This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (miscellaneous).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
There are problems with several articles about television stations in the Little Rock, Arkansas market. I know y'all say to post things about articles on their respective articles talk pages, but I feel that these problems are related, and that no one might read my message on the talk pages of the articles. The largest problem is an article on KASN. Even though the article's name is still "KASN" the page claims that it is KQAR, calling itself "The Q". This is not true. I live in the Little Rock area, and I know that this station is still KASN, calling itself "CW Arkansas". The station's website, www.cwarkansas.com, confirms this. This change has been made by a person with the IP adress 4.227.114.158. Also, in the past, there have been problems with OTHER pages. For example KARK-TV's page began to report they had switched to high-definition news back in 2010. They just switched about a month ago, and they didn't even state their intent to switch until January 2011. KATV's page claimed for a while in 2010 that they called themselves "ABC 7". All my life it has been "KATV 7", and as y'all can tell I ain't a newborn. Please help to do something. I don't have internet access all the time, so I can't join Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.13.68.0 ( talk) 22:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm attempting to get to grips with the reasoning behind the recent opposition to preventing anything other than the default colour scheme. However, that discussion got a little wrapped up in the feature of styling in general, rather than the colour scheme. What benefits does it pose? Mostly, the sorts of things I've seen been Template:Manchester United F.C. in that the colour scheme is merely aesthetic. Grandiose ( me, talk, contribs) 16:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Following some promising results last week, the fundraising team are going to be testing a few more banners on the English Wikipedia on Thursday. These will only be up briefly (from 17:00 - 18:00 UTC) and will be displayed for anonymous users only. Pcoombe (WMF) ( talk) 00:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I am a en:WP administrator. I am not using my account for reasons that may become clear. Long ago I stopped editing or admin-ing. I occasionally edit a line, a small mistake, just as any casual user might. Lately I found myself willing to vandalise, and actually doing it (mildly, I hope). Why? How and why going from caring admin to vandal-to-be?
I can not tell for sure, and certainly there are many factors, some may even be personal. But which are WP related factors?
For the first stage (admin to little IP edits) there were probably two main factors (other than less free time, which was a strong factor too). First, endless discussions, ending up in decisions which only some user abide to, while some don't.leading WP to be a court of law, with processes at ArbCom, or whatever the names and instances. Too complicated, we do need WP-lawyers, and that is silly. Second, I started to see bot wars with bots doing mass changes, creating a class of super-(arrogant)-users, the bot owners, able to (n)do in a zap something that takes months of human work (un)do. [note: _some_ bot owners were super-(arrogant)-users, definitely not all]
For the second stage (little IP edits to vandal-to-be). Clearly two factors. One still being bots: a perfectly OK edit gets reverted by a bot, note that the removed text was already incorporated in the added see also link. A human would spot that easy, but a bot reverted. (and then I did a few not so nice comments on the bot's page). Second, I tried to correct a link at 2010–11_Belgian_Second_Division#League_table, as it was pointing to Spain's play-off. Try to look at it: it is template hell! A casual user is more or less unable to understand it. I know about templates in general, still it was unclear what to edit. So I semi-vandalized it (and gor reverted by the same bot! How the hell did he estimated this to be a vandal? By the signarture? That's a too wild guesstimate...)
In conclusion. Is WP is a battleground for bots and coding geeks? Hordes(?) of bots are actively changing content, even cluelessly reverting humans. Common humans can't edit, because it is too complicated at first glance.
So is WP actually pushing away legitimate human editors, by making it too hard to start editing (template hell) and even encouraging vandals (by annoying humans)?
Is WP a wiki? "A wiki invites all users to edit any page [and] is not a carefully crafted site for casual visitors. Instead, it seeks to involve the visitor [...]" [in Wiki].
I'm sorry for the mild vandalism, it will not happen again. I hope you guys and gals still involved try to shift WP back into a human site. 2.82.175.120 ( talk) 13:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Let's start putting "External Links" section after "See also".
1. The content and links are often EXTREMELY high value, in terms of different views, lots of content, etc.
2. The "type of information" is very much the same as a See also in type.
3. It gets lost way down below the footnotes and the bibliography.
4. In a BOOK, you would not put this kind of information after the footnotes and bibliography. It would be a discussion prior to the bibliography.
Look at Richard nixon for example. Those are some great sites to go to. And we bury them WAY to far down. After 150 footnotes. Down there with the category link crap.
P.s. I understand that we want to pimp our own articles. And we already forbid inline hyperlinks. But putting the penalty box SO LOW down the page is poor service to the reader.
TCO ( talk) 03:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Well in principally I favour the notion that (extensive) footnotes/references should come last as imho this is better for general reader for various reasons. However WP has taken a different route in the past and reversing that is an extremely cumbersome effort (convincing the various involved editors and potentially redoing the order of the bulk of articles). So even if a different is might be the right thing, the task of changing it, is like Don Quixote charging the wind mill, i.e. it will be a waste of time and only lead to personal frustration. Some of the opposing views above might indicate that already-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 19:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Add my voice to those that are concerned about raising the visibility of External Links (and See also) sections. Yes, they have their place. On more than one occasion, I found an interesting, well written article about a subject that did not meet wikipedia's WP:RS threshold, and happily added it to the external links section. However, for every time I've added one such link, I've removed 100 spam links. They are without a doubt a crap magnet section. The "See also" section isn't much better. I've seen this section misused to indirectly imply connections to topics, where if the connection were directly made in the body of the article would be reverted or tagged as an inappropriate. Dave ( talk) 21:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Collapsed unconstructive discussion |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This is just wasting editor time. (Albiet effectively, at least.) Please go back to writing and reviewing. TCO ( talk) 02:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Is there a special page where the worst articles every are? Or a page with the worst discussions. Or something.... :) Crystalkaloid ( talk) 19:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
"Worst" under which rationale? Someone may say so of stubs Cambalachero ( talk) 02:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
This is a note to inform anyone interested about a discussion going on at Talk:Bash (Unix shell)#Further discussion, where we would like to see input from some more editors to make an article titling decision. Cheers. - GTBacchus( talk) 05:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Does anybody know of the shortest featured article as in page size that is still featured? Shannºn Talk 02:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I've suggested a multiple move at a subsection of Talk:Blood pressure#Requested move to systemic arterial blood pressure ( Talk:Blood pressure#Replacement of current blood pressure article). However, I'd like to ask: is there any formal formatting of such a multiple moves that is preferred? Mikael Häggström ( talk) 18:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I just happened across Meta:Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Old English Wikibooks, which has been open for over 9 months. This is more than enough time to form a baby, but apparently not a consensus. If anyone is interested, please feel free to have an opinion there. I didn't realize that there is an Old English Wikipedia as well, as I guess a lot of the Saxons are wired these days and need to know about surfing and anime. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 11:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
There are currently about 5400 WikiProject assessment categories that do not contain {{ Cat class}}. This template allows navigation between the categories for that project easier and faster. An example can be seen here. I would like to do a run through and add this template to the remaining categories that need it and it was suggested I drop a note here before proceding to solicit comments and opinions. -- Kumioko ( talk) 17:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Is there a page or log that lists pages which were formerly redirects, but which were recently made into articles? Maybe some bot keeps track of this? I would like to patrol/monitor a list of redirects that have been turned into articles. I asked on Help Desk and had no luck - maybe someone here has a helpful suggestion. Thanks in advance. -- Neutrality talk 16:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Tag: Redirect becoming article
. Beyond that, I don't know, and I think it would be a good idea to track that.
The Blade of the Northern Lights (
話して下さい)
16:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)I'm looking for some editors to review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dodger, Bonzo and the Rest (Dramarama Episode). I've waited 10 days and only had a marginal comment that there are other articles that could be packaged with this one. I've already informed WikiProject Television and WikiProject British TV shows. Hasteur ( talk) 15:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I need some help with the text of this inscription (the armenian text and the translation in English) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Biserica_Sf._Constantin_si_Elena_din_Gura_Humorului15.jpg. Thank you in advance. Cezarika1 ( talk) 04:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to start a discussion on this... or receive a link to one in progress. And, to clarify, I'm talking mostly about subject area, ie Biology, Art and Humanities, Albums by Jimi Hendrix, etc. And I'm interested in any way you might assess the coverage of that area, ie quantity of articles on a certain topic, quality of the articles already written, etc... Something tells me, though, that even with these qualifications, I'm going to get some flack for this question. Sure, it may seem vague and difficult to answer. But I'm looking for opinion. I'm looking for a general idea of where Wikipedia is most in need of improvement. Partly out of curiosity, partly out of an interest to help Wikipedia improve. Thanks in advance. Bobnorwal ( talk) 02:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
All of it could use help. And there are a few things that are just crying out for action and very doable. Like "turn the periodic table blue" (there's only 100 articles to do). That said...worst off is probably literature. TCO ( talk) 08:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
The topic that most interests me is woefully under-represented on wikipedia, just as it is ignored by the biased mass media and the prejudiced Powers-That-Be. The topic that most interests you, on the other hand, is w-a-a-a-ay overdone here. - DavidWBrooks ( talk) 11:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
IMO the general problem is that of general disorganization througout Wikipedia and I don't mean that in a completely negative tone. Since we are all essentially volunteers there is a systematic lack of desire by many editors for anything related to structure and most attempts to standardize or organize are dismissed with such comments as not broken, cure in search of a problem, etc.
In the case of this discussion we have very little idea in any organized fashion what articles are missing other than what individual editors or WikiProjects maintain individually. For example I could tell you that there are roughtly 1500 Medal of Honor recipients in need of articles, thousands of locations on the National Register of Historic Places, thousands of locations (cities, parks, buildings, etc) in general thoughout the world, military battles, people and equipment, thousands of topics relating to the Smithsonian Instituion, Library of Congress and National Archives each, a nearly uncountable number of plants and animals, thousands more biographies, etc. So what needs to be done IMO is to combine the articles for Creation process, bounty board, the various articles for creation lists the projects maintain, and the various other things relating to missing articles and combine them into an organized mechanism that people can navigate and use to create these missing topics. Or at least be able to identify the ones that are missing in a central location. Perhaps in a combination WikiProject/Portal concept where it was a one stop shop for things relating to article creation. -- Kumioko ( talk) 13:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
The lack of any online image/diagram editing software is a concern for me. We have some pretty horrible substitutes ( EasyTimeline anyone?), but nothing that easily allows creating diagrams ( File:George W Bush approval ratings.svg), shades in maps (native bird habits), or animations (American Civil War battles). With SVG support, some people had hoped to edit them as easily as articles. — Dispenser 14:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I suspect the OP was looking for answers like biology or business, rather than governance or help, but let me take this post as an excuse to echo the sentiments that we are doing a terrible job dealing with potential new editors. Just open up Requests for feedback, look at the long list of potential future editors asking for help and getting none. As Kumioko points out, it is easy to identify thousands of needs. OK, I just pointed you to thousands of potential editors who have been ignored.-- SPhilbrick T 23:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Sometimes one reads something in even a reputable media source that is blatantly untrue.
A recent example that comes to mind is the often mentioning of "leaders of the hacker group Anonymous". Main stream journalists apparently can't comprehend that a group could operate without a hierarchical structure.
So if you find a blatant untrue statement in a WP article referenced with some lazy journalism (something which is on the increase as the media get more and more sensationalistic and it's easier to Google some information than getting to the bottom of something the old fashioned style) and you can't find a reliable source to back a change what should you do then (apart from mentioning it on the talk page)? SpeakFree (talk) 19:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
There used to be an article (I believe in RS or something) that talked about " A Physicist is more reliable on Physics related matter than a Biologist".. that is a specialist in each field has primary. I am having trouble in finding it and I would appreciate any help. Thanks.-- Khodabandeh14 ( talk) 20:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Once again the Fundraising team will be testing some banners on the English Wikipedia today (1st July). These will be up from 17:30-18:30 UTC and displayed to anonymous users only. If you're interested, you can see the results from our previous tests. Pcoombe (WMF) ( talk) 16:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I just gave out my first Wikilove. Not sure if I will end up hating it, liking it, or gettin tired of it. But was kinda fun to try it. And use it when I really wanted to communicate some good feelings. Interested to hear from others who have given or gotten their first 'love.
TCO ( talk) 19:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
TCO ( talk) 21:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Tried doing it with you and it did not work. Wondered if it was the space in filename, but an unspaced other file did not work either.
I was curious about how different religions are represented on WP, so I compared stats on the number of Wikipedians who self-identify with a particular religion to the US average. Here are the results -
Religion | As a percentage of US population | Self Identification Category | Members of Category | Members as a percentage | Fold repersentation |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Christian | 78.5 | Category:Christian_Wikipedians | 1,741 | 30.4 | 0.39 |
Jewish | 1.7 | Category:Jewish_Wikipedians | 484 | 8.4 | 5.0 |
Buddhist | 0.7 | Category:Buddhist Wikipedians | 256 | 4.5 | 6.4 |
Hindu | 0.4 | Category:Hindu Wikipedians | 175 | 3.1 | 7.6 |
Muslim | 0.6 | Category:Muslim_Wikipedians | 537 | 9.4 | 15.6 |
Unaffiliated | 16.1 | Category:Atheist_Wikipedians | 2,537 | 44.3 | 2.8 |
Disclaimers - I realize in terms of representation there might be several flaws with this approach.
Conclusion - Minority groups seem over represented on WP. In fact, it seems as though the smaller a group is, the more over represented it is on WP. I wonder why.........
Anyways, I'm just posting to see if anyone has any thoughts on this issue. Obviously this topic is of potential importance when it comes to systemic bias.
P.S. Number of wikipedians who are members of Category:Pastafarian_Wikipedians = 550. Those guys got no respect! Shout out to all Pastafarians - Drop me a line if you want to know where you should put that noodlely appendage. NickCT ( talk) 12:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I've been noticing a trend on a lot of Wikipedia noticeboards of growing levels of conflict over China-related articles, often with accusations of one or another party being in the employ of Beijing. I've read several articles in the mainstream media mentioning that special interests ranging from the US military to Micro$oft consider Wikipedia to be a target for psy ops and agitprop, and it seems to me exceedingly likely as time passes that these special interests will endeavour to infiltrate the authority structure of Wikipedia (if they have not already).
In my own experience as an activist, I've seen Trots infiltrate local activist organizations by creating dozens of front groups and then demanding a seat for each one on governing councils and such. I understand that this is extremely common, and when I asked around to various activist communities about how they dealt with this problem, each had developed strategies for protecting themselves. For example, an activist in New York told me they're able to keep the Trots out of their councils by making sure there are equal numbers of Stalinists and Trots so that they fight bitterly and endlessly until both need to be removed entirely.
I'm curious whether Wikipedia has developed any strategies for protecting itself from such infiltration, or whether such protection is even possible. Are there Chinese agents already in ArbCom? Is Wikimedia riddled with CIA moles and Monsanto operatives? How would we ever know if this was the case? SmashTheState ( talk) 06:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
There is definitely too much special interest going on in wikipedia. Also the whole US government is also now run by special interest groups which is undermining the democratic foundation of the country. In Wikipedia, it just doesn't cover modern events but also history, natural resources, and etc. It is a shame, and wikipedia should have a lie-detector test to see if someone has ever been part of a lobby group (once the technology becomes possible). If they fail the lie-detector test, then they should not be able to edit. ELse the credibility of Wikipedia will continue to suffer in the non-technical fields. -- Khodabandeh14 ( talk) 20:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
To address a few of the comments: First, there are a surprising number of Trots still boring in (and just boring) out there. They don't seem very numerous because they operate through vast numbers of front groups; even some of the Trots aren't aware they're Trots. From the SWP to the IS to the Sparts, they're all arms of the same Trot beast. There's an essay called "Monopolising Resistance" which may prove elucidating, which you can probably find fairly easily online, which details how the Trots operate, and how anyone involved in activism will need to deal with their activities.
Second, a glance at COINTELPRO shows the serious men in suits and dark shades consider very little to be too small to worry about. Wikipedia is a large target, and many, many media reports have indicated that a laundry list of corporations, government agencies, and special interest groups have openly stated that they consider Wikipedia a viable medium to push their agenda, and have paid substantial sums of money to do so. In fact, one article on a marketing blog explained in specific detail how the Starbucks article has been successfully turned into a piece of corporate propaganda which whitewashes the company's reputation while hiding any criticism "below the fold." Just recently, a Zionist propaganda organization in Israel, CAMERA, has begun offering a course in how to successfully plant propaganda into Wikipedia. Anyone who claims intelligence agencies and special interest groups aren't sinking large amounts of time and resources into Wikipedia hasn't been looking very hard at mainstream media reports.
The fact that my question about Wikipedia's preparedness for dealing with infiltration garnered negligible interest (and mostly sarcastic sniping from the few who bothered to respond) tells me all I need to know about the state of Wikipedia's security culture. -- SmashTheState ( talk) 15:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
anyone? The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•( contribs) 19:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Esperanza got deleted, since Wikipedia is not a social networking site. The Mark of the Beast ( talk) 23:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
A quick chart about WikiLove. Look at the tiny blue line on July 1st. Spread the wikilove ; ) emijrp ( talk) 06:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't see any problem with this tool, as it isn't really adding anything new to wikipedia. Barnstars and "Congratulations!" templates have existed since a long time ago, this extension simply allows ease in using them. Similarily, users who want to annoy others have long existed as well (same as the chance of adding shock images to their messages), and if they have the will to harass, they will do so with or without wikilove extension. Cambalachero ( talk) 13:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Is a monograph similar to a journal? I am just trying to decide which is the right template (not {{ Citeweb}}) to cite this. Simply south.... .. digging mountains for 5 years 15:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone know the background behind this series? Apparently, all info comes from Wikipedia. - Presidentman talk· contribs Random Picture of the Day ( Talkback) 15:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
I received an email (via my Wikipedia address) that an article I had nominated for deletion (but isn't actually yet deleted) was moved to WikiAlpha, which is apparently a brand new site that purports to be "like Wikipedia, but without notability and original research requirements." While that's fine and I have no problems in that regard, I noticed that all of their content, including content directly copied from Wikipedia, is licensed under the Creative Commons public domain license. Granted, I'm not good with copyright law, but in my experience, Wikipedia uses share-alike licenses—meaning that all copied content must use the same license, with attribution.
This appears to be a very new site, so I thought I'd bring this to the attention of more experienced users to process this and elevate it to those who can deal with it if necessary. If this is in the wrong forum, feel free to redirect me to the right one. Cheers. elektrik SHOOS ( talk) 00:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I am from WikiAlpha (administrator Richard.) We wish to keep our content under the public domain where possible (i.e. where authors have directly entered it into the site.) However where we have copied articles which are currently on Wikipedia and nominated for deletion, we understand that the above complaints are valid. I'm not an expert on copyright law, but would it be sufficient, in your opinion, to place a notification that the content on a particular page is licensed under a separate license contrary to the general public domain license?
Additionally, we are happy to remove content that authors do not with to be republished on our site. Just send us an email to removals@wikialpha.org Thank you. Wootfarm ( talk) 03:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
<moved below for organization>
Most of those have not yet been deleted, so you can still snag the attribution yourself. :) I'm sure you know how to use Help:Page history, since you're using the same software. Separating out the ones that are still bluelinks from the ones for which I've provided attribution at your Wiki. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
i am an indian and i live in RAIPUR, CHHATTISGARH. could anybody please tell me an online book store where i could find world literature and any sort of books? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 00chirag5 ( talk • contribs) 04:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
At the bottom of the Prohibition Party article is this brief section:
===Elected officials=== [[image:The Drunkard's Progress - Color.jpg|thumb|right|300px|The Drunkard's Progress: A lithograph by [[Nathaniel Currier]] supporting the temperance movement, January 1846.]] * [[Sidney Johnston Catts]] – [[Governor of Florida]] (1917–1921) * [[Charles Hiram Randall]] – [[California State Assembly]]man (1911–12) and [[U.S. Representative]] from [[California's 9th congressional district|the 9th District of California]] (1915–21) * [[Susanna M. Salter]] – Mayor of [[Argonia, Kansas]] (1887): the first female mayor in the United States * [[James Hedges]] – [[Thompson Township, Fulton County, Pennsylvania|Thompson Township, Pennsylvania]], Tax Assessor (2002–2007)<ref>[http://www.prohibitionists.org/Candidates/candidates.html Prohibition Party Candidates]</ref>: the first and only known officeholder of the 21st century
which shows as:
Needless to say, the goose is not The Drunkard's Progress, but clicking on the duck will take you to the right image. What is going on here?!
D ralwi k| Have a Chat 04:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Recently there was a post on SlashDot about our new WikiLove feature [7].
In general there is little conversation about the new feature, and more conversation about why Slashdot readers - a demographic that should include many good contributors to Wikipedia, as they are generally intelligent, "wise" to technology, and sympathetic to free and open source software and information - have grown to be cynical about the utility of being volunteer editors.
The comments contain some stories of disgruntled editors, usually describing the failure of their first attempts at editing Wikipedia. The themes, as I read it, are:
I have no particular suggestions for how we can counter these perceptions, but I thought I should notice it in a public place. Feedback / ideas welcome.
Regards, causa sui ( talk) 16:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Don't forget about Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure. Once that is completed, we'll have an active tutorial system that will guide new users through the processes and how things work, instead of just directing them toward almost entirely unhelpful reams of pages on how to edit. Silver seren C 21:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
The file commons:File:Oscar icon.png, which is used on a very large number of pages ( links), has been marked for nominated deletion on Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests July 2011. Rather than notify a large number of talk pages I am raising this on WP:AN and WP:VP to obtain the right intervention.
A discussion about whether to delete the file will now take place on Commons. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so ( commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise:
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 16:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
The file commons:File:American Civil War Montage 2.jpg, which is used on a very large number of pages ( links), has been marked for nominated deletion on Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Media without a source as of 4 July 2011. Rather than notify a large number of talk pages I am raising this on WP:AN and WP:VP to obtain the right intervention.
A discussion about whether to delete the file will now take place on Commons. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so ( commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise:
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 17:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
The file commons:File:Verre de whisky.jpg, which is used on a very large number of pages ( links), has been marked for nominated deletion on Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Media without a source as of 5 July 2011. Rather than notify a large number of talk pages I am raising this on WP:AN and WP:VP to obtain the right intervention.
A discussion about whether to delete the file will now take place on Commons. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so ( commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise:
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 17:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
What about adding a new option to the wikilove extension, applying the {{ Welcome!}} template or other similar ones for new users? It may be a single welcome template, or it may allow to choose from a list of circumstances to apply one of the several types of welcome templates available Cambalachero ( talk) 14:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
What is Wikilove for, anyway..'Soul 19:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SolarWind123 ( talk • contribs)
List of municipal authorities in Northampton County, Pennsylvania has been deleted, but several other such lists for Pennsylvania Counties are still active. Can someone tell me where this particular list went?-- DThomsen8 ( talk) 16:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Can anyone help here...or point me to more places to ask for help?
I want a video (or perhaps a photo) of fluorine gas reacting with something. There is nothing PD (or even that I can think of as an easy donation). Looking for something like in the videos below. Will go into a Featured Article Candidate. Either someone to make it for us or who has it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mG6EG_igTGw
-or-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1FsO5zaf6M
TCO ( reviews needed) 23:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
The Guardian has an item about Wikipedia today: The online encyclopedia's unlikely routes to enlightenment. This has a theory about our links tending to lead up to philosophy. I'm not convinced by this as the current FA just loops. But try it yourself and see. Warden ( talk) 12:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
The file commons:File:Oscar icon.png, which is used on a very large number of pages ( links), has been deleted on Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Per commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Oscar icon.png. Rather than notify a large number of talk pages I am raising this on WP:AN and WP:VP to obtain the right intervention.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 15:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
The file commons:File:7BrahmanMH.jpg, which is used on a very large number of pages ( links), has been marked for nominated deletion on Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests July 2011. Rather than notify a large number of talk pages I am raising this on WP:AN and WP:VP to obtain the right intervention.
A discussion about whether to delete the file will now take place on Commons. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so ( commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise:
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 22:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I believe the project has a problem which should be addressed:
A very unscientific survey of recent posts indicates that 80% or so of requests do not get an answer. This is unacceptable. (in contrast, less than 1% of questions at Help_desk go unanswered.)
I have tried to address this in a couple of ways:
I have a new thought, but before I spend time on it, I am concerned that one of the reasons we don't get sufficient volunteers at Requests for feedback is because of Problem 2
Another very unscientific survey of recent posts suggests over 90% of feedback is not acknowledged. I think the recent count is a bit of an aberration, but I would hope for something like 50% or better.
That lack of response is discouraging to me, and likely to others. (I posted to Moonriddengirl who observed similar issues at Drawing board).
I apologize in advance for posing two different problems; I am immediately interested in responses to the second problem, as I feel it must be resolved before tackling the first, but I thought articulating the first problem would help provide the context.
Moonriddengirl hinted at one possible answer I've mulled over in the past - do new editors posting to notice boards feel as if they are posting to semi-automated answering service, rather than energized human being volunteers who would like to discuss the issue? If so, how do we change that perception. If not, what should we do?-- SPhilbrick T 15:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
How about more of an apprenticeship model where new editors have to earn the right to make new articles? Part of the problem is new articles by new people are so often crap (and in general new articles is not our biggest needs, it's to add content to well-notable topics, so why be exerting lots of effort on that crap)? Earn your stripes is a way to better channel things. TCO ( reviews needed) 19:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I would suggest that we focus on joining new editors up with people who care about the kinds of article that they're editing, because that seems like to point of greatest possible synergy. Maybe some kind of cross-posting / transclusion into Wikiproject space? Stuartyeates ( talk) 01:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Having been part of the IRC help channel before becoming active in the Help Desk and having cooperated somewhat with the AfC people, I think the reasons why most people don't want to respond to WP:FEEDBACK is the same reason why there are so few reviewers in the Articles for Creation process.
Because a great majority of the articles being submitted for feedback are COI edits, often blatantly promotional. And a fair amount of them are AfD candidates outright. Most people would balk at trying to fix errors in an article that would either be deleted sometime soon or requires them to completely rewrite the article.
As for feedback responses, I leave a feedback 'talkbalk' template at the asker's talk page. In my limited time answering requests there, they've almost always responded though not on WP:FEEDBACK itself. They either post on my talk or try to comply with the advice given. And yeah, I try to point people to WikiProjects once I get to know the subjects they are most interested in, but only in the rare cases when they aren't single-purpose COI accounts. *sigh*-- Obsidi♠n Soul 07:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Too many places for editors looking to help others to look - I'd merge this with Peer Review. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 07:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
The file commons:File:Deoband.jpg, which is used on a very large number of pages ( links), has been deleted on Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Per commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Deoband.jpg. Rather than notify a large number of talk pages I am raising this on WP:AN and WP:VP to obtain the right intervention.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 17:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Im no big expert on the life of Veronica Guerin, but all I can say is that I think if some user/users with extensive knowledge and time on their hand edited her article the article could really be expanded alot. Because its quite badly written right now and quite short when thinking of the fact that Guering changed alot of Irelands judicial system before her murder in 1996. So I would like to request that some user took a look at the article and expanded it and perhaps re-writes it. Thanks.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 21:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
The file commons:File:Buzz icon.png, which is used on a very large number of pages ( links), has been marked for speedy deletion on Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions. Rather than notify a large number of talk pages I am raising this on WP:AN and WP:VP to obtain the right intervention.
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is time to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so ( commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise:
A further notification will be placed if/when the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 01:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Had this happen a while ago. Just once actually. And not some big prize or anything. And had been dormant with me for a while. Kinda glad the para-long stub was created with sources I had in sandy. But still...what kind of person does that and does not give a heads up or a comment on talkie-talk? TCO ( reviews needed) 15:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello everyone.
I need assistance over one grave matter. Namely, I have been blocked for a period of three months on the Croatian Wikipedia, in what I believe is an example of administrational abuse and newbie harassment. I have wanted to use methods of appeal, but after announcing to use them, the blocking admin has extended my block further to my talk page and upon my announcement to use the email feature in order to inquire assistance from other administrations, he has deprived me of that privilege as well.
I have dispatched an appeal at the Request for Comment over at the Croatian Wikipedia, and the end opinions are very controversial - 2 admins strongly critical of my appeal, while 2 others mostly endorse it and demand my immediate unblock and a review of the actions of the blocking admin. However, the two latter ones had submitted their Opinions only moments after the deadline to do so has expired, meaning that their opinions have been crossed out and only the first two ones, which oppose my arguments, will be taken into consideration. Considering that several days have passed since the initial 10-day period and in the lack of any sort of a determined time period within which a neutral 3rd party Administrator is to summarize the opinions of the Administrators and implement actions, if any, as well as the already-known outcome of the pending RfC resolution, I have decided to go for the very final way of lodging an appeal at the whole Croatian Wikipedia.
In accordance to this Arbitration Committee vote:
“ | [point 4] In case the conflict cannot be resolved in accordance to the rules expressed to the above, parties can, as a final means, request the creation of a committee of administrators and users in a determined number. After the decision, this committee is to be dissolved. It shall apply the same rules as the AC. | ” |
“ | [clarification 2] It shall apply the same rules as the AC. - this refers to the collection of rules present on the most advanced Wikipedia - en.wikipedia.org. See ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy) Arbitration proceedings. The rules present on hr.wikipedia.org are insufficient for transparent and unbiassed proceedings. | ” |
Taken to granted these specific rules, and the circumstances I've expressed to the above, I want to file a request for the formation of such a committee. However, the Croatian Wikipedia lacks any rule or guideline which specifies the procedure of requesting the formation of such a committee, meaning that I am unable to do so myself, as was in the case of RfC, being a blocked user, stripped also of editing the personal talk page, or using the email feature. Therefore, I ask anyone present here to come forth to my assistance and submit the request in my stead, on the standard Croatian Wikipedia general discussion page, and in the lack of, as mentioned, any rules or guidelines which would give any sort of specification in regards to the submission of a request for the foundation of this special committee.
To whomever grants me this plea of assistance, I offer my most sincere gratitude. -- SavoRastko ( talk) 03:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
A RFC is underway to discuss what features the community desires to see on the main page. Please participate! Thanks. AD 19:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
How do i cite this one? Simply south.... .. improving for 5 years 23:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite map}}
but I've never used it myself.
Killiondude (
talk)
20:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)The file commons:File:KylieShowgirl.jpg, which is used on a very large number of pages ( links), has been marked for nominated deletion on Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests July 2011. Rather than notify a large number of talk pages I am raising this on WP:AN and WP:VP to obtain the right intervention.
A discussion about whether to delete the file will now take place on Commons. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so ( commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise:
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 09:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Some time ago, I remember that there was a proposal at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)to do something about getting the tag "Some one else has started editing this page since you started to edit it, resulting in an edit conflict". Does any one know whether anything came of this? ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 20:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Just curious. I am finding my talk comments to be miserable. Full of misspellings and improper homonyms and stray parentheses. And then not really in sentences. I see others go back and correct their comments. Also maybe it is "good practice" for article writing. Plus kinder on the readers. One down side is more work. And then it's not really an article. But...thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO ( talk • contribs) 18:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Unreliable, likely partisan and misplaced report |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Likely most of you think that it's not of your business what is going on in some other parts of the Wikimedia-Universe. But if you take a look at the current cases of mobbing, hostilities and persecution of/against Jewish contributors in the German Wikipedia you just have to be appalled. Not just as user/contributor of any Wikimedia project, but rather as a human. All of this happens under indulgence and/or active participation of virtually most of the admins. Some of the chasers don't even try to hide their motives. It's just unbelievably disgusting. -- GelberZettelKrieg ( talk) 16:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Please don't bring your fights from de.wiki here. – MuZemike 03:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Propose closing this. Btw, can anyone put a welcome-new-user template on OP page? Thank you. -
DePiep (
talk)
23:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
|
I've been preparing the anniversaries section for Portal:United States, which has necessitated visiting a ton of of the date pages I described in the title. Let me cut right to the chase. Every time I went though one, I found at least a few entries ranging from 'plausible sounding but not in the articles and therefore not verified' to 'utter bullshit', with a few other that were a day off or switched June with July or other such errors.
Either way, all 365 of those pages need to come under close scrutiny. Thoughts? Sven Manguard Wha? 02:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I had just finished updating the Margret Green Junior High School as part of the July GoCE Copy editing drive, when I discovered that there is another article, Margaret Green Junior High School, almost the same as the one I did but not copy edited. The proper article name is with the "a" in Margaret. Now I do not know what to do, so I am asking for help here. Please make sure my improvements and copyediting is retained. -- DThomsen8 ( talk) 15:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
hello, I want to tell about:
!!!GGGLLLOOOORRRRIIIIAAAA!!!
Benny Lin SORANG WIKIPEDIAWAN ASAL INDONESIA SERTA SAHABAT BAIK SAYA AKHIRNYA DAN PERTAMA KALINYA MENJADI SEORANG STEWARD DALAM PEMILIHAN STEWARD KEDUA PADA TAHUN 2011 ( bukti). MAKA DARI ITU, TANPA BASA-BASI LAGI SAYA DEKLARASIKAN TANGGAL 6 OKTOBER YANG MERUPAKAN HARI DIMANA DILANTIKNYA BELIAU SEBAGAI STEWARD SEBAGAI "HARI STEWARD NASIONAL" (khusus Erik Evrest) SEPERTI JANJI SAYA SEBELUMNYA DAN TAK LUPA SEBAGAI TAMBAHANNYA PADA TANGGAL 6 DESEMBER YANG MERUPAKAN HARI DIMANA UNTUK PERTAMA KALINYA ANTARA BENNYLIN DAN SAYA BERHUBUNGAN SOSIAL UNTUK PERTAMA KALINYA ( bukti) SAYA DEKLARASIKAN SEBAGAI "HARI PERSAHABATAN BENNYLIN-ERIK EVREST" (juga khusus Erik Evrest) SERTA DIANTARA KEDUA TANGGAL TERSEBUT ( 6 November) SEBAGAI "HARI BENNYLIN NASIONAL" (dan sekali lagi khusus Erik Evrest) |
Erik Evrest is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
This is a Wikipedia
user page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user in whose space this page is located may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)/Archive_33. |
For the realization of the victory over the truth, soon dislodged the status of your account blocked IndoManiak, Si Opm Papua, and MukaMulez as well as block accounts Jonathan Ryousuke, Ninja sawit, and Bukan Pembantai. Thanks -- Erik Evrest ( talk) 13:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
The file commons:File:Flag of London, Ontario.svg, which is used on a very large number of pages ( links), has been marked for nominated deletion on Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests July 2011. Rather than notify a large number of talk pages I am raising this on WP:AN and WP:VP to obtain the right intervention.
A discussion about whether to delete the file will now take place on Commons. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so ( commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise:
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 12:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure where to put this, so I guess I'll put it here:
I have an idea for a fundraiser for the WMF, which would undoubtedly require the WMF to be an active participant (at least in getting it set up), and therefore, would require the WMF higher ups to... well... notice the proposal.
I know there are other sites, meta primarily, where stuff like this goes, however I have no idea what page to go to or how to get there.
Could someone be as kind as to post a link to where I need to go please?
Thanks, Sven Manguard Wha? 07:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Τι αίσχη είναι αυτά στο άρθρο ? από πότε και με ποιο δικαίωμα οι διαχειριστές ακολουθήτε την πολιτική ενός παράνομου "κράτους" και κάνετε προπαγάνδα υπέρ του ?? από πότε και με ποιο δικαίωμα πολιτικοποιήται την βικιπαίδεια ? ίσως θα έπρεπε να αρχίσουμε τις μηνύσεις σε πολιτικά δικαστήρια , θα γίνει κι αυτό, για να σοβαρευτείτε λίγο οι διαχειριστές εδώ, επίσης παραβιάζετε τις αποφάσεις του ΟΗΕ , Με ποιό δικαίωμα κάνετε πολιτική ??? εσείς τολμάτε να κρίνεται για εμένα? η το σπίτι μου που το κατέχουν τούρκοι ? η την περιουσία μου που την κατέχουν τούρκοι ? ΜΕ ΠΟΙΟ ΔΙΚΑΙΩΜΑ ???? ΝΤΡΟΠΗ ΣΑΣ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.64.244.167 ( talk) 10:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
I am the Wikipedia Outreach Ambassador to ARKive, who have kindly agreed to donate an initial 200 article texts about endangered species from their project, to Wikipedia, under a CC-BY-SA license. Details are on the GLAM/ARKive project page. Your help, to merge the donated texts into articles, would be appreciated. Guidelines for doing so are also on the above page. Once articles have been expanded using the donated texts, we are also seeking assistance in having those articles translated into other languages. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns, on the project's talk page, or my own. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
What's the best way to:
I'm happy with on- or off-Wiki solutions (mailing lists, for example) but am a monoglot, so can only write in English. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
You could prioritize. Just pick the top 10. Write up your message in English and drop in their Village Pumps (cut and paste). I interact with foreigners all the time for pictures and stuff and they are usually very kind and willing to talk in English. TCO ( reviews needed) 21:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
1. Where is the private message feature? 2. The ignore feature? 3. A way to block people we don't want from posting on our wall. 4. Have to type those colons when you reply to someone and then they can edit your posts (in talk). TCO ( talk) 21:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
OK, but how do I friend someone on this site? TCO ( talk) 22:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
See what I mean? :)
I am going to put a thing on my page where people can declare they are my friends. It will become a trend. Just like how I figured out who my talk page stalkers were. TCO ( talk) 01:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't want us to connect to FB. But I do think PMs and better discussion threads make sense. I mean the colon typing BLOWS. We can improve the things internally. I mean my Nutrisystem experience...there were awesome boards there with all kinds of features. Totally walled garden. But very good community and helpful to weight loss. And fun. And they thought I was the strangest poster in the history of tha site. But I lost 70 pounds. I mean...WTF...four tildas? Who came up with that crap? TCO ( talk) 01:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
God damn! Have any of you all every been on a normal forum? Like anything post about 1995?? Where you have an avatar, have a signature, have your own space for your post that others can't edit into, have ability to make paragraphs, don't have everything run together in edit mode? I mean SHEESH. I'm DUMB. I'm OLD. And I still wonder where you all are LIVING. TCO ( talk) 01:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I feel like we are being trolled. But if you want to contact someone privately, their user page has a link that lets you email them, if they have an enrolled email address. Not everybody chooses to enroll one. 69.111.195.157 ( talk) 01:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
In case anyone's not aware of it, the community could choose to install the LiquidThreads extension for discussion pages such as this one in order to address many issues above. – Adrignola talk 04:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't really get how this Village Pump thing works...what exactly is it for? 'Soul 19:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SolarWind123 ( talk • contribs) How about a reply with quote button like normal forums have? TCO ( reviews needed) 18:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
A more forum-like form shall prevail!The funny thing is that WMF is going in exactly the direction I say. Even though I communicate it in a self-making-fun-of manner, basic common sense says that this whole talk layout is...fucked. I mean it is MISERABLE to have this tiny edit window, a couple sets of scroll bars (in edit window and regular window--note, I need both when doing any formatting) and then search for where someone made a comment, seeing a block mass of text and then do that funky colon-typing crap. I think teletype operators had better message formats! And then listening to the shellback trogolodytes say that this is the best of all possible worlds...pshaw...y'all are the kind that says "why have windows and such, I want a dosprompt". Well... you're gonna lose! TCO ( reviews needed) 05:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Personally, I'd rather the Foundation prioritised a way to get references out of the body text of articles (or even get a really working on-by-default WYSIWYG interface... one can dream). A large article liberally sprinkled with cite templates (especially in the one parameter per line format) is pretty hard for a very experienced user to edit; it's hard to imagine how off-putting it is to a newcomer. And don't get me started on complex tables... By contrast, minor formatting on talk pages (which users can always do without initially, it'll get fixed and they'll learn) is less of a problem. I mean, as long as we expect users to cope with wikitext formatting in articles, wikitext formatting in talk pages is trivial by comparison. Rd232 talk 10:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
|
Since it looks like we need more active BAG members, I volunteered to help out; feel free to leave comments. On a related note, if any of you are experienced editors with good tech skills when it comes to bots + would like to make it a haunt, please feel free to open one up as well. -- slakr\ talk / 11:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
I am such a goodie two shoes now. TCO ( reviews needed) 18:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
|
Hi. I have just corrected the coordinates here and I was wondering if copying the coordinates from Google Earth after locating the place is considered copyvio. Thanks, Malafaya ( talk) 17:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Is there a list of wikimedia shortcut prefixes (e.g. w: - for wikipedia; strategy: for Wikimedia Strategy or wikt: for wiktionary)? 95.167.125.206 ( talk) 11:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
<iw prefix="wikt" local="" url="[http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/$1 http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/$1]" />
, so to link to wiktionary you'd use wikt, as in [[wikt:Main page]].
Help:Interwikimedia links is our local help page for this, and it should always be reasonably updated (the interwiki map doesn't change very often), but if you're looking for something new or relatively obscure then you'll probably want to use the API.The file commons:File:Bandera de la Provincia de Distrito Nacional.JPG, which is used on a very large number of pages ( links), has been marked for speedy deletion on Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions. Rather than notify a large number of talk pages I am raising this on WP:AN and WP:VP to obtain the right intervention.
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is time to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so ( commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise:
A further notification will be placed if/when the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 05:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Let's make blocks explicitly punitive. IOW, change the current policy of blocks being related to ongoing disruption and just give them out as punishment.
TCO ( reviews needed) 21:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC) Support
Oppose
Other
Comment: the distinction between "punitive" and "preventative" that Wikipedia has evolved is a bit odd. In the real world, all sanction regimes exist in order to prevent harm, by attempting to deter misbehaviour. Exceptions can be made in applying sanctions in specific instances when it's clear that the sanctioned behaviour cannot or will not be repeated (in which circumstance applying the sanction may appear uselessly punitive), but even then, there is the issue of deterring others. I suspect that perhaps Wikipedia's "no punitive blocks" really functions as a way to mitigate the inability to apply sanctions consistently and proportionately; this effectively takes deterrence out of the equation and focusses on whether a proposed sanction really prevents specific identifiable harms. Even on that basis, though, interpretation often ends up being too narrow, since sanctions that might be considered "punitive" can often (not always) also be construed as preventing repetition of the sanctioned behaviour by that individual. Rd232 talk 22:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
|
Something that has been bugging me for some time is the '31 hour' block that seems to be common for a first offence. Why 31 hours? Why not 24, or 48? Unless Wikipedia is actually run from a planet with a 31-hour day (which might explain a lot), I can't think of a reason for how this somewhat arbitrary figure was arrived at. Is it an inside joke, something arrived at by deep statistical analysis/reading of goat's entrails, or something so lost in the depths of time that nobody knows? AndyTheGrump ( talk) 15:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Has anyone read the "Battlefield Wikipedia" in the Anders Behring Breivik Manifesto it's on page 1067. Also We seem to be a frequently cited in the document as a whole. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•( contribs) 21:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
The file commons:File:Backyards, Greenwich Village, 1914.tif, which is used on a very large number of pages ( links), has been marked for nominated deletion on Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests July 2011. Rather than notify a large number of talk pages I am raising this on WP:AN and WP:VP to obtain the right intervention.
A discussion about whether to delete the file will now take place on Commons. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so ( commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise:
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 16:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello people,
I think this is relevant to OpenInternet role in global diplomacy, cultural reconcilation. Opinions should be restrained with that in mind, mine certainly is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alice_in_Wonderland_(2010_film)#AlicOnLine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.131.126 ( talk) 17:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone know how or where (or if) I can get detail data behind the bot generated statistics for the EN Wikipedia? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Quality_scale#Statistics
I could crawl for it, but I'm sure the drain on the servers would not be appreciated. Since there is a bot generating that data already, I am assuming it is available somewhere. What I would like to get is a list of articles (by page_title or page_id or, better yet, both) in each box in that grid. (Yes, I know the placement is a best-guess of highest importance or class.) If data on quality/class only is available, that is what I am most interested in, but the importance data would be of interest, as well.
I would also be curious to see historical data regarding the statistics table (at the summary, table level of detail, not individual articles). Is that available anywhere? Perhaps monthly snapshots of Wikipedia...
Thanks in advance for any insight or help. Please let me know if there is a more appropriate place for this kind of request (I got some very kind and useful assistance the last time I posted here, so I am inflicting myself on the generosity of the crowd around the pump again). Wikipositivist ( talk) 00:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Recently I learned that the List of municipal authorities in Northampton County, Pennsylvania has been deleted. I was involved in the creation of these lists for every Pennsylvania county, some time ago, and I would like to know if an AfD is nominated for any of them. If I place a maintained template on these articles, then maybe I would be notified, but it would seem that I would need to update the articles. I have done that in the past, but not recently. I am going to place a maintained template on the List of municipal authorities in Adams County, Pennsylvania, as an example, but I welcome any comments here. Am I using the maintained template appropriately for this article?
The reason these lists are useful is that they show what municipal authorities have articles, and which ones need articles. For large counties with many important agencies, this is helpful for editors trying to document the county and local government operations. Another way to keep this information would be to place the article table on the county talk page, but I am reluctant to do that.-- DThomsen8 ( talk) 13:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I'd like to draw people's attention to the following image:
which was found on the St. John's Water Dog page. However, the third reference on that article is the source for the image, and as you can see, the image is the other way round to the one on Wikipedia:
I have no idea how to edit this image, or even if this is the correct place to mention this (it seems like it would be forever before anyone noticed if I just used the talk page), but I hope someone can fix this, thanks. 91.110.239.188 ( talk) 08:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Um...I just realised something though - I happened to check back here...
That website says the pic is from a 1880/90s book, and indicates the specific dogs were possibly from around the 1930s. The image page says "Date between 1979 and 1981" There's no evidence of prior publication and...well, it looks like it doesn't meet copyright requirements. I've nominated the image for deletion, Commons:Deletion requests/File:St johns dogs pic.jpg.
Originally, I thought we were discussing just rotation of a free image - which, yeah, no problem. Kdammers, we can do anything we like with a PD image - crop it, rotate it, touch up the colour...anything. Print it on a T-shirt in pink-and-green, and sell them. But, the apparent copyright concern changes things, Chzz ► 08:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I was recently asked to come help a new user with file upload problems (link). The issue that the user had was that xe got the "File extension does not match MIME type." error message.
Let me be blunt: that error message is useless. Anyone with enough experience with files to understand what it is saying is experienced enough not to get that error message except by accident, and would know what to do when the message appeared. The vast majority of users, however, would have no idea what the message meant or how to proceed.
A new message is needed. It should explain the issue, offer instructions on how to proceed, and be worded in such a way as that people with no file experience would be able to easily understand the message. My explanation (at the above link) isn't that concise, and probably could be worded better. I was wondering if we could get some proposals here, and then after we get a good replacement, if we could have that replacement put into the upload form in place of the current message.
Thanks, Sven Manguard Wha? 04:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi there. My internet got knocked out at 2:30 last night (about 13 hours ago), so I'm just getting caught up. Before my internet died I was talking to Chzz about the idea of an image showing what needed to be done. I think I was more enthusiastic about that than he was, but what do you think about the idea of an illustration? Sven Manguard Wha? 19:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
zscout370 ( talk · contribs) has kindly swiftly created a rough draft of the icon I was thinking of; File:Action Question Mark.svg shown here.
Sven Manguard, I'm not really sure what you mean about 'illustration'?
Also, I must point out... the proposed/new upload wizard thingy might make this whole discussion moot? Because, it deals with things very differently; see [11]. Chzz ► 08:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I want to change the howto-article Wikipedia:So you made a userspace draft, better saying the section Ready!. My proposal is that instead of instruct the user to move the page, I want that the user place the {{subst:AFC submission/submit}}-code on the page and thus getting a review by a AFC-member.
What do you think? mabdul 23:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Does this article has no chance? -- AS sa 10:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure where this really belongs, but this seems as good a place as any.
I know it's sort of political, but the secondary headline: "It will be much easier to edit Wikipedia, for one." means it belongs somewhere.
Why Obama Should Be Re-Elected
Money graf
* It’ll be a much simpler edit to Wikipedia. If a new guy is elected president, someone will have to go to his Wikipedia page and add the current president template and start an article about his cabinet — a lot of work for whoever it is that does that sort of thing. But if we keep Obama as president, they can just keep his page labeling him the incumbent and add an extra section saying, “2012 Election: Won it!” With all the spare time the Wikipedia editors will have, maybe they can get girlfriends.
-- SPhilbrick T 18:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
How would I obtain the text of the deleted article List of municipal authorities in Northampton County, Pennsylvania?-- DThomsen8 ( talk) 13:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
#REDIRECT [[Elk County, Pennsylvania#Municipal_authorities]]
. (You can keep the "Municipal authorities" cat, if you want;
redirects can be categorized.)Designed "Tube sheet" Plate thk. 50mm. 7mm kept extra for m/c allowance.RT taken @ 57mm thk. Acceptable slag 19mm.as per ASME. After machining to required size 50mm, above slag is acceptable or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.191.235.93 ( talk) 13:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
The 'Energy Catalyzer' is a device invented by Andrea Rossi, an Italian, which he claims produces power by Low-Energy Nuclear Reaction. If it does what it claims, it is likely to be revolutionary, given that it appears to work according to a principle of physics as yet demonstrated, but there are grounds for suspecting that it may be a hoax (or worse, Rossi seems to have had a controversial past). At the moment, the article itself is probably just about acceptable, if overfilled with data about 'tests' that appear to be rather lacking in scientific rigour. Sadly, the few sources that have reported on the issue are on the whole 'pro' the device, while the sceptics are evidently ignoring it, making balance difficult to achieve. In addition, the talk page has been subject to some abuse, in that it is being used to debate the credibility of the device, rather than article content, and I've had to redact large sections of text quoted verbatim from blogs etc - for copyright reasons, if nothing else. A recent 'sceptical' report from a source that one might expect to be supportive has added further to the debate, and I'd appreciate if a few more uninvolved contributors could step in to help preserve some sense of neutrality and commitment to Wikipedia standards - at the moment, I suspect that one or two of those contributing may not be entirely uninvolved with Rossi, or are at least less-than impartial.
In the past, I've asked for help both at WP:WikiProject Physics and at the WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard, but with little result, and since I suspect things could get soon out of hand, I'm asking for help here. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 19:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
There's an AfD discussion for Dritok and most of the participants are the usual characters in conlang-related deletion discussions and two SPAs. If some new people could come and weigh in it would make the discussion much cleaner. Hermione is a dude ( talk) 03:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I recently wrote an article on how to edit Wikipedia, and as my pen took on a mind of its own, to my surprise my discussion of where the reader could find further help turned into a critique of the product I love.
Here's the excerpt that I'm talking about:
With the help system implemented as regular wiki documents in this way, there is no obvious point of entry to it and, once using it, it can be hard to know where the document being viewed lies in the greater network of help documents available. One might wonder in what order one "should" be reading the various topics while going about the endeavour to learn Wikipedia. This is compounded by the fact that since users can land at any given help document in any number of ways, many documents are necessarily written with an introductory tone as if each is the first document the user is expected to have landed at in the help system.
The help system does have a point of entry that could be argued to be a starting point, in the form of a series of links on the central page for contributors, the Community Portal. There is also a directory, linked to by the Community Portal, of help documents in order of the most introductory, called Help:Contents. However, all this might fail to stand out to the user since the Community Portal is one link among many on the left edge of the standard Wikipedia screen (see Figure 1).
In addition to the Community Portal, users can arrive at the help system via a link on the page used to edit an article described above, and by directly searching the Help and Wikipedia namespaces at the search home page. Figure 3 shows the structure of the help system. Around the perimetre are ways of entering the system, and within the cloud are key documents. An arrow indicates the user can get to the destination by following some link. It should be noted that, since help documents are regular wiki documents, some of those in Figure 3 are subject to change or even cease to exist due to users' edits.
As I mentioned, the fact that the user chooses his/her own path through the help system requires that things be repeated in multiple places--including topics being introduced to readers that might not have heard of them before in more than one document. Now obviously you can't knock this redundancy in itself; if anything it's a prudent effort to make the help system thorough and accessible to beginners. If you can be introduced to a topic in more than one document, does it matter which of these documents you read?
No it doesn't, but I'm not arguing that editors don't learn from the system the way it currently is. The same information will eventually be told to the reader regardless of which starting point and subsequent path he/she takes. If the user is looking for a specific answer, I would even say that they will find what they are looking for fairly quickly, as the links one should follow are usually fairly obvious (although I would argue that finding the help system in the first place can be unobvious--see my point about the Community Portal link). My point has more to do with the system itself. I think there is something to be said for centralization in an educational resource. I believe that when humans read information, there are unconscious processes that determine the confidence we have in our progress, which in turn determines how successful we are as we continue reading. Reading help pages one by one with no chartered course through them contributes to the sense that there is an overwhelming amount of information to be learned beyond the current page.
Perhaps it would be appealing to beginners if a high-level version of the help contents was frequently shown on help pages, indicating where the content currently being read lies in a typical Wikipedian path of learning. This would be based on a "recommended" order in which to learn things, since there's no clear objective best order.
There was also a proposal last November from Rd232, suggesting we make the New contributors' help page a more prominent part of the help system. Maybe that would help with the problem I claim exists.
I realize I'm criticizing the entire help system, which would take a huge endeavour to revamp. But that can't be an excuse not to consider whether it could be better than it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JustinPoirier ( talk • contribs) 18:20, 28 July 2011 (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
There are problems with several articles about television stations in the Little Rock, Arkansas market. I know y'all say to post things about articles on their respective articles talk pages, but I feel that these problems are related, and that no one might read my message on the talk pages of the articles. The largest problem is an article on KASN. Even though the article's name is still "KASN" the page claims that it is KQAR, calling itself "The Q". This is not true. I live in the Little Rock area, and I know that this station is still KASN, calling itself "CW Arkansas". The station's website, www.cwarkansas.com, confirms this. This change has been made by a person with the IP adress 4.227.114.158. Also, in the past, there have been problems with OTHER pages. For example KARK-TV's page began to report they had switched to high-definition news back in 2010. They just switched about a month ago, and they didn't even state their intent to switch until January 2011. KATV's page claimed for a while in 2010 that they called themselves "ABC 7". All my life it has been "KATV 7", and as y'all can tell I ain't a newborn. Please help to do something. I don't have internet access all the time, so I can't join Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.13.68.0 ( talk) 22:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm attempting to get to grips with the reasoning behind the recent opposition to preventing anything other than the default colour scheme. However, that discussion got a little wrapped up in the feature of styling in general, rather than the colour scheme. What benefits does it pose? Mostly, the sorts of things I've seen been Template:Manchester United F.C. in that the colour scheme is merely aesthetic. Grandiose ( me, talk, contribs) 16:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Following some promising results last week, the fundraising team are going to be testing a few more banners on the English Wikipedia on Thursday. These will only be up briefly (from 17:00 - 18:00 UTC) and will be displayed for anonymous users only. Pcoombe (WMF) ( talk) 00:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I am a en:WP administrator. I am not using my account for reasons that may become clear. Long ago I stopped editing or admin-ing. I occasionally edit a line, a small mistake, just as any casual user might. Lately I found myself willing to vandalise, and actually doing it (mildly, I hope). Why? How and why going from caring admin to vandal-to-be?
I can not tell for sure, and certainly there are many factors, some may even be personal. But which are WP related factors?
For the first stage (admin to little IP edits) there were probably two main factors (other than less free time, which was a strong factor too). First, endless discussions, ending up in decisions which only some user abide to, while some don't.leading WP to be a court of law, with processes at ArbCom, or whatever the names and instances. Too complicated, we do need WP-lawyers, and that is silly. Second, I started to see bot wars with bots doing mass changes, creating a class of super-(arrogant)-users, the bot owners, able to (n)do in a zap something that takes months of human work (un)do. [note: _some_ bot owners were super-(arrogant)-users, definitely not all]
For the second stage (little IP edits to vandal-to-be). Clearly two factors. One still being bots: a perfectly OK edit gets reverted by a bot, note that the removed text was already incorporated in the added see also link. A human would spot that easy, but a bot reverted. (and then I did a few not so nice comments on the bot's page). Second, I tried to correct a link at 2010–11_Belgian_Second_Division#League_table, as it was pointing to Spain's play-off. Try to look at it: it is template hell! A casual user is more or less unable to understand it. I know about templates in general, still it was unclear what to edit. So I semi-vandalized it (and gor reverted by the same bot! How the hell did he estimated this to be a vandal? By the signarture? That's a too wild guesstimate...)
In conclusion. Is WP is a battleground for bots and coding geeks? Hordes(?) of bots are actively changing content, even cluelessly reverting humans. Common humans can't edit, because it is too complicated at first glance.
So is WP actually pushing away legitimate human editors, by making it too hard to start editing (template hell) and even encouraging vandals (by annoying humans)?
Is WP a wiki? "A wiki invites all users to edit any page [and] is not a carefully crafted site for casual visitors. Instead, it seeks to involve the visitor [...]" [in Wiki].
I'm sorry for the mild vandalism, it will not happen again. I hope you guys and gals still involved try to shift WP back into a human site. 2.82.175.120 ( talk) 13:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Let's start putting "External Links" section after "See also".
1. The content and links are often EXTREMELY high value, in terms of different views, lots of content, etc.
2. The "type of information" is very much the same as a See also in type.
3. It gets lost way down below the footnotes and the bibliography.
4. In a BOOK, you would not put this kind of information after the footnotes and bibliography. It would be a discussion prior to the bibliography.
Look at Richard nixon for example. Those are some great sites to go to. And we bury them WAY to far down. After 150 footnotes. Down there with the category link crap.
P.s. I understand that we want to pimp our own articles. And we already forbid inline hyperlinks. But putting the penalty box SO LOW down the page is poor service to the reader.
TCO ( talk) 03:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Well in principally I favour the notion that (extensive) footnotes/references should come last as imho this is better for general reader for various reasons. However WP has taken a different route in the past and reversing that is an extremely cumbersome effort (convincing the various involved editors and potentially redoing the order of the bulk of articles). So even if a different is might be the right thing, the task of changing it, is like Don Quixote charging the wind mill, i.e. it will be a waste of time and only lead to personal frustration. Some of the opposing views above might indicate that already-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 19:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Add my voice to those that are concerned about raising the visibility of External Links (and See also) sections. Yes, they have their place. On more than one occasion, I found an interesting, well written article about a subject that did not meet wikipedia's WP:RS threshold, and happily added it to the external links section. However, for every time I've added one such link, I've removed 100 spam links. They are without a doubt a crap magnet section. The "See also" section isn't much better. I've seen this section misused to indirectly imply connections to topics, where if the connection were directly made in the body of the article would be reverted or tagged as an inappropriate. Dave ( talk) 21:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Collapsed unconstructive discussion |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This is just wasting editor time. (Albiet effectively, at least.) Please go back to writing and reviewing. TCO ( talk) 02:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Is there a special page where the worst articles every are? Or a page with the worst discussions. Or something.... :) Crystalkaloid ( talk) 19:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
"Worst" under which rationale? Someone may say so of stubs Cambalachero ( talk) 02:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
This is a note to inform anyone interested about a discussion going on at Talk:Bash (Unix shell)#Further discussion, where we would like to see input from some more editors to make an article titling decision. Cheers. - GTBacchus( talk) 05:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Does anybody know of the shortest featured article as in page size that is still featured? Shannºn Talk 02:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I've suggested a multiple move at a subsection of Talk:Blood pressure#Requested move to systemic arterial blood pressure ( Talk:Blood pressure#Replacement of current blood pressure article). However, I'd like to ask: is there any formal formatting of such a multiple moves that is preferred? Mikael Häggström ( talk) 18:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I just happened across Meta:Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Old English Wikibooks, which has been open for over 9 months. This is more than enough time to form a baby, but apparently not a consensus. If anyone is interested, please feel free to have an opinion there. I didn't realize that there is an Old English Wikipedia as well, as I guess a lot of the Saxons are wired these days and need to know about surfing and anime. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 11:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
There are currently about 5400 WikiProject assessment categories that do not contain {{ Cat class}}. This template allows navigation between the categories for that project easier and faster. An example can be seen here. I would like to do a run through and add this template to the remaining categories that need it and it was suggested I drop a note here before proceding to solicit comments and opinions. -- Kumioko ( talk) 17:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Is there a page or log that lists pages which were formerly redirects, but which were recently made into articles? Maybe some bot keeps track of this? I would like to patrol/monitor a list of redirects that have been turned into articles. I asked on Help Desk and had no luck - maybe someone here has a helpful suggestion. Thanks in advance. -- Neutrality talk 16:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Tag: Redirect becoming article
. Beyond that, I don't know, and I think it would be a good idea to track that.
The Blade of the Northern Lights (
話して下さい)
16:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)I'm looking for some editors to review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dodger, Bonzo and the Rest (Dramarama Episode). I've waited 10 days and only had a marginal comment that there are other articles that could be packaged with this one. I've already informed WikiProject Television and WikiProject British TV shows. Hasteur ( talk) 15:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I need some help with the text of this inscription (the armenian text and the translation in English) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Biserica_Sf._Constantin_si_Elena_din_Gura_Humorului15.jpg. Thank you in advance. Cezarika1 ( talk) 04:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to start a discussion on this... or receive a link to one in progress. And, to clarify, I'm talking mostly about subject area, ie Biology, Art and Humanities, Albums by Jimi Hendrix, etc. And I'm interested in any way you might assess the coverage of that area, ie quantity of articles on a certain topic, quality of the articles already written, etc... Something tells me, though, that even with these qualifications, I'm going to get some flack for this question. Sure, it may seem vague and difficult to answer. But I'm looking for opinion. I'm looking for a general idea of where Wikipedia is most in need of improvement. Partly out of curiosity, partly out of an interest to help Wikipedia improve. Thanks in advance. Bobnorwal ( talk) 02:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
All of it could use help. And there are a few things that are just crying out for action and very doable. Like "turn the periodic table blue" (there's only 100 articles to do). That said...worst off is probably literature. TCO ( talk) 08:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
The topic that most interests me is woefully under-represented on wikipedia, just as it is ignored by the biased mass media and the prejudiced Powers-That-Be. The topic that most interests you, on the other hand, is w-a-a-a-ay overdone here. - DavidWBrooks ( talk) 11:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
IMO the general problem is that of general disorganization througout Wikipedia and I don't mean that in a completely negative tone. Since we are all essentially volunteers there is a systematic lack of desire by many editors for anything related to structure and most attempts to standardize or organize are dismissed with such comments as not broken, cure in search of a problem, etc.
In the case of this discussion we have very little idea in any organized fashion what articles are missing other than what individual editors or WikiProjects maintain individually. For example I could tell you that there are roughtly 1500 Medal of Honor recipients in need of articles, thousands of locations on the National Register of Historic Places, thousands of locations (cities, parks, buildings, etc) in general thoughout the world, military battles, people and equipment, thousands of topics relating to the Smithsonian Instituion, Library of Congress and National Archives each, a nearly uncountable number of plants and animals, thousands more biographies, etc. So what needs to be done IMO is to combine the articles for Creation process, bounty board, the various articles for creation lists the projects maintain, and the various other things relating to missing articles and combine them into an organized mechanism that people can navigate and use to create these missing topics. Or at least be able to identify the ones that are missing in a central location. Perhaps in a combination WikiProject/Portal concept where it was a one stop shop for things relating to article creation. -- Kumioko ( talk) 13:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
The lack of any online image/diagram editing software is a concern for me. We have some pretty horrible substitutes ( EasyTimeline anyone?), but nothing that easily allows creating diagrams ( File:George W Bush approval ratings.svg), shades in maps (native bird habits), or animations (American Civil War battles). With SVG support, some people had hoped to edit them as easily as articles. — Dispenser 14:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I suspect the OP was looking for answers like biology or business, rather than governance or help, but let me take this post as an excuse to echo the sentiments that we are doing a terrible job dealing with potential new editors. Just open up Requests for feedback, look at the long list of potential future editors asking for help and getting none. As Kumioko points out, it is easy to identify thousands of needs. OK, I just pointed you to thousands of potential editors who have been ignored.-- SPhilbrick T 23:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Sometimes one reads something in even a reputable media source that is blatantly untrue.
A recent example that comes to mind is the often mentioning of "leaders of the hacker group Anonymous". Main stream journalists apparently can't comprehend that a group could operate without a hierarchical structure.
So if you find a blatant untrue statement in a WP article referenced with some lazy journalism (something which is on the increase as the media get more and more sensationalistic and it's easier to Google some information than getting to the bottom of something the old fashioned style) and you can't find a reliable source to back a change what should you do then (apart from mentioning it on the talk page)? SpeakFree (talk) 19:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
There used to be an article (I believe in RS or something) that talked about " A Physicist is more reliable on Physics related matter than a Biologist".. that is a specialist in each field has primary. I am having trouble in finding it and I would appreciate any help. Thanks.-- Khodabandeh14 ( talk) 20:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Once again the Fundraising team will be testing some banners on the English Wikipedia today (1st July). These will be up from 17:30-18:30 UTC and displayed to anonymous users only. If you're interested, you can see the results from our previous tests. Pcoombe (WMF) ( talk) 16:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I just gave out my first Wikilove. Not sure if I will end up hating it, liking it, or gettin tired of it. But was kinda fun to try it. And use it when I really wanted to communicate some good feelings. Interested to hear from others who have given or gotten their first 'love.
TCO ( talk) 19:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
TCO ( talk) 21:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Tried doing it with you and it did not work. Wondered if it was the space in filename, but an unspaced other file did not work either.
I was curious about how different religions are represented on WP, so I compared stats on the number of Wikipedians who self-identify with a particular religion to the US average. Here are the results -
Religion | As a percentage of US population | Self Identification Category | Members of Category | Members as a percentage | Fold repersentation |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Christian | 78.5 | Category:Christian_Wikipedians | 1,741 | 30.4 | 0.39 |
Jewish | 1.7 | Category:Jewish_Wikipedians | 484 | 8.4 | 5.0 |
Buddhist | 0.7 | Category:Buddhist Wikipedians | 256 | 4.5 | 6.4 |
Hindu | 0.4 | Category:Hindu Wikipedians | 175 | 3.1 | 7.6 |
Muslim | 0.6 | Category:Muslim_Wikipedians | 537 | 9.4 | 15.6 |
Unaffiliated | 16.1 | Category:Atheist_Wikipedians | 2,537 | 44.3 | 2.8 |
Disclaimers - I realize in terms of representation there might be several flaws with this approach.
Conclusion - Minority groups seem over represented on WP. In fact, it seems as though the smaller a group is, the more over represented it is on WP. I wonder why.........
Anyways, I'm just posting to see if anyone has any thoughts on this issue. Obviously this topic is of potential importance when it comes to systemic bias.
P.S. Number of wikipedians who are members of Category:Pastafarian_Wikipedians = 550. Those guys got no respect! Shout out to all Pastafarians - Drop me a line if you want to know where you should put that noodlely appendage. NickCT ( talk) 12:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I've been noticing a trend on a lot of Wikipedia noticeboards of growing levels of conflict over China-related articles, often with accusations of one or another party being in the employ of Beijing. I've read several articles in the mainstream media mentioning that special interests ranging from the US military to Micro$oft consider Wikipedia to be a target for psy ops and agitprop, and it seems to me exceedingly likely as time passes that these special interests will endeavour to infiltrate the authority structure of Wikipedia (if they have not already).
In my own experience as an activist, I've seen Trots infiltrate local activist organizations by creating dozens of front groups and then demanding a seat for each one on governing councils and such. I understand that this is extremely common, and when I asked around to various activist communities about how they dealt with this problem, each had developed strategies for protecting themselves. For example, an activist in New York told me they're able to keep the Trots out of their councils by making sure there are equal numbers of Stalinists and Trots so that they fight bitterly and endlessly until both need to be removed entirely.
I'm curious whether Wikipedia has developed any strategies for protecting itself from such infiltration, or whether such protection is even possible. Are there Chinese agents already in ArbCom? Is Wikimedia riddled with CIA moles and Monsanto operatives? How would we ever know if this was the case? SmashTheState ( talk) 06:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
There is definitely too much special interest going on in wikipedia. Also the whole US government is also now run by special interest groups which is undermining the democratic foundation of the country. In Wikipedia, it just doesn't cover modern events but also history, natural resources, and etc. It is a shame, and wikipedia should have a lie-detector test to see if someone has ever been part of a lobby group (once the technology becomes possible). If they fail the lie-detector test, then they should not be able to edit. ELse the credibility of Wikipedia will continue to suffer in the non-technical fields. -- Khodabandeh14 ( talk) 20:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
To address a few of the comments: First, there are a surprising number of Trots still boring in (and just boring) out there. They don't seem very numerous because they operate through vast numbers of front groups; even some of the Trots aren't aware they're Trots. From the SWP to the IS to the Sparts, they're all arms of the same Trot beast. There's an essay called "Monopolising Resistance" which may prove elucidating, which you can probably find fairly easily online, which details how the Trots operate, and how anyone involved in activism will need to deal with their activities.
Second, a glance at COINTELPRO shows the serious men in suits and dark shades consider very little to be too small to worry about. Wikipedia is a large target, and many, many media reports have indicated that a laundry list of corporations, government agencies, and special interest groups have openly stated that they consider Wikipedia a viable medium to push their agenda, and have paid substantial sums of money to do so. In fact, one article on a marketing blog explained in specific detail how the Starbucks article has been successfully turned into a piece of corporate propaganda which whitewashes the company's reputation while hiding any criticism "below the fold." Just recently, a Zionist propaganda organization in Israel, CAMERA, has begun offering a course in how to successfully plant propaganda into Wikipedia. Anyone who claims intelligence agencies and special interest groups aren't sinking large amounts of time and resources into Wikipedia hasn't been looking very hard at mainstream media reports.
The fact that my question about Wikipedia's preparedness for dealing with infiltration garnered negligible interest (and mostly sarcastic sniping from the few who bothered to respond) tells me all I need to know about the state of Wikipedia's security culture. -- SmashTheState ( talk) 15:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
anyone? The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•( contribs) 19:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Esperanza got deleted, since Wikipedia is not a social networking site. The Mark of the Beast ( talk) 23:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
A quick chart about WikiLove. Look at the tiny blue line on July 1st. Spread the wikilove ; ) emijrp ( talk) 06:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't see any problem with this tool, as it isn't really adding anything new to wikipedia. Barnstars and "Congratulations!" templates have existed since a long time ago, this extension simply allows ease in using them. Similarily, users who want to annoy others have long existed as well (same as the chance of adding shock images to their messages), and if they have the will to harass, they will do so with or without wikilove extension. Cambalachero ( talk) 13:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Is a monograph similar to a journal? I am just trying to decide which is the right template (not {{ Citeweb}}) to cite this. Simply south.... .. digging mountains for 5 years 15:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone know the background behind this series? Apparently, all info comes from Wikipedia. - Presidentman talk· contribs Random Picture of the Day ( Talkback) 15:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
I received an email (via my Wikipedia address) that an article I had nominated for deletion (but isn't actually yet deleted) was moved to WikiAlpha, which is apparently a brand new site that purports to be "like Wikipedia, but without notability and original research requirements." While that's fine and I have no problems in that regard, I noticed that all of their content, including content directly copied from Wikipedia, is licensed under the Creative Commons public domain license. Granted, I'm not good with copyright law, but in my experience, Wikipedia uses share-alike licenses—meaning that all copied content must use the same license, with attribution.
This appears to be a very new site, so I thought I'd bring this to the attention of more experienced users to process this and elevate it to those who can deal with it if necessary. If this is in the wrong forum, feel free to redirect me to the right one. Cheers. elektrik SHOOS ( talk) 00:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I am from WikiAlpha (administrator Richard.) We wish to keep our content under the public domain where possible (i.e. where authors have directly entered it into the site.) However where we have copied articles which are currently on Wikipedia and nominated for deletion, we understand that the above complaints are valid. I'm not an expert on copyright law, but would it be sufficient, in your opinion, to place a notification that the content on a particular page is licensed under a separate license contrary to the general public domain license?
Additionally, we are happy to remove content that authors do not with to be republished on our site. Just send us an email to removals@wikialpha.org Thank you. Wootfarm ( talk) 03:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
<moved below for organization>
Most of those have not yet been deleted, so you can still snag the attribution yourself. :) I'm sure you know how to use Help:Page history, since you're using the same software. Separating out the ones that are still bluelinks from the ones for which I've provided attribution at your Wiki. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
i am an indian and i live in RAIPUR, CHHATTISGARH. could anybody please tell me an online book store where i could find world literature and any sort of books? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 00chirag5 ( talk • contribs) 04:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
At the bottom of the Prohibition Party article is this brief section:
===Elected officials=== [[image:The Drunkard's Progress - Color.jpg|thumb|right|300px|The Drunkard's Progress: A lithograph by [[Nathaniel Currier]] supporting the temperance movement, January 1846.]] * [[Sidney Johnston Catts]] – [[Governor of Florida]] (1917–1921) * [[Charles Hiram Randall]] – [[California State Assembly]]man (1911–12) and [[U.S. Representative]] from [[California's 9th congressional district|the 9th District of California]] (1915–21) * [[Susanna M. Salter]] – Mayor of [[Argonia, Kansas]] (1887): the first female mayor in the United States * [[James Hedges]] – [[Thompson Township, Fulton County, Pennsylvania|Thompson Township, Pennsylvania]], Tax Assessor (2002–2007)<ref>[http://www.prohibitionists.org/Candidates/candidates.html Prohibition Party Candidates]</ref>: the first and only known officeholder of the 21st century
which shows as:
Needless to say, the goose is not The Drunkard's Progress, but clicking on the duck will take you to the right image. What is going on here?!
D ralwi k| Have a Chat 04:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Recently there was a post on SlashDot about our new WikiLove feature [7].
In general there is little conversation about the new feature, and more conversation about why Slashdot readers - a demographic that should include many good contributors to Wikipedia, as they are generally intelligent, "wise" to technology, and sympathetic to free and open source software and information - have grown to be cynical about the utility of being volunteer editors.
The comments contain some stories of disgruntled editors, usually describing the failure of their first attempts at editing Wikipedia. The themes, as I read it, are:
I have no particular suggestions for how we can counter these perceptions, but I thought I should notice it in a public place. Feedback / ideas welcome.
Regards, causa sui ( talk) 16:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Don't forget about Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure. Once that is completed, we'll have an active tutorial system that will guide new users through the processes and how things work, instead of just directing them toward almost entirely unhelpful reams of pages on how to edit. Silver seren C 21:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
The file commons:File:Oscar icon.png, which is used on a very large number of pages ( links), has been marked for nominated deletion on Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests July 2011. Rather than notify a large number of talk pages I am raising this on WP:AN and WP:VP to obtain the right intervention.
A discussion about whether to delete the file will now take place on Commons. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so ( commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise:
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 16:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
The file commons:File:American Civil War Montage 2.jpg, which is used on a very large number of pages ( links), has been marked for nominated deletion on Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Media without a source as of 4 July 2011. Rather than notify a large number of talk pages I am raising this on WP:AN and WP:VP to obtain the right intervention.
A discussion about whether to delete the file will now take place on Commons. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so ( commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise:
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 17:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
The file commons:File:Verre de whisky.jpg, which is used on a very large number of pages ( links), has been marked for nominated deletion on Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Media without a source as of 5 July 2011. Rather than notify a large number of talk pages I am raising this on WP:AN and WP:VP to obtain the right intervention.
A discussion about whether to delete the file will now take place on Commons. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so ( commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise:
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 17:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
What about adding a new option to the wikilove extension, applying the {{ Welcome!}} template or other similar ones for new users? It may be a single welcome template, or it may allow to choose from a list of circumstances to apply one of the several types of welcome templates available Cambalachero ( talk) 14:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
What is Wikilove for, anyway..'Soul 19:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SolarWind123 ( talk • contribs)
List of municipal authorities in Northampton County, Pennsylvania has been deleted, but several other such lists for Pennsylvania Counties are still active. Can someone tell me where this particular list went?-- DThomsen8 ( talk) 16:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Can anyone help here...or point me to more places to ask for help?
I want a video (or perhaps a photo) of fluorine gas reacting with something. There is nothing PD (or even that I can think of as an easy donation). Looking for something like in the videos below. Will go into a Featured Article Candidate. Either someone to make it for us or who has it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mG6EG_igTGw
-or-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1FsO5zaf6M
TCO ( reviews needed) 23:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
The Guardian has an item about Wikipedia today: The online encyclopedia's unlikely routes to enlightenment. This has a theory about our links tending to lead up to philosophy. I'm not convinced by this as the current FA just loops. But try it yourself and see. Warden ( talk) 12:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
The file commons:File:Oscar icon.png, which is used on a very large number of pages ( links), has been deleted on Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Per commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Oscar icon.png. Rather than notify a large number of talk pages I am raising this on WP:AN and WP:VP to obtain the right intervention.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 15:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
The file commons:File:7BrahmanMH.jpg, which is used on a very large number of pages ( links), has been marked for nominated deletion on Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests July 2011. Rather than notify a large number of talk pages I am raising this on WP:AN and WP:VP to obtain the right intervention.
A discussion about whether to delete the file will now take place on Commons. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so ( commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise:
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 22:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I believe the project has a problem which should be addressed:
A very unscientific survey of recent posts indicates that 80% or so of requests do not get an answer. This is unacceptable. (in contrast, less than 1% of questions at Help_desk go unanswered.)
I have tried to address this in a couple of ways:
I have a new thought, but before I spend time on it, I am concerned that one of the reasons we don't get sufficient volunteers at Requests for feedback is because of Problem 2
Another very unscientific survey of recent posts suggests over 90% of feedback is not acknowledged. I think the recent count is a bit of an aberration, but I would hope for something like 50% or better.
That lack of response is discouraging to me, and likely to others. (I posted to Moonriddengirl who observed similar issues at Drawing board).
I apologize in advance for posing two different problems; I am immediately interested in responses to the second problem, as I feel it must be resolved before tackling the first, but I thought articulating the first problem would help provide the context.
Moonriddengirl hinted at one possible answer I've mulled over in the past - do new editors posting to notice boards feel as if they are posting to semi-automated answering service, rather than energized human being volunteers who would like to discuss the issue? If so, how do we change that perception. If not, what should we do?-- SPhilbrick T 15:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
How about more of an apprenticeship model where new editors have to earn the right to make new articles? Part of the problem is new articles by new people are so often crap (and in general new articles is not our biggest needs, it's to add content to well-notable topics, so why be exerting lots of effort on that crap)? Earn your stripes is a way to better channel things. TCO ( reviews needed) 19:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I would suggest that we focus on joining new editors up with people who care about the kinds of article that they're editing, because that seems like to point of greatest possible synergy. Maybe some kind of cross-posting / transclusion into Wikiproject space? Stuartyeates ( talk) 01:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Having been part of the IRC help channel before becoming active in the Help Desk and having cooperated somewhat with the AfC people, I think the reasons why most people don't want to respond to WP:FEEDBACK is the same reason why there are so few reviewers in the Articles for Creation process.
Because a great majority of the articles being submitted for feedback are COI edits, often blatantly promotional. And a fair amount of them are AfD candidates outright. Most people would balk at trying to fix errors in an article that would either be deleted sometime soon or requires them to completely rewrite the article.
As for feedback responses, I leave a feedback 'talkbalk' template at the asker's talk page. In my limited time answering requests there, they've almost always responded though not on WP:FEEDBACK itself. They either post on my talk or try to comply with the advice given. And yeah, I try to point people to WikiProjects once I get to know the subjects they are most interested in, but only in the rare cases when they aren't single-purpose COI accounts. *sigh*-- Obsidi♠n Soul 07:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Too many places for editors looking to help others to look - I'd merge this with Peer Review. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 07:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
The file commons:File:Deoband.jpg, which is used on a very large number of pages ( links), has been deleted on Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Per commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Deoband.jpg. Rather than notify a large number of talk pages I am raising this on WP:AN and WP:VP to obtain the right intervention.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 17:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Im no big expert on the life of Veronica Guerin, but all I can say is that I think if some user/users with extensive knowledge and time on their hand edited her article the article could really be expanded alot. Because its quite badly written right now and quite short when thinking of the fact that Guering changed alot of Irelands judicial system before her murder in 1996. So I would like to request that some user took a look at the article and expanded it and perhaps re-writes it. Thanks.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 21:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
The file commons:File:Buzz icon.png, which is used on a very large number of pages ( links), has been marked for speedy deletion on Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions. Rather than notify a large number of talk pages I am raising this on WP:AN and WP:VP to obtain the right intervention.
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is time to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so ( commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise:
A further notification will be placed if/when the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 01:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Had this happen a while ago. Just once actually. And not some big prize or anything. And had been dormant with me for a while. Kinda glad the para-long stub was created with sources I had in sandy. But still...what kind of person does that and does not give a heads up or a comment on talkie-talk? TCO ( reviews needed) 15:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello everyone.
I need assistance over one grave matter. Namely, I have been blocked for a period of three months on the Croatian Wikipedia, in what I believe is an example of administrational abuse and newbie harassment. I have wanted to use methods of appeal, but after announcing to use them, the blocking admin has extended my block further to my talk page and upon my announcement to use the email feature in order to inquire assistance from other administrations, he has deprived me of that privilege as well.
I have dispatched an appeal at the Request for Comment over at the Croatian Wikipedia, and the end opinions are very controversial - 2 admins strongly critical of my appeal, while 2 others mostly endorse it and demand my immediate unblock and a review of the actions of the blocking admin. However, the two latter ones had submitted their Opinions only moments after the deadline to do so has expired, meaning that their opinions have been crossed out and only the first two ones, which oppose my arguments, will be taken into consideration. Considering that several days have passed since the initial 10-day period and in the lack of any sort of a determined time period within which a neutral 3rd party Administrator is to summarize the opinions of the Administrators and implement actions, if any, as well as the already-known outcome of the pending RfC resolution, I have decided to go for the very final way of lodging an appeal at the whole Croatian Wikipedia.
In accordance to this Arbitration Committee vote:
“ | [point 4] In case the conflict cannot be resolved in accordance to the rules expressed to the above, parties can, as a final means, request the creation of a committee of administrators and users in a determined number. After the decision, this committee is to be dissolved. It shall apply the same rules as the AC. | ” |
“ | [clarification 2] It shall apply the same rules as the AC. - this refers to the collection of rules present on the most advanced Wikipedia - en.wikipedia.org. See ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy) Arbitration proceedings. The rules present on hr.wikipedia.org are insufficient for transparent and unbiassed proceedings. | ” |
Taken to granted these specific rules, and the circumstances I've expressed to the above, I want to file a request for the formation of such a committee. However, the Croatian Wikipedia lacks any rule or guideline which specifies the procedure of requesting the formation of such a committee, meaning that I am unable to do so myself, as was in the case of RfC, being a blocked user, stripped also of editing the personal talk page, or using the email feature. Therefore, I ask anyone present here to come forth to my assistance and submit the request in my stead, on the standard Croatian Wikipedia general discussion page, and in the lack of, as mentioned, any rules or guidelines which would give any sort of specification in regards to the submission of a request for the foundation of this special committee.
To whomever grants me this plea of assistance, I offer my most sincere gratitude. -- SavoRastko ( talk) 03:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
A RFC is underway to discuss what features the community desires to see on the main page. Please participate! Thanks. AD 19:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
How do i cite this one? Simply south.... .. improving for 5 years 23:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite map}}
but I've never used it myself.
Killiondude (
talk)
20:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)The file commons:File:KylieShowgirl.jpg, which is used on a very large number of pages ( links), has been marked for nominated deletion on Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests July 2011. Rather than notify a large number of talk pages I am raising this on WP:AN and WP:VP to obtain the right intervention.
A discussion about whether to delete the file will now take place on Commons. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so ( commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise:
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 09:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Some time ago, I remember that there was a proposal at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)to do something about getting the tag "Some one else has started editing this page since you started to edit it, resulting in an edit conflict". Does any one know whether anything came of this? ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 20:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Just curious. I am finding my talk comments to be miserable. Full of misspellings and improper homonyms and stray parentheses. And then not really in sentences. I see others go back and correct their comments. Also maybe it is "good practice" for article writing. Plus kinder on the readers. One down side is more work. And then it's not really an article. But...thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO ( talk • contribs) 18:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Unreliable, likely partisan and misplaced report |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Likely most of you think that it's not of your business what is going on in some other parts of the Wikimedia-Universe. But if you take a look at the current cases of mobbing, hostilities and persecution of/against Jewish contributors in the German Wikipedia you just have to be appalled. Not just as user/contributor of any Wikimedia project, but rather as a human. All of this happens under indulgence and/or active participation of virtually most of the admins. Some of the chasers don't even try to hide their motives. It's just unbelievably disgusting. -- GelberZettelKrieg ( talk) 16:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Please don't bring your fights from de.wiki here. – MuZemike 03:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Propose closing this. Btw, can anyone put a welcome-new-user template on OP page? Thank you. -
DePiep (
talk)
23:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
|
I've been preparing the anniversaries section for Portal:United States, which has necessitated visiting a ton of of the date pages I described in the title. Let me cut right to the chase. Every time I went though one, I found at least a few entries ranging from 'plausible sounding but not in the articles and therefore not verified' to 'utter bullshit', with a few other that were a day off or switched June with July or other such errors.
Either way, all 365 of those pages need to come under close scrutiny. Thoughts? Sven Manguard Wha? 02:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I had just finished updating the Margret Green Junior High School as part of the July GoCE Copy editing drive, when I discovered that there is another article, Margaret Green Junior High School, almost the same as the one I did but not copy edited. The proper article name is with the "a" in Margaret. Now I do not know what to do, so I am asking for help here. Please make sure my improvements and copyediting is retained. -- DThomsen8 ( talk) 15:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
hello, I want to tell about:
!!!GGGLLLOOOORRRRIIIIAAAA!!!
Benny Lin SORANG WIKIPEDIAWAN ASAL INDONESIA SERTA SAHABAT BAIK SAYA AKHIRNYA DAN PERTAMA KALINYA MENJADI SEORANG STEWARD DALAM PEMILIHAN STEWARD KEDUA PADA TAHUN 2011 ( bukti). MAKA DARI ITU, TANPA BASA-BASI LAGI SAYA DEKLARASIKAN TANGGAL 6 OKTOBER YANG MERUPAKAN HARI DIMANA DILANTIKNYA BELIAU SEBAGAI STEWARD SEBAGAI "HARI STEWARD NASIONAL" (khusus Erik Evrest) SEPERTI JANJI SAYA SEBELUMNYA DAN TAK LUPA SEBAGAI TAMBAHANNYA PADA TANGGAL 6 DESEMBER YANG MERUPAKAN HARI DIMANA UNTUK PERTAMA KALINYA ANTARA BENNYLIN DAN SAYA BERHUBUNGAN SOSIAL UNTUK PERTAMA KALINYA ( bukti) SAYA DEKLARASIKAN SEBAGAI "HARI PERSAHABATAN BENNYLIN-ERIK EVREST" (juga khusus Erik Evrest) SERTA DIANTARA KEDUA TANGGAL TERSEBUT ( 6 November) SEBAGAI "HARI BENNYLIN NASIONAL" (dan sekali lagi khusus Erik Evrest) |
Erik Evrest is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
This is a Wikipedia
user page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user in whose space this page is located may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)/Archive_33. |
For the realization of the victory over the truth, soon dislodged the status of your account blocked IndoManiak, Si Opm Papua, and MukaMulez as well as block accounts Jonathan Ryousuke, Ninja sawit, and Bukan Pembantai. Thanks -- Erik Evrest ( talk) 13:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
The file commons:File:Flag of London, Ontario.svg, which is used on a very large number of pages ( links), has been marked for nominated deletion on Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests July 2011. Rather than notify a large number of talk pages I am raising this on WP:AN and WP:VP to obtain the right intervention.
A discussion about whether to delete the file will now take place on Commons. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so ( commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise:
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 12:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure where to put this, so I guess I'll put it here:
I have an idea for a fundraiser for the WMF, which would undoubtedly require the WMF to be an active participant (at least in getting it set up), and therefore, would require the WMF higher ups to... well... notice the proposal.
I know there are other sites, meta primarily, where stuff like this goes, however I have no idea what page to go to or how to get there.
Could someone be as kind as to post a link to where I need to go please?
Thanks, Sven Manguard Wha? 07:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Τι αίσχη είναι αυτά στο άρθρο ? από πότε και με ποιο δικαίωμα οι διαχειριστές ακολουθήτε την πολιτική ενός παράνομου "κράτους" και κάνετε προπαγάνδα υπέρ του ?? από πότε και με ποιο δικαίωμα πολιτικοποιήται την βικιπαίδεια ? ίσως θα έπρεπε να αρχίσουμε τις μηνύσεις σε πολιτικά δικαστήρια , θα γίνει κι αυτό, για να σοβαρευτείτε λίγο οι διαχειριστές εδώ, επίσης παραβιάζετε τις αποφάσεις του ΟΗΕ , Με ποιό δικαίωμα κάνετε πολιτική ??? εσείς τολμάτε να κρίνεται για εμένα? η το σπίτι μου που το κατέχουν τούρκοι ? η την περιουσία μου που την κατέχουν τούρκοι ? ΜΕ ΠΟΙΟ ΔΙΚΑΙΩΜΑ ???? ΝΤΡΟΠΗ ΣΑΣ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.64.244.167 ( talk) 10:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
I am the Wikipedia Outreach Ambassador to ARKive, who have kindly agreed to donate an initial 200 article texts about endangered species from their project, to Wikipedia, under a CC-BY-SA license. Details are on the GLAM/ARKive project page. Your help, to merge the donated texts into articles, would be appreciated. Guidelines for doing so are also on the above page. Once articles have been expanded using the donated texts, we are also seeking assistance in having those articles translated into other languages. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns, on the project's talk page, or my own. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
What's the best way to:
I'm happy with on- or off-Wiki solutions (mailing lists, for example) but am a monoglot, so can only write in English. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
You could prioritize. Just pick the top 10. Write up your message in English and drop in their Village Pumps (cut and paste). I interact with foreigners all the time for pictures and stuff and they are usually very kind and willing to talk in English. TCO ( reviews needed) 21:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
1. Where is the private message feature? 2. The ignore feature? 3. A way to block people we don't want from posting on our wall. 4. Have to type those colons when you reply to someone and then they can edit your posts (in talk). TCO ( talk) 21:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
OK, but how do I friend someone on this site? TCO ( talk) 22:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
See what I mean? :)
I am going to put a thing on my page where people can declare they are my friends. It will become a trend. Just like how I figured out who my talk page stalkers were. TCO ( talk) 01:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't want us to connect to FB. But I do think PMs and better discussion threads make sense. I mean the colon typing BLOWS. We can improve the things internally. I mean my Nutrisystem experience...there were awesome boards there with all kinds of features. Totally walled garden. But very good community and helpful to weight loss. And fun. And they thought I was the strangest poster in the history of tha site. But I lost 70 pounds. I mean...WTF...four tildas? Who came up with that crap? TCO ( talk) 01:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
God damn! Have any of you all every been on a normal forum? Like anything post about 1995?? Where you have an avatar, have a signature, have your own space for your post that others can't edit into, have ability to make paragraphs, don't have everything run together in edit mode? I mean SHEESH. I'm DUMB. I'm OLD. And I still wonder where you all are LIVING. TCO ( talk) 01:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I feel like we are being trolled. But if you want to contact someone privately, their user page has a link that lets you email them, if they have an enrolled email address. Not everybody chooses to enroll one. 69.111.195.157 ( talk) 01:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
In case anyone's not aware of it, the community could choose to install the LiquidThreads extension for discussion pages such as this one in order to address many issues above. – Adrignola talk 04:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't really get how this Village Pump thing works...what exactly is it for? 'Soul 19:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SolarWind123 ( talk • contribs) How about a reply with quote button like normal forums have? TCO ( reviews needed) 18:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
A more forum-like form shall prevail!The funny thing is that WMF is going in exactly the direction I say. Even though I communicate it in a self-making-fun-of manner, basic common sense says that this whole talk layout is...fucked. I mean it is MISERABLE to have this tiny edit window, a couple sets of scroll bars (in edit window and regular window--note, I need both when doing any formatting) and then search for where someone made a comment, seeing a block mass of text and then do that funky colon-typing crap. I think teletype operators had better message formats! And then listening to the shellback trogolodytes say that this is the best of all possible worlds...pshaw...y'all are the kind that says "why have windows and such, I want a dosprompt". Well... you're gonna lose! TCO ( reviews needed) 05:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Personally, I'd rather the Foundation prioritised a way to get references out of the body text of articles (or even get a really working on-by-default WYSIWYG interface... one can dream). A large article liberally sprinkled with cite templates (especially in the one parameter per line format) is pretty hard for a very experienced user to edit; it's hard to imagine how off-putting it is to a newcomer. And don't get me started on complex tables... By contrast, minor formatting on talk pages (which users can always do without initially, it'll get fixed and they'll learn) is less of a problem. I mean, as long as we expect users to cope with wikitext formatting in articles, wikitext formatting in talk pages is trivial by comparison. Rd232 talk 10:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
|
Since it looks like we need more active BAG members, I volunteered to help out; feel free to leave comments. On a related note, if any of you are experienced editors with good tech skills when it comes to bots + would like to make it a haunt, please feel free to open one up as well. -- slakr\ talk / 11:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
I am such a goodie two shoes now. TCO ( reviews needed) 18:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
|
Hi. I have just corrected the coordinates here and I was wondering if copying the coordinates from Google Earth after locating the place is considered copyvio. Thanks, Malafaya ( talk) 17:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Is there a list of wikimedia shortcut prefixes (e.g. w: - for wikipedia; strategy: for Wikimedia Strategy or wikt: for wiktionary)? 95.167.125.206 ( talk) 11:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
<iw prefix="wikt" local="" url="[http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/$1 http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/$1]" />
, so to link to wiktionary you'd use wikt, as in [[wikt:Main page]].
Help:Interwikimedia links is our local help page for this, and it should always be reasonably updated (the interwiki map doesn't change very often), but if you're looking for something new or relatively obscure then you'll probably want to use the API.The file commons:File:Bandera de la Provincia de Distrito Nacional.JPG, which is used on a very large number of pages ( links), has been marked for speedy deletion on Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions. Rather than notify a large number of talk pages I am raising this on WP:AN and WP:VP to obtain the right intervention.
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is time to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so ( commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise:
A further notification will be placed if/when the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 05:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Let's make blocks explicitly punitive. IOW, change the current policy of blocks being related to ongoing disruption and just give them out as punishment.
TCO ( reviews needed) 21:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC) Support
Oppose
Other
Comment: the distinction between "punitive" and "preventative" that Wikipedia has evolved is a bit odd. In the real world, all sanction regimes exist in order to prevent harm, by attempting to deter misbehaviour. Exceptions can be made in applying sanctions in specific instances when it's clear that the sanctioned behaviour cannot or will not be repeated (in which circumstance applying the sanction may appear uselessly punitive), but even then, there is the issue of deterring others. I suspect that perhaps Wikipedia's "no punitive blocks" really functions as a way to mitigate the inability to apply sanctions consistently and proportionately; this effectively takes deterrence out of the equation and focusses on whether a proposed sanction really prevents specific identifiable harms. Even on that basis, though, interpretation often ends up being too narrow, since sanctions that might be considered "punitive" can often (not always) also be construed as preventing repetition of the sanctioned behaviour by that individual. Rd232 talk 22:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
|
Something that has been bugging me for some time is the '31 hour' block that seems to be common for a first offence. Why 31 hours? Why not 24, or 48? Unless Wikipedia is actually run from a planet with a 31-hour day (which might explain a lot), I can't think of a reason for how this somewhat arbitrary figure was arrived at. Is it an inside joke, something arrived at by deep statistical analysis/reading of goat's entrails, or something so lost in the depths of time that nobody knows? AndyTheGrump ( talk) 15:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Has anyone read the "Battlefield Wikipedia" in the Anders Behring Breivik Manifesto it's on page 1067. Also We seem to be a frequently cited in the document as a whole. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•( contribs) 21:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
The file commons:File:Backyards, Greenwich Village, 1914.tif, which is used on a very large number of pages ( links), has been marked for nominated deletion on Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests July 2011. Rather than notify a large number of talk pages I am raising this on WP:AN and WP:VP to obtain the right intervention.
A discussion about whether to delete the file will now take place on Commons. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so ( commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise:
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 16:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello people,
I think this is relevant to OpenInternet role in global diplomacy, cultural reconcilation. Opinions should be restrained with that in mind, mine certainly is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alice_in_Wonderland_(2010_film)#AlicOnLine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.131.126 ( talk) 17:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone know how or where (or if) I can get detail data behind the bot generated statistics for the EN Wikipedia? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Quality_scale#Statistics
I could crawl for it, but I'm sure the drain on the servers would not be appreciated. Since there is a bot generating that data already, I am assuming it is available somewhere. What I would like to get is a list of articles (by page_title or page_id or, better yet, both) in each box in that grid. (Yes, I know the placement is a best-guess of highest importance or class.) If data on quality/class only is available, that is what I am most interested in, but the importance data would be of interest, as well.
I would also be curious to see historical data regarding the statistics table (at the summary, table level of detail, not individual articles). Is that available anywhere? Perhaps monthly snapshots of Wikipedia...
Thanks in advance for any insight or help. Please let me know if there is a more appropriate place for this kind of request (I got some very kind and useful assistance the last time I posted here, so I am inflicting myself on the generosity of the crowd around the pump again). Wikipositivist ( talk) 00:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Recently I learned that the List of municipal authorities in Northampton County, Pennsylvania has been deleted. I was involved in the creation of these lists for every Pennsylvania county, some time ago, and I would like to know if an AfD is nominated for any of them. If I place a maintained template on these articles, then maybe I would be notified, but it would seem that I would need to update the articles. I have done that in the past, but not recently. I am going to place a maintained template on the List of municipal authorities in Adams County, Pennsylvania, as an example, but I welcome any comments here. Am I using the maintained template appropriately for this article?
The reason these lists are useful is that they show what municipal authorities have articles, and which ones need articles. For large counties with many important agencies, this is helpful for editors trying to document the county and local government operations. Another way to keep this information would be to place the article table on the county talk page, but I am reluctant to do that.-- DThomsen8 ( talk) 13:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I'd like to draw people's attention to the following image:
which was found on the St. John's Water Dog page. However, the third reference on that article is the source for the image, and as you can see, the image is the other way round to the one on Wikipedia:
I have no idea how to edit this image, or even if this is the correct place to mention this (it seems like it would be forever before anyone noticed if I just used the talk page), but I hope someone can fix this, thanks. 91.110.239.188 ( talk) 08:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Um...I just realised something though - I happened to check back here...
That website says the pic is from a 1880/90s book, and indicates the specific dogs were possibly from around the 1930s. The image page says "Date between 1979 and 1981" There's no evidence of prior publication and...well, it looks like it doesn't meet copyright requirements. I've nominated the image for deletion, Commons:Deletion requests/File:St johns dogs pic.jpg.
Originally, I thought we were discussing just rotation of a free image - which, yeah, no problem. Kdammers, we can do anything we like with a PD image - crop it, rotate it, touch up the colour...anything. Print it on a T-shirt in pink-and-green, and sell them. But, the apparent copyright concern changes things, Chzz ► 08:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I was recently asked to come help a new user with file upload problems (link). The issue that the user had was that xe got the "File extension does not match MIME type." error message.
Let me be blunt: that error message is useless. Anyone with enough experience with files to understand what it is saying is experienced enough not to get that error message except by accident, and would know what to do when the message appeared. The vast majority of users, however, would have no idea what the message meant or how to proceed.
A new message is needed. It should explain the issue, offer instructions on how to proceed, and be worded in such a way as that people with no file experience would be able to easily understand the message. My explanation (at the above link) isn't that concise, and probably could be worded better. I was wondering if we could get some proposals here, and then after we get a good replacement, if we could have that replacement put into the upload form in place of the current message.
Thanks, Sven Manguard Wha? 04:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi there. My internet got knocked out at 2:30 last night (about 13 hours ago), so I'm just getting caught up. Before my internet died I was talking to Chzz about the idea of an image showing what needed to be done. I think I was more enthusiastic about that than he was, but what do you think about the idea of an illustration? Sven Manguard Wha? 19:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
zscout370 ( talk · contribs) has kindly swiftly created a rough draft of the icon I was thinking of; File:Action Question Mark.svg shown here.
Sven Manguard, I'm not really sure what you mean about 'illustration'?
Also, I must point out... the proposed/new upload wizard thingy might make this whole discussion moot? Because, it deals with things very differently; see [11]. Chzz ► 08:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I want to change the howto-article Wikipedia:So you made a userspace draft, better saying the section Ready!. My proposal is that instead of instruct the user to move the page, I want that the user place the {{subst:AFC submission/submit}}-code on the page and thus getting a review by a AFC-member.
What do you think? mabdul 23:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Does this article has no chance? -- AS sa 10:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure where this really belongs, but this seems as good a place as any.
I know it's sort of political, but the secondary headline: "It will be much easier to edit Wikipedia, for one." means it belongs somewhere.
Why Obama Should Be Re-Elected
Money graf
* It’ll be a much simpler edit to Wikipedia. If a new guy is elected president, someone will have to go to his Wikipedia page and add the current president template and start an article about his cabinet — a lot of work for whoever it is that does that sort of thing. But if we keep Obama as president, they can just keep his page labeling him the incumbent and add an extra section saying, “2012 Election: Won it!” With all the spare time the Wikipedia editors will have, maybe they can get girlfriends.
-- SPhilbrick T 18:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
How would I obtain the text of the deleted article List of municipal authorities in Northampton County, Pennsylvania?-- DThomsen8 ( talk) 13:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
#REDIRECT [[Elk County, Pennsylvania#Municipal_authorities]]
. (You can keep the "Municipal authorities" cat, if you want;
redirects can be categorized.)Designed "Tube sheet" Plate thk. 50mm. 7mm kept extra for m/c allowance.RT taken @ 57mm thk. Acceptable slag 19mm.as per ASME. After machining to required size 50mm, above slag is acceptable or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.191.235.93 ( talk) 13:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
The 'Energy Catalyzer' is a device invented by Andrea Rossi, an Italian, which he claims produces power by Low-Energy Nuclear Reaction. If it does what it claims, it is likely to be revolutionary, given that it appears to work according to a principle of physics as yet demonstrated, but there are grounds for suspecting that it may be a hoax (or worse, Rossi seems to have had a controversial past). At the moment, the article itself is probably just about acceptable, if overfilled with data about 'tests' that appear to be rather lacking in scientific rigour. Sadly, the few sources that have reported on the issue are on the whole 'pro' the device, while the sceptics are evidently ignoring it, making balance difficult to achieve. In addition, the talk page has been subject to some abuse, in that it is being used to debate the credibility of the device, rather than article content, and I've had to redact large sections of text quoted verbatim from blogs etc - for copyright reasons, if nothing else. A recent 'sceptical' report from a source that one might expect to be supportive has added further to the debate, and I'd appreciate if a few more uninvolved contributors could step in to help preserve some sense of neutrality and commitment to Wikipedia standards - at the moment, I suspect that one or two of those contributing may not be entirely uninvolved with Rossi, or are at least less-than impartial.
In the past, I've asked for help both at WP:WikiProject Physics and at the WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard, but with little result, and since I suspect things could get soon out of hand, I'm asking for help here. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 19:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
There's an AfD discussion for Dritok and most of the participants are the usual characters in conlang-related deletion discussions and two SPAs. If some new people could come and weigh in it would make the discussion much cleaner. Hermione is a dude ( talk) 03:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I recently wrote an article on how to edit Wikipedia, and as my pen took on a mind of its own, to my surprise my discussion of where the reader could find further help turned into a critique of the product I love.
Here's the excerpt that I'm talking about:
With the help system implemented as regular wiki documents in this way, there is no obvious point of entry to it and, once using it, it can be hard to know where the document being viewed lies in the greater network of help documents available. One might wonder in what order one "should" be reading the various topics while going about the endeavour to learn Wikipedia. This is compounded by the fact that since users can land at any given help document in any number of ways, many documents are necessarily written with an introductory tone as if each is the first document the user is expected to have landed at in the help system.
The help system does have a point of entry that could be argued to be a starting point, in the form of a series of links on the central page for contributors, the Community Portal. There is also a directory, linked to by the Community Portal, of help documents in order of the most introductory, called Help:Contents. However, all this might fail to stand out to the user since the Community Portal is one link among many on the left edge of the standard Wikipedia screen (see Figure 1).
In addition to the Community Portal, users can arrive at the help system via a link on the page used to edit an article described above, and by directly searching the Help and Wikipedia namespaces at the search home page. Figure 3 shows the structure of the help system. Around the perimetre are ways of entering the system, and within the cloud are key documents. An arrow indicates the user can get to the destination by following some link. It should be noted that, since help documents are regular wiki documents, some of those in Figure 3 are subject to change or even cease to exist due to users' edits.
As I mentioned, the fact that the user chooses his/her own path through the help system requires that things be repeated in multiple places--including topics being introduced to readers that might not have heard of them before in more than one document. Now obviously you can't knock this redundancy in itself; if anything it's a prudent effort to make the help system thorough and accessible to beginners. If you can be introduced to a topic in more than one document, does it matter which of these documents you read?
No it doesn't, but I'm not arguing that editors don't learn from the system the way it currently is. The same information will eventually be told to the reader regardless of which starting point and subsequent path he/she takes. If the user is looking for a specific answer, I would even say that they will find what they are looking for fairly quickly, as the links one should follow are usually fairly obvious (although I would argue that finding the help system in the first place can be unobvious--see my point about the Community Portal link). My point has more to do with the system itself. I think there is something to be said for centralization in an educational resource. I believe that when humans read information, there are unconscious processes that determine the confidence we have in our progress, which in turn determines how successful we are as we continue reading. Reading help pages one by one with no chartered course through them contributes to the sense that there is an overwhelming amount of information to be learned beyond the current page.
Perhaps it would be appealing to beginners if a high-level version of the help contents was frequently shown on help pages, indicating where the content currently being read lies in a typical Wikipedian path of learning. This would be based on a "recommended" order in which to learn things, since there's no clear objective best order.
There was also a proposal last November from Rd232, suggesting we make the New contributors' help page a more prominent part of the help system. Maybe that would help with the problem I claim exists.
I realize I'm criticizing the entire help system, which would take a huge endeavour to revamp. But that can't be an excuse not to consider whether it could be better than it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JustinPoirier ( talk • contribs) 18:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)