This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (miscellaneous).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
Bye. -- AI 02:18, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
You guys ought to run the government. No one gives a more thorough run-around than you do. I am new to Wikipedia, sampling some articles. When I landed on "Mary Magdalene," I was at first confused as to why there would be a photo of male genitals under the heading "From the Series on Christianity" sidebar to the right. Finally decided somebody had vandalized the page and I wanted to alert someone. Tried and tried and tried and tried, but finally decided to do it this way. Maybe somebody will see this. Hope so. Anybody looking up Mary Magdalene is certainly getting an eyeful. Oldguy
Curious, curious. Believe me, I was not mistaken. I linked back to "Series on Christianity" where the offending photo was revealed to have originally been a cross. Then I rekeyed "Mary Magdalene" on the main page search window and got the same photo again. Let me go check it again. ````
Wikiquote is unavailable to my many repeated attempts for access. Anybody else? Sveden 16:23, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm using osx 10.3.9, Safari 1.3 (v312), and I see the following strange line on the Carl Friedrich Gauss page immediately under the "Biography" heading:
"MOTHER F**KER | BASTARD | SON OF A B**CH | BLOODY PROSTITUTE | PAKISTAN ROCKS"
It doesn't show up in my copy of Internet Explorer, nor does it show up in the compare versions in the history page. It seems nowhere to be found in the Wiki code, but when I use Safari to 'view source' it shows up as a
tag with said text inside. Can anyone corroborate this, or is it on my computer alone?
Thanks... I'm new to Wikipedia-behind-the-scenes, so forgive me if I posted in the wrong spot or anything...Greg
i just wanted to say this is very cool. i spent the past 45 min learning about hiroshima in a very different way
Am I right in thinking that old drawings maps and photographs from before c 1920 are in the public domain?. Only I've found some old maps and drawings from the 18th zand 19th centuries which I want to upload. But I just wanted to make sure it's OK. G-Man 22:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
It varies from country to country. IANAL, but I suspect that you're fairly safe with things over a century old unless the creator's estate has extended the copyright - and that's unlikely for maps. Grutness... wha? 01:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
This image is a faithful reproduction of a two-dimensional uncopyrighted work of art and the image itself is in the public domain in the United States because under US copyright law, originality of expression is necessary for copyright protection, and a mere photograph of an out-of-copyright 2D work may not be protected under American copyright law. The official position of the Wikimedia Foundation is that all faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works should be considered to be in the public domain regardless of their country of origin (even in countries where mere labor is enough to make a reproduction eligible for protection). | ||||
The depicted two-dimensional work of art is in the public domain for the following reason:
|
I want to create an article on a particular person. He is a moderately famous journalist in India. A google search lists 64,500 results to his name (with quotes included). The problem is that he is a wikipedia user. Would I be wrong in making a page about him? User:Nichalp/sg 18:10, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
Pictures representing the Louvre pyramid may cause legal troubles. Pei, the architect of the pyramid and so beneficiary, forbid to take photos of it. It should exist a solution : It's impossible to take pictures of the Louvre under some angles without having the pyramid on the picture, but one picture of en: still is poblematic : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Invertedpyramidlouvre1.jpg This picture contains almost no architectural elements of the old parts of the Louvre. Traroth 08:40, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
It is getting truly scary how often Wikipedia hits are near the top of Google searches. Where will this all stop? And often I see web pages with text that looks like it is right out of Wikipedia, but not credited, so no one really knows the source. Won't the web get less credible than it already is? Spalding 23:01, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
I able to speak intelligently with my son on current events. Kuddos Wikipedia
Does anyone know the lyrics to 'Les Rhythmes Digitales' - 'Jacques your Body'? I have scourec the web and can find none! I will accept Frenxh ones as I can translate them with Google :-)
I'm not sure where this belongs, so I'm putting it here, if there is anywhere better please feel free to move it (but let me know where to!).
Would it be OK for me to say that all users contributions to specific pages in my userspace are dual liscenced e.g. to the public domain. I would obviously make this explicit and obvious in advance and not retrospectively. My reasoning is that it will be easier this way to legally integrate work on propsed alterations into the main article. e.g. User:Slambo and I are currently working on improving the colour scheme of the custom TOC for List of rail accidents at a page in my user space ( User:Thryduulf/rail accidents toc). Thryduulf 00:09, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Why/when did the phrasing on category pages get changed to "at least X articles" from "X articles"? - Splash 17:37, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
What? | This
Wikipedia needs more
cabal. You can help by adding more cabal. |
I think we've seen way too few conspiracy theories about admins as of late. Therefore I propose an Admin: namespace where certified admins can talk amongst themselves. Regular users would not be able to access these pages. In other words, the reports of the cabal's death have been greatly exaggerated. The first task can be to discuss how to enforce stricter editorial controls. That is not a discussion that any old editor needs to take an interest in, and is better served by a decree. Thoughts? — David Remahl 22:55, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
This actually already exists, we just don't tell anyone about it. The discussion is ongoing at Admin:Empty Paking Lot Late at Night, which is the Cabal version of the Village Pump. But then, that link is red to ordinary editors :)-- Pharos 23:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Submitted to BJAODN, btw. JesseW 07:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
the obscurantists are now trying to eliminate any place to discuss what they are trying to do in the article, truth [4]
they protected te talk page, now they are trying to speedy delete the talk_talk:truth page! -- 172.197.76.251 22:48, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Hello, I just want to say what an amazing idea and a brilliant display of trust you people have displayed in setting this up. This is what the internet should be used for, and it's a marvel. That's it!
I'm made a list of articles with at least 1000 hits as of June 2005, complete with links to each. These articles should be carefully examined by more editors, because they're the most visible of our articles. Particularly important are the stubs, such as semi-automatic handgun and clitoridectomy. In a way it's a bit sad that of our million articles, only a tiny fraction get significant traffic. Please spread this link to other forums that may be interested. Deco 21:18, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
I just noticed something . . . the front page of the nearly article less Tigrinya language section of the Wikipedia ( http://ti.wikipedia.org/) has a bunch of links to different pages on http://passion.sexwebsites.com/ at the bottom of the page! How could that happen?!
Oh, COME ON! This article has FIVE editorial templates on it! Zoe 21:17, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
I thought it would be good to make this public here: at the request of the Bureaucrats (proposed by Uninvited Company), there are no longer separate lists for nominations (users nominating other users) and self-nominations for Adminship. We now have a single list, in chronological order (newest requests at the top). Regards, Redux 03:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
User:67.173.181.67 has apparently been—singlehandedly, without discussion, and with no further edit summary than "disambig"—changing almost all (maybe all) former links to Liberalism, often making what strike me as very polemical choices. Someone may want to go through this IPs entire contribution list and see which of these should be reverted or otherwise changed. I've stumbled across half a dozen in my own watchlist so far; all but one struck me as poor choices. Among other things, nothing I've seen is being redirected to American Liberalism: where that might be appropriate (like the NAACP, the redirection is to left-wing politics. Even in talking (at Jacobin Club) about the opposition of the Bourbon Restoration to liberalism, that was redirected to left-wing politics (those notorious left-wingers who propagated the Napoleonic Code, I suppose. Elsewhere classical liberalism was substituted with reference to thinkers such as Thomas Paine who are embraced by all modern-day currents of liberalism. If there is someone who was more simply "liberal" without needing a qualifier than Paine, I can't think who it would be.
This is insidious stuff because (1) it's half-hidden, because there is no meaningful edit sumary and he/she isn't removing the word liberal from the visible text, just making it redirect elsewhere, and (2) it's easy to make a ton of edits like this if you don't take any time to discuss the matter, but for those of us who feel a need to state a justification when making a substantive edit (like a reversion of these) it probably takes 10-20 times as long.
Anyway, I personally am not taking on either the task of "negotiating" with this person or looking through these (probably hundreds) of edits, but I think someone ought to. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:48, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
My name is Basheer Al-ni'ma a proffesor assistant in yhe university of Mosul, college of sciences, department of Biology/Iraq. During collection of water sampels from a freshwater lake near my city i found a macroscopic red algae at a depth (2-7)meters. I am facing a proplem in the identification of this algae since i have shortege in the identification key also the taxon was not included in the published check list of iraqi algae.Can you help or support me for the identification of this species.I am ready for cooperation and willbe happy to hear good news from you Thank you very much in advance sincerely yours B.A. basheer Al-Ni'ma E-Mail babasheer2003@yahoo.com
The author Shani Mootoo lived with our family as a student in London, Ontario in the 1970s. We are searching for her. Does anyone know how to contact her? It is rather important. Thank you for your assistance. Please contact Judy Chambers at [e-mail removed]
Although I am new and really not sure were to post this, and don't know what I am doing. I guess I'll just put it here. I think wikipedia is great. I believe in your goals, and I'm pretty sure I understand them. I will refer to the article about Islam. I went there,So I could try to get a small understanding of that believe,(I don't believe in any of those religions or philosophies) I just wanted information. I believe that article gave me the information I was looking for. Someone had tagged it as nonsense, then on the talk pages. 90% of that, seemed to be nonsense, it really had nothing to do with the article. So I really didn't feel like I should make a comment on why I believe the article should stay, I had the impression that I would be digging in a trash can. Anyway, today the tag is gone, so this only strengthens my believe that wikipedia is great. Thank you! Spongehead 8\15\05
Peter C. Wayner (who wrote some books on cryptography and one on the free software movement) is again giving a course on computer science for non computer-science majors. One of the assignments is to contribute an article to Wikipedia.
Last year, his students contributed about 600 articles. As he says on his user page, "Some were great and some were just quick hacks turned out to get some credit." Most of them went completely unnoticed by Wikipedians. There was nothing in particular to identify an excellent article on an unpublished work by Jane Austen as being the product of a Dartmouth class exercise.
But. Maybe ten per cent of these articles were puff pieces on subtrivial aspects of Dartmouth student life, student activities described in language appropriate to a recruiting brochure, rules for traditional games played in certain living units, and so forth. The sudden arrival of a few dozen pieces of Dartmouthcruft brought out the very worst in the Wikipedian community.
The final disposition of most of these articles was that they were cleaned up and merged into Dartmouth College, which is a much better article than it was two years ago, so even these articles were beneficial, but along the way there was a great deal of unnecessary incivility and hurt feelings.
This year, let's welcome the Dartmouth students and the hundreds of decent articles they are about to contribute.
We will probably get a few articles on topics that seem too narrow to be encyclopedic. Let's remember that redirects are cheap and that anyone can merge-and-redirect, which is a far gentler process than nomination for deletion. If we do feel a need to nominate any of them for deletion, let's really adhere to the policies of
Nobody is trying to spam us. And we have a standing invitation to professors to engage in just such projects.
Welcome back, Big Green. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm participating in an online study program with Oxford University in computing. This is mostly done at home with a computer, but each year they do a mandatory summer school for students. While I'm a fairly experienced programmer, most of the students are not; many were at the Word-and-Outlook stage when they started the course, able to use a computer for basic tasks but not really skilled with one.
I know you're saying "what's this got to do with Wikipedia?" I'm getting there.
Last night was the final night of the summer school, so we had a celebratory dinner. And as often happens in British school settings involving dinners, the head of the program stood up to make an after-dinner speech. As part of it, he listed a number of milestones in the Internet's development in the last ten years.
One of these was the foundation of Wikipedia in 2001. At this point, he stopped and asked the gathered students, "How many of you have contributed to Wikipedia?" I was one of three or four people who raised their hands.
He then asked, "How many of you have used Wikipedia?" I was amazed to see about half the hands in the air, and grinned afterwards when someone commented that they'd have to look into that "Wikipedia thing".
Our hard work is much appreciated.
— Brent Dax 07:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
[Template:DecencyWikiProject]]
Take a look at the above, then vote at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency
CensorshipOfCensorship 07:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
I've gone wiki crazy. see this:
if that were on wikipedia, I would either edit that or slap a NPOV tag on it. Shame, shame on AP. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 02:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
WP:IFD#August 15. The horror, the horror. ~~ N ( t/ c) 13:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi. I've come across a series of articles ( click here for links) that seem to have mistranslated a term into English. It is rather common to see the words deputado (in Portuguese) and diputado (in Spanish) mistranslated into English as "deputy", when the correct word is congressman. Now, I've just found that Câmara dos Deputados (Portuguese) and Cámara de Diputados (Spanish) have been mistranslated apparently into "chamber of deputies", when it would appear that the correct translation would be House of Representatives. Even worse, as I said, a series of articles have been created using the mistranslation. Before we start moving all those articles, however, I wanted to make absolute sure that this term "chamber of deputies" cannot absolutely be used. Has anybody (from English-speaking countries) ever seen or heard it used? That looks completely wrong to me. Thanks for the help. Regards, Redux 23:46, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Very interesting. Indeed, it would appear that "Chamber of Deputies" would go for most cases. I now believe that the current names in those articles should be changed only for the cases where the institution in question might call itself differently in their English-language publications or website (which many of them have). We should use the name that the institution itself uses in their official references in English (and use redirects to make sure that querries like "Brazilian House of Representatives" find the appropriate article). Regards, Redux 14:38, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Op zondag 11 september zal een eerste ontmoeting plaatsvinden ten behoeve van de oprichting van een Nederlandse afdeling van de Wikimedia Foundation. Iedereen die wil komen, is van harte welkom. Groet, Gebruiker:Dedalus 14:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Sunday 11 september 2005 the first meeting will be held regarding establishing a Dutch chapter of the Wikimedia Foundation. If you would like to attend, you're welcome. Greetings, Gebruiker:Dedalus 14:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi I just discovered this wonderful site. I was just wondering what the maximum recorded depth of the Amazon River is and I followed a link that led me to wikipedia. I must say that this is a wonderful concept and wish you well. When I am able I wish to contribute some funds for you guys. Keep up the good work... one question how do you filter false information??
Best wishes, Jeremy
You may be interested in the WikiProject, WikiProject Holidays, a WikiProject that will focus on standardizing articles about Holidays. It has been around for quite some time, but I'm starting it up again, and would like to see some more members (and our original members) around the help out. Cheers. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 21:13, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Today's featured picture. One picture, six templates. Looks like a new record (or not, shudder...) Kosebamse 09:05, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
I have created an article on convicted school shooter Todd Cameron Smith. In Canada, it's illegal for the media to identify juvenile criminals, but that restriction was lifted for the 24 hours or so of Smith's escape from a halfway house. That means it's now illegal for Canadian media to reprint their own stories from yesterday!
As with the sponsorship scandal, Wikipedia allows Canadians to skirt censorship laws and read what the government says they should not be able to. Hopefully, this phenomenon will help Canadian policy-makers wake up to the futility of censorship. Ray Oiler 19:28, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Whether it's in a good cause or not, or desirable or not in a given case, censorship by one country's government just doesn't work in this age; Internet servers elsewhere are free to diseminate the banned information. *Dan* 14:29, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
Wouldn't he get a new identity like the kids in the British Jamie Bulger case? (or is that some myth I heard?). - Mgm| (talk) 19:51, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Hi all, I have been a Wikipedian since May or so. At first, the server seemed quite fast and I happily edited or wrote numerous articles. When the new software took effect, I did notice some slowdown, but nothing too drastic. But in the past week or so, I have noticed a pronounced slowdown, with half of my edits (or more) timing out before taking effect. Needless to say, this has put a damper on my activities. Any idea what might be going on?--- 22:07, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I sure am noticing! But I've been seeing this quite a bit in the past few days. Very frustrating when I'm doing (I think) useful work, but half my edits time out!
Another thing I've been noticing is that "Search" instead of "Go" ofen fails in recent days. That is, the search engine can't find a page which I know exists. Sometimes, if I remember the exact name, I can get there using "Go".--- CH (talk) 22:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi, AC, I am a bit confused on a key point--- are you saying that you too have been experiencing a greatly increased frequency of "Wikimedia Server returned no reponse" error messages in the past few days, as I have? Or are you talking about something which happened a few days ago? Are you saying that the database server crash someone mentioned elsewhere is the likely cause of the behavior I have been seeing for the past few days? And yes, I am using Firefox, and I take the point: better to reload the article than to try to resend an edit, because the edit will probably have taken effect before you can reload the article, so any duplicate edit will just increase the load on the server.--- CH (talk) 23:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
I get the same sort of thing: Sometimes when I go to save an edit to a section of a long page I get a proxy server error "Cannot fulful request" or similar. Yet when I check the article, I find that the save has been made. Normally it doesn't matter if a re-save goes over the top, but if you're saving a "new" section on a talk page you can end up getting multiple new sections. People in the know would almost certainly avoid this happening, but for someone with a bit less wikisavvy (or someone as forgetful as me) it can cause problems. Grutness... wha? 03:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Is it just me, or has the format of the revision history been changed? No offense, but it looks ugly as heck. -- Ixfd64 17:44, 2005 August 20 (UTC)
I just stumbled upon List of countries with nuclear weapons, and found that there's an entry on Australia! Ah, but it's in a section States formerly possessing nuclear weapons or programs. This heading is perhaps vague enough for us just to qualify, we did some research on centrifuge enrichment once upon a time, but I'm not convinced. Still, List of countries with nuclear weapons is a strange name for a list which includes Australia, a long-time advocate of IAEA safeguards and non-proliferation.
The references and external links at the bottom of the page seem largely (perhaps entirely, I haven't checked them all) from anti-nuclear organisations. The entry on Australia contains some errors of fact and other statements that are at the very least controversial, which I will document on the talk page.
But the reason I raise it here is that I see from the top of that talk page that it's been nominated and accepted as a featured list. How it qualifies under Wikipedia:What is a featured list? criteria 2 and 4 is a puzzle to me, but it passed unanimously, and so according to that notice, I should now be wary of compromising previous work by updating the list.
I thought of raising this as a policy issue, but it's not primarily a policy issue although it does raise a few of them. We've got a sort of Wikipedia approval mechanism working here, or perhaps not working.
It seems a bit daring to pop both an accuracy dispute notice and a POV dispute notice onto a featured list, but what else can I do? Is there a candidates for unlisting featured lists somewhere? What constitutes compromising previous work? Who decides this?
Comments welcome. Andrewa 02:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
I am here to report a wikicrime that I myself have been, on several occasions, wikiguilty of. Can we please stop prefixing every frickin' word with wiki! We have wikibreaks, wikistalking, wikiholics, wikipedians, wikistress, I even hear wikivandals from time to time! It is getting on my wikinerves! Now, I am too wikitired to wikicare, and I want to go to wikibed. Now, tomorrow, barring that I am getting wikilucky with some nice wikigirl and is in a better wikimood, I will serverly wikipunish all who does this atrocious wikiact! We are wikitalking major wiki-h4X0rZing! Goodnight gentlemen and wikiwomen! gkhan 21:42, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
I stumbled across Suicide methods while RC patrolling the other day, and looking at the article it looks like a how to of suicide and discusses your various options for doing so. However, the last thing a suicidal person needs is a weapon or a plan. I'm not saying we should remove the article. As a wikipedian, I see its encyclopedic value. However, as a person, I'm a bit disturbed by it.
Would adding a template/table like the one at the top of this article be unreasonable? -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 21:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Banno, Nate Ladd and their group of obscurantists are still trying to control content by force of numbers in true and related articles, including epistemology and knowledge. That ain't right.
I spent some time on the votes for deletion page today, and I was appalled at how many clearly-offtopic, blatantly self-promoting "vanity" articles there are lately which are (quite obviously) in need of deletion. I realize that most of the perpetrators probably haven't read and don't care about the existing rules and guidelines against what they're doing, but it occurred to me that a useful litmus test to explain somewhere would be:
Do we have advice like this anywhere?
Steve Summit ( talk) 22:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Indeed we do: WP:AUTO. - Splash 23:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
(moved to Talk:Chamber of Deputies. –Hajor 00:52, 3 September 2005 (UTC))
Sigh...does anyone still have any of those "gmail invites" that were all the rage several months ago. The current method of signing up for one involves google sending out a text message, and my poor ancient cell phone doesn't do SMS. Thanks, Func( t, c, @, ) 20:10, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
I was clicking the random article link when I came across that article. It doesn't seem to belong on wikipedia, I just thought someone should know about it. Deyyaz 07:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
This page has the phrase "Traffic for all MediaWiki sites". Shouldn't that be "Wikimedia"? ~~ N ( t/ c) 00:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Are certain images prevented from being shown on non-related articles? For example, there is a vandal that likes to insert penis images into pages. However, from this edit [8], the image used to vandalize only comes up as a link, not as the actual image, while retaining the correct format.
Is this a new feature used for fighting vandals? -- Ixfd64 09:29, 2005 September 1 (UTC)
Never mind, I just found out about Mediawiki:Bad image list. -- Ixfd64 09:35, 2005 September 1 (UTC)
I ran across a link to Senator Joseph Biden, which redirected to Joe Biden, which is a redirect to Joseph R. Biden, which is a redirect to Joseph R. Biden, Jr.. In fact, checking "What links here" for the actual article, I found 175 double, triple, and quadruple redirects! This is nuts! I normally fix redirects, even triple ones, when I find them, but this would take me half a day!
I thought we had some kind of automated redirect fixing going on, since so many people simply create links without checking them and move pages without fixing the redirects. But when I went to Wikipedia:Redirect to see what's going on and how to post this question, I found that a reference to Wikipedia:Secondary redirect redirected to Wikipedia:Double redirects. Looking to see if Biden was on the target list, I read that "The most up to date list of double redirects is at the computer help desk…", with a link to Wikipedia:WikiProject help desk/cleanup, which is a redirect to Wikipedia:Computer help desk/cleanup, which lists no active projects. This is obviously not the most up-to-date list. Backtracking, I found several links to other possible avenues to check, without ever feeling I'd gotten a single definitive answer. That's why I'm posting this here, in the hopes that someone has a better solution than manually editing 175 articles. Now I'm redirecting myself to the project this discovery interrupted. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
There only seemed to be about six redirect pages to fix, but perhaps someone had gotten to it first. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:25, 2005 August 31 (UTC)
(in a deep voice) As Jeff Q has found out, we see how a short little venture into that realm of sight, sound, and imagination can turn into a never-ending cycle of redirection, a redirection into that peculiar Web … known as the Twilight Zone. — "Rod" 07:19, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
I want to suggest a kid-friendly wikibook on evolution and the chronicle of one-celled life to man, but for the life of me I can't figure out how to do it. And I'd like to think I'm not the only one confused about this. Would anyone like to make this suggestion for me, or guide me in doing it? Citizen Premier 05:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
I went into the history on the List of Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends episodes and found the following people contributing "fake episodes":
I've fixed that at the top by warning them that is they try again, they will be reported to a higher authority...a supervisor! NoseNuggets 2:30 PM US EDT Aug 29 2005
NoseNuggets 3:00 AM US EDT Aug 30 2005
I made four new catergories:
Category:Documentary Feature Oscar
Category:Documentary Feature Oscar nominee
Category:Documentary Short Subject Oscar
Category:Documentary Short Subject Oscar nominee
After doing so, I went to the Oscar article and inserted the appropriate category into the various films. However, I note that IMDb lists the producer as the Oscar winner/nominee.
Question: Should we use the above category(s) for the Producer as well. Ted Wilkes 14:26, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
I've created a template for looking up acronyms on acronymfinder.com:
{{ acronym}}
I don't know if it'll be any use, but hopefully it will be helpful. :) -- Ixfd64 05:15, 2005 August 29 (UTC)
As per a request, I added the approximate euro total to the fundraising message (as per xE) to help our european friends across the pond. If you don't like it, then remove it I guess. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 01:15, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
In case any of you could join, I would be happy to share a meal and wiki time with wikipedians around Pretoria, South Africa. I will be there from tuesday the 20th till saturday evening the 24th of september. Anthere 19:18, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
See http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-September/028404.html
LOL. When Wikipedia:Babel was built, this future template was previously 'called' for the native speakers of occidental language (later called interlingue), 'ie' being the ISO 639-1 code for this language, and the prefix for the interlingue Wikipedia. But it happened what had to happen with the creation of templates for computer languages or browsers, etc.: Template:User ie is now, in fact, the template for users of M$-ie (Microsoft Internet Explorer). It would have been so simple to create separate hierarchies and very differentiated template names. Maybe it's more comic to mix everything... In the same way, category:User languages, first created to give list of Wikipedians by human languages, gives also the list of the data-processing languages. Wikipedia:Babel, on EN, with the 'work' of only one, became a huge [censored]... Hégésippe | ±Θ± 12:01, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, I see that it has become somewhat pointless to remain here, since most of the time I go to add an interesting fact or tidbit to an article, someone has beaten me to it. I see also that the number of Wikipedians who make 100 or more edits is increasing at a rate of about 350% per year, and thus should reach 10,000 by the end of 2006 [9]. Thus, my presence here will become more and more superfluous, but at least I can say that I was on Wikipedia before it became cool. 24.54.208.177
I have never gone to this VP(misc) before. Nice scale of conversation. I will be back. Ancheta Wis 22:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
VotingIsStillEvil, and what's worse, contentious debate does not truth make.
So long as this Project is built to provide facts to the public, rather than mere opinion, it's pretty plain that we need to adhere to basic rules of discourse. Nobody is entitled to advance a position without being able to support it; if challenged, a response is required. If you don't want to respond to a challenge, that's fine too -- but it's automatic: If you don't respond to a rational challenge, you have abandoned the position.
All of the rules you may find expedient in barroom arguments about the size of J-Lo's teats are irrelevant in a scholarly context. Many sound ideas have been attacked over the years -- such as the notion of manned heavier-than-air flight. Many foolish ideas have been proposed -- famously, a bill passed the 1897 Indiana House redefining pi. In every case, what emerges from the dust and smoke is the truth -- and yes, insofar as there is only one single Universe, there is only one set of absolutely true facts. Men can fly; pi is an irrational number; and with all due respect to dissenters, the Earth is not flat.
The strength of the Wikipedian Community is that we have diverse backgrounds, so we're able to contribute in ways that a narrower group could not, in ways that traditional scholars cannot conceive. The weakness -- and it is very weak indeed -- is that far too many of us have no idea what constitutes fact, opinion, thesis, challenge, support, objection, demonstration, proof, or disproof. Nor does this stop us from commenting -- loudly, stridently, repeatedly, at length, and for all that, foolishly.
I suggest we need to promote an increased understanding of these tools of rationality, before we slip any closer to some mediocre forum for advertisement of mob sentiment.
— Xiong 熊 talk * 11:48, 2005 September 11 (UTC)
Fragmented discussion merged from Wikipedia talk:The Wiki Way -- please avoid fragmented discussions.
If you fail to formulate an objection -- if your only statement is a vague "uh" -- then there's not much of a way for anyone to address it. Therefore, it is a requirement of discourse that you state your objection in order for it to possess any validity. This is not some private definition of my own; it is fundamental to logic, rationality, and civilized discourse. Any other interpretation is a Humpty-Dumpty definition.
Of course, that "uh" does not constitute support; when did I ever say it did? You can express any opinion you like; but if you don't engage in discussion, then you aren't building consensus; you're just throwing peanuts from the gallery. If you confine yourself to insubstantial comments, then you neither oppose nor support -- you don't even make a useful, neutral contribution to the discussion. And that's pretty much my point. — Xiong 熊 talk * 01:30, 2005 September 12 (UTC)
Fragmented discussion merged from Wikipedia talk:The Wiki Way – please avoid fragmented discussions.
The world of intelligent discourse is both much larger than you suspect, and of a different shape. That is, it includes far more possibilities than you entertain; yet excludes some you appear to think worthy. I'm heartily sorry if that appraisal offends you; it is the mere, obdurate truth -- not something I can manipulate.
There is a vast arena between support and opposition. I do not seek to manufacture support for anything -- what a silly idea! I suppose I could grow a legion of socks for the purpose -- but I don't think anyone would take them seriously.
If you do not desire to discredit a page, why apply inaccurate labels to it? Speak of it as it is. I do not sneakily undermine, say, an officer's authority by calling him "the so-called Mayor". If he's a thief, I call him a thief; if incompetent, a blunderer; if a fool, a clown. I do not call a fish a cat. Say what you mean -- and you will discover great power in the technique of remaining silent when you intend to say nothing.
Talk pages are substantially different from all others. This is a wiki; that means all pages are open for collaboration. Explicitly, they are not owned by anyone and have no authors. Talk pages are, in a sense, not pages at all -- they are the back side of other pages. Talk pages are devoid of content. They merely comment on content.
While Talk pages are still common property, we do understand that each editor's comment is "his own" and that we must explicitly endorse or oppose each other's views, if at all. Otherwise, we move or archive them impartially, no matter how we find them. If we wish to modify another's opinion, we do so by writing our own comment -- if you like, a copy of the first opinion, with our modifications added -- and our names signed to the new comment. We do not edit each other's comments except in the most extreme cases, or the most trivial manner.
The only changes I routinely make to any other editor's Talk is to refactor the indentation and paragraph breaks; I do this to make the text readable, as so many editors have a deplorable habit of running all comments together into one indistinguishable blob. It's important that we know who speaks on Talk. I also collect chunks of Talk, all on one topic, onto the correct page. This is most useful on User talk, where careless editors often allow a discussion to fall apart into two seperate halves, each as individually incomprehensible as one side of a phone call. It's really good to keep all discussion on one topic in the same place.
If you check diffs to see what other editors have contributed before coming in with your own comment, then I think that experience might better inform your remarks. As it is, I thank you for your second illustration of the point I was trying to make when you so conveniently provided the first.
— Xiong 熊 talk * 06:07, 2005 September 12 (UTC)
I've used the word "lucid". And lucidity applies ... after intelligence and consciousness have been addressed (as I've said). But the jump from intelligent to lucid (with regard to wikipedia, as an example) fails to explain what consciousness has to do with coming up with the correct answers (though this is also addressed a bit later on — such that its writers have a conscience, they might discern what is "right" ... both in a moralistic sense and also in the sense of arriving at correct answers). Which is to say, applying an intelligent design conscientiously might lead a wikipedia to be *right* by preponderance, as I've suggested (whereby mentioning lucidity at this point begins to make sense). This is not to say that it *makes sense* to be intelligent and conscientious and still lack lucidity ... as a matter of choice, for example / or in seeming violation of what it means to be intelligent in the first place (to the contrary). So I might have said that wikipedia isn't necessarily intelligent (even though an intelligence). Or I might have said that being intelligent doesn't necessarily mean conscientiousness will prevail (in the case that her writers don't have a conscience, for example). But I've said that both of these are "necessarily" so (if an entity is intelligent, then it is conscientious). And so there's (still) the matter of lucidity (and awareness, and agency): The mention of lucidity (regarding wikipedia) early on in this comment foreshadows the explanation of what it means to be lucid ... which is then expressed "in the negative" (whereby lucidity is not that which overcomes the intelligent design of its database but is that which overcomes the necessity that humans have a conscience). (from Intelligence and the Art of Imagination)
-- Mindrec 20:48, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
What thoughts do people have concerning the use of "References", "External links", and "Sources" as section titles? I notice sources being described as references and references being described as external links and external links deleted because "Wiipedia is not a link farm." WAS 4.250 15:07, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Could an admin please change Mediawiki:exif-make-value, Mediawiki:exif-model-value and Mediawiki:exif-software-value from "$1" to "[[$1]]", that way Exif infoboxes will link to the camera make, model and software articles. — Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 14:49:50, 2005-09-10 (UTC)
This has come up a few times at CfD, but despite posting lengthly "rants" each time I've never gotten any answers to by concerns and the votes have pretty much been me against the rest...
Basicaly there seems to be a preference among some (what I presume to be) US editors to change "former students" and the like into alumni or aluminus or whatever the various forms of the term is. I have tried pointing out that it's a fairly US sentric term (at least in the way it's beein applied). At least that's my impression, it's scertainly extremely rare where I come from in fact I can't remember ever coming across it before I came here. Quite frankly I fear that usage of the term might cause unnessesary confution along readers outside the " Anglosphere", even if they are otherwise fluent in English. Even among english speaking nations that commonly use the term it seems to have slightly different meanings. From what I have gathered in the US alumni referes to all former students from a school (seems to be the de-facto "house" definition around here). In Canada it only referes to graduates and in Australia it usualy only refers to former students to actively keep in touch with the school after they graduate/drop out (at least that's how it's been explained to me). Am I just overly biased because I happen to come from a nation where the word is practicaly alien or what? Some thoughts from other Wikipedians would be nice, especialy from other Wikipedians outside the so called "Anglosphere". If I'm just "inventing" a problem based on my own ignorance feel free to let me know :P -- Sherool 00:05, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to hold a survey regarding the article Riemann zeta function, to help determine its general comprehensibility and identify areas where it may be incomplete. Please indicate your perceptions of the article below, and feel free to expand the survey or article as you see fit. ‣ᓛᖁ ᑐ 21:07, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
The link : http://sd.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
says :
" Welcome to the New Website for the Sindhi language Wikipedia. If you think a free online Sindhi encyclopedia would be cool, start writing here " ..
but in actual this page does'nt include even a single character of Sindhi Language .. I was amazed to see that .. Please check this out .. This is NOT Sindhi Language .. Hindi Characters are there there instead of Sindhi Characters ...
Please check this out.
What does Wikipedia (or Wikimedia) do to advertise itself? Does it use a part of the donations? CG 12:41, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
How can I get screenshoot from Game Boy and save image on computer?
See this: [10]
The page Egg (person) has been tagged for VfD since July. The consensus seems to have been "keep." Is it okay to remove the tag? ♥purplefeltangel 23:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
There's a phenomenon that appears in Wikipedia that is, I think, unique to the nature of this endevour. Specifically, I've discovered that there are "facts" that are belived in my country (the US) that are completely at odds with the "facts" believed in other countries. I'm not talking about obvious things like George Bush is good/bad -- pretty much everybody understands that there is a range of opinion. Rather I am referring to historical issues that I never knew were even a point of controversy.
The example that I've run into has to do with the invention of the airplane. People in the US are taught, and generally believe unquestioningly, that the Wright brothers invented the airplane. As it happens, Brazilians have the comparable belief about Alberto Santos-Dumont. He is the undisputed "father of aviation" in Brazil, as well as many other places. Upon closer examination, I have to say, that the Brazilians have a good point. The matter is reasonably open to question.
But the dispute goes further. In fact, several countries lay claim to the inventor of the first flying machine.
My thought is: I presume this is a general phenomenon. I supposed that historians might even make a study of such localized beliefs. And I think that Wikipedia may be uniquely placed to discover and catalog these surprising (at least to myself) cultural differences. Is there even a name for this issue? (i.e. things believed to be universal but in fact are not.) Is there a reasonable mechanism for identifying and collecting such things somewhere in Wikipedia. Blimpguy 14:58, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Katrina Help Wiki. Pretty amazing. Came together very quickly, building on work done after the Indian Ocean tsunami. People-finder, links to resources, places to request or offer help, keeping an eye on the scams, even Ham Radio Resources. They probably could use some miscellaneous skills help, and we certainly ought to (at the very least) put together an article on them, probably ought to display something about them more prominently than that. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:54, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
Getting no sign of answers for my questions in Template talk:User language category#Discussion (and also a few words in the user page of Cyber Skull), I repeat here what I have wrote :
Thanks. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 04:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Is there a list somewhere, or creatable, that lists all the WP: shortcuts and where they go? I know there's what links here for {{ shortcut}} and Special:Allpages starting at WP:, but both do half the job. Is there somewhere they are joined up? - Splash 14:36, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
"Wikipedia isn't a bad thing, said Tom Panelas, a spokesman for Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc. "It's just a different thing." Times-Dispatch (Sep 3 '05) That's Britannica's new line. The office has gone from explicitly lambasting us in late '04 to only hinting at our existence "An encyclopedia isn't just a conglomeration of everything that anyone can think of putting in there" (Boston Globe, July 21 '05). Now wikipeace? lots of issues | leave me a message 22:02, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
I was just reading gas centrifuge (I like nuclear technology) and clicked on the link to cascade, a large disambiguation page. It took me several seconds to realize that the chemical engineering meaning was the intended one. And this can't be fixed, because there's no larger article on cascade (chemical engineering), and there probably never will be. It's annoying, but I can't think of any way to fix it other than splitting cascade into sections which can then be #-linked to - wasting a lot of vertical space. Suggestions? ~~ N ( t/ c) 03:51, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
I was just reading through " Wikipedia is always a work in progress" at TimesDispatch.com when I came across this:
U.S. version?! How blinkered some people can be! violet/riga (t) 11:08, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Blinker is another word for "blinder" (you know, the stuff you put over your windows), so I suppose Violet is referring to how some Americans are "blind-ered" to the outside world. — Ambush Commander( Talk) 02:44, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
First, I love Wikipedia. It has so much information on it I could lose myself for days at a time here! However, I'm very bad at sorting and processing information and putting it to use in my life and I am in the middle of a problem having to deal with law, moral/ethical codes, and religion/faith. I'm looking for someone to help me outside of Wikipedia who will help me research and process the information available, and maybe get me out of my problem. If you are willing to help me and would like to know my situation, send me an email and I'll fill you in, then you can make your decision. Thank you, I appreciate any help I get, I'm so miserable!
I don't know if it's just me, but the image of Hurricane Rita's track on the Main Page is not loading. What happened to it? - dcljr ( talk) 20:42, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Am I wrong in concluding that there is a revert war of sorts going on the main page today (Sept 19)? It keeps flipping between Montréal-Mirabel International Airport and James I of England. I'm not sure how it gets edited but this is disappointing as whoever gets to edit it is presumabely an admin at least and should know better. Marskell 12:19, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Hi. I am improving automatic interwiki linking for the auto-generated articles, and need your help. Please go to formats page and review/add any month / year / numbers / categories pattern that have been generated by bots. For example, January 2004 is listed there and allows linking with any other language's month of the year pattern. Please let me know if you have any questions. -- Yurik 05:18, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Turned this up when checking copyvios: http://www.choam.info/title/ba/back-pain.html -- Avocado 02:18, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
I thought I'd let you know about two changes to the structuring of Wikipedia:Copyright problems.
Those of you using Bmicomp's autocopyvio script will need to file by hand until it is updated (or update it yourself), mainly because of the subpage structure. Thanks. - Splash talk 02:54, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
the libertarian socialist article only refers to men "he" why doesnt someone fix this i am a straight white lazy middleclass male in the military w/a ged it breaks my heart that something so simple would be left unchecked for so long on an article that speaks of such a great idea i would do it but i told ya im lazy maybe if i were a chick usa all the way baby please shoot me$};( i dont know how to do this 213.13.212.192 13:30, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Either me or somebody else needs to add a definition for " Active reader" or " active reading"...because I have this question I have to answer for school about it, and I can't find it anywhere on the internet...it should be put on wikipedia...
-- Zaboo 20:24, 15 September 2005 (UTC)LeonLover16
In Comics Buyer's Guide #1611, page 24, Andrew "Captain Comics" Smith interviews J. Michael Straczynski, and says in the introduction that "JMS, as he's often known, sold his first professional work at 17, according to Wikipedia, and never looked back." *Dan T.* 00:18, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
I am not certain even if this is the best discussion section for this, but...
I have two brief articles which I had considered posting, but I was hoping to get some opinions on their appropriateness for Wikipedia, as they are a) term definitions, b) rather obscure pieces of slang or jargon, and c) very similar to each other. I suspect that they would be better submitted to Wiktionary, if anywhere, or possibly as an addendum to an existing article. but I would like any advice on the matter that could be offered, as it would clarify some aspects of Wikipedia policy. The two article proposals are:
Ozmagendered A term used in some science fiction, fantasy and sequential art fandoms to describe characters whose sex or gender has been altered through magic or advanced technology for an extended period of time or even permanently. The term, which was coined on the 'QueerComics' mailing list, is taken from the character of Princess Ozma of Oz, who was magically disguised as a boy for several years. Compare ranmagendered.
Ranmagendered A term used in some science fiction, fantasy and sequential art fandoms to describe characters whose sex or gender has been altered through magic or advanced technology briefly or repeatedly. The term, which was coined on the 'QueerComics' mailing list, is taken from the character of Ranma Saotome, whose sex varies due to a magical curse. Compare ozmagendered.
Any recommendations?
Hello,
WE offer accommodation in serviced apartments in Tallinn, Estonia. What are the terms and conditions to be listed on your site?
Please visit our web page www.redgroup.ee for more information.
Thank you in advance,
Nele Tehu nele@redgroup.ee
In the article Sadhya, the word is spelt Sadya. Which is correct? The page should either be editted or moved. MAybe a redirect from the other made. Anyone know Malayalam? -- SGBailey 08:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Why has this been allowed to happen, it seems that the Building Contractors decide what happens in Longwood now, not the residents or Council.
Hi, for anyone writing biographies, the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography will be free from September 23 to 25; normally it costs 200 pounds a year. It contains 55,000 biographies of British people who died before December 2001 and looks like a great resource. If interested, sign up here. NicSix 01:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
this weekend only [13] Arnie587 21:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
The cruftier among you may (or, indeed, may not) want to know that a large number of The Simpsons episodes articles are presently listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2005 September 21. They thus fall to the axe somtime after the 28th. If anyone wants them rescued they should either a)get WP-compatible permission or b)re-write the articles on their /temp subpages (please write them there; it makes life easier for the clearing admin who does not have search the diffs for the versions to restore). - Splash talk 00:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
List 10 famous Americans who have died in the last century. I will compare the accuracy of our entry against the NYT obituary. lots of issues | leave me a message 23:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
There are ten off the top of my head (if that's a good method).-- Pharos 00:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
How about some who are famous but not quite so famous? On the assumption that they are a better test... and throwing in a few famous "mystery" deaths
Dpbsmith (talk) 01:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
User:Zoe| (talk) 02:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
So as to take up less space: 1) Fritz Leiber; 2) Janis Joplin; 3) Mary Pickford; 4) Will Keith Kellogg; 5) Mark Rothko; 6) Eugene O'Neill; 7) Gordon Jump; 8) Allen Dulles; 9) Billie Holiday; 10) Candy Darling. Grutness... wha? 02:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC) (who was suprised by a lack of article for Opal Whiteley)
Thanks for the suggestions, more than enough for now. I'm slowly plowing through the list and recording my observations. lots of issues | leave me a message 11:42, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requested moves could use the attentions of both more admins with the patience to do the moves and more regular users to comment on the proposals, so that things aren't being decided based solely on the opinions of one or two regular voices. Dragons flight 00:29, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
I noticed User:Rayc/Flik (User:Rayc/Flik) on a category page. It appears to be an entry for Flik. I don't understand why it has User:Rayc in front of it, so I hesitate moving it. Is this a mistake in creating the article, or is that naming convention used for something normally? — Długosz
Hi, I'm the bureaucrat on scn.wiki. Recently we have had a bit of vandalism (it's a rare thing for us minority languages!) but it looks like the moron(s) has/have migrated to some sicilian articles on en.wiki, namely Sicily and Sicilian language. Could I ask that one or two sysops keep an eye on these and ban the dickhead the next time he comes around (it's usually a he). I imagine it's some frustrated italian xenophobe with a massive chip on his shoulder and a very misplaced air of superiority (obviously). Thank you. -- pippudoz - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 08:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
(added by an anon with a copypaste of the whole article)
No. Don't do that please. Furthermore, this word only gets a handfull of google results. -- Golbez 06:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
--Chris Manning 20:59, 15 September 2005 (UTC) Dear Wikipedians
I am an information systems researcher with the University of Queensland Business School, Brisbane, Australia.
I posted the following to the Association of Information Systems List Server the other night and would like to invite you to comment as the developers of the wikipedia:
I am just marking some undergrad Info Management assignments and I have noticed that quite a few of the students have used references from the online wikipedia.
The following explains the wikipedia system (taken directly from the wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Introduction):
"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written collaboratively by many of its readers. Lots of people are constantly improving Wikipedia, making thousands of changes an hour, all of which are recorded on the page history and the Recent Changes page. Nonsense and vandalism are usually removed quickly, and their creators banned.
How can I help? Don't be afraid to edit pages on Wikipedia-anyone can edit, and we encourage users to be bold...but don't be reckless! Find something that can be improved, either in content, grammar or formatting, then fix it. Worried about breaking Wikipedia? Don't be: it can always be fixed or improved later. So go ahead, edit an article and help make Wikipedia the best source of information on the Internet!"
I am interested to get an idea of what you all think about the reliability and validity of the information provided by such as source.
Some questions:
1. Does the idea that errors and other acts of mis-information or dis-information will be irradicated by the number of "faithful" users editing the site validate the wikipedia?
2. Does the non-disclosure of the source for the information improve or degrade information reliability and validity?
3. Is the wikipedia just another unverified WWW site - where information should be treated as "mis or dis" until proven otherwise?
4. Is the wikipedia just another online forum where reliability and validity are relative?
5. Do you think that the wikipedia is the first step to replacing the "traditional" search engine?
This is a concern to me, because I think these tools are here to stay and we as individuals and as a community/discipline should have some sort of response. This response is necessary because we should position ourselves to have voice in these online information issues.
Cheers
Chris
___________________________________
Chris Manning Lecturer in Information and Knowledge Management UQ Business School The University of Queensland 11 Salisbury Road Ipswich QLD 4305 (w) +61 7 33811226 (f) + 61 7 33811227 (m) 0400 483883 UQ Business School - Personal Information Page < http://www.business.uq.edu.au/staff/academic/cmanning.phtml> < http://www.business.uq.edu.au/> "The spirit silently and calmly looks on, as the ego eats the bitter and sweet fruits of life" ___________________________________
Why should you believe the answers we give to your questions? Are the blog like responses from individuals better than the constantly updated data wikipedia has about itself in its articles? Are either more valid than your own research? Why not do your own first hand research? Start anywhere. Spend time. (and if you seee an error, please correct it. you don't need an account) (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check, Wikipedia:Verifiability) WAS 4.250 22:21, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
And see Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:08, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
--[Chris Manning] 210.49.34.59 12:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC) Thanks very much for your reponses Sherool, Gkhan, Gandalf61 and Jmabel.. I particularly found Gandalf61's quotation a great example of the research / practice perspective problem. It would seem that sometimes it is a matter of "horses for courses" - researchers actually have fun investigating the bathers and perhaps in this case as well as the beach, who is wearing them! Having said that though - I understand where Jmabel and Gandalf61 are coming from.
You might also be interested in this discussion on the pump from last January. It concerns a news report of a boy who wrote a letter to the Encyclopedia Britannica complaining about mistakes he had found in several of their Polish related articles. We checked how Wikipedia compared - on two out of the three topics mentioned, Wikipedia's pre-existing articles appeared to have the facts correct. On the third we didn't have an article, but a couple of days later (as a result of the focus) we had quite a nice comprehensive page on the subject.
Its a small sample, but it shows how the Wiki approach can exceed the traditionally editted encyclopedia. -- Solipsist 06:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
___________________________________
I use Wikipedia as the first place I go to look something up.
How to evaluate the validity? The discussion page, the references listed, and Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection tecniques.
The above link contains 15 more international terrorist organisations that have been added by the Home Secretary. If someone could gradually add them, I'll add some too. But I don't have time right now.
Thanks,-- TheDoctor10 ( talk| email) 17:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Something must have changed in the implementation of footnotes. usually I can enter {{fn|21}} to get a footnote superscript.
At the footer, I can usually enter {{fnb|21}} or its alphanumeric equivalent {{anb|Alpha21}} and I get the corresponding internal hyperlink.
Now it looks like its broken. Ancheta Wis 10:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Probablby can't be considered a major news source exactly, but "Nerd TV" (sponsored by PBS) recendly did an interview with Tim O'Reilly, where he mentioned the Wikipedia (in passing near the end, but still). Those interested can pop over and download the interview (or any of the other ones). Heh I see it's also linked fom O'Reilly's article so I guess most interested parties have already seen it, but just in case. -- Sherool 20:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Unless I type the exact title of my page, Wikipedia doesn't find it with search (neither does Google for that matter). Does it take a while before they're "officially" indexed? -- Steerpike 13:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Please see this account's user page ( User:MicrosoftRegulator). This explains exactly what Microsoft is regulating Wikipedia for.-- REGULATOR (contact) 16:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/PlanetMath Exchange is a project to exchange content between Wikipedia and PlanetMath, which is a web-based encyclopaedia whose contents is available under the GFDL, much like Wikipedia. We do this by slapping {{ planetmath}} at any Wikipedia article which incorporate content copied from PlanetMath.
Recently, some doubts have arisen whether this procedure satisfies all legal requirements. For example, the GFDL seems to require that we list at least five (or all, if there are less of five) authors of any material which we copy from PlanetMath, which we do not do at the present. Please see PlanetMath's embedding article (specifically, the discussion under the article itself) for the issues raised by a user of PlanetMath.
It seems that none of the participants on the PlanetMath Exchange project knows what to do about this, so we would be grateful for any help in understanding the legal requirements at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/PlanetMath Exchange#PMEX and GFDL. Probably, similar difficulties exist when copying material from other GFDL sources like the Free On-line Dictionary of Computing (FOLDOC).
Thanks in advance for your help, and please forgive me if I posted in the wrong place. -- Jitse Niesen ( talk) 21:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Can someone please remove the annoying text at the top of the page telling people not to commit suicide? Even if the author of the article wishes to express that sentiment, do so in a more thoughtful and less "in your face" way.
Please consider joining the petition to free Millie Mcfiffin. -- Solipsist 19:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
There are two identical articles :
My two questions are:
1. How are we supposed to wright, in general, regarding a (ship) name : "Saint" or "St." ?
2. What title is better and should stay : "MS" or "SS" ? (and of course "Saint" or "St." ?). The
Wikipedians are welcpme to help editting it.
Danny-w
08:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
If my count is right, we only covered two of the eight laureates in physics, medicine and chemistry before the announcement (one of them one day before only). And I've seen statements, that there are no more articles to write, because everything is covered. Ouch. -- Pjacobi 16:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Category:Science and engineering prizes is a good starting point for this work. I've checked some entries in Hughes medal and Max Planck medal. Very sorry state of affair. Even Nikolai Bogolubov and Ludwig Faddejew are missing. -- Pjacobi 12:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Is there a term for Wikilinks that use a pipe to point at an article other than the linked text, such as this link to my user page? I've been using "pipelink" for a while, to the confusion of other editors, as that's the term E2 uses for such links. - A Man In Black ( conspire | past ops) 13:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
How can I find out any new situations about new man made cartilage for knee. ?
Who is the publisher for wikipedia and were can i find this information?
Dtobias appears to be asking about the $100,000 bill of 1934 and ESkog appears to have misinterpreted it as meaning 1,934 bills with the number referring to a quantity of bills rather than a date. Georgia guy 20:20, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Just curious. Is there a way to find out how many times a particular page gets visited? I think it would be interesting to track daily article hits and come up with some sort of global pulse based on wikipedia similar to what the google guys do with the most popular search terms.
Also interesting would be the same kind of daily log on edits. David Bergan 18:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Mayday Mayday Mayday!! Kate's Edit Counter is down!! Mayday Mayday Mayday!! Babajobu 14:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
The former mayor of New York City cites Wikipedia in this [15] editorial. Wyss 23:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Something that has occurred to me from time to time when editing articles: has anyone every considered what would happen to Wikipedia if Jimbo turned evil? Babajobu 16:44, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Hello, my name is David Greene. I am not yet registered on this site, but will likely register today.
This morning I watched your founder on C-SPAN. He was interviewed by the founder and head of C-SPAN, Brian Lamb, for one hour.
I was quite favorably impressed by the man (your founder). And the interview cast Wikipedia in an excellent light, and I believe justly so.
During the interview, when pressed by Brian Lamb for his political opinions, he described members of the Libertarian Party as "lunatics."
I am a former member and official of the Libertarian Party, and I know and knew many people active in the party. I disagree with your founder's remark, and feel that many party members are brilliant.
I appreciate the fact that your founder is a highly intelligent and friendly person, and I also appreciate the fact that he was put on the spot by Brian Lamb (as is Mr. Lamb's job). Still I am a bit stunned that he would make such an impolitic, and to my mind, incorrect remark.
And hell, I'm a [former] officer of a county LP in North Carolina (hence the former), and we're pretty much insane. :D -- Golbez 15:00, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Libertarians are lunatics in much the same way that Einstien was considered a lunatic in his time. Society just isnt ready for libertarians yet, some dont even know what views libertarians have yet still consider them crazy. There is too much societal brainwashing for people to understand these things. Although, I did see a guy on the Daily show with Jon Stewart who claimed to be libertarian and was giving out toy guns to little inner city children to protest a toy gun ban. Might have given libertarians a bad name? Note: I hesitate to label myself or my veiws, but most consider them libertarian. -- AGruntsJaggon 10:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Take a look at one of the top responses to a Wikipedia related topic on slashdot today (mod down please):
"I love sneaking my name into articles. So far I've taught a famous guitarist how to play, worked for NASA during an Apollo mission, and got shot out of a cannon."
True or flamebait, I can't verify, but I have encountered this behavior previously. Most vandals are manifest, but some jerks alter digits, insert their names into the background, make up battles, etc. In one case I rolled back only after it went unnoticed for a year. These users are more than nuisances, to protect the integrity of info, we need to do more to identify and squash these ppl. I have created this template ({{hoaxer}}):
This template is designed to spread information and make the vandals feel unwelcome. When you spot a hoaxer, please drop this template and add the userpage to your watchlist.
lots of issues | leave me a message 12:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
I've noticed that
Pcb21 (
talk ·
contribs) has started creating a series about specific dates:
January 1, 2005,
January 2, 2005,
January 3, 2005, and on up to (so far)
January 28, 2005
February 7, 2005.
Is this kosher? Isn't this too granular a level of detail? -- Calton | Talk 00:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Starting from a questionable link on Dragon, I tracked a new anon IP user who got a username. I removed some edits as being nonnotable references to commercial books on certain pages, but not sure on some of these others if they are legit, or vanity, or spam or what... Thought someone could take a look at them (sort of a RfC sort of thing, but they are a variety of topics and edits so I figured I'd toss it here): Wren Blackberry (delete vanity?), Myles munroe (very least a move there, if not a deletion), Martin Sexton (vanity? copyright?), and in general the edits of User:Hopper5. DreamGuy 23:32, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Apparently a page has been edited (if this is possible) and the inserted text is annoying and stupid. The following page is a entry for Windows Vista: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista Someone has put in a line in the article that does not belong: IT WILL COME OUT IN 3928 A.D. AND IT WILL STINK SO BAD THAT IT IS NOT WORTH USING and it disrupts the intent of the atricle. Thanks, Rich
So I thought it would be cool to have a page that centralized all the different little Babel Templates I've seen running around, just for fun. I'd like to add examples, and maybe have links to the different templates people are using. I know there's the language ones and the various operating systems one, I thought it might be cool to have one place to easily find them. So I started a page here, just thought I'd let people know (it's bad right now). Cheers! Ëvilphoenix Burn! 20:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi there - I'm from the bay area and use you all the time and want to know if you offer services in other states like Washington for job searches? Thanx
Did anybody think about using WP as a basis for building a semantic network (for instance, "article A is in the list of Bs" is close to "A is a B"; "article A becomes to category C" means there is a close relationship between A and C; disambiguation pages, as well as commas and brackets in titles, help solve ambiguities)? Apokrif 15:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Is there a wikipedia policy on redirects from misspellings to the correct article? e.g. when I found museli blank, I wondered whether it should redirect to muesli. Are we waiting for the mediawiki spellchecking edition to solve the problem without lots of redirects? Ojw 20:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
My name is Martin Folkes, I am a retired Private Investigator in Australia. I have worked for Local Courts and Insurance Companies for the last twenty years and am seeking to develop a tellular based tracking device.
I have approached Australian Telecoms to no avail, and would like to seek alternate support from telecommunication based engineers and/or companies for sponsorshhip.
For an overview of the project and its applications, I can be contacted on:
Martin Folkes
<address removed>
Ph: <removed> Fax: <removed>
Mob: <removed>— Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.134.211.21 ( talk • contribs) 03:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't like this box.
I hate it it saids "Preceded by" "Succeded by".
Here's what I like better.
Preceded by Pierce Brosnan 1995- 2002 |
James Bond actor 2006- |
Succeeded by TBA |
That's MORE LIKE IT. "Preceded by" and "Followed by" is better rather than that corny "Preceded/Succeded" succestion box crap.
Spencer Karter
From a recent WIPO decision in a domain name dispute under UDRP: [17]
It's wikipedia.org, guys... *Dan T.* 13:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
The requirements at Template:Promotional for promotional images strike me as somewhat over-restrictive, beyond actual legal requirements of fair use. I've proposed a couple of possible changes at Template talk:Promotional. I just thought I'd post the here as the issue is one that has rather broad impact.-- Pharos 05:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
I would like to have a link to the International Bluegrass Music Museum placed in the section for "bluegrass". How do I do this? There is a place for it but it doesn't have anything there. Thank you. Sincerely, Mike Lawing
Hello
I am writing on behalf of the Open University, UK. Our course team would like to use the image of John Gotti found on this web link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:John_Gotti.jpg in an educational course. Who does the copyright of this photo belong to? and if it belongs to John Gotti, could we have a contact adress for him please in order to ask for his permission to use it?
Many thanks t.adekunle@open.ac.uk
Here is a Dilbert cartoon I saw today which sounded strikingly like some exchanges I've heard around here :) Wyss 13:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
There is currently is a content dispute on Commonwealth School. The school administration has come in and deleted most of the old page (which may or may not have been encyclopedic) and replaced it with their marketing material. They also made a public announcement about it. If anyone can come and help us make a good encyclopedia article, come have a look. 68.166.50.142 16:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not for advertising of any kind. Mercilessly remove any advertising material that is inserted — it almost certainly violates the core policy of WP:NPOV. As Nickptar says, it is fine to watch over an article you have an interest in, but it is not ok to always replace it with your preferred version: that's edit warring and will not be tolerated. However, it's great that someone's checking the page for accuracy, we need more articles that get that kind of attention! - Splash talk 16:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
One of the things the administration said was that there were several things they "didn't want prospective students or parents to see." At what point is that not a good excuse for removing things? Some of it was absurd, but some of the things they didn't like simply added character and detail to the description without insulting or demeaning anyone or the school. -- 68.166.50.142 17:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
It is not appropriate for the school adminstration to require approval of changes to the school's article. Ideally the school administration would not be involved in editing the article at all, as they would be inclined to make vanity edits, although the same argument could probably be made for students of the school as well. As long as the information is verifiable, encyclopedic, and presented from a neutral point of view, it should not be removed or subject to the school's approval. Kaldari 17:37, 16 October 2005 (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
Bye. -- AI 02:18, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
You guys ought to run the government. No one gives a more thorough run-around than you do. I am new to Wikipedia, sampling some articles. When I landed on "Mary Magdalene," I was at first confused as to why there would be a photo of male genitals under the heading "From the Series on Christianity" sidebar to the right. Finally decided somebody had vandalized the page and I wanted to alert someone. Tried and tried and tried and tried, but finally decided to do it this way. Maybe somebody will see this. Hope so. Anybody looking up Mary Magdalene is certainly getting an eyeful. Oldguy
Curious, curious. Believe me, I was not mistaken. I linked back to "Series on Christianity" where the offending photo was revealed to have originally been a cross. Then I rekeyed "Mary Magdalene" on the main page search window and got the same photo again. Let me go check it again. ````
Wikiquote is unavailable to my many repeated attempts for access. Anybody else? Sveden 16:23, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm using osx 10.3.9, Safari 1.3 (v312), and I see the following strange line on the Carl Friedrich Gauss page immediately under the "Biography" heading:
"MOTHER F**KER | BASTARD | SON OF A B**CH | BLOODY PROSTITUTE | PAKISTAN ROCKS"
It doesn't show up in my copy of Internet Explorer, nor does it show up in the compare versions in the history page. It seems nowhere to be found in the Wiki code, but when I use Safari to 'view source' it shows up as a
tag with said text inside. Can anyone corroborate this, or is it on my computer alone?
Thanks... I'm new to Wikipedia-behind-the-scenes, so forgive me if I posted in the wrong spot or anything...Greg
i just wanted to say this is very cool. i spent the past 45 min learning about hiroshima in a very different way
Am I right in thinking that old drawings maps and photographs from before c 1920 are in the public domain?. Only I've found some old maps and drawings from the 18th zand 19th centuries which I want to upload. But I just wanted to make sure it's OK. G-Man 22:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
It varies from country to country. IANAL, but I suspect that you're fairly safe with things over a century old unless the creator's estate has extended the copyright - and that's unlikely for maps. Grutness... wha? 01:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
This image is a faithful reproduction of a two-dimensional uncopyrighted work of art and the image itself is in the public domain in the United States because under US copyright law, originality of expression is necessary for copyright protection, and a mere photograph of an out-of-copyright 2D work may not be protected under American copyright law. The official position of the Wikimedia Foundation is that all faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works should be considered to be in the public domain regardless of their country of origin (even in countries where mere labor is enough to make a reproduction eligible for protection). | ||||
The depicted two-dimensional work of art is in the public domain for the following reason:
|
I want to create an article on a particular person. He is a moderately famous journalist in India. A google search lists 64,500 results to his name (with quotes included). The problem is that he is a wikipedia user. Would I be wrong in making a page about him? User:Nichalp/sg 18:10, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
Pictures representing the Louvre pyramid may cause legal troubles. Pei, the architect of the pyramid and so beneficiary, forbid to take photos of it. It should exist a solution : It's impossible to take pictures of the Louvre under some angles without having the pyramid on the picture, but one picture of en: still is poblematic : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Invertedpyramidlouvre1.jpg This picture contains almost no architectural elements of the old parts of the Louvre. Traroth 08:40, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
It is getting truly scary how often Wikipedia hits are near the top of Google searches. Where will this all stop? And often I see web pages with text that looks like it is right out of Wikipedia, but not credited, so no one really knows the source. Won't the web get less credible than it already is? Spalding 23:01, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
I able to speak intelligently with my son on current events. Kuddos Wikipedia
Does anyone know the lyrics to 'Les Rhythmes Digitales' - 'Jacques your Body'? I have scourec the web and can find none! I will accept Frenxh ones as I can translate them with Google :-)
I'm not sure where this belongs, so I'm putting it here, if there is anywhere better please feel free to move it (but let me know where to!).
Would it be OK for me to say that all users contributions to specific pages in my userspace are dual liscenced e.g. to the public domain. I would obviously make this explicit and obvious in advance and not retrospectively. My reasoning is that it will be easier this way to legally integrate work on propsed alterations into the main article. e.g. User:Slambo and I are currently working on improving the colour scheme of the custom TOC for List of rail accidents at a page in my user space ( User:Thryduulf/rail accidents toc). Thryduulf 00:09, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Why/when did the phrasing on category pages get changed to "at least X articles" from "X articles"? - Splash 17:37, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
What? | This
Wikipedia needs more
cabal. You can help by adding more cabal. |
I think we've seen way too few conspiracy theories about admins as of late. Therefore I propose an Admin: namespace where certified admins can talk amongst themselves. Regular users would not be able to access these pages. In other words, the reports of the cabal's death have been greatly exaggerated. The first task can be to discuss how to enforce stricter editorial controls. That is not a discussion that any old editor needs to take an interest in, and is better served by a decree. Thoughts? — David Remahl 22:55, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
This actually already exists, we just don't tell anyone about it. The discussion is ongoing at Admin:Empty Paking Lot Late at Night, which is the Cabal version of the Village Pump. But then, that link is red to ordinary editors :)-- Pharos 23:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Submitted to BJAODN, btw. JesseW 07:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
the obscurantists are now trying to eliminate any place to discuss what they are trying to do in the article, truth [4]
they protected te talk page, now they are trying to speedy delete the talk_talk:truth page! -- 172.197.76.251 22:48, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Hello, I just want to say what an amazing idea and a brilliant display of trust you people have displayed in setting this up. This is what the internet should be used for, and it's a marvel. That's it!
I'm made a list of articles with at least 1000 hits as of June 2005, complete with links to each. These articles should be carefully examined by more editors, because they're the most visible of our articles. Particularly important are the stubs, such as semi-automatic handgun and clitoridectomy. In a way it's a bit sad that of our million articles, only a tiny fraction get significant traffic. Please spread this link to other forums that may be interested. Deco 21:18, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
I just noticed something . . . the front page of the nearly article less Tigrinya language section of the Wikipedia ( http://ti.wikipedia.org/) has a bunch of links to different pages on http://passion.sexwebsites.com/ at the bottom of the page! How could that happen?!
Oh, COME ON! This article has FIVE editorial templates on it! Zoe 21:17, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
I thought it would be good to make this public here: at the request of the Bureaucrats (proposed by Uninvited Company), there are no longer separate lists for nominations (users nominating other users) and self-nominations for Adminship. We now have a single list, in chronological order (newest requests at the top). Regards, Redux 03:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
User:67.173.181.67 has apparently been—singlehandedly, without discussion, and with no further edit summary than "disambig"—changing almost all (maybe all) former links to Liberalism, often making what strike me as very polemical choices. Someone may want to go through this IPs entire contribution list and see which of these should be reverted or otherwise changed. I've stumbled across half a dozen in my own watchlist so far; all but one struck me as poor choices. Among other things, nothing I've seen is being redirected to American Liberalism: where that might be appropriate (like the NAACP, the redirection is to left-wing politics. Even in talking (at Jacobin Club) about the opposition of the Bourbon Restoration to liberalism, that was redirected to left-wing politics (those notorious left-wingers who propagated the Napoleonic Code, I suppose. Elsewhere classical liberalism was substituted with reference to thinkers such as Thomas Paine who are embraced by all modern-day currents of liberalism. If there is someone who was more simply "liberal" without needing a qualifier than Paine, I can't think who it would be.
This is insidious stuff because (1) it's half-hidden, because there is no meaningful edit sumary and he/she isn't removing the word liberal from the visible text, just making it redirect elsewhere, and (2) it's easy to make a ton of edits like this if you don't take any time to discuss the matter, but for those of us who feel a need to state a justification when making a substantive edit (like a reversion of these) it probably takes 10-20 times as long.
Anyway, I personally am not taking on either the task of "negotiating" with this person or looking through these (probably hundreds) of edits, but I think someone ought to. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:48, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
My name is Basheer Al-ni'ma a proffesor assistant in yhe university of Mosul, college of sciences, department of Biology/Iraq. During collection of water sampels from a freshwater lake near my city i found a macroscopic red algae at a depth (2-7)meters. I am facing a proplem in the identification of this algae since i have shortege in the identification key also the taxon was not included in the published check list of iraqi algae.Can you help or support me for the identification of this species.I am ready for cooperation and willbe happy to hear good news from you Thank you very much in advance sincerely yours B.A. basheer Al-Ni'ma E-Mail babasheer2003@yahoo.com
The author Shani Mootoo lived with our family as a student in London, Ontario in the 1970s. We are searching for her. Does anyone know how to contact her? It is rather important. Thank you for your assistance. Please contact Judy Chambers at [e-mail removed]
Although I am new and really not sure were to post this, and don't know what I am doing. I guess I'll just put it here. I think wikipedia is great. I believe in your goals, and I'm pretty sure I understand them. I will refer to the article about Islam. I went there,So I could try to get a small understanding of that believe,(I don't believe in any of those religions or philosophies) I just wanted information. I believe that article gave me the information I was looking for. Someone had tagged it as nonsense, then on the talk pages. 90% of that, seemed to be nonsense, it really had nothing to do with the article. So I really didn't feel like I should make a comment on why I believe the article should stay, I had the impression that I would be digging in a trash can. Anyway, today the tag is gone, so this only strengthens my believe that wikipedia is great. Thank you! Spongehead 8\15\05
Peter C. Wayner (who wrote some books on cryptography and one on the free software movement) is again giving a course on computer science for non computer-science majors. One of the assignments is to contribute an article to Wikipedia.
Last year, his students contributed about 600 articles. As he says on his user page, "Some were great and some were just quick hacks turned out to get some credit." Most of them went completely unnoticed by Wikipedians. There was nothing in particular to identify an excellent article on an unpublished work by Jane Austen as being the product of a Dartmouth class exercise.
But. Maybe ten per cent of these articles were puff pieces on subtrivial aspects of Dartmouth student life, student activities described in language appropriate to a recruiting brochure, rules for traditional games played in certain living units, and so forth. The sudden arrival of a few dozen pieces of Dartmouthcruft brought out the very worst in the Wikipedian community.
The final disposition of most of these articles was that they were cleaned up and merged into Dartmouth College, which is a much better article than it was two years ago, so even these articles were beneficial, but along the way there was a great deal of unnecessary incivility and hurt feelings.
This year, let's welcome the Dartmouth students and the hundreds of decent articles they are about to contribute.
We will probably get a few articles on topics that seem too narrow to be encyclopedic. Let's remember that redirects are cheap and that anyone can merge-and-redirect, which is a far gentler process than nomination for deletion. If we do feel a need to nominate any of them for deletion, let's really adhere to the policies of
Nobody is trying to spam us. And we have a standing invitation to professors to engage in just such projects.
Welcome back, Big Green. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm participating in an online study program with Oxford University in computing. This is mostly done at home with a computer, but each year they do a mandatory summer school for students. While I'm a fairly experienced programmer, most of the students are not; many were at the Word-and-Outlook stage when they started the course, able to use a computer for basic tasks but not really skilled with one.
I know you're saying "what's this got to do with Wikipedia?" I'm getting there.
Last night was the final night of the summer school, so we had a celebratory dinner. And as often happens in British school settings involving dinners, the head of the program stood up to make an after-dinner speech. As part of it, he listed a number of milestones in the Internet's development in the last ten years.
One of these was the foundation of Wikipedia in 2001. At this point, he stopped and asked the gathered students, "How many of you have contributed to Wikipedia?" I was one of three or four people who raised their hands.
He then asked, "How many of you have used Wikipedia?" I was amazed to see about half the hands in the air, and grinned afterwards when someone commented that they'd have to look into that "Wikipedia thing".
Our hard work is much appreciated.
— Brent Dax 07:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
[Template:DecencyWikiProject]]
Take a look at the above, then vote at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency
CensorshipOfCensorship 07:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
I've gone wiki crazy. see this:
if that were on wikipedia, I would either edit that or slap a NPOV tag on it. Shame, shame on AP. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 02:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
WP:IFD#August 15. The horror, the horror. ~~ N ( t/ c) 13:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi. I've come across a series of articles ( click here for links) that seem to have mistranslated a term into English. It is rather common to see the words deputado (in Portuguese) and diputado (in Spanish) mistranslated into English as "deputy", when the correct word is congressman. Now, I've just found that Câmara dos Deputados (Portuguese) and Cámara de Diputados (Spanish) have been mistranslated apparently into "chamber of deputies", when it would appear that the correct translation would be House of Representatives. Even worse, as I said, a series of articles have been created using the mistranslation. Before we start moving all those articles, however, I wanted to make absolute sure that this term "chamber of deputies" cannot absolutely be used. Has anybody (from English-speaking countries) ever seen or heard it used? That looks completely wrong to me. Thanks for the help. Regards, Redux 23:46, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Very interesting. Indeed, it would appear that "Chamber of Deputies" would go for most cases. I now believe that the current names in those articles should be changed only for the cases where the institution in question might call itself differently in their English-language publications or website (which many of them have). We should use the name that the institution itself uses in their official references in English (and use redirects to make sure that querries like "Brazilian House of Representatives" find the appropriate article). Regards, Redux 14:38, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Op zondag 11 september zal een eerste ontmoeting plaatsvinden ten behoeve van de oprichting van een Nederlandse afdeling van de Wikimedia Foundation. Iedereen die wil komen, is van harte welkom. Groet, Gebruiker:Dedalus 14:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Sunday 11 september 2005 the first meeting will be held regarding establishing a Dutch chapter of the Wikimedia Foundation. If you would like to attend, you're welcome. Greetings, Gebruiker:Dedalus 14:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi I just discovered this wonderful site. I was just wondering what the maximum recorded depth of the Amazon River is and I followed a link that led me to wikipedia. I must say that this is a wonderful concept and wish you well. When I am able I wish to contribute some funds for you guys. Keep up the good work... one question how do you filter false information??
Best wishes, Jeremy
You may be interested in the WikiProject, WikiProject Holidays, a WikiProject that will focus on standardizing articles about Holidays. It has been around for quite some time, but I'm starting it up again, and would like to see some more members (and our original members) around the help out. Cheers. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 21:13, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Today's featured picture. One picture, six templates. Looks like a new record (or not, shudder...) Kosebamse 09:05, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
I have created an article on convicted school shooter Todd Cameron Smith. In Canada, it's illegal for the media to identify juvenile criminals, but that restriction was lifted for the 24 hours or so of Smith's escape from a halfway house. That means it's now illegal for Canadian media to reprint their own stories from yesterday!
As with the sponsorship scandal, Wikipedia allows Canadians to skirt censorship laws and read what the government says they should not be able to. Hopefully, this phenomenon will help Canadian policy-makers wake up to the futility of censorship. Ray Oiler 19:28, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Whether it's in a good cause or not, or desirable or not in a given case, censorship by one country's government just doesn't work in this age; Internet servers elsewhere are free to diseminate the banned information. *Dan* 14:29, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
Wouldn't he get a new identity like the kids in the British Jamie Bulger case? (or is that some myth I heard?). - Mgm| (talk) 19:51, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Hi all, I have been a Wikipedian since May or so. At first, the server seemed quite fast and I happily edited or wrote numerous articles. When the new software took effect, I did notice some slowdown, but nothing too drastic. But in the past week or so, I have noticed a pronounced slowdown, with half of my edits (or more) timing out before taking effect. Needless to say, this has put a damper on my activities. Any idea what might be going on?--- 22:07, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I sure am noticing! But I've been seeing this quite a bit in the past few days. Very frustrating when I'm doing (I think) useful work, but half my edits time out!
Another thing I've been noticing is that "Search" instead of "Go" ofen fails in recent days. That is, the search engine can't find a page which I know exists. Sometimes, if I remember the exact name, I can get there using "Go".--- CH (talk) 22:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi, AC, I am a bit confused on a key point--- are you saying that you too have been experiencing a greatly increased frequency of "Wikimedia Server returned no reponse" error messages in the past few days, as I have? Or are you talking about something which happened a few days ago? Are you saying that the database server crash someone mentioned elsewhere is the likely cause of the behavior I have been seeing for the past few days? And yes, I am using Firefox, and I take the point: better to reload the article than to try to resend an edit, because the edit will probably have taken effect before you can reload the article, so any duplicate edit will just increase the load on the server.--- CH (talk) 23:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
I get the same sort of thing: Sometimes when I go to save an edit to a section of a long page I get a proxy server error "Cannot fulful request" or similar. Yet when I check the article, I find that the save has been made. Normally it doesn't matter if a re-save goes over the top, but if you're saving a "new" section on a talk page you can end up getting multiple new sections. People in the know would almost certainly avoid this happening, but for someone with a bit less wikisavvy (or someone as forgetful as me) it can cause problems. Grutness... wha? 03:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Is it just me, or has the format of the revision history been changed? No offense, but it looks ugly as heck. -- Ixfd64 17:44, 2005 August 20 (UTC)
I just stumbled upon List of countries with nuclear weapons, and found that there's an entry on Australia! Ah, but it's in a section States formerly possessing nuclear weapons or programs. This heading is perhaps vague enough for us just to qualify, we did some research on centrifuge enrichment once upon a time, but I'm not convinced. Still, List of countries with nuclear weapons is a strange name for a list which includes Australia, a long-time advocate of IAEA safeguards and non-proliferation.
The references and external links at the bottom of the page seem largely (perhaps entirely, I haven't checked them all) from anti-nuclear organisations. The entry on Australia contains some errors of fact and other statements that are at the very least controversial, which I will document on the talk page.
But the reason I raise it here is that I see from the top of that talk page that it's been nominated and accepted as a featured list. How it qualifies under Wikipedia:What is a featured list? criteria 2 and 4 is a puzzle to me, but it passed unanimously, and so according to that notice, I should now be wary of compromising previous work by updating the list.
I thought of raising this as a policy issue, but it's not primarily a policy issue although it does raise a few of them. We've got a sort of Wikipedia approval mechanism working here, or perhaps not working.
It seems a bit daring to pop both an accuracy dispute notice and a POV dispute notice onto a featured list, but what else can I do? Is there a candidates for unlisting featured lists somewhere? What constitutes compromising previous work? Who decides this?
Comments welcome. Andrewa 02:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
I am here to report a wikicrime that I myself have been, on several occasions, wikiguilty of. Can we please stop prefixing every frickin' word with wiki! We have wikibreaks, wikistalking, wikiholics, wikipedians, wikistress, I even hear wikivandals from time to time! It is getting on my wikinerves! Now, I am too wikitired to wikicare, and I want to go to wikibed. Now, tomorrow, barring that I am getting wikilucky with some nice wikigirl and is in a better wikimood, I will serverly wikipunish all who does this atrocious wikiact! We are wikitalking major wiki-h4X0rZing! Goodnight gentlemen and wikiwomen! gkhan 21:42, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
I stumbled across Suicide methods while RC patrolling the other day, and looking at the article it looks like a how to of suicide and discusses your various options for doing so. However, the last thing a suicidal person needs is a weapon or a plan. I'm not saying we should remove the article. As a wikipedian, I see its encyclopedic value. However, as a person, I'm a bit disturbed by it.
Would adding a template/table like the one at the top of this article be unreasonable? -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 21:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Banno, Nate Ladd and their group of obscurantists are still trying to control content by force of numbers in true and related articles, including epistemology and knowledge. That ain't right.
I spent some time on the votes for deletion page today, and I was appalled at how many clearly-offtopic, blatantly self-promoting "vanity" articles there are lately which are (quite obviously) in need of deletion. I realize that most of the perpetrators probably haven't read and don't care about the existing rules and guidelines against what they're doing, but it occurred to me that a useful litmus test to explain somewhere would be:
Do we have advice like this anywhere?
Steve Summit ( talk) 22:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Indeed we do: WP:AUTO. - Splash 23:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
(moved to Talk:Chamber of Deputies. –Hajor 00:52, 3 September 2005 (UTC))
Sigh...does anyone still have any of those "gmail invites" that were all the rage several months ago. The current method of signing up for one involves google sending out a text message, and my poor ancient cell phone doesn't do SMS. Thanks, Func( t, c, @, ) 20:10, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
I was clicking the random article link when I came across that article. It doesn't seem to belong on wikipedia, I just thought someone should know about it. Deyyaz 07:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
This page has the phrase "Traffic for all MediaWiki sites". Shouldn't that be "Wikimedia"? ~~ N ( t/ c) 00:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Are certain images prevented from being shown on non-related articles? For example, there is a vandal that likes to insert penis images into pages. However, from this edit [8], the image used to vandalize only comes up as a link, not as the actual image, while retaining the correct format.
Is this a new feature used for fighting vandals? -- Ixfd64 09:29, 2005 September 1 (UTC)
Never mind, I just found out about Mediawiki:Bad image list. -- Ixfd64 09:35, 2005 September 1 (UTC)
I ran across a link to Senator Joseph Biden, which redirected to Joe Biden, which is a redirect to Joseph R. Biden, which is a redirect to Joseph R. Biden, Jr.. In fact, checking "What links here" for the actual article, I found 175 double, triple, and quadruple redirects! This is nuts! I normally fix redirects, even triple ones, when I find them, but this would take me half a day!
I thought we had some kind of automated redirect fixing going on, since so many people simply create links without checking them and move pages without fixing the redirects. But when I went to Wikipedia:Redirect to see what's going on and how to post this question, I found that a reference to Wikipedia:Secondary redirect redirected to Wikipedia:Double redirects. Looking to see if Biden was on the target list, I read that "The most up to date list of double redirects is at the computer help desk…", with a link to Wikipedia:WikiProject help desk/cleanup, which is a redirect to Wikipedia:Computer help desk/cleanup, which lists no active projects. This is obviously not the most up-to-date list. Backtracking, I found several links to other possible avenues to check, without ever feeling I'd gotten a single definitive answer. That's why I'm posting this here, in the hopes that someone has a better solution than manually editing 175 articles. Now I'm redirecting myself to the project this discovery interrupted. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
There only seemed to be about six redirect pages to fix, but perhaps someone had gotten to it first. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:25, 2005 August 31 (UTC)
(in a deep voice) As Jeff Q has found out, we see how a short little venture into that realm of sight, sound, and imagination can turn into a never-ending cycle of redirection, a redirection into that peculiar Web … known as the Twilight Zone. — "Rod" 07:19, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
I want to suggest a kid-friendly wikibook on evolution and the chronicle of one-celled life to man, but for the life of me I can't figure out how to do it. And I'd like to think I'm not the only one confused about this. Would anyone like to make this suggestion for me, or guide me in doing it? Citizen Premier 05:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
I went into the history on the List of Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends episodes and found the following people contributing "fake episodes":
I've fixed that at the top by warning them that is they try again, they will be reported to a higher authority...a supervisor! NoseNuggets 2:30 PM US EDT Aug 29 2005
NoseNuggets 3:00 AM US EDT Aug 30 2005
I made four new catergories:
Category:Documentary Feature Oscar
Category:Documentary Feature Oscar nominee
Category:Documentary Short Subject Oscar
Category:Documentary Short Subject Oscar nominee
After doing so, I went to the Oscar article and inserted the appropriate category into the various films. However, I note that IMDb lists the producer as the Oscar winner/nominee.
Question: Should we use the above category(s) for the Producer as well. Ted Wilkes 14:26, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
I've created a template for looking up acronyms on acronymfinder.com:
{{ acronym}}
I don't know if it'll be any use, but hopefully it will be helpful. :) -- Ixfd64 05:15, 2005 August 29 (UTC)
As per a request, I added the approximate euro total to the fundraising message (as per xE) to help our european friends across the pond. If you don't like it, then remove it I guess. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 01:15, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
In case any of you could join, I would be happy to share a meal and wiki time with wikipedians around Pretoria, South Africa. I will be there from tuesday the 20th till saturday evening the 24th of september. Anthere 19:18, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
See http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-September/028404.html
LOL. When Wikipedia:Babel was built, this future template was previously 'called' for the native speakers of occidental language (later called interlingue), 'ie' being the ISO 639-1 code for this language, and the prefix for the interlingue Wikipedia. But it happened what had to happen with the creation of templates for computer languages or browsers, etc.: Template:User ie is now, in fact, the template for users of M$-ie (Microsoft Internet Explorer). It would have been so simple to create separate hierarchies and very differentiated template names. Maybe it's more comic to mix everything... In the same way, category:User languages, first created to give list of Wikipedians by human languages, gives also the list of the data-processing languages. Wikipedia:Babel, on EN, with the 'work' of only one, became a huge [censored]... Hégésippe | ±Θ± 12:01, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, I see that it has become somewhat pointless to remain here, since most of the time I go to add an interesting fact or tidbit to an article, someone has beaten me to it. I see also that the number of Wikipedians who make 100 or more edits is increasing at a rate of about 350% per year, and thus should reach 10,000 by the end of 2006 [9]. Thus, my presence here will become more and more superfluous, but at least I can say that I was on Wikipedia before it became cool. 24.54.208.177
I have never gone to this VP(misc) before. Nice scale of conversation. I will be back. Ancheta Wis 22:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
VotingIsStillEvil, and what's worse, contentious debate does not truth make.
So long as this Project is built to provide facts to the public, rather than mere opinion, it's pretty plain that we need to adhere to basic rules of discourse. Nobody is entitled to advance a position without being able to support it; if challenged, a response is required. If you don't want to respond to a challenge, that's fine too -- but it's automatic: If you don't respond to a rational challenge, you have abandoned the position.
All of the rules you may find expedient in barroom arguments about the size of J-Lo's teats are irrelevant in a scholarly context. Many sound ideas have been attacked over the years -- such as the notion of manned heavier-than-air flight. Many foolish ideas have been proposed -- famously, a bill passed the 1897 Indiana House redefining pi. In every case, what emerges from the dust and smoke is the truth -- and yes, insofar as there is only one single Universe, there is only one set of absolutely true facts. Men can fly; pi is an irrational number; and with all due respect to dissenters, the Earth is not flat.
The strength of the Wikipedian Community is that we have diverse backgrounds, so we're able to contribute in ways that a narrower group could not, in ways that traditional scholars cannot conceive. The weakness -- and it is very weak indeed -- is that far too many of us have no idea what constitutes fact, opinion, thesis, challenge, support, objection, demonstration, proof, or disproof. Nor does this stop us from commenting -- loudly, stridently, repeatedly, at length, and for all that, foolishly.
I suggest we need to promote an increased understanding of these tools of rationality, before we slip any closer to some mediocre forum for advertisement of mob sentiment.
— Xiong 熊 talk * 11:48, 2005 September 11 (UTC)
Fragmented discussion merged from Wikipedia talk:The Wiki Way -- please avoid fragmented discussions.
If you fail to formulate an objection -- if your only statement is a vague "uh" -- then there's not much of a way for anyone to address it. Therefore, it is a requirement of discourse that you state your objection in order for it to possess any validity. This is not some private definition of my own; it is fundamental to logic, rationality, and civilized discourse. Any other interpretation is a Humpty-Dumpty definition.
Of course, that "uh" does not constitute support; when did I ever say it did? You can express any opinion you like; but if you don't engage in discussion, then you aren't building consensus; you're just throwing peanuts from the gallery. If you confine yourself to insubstantial comments, then you neither oppose nor support -- you don't even make a useful, neutral contribution to the discussion. And that's pretty much my point. — Xiong 熊 talk * 01:30, 2005 September 12 (UTC)
Fragmented discussion merged from Wikipedia talk:The Wiki Way – please avoid fragmented discussions.
The world of intelligent discourse is both much larger than you suspect, and of a different shape. That is, it includes far more possibilities than you entertain; yet excludes some you appear to think worthy. I'm heartily sorry if that appraisal offends you; it is the mere, obdurate truth -- not something I can manipulate.
There is a vast arena between support and opposition. I do not seek to manufacture support for anything -- what a silly idea! I suppose I could grow a legion of socks for the purpose -- but I don't think anyone would take them seriously.
If you do not desire to discredit a page, why apply inaccurate labels to it? Speak of it as it is. I do not sneakily undermine, say, an officer's authority by calling him "the so-called Mayor". If he's a thief, I call him a thief; if incompetent, a blunderer; if a fool, a clown. I do not call a fish a cat. Say what you mean -- and you will discover great power in the technique of remaining silent when you intend to say nothing.
Talk pages are substantially different from all others. This is a wiki; that means all pages are open for collaboration. Explicitly, they are not owned by anyone and have no authors. Talk pages are, in a sense, not pages at all -- they are the back side of other pages. Talk pages are devoid of content. They merely comment on content.
While Talk pages are still common property, we do understand that each editor's comment is "his own" and that we must explicitly endorse or oppose each other's views, if at all. Otherwise, we move or archive them impartially, no matter how we find them. If we wish to modify another's opinion, we do so by writing our own comment -- if you like, a copy of the first opinion, with our modifications added -- and our names signed to the new comment. We do not edit each other's comments except in the most extreme cases, or the most trivial manner.
The only changes I routinely make to any other editor's Talk is to refactor the indentation and paragraph breaks; I do this to make the text readable, as so many editors have a deplorable habit of running all comments together into one indistinguishable blob. It's important that we know who speaks on Talk. I also collect chunks of Talk, all on one topic, onto the correct page. This is most useful on User talk, where careless editors often allow a discussion to fall apart into two seperate halves, each as individually incomprehensible as one side of a phone call. It's really good to keep all discussion on one topic in the same place.
If you check diffs to see what other editors have contributed before coming in with your own comment, then I think that experience might better inform your remarks. As it is, I thank you for your second illustration of the point I was trying to make when you so conveniently provided the first.
— Xiong 熊 talk * 06:07, 2005 September 12 (UTC)
I've used the word "lucid". And lucidity applies ... after intelligence and consciousness have been addressed (as I've said). But the jump from intelligent to lucid (with regard to wikipedia, as an example) fails to explain what consciousness has to do with coming up with the correct answers (though this is also addressed a bit later on — such that its writers have a conscience, they might discern what is "right" ... both in a moralistic sense and also in the sense of arriving at correct answers). Which is to say, applying an intelligent design conscientiously might lead a wikipedia to be *right* by preponderance, as I've suggested (whereby mentioning lucidity at this point begins to make sense). This is not to say that it *makes sense* to be intelligent and conscientious and still lack lucidity ... as a matter of choice, for example / or in seeming violation of what it means to be intelligent in the first place (to the contrary). So I might have said that wikipedia isn't necessarily intelligent (even though an intelligence). Or I might have said that being intelligent doesn't necessarily mean conscientiousness will prevail (in the case that her writers don't have a conscience, for example). But I've said that both of these are "necessarily" so (if an entity is intelligent, then it is conscientious). And so there's (still) the matter of lucidity (and awareness, and agency): The mention of lucidity (regarding wikipedia) early on in this comment foreshadows the explanation of what it means to be lucid ... which is then expressed "in the negative" (whereby lucidity is not that which overcomes the intelligent design of its database but is that which overcomes the necessity that humans have a conscience). (from Intelligence and the Art of Imagination)
-- Mindrec 20:48, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
What thoughts do people have concerning the use of "References", "External links", and "Sources" as section titles? I notice sources being described as references and references being described as external links and external links deleted because "Wiipedia is not a link farm." WAS 4.250 15:07, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Could an admin please change Mediawiki:exif-make-value, Mediawiki:exif-model-value and Mediawiki:exif-software-value from "$1" to "[[$1]]", that way Exif infoboxes will link to the camera make, model and software articles. — Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 14:49:50, 2005-09-10 (UTC)
This has come up a few times at CfD, but despite posting lengthly "rants" each time I've never gotten any answers to by concerns and the votes have pretty much been me against the rest...
Basicaly there seems to be a preference among some (what I presume to be) US editors to change "former students" and the like into alumni or aluminus or whatever the various forms of the term is. I have tried pointing out that it's a fairly US sentric term (at least in the way it's beein applied). At least that's my impression, it's scertainly extremely rare where I come from in fact I can't remember ever coming across it before I came here. Quite frankly I fear that usage of the term might cause unnessesary confution along readers outside the " Anglosphere", even if they are otherwise fluent in English. Even among english speaking nations that commonly use the term it seems to have slightly different meanings. From what I have gathered in the US alumni referes to all former students from a school (seems to be the de-facto "house" definition around here). In Canada it only referes to graduates and in Australia it usualy only refers to former students to actively keep in touch with the school after they graduate/drop out (at least that's how it's been explained to me). Am I just overly biased because I happen to come from a nation where the word is practicaly alien or what? Some thoughts from other Wikipedians would be nice, especialy from other Wikipedians outside the so called "Anglosphere". If I'm just "inventing" a problem based on my own ignorance feel free to let me know :P -- Sherool 00:05, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to hold a survey regarding the article Riemann zeta function, to help determine its general comprehensibility and identify areas where it may be incomplete. Please indicate your perceptions of the article below, and feel free to expand the survey or article as you see fit. ‣ᓛᖁ ᑐ 21:07, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
The link : http://sd.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
says :
" Welcome to the New Website for the Sindhi language Wikipedia. If you think a free online Sindhi encyclopedia would be cool, start writing here " ..
but in actual this page does'nt include even a single character of Sindhi Language .. I was amazed to see that .. Please check this out .. This is NOT Sindhi Language .. Hindi Characters are there there instead of Sindhi Characters ...
Please check this out.
What does Wikipedia (or Wikimedia) do to advertise itself? Does it use a part of the donations? CG 12:41, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
How can I get screenshoot from Game Boy and save image on computer?
See this: [10]
The page Egg (person) has been tagged for VfD since July. The consensus seems to have been "keep." Is it okay to remove the tag? ♥purplefeltangel 23:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
There's a phenomenon that appears in Wikipedia that is, I think, unique to the nature of this endevour. Specifically, I've discovered that there are "facts" that are belived in my country (the US) that are completely at odds with the "facts" believed in other countries. I'm not talking about obvious things like George Bush is good/bad -- pretty much everybody understands that there is a range of opinion. Rather I am referring to historical issues that I never knew were even a point of controversy.
The example that I've run into has to do with the invention of the airplane. People in the US are taught, and generally believe unquestioningly, that the Wright brothers invented the airplane. As it happens, Brazilians have the comparable belief about Alberto Santos-Dumont. He is the undisputed "father of aviation" in Brazil, as well as many other places. Upon closer examination, I have to say, that the Brazilians have a good point. The matter is reasonably open to question.
But the dispute goes further. In fact, several countries lay claim to the inventor of the first flying machine.
My thought is: I presume this is a general phenomenon. I supposed that historians might even make a study of such localized beliefs. And I think that Wikipedia may be uniquely placed to discover and catalog these surprising (at least to myself) cultural differences. Is there even a name for this issue? (i.e. things believed to be universal but in fact are not.) Is there a reasonable mechanism for identifying and collecting such things somewhere in Wikipedia. Blimpguy 14:58, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Katrina Help Wiki. Pretty amazing. Came together very quickly, building on work done after the Indian Ocean tsunami. People-finder, links to resources, places to request or offer help, keeping an eye on the scams, even Ham Radio Resources. They probably could use some miscellaneous skills help, and we certainly ought to (at the very least) put together an article on them, probably ought to display something about them more prominently than that. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:54, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
Getting no sign of answers for my questions in Template talk:User language category#Discussion (and also a few words in the user page of Cyber Skull), I repeat here what I have wrote :
Thanks. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 04:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Is there a list somewhere, or creatable, that lists all the WP: shortcuts and where they go? I know there's what links here for {{ shortcut}} and Special:Allpages starting at WP:, but both do half the job. Is there somewhere they are joined up? - Splash 14:36, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
"Wikipedia isn't a bad thing, said Tom Panelas, a spokesman for Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc. "It's just a different thing." Times-Dispatch (Sep 3 '05) That's Britannica's new line. The office has gone from explicitly lambasting us in late '04 to only hinting at our existence "An encyclopedia isn't just a conglomeration of everything that anyone can think of putting in there" (Boston Globe, July 21 '05). Now wikipeace? lots of issues | leave me a message 22:02, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
I was just reading gas centrifuge (I like nuclear technology) and clicked on the link to cascade, a large disambiguation page. It took me several seconds to realize that the chemical engineering meaning was the intended one. And this can't be fixed, because there's no larger article on cascade (chemical engineering), and there probably never will be. It's annoying, but I can't think of any way to fix it other than splitting cascade into sections which can then be #-linked to - wasting a lot of vertical space. Suggestions? ~~ N ( t/ c) 03:51, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
I was just reading through " Wikipedia is always a work in progress" at TimesDispatch.com when I came across this:
U.S. version?! How blinkered some people can be! violet/riga (t) 11:08, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Blinker is another word for "blinder" (you know, the stuff you put over your windows), so I suppose Violet is referring to how some Americans are "blind-ered" to the outside world. — Ambush Commander( Talk) 02:44, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
First, I love Wikipedia. It has so much information on it I could lose myself for days at a time here! However, I'm very bad at sorting and processing information and putting it to use in my life and I am in the middle of a problem having to deal with law, moral/ethical codes, and religion/faith. I'm looking for someone to help me outside of Wikipedia who will help me research and process the information available, and maybe get me out of my problem. If you are willing to help me and would like to know my situation, send me an email and I'll fill you in, then you can make your decision. Thank you, I appreciate any help I get, I'm so miserable!
I don't know if it's just me, but the image of Hurricane Rita's track on the Main Page is not loading. What happened to it? - dcljr ( talk) 20:42, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Am I wrong in concluding that there is a revert war of sorts going on the main page today (Sept 19)? It keeps flipping between Montréal-Mirabel International Airport and James I of England. I'm not sure how it gets edited but this is disappointing as whoever gets to edit it is presumabely an admin at least and should know better. Marskell 12:19, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Hi. I am improving automatic interwiki linking for the auto-generated articles, and need your help. Please go to formats page and review/add any month / year / numbers / categories pattern that have been generated by bots. For example, January 2004 is listed there and allows linking with any other language's month of the year pattern. Please let me know if you have any questions. -- Yurik 05:18, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Turned this up when checking copyvios: http://www.choam.info/title/ba/back-pain.html -- Avocado 02:18, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
I thought I'd let you know about two changes to the structuring of Wikipedia:Copyright problems.
Those of you using Bmicomp's autocopyvio script will need to file by hand until it is updated (or update it yourself), mainly because of the subpage structure. Thanks. - Splash talk 02:54, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
the libertarian socialist article only refers to men "he" why doesnt someone fix this i am a straight white lazy middleclass male in the military w/a ged it breaks my heart that something so simple would be left unchecked for so long on an article that speaks of such a great idea i would do it but i told ya im lazy maybe if i were a chick usa all the way baby please shoot me$};( i dont know how to do this 213.13.212.192 13:30, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Either me or somebody else needs to add a definition for " Active reader" or " active reading"...because I have this question I have to answer for school about it, and I can't find it anywhere on the internet...it should be put on wikipedia...
-- Zaboo 20:24, 15 September 2005 (UTC)LeonLover16
In Comics Buyer's Guide #1611, page 24, Andrew "Captain Comics" Smith interviews J. Michael Straczynski, and says in the introduction that "JMS, as he's often known, sold his first professional work at 17, according to Wikipedia, and never looked back." *Dan T.* 00:18, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
I am not certain even if this is the best discussion section for this, but...
I have two brief articles which I had considered posting, but I was hoping to get some opinions on their appropriateness for Wikipedia, as they are a) term definitions, b) rather obscure pieces of slang or jargon, and c) very similar to each other. I suspect that they would be better submitted to Wiktionary, if anywhere, or possibly as an addendum to an existing article. but I would like any advice on the matter that could be offered, as it would clarify some aspects of Wikipedia policy. The two article proposals are:
Ozmagendered A term used in some science fiction, fantasy and sequential art fandoms to describe characters whose sex or gender has been altered through magic or advanced technology for an extended period of time or even permanently. The term, which was coined on the 'QueerComics' mailing list, is taken from the character of Princess Ozma of Oz, who was magically disguised as a boy for several years. Compare ranmagendered.
Ranmagendered A term used in some science fiction, fantasy and sequential art fandoms to describe characters whose sex or gender has been altered through magic or advanced technology briefly or repeatedly. The term, which was coined on the 'QueerComics' mailing list, is taken from the character of Ranma Saotome, whose sex varies due to a magical curse. Compare ozmagendered.
Any recommendations?
Hello,
WE offer accommodation in serviced apartments in Tallinn, Estonia. What are the terms and conditions to be listed on your site?
Please visit our web page www.redgroup.ee for more information.
Thank you in advance,
Nele Tehu nele@redgroup.ee
In the article Sadhya, the word is spelt Sadya. Which is correct? The page should either be editted or moved. MAybe a redirect from the other made. Anyone know Malayalam? -- SGBailey 08:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Why has this been allowed to happen, it seems that the Building Contractors decide what happens in Longwood now, not the residents or Council.
Hi, for anyone writing biographies, the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography will be free from September 23 to 25; normally it costs 200 pounds a year. It contains 55,000 biographies of British people who died before December 2001 and looks like a great resource. If interested, sign up here. NicSix 01:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
this weekend only [13] Arnie587 21:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
The cruftier among you may (or, indeed, may not) want to know that a large number of The Simpsons episodes articles are presently listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2005 September 21. They thus fall to the axe somtime after the 28th. If anyone wants them rescued they should either a)get WP-compatible permission or b)re-write the articles on their /temp subpages (please write them there; it makes life easier for the clearing admin who does not have search the diffs for the versions to restore). - Splash talk 00:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
List 10 famous Americans who have died in the last century. I will compare the accuracy of our entry against the NYT obituary. lots of issues | leave me a message 23:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
There are ten off the top of my head (if that's a good method).-- Pharos 00:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
How about some who are famous but not quite so famous? On the assumption that they are a better test... and throwing in a few famous "mystery" deaths
Dpbsmith (talk) 01:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
User:Zoe| (talk) 02:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
So as to take up less space: 1) Fritz Leiber; 2) Janis Joplin; 3) Mary Pickford; 4) Will Keith Kellogg; 5) Mark Rothko; 6) Eugene O'Neill; 7) Gordon Jump; 8) Allen Dulles; 9) Billie Holiday; 10) Candy Darling. Grutness... wha? 02:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC) (who was suprised by a lack of article for Opal Whiteley)
Thanks for the suggestions, more than enough for now. I'm slowly plowing through the list and recording my observations. lots of issues | leave me a message 11:42, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requested moves could use the attentions of both more admins with the patience to do the moves and more regular users to comment on the proposals, so that things aren't being decided based solely on the opinions of one or two regular voices. Dragons flight 00:29, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
I noticed User:Rayc/Flik (User:Rayc/Flik) on a category page. It appears to be an entry for Flik. I don't understand why it has User:Rayc in front of it, so I hesitate moving it. Is this a mistake in creating the article, or is that naming convention used for something normally? — Długosz
Hi, I'm the bureaucrat on scn.wiki. Recently we have had a bit of vandalism (it's a rare thing for us minority languages!) but it looks like the moron(s) has/have migrated to some sicilian articles on en.wiki, namely Sicily and Sicilian language. Could I ask that one or two sysops keep an eye on these and ban the dickhead the next time he comes around (it's usually a he). I imagine it's some frustrated italian xenophobe with a massive chip on his shoulder and a very misplaced air of superiority (obviously). Thank you. -- pippudoz - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 08:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
(added by an anon with a copypaste of the whole article)
No. Don't do that please. Furthermore, this word only gets a handfull of google results. -- Golbez 06:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
--Chris Manning 20:59, 15 September 2005 (UTC) Dear Wikipedians
I am an information systems researcher with the University of Queensland Business School, Brisbane, Australia.
I posted the following to the Association of Information Systems List Server the other night and would like to invite you to comment as the developers of the wikipedia:
I am just marking some undergrad Info Management assignments and I have noticed that quite a few of the students have used references from the online wikipedia.
The following explains the wikipedia system (taken directly from the wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Introduction):
"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written collaboratively by many of its readers. Lots of people are constantly improving Wikipedia, making thousands of changes an hour, all of which are recorded on the page history and the Recent Changes page. Nonsense and vandalism are usually removed quickly, and their creators banned.
How can I help? Don't be afraid to edit pages on Wikipedia-anyone can edit, and we encourage users to be bold...but don't be reckless! Find something that can be improved, either in content, grammar or formatting, then fix it. Worried about breaking Wikipedia? Don't be: it can always be fixed or improved later. So go ahead, edit an article and help make Wikipedia the best source of information on the Internet!"
I am interested to get an idea of what you all think about the reliability and validity of the information provided by such as source.
Some questions:
1. Does the idea that errors and other acts of mis-information or dis-information will be irradicated by the number of "faithful" users editing the site validate the wikipedia?
2. Does the non-disclosure of the source for the information improve or degrade information reliability and validity?
3. Is the wikipedia just another unverified WWW site - where information should be treated as "mis or dis" until proven otherwise?
4. Is the wikipedia just another online forum where reliability and validity are relative?
5. Do you think that the wikipedia is the first step to replacing the "traditional" search engine?
This is a concern to me, because I think these tools are here to stay and we as individuals and as a community/discipline should have some sort of response. This response is necessary because we should position ourselves to have voice in these online information issues.
Cheers
Chris
___________________________________
Chris Manning Lecturer in Information and Knowledge Management UQ Business School The University of Queensland 11 Salisbury Road Ipswich QLD 4305 (w) +61 7 33811226 (f) + 61 7 33811227 (m) 0400 483883 UQ Business School - Personal Information Page < http://www.business.uq.edu.au/staff/academic/cmanning.phtml> < http://www.business.uq.edu.au/> "The spirit silently and calmly looks on, as the ego eats the bitter and sweet fruits of life" ___________________________________
Why should you believe the answers we give to your questions? Are the blog like responses from individuals better than the constantly updated data wikipedia has about itself in its articles? Are either more valid than your own research? Why not do your own first hand research? Start anywhere. Spend time. (and if you seee an error, please correct it. you don't need an account) (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check, Wikipedia:Verifiability) WAS 4.250 22:21, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
And see Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:08, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
--[Chris Manning] 210.49.34.59 12:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC) Thanks very much for your reponses Sherool, Gkhan, Gandalf61 and Jmabel.. I particularly found Gandalf61's quotation a great example of the research / practice perspective problem. It would seem that sometimes it is a matter of "horses for courses" - researchers actually have fun investigating the bathers and perhaps in this case as well as the beach, who is wearing them! Having said that though - I understand where Jmabel and Gandalf61 are coming from.
You might also be interested in this discussion on the pump from last January. It concerns a news report of a boy who wrote a letter to the Encyclopedia Britannica complaining about mistakes he had found in several of their Polish related articles. We checked how Wikipedia compared - on two out of the three topics mentioned, Wikipedia's pre-existing articles appeared to have the facts correct. On the third we didn't have an article, but a couple of days later (as a result of the focus) we had quite a nice comprehensive page on the subject.
Its a small sample, but it shows how the Wiki approach can exceed the traditionally editted encyclopedia. -- Solipsist 06:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
___________________________________
I use Wikipedia as the first place I go to look something up.
How to evaluate the validity? The discussion page, the references listed, and Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection tecniques.
The above link contains 15 more international terrorist organisations that have been added by the Home Secretary. If someone could gradually add them, I'll add some too. But I don't have time right now.
Thanks,-- TheDoctor10 ( talk| email) 17:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Something must have changed in the implementation of footnotes. usually I can enter {{fn|21}} to get a footnote superscript.
At the footer, I can usually enter {{fnb|21}} or its alphanumeric equivalent {{anb|Alpha21}} and I get the corresponding internal hyperlink.
Now it looks like its broken. Ancheta Wis 10:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Probablby can't be considered a major news source exactly, but "Nerd TV" (sponsored by PBS) recendly did an interview with Tim O'Reilly, where he mentioned the Wikipedia (in passing near the end, but still). Those interested can pop over and download the interview (or any of the other ones). Heh I see it's also linked fom O'Reilly's article so I guess most interested parties have already seen it, but just in case. -- Sherool 20:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Unless I type the exact title of my page, Wikipedia doesn't find it with search (neither does Google for that matter). Does it take a while before they're "officially" indexed? -- Steerpike 13:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Please see this account's user page ( User:MicrosoftRegulator). This explains exactly what Microsoft is regulating Wikipedia for.-- REGULATOR (contact) 16:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/PlanetMath Exchange is a project to exchange content between Wikipedia and PlanetMath, which is a web-based encyclopaedia whose contents is available under the GFDL, much like Wikipedia. We do this by slapping {{ planetmath}} at any Wikipedia article which incorporate content copied from PlanetMath.
Recently, some doubts have arisen whether this procedure satisfies all legal requirements. For example, the GFDL seems to require that we list at least five (or all, if there are less of five) authors of any material which we copy from PlanetMath, which we do not do at the present. Please see PlanetMath's embedding article (specifically, the discussion under the article itself) for the issues raised by a user of PlanetMath.
It seems that none of the participants on the PlanetMath Exchange project knows what to do about this, so we would be grateful for any help in understanding the legal requirements at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/PlanetMath Exchange#PMEX and GFDL. Probably, similar difficulties exist when copying material from other GFDL sources like the Free On-line Dictionary of Computing (FOLDOC).
Thanks in advance for your help, and please forgive me if I posted in the wrong place. -- Jitse Niesen ( talk) 21:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Can someone please remove the annoying text at the top of the page telling people not to commit suicide? Even if the author of the article wishes to express that sentiment, do so in a more thoughtful and less "in your face" way.
Please consider joining the petition to free Millie Mcfiffin. -- Solipsist 19:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
There are two identical articles :
My two questions are:
1. How are we supposed to wright, in general, regarding a (ship) name : "Saint" or "St." ?
2. What title is better and should stay : "MS" or "SS" ? (and of course "Saint" or "St." ?). The
Wikipedians are welcpme to help editting it.
Danny-w
08:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
If my count is right, we only covered two of the eight laureates in physics, medicine and chemistry before the announcement (one of them one day before only). And I've seen statements, that there are no more articles to write, because everything is covered. Ouch. -- Pjacobi 16:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Category:Science and engineering prizes is a good starting point for this work. I've checked some entries in Hughes medal and Max Planck medal. Very sorry state of affair. Even Nikolai Bogolubov and Ludwig Faddejew are missing. -- Pjacobi 12:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Is there a term for Wikilinks that use a pipe to point at an article other than the linked text, such as this link to my user page? I've been using "pipelink" for a while, to the confusion of other editors, as that's the term E2 uses for such links. - A Man In Black ( conspire | past ops) 13:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
How can I find out any new situations about new man made cartilage for knee. ?
Who is the publisher for wikipedia and were can i find this information?
Dtobias appears to be asking about the $100,000 bill of 1934 and ESkog appears to have misinterpreted it as meaning 1,934 bills with the number referring to a quantity of bills rather than a date. Georgia guy 20:20, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Just curious. Is there a way to find out how many times a particular page gets visited? I think it would be interesting to track daily article hits and come up with some sort of global pulse based on wikipedia similar to what the google guys do with the most popular search terms.
Also interesting would be the same kind of daily log on edits. David Bergan 18:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Mayday Mayday Mayday!! Kate's Edit Counter is down!! Mayday Mayday Mayday!! Babajobu 14:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
The former mayor of New York City cites Wikipedia in this [15] editorial. Wyss 23:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Something that has occurred to me from time to time when editing articles: has anyone every considered what would happen to Wikipedia if Jimbo turned evil? Babajobu 16:44, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Hello, my name is David Greene. I am not yet registered on this site, but will likely register today.
This morning I watched your founder on C-SPAN. He was interviewed by the founder and head of C-SPAN, Brian Lamb, for one hour.
I was quite favorably impressed by the man (your founder). And the interview cast Wikipedia in an excellent light, and I believe justly so.
During the interview, when pressed by Brian Lamb for his political opinions, he described members of the Libertarian Party as "lunatics."
I am a former member and official of the Libertarian Party, and I know and knew many people active in the party. I disagree with your founder's remark, and feel that many party members are brilliant.
I appreciate the fact that your founder is a highly intelligent and friendly person, and I also appreciate the fact that he was put on the spot by Brian Lamb (as is Mr. Lamb's job). Still I am a bit stunned that he would make such an impolitic, and to my mind, incorrect remark.
And hell, I'm a [former] officer of a county LP in North Carolina (hence the former), and we're pretty much insane. :D -- Golbez 15:00, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Libertarians are lunatics in much the same way that Einstien was considered a lunatic in his time. Society just isnt ready for libertarians yet, some dont even know what views libertarians have yet still consider them crazy. There is too much societal brainwashing for people to understand these things. Although, I did see a guy on the Daily show with Jon Stewart who claimed to be libertarian and was giving out toy guns to little inner city children to protest a toy gun ban. Might have given libertarians a bad name? Note: I hesitate to label myself or my veiws, but most consider them libertarian. -- AGruntsJaggon 10:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Take a look at one of the top responses to a Wikipedia related topic on slashdot today (mod down please):
"I love sneaking my name into articles. So far I've taught a famous guitarist how to play, worked for NASA during an Apollo mission, and got shot out of a cannon."
True or flamebait, I can't verify, but I have encountered this behavior previously. Most vandals are manifest, but some jerks alter digits, insert their names into the background, make up battles, etc. In one case I rolled back only after it went unnoticed for a year. These users are more than nuisances, to protect the integrity of info, we need to do more to identify and squash these ppl. I have created this template ({{hoaxer}}):
This template is designed to spread information and make the vandals feel unwelcome. When you spot a hoaxer, please drop this template and add the userpage to your watchlist.
lots of issues | leave me a message 12:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
I've noticed that
Pcb21 (
talk ·
contribs) has started creating a series about specific dates:
January 1, 2005,
January 2, 2005,
January 3, 2005, and on up to (so far)
January 28, 2005
February 7, 2005.
Is this kosher? Isn't this too granular a level of detail? -- Calton | Talk 00:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Starting from a questionable link on Dragon, I tracked a new anon IP user who got a username. I removed some edits as being nonnotable references to commercial books on certain pages, but not sure on some of these others if they are legit, or vanity, or spam or what... Thought someone could take a look at them (sort of a RfC sort of thing, but they are a variety of topics and edits so I figured I'd toss it here): Wren Blackberry (delete vanity?), Myles munroe (very least a move there, if not a deletion), Martin Sexton (vanity? copyright?), and in general the edits of User:Hopper5. DreamGuy 23:32, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Apparently a page has been edited (if this is possible) and the inserted text is annoying and stupid. The following page is a entry for Windows Vista: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista Someone has put in a line in the article that does not belong: IT WILL COME OUT IN 3928 A.D. AND IT WILL STINK SO BAD THAT IT IS NOT WORTH USING and it disrupts the intent of the atricle. Thanks, Rich
So I thought it would be cool to have a page that centralized all the different little Babel Templates I've seen running around, just for fun. I'd like to add examples, and maybe have links to the different templates people are using. I know there's the language ones and the various operating systems one, I thought it might be cool to have one place to easily find them. So I started a page here, just thought I'd let people know (it's bad right now). Cheers! Ëvilphoenix Burn! 20:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi there - I'm from the bay area and use you all the time and want to know if you offer services in other states like Washington for job searches? Thanx
Did anybody think about using WP as a basis for building a semantic network (for instance, "article A is in the list of Bs" is close to "A is a B"; "article A becomes to category C" means there is a close relationship between A and C; disambiguation pages, as well as commas and brackets in titles, help solve ambiguities)? Apokrif 15:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Is there a wikipedia policy on redirects from misspellings to the correct article? e.g. when I found museli blank, I wondered whether it should redirect to muesli. Are we waiting for the mediawiki spellchecking edition to solve the problem without lots of redirects? Ojw 20:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
My name is Martin Folkes, I am a retired Private Investigator in Australia. I have worked for Local Courts and Insurance Companies for the last twenty years and am seeking to develop a tellular based tracking device.
I have approached Australian Telecoms to no avail, and would like to seek alternate support from telecommunication based engineers and/or companies for sponsorshhip.
For an overview of the project and its applications, I can be contacted on:
Martin Folkes
<address removed>
Ph: <removed> Fax: <removed>
Mob: <removed>— Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.134.211.21 ( talk • contribs) 03:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't like this box.
I hate it it saids "Preceded by" "Succeded by".
Here's what I like better.
Preceded by Pierce Brosnan 1995- 2002 |
James Bond actor 2006- |
Succeeded by TBA |
That's MORE LIKE IT. "Preceded by" and "Followed by" is better rather than that corny "Preceded/Succeded" succestion box crap.
Spencer Karter
From a recent WIPO decision in a domain name dispute under UDRP: [17]
It's wikipedia.org, guys... *Dan T.* 13:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
The requirements at Template:Promotional for promotional images strike me as somewhat over-restrictive, beyond actual legal requirements of fair use. I've proposed a couple of possible changes at Template talk:Promotional. I just thought I'd post the here as the issue is one that has rather broad impact.-- Pharos 05:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
I would like to have a link to the International Bluegrass Music Museum placed in the section for "bluegrass". How do I do this? There is a place for it but it doesn't have anything there. Thank you. Sincerely, Mike Lawing
Hello
I am writing on behalf of the Open University, UK. Our course team would like to use the image of John Gotti found on this web link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:John_Gotti.jpg in an educational course. Who does the copyright of this photo belong to? and if it belongs to John Gotti, could we have a contact adress for him please in order to ask for his permission to use it?
Many thanks t.adekunle@open.ac.uk
Here is a Dilbert cartoon I saw today which sounded strikingly like some exchanges I've heard around here :) Wyss 13:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
There is currently is a content dispute on Commonwealth School. The school administration has come in and deleted most of the old page (which may or may not have been encyclopedic) and replaced it with their marketing material. They also made a public announcement about it. If anyone can come and help us make a good encyclopedia article, come have a look. 68.166.50.142 16:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not for advertising of any kind. Mercilessly remove any advertising material that is inserted — it almost certainly violates the core policy of WP:NPOV. As Nickptar says, it is fine to watch over an article you have an interest in, but it is not ok to always replace it with your preferred version: that's edit warring and will not be tolerated. However, it's great that someone's checking the page for accuracy, we need more articles that get that kind of attention! - Splash talk 16:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
One of the things the administration said was that there were several things they "didn't want prospective students or parents to see." At what point is that not a good excuse for removing things? Some of it was absurd, but some of the things they didn't like simply added character and detail to the description without insulting or demeaning anyone or the school. -- 68.166.50.142 17:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
It is not appropriate for the school adminstration to require approval of changes to the school's article. Ideally the school administration would not be involved in editing the article at all, as they would be inclined to make vanity edits, although the same argument could probably be made for students of the school as well. As long as the information is verifiable, encyclopedic, and presented from a neutral point of view, it should not be removed or subject to the school's approval. Kaldari 17:37, 16 October 2005 (UTC)