This is a discussion of categories like Category:1865 establishments in Pakistan and Category:1911 establishments in Turkey. Both are higly problematic names. The first is just plain egregious. The idea of a seperate Muslim state carved out of India was not proposed until 1930. The name Pakistan was not put forward until 1933. In 1865 there was a concept of a place called India. Most of it was British India, a territory of the British Empire. There were also hundreds of "Princely States" of various sizes from Hyderabad State down, and under various levels of British Protection. Beyond this there was also Portuguese India, mainly Goa, and French India. Last I checked the one thing in the category mentioned was located in Lahore, which was a city clearly in British India, part of the province of Punjab, which transcended the modern international bouandary. As it is from 1947 until 1970 we clearly categoize those things established in East Pakistan in Category:1947 establishments in Pakistan etc. We also have Category:1960 establishments in West Germany, East Germany by year establishments categorizes, also Yugoslavia, Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, the Soviet Union, Mandatory Palestine, the Thirteen Colonies and probably a few more refering to now defunct categories. We have x year in Dahomey and a few similarly named categories as well. It seems to me the best course would be to categorize everything by where it was in the year it was established. This solves a lot of problems and avoids potential conflicts. Since these categories are clearly refering to the year involved it gives us a staight forward way to categorize things, and it makes it so we do not have to change categorize when boundaries change. It also allows for categorizing things such as sub-national entities that transcended modern boundaries. Thus we would categorize things established in 1910 in Lemburg (now Lvov) as being established in Austria-Hungary, since they were, and not in Ukraine, which makes no sense since a-there was no such place and b-the plurality of Lemburg's population was Polish. We have clearly recognized that we cannot retroactively call things "Israel" before that country was formed. This should be applied across the board. In the case of India, most of the stuff established in what is now Pakistan and Bangaldesh before 1947 is already in the India category. In the case of "Turkey" to the extent that that name was used before 1923 it was used as a synonym for the Ottoman Empire. However it would jus be too confusing to retroactively use Turkey for the Ottoman Empire, and we have clearly decided to use Ottoman Empire as the article on the place, so we should use Ottoman Empire to refer to the place during those times. This also avoids classifying as establishments in Romania things formed by ethnic Hungarian in the Kingdom of Hungary in 1917 or before, that now are located in Romania. This will avoid anarchronism and inaccuracy. It also makes it so we do not have to recategorize things when international boundaries change. I also think we should move toward having a set earliest year we categorize establishments by country. The extreme is Category:993 establishments in the Czech Republic which not only incorreclty calls the place a Republic, implies modern understandings of place nearly a century before they came to be, but also contains the only article anywhere in the Category:993 establishments tree. For Category:Educational institutions established in 1800 that is the first year we have the category, and for Populated places we only do by year back to 1500. I think we should agree to some year before which we do not do the establishments by country. I am thinking 1800 might be a good year, since much before that placing things in countries gets progressively trickier. However I think a fixed year would work. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• I just remembered a related issue. With the currently used method of placing these categories into parent categories we take a category like Category:1911 establishments in Estonia and place a set of links on the category. This makes it so the category liks to th article Estonia. However in 1911 the thing we really should be linking to is Estonia Governorate, which covered only about half the area of modern Estonia. One option would be to try to use different names in the categories, but that would probably just create confusion, especially in a case like Category:1910 establishments in Romania. With Category:1910 establishments in Russia it might be worth using "The Russian Empire" as the name, but there is a strong argument that at the time "Russia" would have worked. It migth not be that big a deal. I guess we could still add manually on [[:Category:1910 establishments in Russia" a header that says "This is for things established in 1910 in the Russian Empire" but I am not sure how to do that and deal with the current header being placed there. I am not even sure if I am explaining this so people understand the problem. The problem is that currently there is something linking to Russia which is the article on the modern nation state. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace#Template:Uw-spamublock. -- Trevj ( talk) 11:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC) -- Trevj ( talk) 11:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Apologies if this should have been notified via WP:VP/PR instead. -- Trevj ( talk) 11:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Please see File:Paulsen Signature.jpg. How can one person's signature belong to somebody else and be declared public domain by that person? RNealK ( talk) 23:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Out of ignorance. Presumably the uploader's copyright claim comes from the fact that they created the image, unaware that signatures are not eligible for copyright in the US, and that an accurate copy of an existing work doesn't involve sufficient creative effort to attract copyright. -- Carnildo ( talk) 02:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Should the public domain claim be removed, or should it be listed as a copyright violation? What other actions should be taken? RNealK ( talk) 04:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

In this case, I think the signature falls into the realm of {{ PD-signature}}. Its not the uploader that is releasing the signature into the public domain, its that the signature lacks sufficient creativity to have ever been subject to copyright at all. As with all threshold of originality questions, there is no bright line, but the signature doesn't look to be especially artistic or have any other feature that would make it copyrightable. Monty ₈₄₅ 04:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (fictional characters) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Uh, why? It has no content. Reyk _YO! 02:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Right. There is no real content yet and it certainly isn't a guideline. I guess the creator didn't understand the meaning of adding Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines. I have removed the category. [1] PrimeHunter ( talk) 02:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Wikidata interwiki RFC. -- Rs chen 7754 09:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Article feedback is now being drafted. Any and all users are encouraged to add a view or polish up the page. The RFC is scheduled to begin on Monday, January 21. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 17:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding restriction enforcement for User:Rich Farmbrough. Any and all users are encouraged to comment. -- Kumioko ( talk) 00:30, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as a guideline. It was previously marked as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Moved from wikipedia talk:Village pump (policy)

Can anyone tell me why, upon deletion of an image, a bot comes around to comment out (<!-- Deleted image removed: [[File:file.jpg|thumb|Image name.]] -->) the wikilink to the image, instead of removing all trace? Is it deliberate to leave these comments in place into perpetuity? There must be thousands upon thousands of such comments in various articles across the project. --  Ohconfucius  ^{ping / poke} 08:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I've been wondering that as well, for a long time. Surely it's completely redundant in light of article history? — Hex (❝?!❞) 11:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Have you asked the bot operator of User:ImageRemovalBot, User:Carnildo, if there were some prior discussions regarding this? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I've dropped Carnildo a note pointing to this question. — Hex (❝?!❞) 12:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

( edit conflict)Ok, thanks for that. It seems it was a requested feature at the time the bot was set up. I have set my formatting script to systematically remove them as and when it comes across them. Does anyone see any reason why it cannot continue to do so? --  Ohconfucius  ^{ping / poke} 12:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow. That's a long time. It means there are potentially well over 200,000 of those comments around. I'd be interested in discovering if there's consensus for it to stop doing it. — Hex (❝?!❞) 14:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

If you can get consensus, I'll have the bot stop commenting images out. -- Carnildo ( talk) 01:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The idea behind it is that there are lots of images deleted mistakenly because they're mislabeled or because permissions haven't been obtained for them yet. If the bot just removed them without a note, when they were undeleted, people wouldn't be able to figure out where they were supposed to be put back. MBisanz ^talk 01:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there an alternative to leaving such comments to languish forever? Perhaps we may consider adding a datestamp, which would permit these commented out links to images to be removed by bot after a certain 'grace period' has elapsed? All those comments without date stamp would de facto expire at the end of the earliest grace period. --  Ohconfucius  ^{ping / poke} 03:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

That's a good idea. It could be possible to have a bot identify and remove very old comments of that type as well, working from ImageRemovalBot's contribution history. — Hex (❝?!❞) 11:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Great idea. Please include a datestamp; bots or users who come across such comments older than a certain threshold can then remove them. As to what the threshold should be, maybe a couple months would be good—some low-traffic articles may get looked at only about that often. — Psychonaut ( talk) 11:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Based on the OTRS backlog, I would suggest a two or three month threshold. MBisanz ^talk 13:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm OK with that. So if the bot started datestamping its removals as of today, it could also start removing all the undated tags, and any new tags inserted this month, at the end of April... --  Ohconfucius  ^{ping / poke} 03:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

That proposal is overall an improvement from present practice, but wonder if wouldn't be better to just disable the whole feature. The argument that it helps reinstating images which were deleted and later restored is not very convincing to me. As far I know, there is no automated process for reinstating such images in articles and if done manually the edit history can indicate where the image was. Also, at the time the image is restored, the same location for the same image is not necessarily the best, as in the meanwhile both the article and the collection of available images might have changed. So far I found the feature of no use at all and removed dozens of such placeholders in the past years.-- ELEKHH ^T 04:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Even better. I feel the same, which is why I systematically remove these. I'd just say any policy that allows us to get rid of this clutter within a reasonable period of time would be welcome. --  Ohconfucius  ^{ping / poke} 05:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

If a deleted image is restored, how can you tell where it was used? There is no link between the old revisions in the article history and the image. At least with a time-limited comment, you could search for the file name in the search box and see where it was used. MBisanz ^talk 05:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

In the edit history it will appear when the bot removed an image, thus it will be possible not only to locate where the image was, but also simply restore by reverting the bot. Example of image restoration without place-holder: Bot removing image visible in edit history, editor restoring image in the same place, without placeholder. -- ELEKHH ^T 05:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

But you know which article to look in the history of to see the bot removing it. Imagine a permission is sent to OTRS and an OTRS agent undeletes the image. How is that OTRS agent supposed to figure out which articles to look in the histories of to restore the image? MBisanz ^talk 05:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

In the vast majority of cases it is very straightforward: one or two articles related to the subject illustrated by the image in question. I get your point now, but I think we're talking about a minuscule chance that the placeholder could be useful, while in most cases is just unnecessary clutter. IMO it would be a net benefit to simplify the process. -- ELEKHH ^T 06:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

An other option would be for the bot to add to the deletion discussion the article names in which the image appeared, thus cluttering the DR page, not the article. That would make it very easy for anyone undeleting images to restore them where used previously. -- ELEKHH ^T 06:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Quick note saying that there are about 36,000 instances of <!-- Deleted image removed: on articles on en wiki. Also if an image was ever restored somebody would have to scan a dump before being able to identify there the images used to be (looking through the bots contribs isnt' exactly great but could also work if it was recent). ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 06:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

What about the idea of a date-stamped comment that's removed by bot after three months? Also, a lot of images are deleted without deletion discussions (under enwiki or commons speedy deletion policies), so there isn't a page to annotate. MBisanz ^talk 06:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Dating these tags sounds like a great plan. It would be possible to see how long the tags have been on pages after finding the pages themselves with a quick API query checking when the bot had last edited. This means it would also be possible to remove these comments without the addition of the date to the comment. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 06:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Support, as previously stated date stamping and removal after three months is a great improvement. -- ELEKHH ^T 06:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Personally I prefer the current system of commenting out the deleted image, which replaces the redlink that would otherwise appear on the page. I use it to go look for a replacement image. Obviously it can alternatively just be deleted if no replacement is needed. Apteva ( talk) 05:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I strongly support the feature, although I would also support removal after three months. I can personally attest to restoring many image after receiving permission at OTRS, and then starting the detective work of determining exactly where the image belongs. Yes, it is possible to peruse the history, and figure it out, but it is much easier to see the comment, and simply clean the comment to restore the image. I have restored hundreds of images, and maybe a hundred or so with the comment. I am always happy to see the comment, as it makes the restoration much easier.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 15:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi all,

The request for comment on article feedback has opened. All editor are invited to comment, endorse other users's views, and/or add their own view.

Thanks, Legoktm ( talk) 01:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

In the Lynette Nusbacher talk page, the BLP notice board and the AFD discussion for the Lynette Nusbacher page it is clear that many people believe that if a transsexual person is sufficiently notable to appear in Wikipedia, and if that notability extends across pre-transition and post-transition segments of that person's life, it is de rigeur to note that person's previous name. Noting a trans person's previous name is in most cases outing that person as trans, and doing so in a WP article is potentially emphasising that person's transness in public. Do we mention LGB people's LGBness so explicitly except where two notable people are or were partners? (Genuine question - practice seems to vary.)

Media guidelines for writing about trans people generally emphasise that previous names ought generally not to be mentioned.

Apart from the personal distress that might cause the subject (which may or may not be the concern of WP), casting doubt upon the gender integrity of the subject, and potentially endangering the subject in certain countries, which raise issues of WP:HARM; it seems worth discussing whether it is the role of an encyclopaedia biographical article, especially about a living person, to out LGBT people, trans people in particular. NetNus ( talk) 00:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Unless the gender change is the reason the person is notable (which I suppose is possible although rare), the rules here are clear: a) Does the inclusion of the information conform with the letter and spirit of WP:UNDUE; and b) Does the information come from multiple, reliable sources? If the answers to both of those are yes then the information should be included in the biography. Wikipedia is not 'media', it is not a newspaper or a magazine. It's an open, collaborative encyclopedia. Anyone is free to add any information to any article, assuming it is done within guidelines and policies. You can't keep the gender change information off a bio anymore than you can keep a paragraph about corruption, or a crime investigation, or whatever other event or aspect of the person's life is under scrutiny. Wikipedia is not censored, nor is its purpose to portray notable people in the light they prefer to be portrayed. It presents information in a clear, concise, and neutral way. All of it. This does not mean I'm not sympathetic to your problem here, but there are larger issues here at play than accommodating a single person. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 01:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree entirely with what the Frog said, and couldn't have put it better myself. BLP policy doesn't preclude making public information that the subject would rather prefer remain off Wikipedia. In a situation where there are genuine verifiability or undue weight issues, it's important to take many factors into account, but with respect, I think this is a very straightforward case. Evanh2008 ^{( talk| contribs)} 01:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) AFAICT, there's two main principles in WP policy, NetNus. Firstly, we don't publish original research (so we don't out anybody). Secondly, we should write biographical material conservatively.

The Lynette Nusbacher case is probably headed for either deletion of the article or to-hell-with-writing-things-conservatively, either of which is the wrong outcome IMO. If it's deleted, it will just make way on Google for risible sources of information such as The Sun and the neo-Nazi Metapedia. If it is kept, this will unfortunately probably be accompanied with a seal of "couldn't care less", so that's not much better. It's a pity that Wikipedia sometimes gives us whatever results from antagonism, rather than thought out solutions.

I think you will appreciate that very obvious problems arise in writing an article about someone whose name has changed without commenting on why, even if those problems might not be impossible to overcome. I'll also repeat my view that WP should not be a place where we are too eager to deny that human diversity is something contributed to by real people, not just unnamed theoretical people in the articles set aside for people who already know about that stuff. Formerip ( talk) 01:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Tough cases make bad law, they say; but my query isn't about cases nor is it an attempt to open yet another discussion of the same issue. It's to discuss the principle and the policy. NetNus ( talk) 02:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

As I see it, the principle and the policy is that anything that is sourced, neutral, true, and relevant will be included in BLP articles. This holds true across the board, with no exceptions as far as I can tell. I think this is a good thing. Evanh2008 ^{( talk| contribs)} 02:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

It is vital to address:

a) Does the inclusion of the information conform with the letter and spirit of WP:UNDUE;

No, absolutely not. The information on this subject was given undue weight using synthesis of material that itself was from tiny mention in a tertiary source.

and

b) Does the information come from multiple, reliable sources? If the answers to both of those are yes then the information should be included in the biography.

Again, no. The tertiary source was the only source used with no secondary sourcing and discussed the detail of a gender change, name change and "living as a man" from one simple mention in a history dictionary.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 03:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

If the author tries to claim the works written under the previous name, then the author has outed him/herself. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the idea suggested by NetNus's query is well known here: we don't identify people as gay/lesbian unless they identify themselves as gay/lesbian. Trans is typically packed with G/L in the term LGBT -- and the straightforward conclusion is that we shouldn't identify someone as trans unless they identify themselves as trans. The name change issue is not a sufficient reason to override this basic principle, that when it comes to sexuality we require self-identification as a minimum condition for inclusion of relevant material. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 04:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Near as I can tell, there's no valid source that confirms a sex change operation or whatever. Only that the author used to go by a (presumably) male name, and now goes by a female name. That's all the article needs to say about it, and the readers can draw their own conclusions. What I don't get is, this was settled a couple of weeks ago, or so it seemed. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Is that memorialized in a policy or guideline somewhere? Also, what about non living biographies, such as James Buchanan? Monty ₈₄₅ 04:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

If you are asking about "self indentification" that falls under Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 06:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I am going to add one last thing to this discussion unless a need arises for me to reply, and that is the WMF resolution on Biographies of Living Persons:

Wikimedia Foundation resolution

Further information: Foundation:Resolution:Biographies of living people

On April 9, 2009, the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees passed a resolution regarding Wikimedia's handling of material about living persons. It noted that there are problems with some BLPs being overly promotional in tone, being vandalized, and containing errors and smears. The Foundation urges that special attention be paid to neutrality and verifiability regarding living persons; that human dignity and personal privacy be taken into account, especially in articles of ephemeral or marginal interest; that new technical mechanisms be investigated for assessing edits that affect living people; and that anyone who has a complaint about how they are described on the project's websites be treated with patience, kindness, and respect.

-- Amadscientist ( talk) 06:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

That would not apply to the author in question, as they outed themselves. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Elaborate please.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 06:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

By claiming authorship of books written under a previous name. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

If this is true...could you explain how a talkpage admission is relevant to the article. Wikipdia and its talkpages are not reliable sources. If this was done elsewhere, please demonstrate the reliablility of the source and how it is anything more than admitting to having a previous name.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 06:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Supposedly the author confirmed via some process (OTRS, whatever that is) that they are in fact who they say they are. While random talk page comments might not be reliable, wikipedia treats these OTRS things as gospel. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

And private. It also did no such thing.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 07:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

"Private" or not, in the previous discussion a week or two ago, it was stated that the user NetNus was indeed the subject of the article. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah....and how does that support your claim that they outed themselves. All they did was admit they are they subject of the article and it wasn't an OTRS ticket that did that.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 07:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying this Lynette does NOT claim authorship of the works of this Aryeh or whatever the spelling is? ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I always find it interesting whan editors can't support their own claims and resort to "are you saying...". If you can't say whatever it is you wish to say, please do not resort to this kind of tactic. Demonstrate your claims or stop altogether, please.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 07:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

When this came up the previous time, it was demonstrated that (1) the editor NetNus is the article's subject; and (2) the two names are of the same person. I don't see how it could be any plainer than that. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

What on earth does this have to do with your claim? The editor NetNus has admitted to being the subject. AND.....????? As I stated on the article talkpage, OTRS and the edit summary left by the Admin who deleted some talkpage discussion had nothing to do with that fact. What is it you think you are saying here Baseball_Bugs?-- Amadscientist ( talk) 08:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

That Aryeh and Lynette are the same person. [2] That doesn't necessarily imply a sex change. It could be a pen name. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, this is not a reliable source for claims on the article, but how does this support your claim that the WMF resolution does "not apply to the author in question"? This has no relevance to the discussion. You are simply not able to justify your claims.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 08:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

NetNus was established as being Lynette, and acknowledged the previous name [Aryeh] in that link I posted above. So there is no issue about the names. The issue is about claiming, without evidence, that the author had a sex change. I don't know that anyone has established that as fact. And a couple of weeks ago, the article was fine. It stated the previous name and said nothing about any alleged sex change. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

If you cannot seperate what is, and what is not a relaible source for these assumptions for inclusion in the article then you have nothing to stand on. You seem to feel that admitting to being the subject on Wikipedia is enough to make GIANT leaps in the article. It is not.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 08:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

What "giant leaps"? Aryeh and Lynette are the same person. That's established beyond any doubt. The medical allegations? Not established. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I agwee with the wascawwy wabbit. This has nothing to do with NetNus's admissions, since they're not verifiable. Our best, most in depth, source for the article is the Jewish Chronicle piece about Aryeh, calling him male [3] The books the subject has written have Aryeh on the cover page. It would be ridiculous to have an article without explaining why we're saying this Aryeh person is also the same as this Lynette person; otherwise every helpful reader will be constantly wanting to correct the obvious typo. Lynette's Sandhurst resume [4] - clearly a reliable source - says Lynette wrote the books that themselves say they were written by Aryeh. That's not enough to say "had a sex change", but we can't avoid having to say "was known as Aryeh". -- GRuban ( talk) 22:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I want to respond separately to the "outing" assertion. I tend to interpret this as a more or less public statement claiming a particular status. I do not think that leaving information about which allows others to put the pieces together is such a statement. Nusbacher was outed by the Sun, but I don't think they outed themselves simply by changing names on a webpage. Mangoe ( talk) 15:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with FreeRangeFrog, Evanh2008, Baseball Bugs, FormerIP and others who hold that Wikipedia does not 'out' people because the information must have been previously published. Wikipedia biographies are supposed to be written conservatively, but relevant and well-cited information should always be expected. If that information is about a gender change, so be it. Binksternet ( talk) 22:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

"Used a male name then and a female name now" is not the same thing as "had a gender change". We have evidence for the same person switching between the male and female names. We don't have a source for the gender change. Ken Arromdee ( talk) 00:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I have to back Ken on this one. Admitting you wrote under another name is just that: it does not provide evidence of a gender change. If I wrote books under the name Mary Sue, then later revealed my real name & gender (male), does that mean I've had a sex change or that I'm transgender? No, it means I used a pseudonym. That's all we can say, without delving into OR territory or relying on dubious sources. — The Hand That Feeds You: ^Bite 20:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

This is a policy discussion, not a revisiting of the Nusbacher case. The discussion here is about "if a transsexual person is sufficiently notable to appear in Wikipedia, and if that notability extends across pre-transition and post-transition segments of that person's life", then do we report the transsexual information in the article. It is not merely about pen names or pseudonyms.

Ken, you misspeak about the lack of a source for "gender change" for Nusbacher. That is the exact term used by the The Palgrave Dictionary of Anglo-Jewish History. The Nusbacher bio is deleted, the issue is done, but I want to correct your mistake. Now back the policy discussion. Binksternet ( talk) 21:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

First off, it's baffling that you say it's "not a revisiting of the Nusbacher case," then go right to correcting Ken... about the Nusbacher case. That, and the fact that this entire "policy" debate is framed around the issue with Nusbacher's article.

Regarding the policy discussion, I don't see there's anything left to discuss. If their transgender status is notable, and documented in reliable sources, we report on it. If not, we don't. I've not seen any disagreement on that, just disagreement on Nusbacher's "outing" by using a pseudonym. — The Hand That Feeds You: ^Bite 15:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Since the information has to come from reliable sources, it is impossible that inclusions of properly sourced information is an "outing". Information on people should only be included if it comes from reliable sources, which means that it has already been made public. That said, not all information that is reliably sourced is worth including in an article. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • On the specific issue here, it seems to be general wikipedia policy to include people's birth names, so I seen no reason to not include past names a person used if those are reliably sourced. We do not suppress information just because a person might not want it to be public. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

If a BLP contacts me about fixing his article and has good connections to the media is it out of line for me to suggest he have an article published containing the information he wishes to add to his article? I don't mean false information but just things like birthdate, education, awards, etc.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 15:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Our lord Jimbo did precisely this to get his birthdate included in his article several years ago. I would not find it out of line to provide this suggestion to the person. -- Izno ( talk) 16:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Be sure to use a WP:RS. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 18:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

Thank you for prompt replies. I haven't recieved such a request yet but it may happen eventually. I have been in contact with some BLPs about their articles. Mostly stubs that need birth dates, images, etc. Some may not wish their age known so they may want to leave that out of any interviews.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 20:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to make an off-topic request here: Can we please not refer to persons as BLPs? The B stands for "biography"; a person is not a biography. I would not like to see this usage catch on. -- Trovatore ( talk) 20:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how many use the term that way. When I worked at a ski hill we use to 'talk to the chair' meaning the operator of the chair. It could be argued that BLP can also mean Biographed Living Person. I will refrain from it from now on it avoid uneeded issues about it. Has it been brought up at BLPN before?-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 01:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Eh, it's common shorthand. Doctors refer to patients that way sometimes ("Hey, how'd that STEMI do?" or "What floor is that stroke going to?"). It's impersonal, but it immediately narrows down what you're referring to. — The Hand That Feeds You: ^Bite 15:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Doctors shouldn't use it, and neither should we. -- Trovatore ( talk) 20:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Why not? Keep in mind, patient confidentiality. We can't say, "Hey, did you see John Smith? How's he doing?" in front of visitors or other patients. Sorry, but your personal preference does not make for policy. — The Hand That Feeds You: ^Bite 18:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, in regard the article about me, someone asked me to add my year of birth, and added it. That was a long time ago in Wikipedia years, but it may still be relevant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• dgmlive.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot- Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

How should we link to pages on websites who claim to prohibit links to their pages, as discussed at Talk:Discipline Global Mobile#Linking to DGM Live!? My view is that such ToS are ridiculous, and can be ignored, because anyone clicking on a web link sends a request to the host server for a page, and it is up to (the owner of) that server to decide how to respond. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

It probably wouldn't hurt to run any proposed policy by Legal first, since their ToS claim is a contractual (legal) claim. But I would be quite surprised if they said anything other than "go ahead". –  Philosopher  ^{Let us reason together.} 12:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd be happy for legal to comment; but it's extremely doubtful they'd agree to such a prohibition. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Which is what I thought I said: I expect they'd say "go ahead" with formalizing a policy to allow such links. –  Philosopher  ^{Let us reason together.} 13:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. I was agreeing with you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC).

As I already told Andy, talk page consensus determines whether a particular link be included. Nobody has claimed that there is a prohibition at Wikipedia of deep linking. The heading of this section is misleading.

The previous discussion, which should be read before commenting here, has discussions of recent legal cases by persons informed about internet law. I told Andy to look at RF's talk page; his linking to DGM confused things. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 13:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

An individual article's talk page discussion, while important, doesn't decide policy issues. Who's confused? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Andy, you confused the issue by linking to DGM rather than to RF, which you apparently have not read or have already forgotten. The Robert Fripp page has a link to a discussion at the appropriate guideline's talk page, which has informed discussion. Continuing to issue emotive ejaculations does not improve policy.

You may wish to suggest an RfC to suggest that WP shall practice deep linking whenever physically possible, if that is legal in the USA, regardless of the Terms of Service or polite requests by the page providers, and that editors should never write a polite request asking for permission to deep link before linking. Individual editors have no responsibility to strive for consensus before enforcing this policy on individual pages, which must accept the policy in every case.

Is that the policy you want? Kiefer .Wolfowitz 15:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I ask you again; who is confused? We need no RfC to allow deep linking; it's common practice on and off Wikipedia. You are not enforcing a policy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Since you have repeatedly asked "who is confused?", I shall answer: You have trouble with logic in this discussion. You are confused.

A common practice need not be universal and it need not be policy. Your stating that deep linking is a common practice here does not imply that it must be followed.

In this case, the editors writing the articles have decided to comply with ToS, and provide readers with the exact titles needed to search at DGM, meeting the needs of our readers and respecting DGM's ToS.

These articles are extremely carefully referenced, so perhaps the histrionics can stop.

Kiefer .Wolfowitz 16:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

So you're alleging that I have confused myself by linking to Talk:Discipline Global Mobile#Linking to DGM Live!; and accusing me of histrionics? You have removed information from valid citations; with no prior discussion on the talk pages of the article concerned, and with no policy backing. That is unacceptable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Time for a nap. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 12:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, when you've had it, and your milk and cookies, you'll recognise the emerging consensus and repair the damage you've done to our references? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

"Our references"?? LMAO, ROFL. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 16:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

That ToS is ridiculous and should be ignored. If a URL exists, works, and is of service to our readers, then it should be linked. If the site takes technical measures to interfere with direct linking, then the affected URLs should be considered {{ deadlink}}s - certainly not replaced with the homepage as appears to have been done on DGM. Kilopi ( talk) 14:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

It appears that URLs in references have been redacted in a number of articles; for example in New standard tuning the "4th January 2010" diary reference has been changed from http://www.dgmlive.com/diaries.htm?entry=16478 to http://www.dgmlive.com/ in this edit This is completely unacceptable. In the article Discipline Global Mobile the comment:

<!-- DGM's Terms of Service prohibit linking to internal pages, e.g. this diary's entry, without explicit permission. -->

has been inserted in refs. This too is unacceptable. Affected articles may include:

• Robert Fripp - confirmed
• Soundscapes by Robert Fripp
• King Crimson discography
• King Crimson
• London, Jazz Café, England – December 4, 1997
• Trey Gunn
• Discipline Global Mobile - confirmed
• Guitar Craft - confirmed
• P. J. Crook - confirmed (now includes three adjacent links, each with unique link text, all to the DGM home page)
• New standard tuning - confirmed
• Regular tuning - confirmed
• Grooveshark - confirmed

Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Andy, the discussion linked had a consensus that it was up to the talk page to achieve discussion, because our policy does not demand deepest-linking. Your "unacceptable" has no basis in policy. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 16:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

You have cited no such consensus; nor is there discussion on each of the talk pages of the articles listed above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

As I said before, and repeated twice here, the link on the talk page of Robert Fripp leads to a discussion with informed editors familiar with internet/copyright law. Please read the linked discussion before replying. I never said there was a discussion on the talk page of each article. I wrote most of these articles, or at least referenced them, and so I am familiar with the editing discussions. Most editors appreciated my writing well referenced articles, when the articles had previously had almost no references. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 16:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

There is indeed "a discussion with informed editors familiar with internet/copyright law" - and they tell you unambiguously that the DGM ToS does not apply to us. There is no support there for your bowdlerising of valid references. Such damage is not appreciated. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Andy, for somebody who just added "brothers" to the article on RF, you have a lot of nerve taking this tone with me, who has written much of that set of articles.

Take it to the talk pages of articles and establish consensus. We have no policy requiring deepest linking, I repeat.

I will revert you if you add the links without first establishing consensus on the talk page.

I have requested and received images from Steve Ball, because I treated him with respect. Wikipedia could easily receive images from Fripp and DGM if we treat them with respect. This discussion, like the last, damage our ability to get images from DGM or the Fripp family. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 16:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

You refer to this edit; are you saying that Peter Giles and Michael Giles are not brothers? Or that it is somehow against policy to inform our readers that they are? In what way does that edit devalue the points I have made here? Also, appeasing article subjects; especially corporate subjects, does not justify removing detail from references. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• I see that as unacceptable as well. Referencing an article that way places the burden of verifiability on the reader, rather than on the author. That's not how a work of reference is supposed to work. That some websites have idiotic policies governing how people link to their content is not Wikipedia's problem, it's their problem. Whatever information is supported by references made this way should be modified with alternative sources, or removed altogether. Copyright or not, policies or not, as of now those articles are supporting their claims with the equivalent of hey, this information can be verified somewhere in this website, I promise! Good luck! That's so terribly half baked I have trouble believing anyone thought it was a good idea. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 17:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

  hey, this information can be verified somewhere in this website, I promise! Good luck!

  On the contrary, in all cases, I provided the exact title of the diary entry, which is easy to find via search facility at DGM. This is at least a stable method of referencing. One can also use Google." Did you have trouble trying to verify anything?

  Kiefer .Wolfowitz 18:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, WP:PAYWALL seems to cover this - if we consider a deep-link restriction to be a kind of paywall. Interesting. Maybe the best thing to do here would be to provide the actual full URL for precision, regardless of it being directly accessible or not. Most deep link bounce controls check for a referrer, so if I click on the link here on Wikipedia it will bounce me, but if I copy and paste it into my browser address bar maybe it won't. But you have to include the URL. The burden is on you, the article author, not the reader. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 18:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The links work; they are not being bounced, there is no need to remove the references. As suggested above, if they fail to work at some point in the future, they should be marked with {{ deadlink}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that references linking to a site's main address are insufficient; if found, they should be tagged with {{ full}} or {{ page needed}}. As for terminology: there is no such thing as "deepest linking". I understand "deep linking" to mean links to items, particularly media files, which are not accessible through the site's own navigation system. The example given in the article deep linking is IMO not well chosen. Deep linking can also refer to URLs behind paywalls, and I consider citing those URLs as good practice, as it allows those with access to read the cited material. It is up to the web server to prevent access if they want to, and AFAIK they do a good job at that. Lastly, why should Wikipedia restrict itself from using URLs which show up in Google searches? Seems unreasonable and bizarre to me. -- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 04:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm seeing a growing informal consensus in this section that the practice of not linking directly to the source is unacceptable. Michael, Andy, FreeRangeFrog, Kilopi, and I all disagree with you (Kiefer) for various reasons, mostly summed up as ease of verifiability, which is the reason we use inline citations to begin with. Inline citations are mandated by WP:V for material which can (and will) be challenged, and most information related to living persons will certainly be challenged. I.e., I see a policy basis for rejecting the site's ToS and linking as we see fit.

Let me add an analogy which argues from a different perspective. While Wikipedia allowed and has allowed the use of general references (usually books and papers), the days where the use of such is acceptable for a high quality article are long past, and now we cite pages directly. If (in the highly unlikely probability) a book publisher came along and said precisely what this website publisher is saying, would you do as they requested and not cite the pages of their book or paper? In a paper or book you wrote and published outside of Wikipedia? I doubt it.

And, not to cast aspersions on the website publisher, what if the publisher were doing this, not out of some sense of trying to preserve bandwidth (as I believe may be or is the case) but because they wanted to increase their search engine optimization, thusly increasing the profit they make from advertising income? Would you still agree with their ToS?... I see no reason whatsoever why we should agree with their ToS, and neither does their ToS make any sense in the world of the web. It's not our problem what we do with links to their website, it's theirs, because they only have control over their website. If they want to break their own links, that's their prerogative.

As for deep linking, that is (and I agree with Michael here) the incorrect terminology for this problem. -- Izno ( talk) 13:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

What's more, as is being discussed in the technical village pump, websites know where people are coming from. If they really wanted to, it's trivial (from what I gather) to have any non-internal linking redirect to their main page. Also, having this....restriction....in the middle of a large ToS written in legalese means that they are purposefully hiding this very unique restriction. If this were plastered at the top (or even perhaps the bottom) of every page prominantly that they don't want people linking to anything but their main site, MAYBE it could be argued...but 99% of Internet users would NEVER think twice of sharing links as they would with anything else. To restrict it on WP just because someone did comb through that ToS, and then go hard on people who didn't read it, well it's completely out of line. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ ( talk) 14:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Izno, please take responsibility for your actions. You did cast aspersions on the publisher. Apparently, you made this allegation without even bothering to see the site, which has no outside advertising (known to me). Kiefer .Wolfowitz 16:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Then consider it a hypothetical question, just as in the case of the book question. As it is, you responded to nothing in my post and so I believe you have little argument against the bulk of it. Ergo, you have presented little reason not to link. The consensus then is that we will be linking to the pages in question, regardless of whether we are granted permission; a consensus in fact echoed by multiple other consensuses (at the talk page of Fripp and at the copyright talk page). -- Izno ( talk) 14:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I asked whether anybody had trouble finding the referenced page, by using the search facility at DGM, and nobody has answered that question. Did you have trouble, Izno?

You did cast aspersions, without cause, and your allegations were not a hypothetical question, so I shall not consider your allegations to be a hypothetical question.

"we will be linking"---a curious "we", given your contributions to these articles, and seemingly a misuse of "will" (c.f., "shall").

Here is the truth: I shall not link specific pages until I receive permission from DGM. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 16:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• If there are no technical measures preventing external linking, there's no reason not to link directly to the URL. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

  Indeed. We are supposed to make access to the sources as easy as possible. Most limitations are for copyright reasons, and for some technical reasons like linking to temporal pages. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 20:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Summing up

So, do we have consensus to restore the full URLs in the references affected? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Apart from a minority of one, Kiefer.Wolfowitz, all other contributors here are in favour of using full URLs. Wolfowitz's proposed method of linking to a site's main page is at odds with Wikipedia principles and common usage. -- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 12:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I've fixed the links on New standard tuning, for now. It's a long and tiresome process; Kiefer.Wolfowitz should be doing these repairs. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

KW is writing articles, a practice he recommends to the peanut gallery, particularly to Pigsonthewing.

The policy was discussed with knowledgeable persons at the previous discussion, where consensus was arrived at. If you wish to change policy, take it to the appropriate page. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 16:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

This is an appropriate page. And your opinion has no demonstrated support, nor any merit that I can see. I'm surprised that anyone even thought their TOS was a serious concern in this regard. postdlf ( talk) 16:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Kiefer.Wolfowitz, your snide comments are unbecoming. I've read the prior discussion, and as I pointed out to you above, there was not the consensus you claim (you're welcome to cite it, otherwise). Indeed, the knowledgeable people in that discussion told you you were wrong then, too.Nor do I wish to change the mythical policy which you claim supports you but have yet to evidence. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Andy,

You are welcome to add full urls to my writings on Wikipedia, if that is consensus. I look forward to your collaboration. :D Kiefer .Wolfowitz 17:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Andy,

Further, I'm sorry to say that your approach has been similar here as it has been in past discussions at ANI and ArbCom, which have discussed various bans, which were supported by administrators rarely thought to be Judge Dredds of civility. Given this history, I have no interest in discussing anything with you. You are welcome to try to improve articles however you wish within policy. Good luck! Kiefer .Wolfowitz 17:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Please restore full URLs and remove any hidden comments directing editors otherwise. If the website owner did not want people to go directly to a specific page then the owner should redirect long URLs to main pages, which is entirely possible for them to do. Until they do that, we are allowed to deep link. Binksternet ( talk) 15:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I suspect that DGM is more interested in music and in not wasting their time with disrespectful persons, and I'm certain that DGM shall give the suggestions here the attention they deserve. 22:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Consensus at Wikipedia's Copyright-infringement page

Andy suggested citing the consensus at the previous discussion. Please note my statement of consensus and its endorsement:

There were no criticisms of it being unfair. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 12:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

What I actually said was "there was not the consensus you claim (you're welcome to cite it, otherwise).". This, despite all the verbiage dumped above, you have still failed to do; the consensus you have claimed did not and does not exist; and neither does the policy you claim to be "enforcing". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Shallow-linking is prohibited

In these instances, the link to the root of http://www.dgmlive.com serves no useful purpose. KW was editing links he believes to be a copyright violation into links which serve no purpose on Wikipedia. (I'm trying to write this in a way which assumes good faith. I'm not assuming bad faith, but English doesn't seem to have a a simple conditional past tense.) If he thought the links were in violation of copyright, he should have deleted the links and the material supported by them, rather than just truncating the link. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, the links are as deep as allowed by the ToS.

The detailed titles of the pages allow easy searching at the DGM site, using its search facility. Again, nobody has stated that they had trouble finding the desired page. Arthur Rubin, have you had trouble finding a page?

Kiefer .Wolfowitz 20:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, we are not bound by those asinine ToS. This has been made clear to you, above. Your "search facility" comment remains a straw man. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I did no say that anybody is bound by ToS, unless they wish to be respectful.

You are obsessing over the difference between going to their main page using the search to find the page or having a direct link. I ask again, what is the difference practically? To whom does this matter? Kiefer .Wolfowitz 23:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

No matter how many times you ask; it's still a straw man. Your comment was "allowed by the ToS". Those ToS can only disallow us to make links to specific pages if they bind us; which they do not. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The obligation to be honest and to avoid misrepresenting others similarly binds us.... Let us choose to be bound, the better to avoid vice. 09:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( talk • contribs)

The consensus expressed unambiguously above is that not only do those ToS not bind us, but that we also choose not to be bound by them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Keifer, if I cited a reference as "The Bible" and told you to search for the relevant passage, you'd think I'm daft. Likewise, simply linking to the root of a website and telling us "look for it" is daft.

Are we done with this charade, now? — The Hand That Feeds You: ^Bite 18:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

HandThatBites,

Your analogy is daft. An apt analogy would be to

"Exodus 20:16" or "Deuteronomy 5:20"

given with links to a hypertext Bible, with a search engine. Please consult either of the two verses, which are shorter than the articles being discussed, which apparently you didn't even look at. (I would have thought that young men had more trouble with next verses....)

Regarding your "charade", your complementary use of "we" was not daft but apt, but I won't be waiting for your answer. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 16:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd hope so. If KW removes any full URLs to replace them with just the domain name, he should be reverted and warned. If he then continues to do it, he should be blocked for disruption. If KW adds "citations" that are nothing but the domain name, he should likewise be warned that doing so is not constructive. If he still inexplicably feels compelled to follow that website's TOS here, he should simply not edit anything to do with it. postdlf ( talk) 20:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

"Citations" in quotes? Did you even bother to look at the articles before insulting me? What a lazy, obnoxious comment from an administrator, who should know better. Are you this obnoxious regularly? If you feel compelled inexplicably to be act like an asshole continue with insults to my scholarship, especially after writing the "citation"-paradigm Terry v. Ohio (15:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)), then block yourself. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 02:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Your level of belligerent hysteria seems to increase proportionally to the number of people disagreeing with you. Why don't you tone down the personal attacks? Reyk _YO! 03:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Your statement is incorrect. View the previous discussion at the copyright-violation page to see the majority of persons expressing views contrary to mine, in an atmosphere of intelligence and mutual respect. (It may matter that many of the participants write serious articles.)

Here, I don't reward incivility, personal attacks, AGF violations, and falsehoods---these being the key differences in the discussions. Any hostility is in direct response to such violations of WP policies. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 15:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The only person I see making personal attacks is you. And really, is making revenge AfD nominations respectable behaviour? Reyk _YO! 23:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

It was not revenge. It was a diagnosis of a policy-violating article. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 17:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

He also just went out of his way to downgrade the assessment of an article just because he saw it in my userpage list of articles I had created ( Terry v. Ohio, the same one he mentions above in his attempts to personalize this, which I created waaay back in 2004), and tried to start a pissing match on my talk page about who had contributed a better article. This is all beyond childish, and his escalation of conflict with everyone is not only a waste of time but completely corrosive to a cordial and collaborative environment. Could someone start an ANI thread to close this discussion given the clear consensus, warn KW about respecting that consensus re: the linking issue as I have noted above, and (perhaps most importantly) to address KW's conduct here and everywhere else his hostility has spilled over (my talk page, the AFD...)? I would but real world obligations prevent me from having the time right now. postdlf ( talk) 23:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Terry v. Ohio was not B-class. It had one reference (whose citation is a paradigm of incomplete "citation") and almost no exactly one in-line citation (or "citation", to use your term), which I quote in all of its majesty:

"On October 31, 1963, while on a downtown beat which he had been patrolling for many years, Cleveland Police Department detective Martin McFadden, aged 62, ^[1] saw two men, John W. Terry and Richard Chilton, standing on a street corner at 1276 Euclid Avenue and acting in a way the officer thought was suspicious."

For comparison, the DYK project requires roughly one citation per paragraph, apparently evincing a fanatical belief in WP:Verifiability.

Please stop personalizing another issue. Are you claiming that the article is really B status? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( talk • contribs) 18:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that's just... extremely spiteful and childish. Reyk _YO! 23:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Malleus reported that he had been frequently called "childish" by 12 years olds. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 17:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I concur with the above. This is verging on disruptive. — Hex (❝?!❞) 15:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

You fellows should avoid the vague "this". What is disruptive? Your concurrence?

Are you alleging that I am somehow keeping you from cleaning up your own articles, Hex, many of which would be rejected by even DYK as utterly lacking sources, having gross grammatical errors, etc.? It's pretty funny to me that somebody with the Nuddy Buddy article, which does remind me of a scene in Caddy Shack, takes this tone about my articles' referencing. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 17:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

You've found a problem? Why don't you go fix it, rather than engaging in pathetic battling and revenge attempts? — Hex (❝?!❞) 17:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you fix your articles so that they comply with policy? Please review the AfD policy. 18:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( talk • contribs)

Given that your AfD was closed speedy keep, it appears that you're the one who needs to brush up on deletion policy. Have a nice day. — Hex (❝?!❞) 16:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The article had no references and should have embarrassed you, when your canvassing here brought your friends to AfD. Now, it is appears to be a stub-class article, thanks to calling the community's attention to it. How are you doing with Nuddy Buddy, etc.? Kiefer .Wolfowitz 19:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I've created {{ Bad linked references}} for such cases. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

You tag-bombed articles without describing the links needing improvements, when at best you should have tag bombed sections. Please either provide specific links by editing the articles (what a concept!) or diagnose bad links on the talk page.

Also, please consult with an editor proficient in English before creating further templates on Wikipedia. I corrected this one, but I don't have time to correct others, if they are similarly ungrammatical and prolix. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 15:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

You have removed the template from two articles. You should not have done that; not least as you know which references it concerns. Your comments about my use of my mother tongue are unacceptable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Ummm... if he knows which references it concerns, then so do you. Why do you not actually FIX the problems you find, rather than just tagging them (which probably makes you feel good about yourself, but doesn't really help very much). Victor Yus ( talk) 15:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Bingo. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 17:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Andy, your use of one of my languages is unacceptable, particularly on a template that is posted on top of a good article on an English-language encyclopedia. You created your latest little toy just for my articles related to DGM, and then used it to tag bomb my articles---do you think that the community approves of tag-bombing? Kiefer .Wolfowitz 17:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

'Your' articles? Please read WP:OWN, twice through, before you ever make any more edits, please. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ ( talk) 20:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Please think before writing, Melodia. I own the copyright and moral rights to my contributions, which I license to Wikipedia. Before you accuse me of violating the idiotically named ownership policy, you should have checked to see whether I have actually violated WP:Ownership. Either cite an article where I have violated ownership or apologize.... Kiefer .Wolfowitz 22:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The issue that opened this thread has long since been answered and a consensus is clear. All you are contributing now, KW, is petty and irrelevant sniping. Unless you have something constructive to add, this thread is done and you should consider the linking question resolved against your position. postdlf ( talk) 01:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I answered a badly expressed accusation of violating WP:Ownership. Learn manners, Postdlf. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 02:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I've started an ANI thread about KW's conduct here; please contribute your observations and concerns there. postdlf ( talk) 18:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Moving forward

So at the moment, it looks like this:

1. If deep linking is, as alleged, illegal, then Wikipedia is in a very deep hole indeed because we deep-link on basically every article with a {{ cite web}} present. Additionally:
2. WP:ELDEAD advises against linking to the front page of a website. (I'm certain there's a more explicit warning against this elsewhere, but can't find it at the moment.) So as far as our guidelines go, the advice all points towards deep linking and away from shallow linking. And most importantly:
3. Whatever consensus was reached previously on deep linking to particular sites, there's strong consensus here in a general forum that deep linking is appropriate (very nearly unanimous consensus).

I think we're done here. If you still have concerns about the legal status of deep-linking to sites which prohibit such in their terms of service, KW, you'd be far better mailing legal@wikimedia.org to try and get an official response from counsel. For now, edits which remove deep links on those grounds should be reverted. We'd do well to find somewhere to point WP:DEEPLINK to ensure that this consensus is recorded somewhere prominent. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ( talk) 10:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Redirected to Wikipedia:Shallow references, for now. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

...which is not, as k.w. just categorised it, a user essay. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Is using {{ Comment}} tag and placing a comment on a an article considered vandalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hkn89 ( talk • contribs) 16:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Depends on the circumstances. If you decided to put it in the middle of today's featured article just "to see what it would look like", then yes. If you meant to comment on a talk page discussion and accidentally commented on the article, then no. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
• Commenting is supposed to be done on talk pages, not article pages. It's not vandalism if someone does this in good faith—that is, by mistake, or out of ignorance of the proper procedures here. If someone continues to do it after being warned not to, then it is either vandalism or incompetence. — Psychonaut ( talk) 16:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal:Disallow emails from new or non-autoconfirmed accounts. Set an email throttle to limit the number of emails that can be sent in a specific time frame.

Comment from the WMF: I have read with interest the discussion here and have spoken with our developers with regard to what can be done. I'm a little torn - we are definitely making changes, and they'll be pushed out shortly. I don't want to spell out, however, exactly what the changes are because that's a matter of just handing to our local resident troll a roadmap to defeat them. I can tell you, however, that throttling will be part of them, and that there will be exceptions for the use cases that I (working with the Arbcom, Checkuser, and Oversight teams) have identified which need access to high volume mail sending. We ran the changes past Tim Starling, who wrote the initial throttles, just to be sure we're not breaking something else, and also to find out why the extant throttles, which are set very mildly, were set to those levels. His response was that, essentially, it was a very conservative choice to avoid causing too much disruption, and tightening the throttle levels shouldn't cause significant disruption. If, once the changes are in, you feel that you have been impacted and need a raised cap, please let me know so that we can identify the use case and find out if there's an alternative tool that we can use. So, we've heard you, and we're working to make this happen. I expect some changes to be deployed in a payload very soon. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation ( talk) 18:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Moved from WP:ANI

See specific abuse discussion from ANI for context. NE Ent 13:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Did any of the other accounts start with "Nero"? In any case, disallowing accounts with no edits to send E-mail might be a partial solution, especially if the reason weren't given ( WP:BEANS). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

incident specific content not copied

(Non-administrator comment) I completely agree with the proposal that Arthur Rubin made. The addition of that new rule would prevent most of these throwaway accounts from spamming admins. However, I do wonder where the new policy request will be made? Perhaps WP: ARBCOM can pass it? I will message one of their members informing them of this discussion. Sadaam Insane ( talk) 01:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, it is generally accepted that arbcom doesn't have the authority to make policy like this, and we wouldn't need their involvement for this. I would support a policy like this, though I don't know how useful it will be because this LTA tends to do the vandalism before sending emails.-- Jasper Deng (talk) 02:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Not in my experience. I have received several hundred such messages, from about 30 such accounts. As far as I can see, none of these had made any edits to Wikipedia before abusing the Send Email facility. RolandR ( talk) 13:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, we actively try to avoid doing that. Hersfold ^{( t/ a/ c)} 02:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I should note, though, that the Committee (and the rest of the Functionaries) are aware of this guy and are working with the Foundation to try and find some more effective ways of stopping him. Hersfold ^{( t/ a/ c)} 02:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe there should be an option to opt-out from receiving mails from new-accounts.-- Shrike ( talk)/ WP:RX 07:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

That's one solution though I do not understand why accounts (new or otherwise) need the ability to send unlimited numbers of emails or why editors who have never edited need to be allowed to send emails at all.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd support a rule change to prevent accounts sending emails until they have made at least one edit (or perhaps Autoconfirmed?). However, we do need to bear in mind the fact that some people with few edits do feel a legitimate need to email - you don't have to be an active editor to try reporting a problem, and every so often a person with near-zero editing experience will turn up at a noticeboard to say "your article about me / my family / my business is a hatchet job, how do I get it fixed?" - I'd be amazed if some didn't try using email for that. Anyway, back to the point: If you need a bunch of people to agree before changing the rules, and it's not an incident or specific to administrators, wouldn't the village pump be a better place to discuss it? bobrayner ( talk) 13:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

How much leeway do we give editors who send abusive emails? I just got one from a new editor that I'm trying to persuade to stop doing original research. Dougweller ( talk) 13:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• One clear thing, in my opinion, is that those who make death threats can have their contact details released to the proper authorities, should the recipient inform Wikimedia. —  Crisco 1492 ( talk) 13:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

  In this case there are no meaningful contact details. These were obvious throw-away email addresses @hmamail.com (hma = hide my ass). Of course, Wikipedia may have an IP address. Hans Adler 16:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

  That's what I meant. It should be trackable. —  Crisco 1492 ( talk) 04:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

  I think enforcing this is not just against the spirit of Wikimedia, it would also be extremely hard to enforce. We could not allow email addresses from Google, Hotmail etc. nor any of the ever changing domains used by services such as Spamgourmet. The only way to enforce this is with a positive list, and that would completely exclude a lot of people from using the email feature. Hans Adler 11:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support throttling and restriction to autoconfirmed. ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 22:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

In addition to requiring a certain number of edits before sending emails (+ time delay so we don't just get 100 automatic edits immediately before the emails), there should also be a throttle. On Tuesday I got more than 50 identical emails within 3 minutes. There is no way something like this can ever make sense. Hans Adler 16:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• I can support restricting email access to autoconfirmed users. GregJackP  Boomer! 17:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• Definitely support - I was under the impression that this functionality was already controlled by some kind of role restriction (like autoconfirmed) until I started getting rude emails about AFD disputes from new users. I can see how this is something that would definitely be abused. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 18:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm wondering if we just need to put a default throttle on emails, wholesale. Does anyone really use the feature enough to send 10+ emails per day through Wikipedia, rather than directly to someone you know? — The Hand That Feeds You: ^Bite 18:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I support both quantity control (throttling) and a restriction allowing only autoconfirmed users. Binksternet ( talk) 18:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• has anyone made sure this is technically possible yet? Would be nice to know the discussion has no chance of being moot beofre proceeding. It would also be good to have the proposal being discussed copied at the topo of this section, since this is apparenrtly where it is being discussed, so that newcomers to the discussion are aware of what it is that is being discussed. Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• It should be relatively easy. Looking at the code for Special:MovePage for example, I see

$permErrors = $this->oldTitle->getUserPermissionsErrors( 'move', $user );

So it would be simple to add something like this to SpecialEmailUser.php and check for autoconfirmed. Disclaimer: I am a developer but I'm no MediaWiki expert. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 19:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• Proposal is "In any case, disallowing accounts with no edits to send E-mail might be a partial solution, especially if the reason weren't given" NE Ent 19:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I've added something up to top to ,make it more obvious what is under discussion. I have also checked in to the ongoing functionaries mailing list discussion of these issues. It seems the answer to whether is technically possible is "probably, but not right this second." So, we can make such a rule, but the technical implementation may not happen right away. I don't see that as an impediment to continuing discussion, which could take some time anyway. Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• Throttling is sensible. Anyone sending blasts of 50+ emails at once is up to no good. There may be legitimate reasons for a new user to use email, but I would support user preferences to give recipients finer control over who to accept email from. Kilopi ( talk) 19:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Every little bit helps, though the long term abuser who is particularly problematic certainly can find ways around it that even I - who's not terribly technically literate - can think up. A way to (automatically?) send notes to evidently abused editors on their talk page telling them that they can disable email temporarily or long term also might help - and not to email the person back. CarolMooreDC 19:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• I think I am more in favor of throttling than just not allowing new users to email.As an oversighter I get emails from a fair number of new users, and of course they must be able to use the OTRS system to request suppression. Admins also get a decent number of emails from pretty new users, and most of them are completely in good faith, even if they do not need to be emails and a talk page message would have sufficed. But there is never, ever a reason for a user to be sending 50+ emails an hour. If we can stop that, we should. Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

From a technical standpoint, throttling is a completely different problem than simply checking a permission. Just pointing that out since above I said the permission check would be relatively simple. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 20:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• I find it hard to think of a situation where a non-autoconfirmed user would have a really pressing need to use the e-mail system. When it comes to the really important stuff, OTRS, the Foundation, Arbcom, the unblock system and other similar things all have publicly disclosed e-mail addresses, so people can mail them from outside the wiki. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• I would recommend against making any restrictions, due to the fact that e-mail contact is an essential feature. Spamming does not appear to be at the level that it needs to result in any changes. Most e-mail clients are easily configured to filter junk e-mail. It is ludicrous to say, no spamming and we are changing our policy to eliminate it, but if you do want to spam us you just have to make ten sandbox edits and wait four days and then you can send all the spam you want. Limits on volume tend to forget about necessary high volume uses. Apteva ( talk) 20:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

What is a necessary high volume use? Especially for a new user? ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 21:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not like unwanted e-mail any more than anyone else, but any time an ISP puts limits on sending e-mail they always forget about and conflict with the legitimate high volume uses that exist. I am not going to go into details. Apteva ( talk) 22:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:BEANS does not apply, you are being asked to give an example of a legitimate high volume use. There are no legitimate reason an editor with no edits should send out 20 emails to one recipient in a 24 hour period. None. ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 22:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I am simply not going to give ideas to anyone, but yes I can think of legitimate high volume uses. Changing the limit from 200 to 20 will have little impact on anyone - but will also have little impact on the volume of mail received. If someone has a publicly available e-mail address, then no changes will have any affect. It is better to tweak the volume than to change the permissions required. I actually did not know that anyone could send e-mail if they were an IP user or had not confirmed their own e-mail address. Adding auto-confirmed does not appear to be warranted. Apteva ( talk) 22:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

If you are unable/unwilling to give an example of single a legitimate reason that new users would send high volumes of email through wikipedias email system then your argument has no weight. We are not talking about "unsolicited email" we are talking wikipedia's email being systematically exploited for illegal purposes such as death threats. If you can't see how that warrants a restricting to autoconfirmed then then I don't know what does. ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 22:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Just offhand I would guess that most of the e-mail sent by new users is sent for legitimate purposes, and is not of that nature. For example, it is commonly held, falsely, that all IP edits are vandalism, when more than half are constructive. But am I right that to send e-mail through the system you first have to confirm your e-mail address, and be a registered user? I know for me the "e-mail this user" link disappears when I log out or log into an account without a confirmed e-mail address. Apteva ( talk) 22:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

That is beside the point - since most new users probably don't send 20 emails in an hour to the same recipient. I would guess that a very large portion of new users who send out more than five emails to the same user are sending abuse. We are taliking about a throttle, not about making it impossible to send small portions of legitimate mail. ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 23:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• I think it's unwise to altogether restrict email access from non-(auto)confirmed users. Admins and functionaries often advise users to contact them by email, and I imagine that a fair amount of such suggestions are to rather new users. At the very least, I think we'd have to specifically exempt User:ArbCom, User:Oversight, and the like so that any registered user would be able to email them. I think the ideal set-up would be a correlate of semi-protection, of sorts: If a user is receiving abusive emails from new accounts, they can simply request that new and IP users be barred from emailing them... But I don't know if such a model would be technically feasible. I think the most important thing to remember, though, is that if we were to actually implement this (assuming there's no way to apply it selectively), we'd have to change the way several critical processes run, e.g. the Oversight quick form. (Likewise, throttling could also be something of an issue, because it would just mean that if someone tried to out a new user more than, say, four times in an hour, after the fourth attempt that new user would have to wait until they were allowed to request Overisght anew.) —  PinkAmpers &^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 20:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
  • As I just said, Arbcom, Oversight and other vital functions all have publicly disclosed e-mail addresses, so nobody ever needs the wiki e-mail function to contact them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I am getting very annoyed at this constant shoulder shrugging from people who have not faced this. Over the past 18 months, I have received some 1500 such abusive emails, many threatening, in graphic detail, what this person intended to do to me and my family. The emails are racist and sexually explicit, the addresses are also abusive, frequently threatening death or maiming to me or other named editors. The Foundation is treating this seriously, but to my mind not seriously or urgently enough; but some editors seem to be dismissing this altogether too lightly. It's not a joke , and we deserve and demand that some action be taken to stop this. It could be argued that Wikipedia is failing in its duty of care and responsibility towards volunteer editors here, by still permitting and enabling this constant abuse. RolandR ( talk) 21:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Yes, I agree. At the very least they should put a disclaimer that if you edit with email enabled you may well receive death threats if you participate in talk page discussions about controversial topics. Might not be good for recruitment of new editors though. ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 22:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
        • I agree too. It's unconscionable that editors are subjected to this to point of receiving thousands of them and nothing has been done. Getting 3 death threats in about a minute hasn't done much for my morale. Truthkeeper ( talk) 12:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
• I am not suggesting this is not a real problem, and I very much sympathize with those who are receiving these awful emails. I have seen a copy of one of them and it is not something any of us should be subjected to, much less fifty times in an hour. However, email is a vital part of the functionality of some parts of site administration, so I would hope for a solution that is not just a knee-jerk reaction to this one incident, awful though it is, but rather a more thoughtful and nuanced solution that does not sacrifice the ability for new users who see real, serious problems to discreetly contact an administrator, oversighter, or checkuser directly. That's why I think a firm throttle is a better solution. These really determined WP:LTA headcases are quite willing and able to become autoconfirmed if that is what they need to do to geyt back to engaging in disruptive behavior, it's a pretty low bar, but we can't set it any higher than that for access to such a basic function. Beeblebrox ( talk) 23:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• I definitely support throttling - there's no good reason why someone should be sending 50 Wikipedia emails a day, let alone 50 an hour. And on balance, I think restricting email to autoconfirmed users is a good idea as well. As Beeblebrox says immediately above, it's a low bar - but that means it wouldn't be particularly onerous for new users, while it would make it slightly harder for spammers and trolls to abuse our system. As others have observed, all the important functions like OTRS can be contacted without having to use the Wikipedia email system anyway. Robofish ( talk) 23:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• From a technical standpoint, both limiting to autoconfirmed and throttling appear to be easy enough to do; both are simple configuration changes. To limit to autoconfirmed, just remove the sendemail right from the user group and add it to the autoconfirmed and confirmed groups for enwiki. Throttling also already exists, but it's currently set very high (to 100/hour/IP for IPs and non-autoconfirmed and 200/day/account for logged-in users); that can be changed for enwiki, too. I have no opinion on whether this should be done or what the limits should be. Anomie ⚔ 01:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Those are sort of typical limits. If the complaint is e-mail from a single user then a simpler solution is to bar that user from sending e-mail. Whether the limit was 1 a day or 100 an hour, the only thing that stops someone from sending hundreds is to block their e-mail sending. Apteva ( talk) 03:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
    • The problem may not have been properly explained (possibly per WP:BEANS). The WMF/community, with infinite wisdom, has decreed that anyone can create any number of new accounts at any time (hidemyass.com is one of a million other possibilities), and each of those new accounts (I think) can send an unlimited number of emails to an unlimited number of editors. Blocking a throw-away account after it has sent a couple of hundred emails is ineffective. Johnuniq ( talk) 04:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Apteva, your comment indicates you've not actually read the complaints here. The individual(s) involved are creating multiple different accounts, both here and on anonymous email servers, in order to continue this harassment campaign. Blocking these accounts has not sufficed. — The Hand That Feeds You: ^Bite 20:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Hard limits on email are essential, as has been demonstrated in a number of cases. The above comment suggesting a "knee-jerk reaction to this one incident" is most unfortunate as it is a lot more than one incident (I hate violating WP:DENY, but search WP:UNID for "mail" to see a 2006 LTA case, and there are more), and it is not reasonable to describe a proposed response to egregious abuse in such terms. The situation should be reversed: impose very strict limits on email ASAP, then work to relax them in clever ways that allow more freedom while still handling the problem. The WMF is spending large amounts of money on article feedback and other feel-good exercises—they need clear guidance from the community that serious action is required in response to email abuse. I have seen a couple of real-life situations where appalling situations were tolerated because it was "only affecting a few people", and I would hope for a better response in this community. Johnuniq ( talk) 03:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• As others have said, people have been getting these sort of emails for the past 1 and a half years or longer, so clearly this isn't just one incident. However I remain confused about all the above requests for throttling. As I mentioned in the ANI thread and as mentioned again above, there is already a limit of 100 per IP per hour (and evidently 200 per account per day). Are people asking for a reduction of the throttle (some people above mentioned 50)? A new kind of throttle? Without clarity on what people want compared to what's already implemented, I don't know if anything useful is going to come from this thread. One particular problem I would note is the definition of a user. For example while I would assume it's easy to limit to 20 emails a day per IP, this may create problems with shared IPs. Yet as others have mentioned, simply limiting to 50 emails a day per account probably won't help much since they can just create more accounts which they already seem to do. Incidentally can someone from the WMF provide clarity on whether limiting to say 50 emails per IP per day would even do much? Or do they already change IP more often then that? Nil Einne ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks for this information. I had no idea there is already a per-IP email throttle. Let me make a concrete, complete proposal:

  1. Accounts cannot send any emails at all before they are confirmed or autoconfirmed.
  2. This is bound to cause confusion among new users who see mention of emails but can see no method for sending any. So we should be open about it. Maybe leave the email link intact and just disable the actual form (and its function, of course), with a message.
  3. Every account can send only 5 emails per hour per recipient. That should be plenty. If the recipient responds per email, they can simply switch to normal emailing as opposed to our form. If the recipient does not have email enabled and responds on-wiki, tough luck. This should be relatively rare.
  4. This is in addition to the existing limit of 200 emails per account per day, which I guess is intended to prevent excessive mass mailings.
  5. With these other measures, maybe the limit of 100 emails per IP per hour is no longer necessary. If so, removing it will simplify debugging when someone who should be able to send email can't.

  Hans Adler 11:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• I support removing email rights for editors that aren't autoconfirmed. There just doesn't seem to be any other way of restricting what is clearly being heavily abused. And considering new users have a lot of alternatives to contact other editors, directly on the site or through disclosed emails from their personal email accounts, the likely damage being done by doing this would be minimal as compared to the good it will do regarding curbing violations. -- Saddhiyama ( talk) 11:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• I support the ability to use Special:EmailUser being restricted to auto/confirmed accounts. In terms of rate limits, my suggestion would be for the rate limit for auto/confirmed accounts to be dropped significantly down to 10/hour to stop mass emailing (this also allows people to use the fuction to reply if they don't want to reveal their email address), but also (if possible) 20/day to stop those who are willing to wait it out for the next hour. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 11:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• I also support removing e-mail from editors who aren't auto-confirmed. Time limits are also good, and we should prevent e-mails being sent from certain websites such as hmamail et al. Giant Snowman 12:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• I agree with some that new users should have some (but limited) access to e-mail. How about a limit of 1per day per edit, plus 1, up to a limit of 50 per day? E.g. a brand-new user gets 1 per day, and a user who has made 10 edits gets 11 e-mails per day. -- Nstrauss ( talk) 21:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• If an outgoing cap is set for all editors, I'd like it so bureaucrats and highers have the limit eased/removed, simply because if we trust them with advanced tools we probably are also okay with trusting them not to abuse the email function. That probably goes without saying, though. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 22:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

  Note anyone with the noratelimit user right is already exempt from the rate limiting. That currently account creators, bots, admins, 'crats, and stewards (see Special:ListGroupRights for which groups have which rights). Anomie ⚔ 23:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

  For real? The only ones who are getting flooded are those exempt from any limits anyway, so changing the limit would only affect those like me who rarely get any e-mail (one in four years). Apteva ( talk) 03:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

  I think you misunderstood. When I said users in those groups are exempt from the rate limiting, I meant that those users can send as many emails as they like. Anomie ⚔ 03:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

  Yes, I was thinking this over and realized that must be what was meant. Apteva ( talk) 04:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• I don't see why either an autoconfirmed restriction or a cap (for anyone, frankly; the email system is not supposed to be an infinite address book for off-wiki communication) is remotely controversial. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ( talk) 10:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I feel, like many others, that non-autoconfirmed should be limited to 2 emains a day - I can see no need for them to send any more. They may want to contact an admin, but that only takes one email to do. Mdann52 ( talk) 14:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support a restriction until the autoconfirmed point seems like common sense. For those concerneed that it might prevent users in emergency situations from contacting help, that's not true at all as there's the OTRS address, the Arbcom one, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support whatever is necessary to stop email death threats, which shouldn't be acceptable - but seem to be met with tepid responses and shoulder-shrugging. Truthkeeper ( talk) 19:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support proposal; if we can't stop the trolls we can at least require more effort. On a small scale (a new user wants to email someone) it won't have too many adverse effects, as it will merely require the user to wait awhile and make a few edits. When it's hundreds of emails over numerous accounts, these countermeasures would be multiplied, causing a delightful increase in agony for abusers of the email feature. — Rutebega ( talk) 02:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support - especially after I got 2 today from Ineffableonline ( talk · contribs) evidently created a few minutes ago (17:31, 25 January 2013) just to email me about an AfD they didn't like. Dougweller ( talk) 18:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support. After I wrote a brief comment in the thread about Neumont University subpoena'ing SmackBot's details, I got an email from the fake account Lopsot ( talk · contribs), using a disposable address, containing the personal contact details of Neumont's CEO. — Hex (❝?!❞) 08:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Does WP:BLP apply to independent reviews of courts and judgements that are mentioned within a biographical article? Content has been disputed / deleted on that basis, but the specific content relates to non-persons.

/info/en/?search=Talk:Lee_Hsien_Loong#RfC:_courts_and_judgements_in_a_biographical_article

The name of the WP:BLP policy suggests it may once have focussed on policies for specific types of articles. But the text of BLP states "This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages." BLP policy should be renamed to distinguish it from articles that happen to be biographies of living persons, since the two are no longer linked and confusion is inevitable.

BLP policy should be clarified: does or does not apply to non-living and non-persons mentioned in an article that is biographical. WP:BLPGROUP suggests it does not. Without such clarification, BLP can be used as a tool of censorship outside the LP intent of the policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.254.108.209 ( talk) 05:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Just as a practical matter, BLP is best practice for all material at Wikipedia. No one should ever argue that unreliable, unreferenced, or otherwise wrong information is tolerable at Wikipedia in any context. The idea that bad information is somehow fine to keep in an article merely because the information isn't about a living person is a dangerous one. BLP is merely a reminder for extra vigilance when dealing with material about living persons, but the converse, that it's carte-blanche to ignore verifiability, neutrality, or other core Wikipedia values, as long as the material isn't about a living person, isn't the lesson to be taken from BLP. So my answer is this: we should always strive for having high quality sources, neutrally written text, and all the rest, in every article at Wikipedia. Anyone who argues it's OK to be sloppy about one's work merely because the text isn't about a living person is dangerously missing the point. It isn't censorship to demand that Wikipedia accurately and neutrally reflect reliable sources, or to ask that if something doesn't, it should be fixed. -- Jayron 32 06:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

We should always strive for having high quality sources, neutrally written text, and all the rest, in every article at Wikipedia. But such a 'high standard' is only one aspect of BLP. For example, in my experience the "delete first" policy "Contentious material .. should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" gives free reign to censorship as any statement can be argued to be contentious. Collaboration doesn't happen on content that isn't in articles. The iterative process where one contributor provides a reference with good material, another improves the summary, another improves the language and neutrality etc works well. It works well even though the intermediate steps introduce flaws that are ironed out over time. That process gets to even higher standards overall than we can achieve by BLPs de-facto requirement that every step be uncontentious, or be reverted. Sometimes to climb a mountain, you have to take a few steps down before resuming the ascent. Arguably, BLP articles end up at a lower standards because the BLP process requires every step to be sharply upward, and the collaborative process gets killed off before it can iterate to better outcomes. 11:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.254.108.209 ( talk)

Why do we have pages like Wikipedia:Peer review/Boris Johnson/archive1 (picked at random). Surely such discussion would be better taking place on the article's talk page, where its existence, and each new comment, will more readily come to the attention of interested parties; and be available in archives? Current and past peer/ GA/ FA reviews could still be identified, and lists of them curated, through the use, on talk pages, of templates that add categories. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article Feedback/Feedback response guidelines ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't hang around as much as I ought to so I probably missed discussion of this somewhere but how does Facebook's reuse of Wikipedia articles square with the GDFL/CC_SA whatever license it is this week? Hiding T 16:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

All anyone has to do to reuse Wikipedia content for any purpose is to acknowledge that they got the material from Wikipedia, which Facebook does. Beeblebrox ( talk) 17:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I thought they also had to release under GDFL/CC-SA if they transform or build upon it as Facebook does? Hiding T 17:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The data itself remains free to use, Facebook would have no standing to prevent you from copying the Wikipedia article from their site. They don't have to release anything else, so far as I can tell. Me including part of a Wikipedia article in a novel I write does not make the entire novel subject to the GFDL, does it? Or quoting Wikipedia in a movie? Though it's possible I'm misreading what you're asking, but your question was very vague. -- Golbez ( talk) 17:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I was under the assumption that if you used part of a wikipedia article in a novel, unless you could defend it under fair use, you would have to make the entire novel subject to the GFDL. In my opinion I would have thought that the way Facebook re-uses the material within their site is building upon it. However, I have read the full text of the license and build upon is not defined, so it's likely I am barking up the wrong tree. However, I have identified an area in 1(b) of Wikipedia:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License which points to section 1(f) that I think is an error and should point to 1(h), so maybe something will come out of this discussion. I'm a little unclear why the term "build upon this work" is used in the human-readable summary but not in the full license. Hiding T 17:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Facebook has millions of pages and you haven't given an example of what you have in mind but here is an example of reuse of Wikipedia content: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Milosevic-on-Trial/113947928615325. The bottom says (if you view it in English): "Content from the Wikipedia article Milosevic on Trial ( contributors) licensed under CC-BY-SA". They link both the article, page history and license. It looks OK to me. The Wikipedia excerpt is clearly identified in one part of the page. I don't see why the whole page (or all of Facebook or whatever you have in mind) should be released under the same license. PrimeHunter ( talk) 17:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

It's a common mistake, as some other open licenses require the entirety of the derivative work to be under that license. — The Hand That Feeds You: ^Bite 20:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure GFDL requires the entirety of the derivative work to be licenced under the GFDL. Although of course we are dual licenced so Facebook is free to use either licence. But the CC-SA does as well. In both cases, as with the GPL, the question comes down to the definition of derivative work. Our GPL article explicitly notes that. The GPL being software specific perhaps is better designed to cover a wider level of derivative works, hence why things like linking exceptions exist and the GPL and similar licences have a longer recognised history so there's perhaps a wider understanding of derivative work. But even so I don't think the wideness of Derivative work has actually been tested that well when it comes to the GPL. I'm not sure what exactly the question above is. But if Facebook allows people to modify the content they take from us, then those modifications will have to be released under at least one of the GFDL or CC-BY-SA or another compatible licence. This doesn't affect other content on Facebook. Nil Einne ( talk) 08:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I read a good explanation a few months ago, which said that the licensing is not infectious like that. Including one sentence of one image in a whole book does not automatically transform the whole book into a freely licensed work.

But I'm not sure that it's relevant, because I was under the impression that Facebook was just mirroring what's already here, so there's no transformation or building upon it. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 16:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I think there is a lot of exceptions in Category:Award winners and some deletions should just be discussed case by case.-- Inspector ( talk) 12:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

This si a very vague statement. This is normally a forum for discussing or proposing specific policies, not deletions or category maintenance. Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Isn't it specific? I am arguing about one part of a guideline.-- Inspector ( talk) 23:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• I think that in general categorizing people by award recived is a very bad idea. I think the guideline has served us well, even if we have way too many awards categories. I think it might be worth trying to actually describe which awards categories are allowed, but doubt we could come up with a workable way to do that. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
• Why aren't you discussing your proposed change to WP:OVERCAT at its talk page? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 16:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't look like that page is active enough, but I'll try it first.-- Inspector ( talk) 03:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I guess I misunderstood what you were saying. Actually I'm still not to clear on it. That may be part of the reason this discussion has not gotten anywhere, or maybe I'm just being dense today... Beeblebrox ( talk) 04:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Can it be assumed that while articles are not required, or even expected, to be created in their final form, all articles should read like articles from creation time? For example, compare this article creation to this one. I'm obviously biased as the creator, but I would consider the Medwed article useful in its initial form, but when I look at the First Parish article, my eyes just skitter all over the mess, unable to find the important information. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Geez, can't we keep this "Sarek hates Doncram and Doncram hates Sarek" stuff in the ArbCom case, where it belongs? -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 23:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Floquenbeam, I'd like to sincerely thank you for addressing the substance of my question without bringing irrelevant personalities into it. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Floquenbeam. Kumioko ( talk) 23:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

You wanted to discuss it so where discussing it. If you didn't want comments you shouldn't have posted here. Its also inappropriate for you to block out discussion that is critical to you. Kumioko ( talk) 00:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Well said. Most Wikipedia articles are shit. Why pick on one work in progress by Doncram? Kiefer .Wolfowitz 01:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Because it was a good example of an article that should exist, but not at all in the original form. To find a similar example on the New Page Feed would have taken forbloodyever. My argument here is that if it should be an article, it should look like an article when it's created. A new editor doesn't know any better -- someone who's been writing and cleaning up articles for years has no excuse. But this is not about me and another editor-- if someone can find two other similar examples, I'll be happy to swap them in above. What I want to know is whether there should be a consensus shown in policy to not dump obvious works-in-progress into mainspace.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

There are literally thousands of Stubby unreferenced articles. This one at least had some structure and references. Kumioko ( talk) 01:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC

I also think its better if you provide a link to what the article looked like the next day after the author did several more edits. It still needs work I admit, but no more than 3.8 million of the other articles we have here. Kumioko ( talk) 01:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree about the structure and references, at that point at least. One inline link to the official website barely qualifies. And my point is not what it ended up as, but what it started out as. Having veteran editors create articles that look like that because they can't be bovvered to put in the effort makes the encyclopedia look worse than if the article didn't exist in the first place. Not everyone can create first drafts like this, but it's definitely something we should aim for...-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

( edit conflict)Check articles about people or places from the Indian sub-continent. As for your original question, Sarek, yes they should, but not everyone works an article out in userspace beforehand. I do it, because it can take time for an article to grow to where it wouldn't be speedied. Most people, sadly, just go for it. Sometimes they even blank an article and put their article on top of it. See this attempt by Gururajeshji. The mind boggles, but not much can be done about it but clean it up.-- Auric talk 01:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

sofixit. Or ask user to move into their userspace and CSD it. Or Afd it. NE Ent 03:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

(ec) I agree with Sarek that the condition the George Hancock (architect) article was left in was unconscionable, but I don't see that there's anything to be done about such behavior policy-wise. It would be too difficult to create a set of criteria that new articles had to fulfill, and we'd run the risk of losing articles by being too discouraging of newbies (something that already happens when new page patrollers are too quick on the trigger and too harsh in their evaluations). If a blatantly sub-par article is abandoned by an experienced, long-term editor, as was the case here, that can be seen as disruptive editing and can be dealt with using the RfCU mechanism and, eventually, ArbCom. That, too, is the case here, and I think that Sarek might want to set aside peripheral issues involving Doncram at this time, since Arbitration is underway. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 03:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see this as directly involving Doncram, because any consensus formed at this time won't affect the articles he created before that point. I'm worried about the next instantiation of the situation. Arbcom is not going to decide on basic article requirements, they'll kick that back to the community.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there a policy suggestion anywhere in here? — The Hand That Feeds You: ^Bite 18:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia anyone can edit is going to have lots of short stubby articles. The article used in the first example is certainly not the worst example of these. It's structured, has a reference that proves existence, has information that a casual web searcher would find interesting and asserts notability. Besides it was edited the next day so that it got into this state, so not sure that the link you gave was entirely fair. If it got a couple of external references it would comfortably survive an AFD. After all, isn't that why Larry Sanger left? JASpencer ( talk) 21:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

This discussion was dealt with somewhat recently in Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_100#Article_creation_in_main_namespace where frankly a whole lot of personal attacks took place and never really ended up with consensus. Existing policy really is that articles only need to be factually accurate and perhaps a single coherent sentence of something that is notable. References aren't even required, but certainly could be encourages. An AfD shouldn't be the place to "encourage" the finding of reliable sources, but rather done before it is nominated. In short, no, I don't think articles need to look necessarily like the standard-form Wikipedia article upon the first edit. If you think this kind of thing should by policy be relegated to userspace edits before an article is "published", change the policy first. Consensus is not around to make that kind of policy change either, even though it appears several editors want it to be policy and even act as if it is policy. -- Robert Horning ( talk) 11:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know, there is no policy statement. I'm seriously considering finding the correct policy and proposing one, however, because we have a couple of New Page Patrollers whose response to frequent complaints about spamming tags into seconds-old articles�—often creating an edit conflict with a newbie who is trying to fix the very problem in question and who has no idea how to recover from the edit conflict—is to huff and puff and say that if people can't create a properly formatted, wikilinked, catted, and sourced article from the very first save, then they should be working in userspace because everything in the mainspace ought to be perfect and the NPPer's time is too valuable to have to glance at a page twice. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 16:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Policy is that Wikipedia is the place where "anybody can edit". That is policy, and it is also policy to not bite newcommers. Since the number of editors on Wikipedia is shrinking, it should be patently obvious that newcomers are being bitten and bitten hard. There is also to generally ignore rules, which implies that somebody who is being genuine about trying to improve Wikipedia, which includes the notion of being able to create new article as well, should be simply allowed to do just that. This is a behavioral issue as well in the sense that those who patrol new pages and run roughshod over newer users in this fashion really shouldn't be harming the project in this manner and perhaps need some further education. It is not policy to force all new articles to be created in the user space. Absence of policy implies it is permitted, not restricted. -- Robert Horning ( talk) 21:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Copyvio

I'm more concerned about the brash copy/paste demonstrated by Doncram. In December, he copied text from here, the history page on the church's website, and pasted it into the article. Internet Archive proves that the article existed before that, at least by November 2011. Hasn't Doncram been warned about copyvio before this? Binksternet ( talk) 21:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

What good are "categories"? I typed in the name of a category (American inaugural poets) in the search box, but the category page was not among the first hits (I didn't scroll through the entire hit list). It seems only if I know one item that is in the category, go to that item, scroll down to categories and click on the appropriate category will I get to the category page. Kdammers ( talk) 01:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

To reach the category namespace, you need to start your search with the text category "Category:" Without a namespace prefix, Wikipedia searches are restricted to the titles of articles. It can often be easier to find a category by first finding an article you know is in that category, then clicking the link at the bottom. Typing this exact phrase:

• Category:American Inaugural poets

gets you exactly what you want. -- Jayron 32 02:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:American Inaugural poets (poorly named and probably not suited for a category) was created a few hours ago and hasn't been indexed yet by the search function. See Help:Searching#Delay in updating the search index. Searches are only in mainspace by default. Search result pages have an "Advanced" link where you can select "Category". You can also select "Category" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-searchoptions to include categories in all your future searches. I have this and find it so practical that I would suggest it as default if there was a way to only show "reader-oriented" categories. PrimeHunter ( talk) 03:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

In other words, it's only good for insiders in the know. Why? Kdammers ( talk) 04:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Most people reach cats by clicking the links at the very bottom of the page, not by searching. That works instantly and is very easy. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 16:35, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Is it only me who sees a different article at Nauru Reed Warbler than at the most recent revision? I (J Milburn) rewrote the article recently, yet, for some reason, it's not visible on this computer while I'm logged out? Thanks, 148.88.244.176 ( talk) 13:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

You should clear your browser's cache. Ruslik_ Zero 15:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Three articles, The Leftovers (Australian band), Fun Things and Vampire Lovers, all received 'biographies of living persons policy' banners on their "Talk" pages. Recently, I have re-edited all three articles. There maybe still some issues thart are problematic. If so, I would like to resolve them. If not, could you please remove the banners? Dr.warhol ( talk) 21:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

That talk-page banner exists to educate new users about our policies, not to say that there is anything wrong with the article. That notice appears on more than half a million articles, and should be present on every article that is substantially about any living person. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 22:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Splitting#Procedure is silent on what action is taken when there is there is no consensus, does it mean the article gets split or remains whole. Does it make a difference if the no consensus is the result of a split deduction or a bold split that was contested. I thought that "no consensus" meant that the article remained whole, but another editor told me a contested bold split can't simply be reverted, citing WP:NOCONSENSUS which says "In deletion discussions, no consensus normally results in the article, image, or other content being kept." which I don't think was intended to apply to a contested split. So does "no consensus" mean the article gets split or remains whole?

Let me be clear, it's not the minor dispute I had with that editor, or the sounding issues I care about here, it's clarifying the split procedure. Emmette Hernandez Coleman ( talk) 08:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)While I do not believe that my comment will matter much, I do have a question from reading your comment. Is the article that you are referring to the article about the Prime Minister of the Palestinian National Authority or is it different article? The lack of that detail might be a problem in determining the circumstances of if the article should be split or not. (Though, I would say that WP:PROSPLIT should be edited to give instructions as to what should be done in those situtations.) -- Super Goku V ( talk) 10:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

No specific article, just in general. Emmette Hernandez Coleman ( talk) 17:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

As I read it no consensus to split would mean leave the article whole. In the case of a split, it is often the case that the sub article can be created and will stand on its own even if the main article that it came from is not split. This does though create a certain amount of duplication. Apteva ( talk) 02:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The potability of the new article standing on it's own hadn't occurred to me. This is the kind of thing that needs to be mentioned on that page. Emmette Hernandez Coleman ( talk) 02:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Be aware that some editors don't care if new articles split out can in fact stand on their own, they like to see everything in one place. Other editors see keeping multiple topics in an article as confusing and encourage splitting. Vegaswikian ( talk) 03:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

This issue is covered by policy at WP:NOCONSENSUS: "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it." So the general answer would be to leave the article unsplit. VQuakr ( talk) 04:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

We should probably add a note that no consensus mean don't split and that a bold split may be reverted on the parent page, but that it's not always appropriate to redirect the new article to the old one if the new article might stand on it's own. Emmette Hernandez Coleman ( talk) 05:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• If no one objects I'll add this to the page:

"No consensus, whether the result of a split deduction, or a bold split that was contested usually results in the article remaining whole. A contested bold split may be reverted, however it is not always appropriate to redirect the new article to the old as the new article may stand on its own even if the main article that it came from is not split." Emmette Hernandez Coleman ( talk) 02:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

With spelling corrected, of course... Apteva ( talk) 22:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to correct spelling or typos in my draft, but I think I corrected them all. Emmette Hernandez Coleman ( talk) 05:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

It's been five days so in the absence of any objections I'll go ahead and add it. Emmette Hernandez Coleman ( talk) 00:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

See here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

So it wasn't already a requirement? How come? Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 04:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Because it is impossible to begin with, and policy idea goes down hill from there. But it remains a good idea to strive for. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

How is it impossible? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

It should be encouraged, but not required. GregJackP  Boomer! 12:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

<!-- please do not add an infobox, per [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music#Biographical_infoboxes]]-->

<!-- Before adding an infobox, please consult [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers#Biographical infoboxes]] and seek consensus on this article's talk page. -->

I have recently been involved in a civil conversation about a Wikiproject note that was removed by a bot and then subsequently re-added by the project members. As seen here at the bot request there was a disagreement about this action. The conversation then was continued at WP:CM#Infoboxes (yet again). were the manner in which the note was removed evolved into a conversation about the notes meaning and placement. I believe a wider conversation on the matter should take place now. Below are our guides on the matter and what I think we should discuss.

• Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes
• WP:Advice pages
• WP:Bold

1. Is the information provided in the note or link provided inline with our current policies and/or guides on the subject?
2. Should a project be adding notes linking back to an "advise pages" showing a debate on a disputed matter?

The issues may be much bigger then just the note on the pages - However I believe the viability of the note its self is what we should talk about at this time.

have informed all involved about this post Moxy ( talk) 23:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Interested parties should note the related RFC from 2010. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that link - I was triyng to find it - one of the best example of non consensus here on Wikipedia. Also sorry if I did not notify you - I am not perfect :-( Moxy ( talk) 17:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

"Non consensus"? You got to be kidding, right? The discussion involved a substantial amount of editors (see [5]), including those "who do not regularly contribute to classical music articles". Toccata quarta ( talk) 18:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

What consensus do you see? The whole page demonstrates the division on the topic - that lead to a conversation about a special template because of this. At some point the project should try and give fruitful advise that is inline with our policies on the matter. But back to the matter at hand - Do you honestly believe that leaving a note that links to an "advice page" that is the opposite of our what our guideline and fundamental principles on the matter says - (pls take the time to read them as they are the consensus of the community). I am sure everyone has better things to do then deal with the projects ownership problems time and time again. Moxy ( talk) 20:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

No...not really. Thats what collaboration is about. The projects have no control over any article and the local consensus of their own manual of style is not policy or relevant to the article itself. The projects have the right to decide what they wish to accept in those guides that they create for themselves but cannot use them to force their will on the article. I regularly remove these types of notes. They are little more than an attempt to push their local consensus on the article and editors not involved with their collaboartion. Simply put...be bold and add an ifo box if you want. Create a discussion and work it out on the article talkpage.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 02:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

While talk page discussion is the correct approach, you can see at Talk:Cosima Wagner#Infobox the unfortunate result of trying to hold a reasonable discussion with people associated with that project, on such a case. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

1. There is no policy about these "project" notes? Is that correct? 2. If there is no policy about them they seem fine for a few reasons: they are worded politely, and they inform other editors about what likely issues they face (with other editors) in editing the article -- that seems more humane than springing it on them afterward. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 13:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Moxy that there has never been a clear consensus on the topic. I see 2 separate issues here:

1. the use of these notes - Although there is nothing against using these notes the use of notes in general on articles should be used in moderation. IMO, throwing these notices that X project demands that a certain thing be done or not done, IMO, points to my second point of undo article ownership.
2. WikiProjects showing what I would consider undo article ownership over articles - WikiProjects are supposed to be a group of editors working towards a common goal, not forcing the community to do things their way, often in contrast to the MOS and other guidelines. The above 2 examples being prime examples. WikiProjects should not and cannot tell another editor, or project (because in many cases these articles are tagged and worked on by more than one project) how things must be done. If they don't like infoboxes then that's all well and good but they cannot and should not be saying and leaving notes that they cannot be used on said article. Kumioko ( talk) 14:55, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it highly appropriate for wikiprojects to leave hidden notes in articles... they alert new editors to old consensus discussions in a quiet and non-confrontational manner. Removing a hidden note simply pisses off those who added it. That said, consensus can change... and there is nothing wrong with asking for a re-examination of a previous concensus (and if a previous consensus is contrary to current official policy or guidance, it should be re-examined).

So... my advice... don't remove hidden notations without discussion... raise your concerns about it on the talk page (or at the project talk page) and ask people to either reaffirm the previous consensus or modify it. Blueboar ( talk) 15:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem with that is, that once the discussion is brought to the articles talk page consensus is frequently gained by numerous members of the "project" voting to do whatever the WikiProject wants. I have fallen victim to that myself and as such have avoided working on articles dealing with the 2 projects mentioned above, as well as others. Some of these projects do not react well to non members and tend to be rather abrasive in discussions demanding their way or the highway. I do agree that removing the notes by an individual editor should be avoided but I think we need to remove them all, based on this discussion, from the articles and get away from this article ownership issue altogether. Kumioko ( talk) 15:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

To expand further look at the Ludwig van Beethoven article. Multiple heated debates have taken place about this issue and that article. The problem is that Composers has this big note that says per consensus on their project, however this article falls under 6 projects including: WikiProject Composers, WikiProject Germany, WikiProject Deaf, WikiProject Austria, WikiProject Biography and WikiProject Vienna. So this note, IMO, tells these other projects that their opinions do not matter and infers article ownership on behalf of WikiProject Composers. That is the absolute wrong answer and shows why these WikiProject specific article notes should be and need to be abolished. Kumioko ( talk) 15:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

In this case, the note is not pointing to "old consensus discussions in a quiet and non-confrontational manner", but is attempting to bypass consensus (reached at the above cited RfC) that matters should be decided on article talk pages, and instead point to a one-sided WP:LOCALCONSENSUS in what is clearly a confrontational manner. There are around 500 such hidden comments; too many to be discussed individually, as you suggest. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I have recently been working on some music articles, having never been there before. In two out of two cases thus far where I have come across these messages (one of each example above), they had been posted into articles where there there had been no debate whatsoever on the talk page as to whether an infobox would be desireable. These messages were clearly intended to mislead visitors into believing a consensus existed when it did not. The message refers to project opinion on biography (which actually states it is wiki policy to decide the matter on the article itself), but one of the two wasnt even a biography article. Sandpiper ( talk) 13:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Have you even looked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Style guidelines#Biographical infoboxes? The English there is really clear:

"current consensus among project participants holds that biographical infoboxes are often counterproductive on biographies of classical musicians, including conductors and instrumentalists, because they often oversimplify issues and cause needless debates over content; and that they should not be used without first obtaining consensus on the article's talk page. This position is in line with that reached by the participants at the Composers Project and the Opera Project."

You might also like to note that discussions on this topic have taken place outside of WikiProject Classical music—see Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 7#Classical artists and Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 7#Classical artists (continued). Toccata quarta ( talk) 13:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Have you read the text at the top of that page? It says:

This advice is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline and is not part of the Manual of Style

and it and the "consensus among project participants" are no more binding than an essay written by an individual editor. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep. It also says "WikiProjects are free to publish guidelines and recommendations but do not have the authority to override a local consensus on the talk page of an article.", which Toccata seems to have missed.— Chowbok ☠ 23:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The page I saw linked this project page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Composers#Biographical_infoboxes where it says "Most members of this project think that Infoboxes are seldom useful additions to articles for many reasons, including:

1. They often give trivia undue emphasis and prominence at the head of the article
2. They tend to become redundant (by duplicating the lead)
3. They can, conversely, become over-complex and thus vague, confused, or misleading, often compounding errors found elsewhere in the article, e.g. by confusing style and genre, setting forth haphazard lists of individual works, or highlighting the subject's trivial secondary or non-musical occupations.

We think it is normally best, therefore, to avoid infoboxes altogether for classical musicians, and we prefer to add an infobox to an article only following consensus for that inclusion on the article's talk page. Particular care should be taken with Featured Articles as these have been carefully crafted according to clear consensus on their talkpages. (See the Request for Comment about this subject here and earlier debates here.)"

However either one is simply a polemic making a case against using them and stating that the matter has been settled, when it has not. Sandpiper ( talk) 18:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes thats all well and good however, it still forces onen WikiProject's standard on other editors and projects that may not agree. So personally if I were going to work on an article and disagreed, thinking perhaps that an Infobox is a good way to "summarize key information in the article, so that the reader isn't required to read the entire thing, while trying to dig out whatever informaiton they need" I would probably just pick another article or topic to work on rather than fight with some entrenched editor or project over their enforcement of something that in itself violates 2 out of the 5 pillars. So this type of rule, prevents more articles from being improved and at the same time deters editors from participating and causes extra drama and potentially blocks, 3RR violations, etc. Kumioko ( talk) 20:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• One point with hidden comments. They can adversely affect the 'standard' white space in the article. This is distracting for readers when they are use to our normal layout. Vegaswikian ( talk) 20:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Moving forward

So after the talk above - I think its clear the spammed message should be removed - are we in agreement on this point? Moxy ( talk) 16:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Aye. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

While, your opinion is clear above, there are others who disagree, so this discussion does not show agreement. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 15:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I not sure I understand - we have 2 sides to a problem - one is based on policy the other on some local talk. At no point has there been even one policy quoted for the I like it side vs all the policy I have shown above. If one side cant provided any evidence then there point is mute - especially if its the opposite of our current policy Moxy ( talk) 17:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I asked about policy and the response was that no policy addressed these notes. Why would it be here at the policy forum, if there was already a policy? Alanscottwalker ( talk) 18:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what your asking here. The question posed above is should a hidden message (like the one below) that is the opposite of our guides ( Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes - WP:Advice pages - WP:Bold). Should the message below be allowed to remain in hundreds of articles - yes - no?

<!-- Before adding an infobox, please consult [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers#Biographical infoboxes]] and seek consensus on this article's talk page. -->

. Moxy ( talk) 02:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Those guidelines you link neither require nor prohibit for any article, anything with respect to these notes or with respect to info boxes. As has been noted above it is a service to others to make known what other editors interested in the individual articles think. They should not be forced to be surprised thereby because no one will tell them. No policy requires such absurd silence . Alanscottwalker ( talk) 02:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The links are clear - "bold" says editors should edit then see what happens (the opposite of the note). The MOS tells us the a talk must take place on each page. WP:Advice is clear on the fact projects dont have this power of ownership. Not sure you understand whats going on here at all - the note(s) on 500+ pages is telling our editors they must ask this project permission to edit the pages that the project believes they own - there is no discussion on the talk pages ...just a spammed note . Would you add a note to Millennium Park saying editors must ask you permission before editing that page? What's absurd is this projects ownership problems. Moxy ( talk) 16:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

When someone edits an article, it is only polite to tell them the issues they will face with other editors. They can then go in with thier eyes wide open, discuss it with them and come to some agreement, or go to dispute resolution, but there is no reason to just wait to spring the issue on them, because we want to pretend the issue does not exsist. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 16:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Your missing the point all together - why in the world would we allow a project to spread there conflict to 100's of articles they have not even edited. As an editor that actually deals with this problem over and over again I cant express how many editors we have lost because of this. Moxy ( talk) 16:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

They did edit the page of the article to tell others about the issue. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 17:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

LOL - thats the problem to begin with talking ownership of articles they have note even edited let alone the ones they have - nice circular argument that brings us back to the beginning. We are here looking for progress not stating the obvious - we have been dealing with this for years and are looking for a solution to a long standing problem - perhaps a proper essay on the proplem we can likn to not a page that then links to many many debates . Moxy ( talk) 17:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Your comment said they did not edit it, not mine. What this posting appears to be looking for is abject agreement (not progress) and a new policy to use in a content dispute. "Bold" is not a command to edit without discussion and nothing is preventing people from talking on talk pages. It is sad if editors leave over an infobox (not particularly understandable but sad), nonetheless editing disputes will happen to people and they will have to deal with disappointment some time. But sure, an essay is fine, a new policy adopted in the way policies are adopted is fine, a dispute resolution is fine. What is not fine is pretending that guidelines are policy, that guidelines are claimed to say things they do not say, or cover things they do not cover, or not telling people about issues that exsist. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 17:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I will move on as I see the misguided notes are being removed anywas by others that understand the problem at hand. Moxy ( talk) 15:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Are they? On a significant scale? Without them being restored later? Is there agreement to re-run the bot, to remove them all? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I have quite a bunch of said articles on my watchlist and haven't seen any removals. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ ( talk) 14:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand how a discussion by involved editors on an article's talk page can be construed as "the Project claiming ownership". As for guidelines in general: all WikiProjects have them, and they serve a useful purpose by presenting consistent advice for the presentation of a specific topic. If I come to edit an article outside my usual field, I try to figure out how things are done there by visiting the talk page and the main projects listed there. That's how I learned, i. a., how a cast list is written and how ships are italicised. I thought that's how collaborative projects work. -- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 12:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Since no-one has claimed that "a discussion by involved editors on an article's talk page is 'the Project claiming ownership'", your comment appears to be a straw man. We're discussing the application of hidden comments to articles,. where there has been no discussion on the talk page. Projects are entitled to wrote guidelines but not - as has been made clear at the related RfC - to impose them on editors; that is not how collaborative projects work. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Endgame

So, how do we resolve this? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Should be removed - only side of the debate has a position that is based on our guides on the matter. Moxy ( talk) 21:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Not so – several contributors above have agreed that notes to editors in articles can be useful. There's no policy/guide that prohibits them. Promoting discussion on an article's talk page can only be a good thing. Lastly: a "Project" doesn't edit articles, editors do; consequently, a project cannot own articles or be accused of owning them. -- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 07:46, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

You are correct in that some have raised a great point that notes are not prohibited and are useful to inform our editors. I don't think anyone here disagree with that assement. I am afraid I did not explain the situation properly. As the problem is not that there is a note - but its message that directly contradicts one of our main principles, let alone a few guides. I blame myself for not posing the question properly, thus drawing more interest here. As for who can exhibit ownership behaviour my years of experience has demonstrated to me there are many types of ownership. But as I just said there seems to little interest in what I see as a problem (as I deal with the newcomers that get bit) -could care less about the infobox.-- Moxy ( talk) 08:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Additional voices are needed, so that we can wrap this up, please. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

My feeling is that such notes are a useful thing, in that they draw attention to a consensus that has been reached. Given that consensus is how we make decisions, editors of a particular article ought to be made aware of any decisions that have been taken that are likely to affect their editing of that article (this avoids wasting time and provoking conflicts). Of course, the general consensus can be challenged in the appropriate place if someone wants to change it, and it may be possible to provide good reasons for deviating from general practice for a particular article. But it doesn't make much sense to say that this is projects trying to "own" articles - any consensus is only reached by the small number of people who took part in the reaching of it, and it would render the whole process meaningless if we encourage any individual who disagrees with a consensus decision simply to ignore it. Victor Yus ( talk) 15:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, the issue is not whether the notation should exist or not... the issue is the language of the notation. There is concern that the previous consensus that the notation is based on may be flawed. Remember that Consensus can change. I would suggest an RFC to revisit the previous consensus (if that consensus ignores policy, it should be revisited). Establish a new, updated consensus (either confirming the previous consensus or overturning/modifying it). Once you do that, you can decide whether a notation is necessary, and if so work on new language for it. Blueboar ( talk) 16:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

In this particular case, the comments do not reflect consensus at the relevant RfC. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

There seem to be misunderstandings in the discussion above. Editors have objected to one behavior: placing notes in an article without discussion on the article's talk page. The note creates a sense that there is consensus from participants in that article, when in reality the issue was never discussed by those participants. This creates a few problems; for instance when a new editor brings up the topic, he is often berated with messages about how a certain wikiproject has already discussed it and made a decision. Messages like that are without substance, except to defer to the wikiproject on how the article should be written, and so they discourage collaboration among the article's actual editors. There seems to be fairly clear consensus (although no agreement) above that these notes should be discouraged. I think someone just needs to step up and remove them, or hold a wider RfC or publicized discussion on the topic. Note or not, if a wikiproject's participants want to determine how an article is written, they can always do that by contributing to the article.   — Jess· Δ ♥ 17:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

How did the note get there, if an editor interested in that article did not edit the page to put it there? Having done so they have edited the page and participated in the articles development. (Also, there does not seem to be fairly clear consensus.) Alanscottwalker ( talk) 01:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

This is not a reasonable argument. Please don't be pedantic. Editing the article does not mean "clicking the edit button", and I think that was sufficiently clear when I suggested one could "contribute to the article".   — Jess· Δ ♥ 02:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

What? They are contributing to the article by opining on article content. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 02:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

They are placing a note, with no discussion whatsoever, discouraging other users from making certain edits. That's not contributing to the article, nor is it opining on content in any meaningful way that encourages collaboration and discussion. Very obviously, when editors are saying "they can contribute to the article instead of adding notes", the word "contribute" does not include "adding notes".   — Jess· Δ ♥ 02:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

That's an odd position to take when the original objection was that notes somehow run afoul of editing "boldly." People can put notes; others can edit those notes or leave them. Their purpose being to advise about editing issues of interest to interested editors concerning article content. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 02:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Placing an edit notice telling users not to make certain changes without discussion is not encouraging bold editing, and furthermore, you're suggesting that since other editors can change the notes, that means they are appropriate and so we shouldn't change the notes. I'm sorry, but I'm having an extremely hard time seeing this as a genuine argument, and I'd prefer not to engage it further. To summarize, we have guidelines and previous discussions which discourage this, and further objections have been raised by editors operating in good faith. Those guidelines, discussion, and concerns should be taken seriously. It is not unreasonable to request that editors who have asserted editorial decisions onto an article have participated in that article, and are open to engaging with the primary editors of the article. The only goal of adding these notices topic-wide appears to be discouraging participation and discussion. It would be fair to see someone step in and remove them; if consensus forms on an article that a notice is warranted, then they can be reintroduced at that time.   — Jess· Δ ♥ 03:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

What guidelines and previous discussions? It has been said many times in this discussion that there is no policy or guideline prohibiting these notes. Why would this discussion be here, at all, if it is as you now claim it is already decided. And as far as I can tell no one has argued notes can't be changed, the case has not been made for blanket rules, however. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 03:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

You seem to still be stuck on the fact a note as been placed over the real concern raise. Can you please address the meaning (content) of the note over your view of placing notes. Moxy ( talk) 04:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I thought I did in my very first comment in the first section of this discussion (13:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)), others seem to agree with those thoughts. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 04:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Lets be direct in the questions -

<!-- Before adding an infobox, please consult [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers#Biographical infoboxes]] and seek consensus on this article's talk page. -->

Is what is above in the spirit of Wikipedia as set forth by WP:Bold? Does it reflect our guide on these boxes and project behavior as set forth by the community at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes and WP:Advice pages? Yes/No? Moxy ( talk) 04:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

To recap: 1) The note was boldly added by an editor, so it complies with the spirit of bold; 2) Infoboxes are neither required nor prohibited by policy, so the note does not contravene policy; and 3) Editors can advise other editors of editorial issues they will face (and its also an nice thing to do), and that is within the spirit of advice pages. (And overarching, editing notes in articles are used on all kinds of articles in all kinds of ways, so it's within Pedia norms to have notes) -- Alanscottwalker ( talk) 04:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Good good we are on the right track now - You are correct it was "boldly" added and as per WP:Bold its addition has been disputed (thus can be reverted at will). Its is being contested because its telling our editors they must ask a project for permission before editing the pages in-question. It also directs our editors to a page (I assume you have seen it by now) that is also disputed and links to many other arguments. How is this helpful - in fact its not at all and is why we are here because its causing problem after problem. As I have sugested before an essay may help - but telling our editors they need permission when its clear they do not is nuts. We edit then discus - not the other way around. We are trying to keep editors - not scare them away from articles they may be interest in. Moxy ( talk) 04:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

No, we sometimes (quite often) discuss than edit. They are asked to discuss an issue on the talk page, that's what we do when others have a different content view. Moreover, editors should be able to communicate with each other in multiple ways, including notes. If there is no consensus for the note on the page, it won't last. But if there is consensus than it's just cruel to not tell people about it. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 04:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok good so we all agree there is "no consensus for the note on the pages" - as clearly indicated here by this talk and its many editors. Good good was concern this point was being missed by most. Moxy ( talk) 05:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Huh? It's an issue for that individual article. Here, there is no consensus that there should be any policy about these notes. This is not an article talk page. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 05:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Your joking right? Your not actually tell me you expect us to bring this up on the hundreds of pages the note was spammed to? Thats why we are here because of its vastness. Done with your curricular arguments that don't suggest any solution whats soever. Moxy ( talk) 05:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, you've been presented with several solutions for going forward by several editors. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 05:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

You are correct "they" have as have I. Going to move forward on them - will write an essay on the problem and be bold. Moxy ( talk) 05:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The note does not tell "our editors they must ask a project for permission before editing the pages in-question." There are articles about composers which do use an infobox. As the recent reinstatement of this note showed, there is consensus among involved editors for its presence. The practice of communicating certain points and concerns among editors via HTML comments is widespread and uncontroversial; their presence is subject to normal Wikipedia editing rules. -- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 06:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I see this "particular" note that was added all over as telling our editors. Dont edit yet - wait!!- first go read multiple conversations that are confusing and very long - then state your edit intentions on the talk page that has no mention of this topic before and wait for someone to hopefully show up and say ok - until then sit on your ass and wait. That said I agree with WhatamIdoing below. Moxy ( talk) 07:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

This is a fairly lengthy discussion already, and I think that the best course of action might be to have a separate RFC. One option is to have an RFC on its own page, e.g., WP:Requests for comment/Instructions from WikiProjects hidden in articles. Another, possibly better, option is to have an RFC on a proposal to change WP:OWN to specifically discourage hidden comments instructing editors to consult with a particular person or group of people before making a change to an article.

Either way, I'd like to recommend a particular format for the RFC, which is to ask a short question ("Should messages like this be permitted?") and to follow it with a two-column "for" and "against" table, so that each "side" can present its main arguments up front. You can see an example of this style in a recently closed RFC here. Perhaps Alanscottwalker would take the lead in writing for the defense, and Moxy could take the lead in writing for the prosecution. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 07:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I would be good for that as the crafting of a broad policy is not how one need approach it and will likely lead to allot of missed nuance especially in the format suggested. (Moreover, the note above does not ask to consult with a particular group, it asks to look at that project statement and discuss it on the talk page). Alanscottwalker ( talk) 11:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I am concern that not all understand the extent of the problem - pls see Talk:Hans-Joachim Hessler for an example of what we deal with - note how the same arguments here are there - time to fix this problem with a central discussion and outcome. We are here because the same problem comes up again and again and again. Moxy ( talk) 17:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Obviously, since you have not yet refuted any of our arguments and insist that pointlessduplicateboxes are "welcome additions to articles". Toccata quarta ( talk) 17:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Never said anything of the sort - and dont care about the boxes as I have stated before - nor have I added or removed any. We are here about a note - that happens to be about infoboxes. Moxy ( talk) 17:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments in that discussion (as well as many in this one) show a deeply uncollaborative attitude. It's troubling. I've seen it before, and I know how difficult it can be, and that it often drives editors away. The RfC suggested above seems to be the best step forward. Wider community input on these discussions should help, at a minimum.   — Jess· Δ ♥ 17:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

It increasingly seems to me that this discussion is a well-orchestrated (NPI) distraction, and the real question that most people are concerned with here is that of whether or not classical composers' articles are made better or worse by the presence of infoboxes. I suggest calling a halt to all the irrelevant procedural debate (something which on Wikipedia inevitably ends up going round and up its own backside) and trying to reach a new consensus on that substantial question. Which is also far more pertinent as regards the improvement of Wikipedia than some debate about invisible notes (NPI either). Victor Yus ( talk) 17:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how orchestrated it is as it seems rather unproductive and yes, indirect, but I think now you are right; address that issue directly, and don't attempt to bleed it over elsewhere, least of all EnWiki wide policy pages. -- Alanscottwalker ( talk) 21:35, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

We had an RfC; it found (among other things) that "WikiProjects... do not have the authority to override a local consensus on the talk page of an article"; which is exactly what the comment described above attempts to do. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Correct. So, make the change. If there's resistance, then hold a wider RfC or hit ANI, and then behavior can be examined.   — Jess· Δ ♥ 04:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing omitted something in his quotation from the closing remarks of the earlier RfC. Here are all 5 conclusions in full:

• Wikiproject Composers does not recommend the use of biographical infoboxes for classical composer articles.
• WikiProjects are free to publish guidelines and recommendations but do not have the authority to override a local consensus on the talk page of an article.
• The guideline on Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers has been rewritten according to consensus found in this discussion.
• There is sufficient support for Template:Infobox classical composer to be created, with a minimal set of fields, and added to articles where there is consensus to do so.
• Infoboxes are not to be added nor removed systematically from articles. Such actions would be considered disruptive.

Note that Pigsonthewing did not participate in that discussion; he subsequently proposed the infobox mentioned in bullet point 4 three times for deletion. -- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 11:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Mann jess: do you mean that disagreement with your point of view merits action at WP:ANI? -- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 11:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I linked to the full RfC, above, on 29 December. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Mann jess: the change was made; all the comments were removed by a bot; most if not all were manually reinstated by members of the wikiproject concerned. This discussion is the result. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I didn't know we already went down that road. Then yes, it would seem that a broader discussion is necessary. I haven't nearly seen all the talk pages or discussions about this, just this one and the others linked by Moxy. In those, I see a disturbing lack of collaboration; arguments, for instance, that don't engage other editors and just go around in circles. In my experience, the only thing that works in these cases is encouraging more participation from the community. VPP isn't highly followed, so yes, I would say try another venue.   — Jess· Δ ♥ 15:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Should Wikipedia's BLP policy have a section clarifying whether it is OK to state that a living person is speculated to have a mental disorder (either in the text of an article or through categorization)? I still remember the days when Wikipedia reported that (name redacted) was believed to be schizophrenic, that (name redacted) probably had bipolar disorder, and that (name redacted) was speculated to have Asperger's. It would be nice if we stated in no uncertain terms that mental disorders do not belong in articles on living people unless they are accepted as fact. Guideline & Policy Wonk ( talk) 00:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I hope that is not necessary. If you know of any article with that problem (in the article or a category, or on the talk page), please report it at WP:BLPN. There are a lot of ways misguided editors can find to violate the spirit of WP:BLP, and in general policies do not list every prohibited action. I am confident established editors would remove unsourced speculation very quickly after noticing the problem. Johnuniq ( talk) 00:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Adding it to the policy would be redundant. If it is supported by an RS then it can be added, if it isn't supported by RS it should be removed. RJFJR ( talk) 14:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Just being supported by a reliable source doesn't necessarily mean that the content is appropriate for an encyclopedia article. We don't list the physical illnesses that an article subject has had, even if they can be sourced, unless they are relevant to an understanding of the subject and such listing doesn't violate the subject's reasonable expectation of privacy. The same should go for mental illnesses. Phil Bridger ( talk) 20:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Since this post objects (correctly) to such speculative BLP-infringing material, it was entirely inaappropriate to name people above.I have therefore removed the names; they should probably be hidden by an admin. RolandR ( talk) 16:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's all very polite, but if you have major sources examining the question in-depth, then omitting it is a DUE violation. For example, there are many reliable sources whose sole subject is speculating about whether one of the recent American mass murderers has an autistic disorder or whether he committed murder because of another mental illness. Why would we omit all such information? Unlike the case of possible mental illness in some random celebrity (I would omit all such notability-unrelated speculation for both mental and non-mental disorders, and most non-speculation as well, because whether someone has diabetes or survived skin cancer is usually irrelevant), it seems obviously relevant. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 16:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to what Johnuniq called "unsourced speculation", as this is without ambiguity a BLP violation, not to mention original research. I was thinking more things along the lines of the old version of this article, where it mentioned that a reliable source had speculated Bob Dylan had autism or Asperger's. Since Bob Dylan is a living person, should the Wikipedia community decide it's not OK even if it is speculated in a published book? This is a tricky question -- consider all the press that covers Bill Gates and speculates he is "autistic" or "borderline autistic". Some would argue an article on Bill Gates would be incomplete without mentioning this aspect of his coverage in reliable sources (even though the sources make it clear this is speculation and not the diagnosis of someone who has seen Gates). Others would argue we must stick to BLP to the degree we don't mention any mental disorders unless they are formally fiagnosed. I'm on the fence about this one. If nothing else, the page WP:BLP should make it explicit whether speculation of the Gates type belongs on Wikipedia, since judging by the comments above it's obviously not something people agree on. But we can work towards consensus. Guideline & Policy Wonk ( talk) 02:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

 – no it isn't

Wikipedia:Genre warrior ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a policy. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Nothing to see here folks, it's not a policy and the changes have been reverted. Beeblebrox ( talk) 17:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I want to include an image in an article, and find an excellent one on a company website. I know that I shouldn't just grab images from other people's websites, but if I contact the owner of the site and ask, and they give permission, may I use it on Wikipedia?

If I can, what would I put in the copyright information for the image? In what manner should I provide proof of permission? — Kierkkadon ^{talk/ contribs} 20:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. In short, ask them to donate it under [ Creative Commons rather than just for Wikipedia. Grandiose ( me, talk, contribs) 20:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah, that would be the guideline I was looking for. Thank you. — Kierkkadon ^{talk/ contribs} 20:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)