This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (policy). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.
< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, AA, AB, AC, AD, AE, AF, AG, AH, AI, AJ, AK, AL, AM, AN, AO, AP, AQ, AR, AS, AT, AU, AV, AW, AX, AY, AZ, BA, BB, BC, BD, BE, BF, BG, BH, BI, BJ, BK, BL, BM, BN, BO · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191
One of the articles on my watchlist recently had all its wikidates removed. In the almost four years I have been using wikidates there have been other instances when someone undid wikidates. All those earlier instances had been the work of vandals, or newbies who didn't know about wikidates.
I spent ten or fifteen minutes trying to make head or tail of this discussion. Valid points were raised by both sides.
Proponents of deprecation kept dropping hints to earlier discussions where their points had been explained in greater detail. But the proponents of deprecation didn't actually link to those earlier discussions.
Was a binding decision made that wikidates were to be deprecated? Proponents wrote as if it had been.
Less than one hundred people participated in this discussion.
After the proponents of deprecation started writing as if the binding decision had been made some cooler heads pointed out the practical difficulty of explaining the reasoning behind this decision -- of drafting a document that clearly and briefly laid out the perceived advantages of deprecation -- prior to setting loose robots to strip out the wikidates.
These cooler head pointed out how alienating this decision would be to all the good faith contributors who spent a lot of effort putting those wikidates in in the first place.
Unfortunately, no one made the effort to draft that clear, brief explanation. A cryptic edit summary... that points to a cryptic section of a guideline... that has a cryptic footnote... that points to an acrimonious and divisive discussion -- this is a fundamentally inadequate attempt at explanation. I agree with the writers in the August discussion who suggested that many of the wikipedia's good faith contributors, who spent a lot of energy using wikidates, would be alienated by this policy change, if a good-faith effort to explain it wasn't made first.
From my reading of the discussion it sounds like this could be an instance where a proposal was repeated, over and over again...
Was this discussion, by one hundred people, or a couple of dozen people, really sufficiently broad to justify a change to practically every article on the wikipedia?
And, if it was, why didn't anyone take the responsibility of trying to provide that clear explanation of its benefits, prior to loosing the robots?
Candidly, Geo Swan ( talk) 06:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Reply by Tony1: Geo Swan, thank you for your inquiry. The issue had been debated from time to time at MOSNUM and elsewhere for some two years until June this year. During a six-week period, there was intense debate at those places, which was flagged at other style guide pages and the Village Pump. The decision has been widely welcomed, despite the misgivings of a few WPians. I myself cut and pasted positive reactions here until mid-August, when there were so many that I just didn't bother any more. You may find this page useful background information.
Please note that the purpose of date autoformatting has never been to link to chronological pages: it was a formatting device to conceal from WPian editors the raw date formats, apparently to stop them squabbling about which format to choose for which article. WP has matured since that time, and like our highly successful article-consistent guideline on WP:ENGVAR, we have clear guidelines on the choice of date format. There has, to my knowledge, been no edit warring since late August, when we've been able to see in display-mode the frightful mess of inconsistencies and wrongly chosen date formats that our readers have had to put up with for all this time.
I do apologise for having chosen international rather than US format for the Calvin and Hobbs article. It appears that I was fooled by the sentence in the opening paragraph "The pair are named after John Calvin, a 16th century French Reformation theologian, and Thomas Hobbes, a 17th century English political philosopher." I like to think that this is a rare mistake, since I try to be meticulous in choosing the right format. The purpose of the monobook script (as opposed to a bot) is to scan the automatically produce diff before pressing "Save".
You're welcome to post any further queries/feedback on my talk page. Tony (talk) 10:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I am proposing a revision to Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials, giving donors information on how to contact the Wikimedia Foundation themselves rather than suggesting they leave a note for another contributor to do so. I feel this process is inefficient, as it creates a needless middleman. It is also not inline with practices described elsewhere, including WP:IOWN. Please offer feedback at Wikipedia_talk:Donating_copyrighted_materials#.22someone_will_contact.22_redux.2C_suggest_revising. I'd be appreciative. I'm publicizing this at relevant places because I don't see any evidence that anyone monitors that talk page. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Honesty is, once again, being considered for guideline status. -- Barberio ( talk) 23:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Please discuss on Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(country-specific_topics)#Naming_conventions_on_countries_with_same_name. -- Fixman Praise me 06:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
The proposal starts with a realization that placement of certain well-meaning templates at the tops of articles is getting out of hand, and in most cases these templates cater to editors rather than readers and do not contain any information pertinent to the article subject, so they constitute talk content, and should be placed in the talk space rather than the article space where they end up effectively supplanting the article lead. Stubs in particular should not be topped by lengthy multiple tags that only state the obvious. The proposal has garnered support (and as yet no substantive opposition) in the discussion here. Robert K S ( talk) 20:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
...as vigorously as others wage war" Ghandi. So, why not shift focus away from war-related "On This Day" material on the Home Page. Why not look for and publish the good news that ALSO occurs each day in history: the times a brother helps another, the peaceful events that start social changes without violence, the times Peace treaties/parades/councils occured, etc???? Thank you so much, AMIG —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amuseingrace ( talk • contribs) 02:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Please take a look on my proposal for restructuring the deletion policy. The readers of this policy is often non-administrators. For them the information on alternatives to deletion is more important that the deletion rules. I also think it should be more important to try to improve the article than to try to delete it. -- Hogne ( talk) 10:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
copied/refactored from the VPT archive
We really need some recommendations about when/when not to use the "hidden" code, outside of footer-navboxes.
See:
Questions:
Thanks for the responses. I'm still not certain what the consensus is though; A few specific questions:
For hiding things like:
are we recommending against these practices? How strongly?
To which guideline/policy page would we add any sentences related to this? (and discuss further there)
Besides the printing and usability problems, there are isolated text overlap problems (e.g. Ant infobox).
I'm also concerned that some readers will completely tune-out [show] links, because at a glance they look just like [edit] links, down the right edge of the page. -- Quiddity ( talk) 01:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Scrolling lists and boxes that toggle text display between hide and show are acceptable in infoboxes and navigation boxes, but should never be used in the article prose or references, because of issues with readability, accessibility, printing, and site mirroring. Additionally, such lists and boxes may not display properly in all web browsers.
i was perusing Jim Wales's user page and saw his wikipedia ad template. I thougth wikipedia did not have ads? What is the deal? Bilodeauzx ( talk) 04:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't like it though. I think this might be a way for Jim to "backdoor" some paid advertisements on wikipedia before we knew it. First on userpages, next on articles. A paranoid conspiracy maybe, but it just doesn't sit well, and I dont think i'm alone in that regard. Those banner ads look just like google banners. Bilodeauzx ( talk) 05:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
The ads are only for Wikipedia related stuff. You won't see a ad advertising a product of anything. Techman224 Talk 03:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
When I look at articles about people, I often see things that say something like 'We don't have a picture'. For an example, see Ann Robinson. It seems to be due to:
We don't put 'work in progress' or 'under construction and I think that is just as silly. If there is no picture, then just... er... don't put a picture... What is the deal? Lightmouse ( talk) 14:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
These are, as of a few weeks ago, officially discouraged in the Manual of Style. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Can somebody point me at the reference in the MOS please? Lightmouse ( talk) 22:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
See: Proposal to deprecate and remove images that say 'this is not an image please add one'. Regards Lightmouse ( talk) 12:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
See discussion here (permanent link). Jehochman Talk 08:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
This is making separate in the Balkans. Please look there and do something... Thanks *** Эɱ®εč¡κ *** ...and his friends 16:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
By popular demand (I don't think), a proposed revision and updating of the Wikipedia:Arbitration Policy can be found at Wikipedia:Arbitration policy proposed updating. Comments on all aspects of the policy and related issues are welcome on the talkpage. Thank you. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Today a I added links to my site which I considered relevant and informative to the main topic. All of them were removed.
An example:
To this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highlands_Hammock_State_Park
I added the link: http://epicroadtrips.us/2006/winter/highlands_hammock_state_park/
Why was this considered innappropriate? -Mike
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.168.102 ( talk) 23:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
My site contains more than just photos, have antother look. I strive to make my travel pages of real use and value to the veiwer. This is why I try to add good offsite material such as that from WikiPedia in addition to my own original material. -Mike
"My" is a personal site, correct? So, regardless of the value or pertinence of the information they cannot be added? Does this mean only .gov, .edu and .com sites can be added? This is confusing to me. - Mike
Thanks for the kind words and encouragement! -Mike
I may not be driven away, but current policy disallows me from adding any of the material I think might be useful to WikiPedia users because it is from "my" site. How, then, am I going to be able to add content? This policy seems unnecessarily rigid and counterproductive to achieving the goals of WikiPWedia. -Mike
I am interested, but distracted and busy at this time. When you all get the copyright issues sorted out, let me know. There seems to be differing opionions on this. -Mike —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.168.102 ( talk) 16:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Mr. Breiding Please wait because I'm going through the appropriate channels to make sure you have an accurate and confident understanding of our policies. Please check back to this page within the next 48 hours, or considering creating an account with us so we can leave you messages on your talk-page (which is better and more reliable than email). Just so you know how important you are to our community, I've spent the last two hours trying to find some help for you, and arguing with the users A Knight Who Says Ni and Mwanner as the three of us are in discussion of the applicable rules. We lose a lot of great people like yourself because our anti-spam measures identify you as a false-positive, and hope you can forgive our measures. Since we are run entirely by volunteers, and have lots of bots to help us with our job, we are only human and make plenty of mistakes from time to time. Sentriclecub ( talk) 21:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
(copied from the WP:RD/L per suggestion)
I'm sometimes missing something when reading a WP article (an easy example: Granophyre) and the subject pronunciation is described in IPA. I look at the the IPA symbols and have no idea how to pronounce the subject. Am I in the minority about this? Would it be non-encyclopedic to include a sounds like descriptor? When I encounter this situation would I be diminishing the article to include "sounds like" in small print? Is reading IPA so prevalent that I'm a "dinosaur"? I've seen some articles that include both IPA and "sounds like" but I'm uncomfortable about adding the "sounds like" as I've not found any guidelines. My personal opinion is that the less educated (non-IPA) folks who want to reference WP ought to at least be able to pronounce properly without jumping through IPA hoops so, both should be included -hydnjo talk 02:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks all for your time, attention and thoughts. Given that, I think I'll just add a phonetic pronunciation where I deem appropriate and not feel badly about it. If I get rv'd I'll not war - one unpronounceable at a time I say! ;) hydnjo talk 23:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
(end of copy)
Another problem with the sounds like is that not all foreign sounds (and hence names) can be constructed from Enlish sound. For example I have no idea how to represent something like schaap (Dutch for sheep) in english sounds like (the ch here is the typical Dutch guttural g (some kind of growl/scrape sound in the back of the throat (something like the Welsh "ll" combination, and the aa combination is an open vowel, a longer and rounder version of the a sound in Defra...). I have no idea of any word in English that uses these sounds completely Arnoutf ( talk) 03:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Should Wikipedia become a one stop Movie, Book or TV Guide?
Please make your views known at
WT:NOT#Wikipedia is not a Movie, Book or TV Guide. --
Gavin Collins (
talk) 09:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
To note: there is a centralised discussion of the placement of {{ coord missing}} here. The issue: should it be in article or talk space? -- Tagishsimon (talk) 11:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement ( | 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) 18:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Why do album and artist articles no longer have a genre classification in the right hand infobox? Just wondering. 98.196.177.110 ( talk) 00:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Ah thank you very much, I did not know where to look to find the discussion over this. 98.196.177.110 ( talk) 03:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I can't think of another case where we forbid links to a Wikia-based Wiki, but this seems like we should. Isn't this an entire Wiki devoted to wholesale copyright violation?— Kww( talk) 20:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Is there a policy on creating articles that list questions put to councils? I encountered Edmonton municipal election, 1963 due to problems with quotes and units. I didn't examine the article itself till now so it has just occured to me that if we created articles listing questions put to councils there would be thousands of articles like it. Is there something unique about this article that I can't see? Lightmouse ( talk) 19:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Ancient Egyptian). I cross-post here because if adopted it will become one of the few exceptions to the existing policy at Wikipedia:Naming conventions. Andrewa ( talk) 14:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
What does it take for a website to have an article on Wikipedia? For Example: http://www.kleinmuslims.org/
Would that website be notable enough to have it's own article? What does it have to do? Thank You-- Obaidz96 ( talk • contribs • count) 23:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I live in Victoria, British Columbia. On reviewing relevant Wikipedia content, I find
1. a disambiguation page for "Victoria"
2. a page for the city of Victoria, British Columbia (a legally established municipality)
3. a page for "Greater Victoria", the metropolitan area that includes the city proper.
The fly in the ointment is that next to nobody calls the area "Greater Victoria". It seems to me that the normal English usage in a reference work like the Wikipedia would refer to "Victoria (metropolitan area)". Indeed, it seems to me that a great many similar situations exist where there is a narrowly and legally defined city of a certain name and a larger, informally defined metropolitan area around it.
Indeed, in the page List of the 100 largest metropolitan areas in Canada we see an entry for the Victoria metropolitan area. Paris and Los Angeles are obvious examples of other cities in the same boat.
I would like to suggest as a matter of policy that in such situations, the normal structure of wikipedia entries would be two pages, for example Victoria,_British_Columbia_(city) and Victoria,_British_Columbia_(metropolitan_area)
Both pages would be referenced in any disambiguation page.
It is clearly not practical to alter all the many existing Wikipedia pages affected by this, but hopefully with a policy on the books to give guidance to contributors, this part of Wikipedia will gradually become organized along more rational lines than at present. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Floozybackloves ( talk • contribs) 01:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Portal 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) 18:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Ever since April this year, only Admin have been allowed to post articles and improvements in German Wikipedia. Joe soap is only allowed to submit drafts for their approval. This autocratic policy, it seems to me, is completely contrary to the founding principles of Wikipedia. I have protested in no uncertain terms within the system, but have merely been threatened with blocking -- or, alternatively, with being made 'one of the gang'. In my view, the leaders of the international Wikipedia project should be requested to withdraw the Germans' privileges until the policy is changed -- including the privilege of calling themselves 'the free encyclopaedia'. I'd make the request myself if I knew where to send it (replies to my personal page, please). I hope others will join in.
Otherwise I fear that this may be the beginning of the end, and we shall start, as in the 1930s, to see the lights go out all over Europe... -- PL ( talk) 10:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. In that case I should like to know what is!
It states that the new system of markings is designed to increase the reliability of articles and to give readers a better idea of their quality -- which sounds laudable enough. There are three categories:
1. Neither inspected nor checked out
2. Inspected, but not guaranteed for accuracy
3. Inspected and guaranteed by specialist
But first of all an article or revised version is treated merely as a draft or project (Entwurf), and doesn't appear as an article as such until the above assessment has been carried out by a 'Sichter' (actually, not quite an Admin, but a co-opted old hand). I can understand why this appeals to the tidy German mind, but it loses all the spontaneity of the traditional policy and is open to a great deal of abuse, as well as more or less guaranteeing a whole lot of ‘inspected idiocies’ that no specialist is prepared to pronounce on. Certainly ‘’I’’ am not, under these circumstances! -- PL ( talk) 15:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
So why is it still going? Has it acquired a momentum of its own?-- PL ( talk) 10:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
The German policy is in direct conflict with the whole Wikipedia philosophy: "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment." It will extremely difficult for non-mainstream theories to find its way in the German Wikipedia. I don't believe this has anything to do with a higher quality. Mr.K. (talk) 17:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely! Moreover, the alleged fact that the German system is as described by the unsigned person above was not made clear to me as a user -- nor have I the slightest idea whether I have made 300 edits or not. So, at the very least, far more openness is needed. -- PL ( talk) 08:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Please try the following operations on de:wp
What are the main differences to en:wp?
-- Regiomontanus ( talk) 21:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm hoping to be able to officially launch this soon. It has been under development since October 1st and publicized since that time at various appropriate forums, including this one. It has been publicized at Wikipedia talk:Images and media for deletion, Wikipedia talk:Image use policy, and WT:CSD. It is currently linked at Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Processes, Wikipedia:Guide to deletion, Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#See also and Wikipedia:Image use policy#Deleting images. It has also since October 2nd been listed at RfC, here. I think it has received sufficiently widespread exposure, and so far all feedback has been essentially positive. (One fellow, here, objected to actual deletion policy, but as this document is only a compendium of deletion practice, I pointed him to the appropriate forum to discuss his concerns.) Discussion has primarily centered around specifics of wording; there seems to be general consensus that the compendium is useful. Any further feedback or guidance in launching this would be helpful and greatly appreciated...right down to some guidance on at what point "proposed" is removed. :) -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi - I posted the section with the same name on my talk page. My posting relates to potential policy change. I am asking anyone involved/interested to please take part in discussion ! Thanks ARP Apovolot ( talk) 14:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Romanization of Ukrainian/Archive 20081024 ( | 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) 18:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
What is the current consensus on " notable awards"?
In a recent {{ afd}} a Hungarian wrote an article about a Hungarian soldier from World War 1. I asked the creator for clarification, because I had a recollection that being awarded a Congressional Medal of Honor or the Victoria Cross was considered sufficient to make a receipient pass the "notability" test. I looked for the policy or guideline I had a vague recollection of. Our Hungarian confirmed that the soldier had won the Hungarian equivalent of the Medal of Honor.
WP:Notability (awards) says it has been deprecated, because consensus is now unclear.
It had originally said that some awards made the receipient automatically notable. The two examples offered were: the Nobel Prize and the Congressional Medal of Honor. No mention of the Victoria Cross, or the highest awards of other nations.
I don't think there is any doubt that every Nobel Prize winner merits coverage here. But, personally, I don't think the highest national award of the nations in the anglosphere should be considered more significant than those of other nations.
Cheers! Geo Swan ( talk) 19:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Please refer to it as the anglophone world, not a term you appear to have created, the "anglosphere." Wasn't that a Pauly shore movie? In any case, the Noble Prise is the highest honour award in the world, even those parts of it that speak other languages, and even non-West. Swinglineboy G ( talk) 19:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm currently involved in a debate on Norwegian Wikipedia. The case goes as follows.
I strongly believe that deleting these entries and locking the relevant articles are violations of WP:NPOV. Please, Village Pump, give me some input on this issue. 79.142.225.74 ( talk) 22:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I vote that we delete the whole article as non notable. JBackus13 ( talk) 00:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
There is a RFC on the process for delisting a good article here You can find what are claimed to the current guidelines here. Editors involved with the Good Article Sweep Taskforce dispute that these are the current guidlines. I would like people who do not normally show any interest in Good Articles to comment here. Most of the comments are pretty degerenate stuff based around a case in point, Ireland's delisting. You would be advised to skip most of that. I would really like to know if editors feel there is any reason the current guidelines shouldn't be followed.-- ZincBelief ( talk) 12:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Look at the navboxes in United_Kingdom#External_links they are listed in the external links but they are internal link . Should we separate internal links to move navboxes to a see also section ? Gnevin ( talk) 15:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I would like the eyes of more experienced editors to please take a quick look at Eaton Harbors Corporation. I don't know the whole story on the subject of this article but it appears to me to be a real estate corporation. I know many well known corporations are on Wikipedia but it just has the appearance of promotional link spam to see "A business corporation that maintains land in Asharoken and Eatons Neck" in the See Also section of the Asharoken, New York and Eatons Neck, New York articles. Again, this may all be fine but I thought I should ask for feedback about these links. Thanks. -- Fife Club ( talk) 00:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Has anyone found a way to confirm Itunes listings or rankings since it seems one would have to actually have Itunes to access this information? They have revolutionized the music business but I'm unsure how to utilize itunes as a reference as of yet. -- Banjeboi 10:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
i couldn't for the life or me find a page giving an explicit, straight-up answer to this: is cc-by-nc-nd 2.0 a valid license (or fair use) for publishing material (by which i mean a flickr photo specifically) on wiki? -- Kaini ( talk) 23:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I recently nominated Manuel Gonzalez Hernandez for deletion (AFD here). The majority (all, in fact) of the respondents have !voted Keep with the rationale that the athlete passes WP:ATHLETE. While I agree that the general notability requirements have been met (the subject plays for a professional sports team), the article is seriously deficient in other ways. Specifically, there is almost no content in the article at all (he exists, his birthdate, he plays football), and there are absolutely no sources at all. One of the respondents has stated that:
AfD is only a forum for deciding whether or not the subject of an article is encyclopedic - it doesn't have anything to do with the actual content.
Apparently everyone else who commented on the AFD also agrees... am I missing something here? Let's not get stuck in the particulars of this nomination specifically, and focus more on the policy implications of the macro issue: Doesn't AFD necessarily evaluate policy compliance as well as notability guidelines? If not, what teeth do any of our policies have? Should the community have a pile of articles on subjects that may be notable, but are original research, mostly empty, unsourced, and seem to exist for the sake of existence? // Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
saved an article from deletion, and any of those who initially voted for deletion could easily have done what I did - it already had 2 good sources and Google threw more at me. -- Philcha ( talk) 23:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I have been looking through the backlog of {{ PD-self}} images for obvious inappropriate use of the that template, like where it is a scan/photo of a 2 dimensional image and the photographer would not actually hold the copyright of the image to be able to release into the public domain. Some of these may simply need a more appropriate tags as the may have fallen out of copyright anyways. Others may need to be processed as non-free content with the appropriate justifications written up. What would be the appropriate process to put these image through in the cases where I cannot figure out an appropriate free content license to use? Should I just list them at copyright violations or is there a better process to use?-- BirgitteSB 21:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I am concerned about the impact of the survey being conducted just now on Wikipedia's future. For instance, one of the most fascinating features of wikipedia is the variety of languages and dialects in which encyclopedic content is shared. Will the survey lead to the deletion of existing language versions and/or giving up the Incubator? Since fatally the number of users reading & contributing to some of those will be low. Cristixav ( talk) 21:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I have recently come across the {{
£}} template and have subsequently created
Template:$ and
Template:Yen (as
Template:¥ is banned from being created for some reason). What do people think of making their use official policy (as opposed to typing out things like
[[United States dollar|US$]]
manually)?
It Is Me Here (
talk) 13:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Template:€ created. It Is Me Here ( talk) 12:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
In actual law enforcement forensic scientists (CSIs) act as independent third parties to collect and analyze evidence and present their findings to court. CSIs are trained for this purpose. The evidence is gathered using scientific means and the results of the crime scene investigation can be reproduced. The findings of CSIs can incriminate the accused or do the exact opposite.
In the current workings of how arbcom works in general we expect/require the "victim(s)" to gather the evidence and present their analysis to arbcom. That is in general accompanied by a lot of white noise (ranting) which is useless to arbcom. In addition to that the "victim(s)" in general are inexperienced in how to gather good evidence which adds to the noise ratio. In addition trolls generally exploit the opportunity to provoke "victim(s)" to act improperly in front of arbcom. Inexperienced users often do not have the restraint seasoned editors do.
What we need is a CSI equivalent on the wiki. We do actually have a CSI-like body. Fundamentally that is what arbcom clerks, checkusers, oversight and etc do. Unlike a CSI-like body our version is poorly organized. For example checkusers hardly ever show up in arbcom cases to comment. Any checkuser analysis would have to be RFCUed weeks prior to a case before it is kicked in front of arbcom. Bringing a "good case" in front of arbcom requires weeks of preparation of various processes like RFCU. Most people do not have the experience and/or patience to prepare a "good case".
This proposal isn't really something new. To date outside opinions by uninvolved parties in arbcom hearings were never banned. On the contrary they are encouraged. You may have seen various section headers titled such as "Statement by uninvolved User:Foo".
“ | Ideally we want truly uninvolved third parties with no vested interests to collect and analyze evidence and present the finished version to arbcom. | ” |
This is a developing idea. I am not exactly sure how "wiki CSIs" would be chosen/elected or how such a body would be structured. I welcome any ideas.
-- Cat chi? 16:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
It seems like you're trying to limit discussion to only comments that support your basic premise. I think a general discussion section would be useful. Darkspots ( talk) 19:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I think there is definitely value in having impartial Wikipedians who volunteer to investigate issues. Some people might be motivated by the desire to encourage fair representation, but I wonder if there'd be enough of these people to go around - people with both the desire and the training. Dcoetzee 19:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Is this necessary? This proposal aims to create a new (four-tier!) bureaucracy that seeks special authority to do something that any editor is already free to do. Any editor is free to collect, analyze, and summarize evidence for the ArbCom, and to propose and comment upon findings of fact and remedies. A massive organizational framework is both unnecessary and likely to be harmful.
If anyone wishes to attempt to collect and neutrally present information for cases, I wish them well. If anyone sees them doing a good job, give them a barnstar. If the ArbCom finds their contributions helpful, the ArbCom can speak up. (Or the editor can ask the ArbCom.) If those helpful users want to chat about useful techniques in presenting information or how to interpret evidence, they're free to spend their Saturdays however they see fit. Badges and titles and layers of authority and special powers and permissions are utterly superfluous.
The bulk of evidence that the ArbCom deals with doesn't require special procedures or permissions to gather. It's all there in the contributions lists and logs. The small amount of confidential material that the ArbCom faces (mostly involving stuff protected by the Privacy Policy like detailed checkuser logs and real-world personal data) is both limited enough in volume that the Arbs and Checkusers can already examine it without outside help, and sensitive enough that it wouldn't be released to a bunch of amateur detectives anyway.
If Cool cat/White cat (or anyone else) thinks that independent evidence collection and summaries would be useful to the ArbCom, he's welcome to go right ahead and start working on them. He doesn't need permission or a new policy. (Before he gets started, though, he probably should review the role of Arb Clerks and Oversighters; those groups don't perform the evidence collection and presentation tasks that he seems to think that they do.) Let us know how the experiment goes. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 17:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I came across this User Dismas removing all links to Years in film in Actor bio's on the basis of mosnum , wp:overlink . What most concerns me is removing the links in the Filmography section ( which if you click goes to the article for film events , releases etc of that particular year ) . Doesn't it rather defeat one of the reasons for compiling the Year in film articles if all links in Actor bios ( or other revelant film articles ) are removed Garda40 ( talk) 22:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
When writing about foreign language films, is it conventional to leave them in their native language or use their English title: i.e. Bihisht faqat baroi murdagon versus To Get to Heaven, First You Have to Die (both the same film, in Tajik, alternate titles). For the meantime I've kept the title in Tajik but I don't know whether I should list it by its English name. LGF1992UK ( talk) 23:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I've recently started Wikipedia:Notability (restaurants) and am looking for help from like-minded (and others with constructive criticism!) editors in order to deal with the influx of non-notable, marginally-notable, and restaurants with unknown notability. I hope to provide a reference so that Afd's can go much easier (or can be mostly avoided). Right now, there is no reference for restaurant notability and unfortunately this is leading to some large assumptions (for example, that any restaurant given a review by a major newspaper is automatically notable...even if the review was not positive). Thanks for any advice and help! -- Kickstart70 T C 05:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I think that a user's contributions should be among the items that can only be viewed by an admin. I think this would help prevent people from monitoring each other. Only an admin should be able to see contribs when it is appropriate. Additionaly, I think people should only be allowed access to another user's talk page but not their user page. Libro0 ( talk) 20:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
You don't have to track vandalism. Rather, you report it to an admin and they track it. It should not prevent non-admins from correcting any vandalism they come across. Re: user page-Both viewing and editing. Why are there user pages anyway? Why are they not just merged with the talk page? They can save some space. Libro0 ( talk) 20:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
It is good of you to want to track and correct vandalism as a non-admin but checking contribs has potential for abuse most notably wikistalking. We have a responsibility to edit properly but monitoring people for vadalism should be limited the people that are part of an anti-vandalism taskforce. User pages are also targets for vandalism and their use should be limited to oneself and admins. Libro0 ( talk) 21:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Call me selfish, but it seemed the best way to remove my thorns. Libro0 ( talk) 22:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually I am not that petty. You will have to go back several months to get the full view. I have been monitored by more than one person and have nearly all my edits reverted or comments accompanied by "He lies!" This is definitely not about an image or any content for that matter. How would you feel if a user's entire edit history was devoted to singling you out. I don't expect WP to make a policy just for little old me. But it is a situation that I would like to make people aware of. This type of wikistalking is a crime. Libro0 ( talk) 23:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Complete non-starter, the vast majority of vandalism clean-up work is done by ordinary editors, to remove our ability to check the work of others would remove our ability to not only detect vandalism, but spam, copyright vios, MOS errors etc etc. What you are suggesting is a POV-pushers paradise. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 13:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Terrible idea. The transparency that is gained by anyone being able to delve through another editors edits is one of the most valuable things that we have here, and it far outweighs any negative that it produces; in fact, I can't really think of any negatives that it produces in and of itself; following another editor's contributions, what you describe as "stalking", isn't bad until it becomes disruptive; until that happens, its called "participation", and is something we encourage. It seems like you're trying to take an end-run around dispute resolution, which should probably be your next stop. In any case, removing this would be incredibly, incredibly problematic for vandal-fighters and extremely cumbersome for regular editors. Celarnor Talk to me 19:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I found an article on a general conceptual subject. Below that general article are mentioned example of real life implementations sorted by countries and cities.
For each implementation are mentionned the speficities of each, some characteristics etc...
I was wondering whether this would be ethical to mention the name of the initial architect, developer, project manager of this solution considering that no link to any entity is made neither to any online networking profile ?
Thanks for your advices on that.
We are trying to get this 5 year old convention accepted as an official guideline, and would like comments from other editors on this. If you wish, you can comment on the talk page of WP:MICRON. Thank you. - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 00:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
For anyone here who has been involved in cleaning up pages at Category:Disambiguation pages in need of cleanup (or has an interest in disambig formatting), we are requesting assistance. We are sorting out some subtleties for the WP:MOSDAB guideline, about how to handle disambiguation entries that may or may not require piped links and/or redirects. The guideline has been pretty vague on this, and different people have been handling things in different ways, and it's starting to cause some friction. So, we have listed at the talkpage three specific examples of complex disambig entries, and we're asking everyone to offer input on how they've been handling these, so we can see if we can figure out where the consensus is and update the guideline accordingly. For example, on the Cell (disambiguation) page, should the entry for "cellphone" be "Cell phone, a type of mobile phone" or " Cell phone, a type of mobile phone"? All opinions welcome, at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Piping and redirects. -- El on ka 17:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
The following is copied from
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Wavelength adding internal links to Wikipedia namespace pages.
(beginning of copied text)
This is the beginning of a discussion at User talk:Wavelength#Your recent contributions.
Wavelength, I had to revert one of your See also links, and I came over here to look at your contributions. I'm surprised. I'm really not the expert on these things, but this looks like a case of WP:POINT to me (specifically, point 6). Can we talk this out over at WP:ANI? - Dan Dank55 ( send/receive) 17:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Wavelength, are you prepared to accept that Dan has an objection about your changes and move into the "D" phase of WP:BRD? It seems like Wavelength was being bold and making changes to project pages and Dan wants to slow him down. Both actions are fine. Might I suggest finding some centralized place to discuss this where other people who watchlist/shepherd lots of policy pages can participate in the discussion as well? Protonk ( talk) 01:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
(end of text copied from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents)
I see two types of edits in Wavelength's contributions relating to adding links to Wikipedia-namespace pages:
[1 Adding them to other Wikipedia-namespace pages. I have no issue with this as a general principle. Whether the additions are appropriate in each individual case, I have not checked.
[2 Adding them to article-namespace pages. This is a violation of
WP:SELFREF, and Wavelength should volunteer to go back and remove those inappropriate cross-namespace links.
Anomie
⚔ 17:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia_talk:Three-revert_rule#Old_Scope_Creep.3F for a proposed trimming of an old exemption from this policy. Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 04:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Not sure if this or the proposals page is the best place to start this, but I'll try here.
The requested move of Flag of the Republic of Ireland is currently awaiting closure, and the debate has spilled over onto Republic of Ireland, where an improperly listed RM has just been opened a couple of months after the previous one closed.
Both debates have been seriously hampered by nationalist bias either from Irish or Northern Irish (and no doubt some will claim, British) editors. I have also seen this repeatedly in the Israeli/Palestinian-related articles, which is my main sphere of work. Nationalists use AfDs and RMs as ways of scoring points and forcing their opinions onto the rest of us. Examples of this include keeping articles on non-notable members of the public killed during the Israeli-Palestinian violence (e.g. Tali Hatuel), most likely as a way of highlighting the acts of the other side. The most well-known piece of nonsense was the multiple nominations of Allegations of Israeli apartheid - 8 times so far).
Anyway, I am getting thoroughly sick of how the nationalist elements are damaging such debates. If you look at the Flag debate, there is currently a majority in favour of the move (possibly helped by the fact that the move was advertised on WikiProject:Ireland and WikiProject:Irish Republicanism, but (unsurprisingly) not on WikiProject:Northern Ireland or WikiProject:Unionism in Ireland). However, if you discount the !votes of Irish and British editors (self-identified on userpages), the majority are actually in favour of the current title.
What do other editors think about requesting that editors with strong national ties to a topic do not participate in such debates (possibly using a template like this) and to leave outside (and much less likely to be biased) editors to the process? пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment. I don't want to get into the ins and outs of the particular articles discussed here. My question is whether there are collaboration WikiProjects in all the areas discussed here. Such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. I have been involved in some Israeli and Palestinian article and category editing for a few years. Nothing really helped solve problems as much as Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Also very important were the ArbCom-authorized discretionary sanctions. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration#ArbCom authorizes discretionary sanctions. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 11:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Today's featured articles are a clear violation of the "wikipedia pillar": " Wikipedia has a neutral point of view". Wikipedia is (or suggests to be) deciding it's featured article of the day with relation to a present time event. On doing so, specially since it is without precedent (as far as I can remember) it implicitly recognizes that event as "important". Even the format has changed: we have two featured articles on today's page. Will the Swiss elections have their main candidates pictured in the featured articles present? And the Spanish elections? If not, how come the american elections have? It is very sad and bad for the credibility of the encyclopedia. Is it an american encyclopedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guilhermesfc ( talk • contribs) 20:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I have been alerted by one of our students that the problem which several students now face is because of vandalism carried out by a user called Mod_Objective. Evidently, this user happened to disrupt the order and therefore was banned, along with the perceived sock puppets. We have been monitoring the situation and know the student who was involved in this. However, other people -in no way connected to the former student - have also been banned, including users:
A student of a University over 100 miles also had their input removed:
And other people were also accused of being sock puppets:
Our students are allowed to use wikipedia, and none of the above - as far as we are aware - was using accounts abusively. Some of our students cannot get on to the site because the computer has disallowed the IP address. But my area of most concern here is how all the changes done by users Kiddish.K and Safeguarded were removed. If the changes that they made were abusive and/or disruptive, then by all mean the user Jayjg, had every right to do so, but this was not the case:
1.
2. Even to the point of getting rid of the following redirects: * [20]
3. Removing other good faith edits:
4. And then it gets a bit silly:* [24]
Just because the user User:Jayjg is a admin, good faith edits shouldn't be removed. This is a University, people do use wikipedia and therefore, using one abusive user in the past as a basis to remove all good faith edits by students in the future, is not an intelligent tactic. Someone needs to take charge of the situation. Our students have been using wikipedia for a while. Our University holds up to 110 different nationalities, and is currently involved in inter-faith discussions. We encourage our students to use wikipedia, to add whatever they have learnt or know, to this encyclopedia.
In good faith, I'll ask that someone talk to user Jayjg about his unreasonable actions so far. Some of our teachers are even having problems and reviewing the situation, we see no reason why the above users were blocked and banned. All students have the right to use any computer. If someone is being disruptive, we will root them out. All changes are logged on our systems.
Thank you for your time and I hope you choose to do something about this mishap.
Representative code:12U-1 ( talk) 13:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
05/11/08
“ | If admins see fit to ban "the computer" more so than the person, then every computer in this University is not going to have the benefit of using wikipedia. If a user (of the same IP address) is showing particular vandalism then by every right, remove them on the basis of the previous history, however, if the user is behaving themselves appropriately and contributing positively to articles, there is no reason for any admin to rush in, and to delete all the changes made by those users. A institution like this should not have to suffer for one student who does not contribute to this encyclopedia any more. | ” |
— [[(“[
User:Representative of University”
] ").]] |
See above: Someone deleted what the Representative had to say ([ see history page]).
Many good faith edits have been removed simply because it is believed that the user making these good faith edits, was a previous vandal. Even if this is the case, sometimes admins have to use a little common sense. Religious admins it seems, want it their way or no way. This is wrong in every way, and I believe that the problem here should be relooked at. Kiddish.K, Safegurded and others were congratulated by others for their good faith edits. Now, all their edits have been removed, and not even to a sane level. On the Sacred Scriptures Bethel Edition page, you might expect the admin Jayjg, to revert it to the last edit by Editor 2020, but instead this admin decided to revert it to the first edit on the history page! [27]
This is wrong. This is wrong. This is wrong. Surely others can see that the motivation behind these reverts is NOT policy based. This problem has been addressed before: [28] The link will show you that the theory that groups of admins often group together, against those who have different religious beliefs, is a common practice on Wikipedia. It just so happens, that although the users banned:
These were NOT vandalizing or disrupting any articles. They do however, have different views to Jews. And as the link shows: nearly all those who have opposed and removed edits by these users have been Jews (see this link to researchers proposal). Jayjg – the admin who happens to be removing all the good faith edits by these users – is also a Jew.
User Jayjg has been warned on his attitude before to these things, but they’re edits are often deleted from his user page:
“ | “Please do not delete referenced information and do not delete messages left on portal Poland. This is vandalism and administrators are not supposed to do it. | ” |
— [[(“[
User:Tymek”
] ").]] |
As you can see, many many users have understood the one way street – my way or no way – approach admins like Jayjg. This isn’t some isolated incident. Someone needs to monitor the situation, preferably a balance i.e. if we have a religious admin, they should be shared by an unreligious (atheist) admin. We cannot allow admins to be strict on policies or slack, due to their own beliefs. In the short term I’m asking that the reverts Jayjg has done should be reversed, in the long term, I’d like to see admins of complete different beliefs working together. Then, and maybe then we wouldn’t have this “ secret assassin” business going on behind the scenes of wikipedia.
Good faith edits which considerably improve(by consensus) an article should not be reversed - especially by admins - no matter what policy they use to justify their action: see WP:IAR. Using a policy to make articles worse, is making admins like Jay look like the real vandals and I'm asking that someone PLEASE intervene. 143.53.6.219 ( talk) 13:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
10/11/08 Hi User:Jayjg. You deleted the above information.
Lately, several more incidents have occurred involving
User:Jayjg. Another user who tried to restore good faith edits on the
Sacred Scriptures Bethel Edition page has been accused as a sock puppet of Mod objective. Now, this is an outright lie. Would an admin care to check the checkuser of Fcedt, as I very much doubt any tie between mod_objective and fcedt can be given. Fcedt is part of SNM not the AOY. He attempted to restore the edits on the
Sacred Scriptures Bethel Edition page, but found himself banned on the accusation of being a sock puppet. Also
User:Jayjg and Editor 2020 seem to care very little about the vandalism the
Assemblies of Yahweh page is now suffering. Notice the following: Jay is more concerned with removing the good faith edits by users, than preventing the vandals:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Assemblies_of_Yahweh&diff=249556719&oldid=249431662 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Assemblies_of_Yahweh&diff=next&oldid=249556719 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Assemblies_of_Yahweh&diff=next&oldid=250221336
Please pay close attention as little is done when the page is being vandalized:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Assemblies_of_Yahweh&diff=next&oldid=250227442
If you have a look to the page now, to what the page was before [ [29]], you will realize that User:Jayjg is not interested in maintaining or improving pages when it comes to the Assemblies of Yahweh. I asked someone to monitor the situation that doesn't have a religious affiliation, instead, since the members were banned, several pages have suffered from vandalism. Those who are trying to prevent this vandalism are then accused of sock-puppetry. I have noticed that users like ( talk) have been tryed briefly to restore good faith edits... PLEASE prevent this Jay head from abusing their admin power, preventing all good faith edits and allowing vandals to ruin the pages. PLEASE. Have a look yourself! 143.53.5.80 ( talk) 14:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Because use Jay keeps deleting these comments after a few days, the only way to get through is to keep adding to them, so someone does something about the deterioration of the situation since the banning of several good faith editors. 143.53.5.80 ( talk) 14:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I have been alerted by one of our students that the problem which several students now face is because of vandalism carried out by a user called Mod_Objective. Evidently, this user happened to disrupt the order and therefore was banned, along with the perceived sock puppets. We have been monitoring the situation and know the student who was involved in this. However, other people -in no way connected to the former student - have also been banned, including users:
A student of a University over 100 miles also had their input removed:
And other people were also accused of being sock puppets:
Our students are allowed to use wikipedia, and none of the above - as far as we are aware - was using accounts abusively. Some of our students cannot get on to the site because the computer has disallowed the IP address. But my area of most concern here is how all the changes done by users Kiddish.K and Safeguarded were removed. If the changes that they made were abusive and/or disruptive, then by all mean the user Jayjg, had every right to do so, but this was not the case:
1.
2. Even to the point of getting rid of the following redirects: * [32]
3. Removing other good faith edits:
4. And then it gets a bit silly:* [36]
Just because the user User:Jayjg is a admin, good faith edits shouldn't be removed. This is a University, people do use wikipedia and therefore, using one abusive user in the past as a basis to remove all good faith edits by students in the future, is not an intelligent tactic. Someone needs to take charge of the situation. Our students have been using wikipedia for a while. Our University holds up to 110 different nationalities, and is currently involved in inter-faith discussions. We encourage our students to use wikipedia, to add whatever they have learnt or know, to this encyclopedia.
In good faith, I'll ask that someone talk to user Jayjg about his unreasonable actions so far. Some of our teachers are even having problems and reviewing the situation, we see no reason why the above users were blocked and banned. All students have the right to use any computer. If someone is being disruptive, we will root them out. All changes are logged on our systems.
Thank you for your time and I hope you choose to do something about this mishap.
Representative code:12U-1 ( talk) 13:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
05/11/08
“ | If admins see fit to ban "the computer" more so than the person, then every computer in this University is not going to have the benefit of using wikipedia. If a user (of the same IP address) is showing particular vandalism then by every right, remove them on the basis of the previous history, however, if the user is behaving themselves appropriately and contributing positively to articles, there is no reason for any admin to rush in, and to delete all the changes made by those users. A institution like this should not have to suffer for one student who does not contribute to this encyclopedia any more. | ” |
— [[(“[
User:Representative of University”
] ").]] |
See above: Someone deleted what the Representative had to say ([ see history page]).
Many good faith edits have been removed simply because it is believed that the user making these good faith edits, was a previous vandal. Even if this is the case, sometimes admins have to use a little common sense. Religious admins it seems, want it their way or no way. This is wrong in every way, and I believe that the problem here should be relooked at. Kiddish.K, Safegurded and others were congratulated by others for their good faith edits. Now, all their edits have been removed, and not even to a sane level. On the Sacred Scriptures Bethel Edition page, you might expect the admin Jayjg, to revert it to the last edit by Editor 2020, but instead this admin decided to revert it to the first edit on the history page! [39]
This is wrong. This is wrong. This is wrong. Surely others can see that the motivation behind these reverts is NOT policy based. This problem has been addressed before: [40] The link will show you that the theory that groups of admins often group together, against those who have different religious beliefs, is a common practice on Wikipedia. It just so happens, that although the users banned:
These were NOT vandalizing or disrupting any articles. They do however, have different views to Jews. And as the link shows: nearly all those who have opposed and removed edits by these users have been Jews (see this link to researchers proposal). Jayjg – the admin who happens to be removing all the good faith edits by these users – is also a Jew.
User Jayjg has been warned on his attitude before to these things, but they’re edits are often deleted from his user page:
“ | “Please do not delete referenced information and do not delete messages left on portal Poland. This is vandalism and administrators are not supposed to do it. | ” |
— [[(“[
User:Tymek”
] ").]] |
As you can see, many many users have understood the one way street – my way or no way – approach admins like Jayjg. This isn’t some isolated incident. Someone needs to monitor the situation, preferably a balance i.e. if we have a religious admin, they should be shared by an unreligious (atheist) admin. We cannot allow admins to be strict on policies or slack, due to their own beliefs. In the short term I’m asking that the reverts Jayjg has done should be reversed, in the long term, I’d like to see admins of complete different beliefs working together. Then, and maybe then we wouldn’t have this “ secret assassin” business going on behind the scenes of wikipedia.
Good faith edits which considerably improve(by consensus) an article should not be reversed - especially by admins - no matter what policy they use to justify their action: see WP:IAR. Using a policy to make articles worse, is making admins like Jay look like the real vandals and I'm asking that someone PLEASE intervene. 143.53.6.219 ( talk) 13:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
10/11/08 Hi User:Jayjg. You deleted the above information.
Lately, several more incidents have occurred involving
User:Jayjg. Another user who tried to restore good faith edits on the
Sacred Scriptures Bethel Edition page has been accused as a sock puppet of Mod objective. Now, this is an outright lie. Would an admin care to check the checkuser of Fcedt, as I very much doubt any tie between mod_objective and fcedt can be given. Fcedt is part of SNM not the AOY. He attempted to restore the edits on the
Sacred Scriptures Bethel Edition page, but found himself banned on the accusation of being a sock puppet. Also
User:Jayjg and Editor 2020 seem to care very little about the vandalism the
Assemblies of Yahweh page is now suffering. Notice the following: Jay is more concerned with removing the good faith edits by users, than preventing the vandals:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Assemblies_of_Yahweh&diff=249556719&oldid=249431662 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Assemblies_of_Yahweh&diff=next&oldid=249556719 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Assemblies_of_Yahweh&diff=next&oldid=250221336
Please pay close attention as little is done when the page is being vandalized:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Assemblies_of_Yahweh&diff=next&oldid=250227442
If you have a look to the page now, to what the page was before [ [41]], you will realize that User:Jayjg is not interested in maintaining or improving pages when it comes to the Assemblies of Yahweh. I asked someone to monitor the situation that doesn't have a religious affiliation, instead, since the members were banned, several pages have suffered from vandalism. Those who are trying to prevent this vandalism are then accused of sock-puppetry. I have noticed that users like ( talk) have been tryed briefly to restore good faith edits... PLEASE prevent this Jay head from abusing their admin power, preventing all good faith edits and allowing vandals to ruin the pages. PLEASE. Have a look yourself! 143.53.5.80 ( talk) 14:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I have soft-blocked the relevant university, since checkuser shows the IP range is being used for a variety of new account creations as well as Mod objective related activity and problematic edits -- the odds seem good the three are not unconnected. FT2 ( Talk | email) 14:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
There have been a few recent WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussions involving closures: Closures by involved editors, Non-admin closing requested move discussion he participated in, Kinobe.
I see two main discussions:
Flatscan ( talk) 04:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Closure by an uninvolved admin is not always required for non-AfD discussions. Obvious WP:SNOW, with a complete absence of opposition, may be applied. Since discussions occurring on article Talk pages are poorly subscribed, an uninvolved closer would need to be solicited, either directly or through a noticeboard. My opinion is that the request is excess process for an obvious SNOW close and that an involved closer does not ipso facto invalidate the close.
Requesting an uninvolved closer is an appropriate, optional step if it is reasonable to believe that the closure may be contested. I recently added a suggestion along those lines to Help:Merging and moving pages; there was previously no guidance.
I've seen a few requests for closures of contested move or merge discussions at WP:Administrators' noticeboard that had prompt response and no opposition following the close. Flatscan ( talk) 05:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (policy). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.
< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, AA, AB, AC, AD, AE, AF, AG, AH, AI, AJ, AK, AL, AM, AN, AO, AP, AQ, AR, AS, AT, AU, AV, AW, AX, AY, AZ, BA, BB, BC, BD, BE, BF, BG, BH, BI, BJ, BK, BL, BM, BN, BO · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191
One of the articles on my watchlist recently had all its wikidates removed. In the almost four years I have been using wikidates there have been other instances when someone undid wikidates. All those earlier instances had been the work of vandals, or newbies who didn't know about wikidates.
I spent ten or fifteen minutes trying to make head or tail of this discussion. Valid points were raised by both sides.
Proponents of deprecation kept dropping hints to earlier discussions where their points had been explained in greater detail. But the proponents of deprecation didn't actually link to those earlier discussions.
Was a binding decision made that wikidates were to be deprecated? Proponents wrote as if it had been.
Less than one hundred people participated in this discussion.
After the proponents of deprecation started writing as if the binding decision had been made some cooler heads pointed out the practical difficulty of explaining the reasoning behind this decision -- of drafting a document that clearly and briefly laid out the perceived advantages of deprecation -- prior to setting loose robots to strip out the wikidates.
These cooler head pointed out how alienating this decision would be to all the good faith contributors who spent a lot of effort putting those wikidates in in the first place.
Unfortunately, no one made the effort to draft that clear, brief explanation. A cryptic edit summary... that points to a cryptic section of a guideline... that has a cryptic footnote... that points to an acrimonious and divisive discussion -- this is a fundamentally inadequate attempt at explanation. I agree with the writers in the August discussion who suggested that many of the wikipedia's good faith contributors, who spent a lot of energy using wikidates, would be alienated by this policy change, if a good-faith effort to explain it wasn't made first.
From my reading of the discussion it sounds like this could be an instance where a proposal was repeated, over and over again...
Was this discussion, by one hundred people, or a couple of dozen people, really sufficiently broad to justify a change to practically every article on the wikipedia?
And, if it was, why didn't anyone take the responsibility of trying to provide that clear explanation of its benefits, prior to loosing the robots?
Candidly, Geo Swan ( talk) 06:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Reply by Tony1: Geo Swan, thank you for your inquiry. The issue had been debated from time to time at MOSNUM and elsewhere for some two years until June this year. During a six-week period, there was intense debate at those places, which was flagged at other style guide pages and the Village Pump. The decision has been widely welcomed, despite the misgivings of a few WPians. I myself cut and pasted positive reactions here until mid-August, when there were so many that I just didn't bother any more. You may find this page useful background information.
Please note that the purpose of date autoformatting has never been to link to chronological pages: it was a formatting device to conceal from WPian editors the raw date formats, apparently to stop them squabbling about which format to choose for which article. WP has matured since that time, and like our highly successful article-consistent guideline on WP:ENGVAR, we have clear guidelines on the choice of date format. There has, to my knowledge, been no edit warring since late August, when we've been able to see in display-mode the frightful mess of inconsistencies and wrongly chosen date formats that our readers have had to put up with for all this time.
I do apologise for having chosen international rather than US format for the Calvin and Hobbs article. It appears that I was fooled by the sentence in the opening paragraph "The pair are named after John Calvin, a 16th century French Reformation theologian, and Thomas Hobbes, a 17th century English political philosopher." I like to think that this is a rare mistake, since I try to be meticulous in choosing the right format. The purpose of the monobook script (as opposed to a bot) is to scan the automatically produce diff before pressing "Save".
You're welcome to post any further queries/feedback on my talk page. Tony (talk) 10:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I am proposing a revision to Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials, giving donors information on how to contact the Wikimedia Foundation themselves rather than suggesting they leave a note for another contributor to do so. I feel this process is inefficient, as it creates a needless middleman. It is also not inline with practices described elsewhere, including WP:IOWN. Please offer feedback at Wikipedia_talk:Donating_copyrighted_materials#.22someone_will_contact.22_redux.2C_suggest_revising. I'd be appreciative. I'm publicizing this at relevant places because I don't see any evidence that anyone monitors that talk page. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Honesty is, once again, being considered for guideline status. -- Barberio ( talk) 23:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Please discuss on Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(country-specific_topics)#Naming_conventions_on_countries_with_same_name. -- Fixman Praise me 06:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
The proposal starts with a realization that placement of certain well-meaning templates at the tops of articles is getting out of hand, and in most cases these templates cater to editors rather than readers and do not contain any information pertinent to the article subject, so they constitute talk content, and should be placed in the talk space rather than the article space where they end up effectively supplanting the article lead. Stubs in particular should not be topped by lengthy multiple tags that only state the obvious. The proposal has garnered support (and as yet no substantive opposition) in the discussion here. Robert K S ( talk) 20:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
...as vigorously as others wage war" Ghandi. So, why not shift focus away from war-related "On This Day" material on the Home Page. Why not look for and publish the good news that ALSO occurs each day in history: the times a brother helps another, the peaceful events that start social changes without violence, the times Peace treaties/parades/councils occured, etc???? Thank you so much, AMIG —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amuseingrace ( talk • contribs) 02:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Please take a look on my proposal for restructuring the deletion policy. The readers of this policy is often non-administrators. For them the information on alternatives to deletion is more important that the deletion rules. I also think it should be more important to try to improve the article than to try to delete it. -- Hogne ( talk) 10:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
copied/refactored from the VPT archive
We really need some recommendations about when/when not to use the "hidden" code, outside of footer-navboxes.
See:
Questions:
Thanks for the responses. I'm still not certain what the consensus is though; A few specific questions:
For hiding things like:
are we recommending against these practices? How strongly?
To which guideline/policy page would we add any sentences related to this? (and discuss further there)
Besides the printing and usability problems, there are isolated text overlap problems (e.g. Ant infobox).
I'm also concerned that some readers will completely tune-out [show] links, because at a glance they look just like [edit] links, down the right edge of the page. -- Quiddity ( talk) 01:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Scrolling lists and boxes that toggle text display between hide and show are acceptable in infoboxes and navigation boxes, but should never be used in the article prose or references, because of issues with readability, accessibility, printing, and site mirroring. Additionally, such lists and boxes may not display properly in all web browsers.
i was perusing Jim Wales's user page and saw his wikipedia ad template. I thougth wikipedia did not have ads? What is the deal? Bilodeauzx ( talk) 04:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't like it though. I think this might be a way for Jim to "backdoor" some paid advertisements on wikipedia before we knew it. First on userpages, next on articles. A paranoid conspiracy maybe, but it just doesn't sit well, and I dont think i'm alone in that regard. Those banner ads look just like google banners. Bilodeauzx ( talk) 05:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
The ads are only for Wikipedia related stuff. You won't see a ad advertising a product of anything. Techman224 Talk 03:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
When I look at articles about people, I often see things that say something like 'We don't have a picture'. For an example, see Ann Robinson. It seems to be due to:
We don't put 'work in progress' or 'under construction and I think that is just as silly. If there is no picture, then just... er... don't put a picture... What is the deal? Lightmouse ( talk) 14:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
These are, as of a few weeks ago, officially discouraged in the Manual of Style. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Can somebody point me at the reference in the MOS please? Lightmouse ( talk) 22:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
See: Proposal to deprecate and remove images that say 'this is not an image please add one'. Regards Lightmouse ( talk) 12:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
See discussion here (permanent link). Jehochman Talk 08:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
This is making separate in the Balkans. Please look there and do something... Thanks *** Эɱ®εč¡κ *** ...and his friends 16:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
By popular demand (I don't think), a proposed revision and updating of the Wikipedia:Arbitration Policy can be found at Wikipedia:Arbitration policy proposed updating. Comments on all aspects of the policy and related issues are welcome on the talkpage. Thank you. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 23:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Today a I added links to my site which I considered relevant and informative to the main topic. All of them were removed.
An example:
To this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highlands_Hammock_State_Park
I added the link: http://epicroadtrips.us/2006/winter/highlands_hammock_state_park/
Why was this considered innappropriate? -Mike
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.168.102 ( talk) 23:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
My site contains more than just photos, have antother look. I strive to make my travel pages of real use and value to the veiwer. This is why I try to add good offsite material such as that from WikiPedia in addition to my own original material. -Mike
"My" is a personal site, correct? So, regardless of the value or pertinence of the information they cannot be added? Does this mean only .gov, .edu and .com sites can be added? This is confusing to me. - Mike
Thanks for the kind words and encouragement! -Mike
I may not be driven away, but current policy disallows me from adding any of the material I think might be useful to WikiPedia users because it is from "my" site. How, then, am I going to be able to add content? This policy seems unnecessarily rigid and counterproductive to achieving the goals of WikiPWedia. -Mike
I am interested, but distracted and busy at this time. When you all get the copyright issues sorted out, let me know. There seems to be differing opionions on this. -Mike —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.168.102 ( talk) 16:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Mr. Breiding Please wait because I'm going through the appropriate channels to make sure you have an accurate and confident understanding of our policies. Please check back to this page within the next 48 hours, or considering creating an account with us so we can leave you messages on your talk-page (which is better and more reliable than email). Just so you know how important you are to our community, I've spent the last two hours trying to find some help for you, and arguing with the users A Knight Who Says Ni and Mwanner as the three of us are in discussion of the applicable rules. We lose a lot of great people like yourself because our anti-spam measures identify you as a false-positive, and hope you can forgive our measures. Since we are run entirely by volunteers, and have lots of bots to help us with our job, we are only human and make plenty of mistakes from time to time. Sentriclecub ( talk) 21:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
(copied from the WP:RD/L per suggestion)
I'm sometimes missing something when reading a WP article (an easy example: Granophyre) and the subject pronunciation is described in IPA. I look at the the IPA symbols and have no idea how to pronounce the subject. Am I in the minority about this? Would it be non-encyclopedic to include a sounds like descriptor? When I encounter this situation would I be diminishing the article to include "sounds like" in small print? Is reading IPA so prevalent that I'm a "dinosaur"? I've seen some articles that include both IPA and "sounds like" but I'm uncomfortable about adding the "sounds like" as I've not found any guidelines. My personal opinion is that the less educated (non-IPA) folks who want to reference WP ought to at least be able to pronounce properly without jumping through IPA hoops so, both should be included -hydnjo talk 02:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks all for your time, attention and thoughts. Given that, I think I'll just add a phonetic pronunciation where I deem appropriate and not feel badly about it. If I get rv'd I'll not war - one unpronounceable at a time I say! ;) hydnjo talk 23:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
(end of copy)
Another problem with the sounds like is that not all foreign sounds (and hence names) can be constructed from Enlish sound. For example I have no idea how to represent something like schaap (Dutch for sheep) in english sounds like (the ch here is the typical Dutch guttural g (some kind of growl/scrape sound in the back of the throat (something like the Welsh "ll" combination, and the aa combination is an open vowel, a longer and rounder version of the a sound in Defra...). I have no idea of any word in English that uses these sounds completely Arnoutf ( talk) 03:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Should Wikipedia become a one stop Movie, Book or TV Guide?
Please make your views known at
WT:NOT#Wikipedia is not a Movie, Book or TV Guide. --
Gavin Collins (
talk) 09:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
To note: there is a centralised discussion of the placement of {{ coord missing}} here. The issue: should it be in article or talk space? -- Tagishsimon (talk) 11:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement ( | 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) 18:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Why do album and artist articles no longer have a genre classification in the right hand infobox? Just wondering. 98.196.177.110 ( talk) 00:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Ah thank you very much, I did not know where to look to find the discussion over this. 98.196.177.110 ( talk) 03:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I can't think of another case where we forbid links to a Wikia-based Wiki, but this seems like we should. Isn't this an entire Wiki devoted to wholesale copyright violation?— Kww( talk) 20:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Is there a policy on creating articles that list questions put to councils? I encountered Edmonton municipal election, 1963 due to problems with quotes and units. I didn't examine the article itself till now so it has just occured to me that if we created articles listing questions put to councils there would be thousands of articles like it. Is there something unique about this article that I can't see? Lightmouse ( talk) 19:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Ancient Egyptian). I cross-post here because if adopted it will become one of the few exceptions to the existing policy at Wikipedia:Naming conventions. Andrewa ( talk) 14:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
What does it take for a website to have an article on Wikipedia? For Example: http://www.kleinmuslims.org/
Would that website be notable enough to have it's own article? What does it have to do? Thank You-- Obaidz96 ( talk • contribs • count) 23:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I live in Victoria, British Columbia. On reviewing relevant Wikipedia content, I find
1. a disambiguation page for "Victoria"
2. a page for the city of Victoria, British Columbia (a legally established municipality)
3. a page for "Greater Victoria", the metropolitan area that includes the city proper.
The fly in the ointment is that next to nobody calls the area "Greater Victoria". It seems to me that the normal English usage in a reference work like the Wikipedia would refer to "Victoria (metropolitan area)". Indeed, it seems to me that a great many similar situations exist where there is a narrowly and legally defined city of a certain name and a larger, informally defined metropolitan area around it.
Indeed, in the page List of the 100 largest metropolitan areas in Canada we see an entry for the Victoria metropolitan area. Paris and Los Angeles are obvious examples of other cities in the same boat.
I would like to suggest as a matter of policy that in such situations, the normal structure of wikipedia entries would be two pages, for example Victoria,_British_Columbia_(city) and Victoria,_British_Columbia_(metropolitan_area)
Both pages would be referenced in any disambiguation page.
It is clearly not practical to alter all the many existing Wikipedia pages affected by this, but hopefully with a policy on the books to give guidance to contributors, this part of Wikipedia will gradually become organized along more rational lines than at present. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Floozybackloves ( talk • contribs) 01:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Portal 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) 18:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Ever since April this year, only Admin have been allowed to post articles and improvements in German Wikipedia. Joe soap is only allowed to submit drafts for their approval. This autocratic policy, it seems to me, is completely contrary to the founding principles of Wikipedia. I have protested in no uncertain terms within the system, but have merely been threatened with blocking -- or, alternatively, with being made 'one of the gang'. In my view, the leaders of the international Wikipedia project should be requested to withdraw the Germans' privileges until the policy is changed -- including the privilege of calling themselves 'the free encyclopaedia'. I'd make the request myself if I knew where to send it (replies to my personal page, please). I hope others will join in.
Otherwise I fear that this may be the beginning of the end, and we shall start, as in the 1930s, to see the lights go out all over Europe... -- PL ( talk) 10:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. In that case I should like to know what is!
It states that the new system of markings is designed to increase the reliability of articles and to give readers a better idea of their quality -- which sounds laudable enough. There are three categories:
1. Neither inspected nor checked out
2. Inspected, but not guaranteed for accuracy
3. Inspected and guaranteed by specialist
But first of all an article or revised version is treated merely as a draft or project (Entwurf), and doesn't appear as an article as such until the above assessment has been carried out by a 'Sichter' (actually, not quite an Admin, but a co-opted old hand). I can understand why this appeals to the tidy German mind, but it loses all the spontaneity of the traditional policy and is open to a great deal of abuse, as well as more or less guaranteeing a whole lot of ‘inspected idiocies’ that no specialist is prepared to pronounce on. Certainly ‘’I’’ am not, under these circumstances! -- PL ( talk) 15:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
So why is it still going? Has it acquired a momentum of its own?-- PL ( talk) 10:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
The German policy is in direct conflict with the whole Wikipedia philosophy: "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment." It will extremely difficult for non-mainstream theories to find its way in the German Wikipedia. I don't believe this has anything to do with a higher quality. Mr.K. (talk) 17:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely! Moreover, the alleged fact that the German system is as described by the unsigned person above was not made clear to me as a user -- nor have I the slightest idea whether I have made 300 edits or not. So, at the very least, far more openness is needed. -- PL ( talk) 08:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Please try the following operations on de:wp
What are the main differences to en:wp?
-- Regiomontanus ( talk) 21:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm hoping to be able to officially launch this soon. It has been under development since October 1st and publicized since that time at various appropriate forums, including this one. It has been publicized at Wikipedia talk:Images and media for deletion, Wikipedia talk:Image use policy, and WT:CSD. It is currently linked at Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Processes, Wikipedia:Guide to deletion, Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#See also and Wikipedia:Image use policy#Deleting images. It has also since October 2nd been listed at RfC, here. I think it has received sufficiently widespread exposure, and so far all feedback has been essentially positive. (One fellow, here, objected to actual deletion policy, but as this document is only a compendium of deletion practice, I pointed him to the appropriate forum to discuss his concerns.) Discussion has primarily centered around specifics of wording; there seems to be general consensus that the compendium is useful. Any further feedback or guidance in launching this would be helpful and greatly appreciated...right down to some guidance on at what point "proposed" is removed. :) -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi - I posted the section with the same name on my talk page. My posting relates to potential policy change. I am asking anyone involved/interested to please take part in discussion ! Thanks ARP Apovolot ( talk) 14:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Romanization of Ukrainian/Archive 20081024 ( | 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) 18:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
What is the current consensus on " notable awards"?
In a recent {{ afd}} a Hungarian wrote an article about a Hungarian soldier from World War 1. I asked the creator for clarification, because I had a recollection that being awarded a Congressional Medal of Honor or the Victoria Cross was considered sufficient to make a receipient pass the "notability" test. I looked for the policy or guideline I had a vague recollection of. Our Hungarian confirmed that the soldier had won the Hungarian equivalent of the Medal of Honor.
WP:Notability (awards) says it has been deprecated, because consensus is now unclear.
It had originally said that some awards made the receipient automatically notable. The two examples offered were: the Nobel Prize and the Congressional Medal of Honor. No mention of the Victoria Cross, or the highest awards of other nations.
I don't think there is any doubt that every Nobel Prize winner merits coverage here. But, personally, I don't think the highest national award of the nations in the anglosphere should be considered more significant than those of other nations.
Cheers! Geo Swan ( talk) 19:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Please refer to it as the anglophone world, not a term you appear to have created, the "anglosphere." Wasn't that a Pauly shore movie? In any case, the Noble Prise is the highest honour award in the world, even those parts of it that speak other languages, and even non-West. Swinglineboy G ( talk) 19:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm currently involved in a debate on Norwegian Wikipedia. The case goes as follows.
I strongly believe that deleting these entries and locking the relevant articles are violations of WP:NPOV. Please, Village Pump, give me some input on this issue. 79.142.225.74 ( talk) 22:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I vote that we delete the whole article as non notable. JBackus13 ( talk) 00:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
There is a RFC on the process for delisting a good article here You can find what are claimed to the current guidelines here. Editors involved with the Good Article Sweep Taskforce dispute that these are the current guidlines. I would like people who do not normally show any interest in Good Articles to comment here. Most of the comments are pretty degerenate stuff based around a case in point, Ireland's delisting. You would be advised to skip most of that. I would really like to know if editors feel there is any reason the current guidelines shouldn't be followed.-- ZincBelief ( talk) 12:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Look at the navboxes in United_Kingdom#External_links they are listed in the external links but they are internal link . Should we separate internal links to move navboxes to a see also section ? Gnevin ( talk) 15:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I would like the eyes of more experienced editors to please take a quick look at Eaton Harbors Corporation. I don't know the whole story on the subject of this article but it appears to me to be a real estate corporation. I know many well known corporations are on Wikipedia but it just has the appearance of promotional link spam to see "A business corporation that maintains land in Asharoken and Eatons Neck" in the See Also section of the Asharoken, New York and Eatons Neck, New York articles. Again, this may all be fine but I thought I should ask for feedback about these links. Thanks. -- Fife Club ( talk) 00:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Has anyone found a way to confirm Itunes listings or rankings since it seems one would have to actually have Itunes to access this information? They have revolutionized the music business but I'm unsure how to utilize itunes as a reference as of yet. -- Banjeboi 10:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
i couldn't for the life or me find a page giving an explicit, straight-up answer to this: is cc-by-nc-nd 2.0 a valid license (or fair use) for publishing material (by which i mean a flickr photo specifically) on wiki? -- Kaini ( talk) 23:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I recently nominated Manuel Gonzalez Hernandez for deletion (AFD here). The majority (all, in fact) of the respondents have !voted Keep with the rationale that the athlete passes WP:ATHLETE. While I agree that the general notability requirements have been met (the subject plays for a professional sports team), the article is seriously deficient in other ways. Specifically, there is almost no content in the article at all (he exists, his birthdate, he plays football), and there are absolutely no sources at all. One of the respondents has stated that:
AfD is only a forum for deciding whether or not the subject of an article is encyclopedic - it doesn't have anything to do with the actual content.
Apparently everyone else who commented on the AFD also agrees... am I missing something here? Let's not get stuck in the particulars of this nomination specifically, and focus more on the policy implications of the macro issue: Doesn't AFD necessarily evaluate policy compliance as well as notability guidelines? If not, what teeth do any of our policies have? Should the community have a pile of articles on subjects that may be notable, but are original research, mostly empty, unsourced, and seem to exist for the sake of existence? // Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
saved an article from deletion, and any of those who initially voted for deletion could easily have done what I did - it already had 2 good sources and Google threw more at me. -- Philcha ( talk) 23:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I have been looking through the backlog of {{ PD-self}} images for obvious inappropriate use of the that template, like where it is a scan/photo of a 2 dimensional image and the photographer would not actually hold the copyright of the image to be able to release into the public domain. Some of these may simply need a more appropriate tags as the may have fallen out of copyright anyways. Others may need to be processed as non-free content with the appropriate justifications written up. What would be the appropriate process to put these image through in the cases where I cannot figure out an appropriate free content license to use? Should I just list them at copyright violations or is there a better process to use?-- BirgitteSB 21:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I am concerned about the impact of the survey being conducted just now on Wikipedia's future. For instance, one of the most fascinating features of wikipedia is the variety of languages and dialects in which encyclopedic content is shared. Will the survey lead to the deletion of existing language versions and/or giving up the Incubator? Since fatally the number of users reading & contributing to some of those will be low. Cristixav ( talk) 21:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I have recently come across the {{
£}} template and have subsequently created
Template:$ and
Template:Yen (as
Template:¥ is banned from being created for some reason). What do people think of making their use official policy (as opposed to typing out things like
[[United States dollar|US$]]
manually)?
It Is Me Here (
talk) 13:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Template:€ created. It Is Me Here ( talk) 12:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
In actual law enforcement forensic scientists (CSIs) act as independent third parties to collect and analyze evidence and present their findings to court. CSIs are trained for this purpose. The evidence is gathered using scientific means and the results of the crime scene investigation can be reproduced. The findings of CSIs can incriminate the accused or do the exact opposite.
In the current workings of how arbcom works in general we expect/require the "victim(s)" to gather the evidence and present their analysis to arbcom. That is in general accompanied by a lot of white noise (ranting) which is useless to arbcom. In addition to that the "victim(s)" in general are inexperienced in how to gather good evidence which adds to the noise ratio. In addition trolls generally exploit the opportunity to provoke "victim(s)" to act improperly in front of arbcom. Inexperienced users often do not have the restraint seasoned editors do.
What we need is a CSI equivalent on the wiki. We do actually have a CSI-like body. Fundamentally that is what arbcom clerks, checkusers, oversight and etc do. Unlike a CSI-like body our version is poorly organized. For example checkusers hardly ever show up in arbcom cases to comment. Any checkuser analysis would have to be RFCUed weeks prior to a case before it is kicked in front of arbcom. Bringing a "good case" in front of arbcom requires weeks of preparation of various processes like RFCU. Most people do not have the experience and/or patience to prepare a "good case".
This proposal isn't really something new. To date outside opinions by uninvolved parties in arbcom hearings were never banned. On the contrary they are encouraged. You may have seen various section headers titled such as "Statement by uninvolved User:Foo".
“ | Ideally we want truly uninvolved third parties with no vested interests to collect and analyze evidence and present the finished version to arbcom. | ” |
This is a developing idea. I am not exactly sure how "wiki CSIs" would be chosen/elected or how such a body would be structured. I welcome any ideas.
-- Cat chi? 16:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
It seems like you're trying to limit discussion to only comments that support your basic premise. I think a general discussion section would be useful. Darkspots ( talk) 19:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I think there is definitely value in having impartial Wikipedians who volunteer to investigate issues. Some people might be motivated by the desire to encourage fair representation, but I wonder if there'd be enough of these people to go around - people with both the desire and the training. Dcoetzee 19:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Is this necessary? This proposal aims to create a new (four-tier!) bureaucracy that seeks special authority to do something that any editor is already free to do. Any editor is free to collect, analyze, and summarize evidence for the ArbCom, and to propose and comment upon findings of fact and remedies. A massive organizational framework is both unnecessary and likely to be harmful.
If anyone wishes to attempt to collect and neutrally present information for cases, I wish them well. If anyone sees them doing a good job, give them a barnstar. If the ArbCom finds their contributions helpful, the ArbCom can speak up. (Or the editor can ask the ArbCom.) If those helpful users want to chat about useful techniques in presenting information or how to interpret evidence, they're free to spend their Saturdays however they see fit. Badges and titles and layers of authority and special powers and permissions are utterly superfluous.
The bulk of evidence that the ArbCom deals with doesn't require special procedures or permissions to gather. It's all there in the contributions lists and logs. The small amount of confidential material that the ArbCom faces (mostly involving stuff protected by the Privacy Policy like detailed checkuser logs and real-world personal data) is both limited enough in volume that the Arbs and Checkusers can already examine it without outside help, and sensitive enough that it wouldn't be released to a bunch of amateur detectives anyway.
If Cool cat/White cat (or anyone else) thinks that independent evidence collection and summaries would be useful to the ArbCom, he's welcome to go right ahead and start working on them. He doesn't need permission or a new policy. (Before he gets started, though, he probably should review the role of Arb Clerks and Oversighters; those groups don't perform the evidence collection and presentation tasks that he seems to think that they do.) Let us know how the experiment goes. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 17:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I came across this User Dismas removing all links to Years in film in Actor bio's on the basis of mosnum , wp:overlink . What most concerns me is removing the links in the Filmography section ( which if you click goes to the article for film events , releases etc of that particular year ) . Doesn't it rather defeat one of the reasons for compiling the Year in film articles if all links in Actor bios ( or other revelant film articles ) are removed Garda40 ( talk) 22:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
When writing about foreign language films, is it conventional to leave them in their native language or use their English title: i.e. Bihisht faqat baroi murdagon versus To Get to Heaven, First You Have to Die (both the same film, in Tajik, alternate titles). For the meantime I've kept the title in Tajik but I don't know whether I should list it by its English name. LGF1992UK ( talk) 23:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I've recently started Wikipedia:Notability (restaurants) and am looking for help from like-minded (and others with constructive criticism!) editors in order to deal with the influx of non-notable, marginally-notable, and restaurants with unknown notability. I hope to provide a reference so that Afd's can go much easier (or can be mostly avoided). Right now, there is no reference for restaurant notability and unfortunately this is leading to some large assumptions (for example, that any restaurant given a review by a major newspaper is automatically notable...even if the review was not positive). Thanks for any advice and help! -- Kickstart70 T C 05:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I think that a user's contributions should be among the items that can only be viewed by an admin. I think this would help prevent people from monitoring each other. Only an admin should be able to see contribs when it is appropriate. Additionaly, I think people should only be allowed access to another user's talk page but not their user page. Libro0 ( talk) 20:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
You don't have to track vandalism. Rather, you report it to an admin and they track it. It should not prevent non-admins from correcting any vandalism they come across. Re: user page-Both viewing and editing. Why are there user pages anyway? Why are they not just merged with the talk page? They can save some space. Libro0 ( talk) 20:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
It is good of you to want to track and correct vandalism as a non-admin but checking contribs has potential for abuse most notably wikistalking. We have a responsibility to edit properly but monitoring people for vadalism should be limited the people that are part of an anti-vandalism taskforce. User pages are also targets for vandalism and their use should be limited to oneself and admins. Libro0 ( talk) 21:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Call me selfish, but it seemed the best way to remove my thorns. Libro0 ( talk) 22:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually I am not that petty. You will have to go back several months to get the full view. I have been monitored by more than one person and have nearly all my edits reverted or comments accompanied by "He lies!" This is definitely not about an image or any content for that matter. How would you feel if a user's entire edit history was devoted to singling you out. I don't expect WP to make a policy just for little old me. But it is a situation that I would like to make people aware of. This type of wikistalking is a crime. Libro0 ( talk) 23:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Complete non-starter, the vast majority of vandalism clean-up work is done by ordinary editors, to remove our ability to check the work of others would remove our ability to not only detect vandalism, but spam, copyright vios, MOS errors etc etc. What you are suggesting is a POV-pushers paradise. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 13:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Terrible idea. The transparency that is gained by anyone being able to delve through another editors edits is one of the most valuable things that we have here, and it far outweighs any negative that it produces; in fact, I can't really think of any negatives that it produces in and of itself; following another editor's contributions, what you describe as "stalking", isn't bad until it becomes disruptive; until that happens, its called "participation", and is something we encourage. It seems like you're trying to take an end-run around dispute resolution, which should probably be your next stop. In any case, removing this would be incredibly, incredibly problematic for vandal-fighters and extremely cumbersome for regular editors. Celarnor Talk to me 19:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I found an article on a general conceptual subject. Below that general article are mentioned example of real life implementations sorted by countries and cities.
For each implementation are mentionned the speficities of each, some characteristics etc...
I was wondering whether this would be ethical to mention the name of the initial architect, developer, project manager of this solution considering that no link to any entity is made neither to any online networking profile ?
Thanks for your advices on that.
We are trying to get this 5 year old convention accepted as an official guideline, and would like comments from other editors on this. If you wish, you can comment on the talk page of WP:MICRON. Thank you. - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 00:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
For anyone here who has been involved in cleaning up pages at Category:Disambiguation pages in need of cleanup (or has an interest in disambig formatting), we are requesting assistance. We are sorting out some subtleties for the WP:MOSDAB guideline, about how to handle disambiguation entries that may or may not require piped links and/or redirects. The guideline has been pretty vague on this, and different people have been handling things in different ways, and it's starting to cause some friction. So, we have listed at the talkpage three specific examples of complex disambig entries, and we're asking everyone to offer input on how they've been handling these, so we can see if we can figure out where the consensus is and update the guideline accordingly. For example, on the Cell (disambiguation) page, should the entry for "cellphone" be "Cell phone, a type of mobile phone" or " Cell phone, a type of mobile phone"? All opinions welcome, at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Piping and redirects. -- El on ka 17:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
The following is copied from
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Wavelength adding internal links to Wikipedia namespace pages.
(beginning of copied text)
This is the beginning of a discussion at User talk:Wavelength#Your recent contributions.
Wavelength, I had to revert one of your See also links, and I came over here to look at your contributions. I'm surprised. I'm really not the expert on these things, but this looks like a case of WP:POINT to me (specifically, point 6). Can we talk this out over at WP:ANI? - Dan Dank55 ( send/receive) 17:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Wavelength, are you prepared to accept that Dan has an objection about your changes and move into the "D" phase of WP:BRD? It seems like Wavelength was being bold and making changes to project pages and Dan wants to slow him down. Both actions are fine. Might I suggest finding some centralized place to discuss this where other people who watchlist/shepherd lots of policy pages can participate in the discussion as well? Protonk ( talk) 01:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
(end of text copied from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents)
I see two types of edits in Wavelength's contributions relating to adding links to Wikipedia-namespace pages:
[1 Adding them to other Wikipedia-namespace pages. I have no issue with this as a general principle. Whether the additions are appropriate in each individual case, I have not checked.
[2 Adding them to article-namespace pages. This is a violation of
WP:SELFREF, and Wavelength should volunteer to go back and remove those inappropriate cross-namespace links.
Anomie
⚔ 17:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia_talk:Three-revert_rule#Old_Scope_Creep.3F for a proposed trimming of an old exemption from this policy. Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 04:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Not sure if this or the proposals page is the best place to start this, but I'll try here.
The requested move of Flag of the Republic of Ireland is currently awaiting closure, and the debate has spilled over onto Republic of Ireland, where an improperly listed RM has just been opened a couple of months after the previous one closed.
Both debates have been seriously hampered by nationalist bias either from Irish or Northern Irish (and no doubt some will claim, British) editors. I have also seen this repeatedly in the Israeli/Palestinian-related articles, which is my main sphere of work. Nationalists use AfDs and RMs as ways of scoring points and forcing their opinions onto the rest of us. Examples of this include keeping articles on non-notable members of the public killed during the Israeli-Palestinian violence (e.g. Tali Hatuel), most likely as a way of highlighting the acts of the other side. The most well-known piece of nonsense was the multiple nominations of Allegations of Israeli apartheid - 8 times so far).
Anyway, I am getting thoroughly sick of how the nationalist elements are damaging such debates. If you look at the Flag debate, there is currently a majority in favour of the move (possibly helped by the fact that the move was advertised on WikiProject:Ireland and WikiProject:Irish Republicanism, but (unsurprisingly) not on WikiProject:Northern Ireland or WikiProject:Unionism in Ireland). However, if you discount the !votes of Irish and British editors (self-identified on userpages), the majority are actually in favour of the current title.
What do other editors think about requesting that editors with strong national ties to a topic do not participate in such debates (possibly using a template like this) and to leave outside (and much less likely to be biased) editors to the process? пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment. I don't want to get into the ins and outs of the particular articles discussed here. My question is whether there are collaboration WikiProjects in all the areas discussed here. Such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. I have been involved in some Israeli and Palestinian article and category editing for a few years. Nothing really helped solve problems as much as Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Also very important were the ArbCom-authorized discretionary sanctions. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration#ArbCom authorizes discretionary sanctions. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 11:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Today's featured articles are a clear violation of the "wikipedia pillar": " Wikipedia has a neutral point of view". Wikipedia is (or suggests to be) deciding it's featured article of the day with relation to a present time event. On doing so, specially since it is without precedent (as far as I can remember) it implicitly recognizes that event as "important". Even the format has changed: we have two featured articles on today's page. Will the Swiss elections have their main candidates pictured in the featured articles present? And the Spanish elections? If not, how come the american elections have? It is very sad and bad for the credibility of the encyclopedia. Is it an american encyclopedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guilhermesfc ( talk • contribs) 20:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I have been alerted by one of our students that the problem which several students now face is because of vandalism carried out by a user called Mod_Objective. Evidently, this user happened to disrupt the order and therefore was banned, along with the perceived sock puppets. We have been monitoring the situation and know the student who was involved in this. However, other people -in no way connected to the former student - have also been banned, including users:
A student of a University over 100 miles also had their input removed:
And other people were also accused of being sock puppets:
Our students are allowed to use wikipedia, and none of the above - as far as we are aware - was using accounts abusively. Some of our students cannot get on to the site because the computer has disallowed the IP address. But my area of most concern here is how all the changes done by users Kiddish.K and Safeguarded were removed. If the changes that they made were abusive and/or disruptive, then by all mean the user Jayjg, had every right to do so, but this was not the case:
1.
2. Even to the point of getting rid of the following redirects: * [20]
3. Removing other good faith edits:
4. And then it gets a bit silly:* [24]
Just because the user User:Jayjg is a admin, good faith edits shouldn't be removed. This is a University, people do use wikipedia and therefore, using one abusive user in the past as a basis to remove all good faith edits by students in the future, is not an intelligent tactic. Someone needs to take charge of the situation. Our students have been using wikipedia for a while. Our University holds up to 110 different nationalities, and is currently involved in inter-faith discussions. We encourage our students to use wikipedia, to add whatever they have learnt or know, to this encyclopedia.
In good faith, I'll ask that someone talk to user Jayjg about his unreasonable actions so far. Some of our teachers are even having problems and reviewing the situation, we see no reason why the above users were blocked and banned. All students have the right to use any computer. If someone is being disruptive, we will root them out. All changes are logged on our systems.
Thank you for your time and I hope you choose to do something about this mishap.
Representative code:12U-1 ( talk) 13:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
05/11/08
“ | If admins see fit to ban "the computer" more so than the person, then every computer in this University is not going to have the benefit of using wikipedia. If a user (of the same IP address) is showing particular vandalism then by every right, remove them on the basis of the previous history, however, if the user is behaving themselves appropriately and contributing positively to articles, there is no reason for any admin to rush in, and to delete all the changes made by those users. A institution like this should not have to suffer for one student who does not contribute to this encyclopedia any more. | ” |
— [[(“[
User:Representative of University”
] ").]] |
See above: Someone deleted what the Representative had to say ([ see history page]).
Many good faith edits have been removed simply because it is believed that the user making these good faith edits, was a previous vandal. Even if this is the case, sometimes admins have to use a little common sense. Religious admins it seems, want it their way or no way. This is wrong in every way, and I believe that the problem here should be relooked at. Kiddish.K, Safegurded and others were congratulated by others for their good faith edits. Now, all their edits have been removed, and not even to a sane level. On the Sacred Scriptures Bethel Edition page, you might expect the admin Jayjg, to revert it to the last edit by Editor 2020, but instead this admin decided to revert it to the first edit on the history page! [27]
This is wrong. This is wrong. This is wrong. Surely others can see that the motivation behind these reverts is NOT policy based. This problem has been addressed before: [28] The link will show you that the theory that groups of admins often group together, against those who have different religious beliefs, is a common practice on Wikipedia. It just so happens, that although the users banned:
These were NOT vandalizing or disrupting any articles. They do however, have different views to Jews. And as the link shows: nearly all those who have opposed and removed edits by these users have been Jews (see this link to researchers proposal). Jayjg – the admin who happens to be removing all the good faith edits by these users – is also a Jew.
User Jayjg has been warned on his attitude before to these things, but they’re edits are often deleted from his user page:
“ | “Please do not delete referenced information and do not delete messages left on portal Poland. This is vandalism and administrators are not supposed to do it. | ” |
— [[(“[
User:Tymek”
] ").]] |
As you can see, many many users have understood the one way street – my way or no way – approach admins like Jayjg. This isn’t some isolated incident. Someone needs to monitor the situation, preferably a balance i.e. if we have a religious admin, they should be shared by an unreligious (atheist) admin. We cannot allow admins to be strict on policies or slack, due to their own beliefs. In the short term I’m asking that the reverts Jayjg has done should be reversed, in the long term, I’d like to see admins of complete different beliefs working together. Then, and maybe then we wouldn’t have this “ secret assassin” business going on behind the scenes of wikipedia.
Good faith edits which considerably improve(by consensus) an article should not be reversed - especially by admins - no matter what policy they use to justify their action: see WP:IAR. Using a policy to make articles worse, is making admins like Jay look like the real vandals and I'm asking that someone PLEASE intervene. 143.53.6.219 ( talk) 13:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
10/11/08 Hi User:Jayjg. You deleted the above information.
Lately, several more incidents have occurred involving
User:Jayjg. Another user who tried to restore good faith edits on the
Sacred Scriptures Bethel Edition page has been accused as a sock puppet of Mod objective. Now, this is an outright lie. Would an admin care to check the checkuser of Fcedt, as I very much doubt any tie between mod_objective and fcedt can be given. Fcedt is part of SNM not the AOY. He attempted to restore the edits on the
Sacred Scriptures Bethel Edition page, but found himself banned on the accusation of being a sock puppet. Also
User:Jayjg and Editor 2020 seem to care very little about the vandalism the
Assemblies of Yahweh page is now suffering. Notice the following: Jay is more concerned with removing the good faith edits by users, than preventing the vandals:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Assemblies_of_Yahweh&diff=249556719&oldid=249431662 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Assemblies_of_Yahweh&diff=next&oldid=249556719 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Assemblies_of_Yahweh&diff=next&oldid=250221336
Please pay close attention as little is done when the page is being vandalized:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Assemblies_of_Yahweh&diff=next&oldid=250227442
If you have a look to the page now, to what the page was before [ [29]], you will realize that User:Jayjg is not interested in maintaining or improving pages when it comes to the Assemblies of Yahweh. I asked someone to monitor the situation that doesn't have a religious affiliation, instead, since the members were banned, several pages have suffered from vandalism. Those who are trying to prevent this vandalism are then accused of sock-puppetry. I have noticed that users like ( talk) have been tryed briefly to restore good faith edits... PLEASE prevent this Jay head from abusing their admin power, preventing all good faith edits and allowing vandals to ruin the pages. PLEASE. Have a look yourself! 143.53.5.80 ( talk) 14:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Because use Jay keeps deleting these comments after a few days, the only way to get through is to keep adding to them, so someone does something about the deterioration of the situation since the banning of several good faith editors. 143.53.5.80 ( talk) 14:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I have been alerted by one of our students that the problem which several students now face is because of vandalism carried out by a user called Mod_Objective. Evidently, this user happened to disrupt the order and therefore was banned, along with the perceived sock puppets. We have been monitoring the situation and know the student who was involved in this. However, other people -in no way connected to the former student - have also been banned, including users:
A student of a University over 100 miles also had their input removed:
And other people were also accused of being sock puppets:
Our students are allowed to use wikipedia, and none of the above - as far as we are aware - was using accounts abusively. Some of our students cannot get on to the site because the computer has disallowed the IP address. But my area of most concern here is how all the changes done by users Kiddish.K and Safeguarded were removed. If the changes that they made were abusive and/or disruptive, then by all mean the user Jayjg, had every right to do so, but this was not the case:
1.
2. Even to the point of getting rid of the following redirects: * [32]
3. Removing other good faith edits:
4. And then it gets a bit silly:* [36]
Just because the user User:Jayjg is a admin, good faith edits shouldn't be removed. This is a University, people do use wikipedia and therefore, using one abusive user in the past as a basis to remove all good faith edits by students in the future, is not an intelligent tactic. Someone needs to take charge of the situation. Our students have been using wikipedia for a while. Our University holds up to 110 different nationalities, and is currently involved in inter-faith discussions. We encourage our students to use wikipedia, to add whatever they have learnt or know, to this encyclopedia.
In good faith, I'll ask that someone talk to user Jayjg about his unreasonable actions so far. Some of our teachers are even having problems and reviewing the situation, we see no reason why the above users were blocked and banned. All students have the right to use any computer. If someone is being disruptive, we will root them out. All changes are logged on our systems.
Thank you for your time and I hope you choose to do something about this mishap.
Representative code:12U-1 ( talk) 13:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
05/11/08
“ | If admins see fit to ban "the computer" more so than the person, then every computer in this University is not going to have the benefit of using wikipedia. If a user (of the same IP address) is showing particular vandalism then by every right, remove them on the basis of the previous history, however, if the user is behaving themselves appropriately and contributing positively to articles, there is no reason for any admin to rush in, and to delete all the changes made by those users. A institution like this should not have to suffer for one student who does not contribute to this encyclopedia any more. | ” |
— [[(“[
User:Representative of University”
] ").]] |
See above: Someone deleted what the Representative had to say ([ see history page]).
Many good faith edits have been removed simply because it is believed that the user making these good faith edits, was a previous vandal. Even if this is the case, sometimes admins have to use a little common sense. Religious admins it seems, want it their way or no way. This is wrong in every way, and I believe that the problem here should be relooked at. Kiddish.K, Safegurded and others were congratulated by others for their good faith edits. Now, all their edits have been removed, and not even to a sane level. On the Sacred Scriptures Bethel Edition page, you might expect the admin Jayjg, to revert it to the last edit by Editor 2020, but instead this admin decided to revert it to the first edit on the history page! [39]
This is wrong. This is wrong. This is wrong. Surely others can see that the motivation behind these reverts is NOT policy based. This problem has been addressed before: [40] The link will show you that the theory that groups of admins often group together, against those who have different religious beliefs, is a common practice on Wikipedia. It just so happens, that although the users banned:
These were NOT vandalizing or disrupting any articles. They do however, have different views to Jews. And as the link shows: nearly all those who have opposed and removed edits by these users have been Jews (see this link to researchers proposal). Jayjg – the admin who happens to be removing all the good faith edits by these users – is also a Jew.
User Jayjg has been warned on his attitude before to these things, but they’re edits are often deleted from his user page:
“ | “Please do not delete referenced information and do not delete messages left on portal Poland. This is vandalism and administrators are not supposed to do it. | ” |
— [[(“[
User:Tymek”
] ").]] |
As you can see, many many users have understood the one way street – my way or no way – approach admins like Jayjg. This isn’t some isolated incident. Someone needs to monitor the situation, preferably a balance i.e. if we have a religious admin, they should be shared by an unreligious (atheist) admin. We cannot allow admins to be strict on policies or slack, due to their own beliefs. In the short term I’m asking that the reverts Jayjg has done should be reversed, in the long term, I’d like to see admins of complete different beliefs working together. Then, and maybe then we wouldn’t have this “ secret assassin” business going on behind the scenes of wikipedia.
Good faith edits which considerably improve(by consensus) an article should not be reversed - especially by admins - no matter what policy they use to justify their action: see WP:IAR. Using a policy to make articles worse, is making admins like Jay look like the real vandals and I'm asking that someone PLEASE intervene. 143.53.6.219 ( talk) 13:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
10/11/08 Hi User:Jayjg. You deleted the above information.
Lately, several more incidents have occurred involving
User:Jayjg. Another user who tried to restore good faith edits on the
Sacred Scriptures Bethel Edition page has been accused as a sock puppet of Mod objective. Now, this is an outright lie. Would an admin care to check the checkuser of Fcedt, as I very much doubt any tie between mod_objective and fcedt can be given. Fcedt is part of SNM not the AOY. He attempted to restore the edits on the
Sacred Scriptures Bethel Edition page, but found himself banned on the accusation of being a sock puppet. Also
User:Jayjg and Editor 2020 seem to care very little about the vandalism the
Assemblies of Yahweh page is now suffering. Notice the following: Jay is more concerned with removing the good faith edits by users, than preventing the vandals:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Assemblies_of_Yahweh&diff=249556719&oldid=249431662 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Assemblies_of_Yahweh&diff=next&oldid=249556719 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Assemblies_of_Yahweh&diff=next&oldid=250221336
Please pay close attention as little is done when the page is being vandalized:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Assemblies_of_Yahweh&diff=next&oldid=250227442
If you have a look to the page now, to what the page was before [ [41]], you will realize that User:Jayjg is not interested in maintaining or improving pages when it comes to the Assemblies of Yahweh. I asked someone to monitor the situation that doesn't have a religious affiliation, instead, since the members were banned, several pages have suffered from vandalism. Those who are trying to prevent this vandalism are then accused of sock-puppetry. I have noticed that users like ( talk) have been tryed briefly to restore good faith edits... PLEASE prevent this Jay head from abusing their admin power, preventing all good faith edits and allowing vandals to ruin the pages. PLEASE. Have a look yourself! 143.53.5.80 ( talk) 14:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I have soft-blocked the relevant university, since checkuser shows the IP range is being used for a variety of new account creations as well as Mod objective related activity and problematic edits -- the odds seem good the three are not unconnected. FT2 ( Talk | email) 14:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
There have been a few recent WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussions involving closures: Closures by involved editors, Non-admin closing requested move discussion he participated in, Kinobe.
I see two main discussions:
Flatscan ( talk) 04:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Closure by an uninvolved admin is not always required for non-AfD discussions. Obvious WP:SNOW, with a complete absence of opposition, may be applied. Since discussions occurring on article Talk pages are poorly subscribed, an uninvolved closer would need to be solicited, either directly or through a noticeboard. My opinion is that the request is excess process for an obvious SNOW close and that an involved closer does not ipso facto invalidate the close.
Requesting an uninvolved closer is an appropriate, optional step if it is reasonable to believe that the closure may be contested. I recently added a suggestion along those lines to Help:Merging and moving pages; there was previously no guidance.
I've seen a few requests for closures of contested move or merge discussions at WP:Administrators' noticeboard that had prompt response and no opposition following the close. Flatscan ( talk) 05:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)