I want to present a potential new policy creation related to and dealing with backlogs. It would also have a relevant "guidelines" page that wasn't policy, but a community guideline. The idea is to offered policy of what kinds of pages to add cleanup and other tags to. SO we can cut down on the one's that are added needlessly, and help put tags on one that really needed it. Also in the policy we could add in to remove cleanup tags when not needed, and re-date them as needed. Not only that but perhaps other things to help prevent major backlog, like work on older ones first. The guideline could be step by step generally instructions on how to properly deal with backlog. I was going through the "needs cleanup" backlog by month. I finished up the oldest month, and most of the one after that. However about 40% of them had been cleaned since the one's where added. Another 10-20% of the ones I went through were improperly tagged The rest where horrible and really needed cleaned, which I either cleaned on the spot and removed the tag, or re-dated so we could eliminate the oldest months of the backlog. I think a well written, well placed policy and/or guideline would really help only tag the one's that really need it and also allow for the backlogs to be cleaned/dealt with properly. -- businessman332211 17:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Most of the ones that you say don't need it do actually need it but not to the extent of others-- Ρhøenix - ωiki 19:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I realize that. But on some of them the tags remain, then it undergoes A LOT of work, until it looks good but the tags never taken out. Have you looked at the backlog recently. It's horrible. Not only are there a lot of articles need cleaned (just speaking about the need's cleaning backlog not to mention the others), but a lot I went through really didn't need it, and the one's that really did needed re-dated. We have months and months of backlogs that could be cleaned. A lot of times when they are cleaned the tags aren't removed and/or there tagged incorrectly. There has to be something we can do to clear backlog, keep it cleaner, and really give attention to one's that need it. It's not helping much of anyone with an article sitting with a clean tag for a year with no-body working on it. We need some sort of policies on re-dating older clean tags that still really need it, and weeding out the one's that have

• already been cleaned.
• Don't really need it
• Can be cleaned in 5 minutes and the tags removed

This goes for everything. The citation needed backlog. It tags 5-15 minutes per article to fix it so the tag can be removed. SO many are incorrectly tagged (for example) tagged with citations needed when there are citations instead of using refimprove. Other small things like that, would make Backlog maintenance and cleanup A LOT better. I love backlog, I have a great time going through and doing the things in the backlog's list. However I have ran into so many that were incorrectly tagged on various things. Even under categories needed, I went through 50-100 of those, and A LOT of them had already been categorized SINCE the tags were added, and the tags never removed. This happens a lot with almost every backlog. I would go to guess that about ATLEAST 40% of the total backlog was caused by incorrect tagging, not removing taggings when there done, don't really need the tags they are tagged with, and being put off while newer one's take precedence. -- businessman332211 21:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this isn't something necessarily a policy would help. Perhaps I need to consider writing an essay with my thoughts on the subject instead. -- businessman332211 21:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe people need a bit of encouragement that working on backlogs like these isn't necessarily a lot of hard work? That a bit of time spent trawling through the "citations needed" backlog can produce results, even without any hunting for citations, as you find articles that have already been fixed up but never untagged? -- Stormie 22:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes I am writing a big essay on it. I am just annoyed there is so much backlog over a year old. I want to find away to get some medium sized group working together so we can get "all" current backlog caught up and get to where we can deal with backlog as it comes (every 10 articles tagged for whatever reason are dealt with within 24-48 hours type of thing). I think if people are instructed on "how" to tag, "when" to tag, "why" to tag, and when not to, then we can help deal with the amount of unnecessary backlog is piling up, dealing with it faster, and keeping the whole process running smoother. I hate seeing the backlog for need's cleaning. I hope to work down the backlog about 150 per day (cleaning the ones that need it as I go), and so far I am handling about 20-40 cleanings per day and I am sure other people are working on backlog regularly. However I think if a group got together to focus on that, then we could deal with it. With a steady group of 1000 people dealing with backlog it could be caught up in under one month, then only 100 would be needed to affectively "keep" backlogs from getting over 1 month old (plus instructing the taggers as they tag when they are doing it incorrectly, mis-tagging, or mis-understanding the purpose of tags and what there all used for. -- businessman332211 22:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want a group to work on cleanup, then you're really talking about a WikiProject. You might want to check on existing ones, Wikipedia:Cleanup Taskforce in particular. Also, the Signpost seems to be running a feature each week on one WikiProject; perhaps you could volunteer to help write an article about this taskforce, or about a WikiProject you've started to deal with the problem because there was no existing WikiProject that did what you wanted. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Another, possibly weak, idea might be to contact the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council, which seeks to be a group which tries to deal with issues of importance to all the projects out there, and maybe check to see if there was any way to create a cross-project effort on a given template for a specific time. I can't know how many projects would involve themselves the first few times, but it might get a bit of attention to the subject anyway. John Carter 15:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, it's a passing thought. I jump from one thing to another. I was able to (with whoever else was working on them) able to knock out 2 months of backlog on cleanup. However I am interested in catching up all backlogs I can. But I am also working on other stuff. I might make a backlog related sub-wiki project later if no-one else does first. Now I amworking on rewriting the "instructions" for the RFA submittal and some other random stuff. I Created the basic essay I just want to build onto it for the backlog. I might just create a project for it, if there isn't one out there for all backlog's. -- businessman332211 16:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

So apparently I've gotten into a bit of a predicament. I was taking a look over at the Light Yagami article. And I noticed this:

It doesn't satisfy the notability guidelines established by WP:FICT. It's basically just plot summary, which isn't allowed per WP:NOT.

It has little no real world content, which is supposed to be the focus of the article. The L Lawliet article is the same. I thought that it would be best to condense the two articles and merge them into List of Death Note characters.

A similar experience occured regarding the Characters of Kingdom Hearts article, which I helped clean up: most of the separate character articles were EXACTLY like those two articles: just plot summary. So we condensed the plot and merged them all into that article. The exception was Organization XIII. It was kept separate because we were able to find real world content for that article (specifically "Concept/Creation"), and less importantly because that article was already very long anyway.

Yet, at this proposal, some pointed out that making character articles like those two is a common practice. And I have noticed that this is true: Bleach is a good example. Ulquiorra Schiffer, last I checked, was basically little more than plot summary as well. Ichigo Kurosaki, ditto. It's like that with Naruto as well. I did notice one thing however: most, if not all of those articles are B-Class or lower, and have tags requesting cleanup regarding in-universe perspective, merge tags, among other things. So what exactly am I supposed to do? What's the policy regarding separate character articles? I still feel that the two articles should be merged. If enough real world content becomes available for them, we can split them again. HadesDragon 00:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It is, unfortunately, common especially in the anime/manga realm but many of them have the same problems you already mentioned. There is no single policy that addresses them, just a combo of style guides and the policies already mentioned. The Wiki TV Project cautions that few characters deserve articles (and gives an exampled of an great one and a decent one) at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Television/How_to_write_about_television_programs#Characters. The Wikipedia MOS for anime articles ( Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(Anime-_and_manga-related_articles)) also discourages it, but alas, its mostly been ignored. So, I think agree, they should be merged, however depending upon the willingness of the editors in that area to get in line, you may have to settle down for a fight on your hands and be ready to WP:Be Bold and start doing mergers. If possible and necessary, you may have to AfD the existing articles, which seems to be the one way many of the character articles can be effectively removed when rabid fan objections occur. Collectonian 00:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I have another idea: When Death Note: How to Read is published in English, check for interviews regarding character development. The creator may talk about how Light was developed. WhisperToMe 03:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad to see I was on the right track, Collectonian. I'll be bold if necessary. But, I have a question: I'm feeling a little stupid asking this, but what does AfD stand for? Also, Whisper: yes, that is the kind of info that we're looking for, and I definitely plan to look into it, but as of now, the articles should be merged. HadesDragon 15:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD = articles for deletion :) Collectonian 16:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Well to be honest, the entire point of policy and guidelines is to reflect consensus of the community. Why not perform a consesus discussion on whether or not to allow "those" kinds of articles. Some are easy to provide real world context, where possible it can be done. However some articles (as you mentioned) aren't possible, So, perhaps general consensus might be to redo those 2 parts of policy to reflect "some"liniency. If we keep having to fight hundreds of those article, it might reflect a potential change in consensus. It never hurts to see the outcome of it. If more people want it than don't it's obvious it might be for the best of the overall community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Businessman332211 ( talk • contribs) 19:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I came across this issue while looking into a novel by Stephen King, Gerald's Game, which I have yet to read. While I feel no particular attachment to this work, the presence in the discussion page of a rating system that ranks works of literature on the grounds of them being more important based on rather arbitrary standards strikes me as a biased way of talking about works. If this is indeed an impartial source of information, the only goal for any articles on artistic works ought to be matters of comprehensiveness. While singling out certain works as important to world culture etc makes sense in the text of their respective articles, including a system for determining how low on the metaphoric totem pole a work is in terms of value strikes me as decidedly unprofessional for an encyclopedia. This is inexcusable unless the actual point of wikipedia is to tell people what they should enjoy and value and what is a waste of their time, rather than the impartial information. More impartiality, less ideology! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snyrt ( talk • contribs) 18:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Those ratings don't represent which works are the most important or most popular literature. They are used to indicate which articles are of highest priority to the particular wikiproject. Oftentimes that merely reflects the opinions of the members of the project as to what they want to work on next. Check the wikiproject - they may have an explanation of their rankings, and if not, maybe you can help them create one. Karanacs 18:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the discussion page for the novel "Gerald's Game" you will see that this book is low on the importance scale, which is explained here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Novels/Assessment#Importance_scale As you will notice, this chart rates works depending on their supposed overall importance to the field of literature, and gives examples of these various categories of important and less important works. If this categorization system is meant to put the books in order of priority for editors rather than ranking the books, I think it ought to be put differently, making it plain that the books are not being rated on their overall quality/importance in the world. User:Snyrt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.192.68.117 ( talk) 06:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You'll probably need to take this up with the wikiproject. Karanacs 14:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Project pages and the article talk pages are meant for internal discussion, "how the sausage is made". They're not the public face, they're how to write the public face. We allow anyone to look at them, but we don't show them off. They're not "to tell people what they should enjoy and value", they're to tell project members who are interested what to concentrate on editing. It so happens that many projects do believe that those subjects that are most important in the real world are also the most important to have the best articles on, but that's not an endorsement of those subjects. -- AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The importance ratings are only there to make it clearer to the members of the project which are the articles which are more or less likely to either be standard in an encyclopedia or are most "important" to their particular field. You'll note that their "top" importance books include the likes of A Christmas Carol, Dracula, The Grapes of Wrath, Uncle Tom's Cabin, Madame Bovary, and The Hound of the Baskervilles. The project has determined, based on their own standards, that these articles and the others at that rating are of the most central importance to that project. Ranking something as "Low" importance just means that, while all members and other editors are encouraged to work on it if they so wish, the project as a project isn't likelty to devote a lot of attention to it unless "difficulties" arise. Again, all projects to a degree have to do this. That project has 15,417 articles tagged, and triage of this kind has to be done when you're dealing with numbers like that. John Carter 20:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps if we started giving importance ratings to users, we could have some very lively discussions. :) - Crockspot 21:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey all. Over at Wikiproject College Football, we've been having a debate over one of our templates and what the proper use should be for it. We'd really appreciate it if you could pop over and give your two cents if you've got the time.

Example A
Example B

Basically, the debate is over whether this template should always be at the top of a single-game college football article or whether it should only be at the top of underdeveloped college football articles and in a statistics section in large ones. Please drop by if you get a chance, and thanks for your help! JKBrooks85 16:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

For many months now, WP:MUSIC has included a section on WP:MUSIC#Songs that is preceded by the announcement that This is a proposed new section, presently under discussion on the talk page. The conversation has been dormant for what seems to be about three months. On October 31st, I proposed removing the disclaimer if there were no objections, lacking any response at all, did so on November 2nd. Another editor has restored the disclaimer with the suggestion that the matter be raised here...and here I am. :) I believe that the section on songs either needs to be removed or confirmed; having it hang around on the guideline with the disclaimer can only be a source of confusion, particularly since the proposal is patently not "presently under discussion". Opinions either way would be greatly appreciated so that we can have this matter resolved. The discussion, such as it is, is currently located at songs section redux. -- Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The criterion really seems unnecessary and prone to the lawyering which the sub-notability guidelines already encourage too much of. ("They drove cross-country in a van and played in some bars, it's a national tour so we have to keep it!"). If a song meets any of those criteria there, it will more likely than not have sufficient source material about it to justify an article. And in the unlikely event that is not the case, we still shouldn't have an article. As in everything, we should reflect independent reliable source material, not second-guess it or write it ourselves based on primary sourcing. If independent reliable sources have taken little or no note of something, we should reflect them—by taking little or no note of it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that there is a similar problem with WP:Fiction a section on sub articles that has little consensus and that in the eyes of many contradicts policy has been added to the guideline. I think these multiple notability guidelines are getting out of control. They all contradict each other, in many cases they actually contradict themselves, and they are slowly turning into loopholes for established policy. I don't really understand why these guidelines are trying to establish what subjects deserve an article.

Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs and promo-only records are in general not notable.

Why is that line there? If a mixtape passes all the core policies that every normal article needs to pass it's notable, these guidelines are slowly turning into style guidelines. Another issue is sections like this one from WP:Fiction,

To a limited extent, sub-articles are sometimes born for technical reasons of length or style. Even these articles need real-world information to prove their notability, but must rely on the parent article to provide some of this background material (due to said technical reasons).[3] In these situations, the sub-article should be viewed as an extension of the parent article, and judged as if it were still a section of that article. Such sub-articles should clearly identify themselves as fictional elements of the parent work within the lead section, and editors should still strive to provide real-world content.

So in other words, and how it is read by most users from my AFD experience is you don't need to satisfy WP:V, WP:RS, WP:N, or WP:Plot as long as the parent article is notable. Ridernyc 05:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as one involved with trying to adjust WP:FICT, we completely understand that allowing for subarticles is a loophole in terms of notability and (lack of) inheritance, but it is appropriate when considering MOS, WP:SIZE, and summary style. However, most articles on fictional characters or other elements outside the notable work are certainly not written towards meeting MOS, SIZE, and SS, and instead were likely written because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS ("Hey, all the key characters on "The Simpsons" have an article page, that must mean its ok for all shows"). And because a lot of these are edited by fans of the works, it's very hard to convince them to trim, merge, transwiki, or delete such pages. The rewrite is aimed at legitimate cases where the editors of the page have discussed and tried other means prior to splitting off a section into its own subarticle to meet MOS guidelines. Mind you, I don't believe the guideline revision is completely done as we're waiting for a potential merging decision from WP:N of all the notability guidelines, as well as input and cooperation with WP:WAF. -- MASEM 06:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• We have a notability guide for songs. It's called WP:N. Most of the minute notability guides are the worst examples of instruction creep anyways. WP:N adequately covers 99% of everything anyways. All it asks for is independant, non-trivial, and reliable sources. Either the sources for expanding the article as described by WP:N exist or they do not. If they don't, the subject is non-notable, regardless of whether it is a song or a person or a corporation or any other random category you could put it into. We don't need more guidelines, we need less for clarity. All that is needed is WP:N. -- Jayron32| talk| contribs 06:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with most of what Jayron32 wrotes. Most of the sub-guides are not just instruction creep, but confuse and distract editors from the relatively simple core guidance at WP:NOTE, which provides some general principles to be applied across all fields. I note that there is already a proposal to merge the whole of WP:MUSIC into WP:NOTE, but if that doesn't happen then rather than deleting WP:MUSIC#Songs, I suggest that it would best to merge it with the preceding WP:MUSIC#Albums section and state explicitly that any individual article on a song or must meet WP:NOTE standards. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I have been working toward this goal for almost a year. There are three ongoing tasks: (1) intercept the flood of new proposals for guidelines, (2) merge superfluous guidelines, and (3) clarify and simplify those that remain. Right now WP:PROF is due for evaluation; for some time the core has been incorporated into WP:BIO, but PROF has not been redirected. -- Kevin Murray 14:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Much as I would like to see these guidelines simplified, & agree that WP:N covers the vast majority of cases, it's that last, small group that cause the most heat & frustration. Looking over each case enumerated in WP:MUSIC, I can either remember or envision the conflict which led to that case; there have been an awful lot of electrons expended arguing either that a suitable article should be deleted, or an unsuitable one kept. (This is something my five years on Wikipedia helps me see.) To paraphrase an old programming adage, guidelines & policy should be simple -- but not too simple. -- llywrch 17:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Llywrch makes some good points here about moderation in eliminating ALL sub-guidelines to WP:N, for example certain guidelines make SMALL and FOCUSED exceptions to the normal requirements of the Primary Criterion (reliable, non-trivial, independant sources), such as the WP:CORP exception for companies that are listed on highly notable rankings (like Fortune 500), or the exception provided for recognized or incorporated municipalities. However these exceptions are carefully thought out and narrowly defined for a certain purpose, and should not be the norm. I have never seen a rationale why an article on a song should be kept despite lacking reliable, non-trivial, and independant sources; this I can see no reason why we need an extra guideline. -- Jayron32| talk| contribs 18:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
      • I have seen some fringe artists that are worth being listed here have trouble satisfying WP:Music. I Have also seen total unremarkable bands make it through AFD because they somehow satisfy one of the silly criteria, i.e. have been a national tour with a notable act. The problem I have is not with the guideline being laid out and trying to clarify things. The problem is all these sub-guidelines are being edited by different groups of people, who don't talk to each other. I also think certain ones WP:Fict for example have been taken over by editors with questionable motives. I'd much rather see everything on one page worked on by one group. These guidelines over lap in ways you don't see at first. For example a novel is notable for the most part because of it it's fiction, but take something like World Of WarCraft, it has fictional elements but is it notable for it's fiction. Should all the fictional elements fall under WP:Fiction? Should songs from a musical fall under WP:Music where songs have their own set of criteria to meet. or do they fall under the automatic notability of WP:Fict? Ridernyc 21:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

A contradiction has been discovered between two guidelines: Wikipedia:Lists and Wikipedia:Avoid self-references.   To solve the problems this guideline conflict has created see Wikipedia talk:Lists#Contradiction between Wikipedia:Lists and Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. The Transhumanist 09:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907, there was an e-mail rumor claiming to have photos of the final moments of the Gol Airlines cabin. In fact the images are from a TV show called Lost. (Confirmed: I saw the images, and the show. They are from the show. 67.188.118.64 10:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC) )

One of the editors feels that reporting on the e-mail hoax is trivial, and that the sources describing the hoax, About.com (excluding the Wikipedia mirror) and Snopes, are not reliable enough.

About.com: http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_photos_gol_737_crash.htm Snopes: http://www.snopes.com/photos/accident/brazil737.asp

The talk page: Talk:Gol_Transportes_Aéreos_Flight_1907

I feel that the fact that About.com and Snopes report on this prove that the hoax is widespread and that reporting on this is notable and not trivial. WhisperToMe 23:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I would consider the hoax notable, but notability should NOT be the criteria here. What would an unsuspecting person think, if they recieved an email, and then used wikipeida as a refrence? Would you like to know that other hoaxes that have been disproved are on wikipedia, so that you can find them? I got the email about the rumor. I checked it by typing Flight 1907 Hoax into google. Hmmm Wikipeida didn't show up? I replyed to the email with the hoax link.

It would be more important for wikipedia to be encyclopedic than popular. JMFO 67.188.118.64 10:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

This may not be the best place to ask this, but an issue has come up with an editor who insists on adding the {{ in space}} template to their userpage. This causes their name to appear in the Category:People currently in space, which is not appropriate. I was not able to locate a guideline or policy about having article template tags on userspace, but in this case, it is pretty inappropriate. Attempts by another editor to request it be removed have not been successful, so I'm wondering if there is a policy anywhere I've overlooked that would explain this shouldn't be placed in userspace? Thanks in advance, Ariel ♥ Gold 18:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

You may be looking for this guideline WP:CAT#User_namespace. Karanacs 19:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that helps a lot. And if the person still refuses to remove it? lol. Ariel ♥ Gold 19:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

We could always work around the matter by editing the template to wrap the category links between "{{#if:{{NAMESPACE}}||" and "}}"; that way, the template will only categorize pages when used in the main namespace. — Ilmari Karonen ( talk) 00:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, there seems to be a matter of timing here: it's impossible to accurately self-categorize oneself as being in space by doing a Wikipedia edit, since there are no internet connections in space; ergo, adding the template is posting false information, on its face. We don't have to know the user's underlying identity to know that the edit is incorrect. (And, of course, it is forbidden for multiple people to use the same account, so we can rule out the posting being done by a different person, not in space.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The editor removed the template after being asked nicely, so this is resolved. Thanks everyone :o) Ariel ♥ Gold 07:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

What are the issues to be considered for Public Private Partnership in Education? What could be the different ideas for PPP for school education? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.128.95 ( talk) 03:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a question for the reference desk. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello everybody, I'm coming from the french wikipedia... I think the picture of Foxy Brown in the english article is not legal. It is said that the picture is on public domain but I think it is false... Maybe somebody should delete it ??? I can't do it myself... Thank you in advance Sylfred1977 17:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It's gone. The same editor had uploaded a number of clearly copyrighted images under false claims that he was the creator and that he was releasing them into the public domain. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 17:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

In my time at Wikipedia, I've noticed that most administrators will jump through hoops in order to avoid censuring an editor, even when that editor has been reprimanded multiple times and acted in a highly offensive way. Temporary blocks are not rare, however. My problem with this is that the administration is heavily weighing contributions while ignoring the extreme damage that can be caused by editors that have gotten out of control. I have seen threats against other users, dozens of puppets made, blatant personal attacks, and more, all from a single user. And yet this person continues to edit. I do not wish to speak their name because this has more to do with general policy that a single person. I think this hands-off policy is a sign of weakness among the admins and it will only lead to continuing problems on the site. We cannot ignore this kind of behavior — we are practically condoning it. I am a forgiving person and am willing to give second (and likely more) chances, but I would not let things get out of hand like this. No single editor's contribution to Wikipedia is invaluable in my opinion, not to the point where any type of offensive conduct from them would be overlooked. Editing Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right. - Cyborg Ninja 21:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I partially disagree, and partially agree. I believe a lot of user's get a way with alot. However a certain percentage of them are because they are unaware it's against policy. I believe there is a difference when it's blatant bad faith (replacing a page to say wikipedia is for f*ers for example. Or going to a user's talk page and cussing them out (apparently bad faith). Those are the one's I think need swift dealings,because it's obviously intentional, but for any other situation it's hard to tell, and the rule (assume good faith) should all ways be assumed. Admins I think however do a great job of discipline, but you have to remember there are millions if not billions of global user's, and only around 2,000 something administrators. That is enough to say in the least, and probably about 2-300 of those admins get recalled and/or disciplined themselves (not sure about this but I see a huge list of complaints on various admins in one of the requests pages). Either way, I think that the current policies do a good job of discipline, or did you have any advice on something specific you were presenting. I saw your view above, but no real "ideas" on how current policies, disciplinary dealings could be improved? -- businessman332211 17:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there are many users who just aren't aware of the policies, but like you said, there are others who blatantly violate them or just don't care in order to flame someone. I give leeway in arguments between users, but I've seen those that have gotten out of hand to the point of threats of stalking and even violence — and the user doesn't get a banning. I think you're thinking about less-serious cases, but I mean really vile, hateful stuff here, and not from some little kid who thinks curse words are funny. I do have to give props to the overall system here, too. The general atmosphere here is one of congeniality and professionalism, and that is extremely rare on an Internet forum. My advice is for administrators to be stricter and to deal account bannings more often than they currently do, and not to feel ashamed about it. Users typically get many warnings (even from other editors) on their behavior before any serious action is taken. - If we get rid of contributors who are offensive and spiteful, then Wikipedia will be an even better place. Cyborg Ninja 20:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Unless you're willing to name names and get specific, it's very difficult to have this conversation. Yes, we need to do something when somebody is causing more problems than they're worth; no, it's not very easy to establish any precise distinction by which we can decide to act or not. Specific examples are pretty much a must, here. – Luna Santin ( talk) 08:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

If he talking about the person I'm thinking of, I'd suggest he stay away from naming names. There are enough people who will overlook any offense due to doing "some" good edits. I have seen too many issues with people who simply are nasty or mean-spirited (or more often passive-aggressive which is the most difficult to work with) but nobody wants to punish because of the number of edits they've done. I think most admins (most people really) take a "let's weigh the good versus the bad" attitude as opposed to a "here is the general standard of conduct to follow; don't meet that and be gone" attitude. Unfortunately, that's just the way the world works; if you do some good, you have more leeway (why infinite blocks for vandalism-only accounts are allowed and not if there were some good edits) because people are willing to overlook all the negative and assume people will change for the better (like that a person will learn not to use curse words in their edit summaries, even if they aren't blocked). My biggest problem is allowing people who have used sockpuppets; for a system that is supposed to be built on consensus to allow users who use sockpuppets to get their way (or worse), it just goes against its fundamental core. Actually, I always find it funny how much times we see a block conducted and WP:AN or WP:ANI is filled with "I think the block was excessive, I think the block indicates the following; I think the block will have the following effect" all without the person being blocked doing anything like, I don't know, apologizing or promising not to do it again. THAT doesn't teach people anything. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 08:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Ricky. I think we're on the same page here about the person I have in mind, though it's not limited to that one person. However, I don't agree with the real world outside the Internet being like that. If you screw up in reality, any good you've done is likely to be ignored. Especially if you're a celebrity, or politician, or someone else in the public eye. This is a serious problem. We can't just ignore someone's bad conduct because of any good edits they've made. BTW, in the case of the person Ricky's thinking of, most of their edits are just mindless citation tags of articles. If you do want me to name names, we should probably discuss this privately. - Cyborg Ninja 20:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I don’t understand how to write an article neither copying from sources (paraphrasing is disallowed too) or creating Original Research. Please point me to Wikipedia guidelines on how to cope with both these issues simultaneously. Thanks. Dhammapal 08:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, where is paraphrasing disallowed? If by paraphrasing you mean that your source says "In the year XXXX a cataclysmic event hit the town of Springfield when the volcano erupted" and you paraphrase to say "In XXXX, Springfield was affected when the volcano erupted. <ref> Source </ref> ." You can't use word for word plagiarizing but you can take take the narrative of the source and rely it back in your own words and give due attribution to where you got the information from. Original Research would be more along the lines of saying "The single most important event in Springfield's history was in XXXX when the volcano erupted." Hope that helps. Agne ^Cheese/ ^Wine 08:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

A more abstract way to think of it is that facts aren't copyrightable, but the manner of presentation of facts is. The best approach is to find good sources, whittle out the facts from those sources, and then present those facts following the Wikipedia Manual of Style. The only time you should be actually quoting is if you're actually discussing the source itself, rather than the subject of the source. -- SB_Johnny | ^talk 13:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I run into this problem all of the time, due to the subject area I focus on: Ethiopian history. (Question to prove my point: how many books on Ethiopian history does your public library have? Residents of NYC need not answer.) Right now, Tekle Giyorgis I of Ethiopia is, AFAIK, the best account of his life available. This is not because I am a wonderful researcher/writer, but because most history books either dismiss him in a few sentences or ignore him entirely. (The exception is the massive history of Ethiopia written by E. A. Wallis Budge, who covers the Emperor's reign in a few pages -- & he did an embarassingly sloppy job on the subject.) The secret is to let the facts speak for themselves, much as Agne7 recommends above; avoid trying to express an opinion or on the subject, but if you must either find an authority to quote or use the conditional. -- llywrch 20:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the excellent advice Agne and Johnny.

I misunderstood CorenSearchBot’s direction:

Replace the copyright text with your own work. Note that simply modified or rephrased text is still an infringement — to remove the copyrighted contents you will need to completely remove them and then write totally new text to replace it.

Paraphrase is different to rephrase right? Dhammapal 10:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It depends on the extent of the rephrasing. As suggested above, simply distilling out the facts and presenting them in your own words is not an infringement, and doing so from multiple sources makes this even less likely. On the other hand, slight grammatical or syntax changes from the original make the "new" version considered, for all intents and purposes, the same as an exact copy. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

First time I've posted here, i think, so just interested in some general reaction to this essay: WP:TROLL? No more bongos 08:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Tut, tut, tut, far too concise and comprehensible! I read it six times before realising there were no sub-clauses or qualifying comments at all! Small wonder you haven't shown yourself around here before... ;~) LessHeard vanU 16:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The current practice is that personal essays belong in userspace, not projectspace, per Category:Wikipedia essays. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh! How do I move my essay, and get it categorised? I confess I got a little confused when attempting to find out originally. LessHeard vanU 22:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

My honest view is it seems a bit unneccessary. We already have WP:AGF which means we shouldn't call editors anything. But is describing people as something different to calling them something? Depends on the context. I suspect that if there were a reason to describe behaviour as the behavior of a troll, we'd get pounced on for calling someone a troll. Next we can't use the word vandal, nor sock puppet, nor vanity, nor anything. We move to the land of weasel words. Most editors strive for kindness. I certainly don't plan to call anyone troll or anything else. I just think the general guidelines are more helpful than lists of specifics. Too many specifics are ammunition for the trolls! BTW WP:TROLL already has a redirect. Obina 14:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The Television Stations Project has been dealing with a persistent vandal, Dingbat2007 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), for over three months. The vandal was indef blocked, but began creating numerous sockpuppets, both as anonymous IP addresses (until reported to his ISP for abuse) and as registered users. See list of nearly 30 sockpuppets. This user has now been effectively community banned - when a sockpuppet is discovered, edits are reverted on sight without regard to merit and the username is reported to the admins with the result universally being an indef block. No admin has been willing to undo the blocks, for which we are grateful. However, the constant reverting is getting tiresome; does anyone know of any other recourse that we have, or have we pretty much exhausted our options? Although the user has effectively been banned, there is no formal ban in place on this user, nor am I sure what benefit there would be with a formal ban. Ideas? dhett ^{( talk • contribs)} 22:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Not sure how it is done, or who might do it, but how about seeing if the underlying ip address is static? If so, indef block that addy - problem solved. (or am I just stating the obvious that you have already considered?) Sprotecting the article will limit the ip's and new users - but you will have to judge the effect on other contributors. LessHeard vanU 23:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll have to look into the underlying IP address. I doubt I have access to that and I can't remember if I'd asked help from the admins on identifying that or not. RE: sprotecting - this guy sometimes touches 50-100 articles in a single session, so any steps to protect articles have a potential negative impact to a lot of good-faith editors. The last couple of times, I've caught him red-handed, limiting the damage to 10 articles or less. The only good thing is the guy is predictable, making him fairly easy to watch. dhett ^{( talk • contribs)} 02:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want someone to identify and block the underlying IP, go to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser#Requests for IP check and file a request there. Hut 8.5 12:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks to both of you for the tips. dhett ^{( talk • contribs)} 22:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I wrote an article Hyde Amendment (1997) today and another article Barry Cohen (attorney) that is linked to the first one. Another person cleaned up the Barry Cohen article. I have submitted them as a two-for DYK. Someone has put a {{limited}} tag on the Barry Cohen article. I am not sure what I can do to make it less limited. Would you take a look at it and advise me what to do to fix it? Thanks! Mattisse 02:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I visited it, fixed some formatting, and removed some of the most inappropriate references (forum postings and blogs are not a valid source; the op ed pieces are also questionable). If Mr. Cohen is notable, perhaps search for better sources? Almost all of the sources come from the same online site, which would validate the limited point of view, while some of the others are not news articles but opinion pieces, rants, etc. The over all tone does not quite fit with an encyclopedic article and could use some copy editing. A quick web search doesn't seem to bring up a lot of information about Barry Cohen, beyond mostly bloggy or otherwise unreliable sources, making me wonder if he meets notability requirements? Collectonian 03:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. He is extremely well known but a behind the scenes type of guy. Not the Ellis Rubin type, coining media-grabbing defenses but wins many more high-profile cases, and in contrast to Rubin, Cohen never loses a case. The person who put the tag on the article removed it, I noticed. I'm basically using Cohen for the Hyde Amendment (1997) article as Cohen is one of the very few attorneys (actually I have not found another) who managed to win any money under that amendment, and Cohen won $2.9 million compensation, somewhat more than the goverment's offer of $250,000. I have asked the legal people to find another lawyer who has won a case under it. -- Mattisse 14:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, Wikipedia has a policy of mentioning the sexual orientation of celebrities who are known to be non-heterosexual. But celebrities known to be heterosexual/straight do not appear to have this information included.

While I can understand that heterosexuality is of little interest to anyone — what makes the other sexualities more interesting and more worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia?

There are many personal details about celebrities that most people would surely consider irrelevant to their public status, and unnecessary of inclusion in Wikipedia, such as their shoe size, hair colour, left-handedness, weight, race, etc. I don't see why their sexual preferences are any more relevant.

It may be relevant if the celebrity's sex life, or sexuality itself, are of particular relevance to their celebrity status or somehow feature in their work. In which case, the disclosure of their sexuality should surely be mentioned in relation to that, rather than in isolation.

So, rather than saying:

"Sarah is openly gay."

The article should say:

"Sarah is openly gay, her homosexuality playing a large part of her humour and often being the subject of public attention."

If the celebrity's homosexuality (or bisexuality) isn't actually relevant to their fame at all, it surely need not be specifically mentioned:

"Sarah has had numerous girlfriends, some of whom have appeared on the show with her." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grand Dizzy ( talk • contribs) 22:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I've always found this interesting, especially since there are no categories for straight people, but there are GLBTs. Perhaps its because heterosexuality is deemed "the norm", and not being "normal" is notable enough to discuss. SashaCall ^{( Sign!)}/_{( Talk!)} 22:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. How one perceives the whole issue aside, "I'm gay" simply carries more notability than "I'm straight" in most cases (a gay man suddenly saying the latter might be an exception). It might be a different story when the media dismisses it as commonplace. — Someguy0830 ( T | C) 22:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

We make mentions of people who were adopted ( Category:Adoptees and its well-populated sub-categories) even when that fact has little signifiance to the subject's notability. We don't make mention of people who were not adopted, nor do we say that a politician won the majority of votes in their district, etc. In these cases, we are making a note when someone deviates from the norm. Most people are not adopted. Most politicans get a majority of votes. It's the case where there's an exception (e.g. Bush 2000) where it becomes of note. No value judgement is made. We aren't saying Adopted people are better or worse, and nor does the placement of someoe in a category imply much of anything. Yes, heterosexuality is considered the norm. But that's just the defintion of normal. 90-99% of the population (depending on where you take your figures. Demographics of sexual orientation notes that range, saying that there's a mean of about 95-96%) is heterosexual. That's the norm. Without having to make any value judgements at all, an attribute of someone who lies two standard deviations from the mean is generally worth mention. Heterosexuality is the norm. We can go for ages about why that is (i.e. biological or cognative), but at the end of the day, it is "normal" or "typical" to be heterosexual. -- Ybbor ^Talk 03:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

BLP's for heterosexuals often note that they are married, have children (and sometimes give ages and even names of issue) which rarely has any impact on the subjects notability. Obviously the phrase "heterosexual" itself doesn't appear, but the orientation is obvious - and as irrelevant. LessHeard vanU 12:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Dude, Oscar Wilde was married and had children... SamBC( talk) 16:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

We have no such policy that strictly forbids or allows it. Its just standard practice combined with a few other policies. If a celebrity comes out as being gay, that fact would probably make the cover of every celebrity magazine and would be widely circulated on the internet. If a celebrity issues a press release saying that they are straight, the media is going to say "Who cares?" There just really aren't any sources that specifically mention things about celebrities that are considered "normal" - people wouldn't pay to read it so People isn't going to report it. If there are almost no sources saying something about someone, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to mention it in their article. If there are a lot of sources, then apparently people consider that to be a significant fact and we should probably include it. Mr. Z-man 18:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

To Sambc, indeed - but it isn't relevant to Wildes notability other than an example of Victorian morality, whereas his homosexuality did effect both his work and his life. To Mr.Z-man, but the same celebrity lifestyle magazines are full of straight celebrities personal lives regarding girl/boyfriends, engagements and marriages; it is simply an assumption of heterosexuality rather than the publicising of it. LessHeard vanU 21:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

But we can't use info like X is married to Y to source statements like X and Y are heterosexual. That would be synthesis. Mr. Z-man 05:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

We don't synthesies, we often simply state that X is/was married to Y - and allow the reader to draw the conclusions. That said, X being married to Y is rarely of any consequence to the notability of the parties concerned. LessHeard vanU 12:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the determination to mention someone's sexual orientation should be made on a case-by-case basis. For celebrities, public figures, and historical figures, their sexual orientation could well be relevant, particularly if they are LGBT in an oppressive era or geographic location, or if they were closeted. If a public or historical figure was hiding something, that's usually interesting. It's also interesting if they are a role model because of their sexuality, or if they themselves have spoken about their sexuality. Like it or not, LGBT identity is more notable than straight identity, because we're in a historic period where LGBT issues are controversial and widely talked about. Plus, (1) LGBT people want LGBT role models, and (2) straight people are fascinated with LGBT identity.

For some people, however, it's just not really germane to the article. For example, who cares if an obscure Nobel Prize winner in physics or chemistry is gay? They are only notable because of the prize they won and for their scientific work. How is their sexual orientation relevant or even interesting? Another example might be authors who are not public figures. If someone is otherwise obscure and private, and is known only for their work or some notable event that has nothing to do with LGBT issues, I don't see how sexual orientation or identity is relevant or interesting.

On another point, I've always been bothered by statements that so-and-so are "openly gay", since we would never say someone is "openly straight". If the subject of an article is gay, and that fact is worth noting for some reason, then let's just say that they are "gay", "lesbian", "bisexual", or "asexual", etc. In the case of closeted living people, we can't comment on their sexuality, so for any mention of sexuality of living people, "openly" is a given, so why say it? For dead people, it may very well be relevant that a person was closeted, since that fact and their sexuality was likely very important to that person and those around him or her. But while we might comment that a dead person was in the closet, I don't see any need to ever use the term "openly gay", as if being open about your sexuality is something unusual. COGDEN 18:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

As has been said before - part of the opportunity is that in other areas we mention that someone is or is not something, and expect the reader to conclude if we don't mention that they are either the other way inclined or of no public position on the issue - we don't for instance have many white people categories, but we are pretty equal on male/female cats. I think part of the advantage of using the category is that in part it is driven by the GLBT editors and community itself to recognise how normal the whole issue is, and that its OK to be gay - lets be honest, there is still unfortunatly homophobia in the world. Part of the brief of Wikipedia is to educate, and for that reason in this case I don't think we need a tag which relates to some form of openly hetrosexual - the tags and volumes of diverse people within the GLBT cats highlight just how normal the whole issue is. On your second (implied) point of how we write the sexuality in to the article, I think its best left to an article by article conclusion/debate - but unless the subject has said "hey, I'm openly gay" then using such a term in their article would seem NPOV. Rgds, - Trident13 23:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

So we say that Dumbledore is simply "a closeted gay", rather than making a big, perverted fuss about it. Right?~ user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 23:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Dumbledore is a character in a series of books, not a real person, and Rowlings identification of him as gay is more to do with how she saw the development of the character to what he is when the story of Harry Potter involves him. It is to be considered that Rowling is not gay herself, so her interpretation of how a persons homosexuality might impinge on their character is both likely theoretical and open to artistic license. Lastly, he's a ruddy wizard - not really based in the human experience, I would suggest. LessHeard vanU 19:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

A long term solution will be tricky to find. A person's sexual preference should not, in my opinion, be any more notable than their eye colour. Unfortunately it seems that a homosexual soccer-player / politician / pop-star becomes more notable just because they've declared their sexuality. What do we do if they've been outed, but deny it? Also, sticking a label on someone seems a bit binary; maybe some people are a bit more complicated than "gay" and "not gay". (But I can't imagine saying that John Doe is 'a little bit gay'.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanBealeCocks ( talk • contribs) 22:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

One solution/reality is that Wikipedia reflects the primary sources. If the articles we use as sources describe someone as gay or adopted, so should we. And we want to avoid weasel words so we don't need to say e.g the Times says Sarah is gay, we just say it neutrally and move on. Obina 20:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Being gay, lesbian, bisexual and in their own way transgender or intersex is of interest and much speculation although it has becoming less of a big deal over the past few decades. Closeted refers people who keep their sexuality (or other potentially embarrassing info) hidden even when asked ("who are you dating?"). Many people are LGBT and yet have children or traditional marriages, households etc or otherwise this is not a major component expressed so that it warrants undue weight (like the first paragraph of an article). This can even be evident in people who are well-known "non-heterosexuals". A person's sexuality should be given proper weight and well-sourced if considered controversial at all just like anything else. Also in some cultures it's certainly taboo to call someone gay even if they have have same-sex relations. In these cases it's best to use quotes and terminology of their culture. In the same way that some dykes do not consider themselves lesbian or gay and transgender people should be referred to in the gender they identify. We need to respect their right to self-determination and self-identity. Benjiboi 12:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Take, for example, color blindness. A phenomenon of comparable frequency. If some celebrity is known to be color blind, it makes sense to include that information in that person's Wikipedia article, if only for the reason that there are quite some (namely about 5 percent) people who struggle with their not being "normal" color-perception-wise and may be looking for someone who has success in life sharing that property. Or, putting it differently, ask yourself the question: Why don't we call 95 percent of the population "overly-color-sensitive"? -- 217.232.218.170 11:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It is also the case that if nothing is mentioned, heterosexuality is presumed. It could be that leaving out the sexual orientation merely contributes to the marginalization of the LGBT community. It isn't the most elegant of solutions, but it may be preferable to simply ignoring the problem. HypatiasGirl 16:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)