This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (miscellaneous).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 checked at Wikipedia:Upload, and it appears that the image at right
is under CC-BY, and thus is a fair-use upload. Unfortunately, I cannot figure out which copyright template applies. Could anyone help with this? Sithman VIII !! 19:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Hey there. I've been keeping a close eye on the page views for an article I created of late, because if the statistics are true then it will very soon receive it's millionth page view which in a very geeky way I am quite excited about. The article was getting about 10k views per day, but in the last few days it's dropped down to about 1-2k per day.
At first I figured maybe the everyone who wants to read about 'the Human centipede' had finally done so, but I looked at the page views for some other articles, including Michael Jackson and Barack Obama ( http://stats.grok.se/en/201006/Barack_Obama) and they seem to be down by a similar proportion too. Has the world suddenly stopped reading wikipedia overnight for some reason or is this just a coincidence? cya Coolug ( talk) 15:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
How do I make the spoiler like on tvtropes (the text has a dotted border around it in addition to being the same color as the background)? Right now, there's a large white space which looks weird. -- 75.25.103.109 ( talk) 21:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
How can I inform the owners of Wikipedia to change the website back to its original form? They will listen to me and comply, I just need to know how to contact them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.110.174.98 ( talk) 16:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
They will listen to me and comply, I just need to know how to contact them? What's the matter with you? ╟─ Treasury Tag► prorogation─╢ 18:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
If you want the original form then you need to choose Nostalgia or Classic which make it look (almost) like it did in 2001. Sadly there's no way to make it look exactly like its original form. You will still see images and various other new-fangled bits and pieces. I use Classic which is close enough to the original form for me. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I came across a user, who has continued to create a innapropriate pages after a final warning. Do I report to AIV for a block? Is there some other suitable place? I don't know if it counts as vandalism or not... Jolly Ω Janner 00:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I've had little response on the pages themselves, so I was asked to post here. I'm going to start making changes to the letters used on the chess diagram as shown here. Some of the changes are in-progress, as you can tell for "E" for example:
Proposals
Does anyone have any issues with this? Also, if anyone has any time and would be willing to help me make changes where clashes occur, that would be a great help. Currently, only the small diagram template is using the vectorised images. Therefore, only small diagrams using any of the fairy pieces would need to be changed. NikNaks talk - gallery - commons 17:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Hey, I was wondering, can you also make subpages in other wikis, such as Wikiversity or Wiktionary. I was wanting to make a subpage of my userpage on Wikiversity but didn't completely understand if it was ok or not I guess. Tetobigbro talk 04:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
see skid mark, find text "in the picture shown at right" 75.4.206.211 ( talk) 08:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Every time I look around Wikipedia at Wikiprojects I see that nearly all Wikiprojects are inactive. One example was the Wikiproject User Rehab. It looked promising, but now, it is defunct. There are alot of Wikiprojects around that no one has used, especially for ones that cover very narrow subjects. I believe that we should either remove those defunct wikiprojects or reinstate them. Sir Stupidity ( talk) 11:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
{{
Inactive}}
if you want.
Svick (
talk)
16:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Is it ok to use clipart that comes bundled with Microsoft Office as a component of a logo for a WikiProject? Roger ( talk) 07:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Richard Dawkins, professor at Oxford who is the world's foremost authority on the theory of natural selection, makes a helpful edit to the "natural selection" entry. And it gets removed within minutes!! I was watching a Youtube video of his panel discussion and he talked about that experience. I thought it was really funny. The video is at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gwV8etx4sI&feature=channel The wikipedia comment starts at around 1:50 mark. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyorker3122 ( talk • contribs) 14:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Hey all, just wanted to announce and invite feedback about a new Mediawiki project I'm starting called Translated Works Wiki. As the welcome page says: "Translated Works Wiki is a wiki-based project for collaborative translation of public domain and freely-licensed works, including books, articles, poetry, recorded speech, and illustrations. Translators release all rights to their translated works under the Creative Commons Zero waiver, making them just as free as the original source. Anyone is welcome to participate in any project, or begin a new project." It operates with extensive use of subpages and templates. I created it for someone I know who has an interest in producing a public domain Afrikaans version of the Bible, but I think it could have very wide applicability. I'm mainly interested in what you all think about the idea, the choice of license, possible projects that would be fun to undertake translating, and possible obstacles or limitations I should keep in mind. Thanks! Dcoetzee 00:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Is this discussion closed or not? Cuz I wanna fix some typos. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 04:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I've found this file that is hosted under Fair Use, in which license says that only scaled-down and low-resolution images are allowed, but that file is not low-resolution at all, can you please check this? --by Màñü飆¹5 talk 06:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
{{
Non-free reduce}}
. Somebody should fix it soon, or you can do it yourself.
Svick (
talk)
09:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I googled "Chris Guest" and the top result is his Wikipedia article. The preview in the Google results says "Christopher Haden-Guest, 5th Baron Haden-Guest (born February 5, 1948), better known as Christopher Guest, is an American screenwriter, pedophile,composer, ...". It looks really bad... the vandalism's been fixed but Google's policy is webmasters have to request their site be re-crawled if they want to removed outdated results. Is there a way to get Wikipedia to get Google to re-crawl that article? 87.80.97.137 ( talk) 08:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Note - this is on google.co.uk retrieved from within the UK, my Canadian friend gets different results. 87.80.97.137 ( talk) 09:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Great_Wikipedia_Dramaout/3rd Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 15:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Prior related threads:
RFA subpage, administrator recall, now taking place, at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Herostratus 2. Cheers, -- Cirt ( talk) 16:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Over the past week or so, I've been broadening my editing into including articles regarding U.S. television stations and I've noticed a trend toward including the compilation of long lists of non-notable past employees of the stations. These lists also include former employees who already actually have existing referenced articles in the encyclopedia, their inclusion in the lists make sense to me in terms of "notability". However, I'm very dubious of the notion of compiling (in some cases) extensive unreferenced lists of people, who in some cases are no longer even employed in the television industry or who have moved on to other stations. I've been taken to task by another editor for reducing this type of list in a couple of articles to only those listed individuals who have at least at minimum established their notability by having a preexisting bio article in the encyclopedia. [1] [2]. In my opinion, in addition to what I consider a problem with verifiability and notability, this sort of thing smacks of promotion/vanity and to me clearly violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I'm wondering, if perhaps I could get some opinions on this practice from other editors. cheers Deconstructhis ( talk) 15:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
–I completely disagree. If a former employee has at one point or another worked for a TV station, they should be included in the former list. By adding their name, an editior is in no way, shape or form vandalizing the page. A person who lives in a particular city might ponder back to a particular personality and wonder how many years they were with that station. They could then easily look and see the question to they're answer.-- TV Superstar ( talk) 04:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
-I agree with the last statement made. As long as you are not putting wrong information, I feel as though everyone at one point or another affiliated with the station belongs on the page. They're are so many people that vandalize articles that should have their edits reverted and therefore blocking them from future edits. I don't see anything wrong in this case at all.-- TVFAN24 ( talk) 04:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
-First of all I don't appreciate you accusing me of making up names, search some of them and you'll see that they are legitimate. For instance, Anna Davlantes who exited WMAQ last July to join WFLD, or feel free to look up some of their resumes on Linkedin I am very knowledgable in regards to anchors/reporters that come or exit a station and was trying to stick up for the edits that were made to make Wikipeda more accurate. Another question I have, how come this edit has been up for a year and hasn't been bothered with up until now??? Maybe because everyone else knew it was correct and accurate. I never disrespected you so I expect the same courtesy. TVFAN24 ( talk) 02:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Anna Davlantes leaves WMAQ-Ch. 5 July 30, 2009 11:00 AM | 18 Comments
Newscaster Anna Davlantes has left NBC-owned WMAQ-Ch. 5.
Her immediate exit was announced to staff in a terse memo to staff Thursday morning from Frank Whittaker, Channel 5's station manager and vice president for news.
"We appreciate Anna's contributions over the last nine years, and wish her the best in the future," Whittaker wrote.
Davlantes is the second anchor to leave the station in recent weeks.
http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/07/anna-davlantes-nbc-wmaq-5-chicago-tower-ticker.html
Ed Curran’s Experience
WMAQ-TV (Broadcast Media industry)
1999 — 2002 (3 years )
Meteorologist for the NBC owned and operated station in Chicago
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/ed-curran/4/506/a59
These are just some of the many names that were deleted. Do you still think I am making names up???? What more proof do you need. I am going to defend this as much as I can b/c nothing wrong was done. TVFAN24 ( talk) 02:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much :) TVFAN24 ( talk) 02:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
To summarize what I'm taking from the above, it seems like most people, for BLP and/or WP:NOT reasons, would agree to the following "nutshell": Individuals should not be in 'laundry lists' of former employees of a company unless they are themselves notable, usually demonstrated by the fact that they have a Wikipedia article. I've been bold to get the ball rolling on the two articles at the center of this dispute, but will not get into an edit war over them [was reverted by TVFAN24 eleven minutes later]. Thoughts? ( ESkog)( Talk) 21:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I believe that Chicago is a very big market and should include all of the personalites that were once part of the station. I have another question to ask. How come the current personalities don't need a reference after their name but the former one's do??? I feel that adding a reference just adds too much text to the article. But since everyone didn't agree with that I took the time to find an article for each person that didn't have a Wiki page. No, I don't think the list needs to go as far as adding hair stylists and makeup people b/c they were never seen on air. TVFAN24 ( talk) 21:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I just experimented with Pending Changes for a bit, and I'm really impressed. It seems like an amazing improvement with no downsides. Is there a catch? Andrew Gradman talk/ WP:Hornbook 20:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I was just wondering why the Wikipedia:Dusty articles page hasn't been updated since 15 Feb 2010. I used to check that page all the time, and I found it a very useful function for cleaning up Wikipedia articles. (cross-posted from Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)) -- Eastlaw talk ⁄ contribs 04:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion they should be humorous essays, not just humour - I for one take it seriously. Kayau Voting IS evil 05:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Sometime while I'm sleeping tonight, we're going to hit 3,333,333 articles, so I'm saying congratulations a bit early.
I will now go to sleep, and hopefully have a dream about what the 3,333,333th article will be. Capture of Osama bin Laden, anyone? Andrew Gradman talk/ WP:Hornbook 09:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I would like to know which function do we use when copying a content from a wikipage or from a textfile to a wikipage or a textfile. Thanks in advance, -- Jagwar - (( talk )) 10:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Why does it have "pending changes protection"? -- 75.25.103.109 ( talk) 01:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Need your opinions about large settlements and small settlements on Talk:Angeli Custodi. KzKrann ( talk) 11:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
See earlier discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)/Archive_26#The_Times_paywall. I've received an email from an assistant editor at The Times. The situation is that existing ("legacy") articles from The Times will remain free to view and keep their existing URLs (e.g. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/obituaries/article5288776.ece): "We have no plans to change this, but reserve the right to review our model." New content will go behind the paywall:
Having deployed several wikis using Mediawiki software and found huge and glaring inefficiencies (one only has to look at the Job Queue and link refreshing, and no, I am not going to get technical here), has anyone done even a rudimentary analysis of the carbon footprint of the code as designed versus the code as it really ought to work basing the estimate on the Wikipedia family alone?
Just throwing hardware and charitable dollars at this thing is not going to be satisfactory, surely? Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 22:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
In practical terms mediawiki isn't the driving factor in wikipedia's carbon footprint. Most wikipedia users see cached versions of articles that don't touch mediawiki.© Geni 22:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I received an accusatory message, dated 24 June 1010. It certainly seems to originate from someone formally associated with Wikipedia. I can't find a way to contact this person. How might I authenticate the authority of the person who sent me this message? How can I contact this person, if he or she is formally associated with Wikipedia, to discuss the matter? I prefer not to take the matter public, at the moment, as it may be a misunderstanding. I do not know my way around Wikipedia, other than as a reader, with a login. If you can help, I would appreciate it. Thanks. Drgeorgep ( talk) 04:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)drgeorgep
the only edits of user User:Kbouch91 ware made for his userpage, a fantasy about an own state. Is this acceptable here? (I think it is not, there were some other similar pages deleted as far as I see). I am interested in this case, because the files used are out of scope for the commons, if this page will be delted. Plehn ( talk) 20:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Below the "Save page" button in small print it says
If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. All text that you did not write yourself, except brief excerpts, must be available under terms consistent with Wikipedia's Terms of Use before you submit it.
The first statement says that If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here., yet the second one states that it must comply with Wikipedia's Terms of Use. Perhaps the 1st sentence should be removed? Smallman12q ( talk) 02:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Yesterday I was bold and moved the article to this title. It is an imperfect title. The prior title may be seen in the move log and the article history. I made the bold move because I felt that the title reflected the content of the article better than the prior title. An editor has disagreed with my boldness, as is his right. I have no particular fondness for the new title nor for the old one, and ask editors to look at the article and to come to its talk page to determine what we might consider the correct title to be. Obviously this includes thoughts on old title, current title, and some new title that has not even been considered. Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 07:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
The main page's history shows that it was created on January 26, 2002. Since Wikipedia was created over a year earlier, why does it only date back to 2002? What existed as Wikipedia's "home page" before this? Swarm Talk 04:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
The Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex article has undergone some cleaning recently. Merged out of Kennedy Space Center and expanded and the Apollo/Saturn V Center article was merged in. Currently there are 18 images including a couple of galleries and the context of these images isnt clear in some cases. It seems to be getting a little travel guidish with all the images and this is being discussed on the article's talk page. I'd like to get some other opinions on the number and placement of images in this article.-- RadioFan ( talk) 12:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello everyone, I am new to the web site and I am learning how it works but at this moment I need help. In another discussion group a question was asked: (see below) I have been searching and searching and still searching but what I found was the same answers.
Here's the question: Eliakim; Who is this biblical figure? What is his role in the end of time?
(the one who posed the question wrote this about it) A certain prophet claims that Eliakim not Jesus will be the one who will open the 7 seals. I have been researching this and was hoping somebody could shed some light on this. Daniel spoke of this and the prophet claims that Eliakim has been mistaken for Jesus and this among other details are errant in doctrine because satan deliberately altered some phrasing in some key scriptures that has caused some false teaching. He believes that the only bible that should be used is the authorized King James version. He believes that every translation after that has been altered.
(This is what I have found thus far) Eliakim son of Hilkiah the palace administrator or Eliakim son of Josiah king, whose name was changed or the priest—Eliakim or Eliakim the father of Azor who is in the blood line of JESUS in Matthew or Eliakim the son of Meleain in the blood line of JESUS in the book of Luke......
Village Community has anyone ever heard of this and if you have can you give more details so I can contiue to search this out? Thank you and be bless!
Vmallory1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by VMallory1 ( talk • contribs) 15:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
How can I create footnotes without the square brackets, like in the French WP? Thanks in advance Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 18:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
When giving a reference to Google Books, it appears that some people give the URL that includes the search term that they used to find the entry. This causes the search terms to be highlighted. Is this prefered, discouraged or OK either way. For example, if I wanted to reference where Phoenix Life Insurance Company of Minot, North Dakota had it's principle office, I could give the url as either http://books.google.com/books?id=DCYbAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA237&dq="minot,+north+dakota"&hl=en&ei=5gAyTPjKD8GC8gbrg5DJCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22minot%2C%20north%20dakota%22&f=false which would cause Minot North Dakota to be highlighted when the URL is clicked on *or* I could simply have http://books.google.com/books?id=DCYbAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA237 which would go the same page without the highlighting. Is there a preference either way officially in Wikipedia?
(Note this is a copy of the question asked at the help desk, they suggesting asking here or the WT:V.) Naraht ( talk) 20:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
In my post at the talk page of WikiProject Chemistry i tried to bring to notice an issue which in my view affects every WikiProject and is thus a serious bug. Please see the post for details. I hope someone has a solution. -- Siddhant ( talk) 06:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Someone made a mistake with the article Carlo Mario Abate : it's Carlo Maria Abate. May someone rename the article ? I don't know how to do, I'm a contributor on the French Wikipédia. Ascaron ( talk) 11:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
There is an interesting article about Wikipedia and one editor's tale that decided to take this road to a more public place: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-trouble-with-wikipedia-a-cautionary-tale/?singlepage=true
For myself, I think this is some well formed opinion with some very specific examples that deserves some sort of reflection with the Wikipedia community, and some of this criticism is well founded. Some of it is also simply being critical of the medium and the fact that Wikipedia is a bunch of volunteers (and arguably "amateurs") that are involved in the editing process, but I do think there is some constructive criticism about Wikipedia as well here.
For myself, I like to use Wikipedia as a jumping off point, a place to get a quick overview of a topic. If it looks like there might be some bias in the article, I particularly like to read the talk pages to see just what might be up in terms of the more contentious parts and perhaps see what some not quite NPOV issues may be involved in the construction of that article. More importantly, as a jumping off point, I use the article as a place to find the real references to learn more about the topic.
From this article:
I happen to agree with this sentiment too, and Wikipedia never really tried to lend itself as a primary source in the first place... nor does any other encyclopedia for that matter. I know this is old hat stuff for many Wikipedia editors, but it is something that perhaps does need some better "public relations" or at least letting other know what it is that is being built.
I use Wikipedia in hyperlinks on other websites (both wiki and non-wiki) as a sort of catch-all link for further information about a topic. For example, a discussion came up where I was referencing those countries who have used nuclear weapons so I made a hyperlink to Nuclear Club as a means to at least note other counties who have made this sort of weapon. Is this an inappropriate use of Wikipedia, and should I have used a more "reliable" reference? It was not a political science forum or website, so the reference was to give some credible tertiary reference to know what it was that I was talking about if you really wanted find more information about that topic. What other sorts of links to Wikipedia ought to be encouraged or discouraged in both casual and formal discussions on other websites? -- Robert Horning ( talk) 05:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
When notable people edit Wikipedia, to add detail or fix errors in articles on themselves or their work, they often do so in unawareness of our rules, and the end result is a lot of upset to them and others. And whenever situations like this aren't resolved amicably, it potentially leads to bad press for the project.
To help mitigate the problem, I've written a pair of essays, one addressed to Wikipedians, and one addressed to notable people coming here to edit Wikipedia articles related to them. They are
Please link to them in cases where you feel they might be helpful, and feel free to improve them or leave feedback on their talk pages. -- JN 466 14:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
"Above all, don't get into arguments on the article's talk page!" (original bolding) – this would appear to generally contravene the principles of discussion and consensus-building on which Wikipedia is founded. Why is it in there? ╟─ Treasury Tag► Regent─╢ 07:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry if this question has been answered before. Is it possible to delete old versions of articles on Wikipedia that are deemed as spam, vandalism, or redundant edits? I can imagine that it saves up space on Wikipedia by removing these extra articles that serve no purpose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.86.171 ( talk) 09:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I am looking for members of the Wikipedia community who can come and give this article Dr. Kenneth K. Kim an honest opinion. Any feedback with suggestions on how to improve the article would also be greatly appreciated. I am really passionate about this cause because I have been hearing a lot on him lately and I've really come to admire who he is as a person. He is a plastic surgeon in the Los Angeles area, and he's been operating on older patients for free. There have been numerous articles, two of which were from notable sources, that claim this, but they are all in Korean. They are still reputable sources, but the fact that they are not understandable to many in the Wikipedia community is becoming an issue. Therefore, anyone who could also read Korean and/or provide a translation that is unbiased and neutral would also be greatly appreciated. I am genuinely looking for truth here, not promotion. Thank you in good faith. People bios ( talk) 16:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! I guess I just have to remember to do it all the time. I was wondering if there was some auto setting for this (why isn't there one ?) People bios ( talk) 19:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Is anyone aware of any specific policy, guidance or essay dealing specifically with the personal accounts of editors being used to alter article content? That is to say talk page comments of the form:
Now there are of course various policies that come in to play here - on conflicts of interest, verifiability and self published sources in particular. However there does not seem to be anything that pulls everything together into one document that you can simply point to. It can get quite difficult when their accounts contradict reliably sourced points, since we would naturally wish to avoid impugning the accuracy or integrity of a potentially valuable contributor, but at same time we have no way of knowing if the professed identity is even accurate. I'm involved in that kind of dispute now and while I'm sure we can sort it out such a thing would be handy since I've seen exactly the same situation happen before.
If there isn't I suspect I'll have to start drafting an essay myself once it has all blown over. What is the protocol to observe for essays, especially in the Wikipedia name space? Crispmuncher ( talk) 21:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I was pondering unusual Wikipedia exploits (for educational purposes only, natch) and was considering the possibility of using a script to turn Wikipedia into a virtual file-sharing network. It would work like this: you UUencode a file into 7 bits, then upload it into a randomly-chosen file as 7 bit text in the middle of the article, then immediately revert it. The reversion with the UUencoded file will be there forever, and no one will be the wiser. With a script, you could automagically scrape such files from the article histories. Then it occured to me to wonder if this is already happening.
Most of you are probably already familiar with the phenomenon of numbers stations. Wikipedia can serve the same function a lot cheaper and easier, using the method I just described, especially since code words and numbers would be in plain text wouldn't need to be UUencoded -- although in a pinch you could transmit photos and such this way also, PGP-encoded for extra protection.
Does anyone care to venture a guess as to whether Wikipedia is used by the world's spook agencies and terrorist/freedom fighter claves to communicate with each other? -- SmashTheState ( talk) 02:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Ive been watching this little edit war for the past few days [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14], and I think i butted heads with User:Ursus.Bear before, so I felt I would keep out of it. Does someone want to step into the fray here? User A1 ( talk) 09:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Hey veryone! I'm using Google Chrome as my browser, and my Wikipedia is with the Comic Sans font. Well, that's really weird, cuz I've edited and visited Wikipedia in other computers with the same browser, and it's not in Comic Sans, but in Areal, or Verdana. Can anyone please tell me what I can do to turn Comic Sans off? Not only it is not as agreable as other fonts, it also causes be trouble when writing with the IPA.
Thanks a lot. JozePedro ( talk) 13:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi there.
I remember a community discussion (i THINK it was an AFD) that was labeled (it was actually the given result as decided by the closing administrator) as a "useless train wreck from which no consensus can emerge", with an image of a train wreck put next to it. I thought it was funny and just now wanted to show it to someone, but i couldn't seem to find it. Tried googling, but had no luck. Does anyone remember it and can give me a hint? Thanks. 188.62.92.8 ( talk) 21:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Please, the proper name, if you're talking about the English Wikipedia, is "enwiki," not "wiki." E.g.:
This nomenclature is backed up by both the download page and InitialiseSettings.php, so I hope this is the last time I hear people inappropriately shortening it to "wiki." Thanks for your cooperation. Tisane talk/ stalk 16:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Don't abbreviate Wikipedia as "wiki". This is because any wiki is run off wiki software, not just Wikipedia; in addition, we cannot think that the entire wiki-world revolves around en.wiki (Yes, that is a fine abbreviation IMO, along with enwiki and en-wiki, of which I use often on IRC.) but as a part of the bigger picture of an entire reference library (e.g. encyclopedias, dictionaries, etc.) of editable free content (as in not "free beer"). – MuZemike 21:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I just discovered an oddity in WP's files and I am confused. Any help would be appreciated.
Article Brave New World's Discussion Page shows that this article used to be a " Good Article" but was reassessed and delisted on Jan 8, 2006.
Now I don't challenge the status change, I am not familiar with those rules much, but I am concerned that I can find no archive prior to Mar 2006 for the WP:Good_article_review process for ANY article, not just this one.
Furthermore, looking at the edits for the article in Jan 2006 and the talk page archive I find only a single edit that the article was being delisted. No discussion, just a summary declaration that the article is being delisted.
Is this how things were done in 2006? Why is there no archive of the WP:Good_article_review process before 3/06 ? Are there history files missing ? 66.102.198.62 ( talk) 08:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
How often should we link to one and the same author in the reference section? I am always tempted to link them more than once in longer sections: For example, at User:Gun Powder Ma/Roman economy Scheidel, Walter is listed under "Size and structure of the economy" as co-author, under "Demography" as sole author and again at "Further reading" as co-editor. Lo Cascio, Elio is one time co-author and another time sole editor (both under "Size and structure of the economy"). Should I put
Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 17:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
National Bridge Inventory search (by Alexander Svirsky) allows me to learn details about particular bridges, but there is no apparent way to create inline citations for this information. There are several Schuylkill River bridges without articles that I would like to create. I have photos available. I could look for Philadelphia Inquirer articles at the Free Library of Philadelphia, but I would welcome comments on whether to create the articles as stubs with photos, but no citations. -- DThomsen8 ( talk) 14:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Remember that clearly explaining to the reader what the source is is more important that following any strict citation format. Phil Bridger ( talk) 15:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)Svirsky, Alexander. National Bridge Inventory (search for state=Pennsylvania, feature intersected=Schuylkill). Retrieved on July 12, 2010.
Hi everyone!
Is there a freely-licensed video of Jimmy Wales available somewhere? I would like to create a parody. Thank you for your help! -- 62.167.75.199 ( talk) 19:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Editorial correction: The Medal of Honor is NEVER "won" or "earned." It is awarded! Every recommendation is very carefully evaluated at many levels in the chain-of-command, and an award is NOT automatic.
George Bleyle Hudson, Ohio —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.117.9.87 ( talk) 01:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
What the heck? List of 1974 Macropædia articles has been here for three years, and yet it only covers a list of articles starting with the letter "A"? Is this even a meaningful article for Wikipedia, could it be a copyright violation for listing the volume's table of contents? And the same copyright question and concern as to whether this violates Wikipedia is not a directory applies to its sister article, List of 2007 Macropædia articles. Everard Proudfoot ( talk) 21:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated both articles for AfD. Everard Proudfoot ( talk) 20:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I just checked Special:Newpages and they are a solid yellow all the way back to June. I have never seen this before. Not even one article patrolled. Does anyone know what is going on? Thank you. Dr.K. λogos πraxis 03:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello,
On Wikipedia a search for Spiritual Healing gets redirected to Faith Healing. Shamanism seems to be a much better redirect direction. I'm waiting for feedback on an article on Spiritual Healing but in the meantime I hope the redirect can be moved.
Thank you,
Adrian-from-london ( talk) 21:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
First off, let me say sorry if this has been brought up before or if it doesn't belong here. As I look through Wikipedia one thing I am noticing is the over use of the word also, in most cases it can be deleted and still get the same point across as in the the case of my edits in the Eddie Murphy [15] article. I do realize this is a common article to add additional information in a sentence, but it seems to be used too frequently, by editors, to add more information. I am sure there are other cases of extra wordage, this happens to be the one I noticed, more so as a disruption to reading of an article. I am going to try and clear up the ones I notice and thought it may be best to bring it to the attention of some others, to keep an eye out for it.
I doubt we could do anything about it permanently, but more just wanted to get this off my chest and see if I was the only one noticing this. - Mcmatter ( talk| contrib) 14:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I am looking for some advice on the care and feeding of essays.
When we have an essay in a subpage, under our main User page, do we have an obligation to place a __NOINDEX__ directive on it? The directive is to prevent search engines from finding rough drafts, or pages of notes, that aren't wikipedia articles, and presenting them to web searchers in a way that might fool them into thinking they were going to a wikipedia article, that met our standard for notability, reliability, etc.
But we want our essags to be read widely, so perhaps the {{ noindex}} directive is not appropriate?
How does an essay get promoted from being a User-space essay to a wikipedia-space essay? Is there some kind of review, prior to moving it the wikipedia name space? Is there a template to add to an essay, requesting comments, or requesting review, prior to moving it to the wikipedia name space?
I have encountered a disturbing phenomenon -- some contributors have drafted essays, placed them in the wikipedia hame space, and then routinely cite them in ways that imply the essay is an actual wikipedia policy, and without acknowledging that they were the essays authors. What response do others recommend when one notices a contributor citing their own essay as if it were a policy?
Thanks! Geo Swan ( talk) 13:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi. This isn't the question, it's the meta-question! I didn't want to ask it till I was sure I was in the right place, so I'd appreciate your advice. I want to ask a question about a usage, almost a spelling thing really. Suppose (bad example coming up) there were hundreds of pages on Wikipedia that referred to "ice creme" and I was pretty sure it should be "ice cream". Not sure enough just to be completely bold and do them all - if I were 100% sure then yes, I would just get stuck into it. It's not as far as I know an AmE/BrE thing - I mean, to be honest, I think it's just a right/wrong thing but I do want to check what others think before I launch into some kind of crusade. It's not specific to one article so I can't ask there - it's scattered all over the encyclopaedia. It's also not a word that is always wrong - just usually, or in my view anyway! Where, do you think, is the best place - Pump or otherwise - to ask this question? Thanks in advance for your help, and best wishes, DBaK ( talk) 22:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Is there any place were you can express some kind of criticism of Wikipedia with some chance of being read ? Ericd ( talk) 18:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I've been there for long. I've been among the first to provide extensive image credits, I played a major rule in enforcing copyrights and licences here. Is it possible to express some views about the evolution of Wikipedia somewhere ? Ericd ( talk) 21:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I believe that most (though not all) uses of the word "habitants" on Wikipedia are wrong, and that it should usually be "inhabitants".
See this for a search.
I'm not talking about specialist uses like Habitants, obviously, nor where it pops up in, say, Victorin Lurel to tell us that he was "born 20 August 1951 in Vieux-Habitants". clearly those are fair enough anyway and I wouldn't be going near them.
My concern is with places such as Safané Department where we read that Safané has 7,502 habitants, Banga has 374 and so on. To me this just sounds wrong and I think it should be "inhabitants". What do you think?
I went through something similar - though not exactly the same - over "habited" and "inhabited" and there was able to consult my favourite linguist who assured me that my view was OK whether you're working in AmE or BrE. (She's an AmE speaker living in the UK!) However I don't feel I can impose on her goodwill for a second doubt-bout. I do not think that this is an AmE/BrE issue, but could of course be wrong. I am tempted to simply be bold and just get on with it, but it would be a bit embarrassing if I were missing the point. If it were a real point, anyway ...
What I think might be clouding the situation is that "habitants" is fine in French and that some, at least, of the articles that concern me are I believe of Francophone origin. What I am interested in is getting a clear view (if possible) of what people think the mainstream current usage is. I am wildly uninterested in hearing about what was current in 1783 or what might be argued under some circumstances to be an appropriate specialized usage: I just want what people - native-fluency English-speakers - normally say and sounds right to them. Certainly from my own experience of speaking and writing English for a few decades "habitants" simply sounds wrong ... I'd be very pleased to hear others' views, especially supported by evidence, were that possible. Thanks and best wishes DBaK ( talk) 13:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
However, if the article is about the Montreal Canadians, all bets are off! [16] - DavidWBrooks ( talk) 13:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee invites applications for Checkuser or Oversight permissions effective with the posting of this motion. The application period will close at 2359 hours UTC on 1 August 2010. For this round of appointments, only administrators will be considered. Candidates who ran in the May 2010 elections are encouraged to apply for consideration in this round of appointments. Administrators who applied for permissions in the round leading to the May 2010 election may email the Committee at arbcom.privilegeswikipedia.org by the close of the application period, expressing continued interest and updating their prior responses or providing additional information. New applicants must email the Committee at arbcom.privilegeswikipedia.org by 30 July 2010 to obtain a questionnaire to complete; this questionnaire must be returned by the close of the application period on 1 August 2010. The Arbitration Committee will review the applications and, on 13 August 2010, the names of all candidates being actively considered for appointment will be posted on-wiki in advance of any selection. The community may comment on these candidates until 2359 on 22 August 2010.
For the Arbitration Committee, NW ( Talk) 17:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
The Visualizer for Wikimedia projects is in production on the toolserver. It generates a chart with the data published on a wikipage. See also this diff for a concrete Wikimedian usage. Cheers, -- almaghi ( talk) 19:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
{{SCRIPTPATH}}
distinguishes... There doesn't appear to be any kindof magic word that would return just the language code or project code, which would be ideal. –
xeno
talk
19:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
How do I do this? Will this post somewhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DonnaWood ( talk • contribs) 19:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I live in China where the powers that be block me from uploading images greater than .5 MB. Is there a kind soul out there to whom I can email an image for upload to commons? I would be very grateful. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 00:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Moved to Talk:Suicide
17:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Online Ambassadors program is looking for volunteers. Its main focus is a concerted effort to do mentorship with students who are assigned to edit Wikipedia in their courses; it's part of the Wikimedia Foundation's Public Policy Initiative right now (see Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Public Policy and the Signpost article about it), and will hopefully be the basis for a longer-term effort at improving the way we nurture newbies.-- Sross (Public Policy) ( talk) 17:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I recently saw a template that wraps WikiProject templates on Talk pages, so a reader knows if more templates apply below the top (and perhaps long) template. However, I can't find the wrapping template with a search or remember where I saw it. Point me to it? ENeville ( talk) 14:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
{{
WPBS}}
a.k.a. {{
WikiProjectBannerShell}}
?
Svick (
talk)
20:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if this is the place to put this, it seemed like the nearest thing to a message board... I was just wondering how much research people do when they're contributing to articles? I've just started properly contributing, and I've been trying to think about topics that I know enough about to contribute to. Unfortunately, everything I can think of seems to already have more detail that I can come up with, so anything more would mean me going away and learning about something before I edited an article. It's not like I'm against this, I think it might actually help me to learn, but I was just wondering whether most of the contributions people make are from stuff they know by heart, or whether most editors work with the internet/a text book next to them? I'm also partly worried that if I have to learn something before I put it in an article, I'll get it wrong... Keepstherainoff ( talk) 11:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Well-written articles require research. In order to get articles to Good or Featured status, I've often had to pop down to a library to look up articles and books for information. And, yes, editing Wikipedia does lead to a lot of procrastination on other matters, so beware ... — Cheers, JackLee – talk– 15:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Here are two suggestions to consider:
You mention Wikipedia:WikiProject Sheffield on your user page. Since Sheffield University has St George's, how about improving our article on branch campuses so that it's as good as other encyclopaedias' coverages of the subject?
You mention Wikipedia:WikiProject Neuroscience and Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology on your user page. So how about all of those redlinks on neuropsychology topics to be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Typoglycemia (2nd nomination)?
As you can see, there's even lots of content in your favourite areas yet to be written. Uncle G ( talk) 02:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
It also depends on the state of the article and your goals for it. It's not usually hard to expand a stub, but taking an article past B-class usually requires research, even if you're a near-expert on the subject.
At the moment, I'm reading about traditional black gospel music. I know a bit, but not enough to finish fixing the mess we have (so that urban contemporary gospel can actually be about urban/contemporary gospel (e.g., Kirk Franklin and Christian hip hop instead of almost entirely about traditional black gospel music). I've got another 150 pages to go in my current book before I want to even attempt anything further, and even after all this reading, there are things I don't understand. (Speaking of which, if anyone knows what a 'non-functional bass voice part' is, please let me know: it's apparently one of the characteristic difference between the folk-style black gospel quartets and the jubilee-style black gospel quartets). WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
It's more than a week since I created Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User conduct/Creation with the following post, & there's been no response, so I repost it here.
In the section Wikilawyering, it says "The community generally believes that the Wikipedia method works". Really? I've discussed this in quite a number of different fora as occasion arose over the last couple of years, & I haven't yet come across anyone who, when pinned down to concrete detail rather than vague abstractions, claimed it worked. For example, not long ago I asked RSN whether they regularly reached consensus, & whether that would be enforced by admin. The answer was basically "Often, no". Peter jackson ( talk) 10:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I feel as though this probably still isn't the right place, but I'm not sure where else to go.
My Wikipedia layout was altered upon my banning from Wikipedia so as to make it almost entirely unusable. Since I have been unbanned, can I expect Wikipedia to return to it's default layout when I am logged in, or do I have to change this myself somewhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boromadloon ( talk • contribs) 12:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Ah, never mind. Returning all setting to default has fixed the problem Boromadloon ( talk) 12:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I'm french. In this article, we may find that "B of the Bang was Britain's tallest sculpture at twice the height of the Angel of the North,[14] which stands at 66 feet (20 m).". We may also find that "B of the Bang originally stood 56 metres". But 20*2 is not equal to 56. Where is the solution please ? 95.176.45.246 ( talk) 14:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
A quick look at this article by Nate Silver (well respected statistician famous for correctly predicting 49 out of 50 of the states in the 2008 presidential elections) as well as the score he gave Zogby Interactive compared to the scores he gave others should be enough of a warning for us to introduce a general policy of not to incorporating their polling in articles on Wikipedia(as they currently are being added). Note: I am talking about Zogby Interactive whose online polling only polls members of its own community(not randomly done samples of the general population as is the standard in the field) as opposed to Zogby International(of which Zogby Interactive is a subset) whose polling is done randomly by telephone and is much more respected. Wikiposter0123 ( talk) 23:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi, everyone! The Motto of the day WikiProject is now running better than it has ever done before. At the beginning of the year we were still running out of mottos on a regular basis, so that we often have emergency situations where we display low-quality mottos. But not anymore! Now we have mottos all the way to September. We have even made a lot of suggested changes to try to boost the project's effectiveness. Please discuss them here! Now, for the really great bit: We have started a Motto Shop! Details on WP:MOTD/MS. Those who read this, please comment on WT:MOTD/N#Suggested Changes, make a request on WP:MOTD/MS/R, or both! Kayau Voting IS evil 02:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC) (P.S. this is not WP:canvassing.)
Doesn't Michael Dini deserve an article? Enough coverage can be found with a quick Google search, referring to the DoJ investigation after he required his students to take a loyalty oath to Darwinisim. -- 138.110.206.101 ( talk) 15:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
How should I go about drumming up interest and support for the recently created WikiProject Disability? Roger ( talk) 12:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I was recently warned for posting "disruptive edits" regarding the posting of links to video podcasts. The Hammer Museum has several video podcasts that enhance the viewers knowledge and understanding of the speaker, usually artists or others who drive contemporary culture. These consist of lectures, readings, forums, and other scholarly forms of communicating information. After posting relevant links to people or topics discussed in the podcasts, I was warned for adding what was referred to as "inappropriate external links to Wikipedia". These links are not spam or promotional materials as we merely include the Hammer name to properly cite the lecture; we are not posting them to promote ourselves. Rather we think they are so interesting that the content will be of use as supplemental information for Wikipedia users who are trying to learn more about a specific person or topic. We see ourselves rather as providing links that "contains further research that is accurate and on-topic" The Wikipedia guidelines encourage the posting of "sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail or other reasons." These video podcasts are a free, educational public service that we provide. I then received a final warning stating that: "The next time you insert a spam link, you may be blocked from editing without further notice." I posted a message on the user's talk page explaining that the materials were educational and supplemental, not spam. I was instructed to post here and "try to attract a consensus there that the links add value to the articles". My intention is not to be disruptive, but to provide information that I feel adds great value to the articles. What could be more supplemental to an article on an artist than that artist speaking about themselves on video? If the issue is including the name of the museum, I am more than happy not to include that. I was under the impression that external links needed to be properly sited, and was only trying to do so. Any support or suggestions on this matter is greatly appreciated! MelissaYvonne ( talk) 01:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
How may it be said that this file is in low resolution? It is in SVG! Is it just to justify the use of a non-free media? -- Tonyjeff ( talk) 03:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
There is one thing I don't get. There are users who declare in their user space: "I release all of my contributions in the public domain", "I licence my contributions to articles of X type under Creative Commons, and all other contributions to GFDL" ( example) and so on. Yet, Wikipedia clearly says, just above the "Save page" button, "You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license. See the Terms of Use for details." ( MediaWiki:Wikimedia-copyrightwarning). Does this mean that all of these users make these declarations in vain? -- Brainmachine ( talk) 17:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
A related question: What is the status of an edit if I as the writer don't care what happens to it except that nobody should be allowed to claim it as their own work and/or profit from it? Roger ( talk) 19:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
To clarify, even if you have irrevocably released your work under a particular license, you still own the copyright, and are free to release it under different licenses (or into the public domain) should you wish. You could release it under a stricter license if you wish, but there would be no point, as the work is already released under CC-BY-SA, and people are free to use it under the terms of that license. OrangeDog ( τ • ε) 21:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
The page view statistics show nothing from 28th onwards, which happens to be the day when an article I created got to DYK. Can someone fix it? Please! (or, if there were another count, that would be great too.) Kayau Voting IS evil 12:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Back in March of 2010, Credo Reference graciously gave out 100 user accounts to the first 100 Wikipedians who signed up. The list was filled up within several hours. However, a linksearch shows less than 86 links in mainspace to credo...yet 100 accounts were given out. Perhaps some of those accounts ought to be redistributed? Smallman12q ( talk) 21:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Would editors, particularly uninvolved ones, please consider commenting at this RfC— Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy/RFC Climategate rename policy query.
It is a discussion about whether to rename Climatic Research Unit email controversy, and call it Climategate. Many thanks, SlimVirgin talk| contribs 03:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello, how can I mark Finnish wikipedia " Lupaavat artikkelit " in English wikipedia interwikis ? is there any similar in enwiki? please see : fi:Wikipedia:Lupaavat_artikkelit the symbol is -- Olli ( talk) 12:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
"Lupaavat artikkelit" translates to something like "Promising articles". The English Wikipedia does not have a classification exactly like this. The grading scheme on the English Wikipedia can be found at WP:ASSESS. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 21:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I would like to express concern about the wikitable in this section of this article. Personally I would not wish to see tables such as this in articles as I think that this level of analysis frankly makes us all look like a bunch of insensitive anoraks. Or it will when certain people in the media who are not keen on Wikipedia to start with get wind of it. I think we should think very deeply about whether we need these tables and what they say about us before they proliferate. Britmax ( talk) 20:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I didn't say there was, but do we need all these facts, delivered in such a clinical way? Britmax ( talk) 21:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
hey wiki's. im worried that the kids in high school these days are getting too much of a work load so early on in life?? am i the only one who thinks so? 07:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC) twiggie tall tail07:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twiggie Tall Tails ( talk • contribs)
I saw this in an airplane magazine yesterday. Is the foundation/Wikipedia aware of this? Are they following the copyleft rules of our site? Has legal looked into it? [17].
ScienceApologist ( talk) 11:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia's license is CC-BY-SA. It does not prevent persons from using stuff licensed as such for commercial purposes, provided the provisions of the license (i.e. attribution and identical licensing) are followed. This license doesn't include the non-commercial (NC) option, which would prohibit such licensed stuff from being used commercially. I believe there have been discussions from time to time, mostly on Commons, about the inclusion of media tagged as NC but to no avail, primarily because it would restrict the level of freedom of usage of such media in general. – MuZemike 23:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I suggest changing the orange color of the stripe on the left side of the POV-check and POV-check-section templates to yellow, to reflect the idea that a {{ POV-check}} is less severe than a {{ NPOV}} dispute.
As I understand it, you nominate an article for {{ POV-check}} if you think that it may have a non-neutral point of view. An article gets tagged with {{ NPOV}} if it is the subject of a serious dispute, possibly involving multiple editors, as reflected on its talk page.
(Note that I have listed this proposal before, where a more experienced editor pointed out to me that WP:AMBOX specifies an orange color for the stripe on the left side of content-related article-message boxes. However, WP:AMBOX is listed as a guideline rather than a policy, and besides, even though the messageboxes are color-coded by category, the guideline also contains a dictum that "The colour-coding helps to inform of the severity of the issues at a glance." Thus, I am re-listing this to see if my proposed change is really against consensus.)
69.140.152.55 ( talk) 02:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Unarchived to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
69.140.152.55 (
talk)
00:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Unarchived to generate a more thorough discussion so that new or broader consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments at
Template talk:POV-check or at
Template talk:POV-check-section. Thanks,
69.251.180.224 (
talk)
04:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Are redirects included in the Wikipedia article count? Do you have any idea if this might differ for other language Wikipedias? Where can I find out more about the article count? Thank you. -- 85.122.2.98 ( talk) 06:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Can anyone explain to me why the all page is categorized under 'List of people by cause of death'? Its pretty unneccesary. :D Aeno ( talk) 20:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I doubt that I will find much support for my position, but I want to throw it out for discussion anyway... On nearly all sporting club articles, the "current squad" or "current team roster" is included. However, we are an encyclopedia, not a current events website. There is not a single reason I can imagine why the current squad would be more important than any of the previous squads, which aren't included. So why do we include these? (Note: We also have season-per-sport-club articles, where the inclusion of the squad for that season is of course perfectly acceptable, just like on sport-club-on-tournament articles) Fram ( talk) 07:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
To give an idea of one of the results of such "current squads": one many, many smaller articles on less notable clubs, these squads take up about half the page, giving them way too much weight compared to the rest of the history and achievements of the club. See e.g. F.C. Verbroedering Dender E.H., VC Universitet-Tekhnolog Belgorod, Hannover Indians, GC Biaschesi, BC Gladiator Cluj-Napoca, ... Take e.g. Terenure College RFC, a second division Irish rugby league club with a stadium with a capacity of 200. Why are the current players all listed? They are for the most part not notable, are not the reason that the club is notable, and are of no more importance than the squads of the 70 previous seasons. But if I were to remove the squad, I would probably be swiftly reverted because "every sports club article has those" (see e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs). It's one of these things that everyone does, but nobody seems to wonder why and if it is the correct thing to do. Fram ( talk) 11:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah I would have to oppose this. I would say the average reader if they are doing a search on a team are looking for information on the current version of the team. As such the current roster should be on the first page they hit. It is far from recentism because on most developed articles, the Calgary Flames article pointed to above for example, shows that it only takes a small portion of the article and if anything it balances out the historical information. - DJSasso ( talk) 22:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Readers of Wikipedia, according to the most used searchs and most visited articles, are looking mostly for news, porn, and pop culture trivia, which are three things Wikipedia is not meant to be used for. What the readers want is not the guiding principle behind what we offer. Yes, obviously on larger articles it takes up a smaller portion, but there it isn't needed since usually we have a season article as well, for many seasons, so people can see the roster for every (or many) seasons, not just the current one. But on the many smaller articles, they are a case of undue weight and recentism, but many sports projects and editors insist that they must be added to articles. There is no reason to do this. People used the "almanac" element, but an almanac is published for a specific year (and yearly): we don't include high water tables for sea port cities either, even though these could (can?) be found in almanacs as well. We don't include the best period to plant your tomatoes in your country, even though that as well was included in farmer almanacs.
The argument is also given that because it has been done like this in the past, and because many articles follow the example and rule presented by the projects, this means that the consensus is clear. This is obviously a fallacy, we have to continue this because we always did it before. Using that argument, nothing will ever change. Of course this won't be decided with some small discussion here, this was just a way to check whether I was the only one who felt this way or not. It is clear that that isn't the case, although more people who have reacted here support the inclusion. Fram ( talk) 07:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Crossposted to WP:AN/I
Not the right venue
|
---|
I just tagged every single subpage and article in progress within my userspace as {{
db-u1}} and if things continue on as they have been I suppose I'll be posting a {{
retired}} notice soon as well. Despite repeated AN/I reports regarding the
disruptive and
tendentious editing behaviours of
Theserialcomma,
Miami33139, and
JBsupreme over the last year and a half, it seems I still cannot edit without these editors
wikihounding me while
working together as a group. My main editing focus had been to topics related to computing and online/electronic forms of communication. These were not areas in which these three individuals previously edited (the sole exception being Miami33139's prods/AfDs of multimedia-related software articles). Even after taking the behaviour issues all the way to ArbCom, where the case was unfortunately delayed and overshadowed by the EEML case (which was in progress at the same time), very little was addressed. [18] [19] I personally made a huge mistake in allowing myself to be baited by Miami33139 and Theserialcomma who were editing my comments on an article talk page [20] (where they then also edit warred with others [21]) and reposted parts of my comments out of context (and in a manner in which made them appear to have been posted that way by me) on a talk page that was part of the ArbCom case. [22] Allowing myself to be baited resulted in ArbCom handing out a "civility restriction" for me, [23] (which maybe I really deserved for allowing myself to be baited in the first place) with the behaviours of the three individuals largely still not addressed. [24] The case evidence I presented [25] was not used by the drafting arbitrator and no mention of Theserialcomma's disruptive behaviours were brought up in the proposed decision he drafted. (I suspect this is because I was the only editor who presented evidence of Theserialcomma's behaviours.) The omission in the proposed decision was openly questioned by others but was still not addressed. [26] The way in which the case name was chosen most likely did not help matters all that much either. [27] After the ArbCom case was closed, the wikihounding increased and I finally took a break from editing articles. I tried doing Commons work for awhile but I found I still needed to update pages on Wikipedia which used the images. In doing so I found that just making those small noncontroversial edits was enough to trigger the wikihounding so I cut back on my editing even further. I made another huge mistake when I vented some of my frustrations via email at Sandstein with being wikihounded and harassed off-wiki by Theserialcomma. He responded by blocking me for 18 days. [28] After I was unblocked by another administrator who reviewed what was said and had transpired, I immediately apologised to Sandstein for the venting [29] [30] as I had already realised that venting my frustrations at him really wasn't the right thing to do and I felt bad about it. This incident generated an enormous amount of email discussion. While blocked for 18 days, I spent the better part of it reviewing my own behaviours as well as my interactions with Theserialcomma, Miami33139, and JBsupreme. While doing so I also began to review their interactions with other editors. [31] I documented Theserialcomma's interactions with others in detail [32] and began to do the same for Miami33139 [33] and JBsupreme. [34] Due to time constraints, I stopped work on this and never picked back up on it after I was unblocked. A civility restriction was later put in place for JBsupreme [35] due to his continued behaviours but it really doesn't seem to have had much of an effect. [36] I just took an entire month off from editing due to both the continued wikihounding and my workload. [37] In that month, Miami33139 regained his internet access and picked right back up where he left off. [38] Some of his very first actions were to MFD and CSD pages I had sandboxed, [39] including one which JBsupreme moved from the sandbox to mainspace. [40] [41] Some of Miami33139's next actions included MFDing subpages from within my userspace, [42] [43] (which both Theserialcomma and JBsupreme then became involved in as well. [44] [45] [46] [47]) Miami33139 then restarted his previous behaviour of going though my contributions and removing/prodding/AfDing things which I had edited many, many months earlier. Miami33139 has done similar things to editors other than myself (such as Beyond My Ken/ Ed Fitzgerald and others), but like Theserialcomma and JBsupreme, Miami33139 seems to try to make just enough non-controversial edits or edits to related/similar pages to disguise his other actions. A number of editors and administrators contacted me via email and let me know of Miami33139's return and subsequent MFDing of subpages within my userspace. Several further suggested I not become involved in those MFDs as the actions by Miami33139 and Theserialcomma appeared to be an attempt at baiting me shortly before my civility restriction expired (see above). I really have tried to do some good here on Wikipedia and improve coverage of computing topics which have been in dire need of expansion. Due to the wikihounding however, I'm beginning to feel as though my efforts have largely been a waste of time. As I finish writing this, I also note JBsupreme removed my CSD tag from one of the in-progress subpages within my userspace, moved it to his own userspace, and then blanked it. [48] [49] [50] Sigh. I think I'll take another short break from Wikipedia as my workload really hadn't decreased just yet anyway. -- Tothwolf ( talk) 19:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC) SuggestionPerhaps you could request assistance from the mediation committee? 69.251.180.224 ( talk) 02:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC) |
The government has greatly hindered our encyclopedia. Because of them, millions of useful images have to be deleted from the encyclopedia, and we have to always be careful not to quote too much text from any source, except for those that have agreed to copyleft their stuff, or are so old that the copyright has expired. Pure wiki deletion was rejected largely because of concerns about copyvios and libel lawsuits, and Inclupedia is probably going to be rejected for the same reason. Fuck the government. Isn't there some way to escape the long arm of the law, much as The Pirate Bay did? Tisane talk/ stalk 04:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
This placque on the current Market Street Bridge (Philadelphia) illustrates the first bridge on Market Street (Philadelphia) over the Schuylkill River, and gives the history of subsequent bridges. Can the plaque be used as a source? If so, how do I provide an inline citation? This is just one instance of places where placques on bridges or other structures provide historical information difficult to locate elsewhere. -- DThomsen8 ( talk) 16:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Example:Columbia Bridge (Sign). Under the bridge along West River Drive, near Montgomery Drive: Fairmount Park Commission. 07-01-2006. {{
cite sign}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
White or Caucasian? when both descriptive adjectives are used by sources in an article. Is there a reason to choose one over the other? patsw ( talk) 16:38, 9 August 2010 (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 checked at Wikipedia:Upload, and it appears that the image at right
is under CC-BY, and thus is a fair-use upload. Unfortunately, I cannot figure out which copyright template applies. Could anyone help with this? Sithman VIII !! 19:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Hey there. I've been keeping a close eye on the page views for an article I created of late, because if the statistics are true then it will very soon receive it's millionth page view which in a very geeky way I am quite excited about. The article was getting about 10k views per day, but in the last few days it's dropped down to about 1-2k per day.
At first I figured maybe the everyone who wants to read about 'the Human centipede' had finally done so, but I looked at the page views for some other articles, including Michael Jackson and Barack Obama ( http://stats.grok.se/en/201006/Barack_Obama) and they seem to be down by a similar proportion too. Has the world suddenly stopped reading wikipedia overnight for some reason or is this just a coincidence? cya Coolug ( talk) 15:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
How do I make the spoiler like on tvtropes (the text has a dotted border around it in addition to being the same color as the background)? Right now, there's a large white space which looks weird. -- 75.25.103.109 ( talk) 21:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
How can I inform the owners of Wikipedia to change the website back to its original form? They will listen to me and comply, I just need to know how to contact them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.110.174.98 ( talk) 16:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
They will listen to me and comply, I just need to know how to contact them? What's the matter with you? ╟─ Treasury Tag► prorogation─╢ 18:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
If you want the original form then you need to choose Nostalgia or Classic which make it look (almost) like it did in 2001. Sadly there's no way to make it look exactly like its original form. You will still see images and various other new-fangled bits and pieces. I use Classic which is close enough to the original form for me. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I came across a user, who has continued to create a innapropriate pages after a final warning. Do I report to AIV for a block? Is there some other suitable place? I don't know if it counts as vandalism or not... Jolly Ω Janner 00:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I've had little response on the pages themselves, so I was asked to post here. I'm going to start making changes to the letters used on the chess diagram as shown here. Some of the changes are in-progress, as you can tell for "E" for example:
Proposals
Does anyone have any issues with this? Also, if anyone has any time and would be willing to help me make changes where clashes occur, that would be a great help. Currently, only the small diagram template is using the vectorised images. Therefore, only small diagrams using any of the fairy pieces would need to be changed. NikNaks talk - gallery - commons 17:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Hey, I was wondering, can you also make subpages in other wikis, such as Wikiversity or Wiktionary. I was wanting to make a subpage of my userpage on Wikiversity but didn't completely understand if it was ok or not I guess. Tetobigbro talk 04:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
see skid mark, find text "in the picture shown at right" 75.4.206.211 ( talk) 08:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Every time I look around Wikipedia at Wikiprojects I see that nearly all Wikiprojects are inactive. One example was the Wikiproject User Rehab. It looked promising, but now, it is defunct. There are alot of Wikiprojects around that no one has used, especially for ones that cover very narrow subjects. I believe that we should either remove those defunct wikiprojects or reinstate them. Sir Stupidity ( talk) 11:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
{{
Inactive}}
if you want.
Svick (
talk)
16:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Is it ok to use clipart that comes bundled with Microsoft Office as a component of a logo for a WikiProject? Roger ( talk) 07:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Richard Dawkins, professor at Oxford who is the world's foremost authority on the theory of natural selection, makes a helpful edit to the "natural selection" entry. And it gets removed within minutes!! I was watching a Youtube video of his panel discussion and he talked about that experience. I thought it was really funny. The video is at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gwV8etx4sI&feature=channel The wikipedia comment starts at around 1:50 mark. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyorker3122 ( talk • contribs) 14:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Hey all, just wanted to announce and invite feedback about a new Mediawiki project I'm starting called Translated Works Wiki. As the welcome page says: "Translated Works Wiki is a wiki-based project for collaborative translation of public domain and freely-licensed works, including books, articles, poetry, recorded speech, and illustrations. Translators release all rights to their translated works under the Creative Commons Zero waiver, making them just as free as the original source. Anyone is welcome to participate in any project, or begin a new project." It operates with extensive use of subpages and templates. I created it for someone I know who has an interest in producing a public domain Afrikaans version of the Bible, but I think it could have very wide applicability. I'm mainly interested in what you all think about the idea, the choice of license, possible projects that would be fun to undertake translating, and possible obstacles or limitations I should keep in mind. Thanks! Dcoetzee 00:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Is this discussion closed or not? Cuz I wanna fix some typos. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 04:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I've found this file that is hosted under Fair Use, in which license says that only scaled-down and low-resolution images are allowed, but that file is not low-resolution at all, can you please check this? --by Màñü飆¹5 talk 06:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
{{
Non-free reduce}}
. Somebody should fix it soon, or you can do it yourself.
Svick (
talk)
09:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I googled "Chris Guest" and the top result is his Wikipedia article. The preview in the Google results says "Christopher Haden-Guest, 5th Baron Haden-Guest (born February 5, 1948), better known as Christopher Guest, is an American screenwriter, pedophile,composer, ...". It looks really bad... the vandalism's been fixed but Google's policy is webmasters have to request their site be re-crawled if they want to removed outdated results. Is there a way to get Wikipedia to get Google to re-crawl that article? 87.80.97.137 ( talk) 08:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Note - this is on google.co.uk retrieved from within the UK, my Canadian friend gets different results. 87.80.97.137 ( talk) 09:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Great_Wikipedia_Dramaout/3rd Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 15:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Prior related threads:
RFA subpage, administrator recall, now taking place, at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Herostratus 2. Cheers, -- Cirt ( talk) 16:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Over the past week or so, I've been broadening my editing into including articles regarding U.S. television stations and I've noticed a trend toward including the compilation of long lists of non-notable past employees of the stations. These lists also include former employees who already actually have existing referenced articles in the encyclopedia, their inclusion in the lists make sense to me in terms of "notability". However, I'm very dubious of the notion of compiling (in some cases) extensive unreferenced lists of people, who in some cases are no longer even employed in the television industry or who have moved on to other stations. I've been taken to task by another editor for reducing this type of list in a couple of articles to only those listed individuals who have at least at minimum established their notability by having a preexisting bio article in the encyclopedia. [1] [2]. In my opinion, in addition to what I consider a problem with verifiability and notability, this sort of thing smacks of promotion/vanity and to me clearly violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I'm wondering, if perhaps I could get some opinions on this practice from other editors. cheers Deconstructhis ( talk) 15:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
–I completely disagree. If a former employee has at one point or another worked for a TV station, they should be included in the former list. By adding their name, an editior is in no way, shape or form vandalizing the page. A person who lives in a particular city might ponder back to a particular personality and wonder how many years they were with that station. They could then easily look and see the question to they're answer.-- TV Superstar ( talk) 04:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
-I agree with the last statement made. As long as you are not putting wrong information, I feel as though everyone at one point or another affiliated with the station belongs on the page. They're are so many people that vandalize articles that should have their edits reverted and therefore blocking them from future edits. I don't see anything wrong in this case at all.-- TVFAN24 ( talk) 04:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
-First of all I don't appreciate you accusing me of making up names, search some of them and you'll see that they are legitimate. For instance, Anna Davlantes who exited WMAQ last July to join WFLD, or feel free to look up some of their resumes on Linkedin I am very knowledgable in regards to anchors/reporters that come or exit a station and was trying to stick up for the edits that were made to make Wikipeda more accurate. Another question I have, how come this edit has been up for a year and hasn't been bothered with up until now??? Maybe because everyone else knew it was correct and accurate. I never disrespected you so I expect the same courtesy. TVFAN24 ( talk) 02:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Anna Davlantes leaves WMAQ-Ch. 5 July 30, 2009 11:00 AM | 18 Comments
Newscaster Anna Davlantes has left NBC-owned WMAQ-Ch. 5.
Her immediate exit was announced to staff in a terse memo to staff Thursday morning from Frank Whittaker, Channel 5's station manager and vice president for news.
"We appreciate Anna's contributions over the last nine years, and wish her the best in the future," Whittaker wrote.
Davlantes is the second anchor to leave the station in recent weeks.
http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/07/anna-davlantes-nbc-wmaq-5-chicago-tower-ticker.html
Ed Curran’s Experience
WMAQ-TV (Broadcast Media industry)
1999 — 2002 (3 years )
Meteorologist for the NBC owned and operated station in Chicago
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/ed-curran/4/506/a59
These are just some of the many names that were deleted. Do you still think I am making names up???? What more proof do you need. I am going to defend this as much as I can b/c nothing wrong was done. TVFAN24 ( talk) 02:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much :) TVFAN24 ( talk) 02:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
To summarize what I'm taking from the above, it seems like most people, for BLP and/or WP:NOT reasons, would agree to the following "nutshell": Individuals should not be in 'laundry lists' of former employees of a company unless they are themselves notable, usually demonstrated by the fact that they have a Wikipedia article. I've been bold to get the ball rolling on the two articles at the center of this dispute, but will not get into an edit war over them [was reverted by TVFAN24 eleven minutes later]. Thoughts? ( ESkog)( Talk) 21:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I believe that Chicago is a very big market and should include all of the personalites that were once part of the station. I have another question to ask. How come the current personalities don't need a reference after their name but the former one's do??? I feel that adding a reference just adds too much text to the article. But since everyone didn't agree with that I took the time to find an article for each person that didn't have a Wiki page. No, I don't think the list needs to go as far as adding hair stylists and makeup people b/c they were never seen on air. TVFAN24 ( talk) 21:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I just experimented with Pending Changes for a bit, and I'm really impressed. It seems like an amazing improvement with no downsides. Is there a catch? Andrew Gradman talk/ WP:Hornbook 20:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I was just wondering why the Wikipedia:Dusty articles page hasn't been updated since 15 Feb 2010. I used to check that page all the time, and I found it a very useful function for cleaning up Wikipedia articles. (cross-posted from Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)) -- Eastlaw talk ⁄ contribs 04:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion they should be humorous essays, not just humour - I for one take it seriously. Kayau Voting IS evil 05:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Sometime while I'm sleeping tonight, we're going to hit 3,333,333 articles, so I'm saying congratulations a bit early.
I will now go to sleep, and hopefully have a dream about what the 3,333,333th article will be. Capture of Osama bin Laden, anyone? Andrew Gradman talk/ WP:Hornbook 09:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I would like to know which function do we use when copying a content from a wikipage or from a textfile to a wikipage or a textfile. Thanks in advance, -- Jagwar - (( talk )) 10:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Why does it have "pending changes protection"? -- 75.25.103.109 ( talk) 01:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Need your opinions about large settlements and small settlements on Talk:Angeli Custodi. KzKrann ( talk) 11:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
See earlier discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)/Archive_26#The_Times_paywall. I've received an email from an assistant editor at The Times. The situation is that existing ("legacy") articles from The Times will remain free to view and keep their existing URLs (e.g. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/obituaries/article5288776.ece): "We have no plans to change this, but reserve the right to review our model." New content will go behind the paywall:
Having deployed several wikis using Mediawiki software and found huge and glaring inefficiencies (one only has to look at the Job Queue and link refreshing, and no, I am not going to get technical here), has anyone done even a rudimentary analysis of the carbon footprint of the code as designed versus the code as it really ought to work basing the estimate on the Wikipedia family alone?
Just throwing hardware and charitable dollars at this thing is not going to be satisfactory, surely? Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 22:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
In practical terms mediawiki isn't the driving factor in wikipedia's carbon footprint. Most wikipedia users see cached versions of articles that don't touch mediawiki.© Geni 22:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I received an accusatory message, dated 24 June 1010. It certainly seems to originate from someone formally associated with Wikipedia. I can't find a way to contact this person. How might I authenticate the authority of the person who sent me this message? How can I contact this person, if he or she is formally associated with Wikipedia, to discuss the matter? I prefer not to take the matter public, at the moment, as it may be a misunderstanding. I do not know my way around Wikipedia, other than as a reader, with a login. If you can help, I would appreciate it. Thanks. Drgeorgep ( talk) 04:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)drgeorgep
the only edits of user User:Kbouch91 ware made for his userpage, a fantasy about an own state. Is this acceptable here? (I think it is not, there were some other similar pages deleted as far as I see). I am interested in this case, because the files used are out of scope for the commons, if this page will be delted. Plehn ( talk) 20:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Below the "Save page" button in small print it says
If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. All text that you did not write yourself, except brief excerpts, must be available under terms consistent with Wikipedia's Terms of Use before you submit it.
The first statement says that If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here., yet the second one states that it must comply with Wikipedia's Terms of Use. Perhaps the 1st sentence should be removed? Smallman12q ( talk) 02:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Yesterday I was bold and moved the article to this title. It is an imperfect title. The prior title may be seen in the move log and the article history. I made the bold move because I felt that the title reflected the content of the article better than the prior title. An editor has disagreed with my boldness, as is his right. I have no particular fondness for the new title nor for the old one, and ask editors to look at the article and to come to its talk page to determine what we might consider the correct title to be. Obviously this includes thoughts on old title, current title, and some new title that has not even been considered. Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 07:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
The main page's history shows that it was created on January 26, 2002. Since Wikipedia was created over a year earlier, why does it only date back to 2002? What existed as Wikipedia's "home page" before this? Swarm Talk 04:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
The Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex article has undergone some cleaning recently. Merged out of Kennedy Space Center and expanded and the Apollo/Saturn V Center article was merged in. Currently there are 18 images including a couple of galleries and the context of these images isnt clear in some cases. It seems to be getting a little travel guidish with all the images and this is being discussed on the article's talk page. I'd like to get some other opinions on the number and placement of images in this article.-- RadioFan ( talk) 12:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello everyone, I am new to the web site and I am learning how it works but at this moment I need help. In another discussion group a question was asked: (see below) I have been searching and searching and still searching but what I found was the same answers.
Here's the question: Eliakim; Who is this biblical figure? What is his role in the end of time?
(the one who posed the question wrote this about it) A certain prophet claims that Eliakim not Jesus will be the one who will open the 7 seals. I have been researching this and was hoping somebody could shed some light on this. Daniel spoke of this and the prophet claims that Eliakim has been mistaken for Jesus and this among other details are errant in doctrine because satan deliberately altered some phrasing in some key scriptures that has caused some false teaching. He believes that the only bible that should be used is the authorized King James version. He believes that every translation after that has been altered.
(This is what I have found thus far) Eliakim son of Hilkiah the palace administrator or Eliakim son of Josiah king, whose name was changed or the priest—Eliakim or Eliakim the father of Azor who is in the blood line of JESUS in Matthew or Eliakim the son of Meleain in the blood line of JESUS in the book of Luke......
Village Community has anyone ever heard of this and if you have can you give more details so I can contiue to search this out? Thank you and be bless!
Vmallory1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by VMallory1 ( talk • contribs) 15:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
How can I create footnotes without the square brackets, like in the French WP? Thanks in advance Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 18:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
When giving a reference to Google Books, it appears that some people give the URL that includes the search term that they used to find the entry. This causes the search terms to be highlighted. Is this prefered, discouraged or OK either way. For example, if I wanted to reference where Phoenix Life Insurance Company of Minot, North Dakota had it's principle office, I could give the url as either http://books.google.com/books?id=DCYbAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA237&dq="minot,+north+dakota"&hl=en&ei=5gAyTPjKD8GC8gbrg5DJCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22minot%2C%20north%20dakota%22&f=false which would cause Minot North Dakota to be highlighted when the URL is clicked on *or* I could simply have http://books.google.com/books?id=DCYbAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA237 which would go the same page without the highlighting. Is there a preference either way officially in Wikipedia?
(Note this is a copy of the question asked at the help desk, they suggesting asking here or the WT:V.) Naraht ( talk) 20:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
In my post at the talk page of WikiProject Chemistry i tried to bring to notice an issue which in my view affects every WikiProject and is thus a serious bug. Please see the post for details. I hope someone has a solution. -- Siddhant ( talk) 06:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Someone made a mistake with the article Carlo Mario Abate : it's Carlo Maria Abate. May someone rename the article ? I don't know how to do, I'm a contributor on the French Wikipédia. Ascaron ( talk) 11:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
There is an interesting article about Wikipedia and one editor's tale that decided to take this road to a more public place: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-trouble-with-wikipedia-a-cautionary-tale/?singlepage=true
For myself, I think this is some well formed opinion with some very specific examples that deserves some sort of reflection with the Wikipedia community, and some of this criticism is well founded. Some of it is also simply being critical of the medium and the fact that Wikipedia is a bunch of volunteers (and arguably "amateurs") that are involved in the editing process, but I do think there is some constructive criticism about Wikipedia as well here.
For myself, I like to use Wikipedia as a jumping off point, a place to get a quick overview of a topic. If it looks like there might be some bias in the article, I particularly like to read the talk pages to see just what might be up in terms of the more contentious parts and perhaps see what some not quite NPOV issues may be involved in the construction of that article. More importantly, as a jumping off point, I use the article as a place to find the real references to learn more about the topic.
From this article:
I happen to agree with this sentiment too, and Wikipedia never really tried to lend itself as a primary source in the first place... nor does any other encyclopedia for that matter. I know this is old hat stuff for many Wikipedia editors, but it is something that perhaps does need some better "public relations" or at least letting other know what it is that is being built.
I use Wikipedia in hyperlinks on other websites (both wiki and non-wiki) as a sort of catch-all link for further information about a topic. For example, a discussion came up where I was referencing those countries who have used nuclear weapons so I made a hyperlink to Nuclear Club as a means to at least note other counties who have made this sort of weapon. Is this an inappropriate use of Wikipedia, and should I have used a more "reliable" reference? It was not a political science forum or website, so the reference was to give some credible tertiary reference to know what it was that I was talking about if you really wanted find more information about that topic. What other sorts of links to Wikipedia ought to be encouraged or discouraged in both casual and formal discussions on other websites? -- Robert Horning ( talk) 05:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
When notable people edit Wikipedia, to add detail or fix errors in articles on themselves or their work, they often do so in unawareness of our rules, and the end result is a lot of upset to them and others. And whenever situations like this aren't resolved amicably, it potentially leads to bad press for the project.
To help mitigate the problem, I've written a pair of essays, one addressed to Wikipedians, and one addressed to notable people coming here to edit Wikipedia articles related to them. They are
Please link to them in cases where you feel they might be helpful, and feel free to improve them or leave feedback on their talk pages. -- JN 466 14:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
"Above all, don't get into arguments on the article's talk page!" (original bolding) – this would appear to generally contravene the principles of discussion and consensus-building on which Wikipedia is founded. Why is it in there? ╟─ Treasury Tag► Regent─╢ 07:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry if this question has been answered before. Is it possible to delete old versions of articles on Wikipedia that are deemed as spam, vandalism, or redundant edits? I can imagine that it saves up space on Wikipedia by removing these extra articles that serve no purpose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.86.171 ( talk) 09:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I am looking for members of the Wikipedia community who can come and give this article Dr. Kenneth K. Kim an honest opinion. Any feedback with suggestions on how to improve the article would also be greatly appreciated. I am really passionate about this cause because I have been hearing a lot on him lately and I've really come to admire who he is as a person. He is a plastic surgeon in the Los Angeles area, and he's been operating on older patients for free. There have been numerous articles, two of which were from notable sources, that claim this, but they are all in Korean. They are still reputable sources, but the fact that they are not understandable to many in the Wikipedia community is becoming an issue. Therefore, anyone who could also read Korean and/or provide a translation that is unbiased and neutral would also be greatly appreciated. I am genuinely looking for truth here, not promotion. Thank you in good faith. People bios ( talk) 16:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! I guess I just have to remember to do it all the time. I was wondering if there was some auto setting for this (why isn't there one ?) People bios ( talk) 19:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Is anyone aware of any specific policy, guidance or essay dealing specifically with the personal accounts of editors being used to alter article content? That is to say talk page comments of the form:
Now there are of course various policies that come in to play here - on conflicts of interest, verifiability and self published sources in particular. However there does not seem to be anything that pulls everything together into one document that you can simply point to. It can get quite difficult when their accounts contradict reliably sourced points, since we would naturally wish to avoid impugning the accuracy or integrity of a potentially valuable contributor, but at same time we have no way of knowing if the professed identity is even accurate. I'm involved in that kind of dispute now and while I'm sure we can sort it out such a thing would be handy since I've seen exactly the same situation happen before.
If there isn't I suspect I'll have to start drafting an essay myself once it has all blown over. What is the protocol to observe for essays, especially in the Wikipedia name space? Crispmuncher ( talk) 21:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I was pondering unusual Wikipedia exploits (for educational purposes only, natch) and was considering the possibility of using a script to turn Wikipedia into a virtual file-sharing network. It would work like this: you UUencode a file into 7 bits, then upload it into a randomly-chosen file as 7 bit text in the middle of the article, then immediately revert it. The reversion with the UUencoded file will be there forever, and no one will be the wiser. With a script, you could automagically scrape such files from the article histories. Then it occured to me to wonder if this is already happening.
Most of you are probably already familiar with the phenomenon of numbers stations. Wikipedia can serve the same function a lot cheaper and easier, using the method I just described, especially since code words and numbers would be in plain text wouldn't need to be UUencoded -- although in a pinch you could transmit photos and such this way also, PGP-encoded for extra protection.
Does anyone care to venture a guess as to whether Wikipedia is used by the world's spook agencies and terrorist/freedom fighter claves to communicate with each other? -- SmashTheState ( talk) 02:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Ive been watching this little edit war for the past few days [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14], and I think i butted heads with User:Ursus.Bear before, so I felt I would keep out of it. Does someone want to step into the fray here? User A1 ( talk) 09:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Hey veryone! I'm using Google Chrome as my browser, and my Wikipedia is with the Comic Sans font. Well, that's really weird, cuz I've edited and visited Wikipedia in other computers with the same browser, and it's not in Comic Sans, but in Areal, or Verdana. Can anyone please tell me what I can do to turn Comic Sans off? Not only it is not as agreable as other fonts, it also causes be trouble when writing with the IPA.
Thanks a lot. JozePedro ( talk) 13:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi there.
I remember a community discussion (i THINK it was an AFD) that was labeled (it was actually the given result as decided by the closing administrator) as a "useless train wreck from which no consensus can emerge", with an image of a train wreck put next to it. I thought it was funny and just now wanted to show it to someone, but i couldn't seem to find it. Tried googling, but had no luck. Does anyone remember it and can give me a hint? Thanks. 188.62.92.8 ( talk) 21:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Please, the proper name, if you're talking about the English Wikipedia, is "enwiki," not "wiki." E.g.:
This nomenclature is backed up by both the download page and InitialiseSettings.php, so I hope this is the last time I hear people inappropriately shortening it to "wiki." Thanks for your cooperation. Tisane talk/ stalk 16:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Don't abbreviate Wikipedia as "wiki". This is because any wiki is run off wiki software, not just Wikipedia; in addition, we cannot think that the entire wiki-world revolves around en.wiki (Yes, that is a fine abbreviation IMO, along with enwiki and en-wiki, of which I use often on IRC.) but as a part of the bigger picture of an entire reference library (e.g. encyclopedias, dictionaries, etc.) of editable free content (as in not "free beer"). – MuZemike 21:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I just discovered an oddity in WP's files and I am confused. Any help would be appreciated.
Article Brave New World's Discussion Page shows that this article used to be a " Good Article" but was reassessed and delisted on Jan 8, 2006.
Now I don't challenge the status change, I am not familiar with those rules much, but I am concerned that I can find no archive prior to Mar 2006 for the WP:Good_article_review process for ANY article, not just this one.
Furthermore, looking at the edits for the article in Jan 2006 and the talk page archive I find only a single edit that the article was being delisted. No discussion, just a summary declaration that the article is being delisted.
Is this how things were done in 2006? Why is there no archive of the WP:Good_article_review process before 3/06 ? Are there history files missing ? 66.102.198.62 ( talk) 08:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
How often should we link to one and the same author in the reference section? I am always tempted to link them more than once in longer sections: For example, at User:Gun Powder Ma/Roman economy Scheidel, Walter is listed under "Size and structure of the economy" as co-author, under "Demography" as sole author and again at "Further reading" as co-editor. Lo Cascio, Elio is one time co-author and another time sole editor (both under "Size and structure of the economy"). Should I put
Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 17:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
National Bridge Inventory search (by Alexander Svirsky) allows me to learn details about particular bridges, but there is no apparent way to create inline citations for this information. There are several Schuylkill River bridges without articles that I would like to create. I have photos available. I could look for Philadelphia Inquirer articles at the Free Library of Philadelphia, but I would welcome comments on whether to create the articles as stubs with photos, but no citations. -- DThomsen8 ( talk) 14:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Remember that clearly explaining to the reader what the source is is more important that following any strict citation format. Phil Bridger ( talk) 15:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)Svirsky, Alexander. National Bridge Inventory (search for state=Pennsylvania, feature intersected=Schuylkill). Retrieved on July 12, 2010.
Hi everyone!
Is there a freely-licensed video of Jimmy Wales available somewhere? I would like to create a parody. Thank you for your help! -- 62.167.75.199 ( talk) 19:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Editorial correction: The Medal of Honor is NEVER "won" or "earned." It is awarded! Every recommendation is very carefully evaluated at many levels in the chain-of-command, and an award is NOT automatic.
George Bleyle Hudson, Ohio —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.117.9.87 ( talk) 01:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
What the heck? List of 1974 Macropædia articles has been here for three years, and yet it only covers a list of articles starting with the letter "A"? Is this even a meaningful article for Wikipedia, could it be a copyright violation for listing the volume's table of contents? And the same copyright question and concern as to whether this violates Wikipedia is not a directory applies to its sister article, List of 2007 Macropædia articles. Everard Proudfoot ( talk) 21:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated both articles for AfD. Everard Proudfoot ( talk) 20:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I just checked Special:Newpages and they are a solid yellow all the way back to June. I have never seen this before. Not even one article patrolled. Does anyone know what is going on? Thank you. Dr.K. λogos πraxis 03:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello,
On Wikipedia a search for Spiritual Healing gets redirected to Faith Healing. Shamanism seems to be a much better redirect direction. I'm waiting for feedback on an article on Spiritual Healing but in the meantime I hope the redirect can be moved.
Thank you,
Adrian-from-london ( talk) 21:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
First off, let me say sorry if this has been brought up before or if it doesn't belong here. As I look through Wikipedia one thing I am noticing is the over use of the word also, in most cases it can be deleted and still get the same point across as in the the case of my edits in the Eddie Murphy [15] article. I do realize this is a common article to add additional information in a sentence, but it seems to be used too frequently, by editors, to add more information. I am sure there are other cases of extra wordage, this happens to be the one I noticed, more so as a disruption to reading of an article. I am going to try and clear up the ones I notice and thought it may be best to bring it to the attention of some others, to keep an eye out for it.
I doubt we could do anything about it permanently, but more just wanted to get this off my chest and see if I was the only one noticing this. - Mcmatter ( talk| contrib) 14:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I am looking for some advice on the care and feeding of essays.
When we have an essay in a subpage, under our main User page, do we have an obligation to place a __NOINDEX__ directive on it? The directive is to prevent search engines from finding rough drafts, or pages of notes, that aren't wikipedia articles, and presenting them to web searchers in a way that might fool them into thinking they were going to a wikipedia article, that met our standard for notability, reliability, etc.
But we want our essags to be read widely, so perhaps the {{ noindex}} directive is not appropriate?
How does an essay get promoted from being a User-space essay to a wikipedia-space essay? Is there some kind of review, prior to moving it the wikipedia name space? Is there a template to add to an essay, requesting comments, or requesting review, prior to moving it to the wikipedia name space?
I have encountered a disturbing phenomenon -- some contributors have drafted essays, placed them in the wikipedia hame space, and then routinely cite them in ways that imply the essay is an actual wikipedia policy, and without acknowledging that they were the essays authors. What response do others recommend when one notices a contributor citing their own essay as if it were a policy?
Thanks! Geo Swan ( talk) 13:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi. This isn't the question, it's the meta-question! I didn't want to ask it till I was sure I was in the right place, so I'd appreciate your advice. I want to ask a question about a usage, almost a spelling thing really. Suppose (bad example coming up) there were hundreds of pages on Wikipedia that referred to "ice creme" and I was pretty sure it should be "ice cream". Not sure enough just to be completely bold and do them all - if I were 100% sure then yes, I would just get stuck into it. It's not as far as I know an AmE/BrE thing - I mean, to be honest, I think it's just a right/wrong thing but I do want to check what others think before I launch into some kind of crusade. It's not specific to one article so I can't ask there - it's scattered all over the encyclopaedia. It's also not a word that is always wrong - just usually, or in my view anyway! Where, do you think, is the best place - Pump or otherwise - to ask this question? Thanks in advance for your help, and best wishes, DBaK ( talk) 22:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Is there any place were you can express some kind of criticism of Wikipedia with some chance of being read ? Ericd ( talk) 18:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I've been there for long. I've been among the first to provide extensive image credits, I played a major rule in enforcing copyrights and licences here. Is it possible to express some views about the evolution of Wikipedia somewhere ? Ericd ( talk) 21:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I believe that most (though not all) uses of the word "habitants" on Wikipedia are wrong, and that it should usually be "inhabitants".
See this for a search.
I'm not talking about specialist uses like Habitants, obviously, nor where it pops up in, say, Victorin Lurel to tell us that he was "born 20 August 1951 in Vieux-Habitants". clearly those are fair enough anyway and I wouldn't be going near them.
My concern is with places such as Safané Department where we read that Safané has 7,502 habitants, Banga has 374 and so on. To me this just sounds wrong and I think it should be "inhabitants". What do you think?
I went through something similar - though not exactly the same - over "habited" and "inhabited" and there was able to consult my favourite linguist who assured me that my view was OK whether you're working in AmE or BrE. (She's an AmE speaker living in the UK!) However I don't feel I can impose on her goodwill for a second doubt-bout. I do not think that this is an AmE/BrE issue, but could of course be wrong. I am tempted to simply be bold and just get on with it, but it would be a bit embarrassing if I were missing the point. If it were a real point, anyway ...
What I think might be clouding the situation is that "habitants" is fine in French and that some, at least, of the articles that concern me are I believe of Francophone origin. What I am interested in is getting a clear view (if possible) of what people think the mainstream current usage is. I am wildly uninterested in hearing about what was current in 1783 or what might be argued under some circumstances to be an appropriate specialized usage: I just want what people - native-fluency English-speakers - normally say and sounds right to them. Certainly from my own experience of speaking and writing English for a few decades "habitants" simply sounds wrong ... I'd be very pleased to hear others' views, especially supported by evidence, were that possible. Thanks and best wishes DBaK ( talk) 13:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
However, if the article is about the Montreal Canadians, all bets are off! [16] - DavidWBrooks ( talk) 13:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee invites applications for Checkuser or Oversight permissions effective with the posting of this motion. The application period will close at 2359 hours UTC on 1 August 2010. For this round of appointments, only administrators will be considered. Candidates who ran in the May 2010 elections are encouraged to apply for consideration in this round of appointments. Administrators who applied for permissions in the round leading to the May 2010 election may email the Committee at arbcom.privilegeswikipedia.org by the close of the application period, expressing continued interest and updating their prior responses or providing additional information. New applicants must email the Committee at arbcom.privilegeswikipedia.org by 30 July 2010 to obtain a questionnaire to complete; this questionnaire must be returned by the close of the application period on 1 August 2010. The Arbitration Committee will review the applications and, on 13 August 2010, the names of all candidates being actively considered for appointment will be posted on-wiki in advance of any selection. The community may comment on these candidates until 2359 on 22 August 2010.
For the Arbitration Committee, NW ( Talk) 17:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
The Visualizer for Wikimedia projects is in production on the toolserver. It generates a chart with the data published on a wikipage. See also this diff for a concrete Wikimedian usage. Cheers, -- almaghi ( talk) 19:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
{{SCRIPTPATH}}
distinguishes... There doesn't appear to be any kindof magic word that would return just the language code or project code, which would be ideal. –
xeno
talk
19:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
How do I do this? Will this post somewhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DonnaWood ( talk • contribs) 19:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I live in China where the powers that be block me from uploading images greater than .5 MB. Is there a kind soul out there to whom I can email an image for upload to commons? I would be very grateful. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 00:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Moved to Talk:Suicide
17:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Online Ambassadors program is looking for volunteers. Its main focus is a concerted effort to do mentorship with students who are assigned to edit Wikipedia in their courses; it's part of the Wikimedia Foundation's Public Policy Initiative right now (see Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Public Policy and the Signpost article about it), and will hopefully be the basis for a longer-term effort at improving the way we nurture newbies.-- Sross (Public Policy) ( talk) 17:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I recently saw a template that wraps WikiProject templates on Talk pages, so a reader knows if more templates apply below the top (and perhaps long) template. However, I can't find the wrapping template with a search or remember where I saw it. Point me to it? ENeville ( talk) 14:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
{{
WPBS}}
a.k.a. {{
WikiProjectBannerShell}}
?
Svick (
talk)
20:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if this is the place to put this, it seemed like the nearest thing to a message board... I was just wondering how much research people do when they're contributing to articles? I've just started properly contributing, and I've been trying to think about topics that I know enough about to contribute to. Unfortunately, everything I can think of seems to already have more detail that I can come up with, so anything more would mean me going away and learning about something before I edited an article. It's not like I'm against this, I think it might actually help me to learn, but I was just wondering whether most of the contributions people make are from stuff they know by heart, or whether most editors work with the internet/a text book next to them? I'm also partly worried that if I have to learn something before I put it in an article, I'll get it wrong... Keepstherainoff ( talk) 11:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Well-written articles require research. In order to get articles to Good or Featured status, I've often had to pop down to a library to look up articles and books for information. And, yes, editing Wikipedia does lead to a lot of procrastination on other matters, so beware ... — Cheers, JackLee – talk– 15:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Here are two suggestions to consider:
You mention Wikipedia:WikiProject Sheffield on your user page. Since Sheffield University has St George's, how about improving our article on branch campuses so that it's as good as other encyclopaedias' coverages of the subject?
You mention Wikipedia:WikiProject Neuroscience and Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology on your user page. So how about all of those redlinks on neuropsychology topics to be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Typoglycemia (2nd nomination)?
As you can see, there's even lots of content in your favourite areas yet to be written. Uncle G ( talk) 02:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
It also depends on the state of the article and your goals for it. It's not usually hard to expand a stub, but taking an article past B-class usually requires research, even if you're a near-expert on the subject.
At the moment, I'm reading about traditional black gospel music. I know a bit, but not enough to finish fixing the mess we have (so that urban contemporary gospel can actually be about urban/contemporary gospel (e.g., Kirk Franklin and Christian hip hop instead of almost entirely about traditional black gospel music). I've got another 150 pages to go in my current book before I want to even attempt anything further, and even after all this reading, there are things I don't understand. (Speaking of which, if anyone knows what a 'non-functional bass voice part' is, please let me know: it's apparently one of the characteristic difference between the folk-style black gospel quartets and the jubilee-style black gospel quartets). WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
It's more than a week since I created Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User conduct/Creation with the following post, & there's been no response, so I repost it here.
In the section Wikilawyering, it says "The community generally believes that the Wikipedia method works". Really? I've discussed this in quite a number of different fora as occasion arose over the last couple of years, & I haven't yet come across anyone who, when pinned down to concrete detail rather than vague abstractions, claimed it worked. For example, not long ago I asked RSN whether they regularly reached consensus, & whether that would be enforced by admin. The answer was basically "Often, no". Peter jackson ( talk) 10:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I feel as though this probably still isn't the right place, but I'm not sure where else to go.
My Wikipedia layout was altered upon my banning from Wikipedia so as to make it almost entirely unusable. Since I have been unbanned, can I expect Wikipedia to return to it's default layout when I am logged in, or do I have to change this myself somewhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boromadloon ( talk • contribs) 12:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Ah, never mind. Returning all setting to default has fixed the problem Boromadloon ( talk) 12:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I'm french. In this article, we may find that "B of the Bang was Britain's tallest sculpture at twice the height of the Angel of the North,[14] which stands at 66 feet (20 m).". We may also find that "B of the Bang originally stood 56 metres". But 20*2 is not equal to 56. Where is the solution please ? 95.176.45.246 ( talk) 14:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
A quick look at this article by Nate Silver (well respected statistician famous for correctly predicting 49 out of 50 of the states in the 2008 presidential elections) as well as the score he gave Zogby Interactive compared to the scores he gave others should be enough of a warning for us to introduce a general policy of not to incorporating their polling in articles on Wikipedia(as they currently are being added). Note: I am talking about Zogby Interactive whose online polling only polls members of its own community(not randomly done samples of the general population as is the standard in the field) as opposed to Zogby International(of which Zogby Interactive is a subset) whose polling is done randomly by telephone and is much more respected. Wikiposter0123 ( talk) 23:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi, everyone! The Motto of the day WikiProject is now running better than it has ever done before. At the beginning of the year we were still running out of mottos on a regular basis, so that we often have emergency situations where we display low-quality mottos. But not anymore! Now we have mottos all the way to September. We have even made a lot of suggested changes to try to boost the project's effectiveness. Please discuss them here! Now, for the really great bit: We have started a Motto Shop! Details on WP:MOTD/MS. Those who read this, please comment on WT:MOTD/N#Suggested Changes, make a request on WP:MOTD/MS/R, or both! Kayau Voting IS evil 02:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC) (P.S. this is not WP:canvassing.)
Doesn't Michael Dini deserve an article? Enough coverage can be found with a quick Google search, referring to the DoJ investigation after he required his students to take a loyalty oath to Darwinisim. -- 138.110.206.101 ( talk) 15:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
How should I go about drumming up interest and support for the recently created WikiProject Disability? Roger ( talk) 12:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I was recently warned for posting "disruptive edits" regarding the posting of links to video podcasts. The Hammer Museum has several video podcasts that enhance the viewers knowledge and understanding of the speaker, usually artists or others who drive contemporary culture. These consist of lectures, readings, forums, and other scholarly forms of communicating information. After posting relevant links to people or topics discussed in the podcasts, I was warned for adding what was referred to as "inappropriate external links to Wikipedia". These links are not spam or promotional materials as we merely include the Hammer name to properly cite the lecture; we are not posting them to promote ourselves. Rather we think they are so interesting that the content will be of use as supplemental information for Wikipedia users who are trying to learn more about a specific person or topic. We see ourselves rather as providing links that "contains further research that is accurate and on-topic" The Wikipedia guidelines encourage the posting of "sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail or other reasons." These video podcasts are a free, educational public service that we provide. I then received a final warning stating that: "The next time you insert a spam link, you may be blocked from editing without further notice." I posted a message on the user's talk page explaining that the materials were educational and supplemental, not spam. I was instructed to post here and "try to attract a consensus there that the links add value to the articles". My intention is not to be disruptive, but to provide information that I feel adds great value to the articles. What could be more supplemental to an article on an artist than that artist speaking about themselves on video? If the issue is including the name of the museum, I am more than happy not to include that. I was under the impression that external links needed to be properly sited, and was only trying to do so. Any support or suggestions on this matter is greatly appreciated! MelissaYvonne ( talk) 01:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
How may it be said that this file is in low resolution? It is in SVG! Is it just to justify the use of a non-free media? -- Tonyjeff ( talk) 03:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
There is one thing I don't get. There are users who declare in their user space: "I release all of my contributions in the public domain", "I licence my contributions to articles of X type under Creative Commons, and all other contributions to GFDL" ( example) and so on. Yet, Wikipedia clearly says, just above the "Save page" button, "You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license. See the Terms of Use for details." ( MediaWiki:Wikimedia-copyrightwarning). Does this mean that all of these users make these declarations in vain? -- Brainmachine ( talk) 17:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
A related question: What is the status of an edit if I as the writer don't care what happens to it except that nobody should be allowed to claim it as their own work and/or profit from it? Roger ( talk) 19:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
To clarify, even if you have irrevocably released your work under a particular license, you still own the copyright, and are free to release it under different licenses (or into the public domain) should you wish. You could release it under a stricter license if you wish, but there would be no point, as the work is already released under CC-BY-SA, and people are free to use it under the terms of that license. OrangeDog ( τ • ε) 21:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
The page view statistics show nothing from 28th onwards, which happens to be the day when an article I created got to DYK. Can someone fix it? Please! (or, if there were another count, that would be great too.) Kayau Voting IS evil 12:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Back in March of 2010, Credo Reference graciously gave out 100 user accounts to the first 100 Wikipedians who signed up. The list was filled up within several hours. However, a linksearch shows less than 86 links in mainspace to credo...yet 100 accounts were given out. Perhaps some of those accounts ought to be redistributed? Smallman12q ( talk) 21:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Would editors, particularly uninvolved ones, please consider commenting at this RfC— Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy/RFC Climategate rename policy query.
It is a discussion about whether to rename Climatic Research Unit email controversy, and call it Climategate. Many thanks, SlimVirgin talk| contribs 03:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello, how can I mark Finnish wikipedia " Lupaavat artikkelit " in English wikipedia interwikis ? is there any similar in enwiki? please see : fi:Wikipedia:Lupaavat_artikkelit the symbol is -- Olli ( talk) 12:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
"Lupaavat artikkelit" translates to something like "Promising articles". The English Wikipedia does not have a classification exactly like this. The grading scheme on the English Wikipedia can be found at WP:ASSESS. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 21:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I would like to express concern about the wikitable in this section of this article. Personally I would not wish to see tables such as this in articles as I think that this level of analysis frankly makes us all look like a bunch of insensitive anoraks. Or it will when certain people in the media who are not keen on Wikipedia to start with get wind of it. I think we should think very deeply about whether we need these tables and what they say about us before they proliferate. Britmax ( talk) 20:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I didn't say there was, but do we need all these facts, delivered in such a clinical way? Britmax ( talk) 21:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
hey wiki's. im worried that the kids in high school these days are getting too much of a work load so early on in life?? am i the only one who thinks so? 07:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC) twiggie tall tail07:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twiggie Tall Tails ( talk • contribs)
I saw this in an airplane magazine yesterday. Is the foundation/Wikipedia aware of this? Are they following the copyleft rules of our site? Has legal looked into it? [17].
ScienceApologist ( talk) 11:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia's license is CC-BY-SA. It does not prevent persons from using stuff licensed as such for commercial purposes, provided the provisions of the license (i.e. attribution and identical licensing) are followed. This license doesn't include the non-commercial (NC) option, which would prohibit such licensed stuff from being used commercially. I believe there have been discussions from time to time, mostly on Commons, about the inclusion of media tagged as NC but to no avail, primarily because it would restrict the level of freedom of usage of such media in general. – MuZemike 23:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I suggest changing the orange color of the stripe on the left side of the POV-check and POV-check-section templates to yellow, to reflect the idea that a {{ POV-check}} is less severe than a {{ NPOV}} dispute.
As I understand it, you nominate an article for {{ POV-check}} if you think that it may have a non-neutral point of view. An article gets tagged with {{ NPOV}} if it is the subject of a serious dispute, possibly involving multiple editors, as reflected on its talk page.
(Note that I have listed this proposal before, where a more experienced editor pointed out to me that WP:AMBOX specifies an orange color for the stripe on the left side of content-related article-message boxes. However, WP:AMBOX is listed as a guideline rather than a policy, and besides, even though the messageboxes are color-coded by category, the guideline also contains a dictum that "The colour-coding helps to inform of the severity of the issues at a glance." Thus, I am re-listing this to see if my proposed change is really against consensus.)
69.140.152.55 ( talk) 02:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Unarchived to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
69.140.152.55 (
talk)
00:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Unarchived to generate a more thorough discussion so that new or broader consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments at
Template talk:POV-check or at
Template talk:POV-check-section. Thanks,
69.251.180.224 (
talk)
04:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Are redirects included in the Wikipedia article count? Do you have any idea if this might differ for other language Wikipedias? Where can I find out more about the article count? Thank you. -- 85.122.2.98 ( talk) 06:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Can anyone explain to me why the all page is categorized under 'List of people by cause of death'? Its pretty unneccesary. :D Aeno ( talk) 20:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I doubt that I will find much support for my position, but I want to throw it out for discussion anyway... On nearly all sporting club articles, the "current squad" or "current team roster" is included. However, we are an encyclopedia, not a current events website. There is not a single reason I can imagine why the current squad would be more important than any of the previous squads, which aren't included. So why do we include these? (Note: We also have season-per-sport-club articles, where the inclusion of the squad for that season is of course perfectly acceptable, just like on sport-club-on-tournament articles) Fram ( talk) 07:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
To give an idea of one of the results of such "current squads": one many, many smaller articles on less notable clubs, these squads take up about half the page, giving them way too much weight compared to the rest of the history and achievements of the club. See e.g. F.C. Verbroedering Dender E.H., VC Universitet-Tekhnolog Belgorod, Hannover Indians, GC Biaschesi, BC Gladiator Cluj-Napoca, ... Take e.g. Terenure College RFC, a second division Irish rugby league club with a stadium with a capacity of 200. Why are the current players all listed? They are for the most part not notable, are not the reason that the club is notable, and are of no more importance than the squads of the 70 previous seasons. But if I were to remove the squad, I would probably be swiftly reverted because "every sports club article has those" (see e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs). It's one of these things that everyone does, but nobody seems to wonder why and if it is the correct thing to do. Fram ( talk) 11:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah I would have to oppose this. I would say the average reader if they are doing a search on a team are looking for information on the current version of the team. As such the current roster should be on the first page they hit. It is far from recentism because on most developed articles, the Calgary Flames article pointed to above for example, shows that it only takes a small portion of the article and if anything it balances out the historical information. - DJSasso ( talk) 22:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Readers of Wikipedia, according to the most used searchs and most visited articles, are looking mostly for news, porn, and pop culture trivia, which are three things Wikipedia is not meant to be used for. What the readers want is not the guiding principle behind what we offer. Yes, obviously on larger articles it takes up a smaller portion, but there it isn't needed since usually we have a season article as well, for many seasons, so people can see the roster for every (or many) seasons, not just the current one. But on the many smaller articles, they are a case of undue weight and recentism, but many sports projects and editors insist that they must be added to articles. There is no reason to do this. People used the "almanac" element, but an almanac is published for a specific year (and yearly): we don't include high water tables for sea port cities either, even though these could (can?) be found in almanacs as well. We don't include the best period to plant your tomatoes in your country, even though that as well was included in farmer almanacs.
The argument is also given that because it has been done like this in the past, and because many articles follow the example and rule presented by the projects, this means that the consensus is clear. This is obviously a fallacy, we have to continue this because we always did it before. Using that argument, nothing will ever change. Of course this won't be decided with some small discussion here, this was just a way to check whether I was the only one who felt this way or not. It is clear that that isn't the case, although more people who have reacted here support the inclusion. Fram ( talk) 07:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Crossposted to WP:AN/I
Not the right venue
|
---|
I just tagged every single subpage and article in progress within my userspace as {{
db-u1}} and if things continue on as they have been I suppose I'll be posting a {{
retired}} notice soon as well. Despite repeated AN/I reports regarding the
disruptive and
tendentious editing behaviours of
Theserialcomma,
Miami33139, and
JBsupreme over the last year and a half, it seems I still cannot edit without these editors
wikihounding me while
working together as a group. My main editing focus had been to topics related to computing and online/electronic forms of communication. These were not areas in which these three individuals previously edited (the sole exception being Miami33139's prods/AfDs of multimedia-related software articles). Even after taking the behaviour issues all the way to ArbCom, where the case was unfortunately delayed and overshadowed by the EEML case (which was in progress at the same time), very little was addressed. [18] [19] I personally made a huge mistake in allowing myself to be baited by Miami33139 and Theserialcomma who were editing my comments on an article talk page [20] (where they then also edit warred with others [21]) and reposted parts of my comments out of context (and in a manner in which made them appear to have been posted that way by me) on a talk page that was part of the ArbCom case. [22] Allowing myself to be baited resulted in ArbCom handing out a "civility restriction" for me, [23] (which maybe I really deserved for allowing myself to be baited in the first place) with the behaviours of the three individuals largely still not addressed. [24] The case evidence I presented [25] was not used by the drafting arbitrator and no mention of Theserialcomma's disruptive behaviours were brought up in the proposed decision he drafted. (I suspect this is because I was the only editor who presented evidence of Theserialcomma's behaviours.) The omission in the proposed decision was openly questioned by others but was still not addressed. [26] The way in which the case name was chosen most likely did not help matters all that much either. [27] After the ArbCom case was closed, the wikihounding increased and I finally took a break from editing articles. I tried doing Commons work for awhile but I found I still needed to update pages on Wikipedia which used the images. In doing so I found that just making those small noncontroversial edits was enough to trigger the wikihounding so I cut back on my editing even further. I made another huge mistake when I vented some of my frustrations via email at Sandstein with being wikihounded and harassed off-wiki by Theserialcomma. He responded by blocking me for 18 days. [28] After I was unblocked by another administrator who reviewed what was said and had transpired, I immediately apologised to Sandstein for the venting [29] [30] as I had already realised that venting my frustrations at him really wasn't the right thing to do and I felt bad about it. This incident generated an enormous amount of email discussion. While blocked for 18 days, I spent the better part of it reviewing my own behaviours as well as my interactions with Theserialcomma, Miami33139, and JBsupreme. While doing so I also began to review their interactions with other editors. [31] I documented Theserialcomma's interactions with others in detail [32] and began to do the same for Miami33139 [33] and JBsupreme. [34] Due to time constraints, I stopped work on this and never picked back up on it after I was unblocked. A civility restriction was later put in place for JBsupreme [35] due to his continued behaviours but it really doesn't seem to have had much of an effect. [36] I just took an entire month off from editing due to both the continued wikihounding and my workload. [37] In that month, Miami33139 regained his internet access and picked right back up where he left off. [38] Some of his very first actions were to MFD and CSD pages I had sandboxed, [39] including one which JBsupreme moved from the sandbox to mainspace. [40] [41] Some of Miami33139's next actions included MFDing subpages from within my userspace, [42] [43] (which both Theserialcomma and JBsupreme then became involved in as well. [44] [45] [46] [47]) Miami33139 then restarted his previous behaviour of going though my contributions and removing/prodding/AfDing things which I had edited many, many months earlier. Miami33139 has done similar things to editors other than myself (such as Beyond My Ken/ Ed Fitzgerald and others), but like Theserialcomma and JBsupreme, Miami33139 seems to try to make just enough non-controversial edits or edits to related/similar pages to disguise his other actions. A number of editors and administrators contacted me via email and let me know of Miami33139's return and subsequent MFDing of subpages within my userspace. Several further suggested I not become involved in those MFDs as the actions by Miami33139 and Theserialcomma appeared to be an attempt at baiting me shortly before my civility restriction expired (see above). I really have tried to do some good here on Wikipedia and improve coverage of computing topics which have been in dire need of expansion. Due to the wikihounding however, I'm beginning to feel as though my efforts have largely been a waste of time. As I finish writing this, I also note JBsupreme removed my CSD tag from one of the in-progress subpages within my userspace, moved it to his own userspace, and then blanked it. [48] [49] [50] Sigh. I think I'll take another short break from Wikipedia as my workload really hadn't decreased just yet anyway. -- Tothwolf ( talk) 19:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC) SuggestionPerhaps you could request assistance from the mediation committee? 69.251.180.224 ( talk) 02:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC) |
The government has greatly hindered our encyclopedia. Because of them, millions of useful images have to be deleted from the encyclopedia, and we have to always be careful not to quote too much text from any source, except for those that have agreed to copyleft their stuff, or are so old that the copyright has expired. Pure wiki deletion was rejected largely because of concerns about copyvios and libel lawsuits, and Inclupedia is probably going to be rejected for the same reason. Fuck the government. Isn't there some way to escape the long arm of the law, much as The Pirate Bay did? Tisane talk/ stalk 04:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
This placque on the current Market Street Bridge (Philadelphia) illustrates the first bridge on Market Street (Philadelphia) over the Schuylkill River, and gives the history of subsequent bridges. Can the plaque be used as a source? If so, how do I provide an inline citation? This is just one instance of places where placques on bridges or other structures provide historical information difficult to locate elsewhere. -- DThomsen8 ( talk) 16:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Example:Columbia Bridge (Sign). Under the bridge along West River Drive, near Montgomery Drive: Fairmount Park Commission. 07-01-2006. {{
cite sign}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
White or Caucasian? when both descriptive adjectives are used by sources in an article. Is there a reason to choose one over the other? patsw ( talk) 16:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)