nd millennium, so that December 31, 1999 was the final day of the 2nd millennium and that January 1, 2000 was therefore the first day of the new 3rd millennium. If, like most people, we do not take into account any adjustments due to changing calendars, etc., and we just use the straight number-line to find out the truth and reality, then we must conclude that the years ending in zero were the final years of all the decades, centuries and millennia.
The year 0010 marks the end of the first decade, the year 0020 marks the end of the second decade, the year 0100 marks the end of the first century, the year 1000 marks the end of the first millennium, and the year 2000 marks the end of the second millennium. So December 31, 2000 marks the very last day of the first two-thousand-year period and was the final day of the second millennium, while January 1, 2001 marks the first day of the third millennium.
— Paine (
Ellsworth's
Climax) 08:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Ref.:
Talk:Israel
This. It was an obvious reference to the section preceding it, which does not seem to violate the "What goes on an article talk page?" conventions. I'm not sure who you're obliquely chiding, but although there are disagreements about characterizations / accusations in that section, they, and the responses to them, are still within the realm of the article and thread's relevance. --
tariqabjotu 21:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you a lot for the time you spent answering my question on Template talk:Infobox country. It will certainly help us to come to a decision that agrees everyone. Cheers. — Xavier, 22:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
You just signed on for major revisions; could you possibly either delete ClimateGate and the malformed reference, or tag it with a proper reference? I was going to do that, but don't want to interfere with your revisions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Ref.: To DMSBel from Paine
Hi Paine, I am fine with you sending me a message on my User talk page. I felt rather bad about the exchange too, and was sorry to have driven you away, as upon reflection you were initially just calling for people to step back for a few days, and have generally been civil. I must admit that's something I would like to do, but if other comments start flowing in then I tend to re-engage. You are welcome to continue to comment on the page in question. I apologise for accusing you of ganging up – no doubt you were not deliberately doing that. It’s just that those who argue for keeping the disputed content have a POV too in this matter, and its rather frustrating to read comments that try to pin a POV on me from other editors with their own POV.
If I may explain something about the dispute. There are at least two issues involved in the discussion, and sometimes they become entangled.
Firstly there is the video. Now I find it easier to assume good-faith in regards to the uploader of it, even though I do not think it is suitable for inclusion. It is quite possible that he thought it would be helpful and I don't want to start calling names. I think he was mistaken thought if he thought the article needs a video.
The second issue is the photographs. Which I will come to in a moment. When I looked at this article a few weeks ago, I simply commented that the disputed content should be moved further down in the article. I really did not want to get involved in this debate. I looked in a couple of times and the last time I did, before the current dispute, I noticed neither video or photos were in. At that time I commented on the talk page that the article looked better without them. Within a day the video was back - the reason -Wikipedia is not censored. No rationale for including it given. Well "Wikipedia is not censored" is not a reason for putting stuff in, so I deleted it. Immediately I get grilled. Then the page is protected by a jumpy neutral editor. There had been no edit-war. My initial deletion resulted in page semi-protection (because I had not signed in). So one deletion and some discussion resulted in full-page protection.
To return to the photos. Editor Infofreak did some research which is in the archive. He found out that the photos are still frames from a video on a channel on X-tube. The guy who uploaded there is an exhibitionist. The video these stills came from is still there on his channel. I think the actual video may still be in commons, perhaps as an animated GIF file. Now I had less of a problem with the pics before knowing this, although I still question that there is any need for them in the article. Basically when this was made known some editors continued (in spite of evidence to the contrary) to question that they were porn - their rationale was that they are now on wikipedia illustrating an article on a physiological process therefore the original context is unimportant. They are porn when on a porn channel but on wikipedia they somehow shed that association, and that makes it ok. I have a problem with this, besides the fact that I suspect an agenda behind all this. I think material should be judged not on the context it is in but on the context it came from. So material that originated on a porn site made with the intention of exciting sexual lust, does not gain respectibility by insertion into a wikipedia article. I am almost certain that no other encyclopedia either paper or online would just use this "because it illustrates".
Another thing, which I would be interested to hear your thoughts on is this. A dispute is ongoing in this article over a particular piece of content (the video). There are four editors currently (that is within about the last week): Postoak, CIS, Dava4444 and myself who see it as unnecessary. They don't comment a lot but have not changed their view on the material. I don't know why they don't comment more often, maybe they are busy editing other stuff, maybe they are not on the internet all that much, I don't know. Now in your opinion is it disruptive to insert extra material, that is even more contentious, and that even if it is not, is basically redundant, while a dispute is already ongoing? That is what has happened here. That’s probably why I have been a bit bullish in my comments. That and the fact that another editor is frustrating me no end on the page. So I apologise for letting off steam at you. DMSBel ( talk) 21:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Paige in Sense and Sense Ability.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.
If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 07:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. FASTILYsock (TALK) 07:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Must be something up with their servers... the .co.uk link was working (even though the other one wasn't) when I posted it earlier today. Oh well... -- Ckatz chat spy 01:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Be careful when you remove edits with several reliable and official sources, leading to vandalism. For personal opinions and feelings, you have the talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thome66 ( talk • contribs) 06:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
What do you mean by focus? I don't speak english very well —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrei Cvhdsee Brazil ( talk • contribs) 23:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Ref.:
Zeno's paradoxes
FYI:
Disruptive behavior by user Steaphen
Ansgarf (
talk) 13:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Paine, I coincidentally noticed that your first edit here is just over a year ago now. Since I like to occasionally vandalize other people's userpages, I thought a nice registerday cake would be appropriate:
Bon appetit! :) Paradoctor ( talk) 22:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
This is a misnomer that misleads some editors. It is sometimes applied as a need for truth, rather than a need for verifiability. That is why I inserted an explanatory reminder, and that is why I have tagged the
Redirect for speedy deletion. So please consider discussion as "open".
— Paine (
Ellsworth's
Climax) 15:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, if everybody here agrees that WP:PROVEIT can be confusing, then I must ask why we should leave it to editors to have to deal with other editors, mostly new editors, who misunderstand it? PROVEIT is an obvious misnomer that, when taken literally, completetly goes against what WP is all about. It seems to me that it would be so much better to perhaps move it, change its name. Perhaps WP:CHECKIT or WP:AFFIRMIT, WP:CONFIRMIT, WP:SUPPORTIT, anything but WP:PROVEIT. This is a longstanding shortcut that has been confusing for too long.
— Paine (
Ellsworth's
Climax) 17:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Have we forgotten that we want to offer a welcoming environment to new editors? I'll clarify. The subjective effect of the shouted imperative is before the novices follow the link to that policy environment. They don't yet know that it is a common format for a policy shortcut name, they just know someone is shouting a command at them on a talkpage. Either the shout or the command by itself would not be taken as overly rude, but the combination is. Most such shortcuts are nouns or adjectives, not imperative verbs, and this takes much of the sting out of the shout. In fact, I'd prefer to see the whole cluster of shortcuts (PROVEIT, BOP, BURDEN, and UNSOURCED) replaced over time by WP:Proof or WP:CitationNeeded, which are presently unassigned and far less likely to cause offence, but WP:UNSOURCED is a reasonably innocuous shortcut to the policy. User:LeadSongDog come howl 17:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
There is a heated discussion at ANI about how WP:PROVEIT and WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT applies in a particular scenario. The situation is that editors keep citing to a source that they did not bother verifying themselves. Instead they viewed the information on a vendor website that claims to source from Wikipedia and the Adam Gay Video Directory. The problem is they go and cite to the directory where there is evidence that the information is not even in there. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 20:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
This is in no means meant to "kick a dead horse". It is obvious to me that many are blinded by this shortcut's longevity. My brief experience at
MedCab says to me that it would be "quixotic" to pursue formal arbitration. So this issue dies here. But I hope that one thing will continue to exist in the back of every editor's mind: A 15% to 25% potential for incorrect usage of a shortcut can add up to a lot of edit wars, incivility and confusion over time. So maybe outright canning of the shortcut isn't called for. Maybe the shortcut is only the tip of the iceberg, I don't know. I sincerely hope that somebody will eventually arise with a solution that will be amenable to everybody. Best of everything to you and yours!
— Paine (
Ellsworth's
Climax) 08:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Archived from Wikipedia talk:Verifiability - March 2010
Should the shortcut, WP:PROVEIT, be moved to a different shortcut name or deleted altogether?
— Paine (
Ellsworth's
Climax) 00:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
What you don't seem to understand Andrew, is that saying that Bernal "is cited in the major reviews of this field and taken seriously by the major authors in this field" is not the same thing as actually proving it. You have been asked and repeatedly to prove that Bernal is taken seriously as a linguist, and more specifically, that his Kenyan Urheimat theory for the origins of Afro-Asiatic is not a tiny minority view. You have been unable to prove either one of the two things, much less the latter. Instead, you link me to an interview with Ehret saying that he basically appreciates Bernal when it comes to his take on the "Egyptian influence on Greece" although a boat-load of other professionals he collectively labels "Classicists" apparently do not. There is no mention of Bernal's standing in the linguistic community, much less of his very idiosyncratic Kenyan Urheimat theory or his equally fringe "Rift Valley Urheimat theory (you write that "Martin Bernal came to argue for this Urheimat based upon perceived connections between Afroasiatic and Khoisan languages" -- that's classic fringe). Please, for the umpteenth time, stop stalling and produce those quotes per WP:PROVEIT. Otherwise, it's clear that the edit cannot remain in place.
— Causteau (talk) 07:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Though Catherine may have been regent for the Kingdom in 1513-1514 and was certainly Queen Consort at the time, it does not necessarily follow that she bore the title of Queen Regent. For example, the Prince of Wales was regent of the United Kingdom from 1811 to 1820 and was known as the Prince Regent, but Prince Paul of Yugoslavia, who was regent of that kingdom from 1934 to 1941, was not. User:62.56.53.218 said in an edit summary of 09.48 on 5 October 2008 "Just added her ttles in full they are all factual go check". One should not have to "go check"; if you know she was styled Queen Regent at that time then the onus is on you to provide evidence for it. See WP:PROVEIT.
— Opera hat (talk) 13:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
“ | Once again: WP:PROVEIT. Wiki really doesn't care about what your voice teacher can do or your personal assessment of Rose's voice, and neither count as a reliable source. If you can find reliable sources that contradict what is in the article, feel free to share them here. | ” |
“ | Please demonstrate the relevance of why Michael Collins' 12/13th century alleged ancestry is relevant to this article, see WP:PROVEIT. | ” |
“ | You don't see yourself as having an opinion; you see yourself as bearing the Truth. You perceive your biases as neutral. | ” |
Refs.: WP:PROVEIT – RfC: Should shortcut WP:PROVEIT be changed/deleted – [9] & [10]
At present there are five solid opposing editors and one editor, myself, who still wants the WP:PROVEIT shortcut completely removed from Wikipedia, either by moving it to another name or by outright deletion. There are two editors who have suggested a compromise to remove the shortcut from the shortcut box, and to allow the shortcut Redirect to remain and be used sparingly. I still strongly believe that this shortcut must go. However in the spirit of seeking agreement/consensus, I would seriously consider a compromise if opposing editors would also be willing to do so.
— Paine (
Ellsworth's
Climax) 13:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
<backdent> You now have 6 opposing. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 16:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
There is a discussion and RfC in progress on the
WP:V (
Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#RfC status) talk page about this shortcut. I am not out to use MedCab as a stepping stone to the next formal step in dispute rez, however I would like to keep things informal as long as possible. The dispute is about keeping or canning a longstanding shortcut,
WP:PROVEIT, which has been causing problems for a long, long time. It is invoked by most editors correctly, i.e., to get an editor to PROVE that a claim is verifiable by reliable sources. Some editors, however, invoke the shortcut in an effort to get an editor to PROVE that a claim itself is TRUE, which, of course, is not what WP:V is all about. I am still a novice in the arbitration process, so any help you can give me would be appreciated.
— Paine (
Ellsworth's
Climax) 13:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |