This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (miscellaneous).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
I am an ex student of Saint Marys Gulberg Lahore. I am looking for my class fellows who did Matric in March, 1970 from this school. Some of my class fellows were Asif Qazi, Edwin, Haseeb, Afzal, Arif Moeen, Khwaja Naveed. From: Ejaz Hussain Minhas. E-mail address ejaz7075@hotmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.27.161.125 ( talk) 19:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
It will take place at union station at 5PM. Please see WP:Meetup/DC 5 for more details. ff m 23:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Why is Talk:Barack Obama protected? You've cut off anyone except admins from posting comments. It may just be me, but that looks like Wikipedia is taking a side in this election...but I might be paranoid. 31306D696E6E69636B6D ( talk) 19:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
What kind of criteria are you using now to organize the wikis at [1]. You're defintely not using no. of articles anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.131.105.46 ( talk) 08:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm wondering which article is a featured article in more languages than any other article on Wikipedia. The highest I've seen so far is William Shakespeare with 10 featured articles in different languages. Can anyone find anything higher? Wrad ( talk) 23:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I have been doing a whole lot of moving free images to the Commons, and I am wondering why we even continue to allow free images to uploaded here as opposed to the Commons. Ideally, Wikipedia should only contain fair-use copyrighted images. A free image should be in the Commons where it is more accessible for everyone, but just as accessible for Wikipedia as if it were here in the first place. And now with a unified login, it's very easy to upload to the Commons. Is there any reason that uploading here might be more desirable? Ideally, I am thinking that any image that is uploaded to WP under a free license is redirected to an upload at Commons. The Commons is set up much better to handle the different sorts of licenses. As it is, moving images like Category:User-created public domain images is an uphill battle, as it is still being added to. Thoughts? ~ JohnnyMrNinja 01:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
BTW, there is currently a discussion and straw poll on whether or not to bring the Commons' PD-Art policy into agreement with the English wikipedia's PD-Art policy. If enacted, this means we will no longer have the problem of photos of historic paintings (which are public domain in the U.S.) being moved to Commons and then deleted. If you support this (or don't), please visit the straw poll and add your opinion. Kaldari ( talk) 15:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
On the internet, we are under attack.
CAPTCHA is broken. SPAM is growing. CRIME is rampant.
We have few defenses, and our respective nations lack the jurisdiction and the will to protect us.
Therefore, we must, with no delay, create an INTERNET MILITIA to deal with these crimes and protect the innocent, and
We must form the FIRST INTERNET CONSTITUTIONAL CONGRESS and pass the first CONSTITUTION OF THE INTERNET in order to guarantee our rights in this digital era.
The first step is to create a forum where everyone can read and contribute.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”
“We the people of the Internet, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure online tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Internet.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironcoconut ( talk • contribs) 07:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I am a regular user of WP at work, and it appears that a few of my colleagues have been vandalising WP. The last time I visited WP I was threatened with being barred. I guess this is because I share the IP address with my colleagues. Anyone else had this problem? I don't want my sign in name to become assocaited with a hooky IP address and ultimately end up banned from a very helpful resource. Any top-tips? Jimpoolio ( talk) 16:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I am pleased to announce the establishment of Wikipedia:Protection patrol, which will seek to combat page protection abuse. Aldrich Hanssen ( talk) 02:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I would like to know if there is such an article? I also searched but did not find one. Basically I would like to know what phone to buy, and this would be one of the criteria. Any help or guidance on this would be much appreciated. Thank You! PS: sorry if this is the wrong place to put this question. -- HappyInGeneral ( talk) 13:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Whereas it used to be that the top ten language wikipedias were listed in size order around the Wikipedia logo on the www.wikipedia.org page, they have now been jumbled up, and, moreover, the Dutch wikipedia is not included there, even though it is the seventh largest wikipedia. The Chinese wikipedia has been placed adjacent to the logo instead, even though its only the twelfth largest Wikipedia. Does anybody know why this is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matisia ( talk • contribs) 08:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Please take a look at this name change request and the bot's response to it. The user who made the request found the response -- and the fact that the request was moved to another page -- baffling and incomprehensible, as you can see from these remarks that he posted.
Now this is not the Simple English Wikipedia, but it's not the Insider Jargon Wikipedia either. To start with, "usurpation" is not a familiar word to everyone. If you compare what the bot posted to other boilerplate wording like "Once you click the Save button, your changes will be visible immediately. For testing, please use the sandbox instead", I think it's obvious that there's considerable room for improvement.
I also wonder what happened to the original request. As far as I can tell, it should have been moved under one of the "archived usurpation request" links from WP:Changing username#Archives, but I can't see it there. I do see that the user has submitted a new variation of it, assuming that the original request was rejected, when as far as I can tell it may well be going to be approved as a usurpation. I've added a link there pointing to this posting, and that is the end of my involvement regarding this.
-- 208.76.104.133 ( talk) 04:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
There's been a minor disagreement as to whether to include a link in an article, and some of its editors have agreed to "flip a coin" so to speak. Would somebody please pick a random whole positive number? The first one to post will decide the fate of the world! – 129.49.7.150 ( talk) 15:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
393 :-) Northwestgnome ( talk) 17:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Googolplex. Corvus cornix talk 18:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I pick i. Celarnor Talk to me 12:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
We need your help! MOTD has been running for over two years, as an informal project publishing a daily unofficial Wikipedia motto each day through the {{ MOTD}} templates. It's intended to be a way to gather the Wikipedia community together to a common purpose and help portray our mission through a often clever or witty phrase. Unfortunately, activity in the project has started to drop of late, and we only have mottos scheduled for the next week. For this project to run smoothly, we need plenty of original suggestions from editors like you, as well as people to comment on existing suggestions, close old discussions, and schedule approved mottos. It's a great way to take a break from your run-of-the-mill editing, and you may learn something about Wikipedia in the process. Please stop by WP:MOTD and take a look around. If you have any questions, please post below, on our project's talk page, or drop me a line. Thanks for your time, and happy editing as always. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 23:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Why is editing wikipedia so overcomplicated and inaccessible? I've edited a fair few articles, but the more I try and do anything beyond fixing spelling mistakes, the more I get frustrated at how overcomplicated everything is. Want to add a photo to an article? Once you've found the relevent help page (no easy task) you're faced with the joy of searching through reams of policy to figure out the difference between a wikimedia commons friendly {{cc-by-sa-2.5-in}} lisence, and the wikimedia commons unfriendly Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5. Why isn't there a big button in the sidebar taking you to an easy "How to edit wikipedia" guide? Why not a collection of video tutorials to help people get to grips with {{ref}} tags and file uploads? Why not a tool that automatically lets you know whether a Flikr photo is wikipedia-friendly or not, and imports it from Flikr if it is? If wikipedia editing was that bit more user friendly, perhaps more people would get involved and articles would start to improve. Does anyone else think there's room for improvement here? Saluton ( talk) 22:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
We need your help! MOTD has been running for over two years, as an informal project publishing a daily unofficial Wikipedia motto each day through the {{ MOTD}} templates. It's intended to be a way to gather the Wikipedia community together to a common purpose and help portray our mission through a often clever or witty phrase. Unfortunately, activity in the project has started to drop of late, and we only have mottos scheduled for the next week. For this project to run smoothly, we need plenty of original suggestions from editors like you, as well as people to comment on existing suggestions, close old discussions, and schedule approved mottos. It's a great way to take a break from your run-of-the-mill editing, and you may learn something about Wikipedia in the process. Please stop by WP:MOTD and take a look around. If you have any questions, please post below, on our project's talk page, or drop me a line. Thanks for your time, and happy editing as always. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 23:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Why is editing wikipedia so overcomplicated and inaccessible? I've edited a fair few articles, but the more I try and do anything beyond fixing spelling mistakes, the more I get frustrated at how overcomplicated everything is. Want to add a photo to an article? Once you've found the relevent help page (no easy task) you're faced with the joy of searching through reams of policy to figure out the difference between a wikimedia commons friendly {{cc-by-sa-2.5-in}} lisence, and the wikimedia commons unfriendly Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5. Why isn't there a big button in the sidebar taking you to an easy "How to edit wikipedia" guide? Why not a collection of video tutorials to help people get to grips with {{ref}} tags and file uploads? Why not a tool that automatically lets you know whether a Flikr photo is wikipedia-friendly or not, and imports it from Flikr if it is? If wikipedia editing was that bit more user friendly, perhaps more people would get involved and articles would start to improve. Does anyone else think there's room for improvement here? Saluton ( talk) 22:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I bet we hit 2,500,000 articles in less than 24 hours! - Icewedge ( talk) 19:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I remember hearing that at about 2.5M articles, Wikipedia will stop growing and start looking so developed. Now that Wikipedia has reached 2.5M, what do you think its status will be within the next few years?? Georgia guy ( talk) 23:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello Wikipedians! I can't reach data for a dissertation I'm writing on wikipedia: Do you know how many cases are respectively taken by the mediation committee and the Arbcom each year or month? Another one: how many blocks are made by sysops every day? Thanks!! :) --Karibou 16:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I have a problem to appreciate en.WPs hyper-inclusionist policies on notability. Take Category:Sheriffs' departments of the United States. To me, this seems like a joke. I don't see any encyclopedical value in such a plethora of redundant information. All Sheriffs' departments do the same thing, whether you consider it to be "to serve and protect" or someting different. There certainly are not many noteworthy facts that makes one department different from another. I admit that the concept of elected Sheriffs may give them some relevance, but they could be easily named in the article about the respective community. Another example are the myriads of fictional characters like e.g. in Category:Anime_and_manga_characters_by_series. It's like a cultural shock for me, as on the german language Wikipedia 99% of both examples would be considered as not noteworthy and be deleted. Could someone please point me to the rationale, the policies or the discussions behind all of that? -- 790 ♫ 19:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for all your statements, specifically for pointing me to WP:DEADLINE and WP:FICTION. To Patsw, I'd like to emphasize what John Broughton pointed out above: that WP:AGF is probably not meant to "override" WP:V, especially in a case of WP:Conflict of interest (an organization describing itself) - and I can't refrain from remarking that it is a little naïve to assume that there could not possibly be a reason for false claims here. With John Broughton I would fully agree also in that size does matter here, and to have an article e.g. on the LAPD seems perfectly reasonable to me. So this may come down to ask Wikipedia:WikiProject Law Enforcement for a more stringent application of WP:N to the articles in their focus - I wonder how they would react on such a request. -- 790 ♫ 20:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
and
...were just promoted to featured sound. Tomorrow, August 14, 2008, marks the 120th anniversary of the press conference that introduced the phonograph to London, and for which all the earliest surviving recordings of music, including these two were made.
Now, I for one think that the historic 120th anniversary is an excellent reason to put these two sounds on the main page. We could put it under the Featured picture, perhaps. What does everyone think? Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 04:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
eveyone is invited:
-- Shevashalosh ( talk) 22:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Once upon a time, there was a baseball team.
They were a pretty good baseball team, collecting together lots of really talented baseball players, so they could win the World Series. But one of their players, he started to think he could do what he liked, because he was a really good player, so he shot his mouth off, walked when he should have run, and wanted his say in how the team did things.
Now, in the past, the team just shruged it off as "Manny being Manny", and things continued. And Manny got worse, till he started sitting out games and pushed an old man to the ground... And the Red Sox had a big slump, and lost a string of games and were even bested by the Yankees. So the Red Sox traded Manny off to the Dodgers with the offer that they'd pay his wages and the Dodgers didn't even have to keep him if they didn't want to.
And in exchange, Jason Bay came in to replace him, and he was a pretty good hitter, and he played well with others too, and then the Red Sox started wining games again!
Now, what can we learn from this?
How about, "Lets stop treating 'Hard Working Admin' as if they're gods amongst men, make them follow the rules. And if they don't, we should trade them to Slashdot for a sandwich."
-- Barberio ( talk) 03:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
No where near as funny as The Truth, but does it deserve to be deleted? - HarryAlffa ( talk) 21:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Seems it's been hacked/changed relating the Zodiac Killer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.63.124.51 ( talk) 04:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
If anyone is interested, I have the latest information on the status of the Wikimedia Foundation's page view stats, with a response from the person in charge of it Erik Zachte. --David Shankbone 22:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
At Fort Nisqually, the double inclusion of latitude and longitude information (in two different infoboxes) makes for a very weird overprinting in my (Firefox) browser. Are others seeing a similar problem? Is there a recommended solution? - Jmabel | Talk 06:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
{{infobox nrhp}}
to have an optional 'display' parameter, defaulting to 'inline,title', which it would pass to {{coord}}
. Then just decide which infobox on
Fort Nisqually deserves to have its coords at page top and change the other to 'display=inline'. You could probably do things differently so that both coord links displayed without overlapping, but I don't think there's much point in having two such links in one article anyway (since there's no explanation of which is which without scrolling down to the infoboxes).
Algebraist
15:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)This Knol enty is a very close copy of our article New York City without respecting GFDL, indeed the knol author claims copyright and "all rights reserved". Please could one who knwos what to do post this note to the correct place. Thanks. -- Matthiasb ( talk) 15:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I mostly reads articles about political science and history, but I often find the use of "academic words" too overwhelming. It makes the text hard to understand and I must often guess what that word means by setting it in a context.
Who is the receiver for what you write here on wikipedia ? The Public or academics with an PhD? -- Ezzex ( talk) 14:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
There is already a 'Plain and simple English' version of Wikipedia and I suggest that if you have problems with use of complex language to describe complex issues, you refer there instead. Otherwise, this is an attempt at being a comprehensive encyclopaedia, and complicated terms can always be wiki-linked to their explanation. -- Barberio ( talk) 15:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
There is more than enough "dumbing down" in the world. If someone doesn't understand an article, the citations and reading list should provide the necessary support. In my particular areas of expertise, many editors have only a passing understanding of the subject matter, which can be quite frustrating when one tries to remove misleading information or fill out incomplete ideas. DOR (HK) ( talk) 06:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Adding_a_lead_section_template_to_articles. Ty 07:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
It has come to my attention that the Bad image list was created and implemented seemingly with no discussion and with no clarification of what precisely it is. In the interest of full disclosure, I'll say I never liked the list to begin with, and have said as much elsewhere. Here I'm not interested in debating whether or not the list should be kept, only in creating some kind of understanding of what it is and how it is to be used.
My understanding was that it was primarily intended to prevent people from posting sexually explicit, graphic and unpleasant images on articles and in talk spaces where they do not belong. Evidently this had become something of a problem with vandals using such images to disrupt Wikipedia and harass people. Fair enough.
Today, however, I noticed that someone has added a totally innocuous, non-sexual, non-explicit line drawing of a Celtic cross to the list, apparently, because the so-called "Zodiac vandal" has been using that particular image as a kind of signature. Now, I don't question the good faith of the person who added the image to the list, but it strikes me that this particular use doesn't qualify as image vandalism at all: it's not that an image itself is being used to vandalise pages, but that a vandal is using the image as a kind of signature. Placing the image on the bad image list won't prevent the vandal from continuing to vandalise pages, but it will make it harder for others to use the image (particularly those who aren't familiar with the list and don't know how to ask for an exception, which is probably most editors, since there are no clear instructions regarding these processes). And there's nothing stopping the vandal from simply choosing a different image to use -- there are several images of Celtic crosses to choose from.
So far the two editors (one being the user who added the image to the list) who have responded seem to feel that this is a perfectly valid way of using the list. However, again, there seems to be have been no specific discussion on the subject so far.
Here we have a case where a user has -- in completely good faith -- placed a totally non-offensive image on the list in an attempt to prevent a single vandal from using it in an incidental manner: not to shock or offend other users (as has been the case with various human genitalia and sexuality-related images), but simply as a signature. As I've already said, preventing him from using this single image will neither stop him from vandalising pages nor stop him from simply choosing a different image of the same thing or a different version of the same image. In other words, it's not preventing the vandalism, only making it harder to use the image legitimately. And where does this end? When we've protected every single image of a Celtic cross? It's easy to see how this particular way of using the list could rapidly get out of control.
Since there has yet to be any discussion and hammering out of the procedures regarding the list, it also raises the question of precisely what it is: A guideline? A policy? Something completely different? I'm posting this here because the project talk page doesn't seem to be regularly watched, and because , well, I couldn't think of anywhere else. Exploding Boy (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
The Alaska-Yukon-Pacific Exposition is described oxymoronically in our article as a "regional world's fair". That link redirects to Expo (exhibition), but that article is clearly only about those at the level of true world's fairs. This was something less than that, as was the Jamestown Exposition of 1905, which I see has similar problems in its lead. I suspect we need two articles, one about this sort of exposition in general, one about world's fairs as such. Either that or we need at least to rewrite Expo (exhibition) so that it covers the ground more evenly.
I'm not sure exactly how this should sort out - hence my bringing the issue here - but I don't think the current approach is workable. - Jmabel | Talk 01:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
This conversation on my talk page got me thinking. I understand the point that this could be interpreted as jumping a little to quick, but I'm not so sure the argument that "anyone can see it's unreferenced" holds water. Sure, I can see that and most Wikipedia editors can see that, but what about the users, the people who read Wikipedia but don't edit. They are the reason we are doing this, and shouldn't they be informed if they are reading information that is unverified? So you see my problem, I'm not interested in pissing off everyone who creates stubs, but your casual WP reader may not realize they are reading questionable information. Thoughts anyone? Beeblbrox ( talk) 22:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
What I think you overlook is the way these nag boxes ruin wikipedia for many readers - they are an enormous visual distraction. I became anti-tag after hearing complaints from friends about how the site had become littered with the stupid things, to the point that they stopped checking wikipedia. Adding a nag tag makes an article worse, not better, because it makes the article harder to read.
Unless a tag informs the reader that serious questions exist and the reader should be very cautious about what they're reading, then a tag shouldn't exist (IMHO, of course). Your concerns should be raised on the article's Talk page - that's why Talk pages were created, after all.
The only article tags I think are justified are NPOV, AFD and the one that says "this is an ongoing event and subject to change". In particular, I'd get rid of all the many variations of "needs more footnotes".
Of course, many people disagree with this point of view. - DavidWBrooks ( talk) 17:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
"What I think you overlook is the way these nag boxes ruin wikipedia for many readers - they are an enormous visual distraction." Personally, I think that unsourced or POV articles ruin Wikipedia more than the visual distraction of tags, but each to their own. The problem is not the tags. The problem is what the tags are showing. If the POV or OR or whatever wasn't there in the first place, then there would be no need for the tags. So instead of grumbling about how someone has dumped a bunch of tags on an article, then should clean it up. Talk page comments are a must of course. But they only benefit editors who know what a talk page is. Those who aren't wiki-savvy (the readers) are the ones who suffer, because if they aren't smart enough to make sure the information they're reading is verifiable, then they will take it as fact, or cite it in their homework/essay/thesis/journal. The tag tells them otherwise. And of course, the tag does give greater impetus to editors to fix the problem, because there's nothing more annoying than seeing a tag deposited over an article you've worked damn hard on. So then you become annoyed enough to fix the problem so it gets rid of the tag. Basically, the tags may be a nuisance, but while Wikipedia isn't perfect (like forever), they are a necessary evil against the uncleanliness of articles. Deamon138 ( talk) 23:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC) (And while we've all been commenting here, we could all have been fixing some problems and getting rid of some tags. Never mind lol)
Hi I've been away for a bit and I was just wondering what article number 2,500,00 was. I have searched in all the obvious places and also tried googling, but I couldn't find it. I assume there was minimal fuss made about it, considering the lack of fanfare that went with 2,000,000. Thanks ..... Todd #661 09:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
The article Sid King and the Five Strings was copied from this page: http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&searchlink=SID%7CKING&sql=11:jzfixqw5ld0e~T0 This is a copyright violation, isn't it? The yodeling cowboy ( talk) 12:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
{{
db-copyvio|url=...}}
(inserting the URL of the web page the text was copied from). In less clear cases, follow the instructions at
Template:copyvio. --
B. Wolterding (
talk)
13:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)I was reading about Leviticus and clicked on "antinomianism" to find out what that is, when I got a strange message saying "This is the Zodiac speaking. Do you still think you can stop me?" and then a bunch of numbers, all in white letters on a black background. I tried a Google search and got five results, all to seemingly unrelated Wikipedia articles (Cookie Monster, Honduras, Space Race, Mu Online, and Saints Row). Those articles seem to be unaffected, but I'm still clueless about antinomianism. What the heck is going on? Jindřichův Smith ( talk) 19:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Is there any WIKI policy on removing Editors like Gwen Gale , who do not even read through nascent page postings before deleting them. I imagine they add 'Wiki Editor' to their CV, but they dont actually do anything remotely 'editorial'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheriffspayne ( talk • contribs) 15:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
According to Digital Millennium Copyright Act, under which Google Knol is published, Infringement Notifications have to be sent in printed paper and signed to Google. This can mean Knol will most likely work like YouTube in case of copyrights.-- Kozuch ( talk) 21:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I would like to point out, that Knol violates Wikipedia licence - some people copy content from here to Knol, but the licences are incompatible (GFDL vs CC-by). Examples: [3], [4]. -- Kozuch ( talk) 09:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
(undent) I know it would be more work, but it sounds like one way to handle this, when you spot these violations, is to check the article history for editors who have made recent changes, and then post a note on their user talk page with information about the possible copyright violation of their work, and exactly how and where they should complain about it. Perhaps we need a template something like {{ Knol-vio}}, including an article parameter, to make this easier to post to user talk pages? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
The google group "KNOL Users" (requires login) has related disussion here, which seems to agree that GFDL is not compatible with the Creative Commons Attribution license. It also explores how to copy GFDL content under knol's "All Rights Reserved" by including the GFDL text and the contributor history, in an attempt to abide by both GFDL and knol's terms of service. I wonder if this is really possible, and if so, maybe a boilerplate set of instructions could be sent to the knol uploaders to show how to include GFDL content without breaking the license? - 84user ( talk) 15:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Google-Knol has a limit to create knols per day. Thats very good because some knol-user are copying the most popular wikipedia-articles one after the other to knol. Here ypu can see 75 wikipedia-copies by one user. -- schwarze feder ( talk) 22:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Some of the theft is quite open about Wikipedia as the source: http://knol.google.com/k/kai-tsang/hong-kong/3jmesx0oovz72/2# DOR (HK) ( talk) 06:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I just started checking out this "Knol". It's pathetic, really, that these folks are copy and pasting WP articles and trying to pass it off as their own work. I guess I don't have anything substantive to add to this conversation, I just wanted to vent about this foolishness. Beeblbrox ( talk) 17:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I think there are more problems than just the text being copied - Knol is a good example of what happens to an unmaintained user generated content site. Have a look at their article about Paris Hilton. It's an almost verbatim copy of our article (in a previous version). They even embed the images (including fair-use images!) directly from the Wikimedia servers. But there are some small changes to the article: The links on the images now point to an adult-content website. If this is the typical quality of the "knol"s, I doubt that the website will stay in existence for long. -- B. Wolterding ( talk) 11:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
All the "Country" at the 2008 Summer Olympics (eg Great Britain at the 2008 Summer Olympics have a major display problem in Classic skin at least. Insufficient window space exists for the three tables that follow the heading "Medallists". Initially, when I couldn't see the daily table in full, I tried <br clear=all> and that displayed all of that table and half of a new table - "medals by discipline". I'm using a 1024 pixel wide monitor. IMO, the page ought to display properly on a screen only 640 pixels wide and have no problems at all on 1024. It can't be fixed by left/right scrolling as it isn't that sort of problem. If it helps, I could upload a screen dump to show the problem.
Is there an easy way of fixing all the national pages in one hit, or do I have to go around them all and put the top two tables above the gold/silver/bronze list?
-- SGBailey ( talk) 14:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
One of these tables will be removed once the games are over, see Wikiproject olympics. So this will not be a problem in a few days. Basement12 (T. C) 14:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Hopefully there will be no issue after tomorrow, at least as far as the olympic pages are concerned. The tables were merely left there for now as otherwise a lot of users who are just editing these pages during the games (which finish in under 24 hrs) kept replacing them. Myself and others at Wikiproject Olympics have already started to remove them. I have taken them out of Ukraine and GB now so hopefully this fixes the issue on these pages? If i've misunderstood the problem let me know. Cheers Basement12 (T. C) 15:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I was looking at the arbitration cases and noticed one had been opened since *May*, without the arbitrators even having finished voting whether or not to accept the case yet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV. Seriously?? Are the arbitrators inactive and need replacement, or what? TotientDragooned ( talk) 17:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
The Cleanup Taskforce is all but dead right now, and I think it is simply to important to fail (like Fannie and Freddie). We should discuss ways to fix the project. Tcrow777 Talk 20:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
My proposals:
Any thoughts? Tcrow777 Talk 22:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Screen shots of video games and TV are copyrighted, yes? (no?) So are screenshots of Wikipedia (and other Wikimedia projects) either licensed under the GFDL or else copyright infringement? If so, are there caveats to this? A note on my talk page would be very appreciated. Thank you. Emesee ( talk) 06:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Having read French Meadow Bakery, it appears to be an "advertorial", i.e. a page purporting to be an article but is in fact an advert. Having read WP:CSD, I'm not clear. Could someone have a look and make the appropriate descision, and post here also? Thanks, Ian. -- Ormers ( talk) 12:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi
I have a personal complaint and dont know quite how to do anything about this. Although i am glad the italian have this biography writeupin wikipedia .but the fact richarcd has been died so long 1979 some things are said about him or his personal life that is not correct.
I am a reliable source because I was Joy Gates Meredith and spent 16 years with richard till his death ............1979 we were married in 1963...
Little things like if appears Kira was born before one novel then he was married , Richard and i were married 18 months before kira was born. 1965 also. the bio reads that richard
thought
he could write i object to this SF This is menuteor minor point but He did write science fiction before this fact.Well there were otherthings like the accidentaly death of my oldest twin. but we wont go there.
I am the person who listed Richard 's list of books and short stories. and I appreciate you having this bio.
Does anyone have any ideas about this? signed Joy C Meredith 19:54, 25 August —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2008 68.221.193.98 ( talk • contribs)
Are there any rules/bureaucratic hoops/etc for contacting editors for polls or surveys that don't directly affect anything on-Wiki? If, for example, the folks that run the Gallup poll wanted to survey a random selection of Wikipedia editors, is there any sort of paperwork that needs to be done first? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
OK folks, the
Template talk:Did you know page (and related pages) for updating
Template:Did you know could do with one or a few new faces helping out, as the turnover has been slow occasionally. So if you are sick of negative interactions at AfD and in the chore of reverting vandals, this may be a good place to recharge, and help editors get their 15 minutes 6 hours of fame. Don't be scared..it's fun. I have been doing it a bit when it is late but prefer writing them really. Cheers,
Casliber (
talk ·
contribs)
06:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I haven't seen it noted anywhere yet and it's mildly interesting: Harper's Magazine published in the July issue a small section called "Candid CAMERA" with copies of a few of the infamous CAMERA emails. The current issue (Sept.) now has a letter from Gilead Ini of CAMERA disagreeing with Harper's presentation and discussing the "flawed Wikipedia experiment". I can supply by email request. Franamax ( talk) 19:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I would like for all Atlanta FM radio station articles to have logo images that are uploaded with detail that ensures that the image meets criteria for inclusion and will not be up for deletion. Georgia guy ( talk) 22:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Could somebody who speaks French please review Image talk:Flag province luxembourg.png? This seems to be copies of an email correspondence. Unless all participants in the discussion have given their permission to copy this, it's a copyright violation. Corvus cornix talk 20:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering whether it is possible to find out when a particular article was at its largest, or maybe even be able to rearrange the edit history in size order? Are either of those things possible? Thanks in advance. Deamon138 ( talk) 01:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
So I recently joined up with WikiProject Wikify and I was going through a number of articles and I tend to find a LOT of articles that fall under other WikiProjects. I had the idea of somehow trying to get other WikiProjects involved in wikifying articles. It would help with the backlog and help the other projects improve their own articles.
I would cross reference which articles need to be wikified along with what falls under certain WikiProjects, and drop a quick message with the respective WikiProjects to see if the ycan help out.
Long story short I put together this nice little template:
WikiProject Wikify | |||
---|---|---|---|
Why am I getting this message?This message was generated by the good folks at WikiProject Wikify. We noticed that there are a number of articles that need wikification that may fall within the realm of your WikiProject as well! Currently, of the 2,522,403 Wikipedia articles, 4,777 are listed as good articles (about 1 in 528), and 2,196 are listed as featured articles (about 1 in 1,140). Many of the remainder are poorly written, badly linked, and in need of care and attention. WikiProject Wikify aims to improve the layout and presentation of such articles. The wikification process is simple, and we welcome input from any editors who would like to help out. It should be relatively easy to wikify an article even if you are not a complete expert on the subject. What is wikification anyways?Wikify: To format using Wiki markup (as opposed to plain text or HTML) and add internal links to material, incorporating it into the whole of Wikipedia. Noun: Wikification; gerund: wikifying. Sometimes shortened to wfy. Simply put, wikification is the process of adding internal links within an article and adding lead paragraphs, headers, and infoboxes when appropriate. This doesn't seem too complicated, how can I help?A general guide to wikification can be found here. If you have any questions at all feel free to leave me a message or drop in on WikiProject Wikify and someone would be glad to help you out. Below is a list of articles that might fall within the scope of your WikiProject. If you have the time, this endeavor could greatly benefit both our projects, and the members at WikiProject Wikify would be extremely grateful! Articles |
|} |}
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bvlax2005 ( talk • contribs) 08:17, 24 August 2008
I rather assumed that Wikipedia talk:Sandbox should be a place for meta-discussion of the sandbox, rather than a sandbox in its own right, so I added a header accordingly. But someone has queried whether the move has consensus (see current version), so I'd like to throw this open here. What do you think? Thanks, — Alan ✉ 21:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't mind this discussion here now, but I am concerned that VP is not ultimately a good place for discussion about the sandbox, because stuff is briefly discussed and then archived, making it difficult to find past discussions on any particular topic.
Another possibility for separating out meta-discussion about the sandbox from tests in the Talk namespace would be to put one at Wikipedia talk:Sandbox and the other at a sub-page of the same. Does this seem reasonable?
In that case, there question is simply which should get the top-level talk page and which should get the subpage. There are pros and cons:
I may be being incredibly pedantic here, but surely Wikipedia talk:Sandbox is for talking about the sandbox, Wikipedia:About the Sandbox is for information about the sandbox (i.e. not a discussion obviously), and Wikipedia talk:About the Sandbox is for talking about the page Wikipedia:About the Sandbox (yes confusingly, for talking about the "about the sandbox" page)? That seem to me to the normal use of any talk page, to talk about the page it is the talk page of. Deamon138 ( talk) 19:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I see "Willy on Wheels" mentioned everywhere. What exactly is it? Tutthoth-Ankhre ( talk) 19:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks on wheels. Tutthoth-Ankhre ( talk) 20:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
The article about RBHS presents a very negative image of what is really a very good school. To provide a better image of what the school is, I have put a new version of the article on its talk page, seeing as the article is semi-protected and I am a new user. Could an established user replace the old version with the new (it adds a section about the band and one about the Academic League) and then remove the copy that is on the talk page? Lucas Brown 42 ( talk) 03:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Lucas Brown 42 ( talk) 03:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
In the Spanish Wikipedia, the article about the german actress Berta Grosser was deleted because it was an hoax. Pay atenttion that this article it doesn't exist on German Wikipedia. Furthermore, it seems a vanity article and an autobiography.
See the search in Google: Berta Grosser
Cheers, Der Ausländer Alles klar! Und du? 30 August 2008 22:35 (UTC)
Someone seems to have gotten to this article so that when you go to it the screen changes to a hostile message. Steve Dufour ( talk) 13:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
How to manage references to other languages when there is no bidirectional corrispondence in terms? Please, see my question about Helmet (talk) as an example of this problem. -- Dejudicibus ( talk) 07:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
This is quite a silly proposal. Whenever a new message is left on user's talk page, the bright orange bar comes up at the top of any page. I think the color is very unfriendly and too bright. It would be my personal preference, but the color is really bothering me ever since I joined in Wikipedia. Could this bar be changed to light green or blue or any other friendly neutral color? Or the color can be up for user preference? I also have seen other people complain about how the color is threatening. It is a minor issue, but I think trying a new thing on the bar is not that bad. -- Caspian blue ( talk) 17:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
.usermessage {
background-color: #colour;
}
(unindent) OK, apparently that only changes the inside of the box, leaving a bright orange border. I'm going to test something on my monobook.css; can someone leave a message for me on my talk page so I can test it? Thanks. -- Alinnisawest, Dalek Empress ( extermination requests here) 18:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
.usermessage {
background-color: #colour;
border-color: #colour;
}
Again, "colour" is whatever color desired. -- Alinnisawest, Dalek Empress ( extermination requests here) 18:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Simplest way of fixing this would have been to go to "My preferences" and change the skin to "Classic". That way you get notification without any bars at all. Still if you're happy with a green bar that's fine too. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
You must be very popular. I don't get messages often enough that the color of the bar would bother me. Steve Dufour ( talk) 18:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Mario and Sonic is an IOC licensed video game based on the 2008 Summer Olympics. The game revolves participating in a range of Olympic sports as characters from the Mario and Sonic series. The article is currently at FAC, but an issue of contention has arisen.
Currently, the article gives a complete list of the Olympic events represented within the game. I believe that this list of events is crucial in order for the article to be complete and comprehensive, likening the list to track lists within albums. Other editors believe that the list of events is outside the scope of Wikipedia, failing aspects of WP:NOT relating to "game guide" material.
Should the article give a list of events represented? So far, the discussion is between a handful of editors active in the video game space. I'm posting here to broaden this issue's audience, I'd appreciate comments either at the FAC or at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#List_of_Olympic_events. - hahnch e n 02:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
How can I make my signature have colors? Or different fonts? Or any fancyness? Lucas Brown 42 ( talk) 03:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah... But how do I put color/fonts/fancy stuff into it? Lucas Brown 42 ( talk) 03:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keva_Juice
See Supplements and History.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lumarine ( talk • contribs) 23:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, thanks. Lumarine ( talk) 19:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
I'm relaunching the process of the creation of a Belgian local chapter.
It will take in consideration the great amount of expat workers (a very large community at Brussels, as a services dedicated city and the de facto capital of the European Union), the Dutch, French and German speaking contributors. So, if you're an active contributor based on Belgium, whatever the language you speak, you're welcome.
If you're interested to invest yourself in the process or to become a member, please drop me a note or send me a mail. -- Dereckson ( talk) 07:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Some of you might be interested in knowing that there is an application for the iPhone using copied wikipedia contents without honoring the GFDL appropriately (in fact without mentioning it at all). - 91.62.251.70 ( talk) 11:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
We are about to start the New England week on ru.wp, ru:Википедия:Проект:США/Новоанглийская неделя. The idea is that new articles on the topics related to new England states will be created and existing articles improved. The dates are Sep 5 to 15. Our experience with other "thematic weeks" shows that around 150 new articles will be created. We thought the whole of the US is too broad of a topic and have chosen to cover only New England (if the interest persists, other parts may be eventually covered). The problem we have is that it is sometimes difficult to separate New England topics. For instance if I know someone was American I may be less sure of what state he/she was from and whether he/she has been associated with New England. If any of you have ideas what articles would be good to cover (obviously these must be either articles without ru interwiki, or tiny Russian articles), these ideas will be gladly appreciated. The best place is to put these on the page I linked above or its discussion page; a link to en.wp would suffice, but may be a short comment why this article is important would be particularly helpful. Thanks in advance for your help.-- Yaroslav Blanter ( talk) 14:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Can anyone tell me where the best place to post a suggestion for the wbsite esditors is? I have a good idea for them but there are so many topics on here I just don't know where to put it... Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miss Catty23 ( talk • contribs) 02:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, there is an extremely long and muddled discussion going on at WP:Tennis about the tournament tables found on tennis player articles (i.e. this type of table). The dispute is over the "Tournament Name" column, with the options being to either use the "sponsored tournament name" - in other words, the name involving the sponsor, for example Internazionali BNL d'Italia - or the "non-sponsored tournament name" - in other words, Rome Masters. I appreciate that this conversation is very long and convoluted, so a brief summary can be found here, which is also where I request the discussion continues. Thanks, rst20xx ( talk) 22:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to go on record about my edits to Patrick M. McCarthy.
Today a new user made some questionable edits to the article about Patrick M. McCarthy, here, here and here.
When an administrator admonished them they left the following note on User:Geo Swan:
A Lieutenant in the Guantanamo Public Affairs Office requested I make this change. It seemed like an insubstantial change, so I made it about fifteen minutes after I read his e-mail. FWIW I think my original wording was a good faith paraphrase of the article by the young Lieutenant's enlisted subordinate, but he said that the NPR interview was clearer that McCarthy was responding to allegations, not "singling out" a critic.
I am mystified why this article should have been blanked twice, by two separate new contributors, whose only edits in article space were to that page.
I am mystified why my edits to the Patrick M. McCarthy article, of all the over ten thousand edits I have made on the war on terror, should trigger the attention of the Guantanamo Public Affairs Office, and these two impetuous new contributors.
Candidly, Geo Swan ( talk) 23:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Anyone who thinks they are aware of an instance when my contributions have lapsed from policy, or fair respect, is welcome to leave me a civil specific message on the article's talk page, on my talk page, or via e-mail. I openly acknowledge when a mistake is pointed out to me. And I fix them. Geo Swan ( talk) 23:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Riddle me this: anyone know why my talk page is being listed at Category:Articles to be merged since September 2008?
It appears when I edit any section (including section 0), so it can't be a template.
Worst yet, I tried adding a new section, and still got the "This page is a member of 1 hidden category" message.
Whisky tango foxtrot? EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
This is a request / suggestion for modifying the {{ '}} template to fix a minor formatting issue.
Recently, Sswonk created {{ 's}}. That template is very similar to {{ '}} - but it has one distinct advantage. The new template avoids the situation where the apostraphe crashes with italicized text by using this code to surround the apostraphe in the template:
<span style="padding-left:0.1em;">'</span>
which is equivalent to:
<span style="padding-left:0.1em;">'</span>
See for example:
''Kroonland''{{'}}s
= Kroonland's''Kroonland''{{'s}}
= Kroonland'sIn example #1 using the existing {{ '}} template, the apostraphe crashes into the italicized "d", while in the example #2 using the new {{ 's}} template, this issue does not exist. See also the discussion at WT:SHIPS#FYI problems using apostrophe after an italicized name.
Would it be acceptable to have template:' modified to use this modified snippet of code to insert a thin space prior to the apostraphe? --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 21:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Just to be extra clear, the code doesn't add a thin space ( ), just a CSS hack to add padding to the left of the apostrophe. I tested it on IE6, IE7 and Mac FF3 and Safari 3, and also Lynx 2.8.6. Everything works fine, and testing a screen reader also showed no issues. Sswonk ( talk) 22:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
To be extra-extra clear, it is not a CSS hack, but a simple use of CSS for visual kerning without affecting the semantics of the underlying content as would a  . :-) — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I just want to make this community aware of an emerging kind of governance structure, born out of the concepts developed in Wikipedia (esp. consensus and transparency). The project is called the Metagovernment. Have a look: they could use some more help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stubborrnn ( talk • contribs) 02:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Please add zh:Wikipedia:最近更改條目請求 and zh:Template:Recent changes article requests to the corresponding English Wikipedia pages, administrators. I know the two pages are protected due to the vandalism by auto-confirmed users, but this does not mean the Chinese interwiki links should not be added to the two pages. By the way, I think Wikipedia editions having more than 100,000 articles should have the function showing requested articles on the recent changes Wikipedia pages, since this function can let editors there are some important topics which do not have articles. And the English edition should have more lines in the two pages since there many important topics in WP:RA and WP:MEA. -- RekishiEJ ( talk) 09:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I have created {{ timeline-item}} which (with {{ timeline-start}} and {{ timeline-end}}) generate a definition list for a series of dated events, each being wrapped in an hCalendar microformat, with the date generated by {{ Start date}}. The example on the template's documentation is taken from Iraq disarmament crisis timeline 2001–2003.
{{ timeline-links}} can optionally be added to a page, to pass its hCalendar events (generated by the aforesaid templates, or others) to external timeline-generating and other hCalendar-using websites.
I'd be grateful for constructive suggestions for improvements; and as to where there templates might be best employed. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy Mabbett; Andy Mabbett's contributions 21:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
(removed) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.105.128.37 ( talk) 01:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I served on the submarine USS Topeka and have been monitoring and helping maintain that page for a few years. The problem is that a lot of what is listed on there is unreferenced and the page is tagged as such. I have looke dfor references online but there aren't many. Despite that I personally know that most of whats on there is fact.
Do I effectively have to make a website somewhere with all the info just so I can provide a reference to prevent the deletion of the info? That just seems redundant... is there a solution for this?
thanks! Webprofessor ( talk) 14:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Per WP:BOT
-- Chris 12:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I think only registered Wikipedians should be allowed to put in the Template:Unreferenced template. Any opinions?? Georgia guy ( talk) 13:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Unsupervised deletion of material: what a great way to throw the baby with the bathwater! 62.147.36.245 ( talk) 21:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I have seen this image Image:YouTube logo.svg and on its Non-free use media rationale Low resolution?' description it says that:The logo is a size and resolution sufficient to maintain the quality intended by the company or organization, without being unnecessarily high resolution.. Acoording to my knowledge SVG files can be used very high resolution, so is it ok to use SVG files for non-free use or not? -- Manco Capac ( talk) 14:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
In the last few days, I've noticed a bit of redirect vandalism, and I just want to bring this issue to some more people's attention. Due to its nature, someone changing a redirect will almost never show up on our various anti-vandal tools, and people rarely have them on their watch lists. The most often way I see it used is when someone redirects a phrase or word they consider derogatory to point to the biography of someone they don't like in an effort to change Google ratings. I actually did a quick skim of the redirect pages to both Barack Obama and John McCain as a small sample and found at least two vandalized redirects that no one had picked up - alcoholic for Obama and bomb Iran for McCain. I honestly can't think of a better way to audit for these than to go through redirects to controversial targets, which is a horribly slow and painful process. If anyone has a better way to check for vandalized redirects en-mass, I'm all ears. -- Bachrach44 ( talk) 20:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
hi may i know about infosys —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.140.101 ( talk) 10:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
An anon is edit warring to replace the external link at Everest University from everest.edu to everestonline.edu. The two links go to different pages. I have no clue which is correct, nor why there are two different pages, but if there is anybody out there with a clue, could they please look into this? Corvus cornix talk 22:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia has made the news in Australia on the News Limited site News.com.au. Wikipedia users divided over sexual material. Bidgee ( talk) 22:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
There is currently a proposal on meta to disband Wikiquote projects, comments are welcome there. Mr. Z-man 21:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not the most knowledgeable when it comes to images, and I've been wondering - does Wikipedia have a specific stance on watermarks on images? Usually this is an easy way of spotting copyvios, but I've seen at least one where it was apparently marked by the uploader. Personally, I don't think such images should be used, but don't remember ever coming across anything forbidding them. faithless (speak) 06:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I would like to open a debate over what I deem to be the ridiculous over referencing of Rodger Ebert when talking about film's reception. He is one (not very good) critic and yet his opinion seems to straddle almost every film article on this site. Is there any chance we could cut down on references to Rodger and maybe even remove him from some articles so as to get a wider range of voices heard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.198.210 ( talk) 11:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Is there any reason wikiproject tags for images and categories shouldn't be in the main (image/category) namespace instead of talk? Those talk namespaces get little actual discussion traffic and it'd be easier to watch (via namespace recentchanges) if there weren't so much wikiproject-tag traffic. -- Random832 ( contribs) 21:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Link! YAY! Help wanted please! P.S.: About the Mana series, if that isn't already obvious which, IAH, it should be. Yellow Mage ( talk) 10:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
What is considered to be Wikipedia's best article? If there is no clear winner, what are considered to be the top choices? Lucas Brown 42 ( talk) 03:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
The material is clearly inappropriate for the Elephant article, as the history of a wikipedia article about elephants is not information which is notable to know about elephants. It would be a clear violation of Wikipedia:Avoid self references to discuss the wikipedia article about elephants in the wikipedia article about elephants. This is why we need an article about the wikipedia article about elephants, so that we can discuss this important material. john k 01:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
The english version page of barometric pressure has been vandalized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.243.48.11 ( talk) 16:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Everyone, hop on and do just 10. Come on, you can do it! -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 01:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Everyone who is currently checking the unpatrolled page, raise your hand! :-) -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 15:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
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
I am an ex student of Saint Marys Gulberg Lahore. I am looking for my class fellows who did Matric in March, 1970 from this school. Some of my class fellows were Asif Qazi, Edwin, Haseeb, Afzal, Arif Moeen, Khwaja Naveed. From: Ejaz Hussain Minhas. E-mail address ejaz7075@hotmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.27.161.125 ( talk) 19:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
It will take place at union station at 5PM. Please see WP:Meetup/DC 5 for more details. ff m 23:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Why is Talk:Barack Obama protected? You've cut off anyone except admins from posting comments. It may just be me, but that looks like Wikipedia is taking a side in this election...but I might be paranoid. 31306D696E6E69636B6D ( talk) 19:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
What kind of criteria are you using now to organize the wikis at [1]. You're defintely not using no. of articles anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.131.105.46 ( talk) 08:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm wondering which article is a featured article in more languages than any other article on Wikipedia. The highest I've seen so far is William Shakespeare with 10 featured articles in different languages. Can anyone find anything higher? Wrad ( talk) 23:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I have been doing a whole lot of moving free images to the Commons, and I am wondering why we even continue to allow free images to uploaded here as opposed to the Commons. Ideally, Wikipedia should only contain fair-use copyrighted images. A free image should be in the Commons where it is more accessible for everyone, but just as accessible for Wikipedia as if it were here in the first place. And now with a unified login, it's very easy to upload to the Commons. Is there any reason that uploading here might be more desirable? Ideally, I am thinking that any image that is uploaded to WP under a free license is redirected to an upload at Commons. The Commons is set up much better to handle the different sorts of licenses. As it is, moving images like Category:User-created public domain images is an uphill battle, as it is still being added to. Thoughts? ~ JohnnyMrNinja 01:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
BTW, there is currently a discussion and straw poll on whether or not to bring the Commons' PD-Art policy into agreement with the English wikipedia's PD-Art policy. If enacted, this means we will no longer have the problem of photos of historic paintings (which are public domain in the U.S.) being moved to Commons and then deleted. If you support this (or don't), please visit the straw poll and add your opinion. Kaldari ( talk) 15:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
On the internet, we are under attack.
CAPTCHA is broken. SPAM is growing. CRIME is rampant.
We have few defenses, and our respective nations lack the jurisdiction and the will to protect us.
Therefore, we must, with no delay, create an INTERNET MILITIA to deal with these crimes and protect the innocent, and
We must form the FIRST INTERNET CONSTITUTIONAL CONGRESS and pass the first CONSTITUTION OF THE INTERNET in order to guarantee our rights in this digital era.
The first step is to create a forum where everyone can read and contribute.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”
“We the people of the Internet, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure online tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Internet.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironcoconut ( talk • contribs) 07:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I am a regular user of WP at work, and it appears that a few of my colleagues have been vandalising WP. The last time I visited WP I was threatened with being barred. I guess this is because I share the IP address with my colleagues. Anyone else had this problem? I don't want my sign in name to become assocaited with a hooky IP address and ultimately end up banned from a very helpful resource. Any top-tips? Jimpoolio ( talk) 16:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I am pleased to announce the establishment of Wikipedia:Protection patrol, which will seek to combat page protection abuse. Aldrich Hanssen ( talk) 02:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I would like to know if there is such an article? I also searched but did not find one. Basically I would like to know what phone to buy, and this would be one of the criteria. Any help or guidance on this would be much appreciated. Thank You! PS: sorry if this is the wrong place to put this question. -- HappyInGeneral ( talk) 13:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Whereas it used to be that the top ten language wikipedias were listed in size order around the Wikipedia logo on the www.wikipedia.org page, they have now been jumbled up, and, moreover, the Dutch wikipedia is not included there, even though it is the seventh largest wikipedia. The Chinese wikipedia has been placed adjacent to the logo instead, even though its only the twelfth largest Wikipedia. Does anybody know why this is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matisia ( talk • contribs) 08:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Please take a look at this name change request and the bot's response to it. The user who made the request found the response -- and the fact that the request was moved to another page -- baffling and incomprehensible, as you can see from these remarks that he posted.
Now this is not the Simple English Wikipedia, but it's not the Insider Jargon Wikipedia either. To start with, "usurpation" is not a familiar word to everyone. If you compare what the bot posted to other boilerplate wording like "Once you click the Save button, your changes will be visible immediately. For testing, please use the sandbox instead", I think it's obvious that there's considerable room for improvement.
I also wonder what happened to the original request. As far as I can tell, it should have been moved under one of the "archived usurpation request" links from WP:Changing username#Archives, but I can't see it there. I do see that the user has submitted a new variation of it, assuming that the original request was rejected, when as far as I can tell it may well be going to be approved as a usurpation. I've added a link there pointing to this posting, and that is the end of my involvement regarding this.
-- 208.76.104.133 ( talk) 04:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
There's been a minor disagreement as to whether to include a link in an article, and some of its editors have agreed to "flip a coin" so to speak. Would somebody please pick a random whole positive number? The first one to post will decide the fate of the world! – 129.49.7.150 ( talk) 15:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
393 :-) Northwestgnome ( talk) 17:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Googolplex. Corvus cornix talk 18:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I pick i. Celarnor Talk to me 12:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
We need your help! MOTD has been running for over two years, as an informal project publishing a daily unofficial Wikipedia motto each day through the {{ MOTD}} templates. It's intended to be a way to gather the Wikipedia community together to a common purpose and help portray our mission through a often clever or witty phrase. Unfortunately, activity in the project has started to drop of late, and we only have mottos scheduled for the next week. For this project to run smoothly, we need plenty of original suggestions from editors like you, as well as people to comment on existing suggestions, close old discussions, and schedule approved mottos. It's a great way to take a break from your run-of-the-mill editing, and you may learn something about Wikipedia in the process. Please stop by WP:MOTD and take a look around. If you have any questions, please post below, on our project's talk page, or drop me a line. Thanks for your time, and happy editing as always. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 23:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Why is editing wikipedia so overcomplicated and inaccessible? I've edited a fair few articles, but the more I try and do anything beyond fixing spelling mistakes, the more I get frustrated at how overcomplicated everything is. Want to add a photo to an article? Once you've found the relevent help page (no easy task) you're faced with the joy of searching through reams of policy to figure out the difference between a wikimedia commons friendly {{cc-by-sa-2.5-in}} lisence, and the wikimedia commons unfriendly Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5. Why isn't there a big button in the sidebar taking you to an easy "How to edit wikipedia" guide? Why not a collection of video tutorials to help people get to grips with {{ref}} tags and file uploads? Why not a tool that automatically lets you know whether a Flikr photo is wikipedia-friendly or not, and imports it from Flikr if it is? If wikipedia editing was that bit more user friendly, perhaps more people would get involved and articles would start to improve. Does anyone else think there's room for improvement here? Saluton ( talk) 22:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
We need your help! MOTD has been running for over two years, as an informal project publishing a daily unofficial Wikipedia motto each day through the {{ MOTD}} templates. It's intended to be a way to gather the Wikipedia community together to a common purpose and help portray our mission through a often clever or witty phrase. Unfortunately, activity in the project has started to drop of late, and we only have mottos scheduled for the next week. For this project to run smoothly, we need plenty of original suggestions from editors like you, as well as people to comment on existing suggestions, close old discussions, and schedule approved mottos. It's a great way to take a break from your run-of-the-mill editing, and you may learn something about Wikipedia in the process. Please stop by WP:MOTD and take a look around. If you have any questions, please post below, on our project's talk page, or drop me a line. Thanks for your time, and happy editing as always. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 23:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Why is editing wikipedia so overcomplicated and inaccessible? I've edited a fair few articles, but the more I try and do anything beyond fixing spelling mistakes, the more I get frustrated at how overcomplicated everything is. Want to add a photo to an article? Once you've found the relevent help page (no easy task) you're faced with the joy of searching through reams of policy to figure out the difference between a wikimedia commons friendly {{cc-by-sa-2.5-in}} lisence, and the wikimedia commons unfriendly Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5. Why isn't there a big button in the sidebar taking you to an easy "How to edit wikipedia" guide? Why not a collection of video tutorials to help people get to grips with {{ref}} tags and file uploads? Why not a tool that automatically lets you know whether a Flikr photo is wikipedia-friendly or not, and imports it from Flikr if it is? If wikipedia editing was that bit more user friendly, perhaps more people would get involved and articles would start to improve. Does anyone else think there's room for improvement here? Saluton ( talk) 22:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I bet we hit 2,500,000 articles in less than 24 hours! - Icewedge ( talk) 19:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I remember hearing that at about 2.5M articles, Wikipedia will stop growing and start looking so developed. Now that Wikipedia has reached 2.5M, what do you think its status will be within the next few years?? Georgia guy ( talk) 23:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello Wikipedians! I can't reach data for a dissertation I'm writing on wikipedia: Do you know how many cases are respectively taken by the mediation committee and the Arbcom each year or month? Another one: how many blocks are made by sysops every day? Thanks!! :) --Karibou 16:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I have a problem to appreciate en.WPs hyper-inclusionist policies on notability. Take Category:Sheriffs' departments of the United States. To me, this seems like a joke. I don't see any encyclopedical value in such a plethora of redundant information. All Sheriffs' departments do the same thing, whether you consider it to be "to serve and protect" or someting different. There certainly are not many noteworthy facts that makes one department different from another. I admit that the concept of elected Sheriffs may give them some relevance, but they could be easily named in the article about the respective community. Another example are the myriads of fictional characters like e.g. in Category:Anime_and_manga_characters_by_series. It's like a cultural shock for me, as on the german language Wikipedia 99% of both examples would be considered as not noteworthy and be deleted. Could someone please point me to the rationale, the policies or the discussions behind all of that? -- 790 ♫ 19:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for all your statements, specifically for pointing me to WP:DEADLINE and WP:FICTION. To Patsw, I'd like to emphasize what John Broughton pointed out above: that WP:AGF is probably not meant to "override" WP:V, especially in a case of WP:Conflict of interest (an organization describing itself) - and I can't refrain from remarking that it is a little naïve to assume that there could not possibly be a reason for false claims here. With John Broughton I would fully agree also in that size does matter here, and to have an article e.g. on the LAPD seems perfectly reasonable to me. So this may come down to ask Wikipedia:WikiProject Law Enforcement for a more stringent application of WP:N to the articles in their focus - I wonder how they would react on such a request. -- 790 ♫ 20:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
and
...were just promoted to featured sound. Tomorrow, August 14, 2008, marks the 120th anniversary of the press conference that introduced the phonograph to London, and for which all the earliest surviving recordings of music, including these two were made.
Now, I for one think that the historic 120th anniversary is an excellent reason to put these two sounds on the main page. We could put it under the Featured picture, perhaps. What does everyone think? Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 04:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
eveyone is invited:
-- Shevashalosh ( talk) 22:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Once upon a time, there was a baseball team.
They were a pretty good baseball team, collecting together lots of really talented baseball players, so they could win the World Series. But one of their players, he started to think he could do what he liked, because he was a really good player, so he shot his mouth off, walked when he should have run, and wanted his say in how the team did things.
Now, in the past, the team just shruged it off as "Manny being Manny", and things continued. And Manny got worse, till he started sitting out games and pushed an old man to the ground... And the Red Sox had a big slump, and lost a string of games and were even bested by the Yankees. So the Red Sox traded Manny off to the Dodgers with the offer that they'd pay his wages and the Dodgers didn't even have to keep him if they didn't want to.
And in exchange, Jason Bay came in to replace him, and he was a pretty good hitter, and he played well with others too, and then the Red Sox started wining games again!
Now, what can we learn from this?
How about, "Lets stop treating 'Hard Working Admin' as if they're gods amongst men, make them follow the rules. And if they don't, we should trade them to Slashdot for a sandwich."
-- Barberio ( talk) 03:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
No where near as funny as The Truth, but does it deserve to be deleted? - HarryAlffa ( talk) 21:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Seems it's been hacked/changed relating the Zodiac Killer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.63.124.51 ( talk) 04:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
If anyone is interested, I have the latest information on the status of the Wikimedia Foundation's page view stats, with a response from the person in charge of it Erik Zachte. --David Shankbone 22:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
At Fort Nisqually, the double inclusion of latitude and longitude information (in two different infoboxes) makes for a very weird overprinting in my (Firefox) browser. Are others seeing a similar problem? Is there a recommended solution? - Jmabel | Talk 06:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
{{infobox nrhp}}
to have an optional 'display' parameter, defaulting to 'inline,title', which it would pass to {{coord}}
. Then just decide which infobox on
Fort Nisqually deserves to have its coords at page top and change the other to 'display=inline'. You could probably do things differently so that both coord links displayed without overlapping, but I don't think there's much point in having two such links in one article anyway (since there's no explanation of which is which without scrolling down to the infoboxes).
Algebraist
15:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)This Knol enty is a very close copy of our article New York City without respecting GFDL, indeed the knol author claims copyright and "all rights reserved". Please could one who knwos what to do post this note to the correct place. Thanks. -- Matthiasb ( talk) 15:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I mostly reads articles about political science and history, but I often find the use of "academic words" too overwhelming. It makes the text hard to understand and I must often guess what that word means by setting it in a context.
Who is the receiver for what you write here on wikipedia ? The Public or academics with an PhD? -- Ezzex ( talk) 14:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
There is already a 'Plain and simple English' version of Wikipedia and I suggest that if you have problems with use of complex language to describe complex issues, you refer there instead. Otherwise, this is an attempt at being a comprehensive encyclopaedia, and complicated terms can always be wiki-linked to their explanation. -- Barberio ( talk) 15:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
There is more than enough "dumbing down" in the world. If someone doesn't understand an article, the citations and reading list should provide the necessary support. In my particular areas of expertise, many editors have only a passing understanding of the subject matter, which can be quite frustrating when one tries to remove misleading information or fill out incomplete ideas. DOR (HK) ( talk) 06:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Adding_a_lead_section_template_to_articles. Ty 07:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
It has come to my attention that the Bad image list was created and implemented seemingly with no discussion and with no clarification of what precisely it is. In the interest of full disclosure, I'll say I never liked the list to begin with, and have said as much elsewhere. Here I'm not interested in debating whether or not the list should be kept, only in creating some kind of understanding of what it is and how it is to be used.
My understanding was that it was primarily intended to prevent people from posting sexually explicit, graphic and unpleasant images on articles and in talk spaces where they do not belong. Evidently this had become something of a problem with vandals using such images to disrupt Wikipedia and harass people. Fair enough.
Today, however, I noticed that someone has added a totally innocuous, non-sexual, non-explicit line drawing of a Celtic cross to the list, apparently, because the so-called "Zodiac vandal" has been using that particular image as a kind of signature. Now, I don't question the good faith of the person who added the image to the list, but it strikes me that this particular use doesn't qualify as image vandalism at all: it's not that an image itself is being used to vandalise pages, but that a vandal is using the image as a kind of signature. Placing the image on the bad image list won't prevent the vandal from continuing to vandalise pages, but it will make it harder for others to use the image (particularly those who aren't familiar with the list and don't know how to ask for an exception, which is probably most editors, since there are no clear instructions regarding these processes). And there's nothing stopping the vandal from simply choosing a different image to use -- there are several images of Celtic crosses to choose from.
So far the two editors (one being the user who added the image to the list) who have responded seem to feel that this is a perfectly valid way of using the list. However, again, there seems to be have been no specific discussion on the subject so far.
Here we have a case where a user has -- in completely good faith -- placed a totally non-offensive image on the list in an attempt to prevent a single vandal from using it in an incidental manner: not to shock or offend other users (as has been the case with various human genitalia and sexuality-related images), but simply as a signature. As I've already said, preventing him from using this single image will neither stop him from vandalising pages nor stop him from simply choosing a different image of the same thing or a different version of the same image. In other words, it's not preventing the vandalism, only making it harder to use the image legitimately. And where does this end? When we've protected every single image of a Celtic cross? It's easy to see how this particular way of using the list could rapidly get out of control.
Since there has yet to be any discussion and hammering out of the procedures regarding the list, it also raises the question of precisely what it is: A guideline? A policy? Something completely different? I'm posting this here because the project talk page doesn't seem to be regularly watched, and because , well, I couldn't think of anywhere else. Exploding Boy (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
The Alaska-Yukon-Pacific Exposition is described oxymoronically in our article as a "regional world's fair". That link redirects to Expo (exhibition), but that article is clearly only about those at the level of true world's fairs. This was something less than that, as was the Jamestown Exposition of 1905, which I see has similar problems in its lead. I suspect we need two articles, one about this sort of exposition in general, one about world's fairs as such. Either that or we need at least to rewrite Expo (exhibition) so that it covers the ground more evenly.
I'm not sure exactly how this should sort out - hence my bringing the issue here - but I don't think the current approach is workable. - Jmabel | Talk 01:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
This conversation on my talk page got me thinking. I understand the point that this could be interpreted as jumping a little to quick, but I'm not so sure the argument that "anyone can see it's unreferenced" holds water. Sure, I can see that and most Wikipedia editors can see that, but what about the users, the people who read Wikipedia but don't edit. They are the reason we are doing this, and shouldn't they be informed if they are reading information that is unverified? So you see my problem, I'm not interested in pissing off everyone who creates stubs, but your casual WP reader may not realize they are reading questionable information. Thoughts anyone? Beeblbrox ( talk) 22:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
What I think you overlook is the way these nag boxes ruin wikipedia for many readers - they are an enormous visual distraction. I became anti-tag after hearing complaints from friends about how the site had become littered with the stupid things, to the point that they stopped checking wikipedia. Adding a nag tag makes an article worse, not better, because it makes the article harder to read.
Unless a tag informs the reader that serious questions exist and the reader should be very cautious about what they're reading, then a tag shouldn't exist (IMHO, of course). Your concerns should be raised on the article's Talk page - that's why Talk pages were created, after all.
The only article tags I think are justified are NPOV, AFD and the one that says "this is an ongoing event and subject to change". In particular, I'd get rid of all the many variations of "needs more footnotes".
Of course, many people disagree with this point of view. - DavidWBrooks ( talk) 17:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
"What I think you overlook is the way these nag boxes ruin wikipedia for many readers - they are an enormous visual distraction." Personally, I think that unsourced or POV articles ruin Wikipedia more than the visual distraction of tags, but each to their own. The problem is not the tags. The problem is what the tags are showing. If the POV or OR or whatever wasn't there in the first place, then there would be no need for the tags. So instead of grumbling about how someone has dumped a bunch of tags on an article, then should clean it up. Talk page comments are a must of course. But they only benefit editors who know what a talk page is. Those who aren't wiki-savvy (the readers) are the ones who suffer, because if they aren't smart enough to make sure the information they're reading is verifiable, then they will take it as fact, or cite it in their homework/essay/thesis/journal. The tag tells them otherwise. And of course, the tag does give greater impetus to editors to fix the problem, because there's nothing more annoying than seeing a tag deposited over an article you've worked damn hard on. So then you become annoyed enough to fix the problem so it gets rid of the tag. Basically, the tags may be a nuisance, but while Wikipedia isn't perfect (like forever), they are a necessary evil against the uncleanliness of articles. Deamon138 ( talk) 23:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC) (And while we've all been commenting here, we could all have been fixing some problems and getting rid of some tags. Never mind lol)
Hi I've been away for a bit and I was just wondering what article number 2,500,00 was. I have searched in all the obvious places and also tried googling, but I couldn't find it. I assume there was minimal fuss made about it, considering the lack of fanfare that went with 2,000,000. Thanks ..... Todd #661 09:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
The article Sid King and the Five Strings was copied from this page: http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&searchlink=SID%7CKING&sql=11:jzfixqw5ld0e~T0 This is a copyright violation, isn't it? The yodeling cowboy ( talk) 12:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
{{
db-copyvio|url=...}}
(inserting the URL of the web page the text was copied from). In less clear cases, follow the instructions at
Template:copyvio. --
B. Wolterding (
talk)
13:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)I was reading about Leviticus and clicked on "antinomianism" to find out what that is, when I got a strange message saying "This is the Zodiac speaking. Do you still think you can stop me?" and then a bunch of numbers, all in white letters on a black background. I tried a Google search and got five results, all to seemingly unrelated Wikipedia articles (Cookie Monster, Honduras, Space Race, Mu Online, and Saints Row). Those articles seem to be unaffected, but I'm still clueless about antinomianism. What the heck is going on? Jindřichův Smith ( talk) 19:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Is there any WIKI policy on removing Editors like Gwen Gale , who do not even read through nascent page postings before deleting them. I imagine they add 'Wiki Editor' to their CV, but they dont actually do anything remotely 'editorial'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheriffspayne ( talk • contribs) 15:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
According to Digital Millennium Copyright Act, under which Google Knol is published, Infringement Notifications have to be sent in printed paper and signed to Google. This can mean Knol will most likely work like YouTube in case of copyrights.-- Kozuch ( talk) 21:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I would like to point out, that Knol violates Wikipedia licence - some people copy content from here to Knol, but the licences are incompatible (GFDL vs CC-by). Examples: [3], [4]. -- Kozuch ( talk) 09:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
(undent) I know it would be more work, but it sounds like one way to handle this, when you spot these violations, is to check the article history for editors who have made recent changes, and then post a note on their user talk page with information about the possible copyright violation of their work, and exactly how and where they should complain about it. Perhaps we need a template something like {{ Knol-vio}}, including an article parameter, to make this easier to post to user talk pages? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
The google group "KNOL Users" (requires login) has related disussion here, which seems to agree that GFDL is not compatible with the Creative Commons Attribution license. It also explores how to copy GFDL content under knol's "All Rights Reserved" by including the GFDL text and the contributor history, in an attempt to abide by both GFDL and knol's terms of service. I wonder if this is really possible, and if so, maybe a boilerplate set of instructions could be sent to the knol uploaders to show how to include GFDL content without breaking the license? - 84user ( talk) 15:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Google-Knol has a limit to create knols per day. Thats very good because some knol-user are copying the most popular wikipedia-articles one after the other to knol. Here ypu can see 75 wikipedia-copies by one user. -- schwarze feder ( talk) 22:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Some of the theft is quite open about Wikipedia as the source: http://knol.google.com/k/kai-tsang/hong-kong/3jmesx0oovz72/2# DOR (HK) ( talk) 06:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I just started checking out this "Knol". It's pathetic, really, that these folks are copy and pasting WP articles and trying to pass it off as their own work. I guess I don't have anything substantive to add to this conversation, I just wanted to vent about this foolishness. Beeblbrox ( talk) 17:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I think there are more problems than just the text being copied - Knol is a good example of what happens to an unmaintained user generated content site. Have a look at their article about Paris Hilton. It's an almost verbatim copy of our article (in a previous version). They even embed the images (including fair-use images!) directly from the Wikimedia servers. But there are some small changes to the article: The links on the images now point to an adult-content website. If this is the typical quality of the "knol"s, I doubt that the website will stay in existence for long. -- B. Wolterding ( talk) 11:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
All the "Country" at the 2008 Summer Olympics (eg Great Britain at the 2008 Summer Olympics have a major display problem in Classic skin at least. Insufficient window space exists for the three tables that follow the heading "Medallists". Initially, when I couldn't see the daily table in full, I tried <br clear=all> and that displayed all of that table and half of a new table - "medals by discipline". I'm using a 1024 pixel wide monitor. IMO, the page ought to display properly on a screen only 640 pixels wide and have no problems at all on 1024. It can't be fixed by left/right scrolling as it isn't that sort of problem. If it helps, I could upload a screen dump to show the problem.
Is there an easy way of fixing all the national pages in one hit, or do I have to go around them all and put the top two tables above the gold/silver/bronze list?
-- SGBailey ( talk) 14:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
One of these tables will be removed once the games are over, see Wikiproject olympics. So this will not be a problem in a few days. Basement12 (T. C) 14:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Hopefully there will be no issue after tomorrow, at least as far as the olympic pages are concerned. The tables were merely left there for now as otherwise a lot of users who are just editing these pages during the games (which finish in under 24 hrs) kept replacing them. Myself and others at Wikiproject Olympics have already started to remove them. I have taken them out of Ukraine and GB now so hopefully this fixes the issue on these pages? If i've misunderstood the problem let me know. Cheers Basement12 (T. C) 15:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I was looking at the arbitration cases and noticed one had been opened since *May*, without the arbitrators even having finished voting whether or not to accept the case yet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV. Seriously?? Are the arbitrators inactive and need replacement, or what? TotientDragooned ( talk) 17:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
The Cleanup Taskforce is all but dead right now, and I think it is simply to important to fail (like Fannie and Freddie). We should discuss ways to fix the project. Tcrow777 Talk 20:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
My proposals:
Any thoughts? Tcrow777 Talk 22:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Screen shots of video games and TV are copyrighted, yes? (no?) So are screenshots of Wikipedia (and other Wikimedia projects) either licensed under the GFDL or else copyright infringement? If so, are there caveats to this? A note on my talk page would be very appreciated. Thank you. Emesee ( talk) 06:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Having read French Meadow Bakery, it appears to be an "advertorial", i.e. a page purporting to be an article but is in fact an advert. Having read WP:CSD, I'm not clear. Could someone have a look and make the appropriate descision, and post here also? Thanks, Ian. -- Ormers ( talk) 12:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi
I have a personal complaint and dont know quite how to do anything about this. Although i am glad the italian have this biography writeupin wikipedia .but the fact richarcd has been died so long 1979 some things are said about him or his personal life that is not correct.
I am a reliable source because I was Joy Gates Meredith and spent 16 years with richard till his death ............1979 we were married in 1963...
Little things like if appears Kira was born before one novel then he was married , Richard and i were married 18 months before kira was born. 1965 also. the bio reads that richard
thought
he could write i object to this SF This is menuteor minor point but He did write science fiction before this fact.Well there were otherthings like the accidentaly death of my oldest twin. but we wont go there.
I am the person who listed Richard 's list of books and short stories. and I appreciate you having this bio.
Does anyone have any ideas about this? signed Joy C Meredith 19:54, 25 August —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2008 68.221.193.98 ( talk • contribs)
Are there any rules/bureaucratic hoops/etc for contacting editors for polls or surveys that don't directly affect anything on-Wiki? If, for example, the folks that run the Gallup poll wanted to survey a random selection of Wikipedia editors, is there any sort of paperwork that needs to be done first? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
OK folks, the
Template talk:Did you know page (and related pages) for updating
Template:Did you know could do with one or a few new faces helping out, as the turnover has been slow occasionally. So if you are sick of negative interactions at AfD and in the chore of reverting vandals, this may be a good place to recharge, and help editors get their 15 minutes 6 hours of fame. Don't be scared..it's fun. I have been doing it a bit when it is late but prefer writing them really. Cheers,
Casliber (
talk ·
contribs)
06:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I haven't seen it noted anywhere yet and it's mildly interesting: Harper's Magazine published in the July issue a small section called "Candid CAMERA" with copies of a few of the infamous CAMERA emails. The current issue (Sept.) now has a letter from Gilead Ini of CAMERA disagreeing with Harper's presentation and discussing the "flawed Wikipedia experiment". I can supply by email request. Franamax ( talk) 19:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I would like for all Atlanta FM radio station articles to have logo images that are uploaded with detail that ensures that the image meets criteria for inclusion and will not be up for deletion. Georgia guy ( talk) 22:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Could somebody who speaks French please review Image talk:Flag province luxembourg.png? This seems to be copies of an email correspondence. Unless all participants in the discussion have given their permission to copy this, it's a copyright violation. Corvus cornix talk 20:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering whether it is possible to find out when a particular article was at its largest, or maybe even be able to rearrange the edit history in size order? Are either of those things possible? Thanks in advance. Deamon138 ( talk) 01:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
So I recently joined up with WikiProject Wikify and I was going through a number of articles and I tend to find a LOT of articles that fall under other WikiProjects. I had the idea of somehow trying to get other WikiProjects involved in wikifying articles. It would help with the backlog and help the other projects improve their own articles.
I would cross reference which articles need to be wikified along with what falls under certain WikiProjects, and drop a quick message with the respective WikiProjects to see if the ycan help out.
Long story short I put together this nice little template:
WikiProject Wikify | |||
---|---|---|---|
Why am I getting this message?This message was generated by the good folks at WikiProject Wikify. We noticed that there are a number of articles that need wikification that may fall within the realm of your WikiProject as well! Currently, of the 2,522,403 Wikipedia articles, 4,777 are listed as good articles (about 1 in 528), and 2,196 are listed as featured articles (about 1 in 1,140). Many of the remainder are poorly written, badly linked, and in need of care and attention. WikiProject Wikify aims to improve the layout and presentation of such articles. The wikification process is simple, and we welcome input from any editors who would like to help out. It should be relatively easy to wikify an article even if you are not a complete expert on the subject. What is wikification anyways?Wikify: To format using Wiki markup (as opposed to plain text or HTML) and add internal links to material, incorporating it into the whole of Wikipedia. Noun: Wikification; gerund: wikifying. Sometimes shortened to wfy. Simply put, wikification is the process of adding internal links within an article and adding lead paragraphs, headers, and infoboxes when appropriate. This doesn't seem too complicated, how can I help?A general guide to wikification can be found here. If you have any questions at all feel free to leave me a message or drop in on WikiProject Wikify and someone would be glad to help you out. Below is a list of articles that might fall within the scope of your WikiProject. If you have the time, this endeavor could greatly benefit both our projects, and the members at WikiProject Wikify would be extremely grateful! Articles |
|} |}
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bvlax2005 ( talk • contribs) 08:17, 24 August 2008
I rather assumed that Wikipedia talk:Sandbox should be a place for meta-discussion of the sandbox, rather than a sandbox in its own right, so I added a header accordingly. But someone has queried whether the move has consensus (see current version), so I'd like to throw this open here. What do you think? Thanks, — Alan ✉ 21:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't mind this discussion here now, but I am concerned that VP is not ultimately a good place for discussion about the sandbox, because stuff is briefly discussed and then archived, making it difficult to find past discussions on any particular topic.
Another possibility for separating out meta-discussion about the sandbox from tests in the Talk namespace would be to put one at Wikipedia talk:Sandbox and the other at a sub-page of the same. Does this seem reasonable?
In that case, there question is simply which should get the top-level talk page and which should get the subpage. There are pros and cons:
I may be being incredibly pedantic here, but surely Wikipedia talk:Sandbox is for talking about the sandbox, Wikipedia:About the Sandbox is for information about the sandbox (i.e. not a discussion obviously), and Wikipedia talk:About the Sandbox is for talking about the page Wikipedia:About the Sandbox (yes confusingly, for talking about the "about the sandbox" page)? That seem to me to the normal use of any talk page, to talk about the page it is the talk page of. Deamon138 ( talk) 19:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I see "Willy on Wheels" mentioned everywhere. What exactly is it? Tutthoth-Ankhre ( talk) 19:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks on wheels. Tutthoth-Ankhre ( talk) 20:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
The article about RBHS presents a very negative image of what is really a very good school. To provide a better image of what the school is, I have put a new version of the article on its talk page, seeing as the article is semi-protected and I am a new user. Could an established user replace the old version with the new (it adds a section about the band and one about the Academic League) and then remove the copy that is on the talk page? Lucas Brown 42 ( talk) 03:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Lucas Brown 42 ( talk) 03:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
In the Spanish Wikipedia, the article about the german actress Berta Grosser was deleted because it was an hoax. Pay atenttion that this article it doesn't exist on German Wikipedia. Furthermore, it seems a vanity article and an autobiography.
See the search in Google: Berta Grosser
Cheers, Der Ausländer Alles klar! Und du? 30 August 2008 22:35 (UTC)
Someone seems to have gotten to this article so that when you go to it the screen changes to a hostile message. Steve Dufour ( talk) 13:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
How to manage references to other languages when there is no bidirectional corrispondence in terms? Please, see my question about Helmet (talk) as an example of this problem. -- Dejudicibus ( talk) 07:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
This is quite a silly proposal. Whenever a new message is left on user's talk page, the bright orange bar comes up at the top of any page. I think the color is very unfriendly and too bright. It would be my personal preference, but the color is really bothering me ever since I joined in Wikipedia. Could this bar be changed to light green or blue or any other friendly neutral color? Or the color can be up for user preference? I also have seen other people complain about how the color is threatening. It is a minor issue, but I think trying a new thing on the bar is not that bad. -- Caspian blue ( talk) 17:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
.usermessage {
background-color: #colour;
}
(unindent) OK, apparently that only changes the inside of the box, leaving a bright orange border. I'm going to test something on my monobook.css; can someone leave a message for me on my talk page so I can test it? Thanks. -- Alinnisawest, Dalek Empress ( extermination requests here) 18:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
.usermessage {
background-color: #colour;
border-color: #colour;
}
Again, "colour" is whatever color desired. -- Alinnisawest, Dalek Empress ( extermination requests here) 18:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Simplest way of fixing this would have been to go to "My preferences" and change the skin to "Classic". That way you get notification without any bars at all. Still if you're happy with a green bar that's fine too. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
You must be very popular. I don't get messages often enough that the color of the bar would bother me. Steve Dufour ( talk) 18:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Mario and Sonic is an IOC licensed video game based on the 2008 Summer Olympics. The game revolves participating in a range of Olympic sports as characters from the Mario and Sonic series. The article is currently at FAC, but an issue of contention has arisen.
Currently, the article gives a complete list of the Olympic events represented within the game. I believe that this list of events is crucial in order for the article to be complete and comprehensive, likening the list to track lists within albums. Other editors believe that the list of events is outside the scope of Wikipedia, failing aspects of WP:NOT relating to "game guide" material.
Should the article give a list of events represented? So far, the discussion is between a handful of editors active in the video game space. I'm posting here to broaden this issue's audience, I'd appreciate comments either at the FAC or at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#List_of_Olympic_events. - hahnch e n 02:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
How can I make my signature have colors? Or different fonts? Or any fancyness? Lucas Brown 42 ( talk) 03:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah... But how do I put color/fonts/fancy stuff into it? Lucas Brown 42 ( talk) 03:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keva_Juice
See Supplements and History.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lumarine ( talk • contribs) 23:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, thanks. Lumarine ( talk) 19:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
I'm relaunching the process of the creation of a Belgian local chapter.
It will take in consideration the great amount of expat workers (a very large community at Brussels, as a services dedicated city and the de facto capital of the European Union), the Dutch, French and German speaking contributors. So, if you're an active contributor based on Belgium, whatever the language you speak, you're welcome.
If you're interested to invest yourself in the process or to become a member, please drop me a note or send me a mail. -- Dereckson ( talk) 07:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Some of you might be interested in knowing that there is an application for the iPhone using copied wikipedia contents without honoring the GFDL appropriately (in fact without mentioning it at all). - 91.62.251.70 ( talk) 11:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
We are about to start the New England week on ru.wp, ru:Википедия:Проект:США/Новоанглийская неделя. The idea is that new articles on the topics related to new England states will be created and existing articles improved. The dates are Sep 5 to 15. Our experience with other "thematic weeks" shows that around 150 new articles will be created. We thought the whole of the US is too broad of a topic and have chosen to cover only New England (if the interest persists, other parts may be eventually covered). The problem we have is that it is sometimes difficult to separate New England topics. For instance if I know someone was American I may be less sure of what state he/she was from and whether he/she has been associated with New England. If any of you have ideas what articles would be good to cover (obviously these must be either articles without ru interwiki, or tiny Russian articles), these ideas will be gladly appreciated. The best place is to put these on the page I linked above or its discussion page; a link to en.wp would suffice, but may be a short comment why this article is important would be particularly helpful. Thanks in advance for your help.-- Yaroslav Blanter ( talk) 14:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Can anyone tell me where the best place to post a suggestion for the wbsite esditors is? I have a good idea for them but there are so many topics on here I just don't know where to put it... Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miss Catty23 ( talk • contribs) 02:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, there is an extremely long and muddled discussion going on at WP:Tennis about the tournament tables found on tennis player articles (i.e. this type of table). The dispute is over the "Tournament Name" column, with the options being to either use the "sponsored tournament name" - in other words, the name involving the sponsor, for example Internazionali BNL d'Italia - or the "non-sponsored tournament name" - in other words, Rome Masters. I appreciate that this conversation is very long and convoluted, so a brief summary can be found here, which is also where I request the discussion continues. Thanks, rst20xx ( talk) 22:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to go on record about my edits to Patrick M. McCarthy.
Today a new user made some questionable edits to the article about Patrick M. McCarthy, here, here and here.
When an administrator admonished them they left the following note on User:Geo Swan:
A Lieutenant in the Guantanamo Public Affairs Office requested I make this change. It seemed like an insubstantial change, so I made it about fifteen minutes after I read his e-mail. FWIW I think my original wording was a good faith paraphrase of the article by the young Lieutenant's enlisted subordinate, but he said that the NPR interview was clearer that McCarthy was responding to allegations, not "singling out" a critic.
I am mystified why this article should have been blanked twice, by two separate new contributors, whose only edits in article space were to that page.
I am mystified why my edits to the Patrick M. McCarthy article, of all the over ten thousand edits I have made on the war on terror, should trigger the attention of the Guantanamo Public Affairs Office, and these two impetuous new contributors.
Candidly, Geo Swan ( talk) 23:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Anyone who thinks they are aware of an instance when my contributions have lapsed from policy, or fair respect, is welcome to leave me a civil specific message on the article's talk page, on my talk page, or via e-mail. I openly acknowledge when a mistake is pointed out to me. And I fix them. Geo Swan ( talk) 23:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Riddle me this: anyone know why my talk page is being listed at Category:Articles to be merged since September 2008?
It appears when I edit any section (including section 0), so it can't be a template.
Worst yet, I tried adding a new section, and still got the "This page is a member of 1 hidden category" message.
Whisky tango foxtrot? EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
This is a request / suggestion for modifying the {{ '}} template to fix a minor formatting issue.
Recently, Sswonk created {{ 's}}. That template is very similar to {{ '}} - but it has one distinct advantage. The new template avoids the situation where the apostraphe crashes with italicized text by using this code to surround the apostraphe in the template:
<span style="padding-left:0.1em;">'</span>
which is equivalent to:
<span style="padding-left:0.1em;">'</span>
See for example:
''Kroonland''{{'}}s
= Kroonland's''Kroonland''{{'s}}
= Kroonland'sIn example #1 using the existing {{ '}} template, the apostraphe crashes into the italicized "d", while in the example #2 using the new {{ 's}} template, this issue does not exist. See also the discussion at WT:SHIPS#FYI problems using apostrophe after an italicized name.
Would it be acceptable to have template:' modified to use this modified snippet of code to insert a thin space prior to the apostraphe? --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 21:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Just to be extra clear, the code doesn't add a thin space ( ), just a CSS hack to add padding to the left of the apostrophe. I tested it on IE6, IE7 and Mac FF3 and Safari 3, and also Lynx 2.8.6. Everything works fine, and testing a screen reader also showed no issues. Sswonk ( talk) 22:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
To be extra-extra clear, it is not a CSS hack, but a simple use of CSS for visual kerning without affecting the semantics of the underlying content as would a  . :-) — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I just want to make this community aware of an emerging kind of governance structure, born out of the concepts developed in Wikipedia (esp. consensus and transparency). The project is called the Metagovernment. Have a look: they could use some more help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stubborrnn ( talk • contribs) 02:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Please add zh:Wikipedia:最近更改條目請求 and zh:Template:Recent changes article requests to the corresponding English Wikipedia pages, administrators. I know the two pages are protected due to the vandalism by auto-confirmed users, but this does not mean the Chinese interwiki links should not be added to the two pages. By the way, I think Wikipedia editions having more than 100,000 articles should have the function showing requested articles on the recent changes Wikipedia pages, since this function can let editors there are some important topics which do not have articles. And the English edition should have more lines in the two pages since there many important topics in WP:RA and WP:MEA. -- RekishiEJ ( talk) 09:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I have created {{ timeline-item}} which (with {{ timeline-start}} and {{ timeline-end}}) generate a definition list for a series of dated events, each being wrapped in an hCalendar microformat, with the date generated by {{ Start date}}. The example on the template's documentation is taken from Iraq disarmament crisis timeline 2001–2003.
{{ timeline-links}} can optionally be added to a page, to pass its hCalendar events (generated by the aforesaid templates, or others) to external timeline-generating and other hCalendar-using websites.
I'd be grateful for constructive suggestions for improvements; and as to where there templates might be best employed. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy Mabbett; Andy Mabbett's contributions 21:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
(removed) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.105.128.37 ( talk) 01:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I served on the submarine USS Topeka and have been monitoring and helping maintain that page for a few years. The problem is that a lot of what is listed on there is unreferenced and the page is tagged as such. I have looke dfor references online but there aren't many. Despite that I personally know that most of whats on there is fact.
Do I effectively have to make a website somewhere with all the info just so I can provide a reference to prevent the deletion of the info? That just seems redundant... is there a solution for this?
thanks! Webprofessor ( talk) 14:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Per WP:BOT
-- Chris 12:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I think only registered Wikipedians should be allowed to put in the Template:Unreferenced template. Any opinions?? Georgia guy ( talk) 13:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Unsupervised deletion of material: what a great way to throw the baby with the bathwater! 62.147.36.245 ( talk) 21:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I have seen this image Image:YouTube logo.svg and on its Non-free use media rationale Low resolution?' description it says that:The logo is a size and resolution sufficient to maintain the quality intended by the company or organization, without being unnecessarily high resolution.. Acoording to my knowledge SVG files can be used very high resolution, so is it ok to use SVG files for non-free use or not? -- Manco Capac ( talk) 14:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
In the last few days, I've noticed a bit of redirect vandalism, and I just want to bring this issue to some more people's attention. Due to its nature, someone changing a redirect will almost never show up on our various anti-vandal tools, and people rarely have them on their watch lists. The most often way I see it used is when someone redirects a phrase or word they consider derogatory to point to the biography of someone they don't like in an effort to change Google ratings. I actually did a quick skim of the redirect pages to both Barack Obama and John McCain as a small sample and found at least two vandalized redirects that no one had picked up - alcoholic for Obama and bomb Iran for McCain. I honestly can't think of a better way to audit for these than to go through redirects to controversial targets, which is a horribly slow and painful process. If anyone has a better way to check for vandalized redirects en-mass, I'm all ears. -- Bachrach44 ( talk) 20:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
hi may i know about infosys —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.140.101 ( talk) 10:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
An anon is edit warring to replace the external link at Everest University from everest.edu to everestonline.edu. The two links go to different pages. I have no clue which is correct, nor why there are two different pages, but if there is anybody out there with a clue, could they please look into this? Corvus cornix talk 22:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia has made the news in Australia on the News Limited site News.com.au. Wikipedia users divided over sexual material. Bidgee ( talk) 22:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
There is currently a proposal on meta to disband Wikiquote projects, comments are welcome there. Mr. Z-man 21:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not the most knowledgeable when it comes to images, and I've been wondering - does Wikipedia have a specific stance on watermarks on images? Usually this is an easy way of spotting copyvios, but I've seen at least one where it was apparently marked by the uploader. Personally, I don't think such images should be used, but don't remember ever coming across anything forbidding them. faithless (speak) 06:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I would like to open a debate over what I deem to be the ridiculous over referencing of Rodger Ebert when talking about film's reception. He is one (not very good) critic and yet his opinion seems to straddle almost every film article on this site. Is there any chance we could cut down on references to Rodger and maybe even remove him from some articles so as to get a wider range of voices heard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.198.210 ( talk) 11:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Is there any reason wikiproject tags for images and categories shouldn't be in the main (image/category) namespace instead of talk? Those talk namespaces get little actual discussion traffic and it'd be easier to watch (via namespace recentchanges) if there weren't so much wikiproject-tag traffic. -- Random832 ( contribs) 21:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Link! YAY! Help wanted please! P.S.: About the Mana series, if that isn't already obvious which, IAH, it should be. Yellow Mage ( talk) 10:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
What is considered to be Wikipedia's best article? If there is no clear winner, what are considered to be the top choices? Lucas Brown 42 ( talk) 03:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
The material is clearly inappropriate for the Elephant article, as the history of a wikipedia article about elephants is not information which is notable to know about elephants. It would be a clear violation of Wikipedia:Avoid self references to discuss the wikipedia article about elephants in the wikipedia article about elephants. This is why we need an article about the wikipedia article about elephants, so that we can discuss this important material. john k 01:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
The english version page of barometric pressure has been vandalized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.243.48.11 ( talk) 16:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Everyone, hop on and do just 10. Come on, you can do it! -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 01:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Everyone who is currently checking the unpatrolled page, raise your hand! :-) -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 15:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)