This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (policy).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
There is a proposal on the treatment of creation of articles for current events. It's based on a combination of existing policies/guidelines, but as an interpretation of how they applies to current events. The basic premise is that, as an encyclopedia, we should not be in the business of tracking breaking news on a minute by minute basis, and we should be cautious about overuse of sources published in the heat of the moment. We have no need for a "scoop", so should act without unnecessary haste, and "wait for the dust to settle" before using potentially unreliable sources. This is especially important when the potentially unreliable sources are concerning previously unknown living people due to WP:LIVING issues. Comments welcome at WP:DUST. Regards, MartinRe 22:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I believe a revision of the "Common Name" guideline needs to be made in order to alleviate the conflict that certain applications of that guideline has with other guidelines and policies (like WP:NC(P)). I would like to get a broad consensus on what would be the best way to clearify and revise the guideline. Please direct any comments to the guideline's talk page. Thanks! Agne 19:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
On Talk:Boston (disambiguation) under the heading "Most Commonly" I suggested that the relative importance of Boston, Lincolnshire was being undersold. TiffaF has made what seems like a reasonable proposal, including highlighting a precedent:
"I agree Boston should point to this disambiguation page, and Boston, Lincolnshire should be the first entry. See Newark, which is structured in this way..."
What neither of us know is how much publicity this needs before it is implemented. I almost went on a did it on the basis of "Be Bold", but hesitated and would welcome comment. SMeeds 10:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I have to side with the above and disagree with the original poster. Boston, MA is a global city and I would say that Newark is a poor comparison since it doesn't have the global stature of Boston to set itself apart from the other Newarks. I agree that there should be a comment line on the article to point to the disambig but the redirect should go directly to Boston, MA Agne 18:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I am pleased now to see that Boston, Lincolnshire gets second billing to Boston, Massachusetts. That is all I was ever looking for. As I have said on Talk:Boston (disambiguation), I am ducking out of this conversation now. Thanks for your help. SMeeds 08:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I (re)propose this thing. -- Cat out 00:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
The proposal Wikipedia:Candidates and elections ( WP:C&E) had a fairly good reception when introduced, with a couple of objections from people who thought it was not inclusive enough. It then sat idle for a while, and has now been tagged as inactive. I'd like to revive discussion on it to establish a policy on the subject. I'd appreciate it if people who have not read it go check it out and comment on its talk page. Thanks. -- Mwalcoff 22:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
A recent article linked from Slashdot (and discussed there) claims that Wikipedia is not primarily written by the most prolific editors, but mostly by outsiders with low edit count, and often even without an account. These raw contributions are then polished by the inside core, racking up high editcounts while fixing punctuation and moving images around. I think there is at least some truth to this. This is certainly another argument against editcountitis in deciding conflicts or awarding adminship. Question: Does Wikipedia give an adequate voice to contributors with substantial contributions but few edits?-- Stephan Schulz 20:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I've thought about this for a while, and while I just can't see any reason it would be a bad idea, I think it would be perceived as an unusual idea, so I wanted to ask for opinions from other editors.
The question is this: if an editor is not yet ready to write an article, but is assembling sources and the like, may he or she create the article talk page that would accompany the article once it is created? This, to my mind, is better than rushing to get an inadequate stub out into article namespace. If another editor is unaware of the first editor's efforts and starts a stub in article namespace, they'll see that the corresponding talk page already exists -- so this already has an advantage over the frequent practice of starting an article in one's user space and then moving it to article namespace when ready.
Does anyone have comments or suggestions regarding this practice? -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
...but also displeased to see users changing articles to their own biased opinions! I edited the article on the History of communication and added that what was written on the page was simply a theory devised by evolutionists and not 100% factual. Another user removed what I wrote and added that creationism was a "fairy tale". Such attitude should not be tolerated here, as well as such a biased point of view being displayed in our articles! I am not trying to promote creationism, nor to bring down evolutionism, but to point out that evolutionism is a theory, not a fact. A very strong theory, perhaps, but not fact.
EDIT: Upon further inspection, this user happens to be an admin. I'm surprised such an offensive, biased person has been given administrator privileges.
-- Ravenstorm 12:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
For the records, I have apologized for my talk page comment, which was indeed rather brusque, but I considered the edit in question highly inappopriate and controversial, certainly not something that should be readded to a high-visibility (DYK) article. Btw, I have not reverted your edits: you were reverted by two other users (although I completly agree with their revert for the reasons stated on talk). As for the merit of your edit, I replied at Talk:History of communication, where I recommed we continue this discussion (VP pages are not archived...).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 16:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
has anyone else noticed a large increase in unnecessary templates? you know, those ones where a category exists and works just fine except someone saw fit to make a template also? i guess they find categories too hard to use or something? i have no idea, but it's getting out of hand. perhaps we need more guidance on the matter in the help section, maybe the newbies simply don't get it. and perhaps some people who love to enforce could focus themselves on this for a little while. 151.201.46.144 22:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know if there is a policy (or guideline) on linking to RSS feeds? The example I came across was a webcomic Megatokyo. It seems the infobox used by WikiProject Webcomics has a parameter to show RSS feed links. I'm not entirely sure, but it seems lik this is just offerng people the option to subscribe to the comic, which seems a bit strange for Wikipedia to do. Surely we should link to the comic website, and then let people click the RSS feed button there if they want to. Thoughts? Carcharoth 18:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Throw ( talk · contribs · count) has been uploading all of his images, claiming the source as a Flickr account. However, it just appears that he himself uploaded those photos to his own Flickr account, and then uploaded them here, which would be no different than just uploading a random image that was saved on a hard drive. Can this really be counted as a source? I mean, there has to be a real source from where that user got the pictures so he could upload them to the Flickr account.
Oh, I also have some real beefs with the way the user acts. He used to tag it with CC by 2.0 deeds, even though they're clearly not his works, and he even still writes that text in (tagging it now with the lovable {{ fairuse}} tag). He also is rather incivil to anybody who touches "his" images; see [1] [2] [3] (the second one also removing the IFD tag). I even discussed it with him [4], but he showed disregard for the philisophy of "fair use," calling the free iamge "ugly" before deleting the entire discussion [5]. Hbdragon88 03:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Is it acceptable to use a fair use image on a compendium of series episodes? In particular, I'm referring to List of Utawarerumono episodes, which contains a fair use screen shot from each episode. User:Zoe| (talk) 22:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
It appears that many users (aspiring admins or even some sysops) are on a mission to merely increase the number of articles edited (without pausing to procrastinate on the revision made by others) rather than the quality of the articles. This is counterproductive to sustaining the interest and participation of other users.
Anyone who keeps editing 10 or more pages everyday is not serious about the quality. I hope Wiki policy members ponders over this suggestion. Thank you.
Netking 10:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
If the target function is "inflation" then it does compromise the quality and hence the "usefulness" is not fully supported.
This is a completely fallacious contention. There are many types of small but valuable edit, and there is no reason why one couldn't make good edits to hundreds of articles in a day, if one had sufficient time on one's hands. Even in fields that one knows nothing about there are opportunities to make good edits of many kinds, eg spelling and grammar corrections, presentational improvements, wikilinks and category refinements. Sumahoy 00:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Problem is, most defenders of "unlimited editing" will always declare they are good in editing. They may or may not be good, but they can't be the jury to judge their own work. Common sense dictates that humans have finite energy and knowledge. The limit of "10" was just a random pick for discussion and not a limit selected rationally. Even if there was an occasional involvement to edit 100 pages in a day, it can't be a regular activity with quality.
Netking 09:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
So are you suggesting we should all refrain from making minor corrective edits? Fagstein 19:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Even if you are doing quality work on a single article, there's no need to try to limit the number of edits involved. Whenever I make major changes to an article, I try to use a sequence of small, easily summarized edits. If I have to worry about some edit quota, I could just as easily make one huge edit with the summary "rewrite varous stuff, diff speaks for itself". As you would put it, this is counterproductive to sustaining the interest and participation of other users. Melchoir 20:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
You also totally deprecate those of us who vandal patrol wide categories. Just because some of us have a 500 page watchlist we refresh every 20 seconds does not mean we are not helpful editors. If you really want an example of something non-contributive to do on Wikipedia, I'd suggest you look at the practice of inventing ridiculous new regulation proposals. -- tjstrf 22:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Netking: I'll put my head on the block. I challenge you to look at the 100+ edits I've made in the last 24 hours (based on the timestamp of this comment) and identify three that were, in your view, inappropriate. - Jmabel | Talk 00:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I am concerned about the sections "In popular culture" for events that are seens as tragic e.g. Jonestown. See Talk:September_11,_2001_attacks#Attacks_in_popular_culture Some contributors may find a section "In popular culture" for tragic events inappropriate. I understand this and I have some sympathy for this, but this should be applied consistently. Why is this okay for Jonestown but not for the September_11,_2001_attacks. What is or should be the policy on this? Andries 14:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I have brought this up before, but there has not been a satisfactory resolution. Practice, and until recently English Wikipedia policy, has been to not delete user talk pages of users with a significant editing history unless they are suffering from harassment or there is some other extreme circumstance. However, Wikipedia:User page has been modified to include a link to m:Right to vanish and the exceptional circumstances required for deletion are not mentioned, which gives the impression that anyone can request deletion of their talk page under right to vanish. Is this what we want? I do not mind if it is, I just want there to be consistency about it. The deletion of user talk pages has often been reversed in the past. The only ones to stick that I know of are cases when there has been harassment, when a sympathetic admin has deleted the page with no one who might object noticing, or when Jimbo has deleted the page due to a request by the user or to stop an edit war of deleting and restoring (Rbj came back and a new page was started, while Locke Cole's page was started over with new messages after he left. Neither page was restored.). Also, occasionally a talk page is deleted as part of an agreement that an editor will leave.
I think ordinary users should get the same treatment as vandals, those who are admins or have friends who are admins, and those who appeal to Jimbo. I propose that Wikipedia:User page be modified to say either that editors may request the deletion of their talk pages under right to vanish, or that user talk pages are not deleted except in extreme circumstances, such as harassment of the user.
Some may want there to be some qualifications for deletion by right to vanish, such as not being a "serial vanisher". This makes sense to me, although I would give a user a second chance before denying deletion requests. At least one editor did not want to delete the talk page of a user who has warning on his or her talk page, but since the user is leaving and the page will be restored upon returning, I do not think it matters.
For the no deletion option, some may want to allow the blanking and protecting of a user's talk page as a compromise. The history would still be visible to all users, but would it would be less visible and the deleted content would no longer be indexed by search engines, although it would take a little while for the page to stop showing up in search results based on the previous contents of the page. Also, protecting the page prevents additional messages from being posted. This would be done for those who are truly leaving Wikipedia and who want to vanish, so there is no point in further messages, positive or negative. If the user does return, the page can be unprotected and reverted to its pre-blanking state.
Finally, there is a question of what to do when the policy, guidelines or practices on the English Wikipedia, or any other project, are in conflict with those on Meta, unless there is a policy somewhere about this that I do not know about.
This is what spurred this second post on the subject. The requested deletion of his talk page under right to vanish, and as of my writing this, the consensus was to delete and the page has been deleted. I put this at the bottom so that hopefully people will read my post before going off to comment and to stop them from thinking that this is just a response to that particular situation. -- Kjkolb 12:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Is a violation of Wikipedia policy for two different users to have similar usernames? I have recently noticed that a new user is editing under the username User:Tommyboy25. -- TommyBoy 06:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I was looking at our article on primary sources and noticed that it stated that:
As a general rule, however, modern historians prefer to go back to available primary sources and to seek new (in other words, forgotten or lost) ones. Primary sources, whether accurate or not, offer new input into historical questions and most modern history revolves around heavy use of archives and special collections for the purpose of finding useful primary sources
So tying in with our original research policy, what I'm thinking is that primary sources need evaluation as to their importance and interpretation, and then that interpretation would constitute original research, yes? Any interpretation would need to be published in a reliable source to be acceptable to Wikipedia, yes? I was also thinking that the relevance of a primary source is something which needs to be determined, through its use as a primary source in a secondary source. A primary source has no relevance to impart to its field or subject by itself, it is something that critics, historians and experts bestow through publishing their research, yeah? Relevance, meaning that a primary source has information to bear, is not something we can determine, but rather must be determined for us through secondary sources, yeah?
Can we decide what has relevance within any given field, or is that in violation of WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR? Do we need secondary sources to determine relvance for us? Steve block Talk 11:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
This is an interesting problem. For example, during the 1960s while in college my wife was on a friendly basis with Julia Mullock. According to my wife, Julia mentioned that she was Jewish, yet I do not know of anywhere here or elsewhere that mentions that. So if I put that in the wikipedia entry, it would be original research & ineligible, right? Aside from the sort of 'so what' aspect. -- Dan 20:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:WikiService. mrholybrain 11:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Is there any guidance of listing individual chapters for books and/or serialized fiction? Does anyone have opinions on if it should be done or not? (There are multiple instances of it cropping up in a wikiproject that I participate in, including creating separate articles just to list chapter titles.) -- Kunzite 03:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Here you go:
-- Kunzite 14:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
(I looked in the FAQ for this but did not find an answer).
I read an article about a political writer that I felt violated the POV guidelines. I added the POV tag to the article and explained why under the article's Talk section. Is that the correct procedure? What is to stop the article's author from simply deleting my POV tag?
Hanover81 01:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Removed the tag; your edits were fine; although I detect you are sensitive that he not be titled a historian, I see no problem there.
Appreciate your kind comments. You’re most welcome of course. We as Wikipedians are supposed to strive toward a neutral points of view. And almost everyone appreciates a well written NPOV article that doesn’t set off our alarms when we read it.
Keep up the excellent editing. Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 03:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I would like to propose a policy to prevent users from blanking, or removing content from their own user talk pages. It is currently considered bad etiquette, but it is still allowed. When a user does this, it makes disscussion hard to follow, and if information is needed in the future, finding it would require searching through page history after page history.
Archiving of such pages should still be allowed. --GW_Simulations User Page | Talk 20:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
"(User talk blanking) is currently considered bad etiquette"... By whom? Refactoring/cleaning-up is good. Eugène van der Pijll 21:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I would be absolutely opposed to such a policy. I've seen far too much harassment of good faith users who simply don't want to keep particular messages. I've seen such users being sent vandalism warning templates, and being threatened with blocks, and eventually getting very angry over something that should never have been an issue in the first place. There are certain posts that should be left in place — block notices and warnings for the duration of a block, sockpuppet templates placed by administrators, etc. But unwanted messaages sent to an ordinary, non-troublesome user who is making good edits and otherwise minding his own business? Administrators are actually more likely to block someone for harassment who keeps restoring those messages. Removing messages from your talk page is not disruptive, unless it's done like this. Also, there are cases (I've known some) where a user removes a post from his talk page because that post indirectly gives personal information about him. It would be nice if such users could do so disrceetly, without having a whole pile of busybodies descending on his page to restore the unwanted message, and generally draw more attention to it. If an editor's management of his own talk page does not interfere with writing an encyclopaedia, then that editor should be left in peace. AnnH ♫ 23:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
See WP:BSP. mrholybrain 00:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Manual of Style (trademarks) is one of those obscure guide pages that is occassionally important. At present there is some confusion of whether writing things like "I ♥ NY", where ♥ substitutes for "love" are allowed or not. In the spirit of the guideline, I think they should be actively discouraged, but before rewriting that part of the guideline, I'd like to draw a little more attention to what is ordinarily an obscure talk page. Please comment at: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (trademarks)#Symbols as words. Dragons flight 19:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I have very little experience as a Wikipedia editor, so perhaps these are stupid questions but,
1. If every comment should be signed and signing is the same for everyone (simply involving typing four tildes at the end) is there any reason the system can’t add the tildes/signature its self to save us humans the work?
2. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:DoubleRedirects : “Each row contains links to the first and second redirect, as well as the first line of the second redirect text, usually giving the "real" target page, which the first redirect should point to” Under what conditions would it not be desirable to make the first redirect point directly to the target of the second redirect? Surely the process that gathers this information could be upgraded a little to make the change without intervention.
165.165.204.124 16:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
A self-proclaimed new editor posted a stream of conciousness rant as a new section on a page I watch. Seeing that the issue this editor brought up was indeed a good addition, but lacking time to clean it up properly, I cut and pasted the changes to the article's talk page with a note that the info was useful but needed to be made encyclopedic, with the hope the person in question would do so. About 24 hours later the same editor tried again, with a note that "everyone" agrees the info should be on the page. Again, I cut the info and placed it on the talk page, with a note that discussions about the merits of the of the edits should not be placed on the main article space. A few minutes later the person, claiming they had no other way to reach me, asked if they could at least put a heading regarding the information. (Rather than simply doing it themselves.) I cut the info again, reminding the person that discussion belongs on the talk page, and shortly thereafter rewrote the content, making a short NPOV, properly wikified addition that was a summary of the information. (Sorry I'm being vague I don't wish to stir up more trouble by posting the article I'm talking about.)
I started a dialogue with this person, who on one hand feels we reached a good compromise and on the other is posting about having been a victim of 3RR. I don't think this is a case of 3RR, but I thought I would ask here. What would other editors do in a situation where you see a clumsy edit that you don't have time to clean up? I can't stand leaving these efforts on the page, and feel that pasting the info on the talk page for discussion is a good compromise. I realize different people have different wiki learning curves but I'm really frustrated trying to deal with this person, who keeps saying "but I was being BOLD". Any advice about what I can say to this person would be helpful.
Thanks for your help. 71.34.113.170 01:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
It looks like a good time to post the matter at Requests for Comment. Durova 15:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your opinions. I may have gotten a little carried away, since I was thinking only of not leaving a bunch of crap (not libelous, just heavily POV and ranty to the point of being garbled) in the article and not about 3RR, but really there were only 2 reversions in a 24-hour period and we worked it out after that. I had reacted when I saw an IP editor keep repeating the same mistake (and I had explained what the problem was on the talk page) and I tried to remedy this the best I could. (I'm not really an IP; I have 2000 mainspace edits.) I'm just frustrated the person started bringing up 3RR, claiming they feel bitten, rather than addressing the issues I had with what they added. (Which I pointed out without name calling, while they accused me of censorship and other things bordering on uncivil.) I guess I'm more thick-skinned. If someone had pointed out what I had done wrong, I would have learned what to do right and not repeat the mistake. So it's hard for me to hear: "But I'm still learning!" when I have given them the tools to learn. But not everyone is like me, thank god. So I'm trying to learn from this. I'll try to be more careful/patient in the future. In other words: BE TIMID! And other than arguing about whether or not I was being mean to this person, we have worked out the issue, so no need for comments or dispute resolution at this point, though I let the person know that was an option. 71.34.113.170 01:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) bobblewik 20:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Copied from here and placed under its own title to clarify topic. Comments would be greatly appreciated, as well as ideas about where to get more input. Carcharoth 23:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
There are specific guidelines that say that merging and demerging, especially if it involves moving large chunks of text, is not something to be done lightly. It took me a while to pick up on this myself, but cutting and pasting large chunks of text around Wikipedia destroys the attribution. What I mean by this is that if you move text from one article to another (either merging or splitting articles), then the edit history (and the list of who wrote which bits of the article) is lost. What is usually required is a merge of the edit histories, which needs some admin magic, I believe. (Compare this to a page move, where the edit history of the article is moved from the old location to the new one). At the very least, when merging or splitting, a link to the old pages is needed to allow the edit histories to be traced back, though this solution is less than ideal. This is why encouraging boldness in these cases can backfire. You really need to know what you are doing before doing a merge or split. Carcharoth 21:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
What's Wikipedia's policy on using google maps screenshots on Wikipedia? -- Dijxtra 16:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
My interpretation of their terms of use is that it is basically verboten to use their imagery in Wikipedia. Alr 19:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
ya know, i process mail for a living. i tried to add an article about some of the machines we use at work. much to my chagrin, wikipedia has turned into and idiotic feudalistic playground for bored assholes. there are dozens, if not hundreds of articles about stupid, idiotic fictional characters in video games and books and movies.
there is not an article about mail processing system that is used every day to process hundreds of millions of envelopes.
and my article got rejected?
why?
when i first came to wikipedia i started many stub articles. stubs are an excellent way to grow. nowdays, you cant. there are hundreds of rules and regulations about adding crap. and worst of all, some little shitbag king-for-a-day moderator (who is chosen how exactly? the same way the 'brilliant' slashdot moderators are i suppose - way to go, copy slashdot, king of accuracy) decides to reject the article. its fucking stupid. the whole reason wikipedia is a success is because there were no fucking rules about who could add what.
but the "real rules" behind the rules are this:
if its something bored white 20-35 year old males enjoy, like comic books or lord of the rings, it will be added.
if its not, then they will think up some rule for why it doesnt fit.
wikipedia is just, dead. its stupid. the idea is dead because the people running it are disconnected from the users and dont care about them.
its just turning into more and more of an upper middle class pissing contest about abstract bullshit.
if you keep adding more and more rules, then the only articles that will be created are by people who have enough time and bureaucratic know how to send an article through. which means, basically, the rich, the well off, the bored, the idle.
ordinary people who know a great deal about how the world works and how the food gets to your plate and how this little computer you are using right now, how it comes to be.... they are being cut out, shuffled out, de facto barred from contributing by this bureaucratic nonsense, red tape delusion, and so-called 'quality' control. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.185.250.195 ( talk • contribs)
The original poster's message read just like the countless rants I've read, basically saying "Wikipedia sucks because it won't accept an article about me or my band/forum/webcomic/company". However, in this case, it looks like Wikipedia did accept the article. I just wish people would tone down their aggression and not insult the entire Wikipedia editor body just because an article they wrote got rejected or deleted. JIP | Talk 08:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I change the article of Savage Islands with information about the dispute of Spain about the island. Not about if the Spain has right or not only I probe with a link to the diary os sesion of the spanish senate that Spain doesn´t recognize the soberany of Portugal. The wikipedist Pedro [ [6]] "La esfera alrededor de las islas Canarias" that's about the waters, not the islands - the islands are no sphere! Portugal has no problems with no country! it just has Olivenza because our neighbours are like gypsies, not because of gypsie culture of Southern Spain, but because it invades other people's property: Spain = Turkey part II 1/2 (as in Cyprus) - and still Portugal does nothing. See, it even respects those who doesnt deserve it, in my opinion, that's because we have chilcken and monkeys insted of politicians, but that's another issue. "
I think that is imposible to work in this article of Wikipedia with this vandalism and I know that is not the first problem of this wikipedist. Pedro [ [7]] is a vandal and a racist and must be block For Pedro: Spain=gypsies=thieves. That is racism about the spaniards and the gypsies. Noviscum 08:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
THIS MAKES ABSOLUTLY LITTLE SENSE, IS THERE A WAY TO REMOVE LARGELY UNINTELLIGEABLE PROPOSALS/COMMENTS FROM W.P. ESPECIALLY IF THEY ARE UNFRUITFUL IN GETTING THEIR POINT ACCROSS AND HAVE NOT RECEIEVED ANY RESPONSES? I also think that perhaps this user should be contacted and asked to provide this comment in their native lanaguges, im assuming Portuguese so that someone may translate it to make more sense of his comment? Qrc2006 03:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
It has been almost a week without recurrence. We can hope that a rewrite of Savage Islands to address the dispute in as balanced a fashion as possible has achieved peace between Portugal & Spain (or at least Portuguese & Spanish contributors). Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 03:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Is it a wikipedia policy not to have lyrics on the pages of songs? Is this a copyright issue? I would have thought if a song is important enough to warrant its own encyclopaedia article, surely the lyrics are the first thing you'd want to include in it. Suicup 14:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
This post has been moved to the proposal page Wikipedia:German page approval solution
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (military vehicles): please comment on the talk page. — Michael Z. 2006-08-15 20:50 Z
See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Male_Domination.3F.
Wikipedia:Privacy_of_article_subjects
At 14:14, 8 Sept 2006, I was blocked because of vandalism occurring at my IP address, 161.88.255.139. This is apparently the address of a firewall at my place of employment, so I share it with many other employees here. (If I find out who it was, he/she is in trouble :-) The details of my little story are at the end of [9], if you are interested.
I found it annoying that the vandal causing the problem was operating anonymously, while I was being a good citizen and logging in. I wonder if it would be possible to have two grades of IP blocking: the usual grade would only block the IP address when used anonymously, but allow edits from logged-in users. In extreme emergencies, I suppose it would be necessary to have a total block on an IP address, independent of the logged-in state. William Ackerman 18:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Is there any interest in creating a new Wikia project to host articles on Internet Memes that do not, and cannot be made to meet Wikipedia's policy on verifiability and prohibition on Original research? I was thinking about this in discussions on P-P-P-Powerbook, which has been up for AFD several times because there are no third-party reliable sources on the subject (and therefore Wikipedia should not have an article on the subject), and it has been kept repeatedly because it is a great story, and one can trivially verify the primary sources (the original discussion thread on Something Awful and a self-published PDF bragging about it).
The situation would be resolved if there were a place to transwiki such articles. We could keep a stub to point to the new Wiki (at least until it got going, so it wouldn't turn into an intellectual ghetto) whenever an article was transwikied, and we could undelete and transwiki a batch of articles to seed the new Wiki. I began the process of starting such a new Wiki, but then realized that it would be a time committment that I personally cannot make at this time, but I thought that others might be interested. Robert A.West ( Talk) 11:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
There have been edits made to WP:EL that have caused edit reverts by a handful of editors. This is an important policy and looks to be undergoing a re-write, and as such, could use the opinion of not less than this small village.-- I already forgot 05:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
In case anyone is interested... apparently someone bought a Google AdSense ad for the word crowdsourcing, and pointed it at the corresponding wikipedia page. It's not clear who did this, or why they'd pay to spotlight content they don't control. But apparently some blogs [10] [11] and media folks have noticed already. -- Interiot 05:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
This also means that we should make the external links on that page in strict conformance of WP:EL! Pascal.Tesson 05:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Maybe Jeff Howe really wants someone to write an article on him from that redlink. -- tjstrf 15:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
This sounds like a weird question, but how are images treated under the WP:V policy? I mean, for commons or other public domain images, how do we know the photographer photographed (or drew) the thing that the caption talks about? For fair use images this is less of a concern because it's easier to determine the context.
Obviously, if someone's been to the Eiffel Tower before, they know that the picture in the article corresponds to the Eiffel Tower. The sources describe this tower, which matches the picture. But what if this context doesn't exist? How would we know that the picture corresponds to the Eiffel Tower? Are we supposed to be able to verify the subject of the images or we don't really care, we trust the people who put them up? ColourBurst 23:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Here's the situation... I nominated Kiwi Gaming for deletion. During the AFD discussion, another editor and I formed a compromise solution in which the Kiwi Gaming article would be merged into a new article about the company's parent Christchurch Casino. The other editor is ready to go with this compromise. I, on the other hand, have reservations because a consensus to delete the Kiwi Gaming has already been formed.
Now, I know AFD is NOT a vote. Nonetheless, I think numbers mean something and need to be weighed in the decision on how to close this AFD debate.
The current "non-vote" is 5 delete (including me, the nominator), 2 keep and 1 Redirect. If we go forward with the compromise, the new "vote" would be 4 delete (without me), 1 keep and 3 redirect. The new "non-vote" seems to point to a "no consensus" situation which would be default to a "keep" unless the closing admin decided otherwise.
In any event, my instinct is that the nominator doesn't "own" the AFD and can't just withdraw it once other people have started expressing opinions. As I see it, the nominator can change his mind and vote against deletion but he can't just arbitrarily terminate the AFD process.
I think the other editor and I now need to convince the other "voters" to get on board the "Redirect" compromise.
Your thoughts on this situation are solicited and welcomed.
-- Richard 04:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
This stems out of a dispute on-going at Stormfront (website), an article on a white-supremacist hate site. The claim has been made that the article cannot including reference links to the website being discussed, on the grounds that the reference links are a violation of the policy against self-promotion. Instead, the references have been deleted outright or are being included as hidden comments.
Is this a correct intepretation of the Wikipedia policies? Are there any precedent of such a prohibition? Is hate speech sufficiently repugnant that we should prohibit any reference links to such sites?
Obviously, I tend to think this new policy goes a little to far, and that there shouldn't be any blanket rule prohibiting us from referencing hate sites (keeping in mind, of course, that they are tend to be highly unreliable references). -- Alecmconroy 00:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
As I said on the other page, there's no rule that references have to be live links. It's often convenient for the reader, but it's certainly not policy, and often impossible in any event. In the case of hate sites, which are problematic enought to begin with, I see no issue with having references that are not live. Jayjg (talk) 18:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi. This concerns a disagreement on how to write the article on Michael Roach, a modern religious teacher. Following the policies laid out at WP:BLP, we have excluded basically all criticism of Mr. Roach from the article, on the grounds that it is not reliably sourced. This (at least from my point of view) is not controversial, and it is definitely required by the BLP rules. The question regards how to treat an external link that is critical of the subject. The article currently links to a few sites run by or otherwise associated with Roach, which, naturally prevent him in a generally favorable light. However, some editors have also added a link to diamond-cutter.org (that's a Buddhist reference, not a threat of violence!), a website devoted to presenting negative information and claims about Mr. Roach. I haven't examined this website a great deal, and I don't know a lot about the situation, but the website doesn't appear to be blatantly scurrilous, but apparentely simply gives its (anonymous) author's opinion of the facts. Now, I will be the first to agree that the putative facts described on diamond-cutter.org definitely do not belong in any Wikipedia article (unless we have another, more credible source for them). The question is, is this acceptable even as an external link (labelled to a "critical website", naturally)?— Nat Krause( Talk!) 00:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Please refer to the content I removed here [12]. Initially, I thought it was just some newbie who decided to include their phone number as a citation for the POV claims and/or to get people to call them to talk to them about their claims. However as I began to write a suggestion to the IP (which is apparently a NATted ISP IP) it began to occur to me that there is a more sinister possibility behind this. The POV statement I removed is the kind which may anger some people. By linking it to a phone number, this may be one of those stupid attempts to cause problems for the owner of the phone number. A search on Google in fact gives a name for the phone number from the phonebook. Thankfully, this edit was not up for long but I'm wondering whether it might be an idea for us to permanently delete this edit given that we have no idea whether the person who owns the number has any connection to the statement in question (and even if he or she does, whether he or she agreed to allow it on wikipedia). It is potentially libellous or at the very least could cause problems for a potentially innocent party. N.B. In retrospect, it may have been a mistake for me to draw attention to the inclusion of the phone number in my edit summary but it's a bit late now. Nil Einne 17:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
There's a proposal in the works that would streamline enforcement of content policies and guidelines. The nutshell version is:
This grows out of a discussion at Wikipedia:Expert Retention where a variety of editors agreed that content policies need more consistent enforcement. Administrators rarely impose blocks for content disputes without an ArbCom ruling. Editors who passionately espouse fringe beliefs can succeed at exhausting the patience of rules-abiding editors because current enforcement skews toward problem editors who violate other policies such as WP:3RR or WP:NPA. This proposal would establish an impartial consensus standard as an alternative to ArbCom. Active editors welcome input to build a broader consensus. Durova 22:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Assuming this comes to fruition ( Larry Sanger's ambitions have in the past exceeded his ability to marshal resources in support of his causes, so it's entirely possible that it won't)... will this affect Wikipedia in any fashion?
A few particular questions:
I'm assuming that people will be free to contribute to both projects, should they desire. While I will wait and see concerning Citizendium, my personal long-term goal is to contribute to an excellent open-source encyclopedia. Right now, Wikipedia is the best of the bunch and I have no plans to leave; but my long-term loyalty lies with the destination, not with the vehicle I use to get there. I've got no stake whatsoever in whatever acrimony lies between Sanger and Jimbo. -- EngineerScotty 18:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Hello! In 2005 I created a series of trolls and sockpuppets to disrupt Wikipedia. Some of them were rather notorious. I even managed to drive away a few major contributors. In any case, I just logged on to check my contributions at it amazed me that many of my "hoax" articles and edits are STILL on Wikipedia. It seems that the hoax editing I did with "throw away" accounts (like this one) was obscure and plausible sounding enough to NEVER get reverted. As long as I didn't draw any attention to my hoax editing through using my "high profile" accounts, nobody caught on. Of course the high profile account names were exclusively used for "trolling" rather than "hoaxing" or vandalism. It occured to me early on that any vandalism done by those accounts would be immediately spotted.
Hey have you also noticed User:Essjay hasn't edited since the 14th of August? Malsherbes 05:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Of course, since you didn't actually name any of the articles, we have no clue if you are speaking the truth or just bullshitting us. However, if the articles you've allegedly created are as obscure as you claim, the chance of them being linked to or searched for is virtually nil, so the damage done to Wikipedia is also virtually nil. Enjoy your mediocre hoax articles. -- tjstrf 06:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Those of us who use Tor are told that the open proxy thing can be worked around by forcing new connections, as though the whole issue with Tor being blocked by the open proxy purge is an accidental byproduct -- as though it would be OK to use a Tor node that wasn't an open proxy.
That's as crazy as it sounds. All Tor nodes are open proxies.
Worse, over at project on open proxies, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_on_open_proxies there is talk about an automated Tor banning bot being busy blocking sites today.
In other words, there is a drive to say "Anyone using Tor must not be allowed to edit". That's the wrong approach.
I've mentioned elsewhere: If someone is logged in, and can be held responsible for their edits, they should not be denied the ability to edit, certainly not if the goal is that anyone can edit.
The idea of requiring that you go through a secure login site isn't inherently a problem. Sadly, I don't believe that Tor supports HTTPS connections (otherwise it might show up as a man-in-the-middle attack), and the warning on the Tor advice for china users even tell you,
This means that no one from China can chance writting anything on Wiki that goes against China policy. That's bad enough, but it's one step down the road to a religious government doing the same thing and forcing any edits to conform to a religious doctrine.
Sadly, I don't believe that Tor has a config option to exclude certain nodes as exit nodes -- only to exclude them completely. Perhaps it's time to develop a page showing the list of nodes to exclude in order to be able to edit pages? Although doing that will just make the job of blocking Tor nodes easier.
Finally, there's concern about how well this works with dynamic IP DSL connections. I run a Tor node. I have a DSL connection. I get a new IP address every two-four days. Should my system be blocked for being a Tor node? If I bypass Tor and connect directly, even though other people can use Tor? Since I can force a new IP address by turning my DSL modem off and then back on?
This policy does not make sense from any of these viewpoints: 1. Goal of wiki -- open editing 2. Goal of Tor -- bypassing tracability of people like the government of China 3. Technical -- identifying specific machines, given the ease of getting a new IP address 4. Technical -- the idea of blocking connections specifically from Tor routers, given that no attempt is made to tell if the connection comes from a Tor router or some other process running on the same machine.
The Wiki project on open proxies said that this was the place to argue against this policy. So, I am. While I'm still able to -- if I keep waiting, more and more nodes will be blocked, and then what will I do? -- Keybounce 04:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd like some sort of consensus on whether it is OK for Wikipedians to make requests of administrators on IRC, and what procedures administrators taking requests from IRC should follow. Specifically, when a "move" request is made.
I am not impartial on this debate. There is a lot of mistrust and bad faith towards my own requests for article moves which I have done on IRC as a user, as documented in my request for adminship. I feel if a stronger procedure existed there would be less ill will, so I'm proposing an
IRC move request procedure:
An administrator receiving a request for a move on IRC ought to...:
The above is a first draft. This is also a wiki, so I'd suggest cleaning it up directly (edit it) rather than proposing minor changes. Comments, changes, suggestions welcome. — Pengo talk · contribs 00:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm confused, I see a solution here, but I don't see a problem. What problem does this fix? -- Golbez 03:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is, and has always been, all about creating an encyclopedia. We strive to have the best written content possible, and although the social interaction is fun, the overriding goal of this site is creating the encyclopedia. However, the maintenance and administration of the site are also important, thus we need sysops/admins to not only write articles but also to generally monitor and "police" the site. There are a number of admins who do a great job in article writing and editing, such as User:Geogre and User:Lucky_6.9. I think their contributions should be applauded.
It has become apparent that as this site has grown, a large number of active admins have ceased to edit or create articles and solely devote their energies to the administrative/social side of the project. This has led to a fundamental "disconnect" between those who administer the site and those who actually write articles. Therefore, the question arises, how can this system sustain its legitimacy when many of the influential administrators on Wikipedia are totally divorced from the realities and experiences of actually "writing an encyclopedia," which by all accounts is why we are here.
Perhaps there should be a two-tier administrator system, in which admins with significant mainspace contributions, such as those named above, would hold more functions than the class of admins that contribute little, or in some cases, nothing, to the articles. Admins without proven contributions to the articles could still handle important tasks such as New page patrolling, welcoming new users, etc., but would not have the full power of the "encyclopedic" admins, such as User:Geogre or User:Bishonen just to name a few. This also would encourage non-article-contributing admins to work more on the articles and the encyclopedia side of Wikipedia if they want to attain promotion to "full" admin status. Wikipedia as a whole would benefit. -- Pewlosels 03:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that it necessarily follows that someone who spends most of their time in non-article spaces are necessarily disconnected from reality. Jimbo Wales and Radiant! are two examples of people who do most of their work in non-article spaces but are still well-respected by a chunk of the community. Maybe people who stay away from articles are more likely to be disconnected, but there are counterexamples at the least.
I do think people who contribute significant amounts of encyclopedic content should be given a lot of recognition for their work, but I also think adminship shouldn't really be viewed as an award. If you want to have two classes of administrators, "regular administrators", and "influential FA-contributing administrators", then that's more of a culture thing, not necessarily a "who has their janitor bits turned on" thing. -- Interiot 04:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Your contributions are worthy and needed. The issue here is that if you don't edit, you are less suited to make a judgement on the editors who edit, except for pretty obvious vandals and dicks. Adminship is both a mop and a stick. If you are used to a mop only, you should not be using the stick. -- Irpen 05:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I#m not sure what you have in mind, admin functions are those that require the extra buttons they are mainly technical. I can't see any logical split. The normal sequence of events seems to be (1) edit articles (2) become admin (3) stop/reduction in article editing as too involved in admin work. Now if we manage some split (which as I say I cannot envisage here how you intend to split the tools), that ultimately would then lead to less people doing a certain area of work, which means those left would have to take up the slack - leaving less time for article editing, so we then take those tools away and around we go. -- pgk 09:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I support this and am sure you will see nothing but admins oppose it. The idea that people are made admins because of their mainspace contributions and from that point no longer need them seems odd. If you were elected by the people because of the amazing mainspace work you do, why should that all cease now that you are an admin, we may as well never make admins then if it means losing an editor. I would think the idea is to give them additional tools to participate in additional functions, not drop the old function(writing articles) so that they can then be a vandal cop. -- NuclearUmpf 11:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Whenever I start to concentrate more on cleaning up the mess that vandals make and less on articles, I burn out extremely quickly. So it's self-correcting for me. But this is a really bad idea. --
Golbez 13:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Admins are not paid employees (as the premise of the point suggests to me), they are just normal users with a few axtra buttons, which, in the grand scheme of things, don't even get used that much. Wikipedia only works because people do what they want to do, and happily what they want to do is normally in the interest of building an encyclopedia. When we start encouraging people to do things they don't want to do, or get annoyed when admins don't do what we want them to do, then Wikipedia won't work any more. Martin 13:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Frankly, this idea is idiotic. While I am a reasonable writer, I don't think I was given the admin bit because of the articles I created. After all, creating articles needs no administrative functions...and if I saw someone's RFA Q1 answer as "I only want to write more articles!" then I'd probably oppose. Why ruin a good thing? I probably spend 95% of my time trying to make Wikipedia a place where people who do write well and want to create articles (both admins and nonadmins) can concentrate on that, and not on recategorizing hundreds of articles or blocking spammers or being harassed by other editors (well intentioned or not). The other 5% of my time is little wikignome changes to articles, like taking a recent deaths obit and turning it into an article start. When I look at a writer-admin's contributions (such as BunchofGrapes or Bishonen or Violetriga) I like to think that by shouldering the lions share of administrator functions, they can continue to add quality content. Hopefully someone somewhere looks at my block logs, and my protection logs, and my page deletion logs and is thankful for my own contributions to the project instead of thinking in the back of their mind "What a f@cking waste of space that Syrthiss is, he better get back to making articles!111!!!!!!". Syrthiss 13:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Agree with most or all of the opposition above. Also: it's just impractical. In many previous proposals for regular review of admins, it has become clear that the necessary mechanisms would be extremely unwieldy. Reviewing 1000+ admins every year (for instance) means doing 20 a week on average. Which would be an excellent way to draw some group of people away from writing articles. And which group of people? Who are you going to appoint to decide when an admin has done "enough" mainspace writing? Not to mention the agony of defining "enough." Sure, writing an FA is an excellent thing. How about writing 50 stubs? Rescuing articles from CSD/PROD/AFD? Hmm? (These are rhetorical questions. I don't want individual answers. Especially since each individual will answer differently.) There are problems with divisions between people who dedicate themselves to writing and people who dedicate themselves to keeping the machine running. But trying to divide a diverse group of people into exactly two black-and-white groups is not going to ameliorate the problems. FreplySpang 13:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd recommend to the proposer that you read some actual RfAs - you'll get a much broader understanding of what people expect from admins, and how different the demands are. Some people want apologetic admins, others want unrelenting ones. Some people only require admins to have AfD experience, others expect five thousand main space edits plus five FAs or more and don't care about AfD. Some people think being an admin is an honourable position that should be granted to any bona fide, long-term contributor. Others insist that admins that do not participate in AfD, copyvio-resolution or similar administrative work are not worthy of "the mop", or wouldn't benefit from it. Finally, you'll find that admins instil terrible fear in some editors to the point that it's very difficult to constructively work with them on simple editing tasks. I'm sure I'm not the only admin to have considered creating a second account just so I wouldn't have to deal with "but, but, you're going to block me if I disagree with you". It's not like admins don't scrutinise each other's actions. If you have a specific complaint, you can make it at WP:AN etc., as you are no doubt aware, and if there's any basis to it, it will be dealt with. - Samsara ( talk • contribs) 13:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
At the risk of top posting, I can point out that there are other proposals getting at the same thing. First, my own view.
So, some other ideas folks have come up with, including me. I realize that they range near and far.
Anyway, this is a review of what I've seen so far. Y'all are free to support or despise any part of it, exactly as your consciences dictate, but, if you find some of these things worthy, I encourage y'all to work it up as a full proposal. Geogre 13:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Just to drop my 2p in. I have been an active article writer since March 2004 with a brief voluntary break that summer, and a brief involuntary break this summer, and had the sysop bit from January 2005 to last month. Whether admin or not my approach is that article writing is the first and most important thing and it's what I enjoy, and my writing of articles did not diminish at all when I was an admin. But, just as if you want to live in a beautiful home you have to clean it, so we have administrative chores to do in order to make our encyclopaedia better. We don't call it "the mop" for nothing. So I do think that it's a bad thing (TM) for admins to give up their article work, because it suggests that editors are at the bottom of the tree, and that once promoted into adminship, you don't have to do that work any more. Really, it should be the other way round. David | Talk 15:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I hate it that this is personalizing. That's precisely what we need to avoid. However, if it's back to "well, I find that I..." I will say that I've written more since being an admin. That's just a coincidence, though. I got here in 2002, signed up in 2003, got to be an admin in early 2004, I think, and I write. I do admin tasks, too. If I get dragged into arguments, my time gets gobbled up and I do little writing. If I actually mop things up, I don't lose any time at all. I don't think this is "you can't be an admin." Let's be honest and precise, if we're going to talk about this at all, please. It isn't maintaining a page, cleaning out a category, or even watching a page that takes time: it's chatting and fighting and arguing that takes time. That's not being an administrator, or it doesn't have to be. If folks want to consider me an inactive admin, they're free to. If they want to think that 230 articles is a low number, they may. Let's stop just asking, "Is this going to hurt me" and start asking, "Can this prevent the damage being done daily now by people being brusque, personal, incurious?" Geogre 16:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
With the Arbitration Committee agreeing to hear the Giano case even when the crux of the case is the behavior of many of the admins and Arb Com members, it is clear how the ArbCom will end up ruling. They probably will simply tell us, as James F. already has done, that we're a "bunch of idiots," and to move on, as it were. If the ArbCom shall not listen to us and blatantly flaunt community wishes, we do have an option -- Civil Disobedience. We can simply refuse to implement future ArbCom decisions. They need us to enforce their decisions, particularly on bans. That way we can send a message to the Committe of Public Safety that we are serious and that we have serious concerns. GreenCommander81 04:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Is there a policy on list articles that essentially replicate the function of a category? I'm thinking about lists such as those in the category Lists of Museums. I don't see what Museums in China does, for instance, that Category:Museums in China doesn't already do. Cordless Larry 14:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
What is the policy on allowing external links to Uncyclopedia articles? Some examples are [13] [14]. In some articles, such as German Wikipedia, some context is given on the corresponding Uncyclopedia article. Should such links be removed? Thanks. -- Vsion 21:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
The phrasing of otheruses has pissed a lot of people off in the past, and I think it could be fixed rather simply by changing the word "uses" to "meanings." I posted at Template_talk:Otheruses#All_the_meaning_problems..., but I figured here is a more visible place to draw people out for discussion. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 17:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I have noticed that some users, one in particular, have a habit of disemvowelling statements that others make on their talk page. Usually, the reason given is that "I don't want to read such nonsense". I was under the impression that, barring racist type remarks, we were NOT supposed to change in any way comments left on our talk pages. What is the specific policy on this? As an example, please refer to the talk page of Calton to see what i am talking about. Is this sort of behaviour permissable? I cannot find in ANY Wiki policies that I have gone over ANYTHING that allows this sort of thing, which honestly seems to be a form of self vandalism (if one could actually vandalise one's own talk page). TruthCrusader 16:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
"If you remove sources from articles it makes it difficult for other editors to check the matters referred to. Please don't do this in order to make a point about Arbitrarion Committee decisions having to be kept to even if you don't like them. David | Talk 15:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)"
it was changed to this:
"f y rmv srcs frm rtcls t mks t dffclt fr thr dtrs t chck th mttrs rfrrd t. Pls dn't d ths n rdr t mk pnt bt rbtrrn Cmmtt dcsns hvng t b kpt t vn f y dn't lk thm. - David | Talk 15:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)"
I don't see WHY a statement like this should be rendered vowelless, it makes no sense to me and really smacks of being massively uncivil.
TruthCrusader 18:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I think I should say something here before I end up with a request for comment about my username. Messing with other people's signed comments is certainly a no-no, and what Calton did seems to match this disemvowelling thing, while he may or may not have been aware of the connotations of doing this as described in the disemvowelling article. Actually, upon reviewing this article's history he has made some significant edits of it and so probably knows what it meant and meant it as an insult to Dbiv. I was not aware of this whole thing myself, before reading this thread and article and really don't put much consideration into the article's subtly offensive point of view. Regardless of the article, I don't think writing without vowels is at all uncivil, rude, or derogatory and I'm not going to point out exactly why, because we should all know this. DVD+ R/W 17:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I invite review of this edit, to the speedy deletion template: [16]
I'm hoping this is a step towards discouraging template-warring and some of the speedy/prod/AfD ping pong that sometimes goes on. - GTBacchus( talk) 23:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
(Please also see WT:RFA) I believe that the RfA process is under many pressures partly because there is no similar organized way to hold admins accountable for their actions or desysopp them if necessary. If we answer this latter question, we will see more people ready to say "adminship is no big deal." The consensus issue will also become less sensitive, and I'm sure that stuff like the Carnildo affair won't happen. To get the ball rollin':
The answer for #2 is WP:AN, which already exists. -- Golbez 12:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
dab (ᛏ) 12:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I've got an idea. How about something modeled after AfD? If someone specifically believes that an admin has acted improperly, instead of making them go through the convolutions of RfC or having them navigate the shark infested waters of AN/I, give users the means to get quick feedback to the effect of whether or not they have been the "victim" of a rouge admin. Here's how I would see the workflow: There's a Wikipedia:Administrator Review page. The user clicks an edit link, specifies an admin and review reason w/ an AfD style template, ala {{subst:adminreview|user=Chairboy|text=The article [[It puts the lotion on its skin]] was improperly deleted (it did not meet WP:CSD) and the admin blocked me when I asked him to review the situation. Also, we had a disagreement on a different subject at the same time, so I feel Chairboy blocked me improperly and should have involved another admin to avoid a conflict of interest.}}. This would be saved as Wikipedia:Administrator Review/Chairboy and would allow for a centralized depot for all "issues" each admin has. This would be transcluded the way AfD and RfA are and the result would almost always be a "Speedy close" or "Speedy RfC" that would then be expanded appropriately. This would give have a calming influence on frustrated users who feel wronged but aren't quite sure enough to begin an RfC, plus it would serve as a pressure release for users who need to hear from other admins that "Nope, in this instance Chairboy acted properly." Articles for Deletion has reduced a lot of tension from situations where users would have otherwise felt a single user was being capricious. Seeing everyone else agree that an article needs to go makes people stop and ask themselves "Wait, is it possible that I've misunderstood the situation?". An equivalent for admins could highlight administrators who have screwed up and give other admins the means to validate when the person has actually acted properly. This is less expensive than regular admin reviews, only targets admins who have gained the ire of others, and gives fast, unified feedback to the accusing party. Thoughts? - CHAIRBOY ( ☎) 15:52, 25 September 2006 (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
There is a proposal on the treatment of creation of articles for current events. It's based on a combination of existing policies/guidelines, but as an interpretation of how they applies to current events. The basic premise is that, as an encyclopedia, we should not be in the business of tracking breaking news on a minute by minute basis, and we should be cautious about overuse of sources published in the heat of the moment. We have no need for a "scoop", so should act without unnecessary haste, and "wait for the dust to settle" before using potentially unreliable sources. This is especially important when the potentially unreliable sources are concerning previously unknown living people due to WP:LIVING issues. Comments welcome at WP:DUST. Regards, MartinRe 22:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I believe a revision of the "Common Name" guideline needs to be made in order to alleviate the conflict that certain applications of that guideline has with other guidelines and policies (like WP:NC(P)). I would like to get a broad consensus on what would be the best way to clearify and revise the guideline. Please direct any comments to the guideline's talk page. Thanks! Agne 19:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
On Talk:Boston (disambiguation) under the heading "Most Commonly" I suggested that the relative importance of Boston, Lincolnshire was being undersold. TiffaF has made what seems like a reasonable proposal, including highlighting a precedent:
"I agree Boston should point to this disambiguation page, and Boston, Lincolnshire should be the first entry. See Newark, which is structured in this way..."
What neither of us know is how much publicity this needs before it is implemented. I almost went on a did it on the basis of "Be Bold", but hesitated and would welcome comment. SMeeds 10:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I have to side with the above and disagree with the original poster. Boston, MA is a global city and I would say that Newark is a poor comparison since it doesn't have the global stature of Boston to set itself apart from the other Newarks. I agree that there should be a comment line on the article to point to the disambig but the redirect should go directly to Boston, MA Agne 18:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I am pleased now to see that Boston, Lincolnshire gets second billing to Boston, Massachusetts. That is all I was ever looking for. As I have said on Talk:Boston (disambiguation), I am ducking out of this conversation now. Thanks for your help. SMeeds 08:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I (re)propose this thing. -- Cat out 00:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
The proposal Wikipedia:Candidates and elections ( WP:C&E) had a fairly good reception when introduced, with a couple of objections from people who thought it was not inclusive enough. It then sat idle for a while, and has now been tagged as inactive. I'd like to revive discussion on it to establish a policy on the subject. I'd appreciate it if people who have not read it go check it out and comment on its talk page. Thanks. -- Mwalcoff 22:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
A recent article linked from Slashdot (and discussed there) claims that Wikipedia is not primarily written by the most prolific editors, but mostly by outsiders with low edit count, and often even without an account. These raw contributions are then polished by the inside core, racking up high editcounts while fixing punctuation and moving images around. I think there is at least some truth to this. This is certainly another argument against editcountitis in deciding conflicts or awarding adminship. Question: Does Wikipedia give an adequate voice to contributors with substantial contributions but few edits?-- Stephan Schulz 20:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I've thought about this for a while, and while I just can't see any reason it would be a bad idea, I think it would be perceived as an unusual idea, so I wanted to ask for opinions from other editors.
The question is this: if an editor is not yet ready to write an article, but is assembling sources and the like, may he or she create the article talk page that would accompany the article once it is created? This, to my mind, is better than rushing to get an inadequate stub out into article namespace. If another editor is unaware of the first editor's efforts and starts a stub in article namespace, they'll see that the corresponding talk page already exists -- so this already has an advantage over the frequent practice of starting an article in one's user space and then moving it to article namespace when ready.
Does anyone have comments or suggestions regarding this practice? -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
...but also displeased to see users changing articles to their own biased opinions! I edited the article on the History of communication and added that what was written on the page was simply a theory devised by evolutionists and not 100% factual. Another user removed what I wrote and added that creationism was a "fairy tale". Such attitude should not be tolerated here, as well as such a biased point of view being displayed in our articles! I am not trying to promote creationism, nor to bring down evolutionism, but to point out that evolutionism is a theory, not a fact. A very strong theory, perhaps, but not fact.
EDIT: Upon further inspection, this user happens to be an admin. I'm surprised such an offensive, biased person has been given administrator privileges.
-- Ravenstorm 12:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
For the records, I have apologized for my talk page comment, which was indeed rather brusque, but I considered the edit in question highly inappopriate and controversial, certainly not something that should be readded to a high-visibility (DYK) article. Btw, I have not reverted your edits: you were reverted by two other users (although I completly agree with their revert for the reasons stated on talk). As for the merit of your edit, I replied at Talk:History of communication, where I recommed we continue this discussion (VP pages are not archived...).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 16:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
has anyone else noticed a large increase in unnecessary templates? you know, those ones where a category exists and works just fine except someone saw fit to make a template also? i guess they find categories too hard to use or something? i have no idea, but it's getting out of hand. perhaps we need more guidance on the matter in the help section, maybe the newbies simply don't get it. and perhaps some people who love to enforce could focus themselves on this for a little while. 151.201.46.144 22:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know if there is a policy (or guideline) on linking to RSS feeds? The example I came across was a webcomic Megatokyo. It seems the infobox used by WikiProject Webcomics has a parameter to show RSS feed links. I'm not entirely sure, but it seems lik this is just offerng people the option to subscribe to the comic, which seems a bit strange for Wikipedia to do. Surely we should link to the comic website, and then let people click the RSS feed button there if they want to. Thoughts? Carcharoth 18:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Throw ( talk · contribs · count) has been uploading all of his images, claiming the source as a Flickr account. However, it just appears that he himself uploaded those photos to his own Flickr account, and then uploaded them here, which would be no different than just uploading a random image that was saved on a hard drive. Can this really be counted as a source? I mean, there has to be a real source from where that user got the pictures so he could upload them to the Flickr account.
Oh, I also have some real beefs with the way the user acts. He used to tag it with CC by 2.0 deeds, even though they're clearly not his works, and he even still writes that text in (tagging it now with the lovable {{ fairuse}} tag). He also is rather incivil to anybody who touches "his" images; see [1] [2] [3] (the second one also removing the IFD tag). I even discussed it with him [4], but he showed disregard for the philisophy of "fair use," calling the free iamge "ugly" before deleting the entire discussion [5]. Hbdragon88 03:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Is it acceptable to use a fair use image on a compendium of series episodes? In particular, I'm referring to List of Utawarerumono episodes, which contains a fair use screen shot from each episode. User:Zoe| (talk) 22:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
It appears that many users (aspiring admins or even some sysops) are on a mission to merely increase the number of articles edited (without pausing to procrastinate on the revision made by others) rather than the quality of the articles. This is counterproductive to sustaining the interest and participation of other users.
Anyone who keeps editing 10 or more pages everyday is not serious about the quality. I hope Wiki policy members ponders over this suggestion. Thank you.
Netking 10:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
If the target function is "inflation" then it does compromise the quality and hence the "usefulness" is not fully supported.
This is a completely fallacious contention. There are many types of small but valuable edit, and there is no reason why one couldn't make good edits to hundreds of articles in a day, if one had sufficient time on one's hands. Even in fields that one knows nothing about there are opportunities to make good edits of many kinds, eg spelling and grammar corrections, presentational improvements, wikilinks and category refinements. Sumahoy 00:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Problem is, most defenders of "unlimited editing" will always declare they are good in editing. They may or may not be good, but they can't be the jury to judge their own work. Common sense dictates that humans have finite energy and knowledge. The limit of "10" was just a random pick for discussion and not a limit selected rationally. Even if there was an occasional involvement to edit 100 pages in a day, it can't be a regular activity with quality.
Netking 09:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
So are you suggesting we should all refrain from making minor corrective edits? Fagstein 19:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Even if you are doing quality work on a single article, there's no need to try to limit the number of edits involved. Whenever I make major changes to an article, I try to use a sequence of small, easily summarized edits. If I have to worry about some edit quota, I could just as easily make one huge edit with the summary "rewrite varous stuff, diff speaks for itself". As you would put it, this is counterproductive to sustaining the interest and participation of other users. Melchoir 20:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
You also totally deprecate those of us who vandal patrol wide categories. Just because some of us have a 500 page watchlist we refresh every 20 seconds does not mean we are not helpful editors. If you really want an example of something non-contributive to do on Wikipedia, I'd suggest you look at the practice of inventing ridiculous new regulation proposals. -- tjstrf 22:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Netking: I'll put my head on the block. I challenge you to look at the 100+ edits I've made in the last 24 hours (based on the timestamp of this comment) and identify three that were, in your view, inappropriate. - Jmabel | Talk 00:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I am concerned about the sections "In popular culture" for events that are seens as tragic e.g. Jonestown. See Talk:September_11,_2001_attacks#Attacks_in_popular_culture Some contributors may find a section "In popular culture" for tragic events inappropriate. I understand this and I have some sympathy for this, but this should be applied consistently. Why is this okay for Jonestown but not for the September_11,_2001_attacks. What is or should be the policy on this? Andries 14:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I have brought this up before, but there has not been a satisfactory resolution. Practice, and until recently English Wikipedia policy, has been to not delete user talk pages of users with a significant editing history unless they are suffering from harassment or there is some other extreme circumstance. However, Wikipedia:User page has been modified to include a link to m:Right to vanish and the exceptional circumstances required for deletion are not mentioned, which gives the impression that anyone can request deletion of their talk page under right to vanish. Is this what we want? I do not mind if it is, I just want there to be consistency about it. The deletion of user talk pages has often been reversed in the past. The only ones to stick that I know of are cases when there has been harassment, when a sympathetic admin has deleted the page with no one who might object noticing, or when Jimbo has deleted the page due to a request by the user or to stop an edit war of deleting and restoring (Rbj came back and a new page was started, while Locke Cole's page was started over with new messages after he left. Neither page was restored.). Also, occasionally a talk page is deleted as part of an agreement that an editor will leave.
I think ordinary users should get the same treatment as vandals, those who are admins or have friends who are admins, and those who appeal to Jimbo. I propose that Wikipedia:User page be modified to say either that editors may request the deletion of their talk pages under right to vanish, or that user talk pages are not deleted except in extreme circumstances, such as harassment of the user.
Some may want there to be some qualifications for deletion by right to vanish, such as not being a "serial vanisher". This makes sense to me, although I would give a user a second chance before denying deletion requests. At least one editor did not want to delete the talk page of a user who has warning on his or her talk page, but since the user is leaving and the page will be restored upon returning, I do not think it matters.
For the no deletion option, some may want to allow the blanking and protecting of a user's talk page as a compromise. The history would still be visible to all users, but would it would be less visible and the deleted content would no longer be indexed by search engines, although it would take a little while for the page to stop showing up in search results based on the previous contents of the page. Also, protecting the page prevents additional messages from being posted. This would be done for those who are truly leaving Wikipedia and who want to vanish, so there is no point in further messages, positive or negative. If the user does return, the page can be unprotected and reverted to its pre-blanking state.
Finally, there is a question of what to do when the policy, guidelines or practices on the English Wikipedia, or any other project, are in conflict with those on Meta, unless there is a policy somewhere about this that I do not know about.
This is what spurred this second post on the subject. The requested deletion of his talk page under right to vanish, and as of my writing this, the consensus was to delete and the page has been deleted. I put this at the bottom so that hopefully people will read my post before going off to comment and to stop them from thinking that this is just a response to that particular situation. -- Kjkolb 12:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Is a violation of Wikipedia policy for two different users to have similar usernames? I have recently noticed that a new user is editing under the username User:Tommyboy25. -- TommyBoy 06:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I was looking at our article on primary sources and noticed that it stated that:
As a general rule, however, modern historians prefer to go back to available primary sources and to seek new (in other words, forgotten or lost) ones. Primary sources, whether accurate or not, offer new input into historical questions and most modern history revolves around heavy use of archives and special collections for the purpose of finding useful primary sources
So tying in with our original research policy, what I'm thinking is that primary sources need evaluation as to their importance and interpretation, and then that interpretation would constitute original research, yes? Any interpretation would need to be published in a reliable source to be acceptable to Wikipedia, yes? I was also thinking that the relevance of a primary source is something which needs to be determined, through its use as a primary source in a secondary source. A primary source has no relevance to impart to its field or subject by itself, it is something that critics, historians and experts bestow through publishing their research, yeah? Relevance, meaning that a primary source has information to bear, is not something we can determine, but rather must be determined for us through secondary sources, yeah?
Can we decide what has relevance within any given field, or is that in violation of WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR? Do we need secondary sources to determine relvance for us? Steve block Talk 11:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
This is an interesting problem. For example, during the 1960s while in college my wife was on a friendly basis with Julia Mullock. According to my wife, Julia mentioned that she was Jewish, yet I do not know of anywhere here or elsewhere that mentions that. So if I put that in the wikipedia entry, it would be original research & ineligible, right? Aside from the sort of 'so what' aspect. -- Dan 20:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:WikiService. mrholybrain 11:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Is there any guidance of listing individual chapters for books and/or serialized fiction? Does anyone have opinions on if it should be done or not? (There are multiple instances of it cropping up in a wikiproject that I participate in, including creating separate articles just to list chapter titles.) -- Kunzite 03:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Here you go:
-- Kunzite 14:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
(I looked in the FAQ for this but did not find an answer).
I read an article about a political writer that I felt violated the POV guidelines. I added the POV tag to the article and explained why under the article's Talk section. Is that the correct procedure? What is to stop the article's author from simply deleting my POV tag?
Hanover81 01:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Removed the tag; your edits were fine; although I detect you are sensitive that he not be titled a historian, I see no problem there.
Appreciate your kind comments. You’re most welcome of course. We as Wikipedians are supposed to strive toward a neutral points of view. And almost everyone appreciates a well written NPOV article that doesn’t set off our alarms when we read it.
Keep up the excellent editing. Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 03:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I would like to propose a policy to prevent users from blanking, or removing content from their own user talk pages. It is currently considered bad etiquette, but it is still allowed. When a user does this, it makes disscussion hard to follow, and if information is needed in the future, finding it would require searching through page history after page history.
Archiving of such pages should still be allowed. --GW_Simulations User Page | Talk 20:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
"(User talk blanking) is currently considered bad etiquette"... By whom? Refactoring/cleaning-up is good. Eugène van der Pijll 21:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I would be absolutely opposed to such a policy. I've seen far too much harassment of good faith users who simply don't want to keep particular messages. I've seen such users being sent vandalism warning templates, and being threatened with blocks, and eventually getting very angry over something that should never have been an issue in the first place. There are certain posts that should be left in place — block notices and warnings for the duration of a block, sockpuppet templates placed by administrators, etc. But unwanted messaages sent to an ordinary, non-troublesome user who is making good edits and otherwise minding his own business? Administrators are actually more likely to block someone for harassment who keeps restoring those messages. Removing messages from your talk page is not disruptive, unless it's done like this. Also, there are cases (I've known some) where a user removes a post from his talk page because that post indirectly gives personal information about him. It would be nice if such users could do so disrceetly, without having a whole pile of busybodies descending on his page to restore the unwanted message, and generally draw more attention to it. If an editor's management of his own talk page does not interfere with writing an encyclopaedia, then that editor should be left in peace. AnnH ♫ 23:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
See WP:BSP. mrholybrain 00:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Manual of Style (trademarks) is one of those obscure guide pages that is occassionally important. At present there is some confusion of whether writing things like "I ♥ NY", where ♥ substitutes for "love" are allowed or not. In the spirit of the guideline, I think they should be actively discouraged, but before rewriting that part of the guideline, I'd like to draw a little more attention to what is ordinarily an obscure talk page. Please comment at: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (trademarks)#Symbols as words. Dragons flight 19:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I have very little experience as a Wikipedia editor, so perhaps these are stupid questions but,
1. If every comment should be signed and signing is the same for everyone (simply involving typing four tildes at the end) is there any reason the system can’t add the tildes/signature its self to save us humans the work?
2. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:DoubleRedirects : “Each row contains links to the first and second redirect, as well as the first line of the second redirect text, usually giving the "real" target page, which the first redirect should point to” Under what conditions would it not be desirable to make the first redirect point directly to the target of the second redirect? Surely the process that gathers this information could be upgraded a little to make the change without intervention.
165.165.204.124 16:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
A self-proclaimed new editor posted a stream of conciousness rant as a new section on a page I watch. Seeing that the issue this editor brought up was indeed a good addition, but lacking time to clean it up properly, I cut and pasted the changes to the article's talk page with a note that the info was useful but needed to be made encyclopedic, with the hope the person in question would do so. About 24 hours later the same editor tried again, with a note that "everyone" agrees the info should be on the page. Again, I cut the info and placed it on the talk page, with a note that discussions about the merits of the of the edits should not be placed on the main article space. A few minutes later the person, claiming they had no other way to reach me, asked if they could at least put a heading regarding the information. (Rather than simply doing it themselves.) I cut the info again, reminding the person that discussion belongs on the talk page, and shortly thereafter rewrote the content, making a short NPOV, properly wikified addition that was a summary of the information. (Sorry I'm being vague I don't wish to stir up more trouble by posting the article I'm talking about.)
I started a dialogue with this person, who on one hand feels we reached a good compromise and on the other is posting about having been a victim of 3RR. I don't think this is a case of 3RR, but I thought I would ask here. What would other editors do in a situation where you see a clumsy edit that you don't have time to clean up? I can't stand leaving these efforts on the page, and feel that pasting the info on the talk page for discussion is a good compromise. I realize different people have different wiki learning curves but I'm really frustrated trying to deal with this person, who keeps saying "but I was being BOLD". Any advice about what I can say to this person would be helpful.
Thanks for your help. 71.34.113.170 01:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
It looks like a good time to post the matter at Requests for Comment. Durova 15:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your opinions. I may have gotten a little carried away, since I was thinking only of not leaving a bunch of crap (not libelous, just heavily POV and ranty to the point of being garbled) in the article and not about 3RR, but really there were only 2 reversions in a 24-hour period and we worked it out after that. I had reacted when I saw an IP editor keep repeating the same mistake (and I had explained what the problem was on the talk page) and I tried to remedy this the best I could. (I'm not really an IP; I have 2000 mainspace edits.) I'm just frustrated the person started bringing up 3RR, claiming they feel bitten, rather than addressing the issues I had with what they added. (Which I pointed out without name calling, while they accused me of censorship and other things bordering on uncivil.) I guess I'm more thick-skinned. If someone had pointed out what I had done wrong, I would have learned what to do right and not repeat the mistake. So it's hard for me to hear: "But I'm still learning!" when I have given them the tools to learn. But not everyone is like me, thank god. So I'm trying to learn from this. I'll try to be more careful/patient in the future. In other words: BE TIMID! And other than arguing about whether or not I was being mean to this person, we have worked out the issue, so no need for comments or dispute resolution at this point, though I let the person know that was an option. 71.34.113.170 01:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) bobblewik 20:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Copied from here and placed under its own title to clarify topic. Comments would be greatly appreciated, as well as ideas about where to get more input. Carcharoth 23:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
There are specific guidelines that say that merging and demerging, especially if it involves moving large chunks of text, is not something to be done lightly. It took me a while to pick up on this myself, but cutting and pasting large chunks of text around Wikipedia destroys the attribution. What I mean by this is that if you move text from one article to another (either merging or splitting articles), then the edit history (and the list of who wrote which bits of the article) is lost. What is usually required is a merge of the edit histories, which needs some admin magic, I believe. (Compare this to a page move, where the edit history of the article is moved from the old location to the new one). At the very least, when merging or splitting, a link to the old pages is needed to allow the edit histories to be traced back, though this solution is less than ideal. This is why encouraging boldness in these cases can backfire. You really need to know what you are doing before doing a merge or split. Carcharoth 21:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
What's Wikipedia's policy on using google maps screenshots on Wikipedia? -- Dijxtra 16:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
My interpretation of their terms of use is that it is basically verboten to use their imagery in Wikipedia. Alr 19:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
ya know, i process mail for a living. i tried to add an article about some of the machines we use at work. much to my chagrin, wikipedia has turned into and idiotic feudalistic playground for bored assholes. there are dozens, if not hundreds of articles about stupid, idiotic fictional characters in video games and books and movies.
there is not an article about mail processing system that is used every day to process hundreds of millions of envelopes.
and my article got rejected?
why?
when i first came to wikipedia i started many stub articles. stubs are an excellent way to grow. nowdays, you cant. there are hundreds of rules and regulations about adding crap. and worst of all, some little shitbag king-for-a-day moderator (who is chosen how exactly? the same way the 'brilliant' slashdot moderators are i suppose - way to go, copy slashdot, king of accuracy) decides to reject the article. its fucking stupid. the whole reason wikipedia is a success is because there were no fucking rules about who could add what.
but the "real rules" behind the rules are this:
if its something bored white 20-35 year old males enjoy, like comic books or lord of the rings, it will be added.
if its not, then they will think up some rule for why it doesnt fit.
wikipedia is just, dead. its stupid. the idea is dead because the people running it are disconnected from the users and dont care about them.
its just turning into more and more of an upper middle class pissing contest about abstract bullshit.
if you keep adding more and more rules, then the only articles that will be created are by people who have enough time and bureaucratic know how to send an article through. which means, basically, the rich, the well off, the bored, the idle.
ordinary people who know a great deal about how the world works and how the food gets to your plate and how this little computer you are using right now, how it comes to be.... they are being cut out, shuffled out, de facto barred from contributing by this bureaucratic nonsense, red tape delusion, and so-called 'quality' control. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.185.250.195 ( talk • contribs)
The original poster's message read just like the countless rants I've read, basically saying "Wikipedia sucks because it won't accept an article about me or my band/forum/webcomic/company". However, in this case, it looks like Wikipedia did accept the article. I just wish people would tone down their aggression and not insult the entire Wikipedia editor body just because an article they wrote got rejected or deleted. JIP | Talk 08:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I change the article of Savage Islands with information about the dispute of Spain about the island. Not about if the Spain has right or not only I probe with a link to the diary os sesion of the spanish senate that Spain doesn´t recognize the soberany of Portugal. The wikipedist Pedro [ [6]] "La esfera alrededor de las islas Canarias" that's about the waters, not the islands - the islands are no sphere! Portugal has no problems with no country! it just has Olivenza because our neighbours are like gypsies, not because of gypsie culture of Southern Spain, but because it invades other people's property: Spain = Turkey part II 1/2 (as in Cyprus) - and still Portugal does nothing. See, it even respects those who doesnt deserve it, in my opinion, that's because we have chilcken and monkeys insted of politicians, but that's another issue. "
I think that is imposible to work in this article of Wikipedia with this vandalism and I know that is not the first problem of this wikipedist. Pedro [ [7]] is a vandal and a racist and must be block For Pedro: Spain=gypsies=thieves. That is racism about the spaniards and the gypsies. Noviscum 08:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
THIS MAKES ABSOLUTLY LITTLE SENSE, IS THERE A WAY TO REMOVE LARGELY UNINTELLIGEABLE PROPOSALS/COMMENTS FROM W.P. ESPECIALLY IF THEY ARE UNFRUITFUL IN GETTING THEIR POINT ACCROSS AND HAVE NOT RECEIEVED ANY RESPONSES? I also think that perhaps this user should be contacted and asked to provide this comment in their native lanaguges, im assuming Portuguese so that someone may translate it to make more sense of his comment? Qrc2006 03:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
It has been almost a week without recurrence. We can hope that a rewrite of Savage Islands to address the dispute in as balanced a fashion as possible has achieved peace between Portugal & Spain (or at least Portuguese & Spanish contributors). Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 03:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Is it a wikipedia policy not to have lyrics on the pages of songs? Is this a copyright issue? I would have thought if a song is important enough to warrant its own encyclopaedia article, surely the lyrics are the first thing you'd want to include in it. Suicup 14:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
This post has been moved to the proposal page Wikipedia:German page approval solution
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (military vehicles): please comment on the talk page. — Michael Z. 2006-08-15 20:50 Z
See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Male_Domination.3F.
Wikipedia:Privacy_of_article_subjects
At 14:14, 8 Sept 2006, I was blocked because of vandalism occurring at my IP address, 161.88.255.139. This is apparently the address of a firewall at my place of employment, so I share it with many other employees here. (If I find out who it was, he/she is in trouble :-) The details of my little story are at the end of [9], if you are interested.
I found it annoying that the vandal causing the problem was operating anonymously, while I was being a good citizen and logging in. I wonder if it would be possible to have two grades of IP blocking: the usual grade would only block the IP address when used anonymously, but allow edits from logged-in users. In extreme emergencies, I suppose it would be necessary to have a total block on an IP address, independent of the logged-in state. William Ackerman 18:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Is there any interest in creating a new Wikia project to host articles on Internet Memes that do not, and cannot be made to meet Wikipedia's policy on verifiability and prohibition on Original research? I was thinking about this in discussions on P-P-P-Powerbook, which has been up for AFD several times because there are no third-party reliable sources on the subject (and therefore Wikipedia should not have an article on the subject), and it has been kept repeatedly because it is a great story, and one can trivially verify the primary sources (the original discussion thread on Something Awful and a self-published PDF bragging about it).
The situation would be resolved if there were a place to transwiki such articles. We could keep a stub to point to the new Wiki (at least until it got going, so it wouldn't turn into an intellectual ghetto) whenever an article was transwikied, and we could undelete and transwiki a batch of articles to seed the new Wiki. I began the process of starting such a new Wiki, but then realized that it would be a time committment that I personally cannot make at this time, but I thought that others might be interested. Robert A.West ( Talk) 11:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
There have been edits made to WP:EL that have caused edit reverts by a handful of editors. This is an important policy and looks to be undergoing a re-write, and as such, could use the opinion of not less than this small village.-- I already forgot 05:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
In case anyone is interested... apparently someone bought a Google AdSense ad for the word crowdsourcing, and pointed it at the corresponding wikipedia page. It's not clear who did this, or why they'd pay to spotlight content they don't control. But apparently some blogs [10] [11] and media folks have noticed already. -- Interiot 05:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
This also means that we should make the external links on that page in strict conformance of WP:EL! Pascal.Tesson 05:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Maybe Jeff Howe really wants someone to write an article on him from that redlink. -- tjstrf 15:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
This sounds like a weird question, but how are images treated under the WP:V policy? I mean, for commons or other public domain images, how do we know the photographer photographed (or drew) the thing that the caption talks about? For fair use images this is less of a concern because it's easier to determine the context.
Obviously, if someone's been to the Eiffel Tower before, they know that the picture in the article corresponds to the Eiffel Tower. The sources describe this tower, which matches the picture. But what if this context doesn't exist? How would we know that the picture corresponds to the Eiffel Tower? Are we supposed to be able to verify the subject of the images or we don't really care, we trust the people who put them up? ColourBurst 23:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Here's the situation... I nominated Kiwi Gaming for deletion. During the AFD discussion, another editor and I formed a compromise solution in which the Kiwi Gaming article would be merged into a new article about the company's parent Christchurch Casino. The other editor is ready to go with this compromise. I, on the other hand, have reservations because a consensus to delete the Kiwi Gaming has already been formed.
Now, I know AFD is NOT a vote. Nonetheless, I think numbers mean something and need to be weighed in the decision on how to close this AFD debate.
The current "non-vote" is 5 delete (including me, the nominator), 2 keep and 1 Redirect. If we go forward with the compromise, the new "vote" would be 4 delete (without me), 1 keep and 3 redirect. The new "non-vote" seems to point to a "no consensus" situation which would be default to a "keep" unless the closing admin decided otherwise.
In any event, my instinct is that the nominator doesn't "own" the AFD and can't just withdraw it once other people have started expressing opinions. As I see it, the nominator can change his mind and vote against deletion but he can't just arbitrarily terminate the AFD process.
I think the other editor and I now need to convince the other "voters" to get on board the "Redirect" compromise.
Your thoughts on this situation are solicited and welcomed.
-- Richard 04:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
This stems out of a dispute on-going at Stormfront (website), an article on a white-supremacist hate site. The claim has been made that the article cannot including reference links to the website being discussed, on the grounds that the reference links are a violation of the policy against self-promotion. Instead, the references have been deleted outright or are being included as hidden comments.
Is this a correct intepretation of the Wikipedia policies? Are there any precedent of such a prohibition? Is hate speech sufficiently repugnant that we should prohibit any reference links to such sites?
Obviously, I tend to think this new policy goes a little to far, and that there shouldn't be any blanket rule prohibiting us from referencing hate sites (keeping in mind, of course, that they are tend to be highly unreliable references). -- Alecmconroy 00:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
As I said on the other page, there's no rule that references have to be live links. It's often convenient for the reader, but it's certainly not policy, and often impossible in any event. In the case of hate sites, which are problematic enought to begin with, I see no issue with having references that are not live. Jayjg (talk) 18:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi. This concerns a disagreement on how to write the article on Michael Roach, a modern religious teacher. Following the policies laid out at WP:BLP, we have excluded basically all criticism of Mr. Roach from the article, on the grounds that it is not reliably sourced. This (at least from my point of view) is not controversial, and it is definitely required by the BLP rules. The question regards how to treat an external link that is critical of the subject. The article currently links to a few sites run by or otherwise associated with Roach, which, naturally prevent him in a generally favorable light. However, some editors have also added a link to diamond-cutter.org (that's a Buddhist reference, not a threat of violence!), a website devoted to presenting negative information and claims about Mr. Roach. I haven't examined this website a great deal, and I don't know a lot about the situation, but the website doesn't appear to be blatantly scurrilous, but apparentely simply gives its (anonymous) author's opinion of the facts. Now, I will be the first to agree that the putative facts described on diamond-cutter.org definitely do not belong in any Wikipedia article (unless we have another, more credible source for them). The question is, is this acceptable even as an external link (labelled to a "critical website", naturally)?— Nat Krause( Talk!) 00:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Please refer to the content I removed here [12]. Initially, I thought it was just some newbie who decided to include their phone number as a citation for the POV claims and/or to get people to call them to talk to them about their claims. However as I began to write a suggestion to the IP (which is apparently a NATted ISP IP) it began to occur to me that there is a more sinister possibility behind this. The POV statement I removed is the kind which may anger some people. By linking it to a phone number, this may be one of those stupid attempts to cause problems for the owner of the phone number. A search on Google in fact gives a name for the phone number from the phonebook. Thankfully, this edit was not up for long but I'm wondering whether it might be an idea for us to permanently delete this edit given that we have no idea whether the person who owns the number has any connection to the statement in question (and even if he or she does, whether he or she agreed to allow it on wikipedia). It is potentially libellous or at the very least could cause problems for a potentially innocent party. N.B. In retrospect, it may have been a mistake for me to draw attention to the inclusion of the phone number in my edit summary but it's a bit late now. Nil Einne 17:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
There's a proposal in the works that would streamline enforcement of content policies and guidelines. The nutshell version is:
This grows out of a discussion at Wikipedia:Expert Retention where a variety of editors agreed that content policies need more consistent enforcement. Administrators rarely impose blocks for content disputes without an ArbCom ruling. Editors who passionately espouse fringe beliefs can succeed at exhausting the patience of rules-abiding editors because current enforcement skews toward problem editors who violate other policies such as WP:3RR or WP:NPA. This proposal would establish an impartial consensus standard as an alternative to ArbCom. Active editors welcome input to build a broader consensus. Durova 22:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Assuming this comes to fruition ( Larry Sanger's ambitions have in the past exceeded his ability to marshal resources in support of his causes, so it's entirely possible that it won't)... will this affect Wikipedia in any fashion?
A few particular questions:
I'm assuming that people will be free to contribute to both projects, should they desire. While I will wait and see concerning Citizendium, my personal long-term goal is to contribute to an excellent open-source encyclopedia. Right now, Wikipedia is the best of the bunch and I have no plans to leave; but my long-term loyalty lies with the destination, not with the vehicle I use to get there. I've got no stake whatsoever in whatever acrimony lies between Sanger and Jimbo. -- EngineerScotty 18:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Hello! In 2005 I created a series of trolls and sockpuppets to disrupt Wikipedia. Some of them were rather notorious. I even managed to drive away a few major contributors. In any case, I just logged on to check my contributions at it amazed me that many of my "hoax" articles and edits are STILL on Wikipedia. It seems that the hoax editing I did with "throw away" accounts (like this one) was obscure and plausible sounding enough to NEVER get reverted. As long as I didn't draw any attention to my hoax editing through using my "high profile" accounts, nobody caught on. Of course the high profile account names were exclusively used for "trolling" rather than "hoaxing" or vandalism. It occured to me early on that any vandalism done by those accounts would be immediately spotted.
Hey have you also noticed User:Essjay hasn't edited since the 14th of August? Malsherbes 05:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Of course, since you didn't actually name any of the articles, we have no clue if you are speaking the truth or just bullshitting us. However, if the articles you've allegedly created are as obscure as you claim, the chance of them being linked to or searched for is virtually nil, so the damage done to Wikipedia is also virtually nil. Enjoy your mediocre hoax articles. -- tjstrf 06:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Those of us who use Tor are told that the open proxy thing can be worked around by forcing new connections, as though the whole issue with Tor being blocked by the open proxy purge is an accidental byproduct -- as though it would be OK to use a Tor node that wasn't an open proxy.
That's as crazy as it sounds. All Tor nodes are open proxies.
Worse, over at project on open proxies, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_on_open_proxies there is talk about an automated Tor banning bot being busy blocking sites today.
In other words, there is a drive to say "Anyone using Tor must not be allowed to edit". That's the wrong approach.
I've mentioned elsewhere: If someone is logged in, and can be held responsible for their edits, they should not be denied the ability to edit, certainly not if the goal is that anyone can edit.
The idea of requiring that you go through a secure login site isn't inherently a problem. Sadly, I don't believe that Tor supports HTTPS connections (otherwise it might show up as a man-in-the-middle attack), and the warning on the Tor advice for china users even tell you,
This means that no one from China can chance writting anything on Wiki that goes against China policy. That's bad enough, but it's one step down the road to a religious government doing the same thing and forcing any edits to conform to a religious doctrine.
Sadly, I don't believe that Tor has a config option to exclude certain nodes as exit nodes -- only to exclude them completely. Perhaps it's time to develop a page showing the list of nodes to exclude in order to be able to edit pages? Although doing that will just make the job of blocking Tor nodes easier.
Finally, there's concern about how well this works with dynamic IP DSL connections. I run a Tor node. I have a DSL connection. I get a new IP address every two-four days. Should my system be blocked for being a Tor node? If I bypass Tor and connect directly, even though other people can use Tor? Since I can force a new IP address by turning my DSL modem off and then back on?
This policy does not make sense from any of these viewpoints: 1. Goal of wiki -- open editing 2. Goal of Tor -- bypassing tracability of people like the government of China 3. Technical -- identifying specific machines, given the ease of getting a new IP address 4. Technical -- the idea of blocking connections specifically from Tor routers, given that no attempt is made to tell if the connection comes from a Tor router or some other process running on the same machine.
The Wiki project on open proxies said that this was the place to argue against this policy. So, I am. While I'm still able to -- if I keep waiting, more and more nodes will be blocked, and then what will I do? -- Keybounce 04:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd like some sort of consensus on whether it is OK for Wikipedians to make requests of administrators on IRC, and what procedures administrators taking requests from IRC should follow. Specifically, when a "move" request is made.
I am not impartial on this debate. There is a lot of mistrust and bad faith towards my own requests for article moves which I have done on IRC as a user, as documented in my request for adminship. I feel if a stronger procedure existed there would be less ill will, so I'm proposing an
IRC move request procedure:
An administrator receiving a request for a move on IRC ought to...:
The above is a first draft. This is also a wiki, so I'd suggest cleaning it up directly (edit it) rather than proposing minor changes. Comments, changes, suggestions welcome. — Pengo talk · contribs 00:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm confused, I see a solution here, but I don't see a problem. What problem does this fix? -- Golbez 03:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is, and has always been, all about creating an encyclopedia. We strive to have the best written content possible, and although the social interaction is fun, the overriding goal of this site is creating the encyclopedia. However, the maintenance and administration of the site are also important, thus we need sysops/admins to not only write articles but also to generally monitor and "police" the site. There are a number of admins who do a great job in article writing and editing, such as User:Geogre and User:Lucky_6.9. I think their contributions should be applauded.
It has become apparent that as this site has grown, a large number of active admins have ceased to edit or create articles and solely devote their energies to the administrative/social side of the project. This has led to a fundamental "disconnect" between those who administer the site and those who actually write articles. Therefore, the question arises, how can this system sustain its legitimacy when many of the influential administrators on Wikipedia are totally divorced from the realities and experiences of actually "writing an encyclopedia," which by all accounts is why we are here.
Perhaps there should be a two-tier administrator system, in which admins with significant mainspace contributions, such as those named above, would hold more functions than the class of admins that contribute little, or in some cases, nothing, to the articles. Admins without proven contributions to the articles could still handle important tasks such as New page patrolling, welcoming new users, etc., but would not have the full power of the "encyclopedic" admins, such as User:Geogre or User:Bishonen just to name a few. This also would encourage non-article-contributing admins to work more on the articles and the encyclopedia side of Wikipedia if they want to attain promotion to "full" admin status. Wikipedia as a whole would benefit. -- Pewlosels 03:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that it necessarily follows that someone who spends most of their time in non-article spaces are necessarily disconnected from reality. Jimbo Wales and Radiant! are two examples of people who do most of their work in non-article spaces but are still well-respected by a chunk of the community. Maybe people who stay away from articles are more likely to be disconnected, but there are counterexamples at the least.
I do think people who contribute significant amounts of encyclopedic content should be given a lot of recognition for their work, but I also think adminship shouldn't really be viewed as an award. If you want to have two classes of administrators, "regular administrators", and "influential FA-contributing administrators", then that's more of a culture thing, not necessarily a "who has their janitor bits turned on" thing. -- Interiot 04:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Your contributions are worthy and needed. The issue here is that if you don't edit, you are less suited to make a judgement on the editors who edit, except for pretty obvious vandals and dicks. Adminship is both a mop and a stick. If you are used to a mop only, you should not be using the stick. -- Irpen 05:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I#m not sure what you have in mind, admin functions are those that require the extra buttons they are mainly technical. I can't see any logical split. The normal sequence of events seems to be (1) edit articles (2) become admin (3) stop/reduction in article editing as too involved in admin work. Now if we manage some split (which as I say I cannot envisage here how you intend to split the tools), that ultimately would then lead to less people doing a certain area of work, which means those left would have to take up the slack - leaving less time for article editing, so we then take those tools away and around we go. -- pgk 09:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I support this and am sure you will see nothing but admins oppose it. The idea that people are made admins because of their mainspace contributions and from that point no longer need them seems odd. If you were elected by the people because of the amazing mainspace work you do, why should that all cease now that you are an admin, we may as well never make admins then if it means losing an editor. I would think the idea is to give them additional tools to participate in additional functions, not drop the old function(writing articles) so that they can then be a vandal cop. -- NuclearUmpf 11:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Whenever I start to concentrate more on cleaning up the mess that vandals make and less on articles, I burn out extremely quickly. So it's self-correcting for me. But this is a really bad idea. --
Golbez 13:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Admins are not paid employees (as the premise of the point suggests to me), they are just normal users with a few axtra buttons, which, in the grand scheme of things, don't even get used that much. Wikipedia only works because people do what they want to do, and happily what they want to do is normally in the interest of building an encyclopedia. When we start encouraging people to do things they don't want to do, or get annoyed when admins don't do what we want them to do, then Wikipedia won't work any more. Martin 13:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Frankly, this idea is idiotic. While I am a reasonable writer, I don't think I was given the admin bit because of the articles I created. After all, creating articles needs no administrative functions...and if I saw someone's RFA Q1 answer as "I only want to write more articles!" then I'd probably oppose. Why ruin a good thing? I probably spend 95% of my time trying to make Wikipedia a place where people who do write well and want to create articles (both admins and nonadmins) can concentrate on that, and not on recategorizing hundreds of articles or blocking spammers or being harassed by other editors (well intentioned or not). The other 5% of my time is little wikignome changes to articles, like taking a recent deaths obit and turning it into an article start. When I look at a writer-admin's contributions (such as BunchofGrapes or Bishonen or Violetriga) I like to think that by shouldering the lions share of administrator functions, they can continue to add quality content. Hopefully someone somewhere looks at my block logs, and my protection logs, and my page deletion logs and is thankful for my own contributions to the project instead of thinking in the back of their mind "What a f@cking waste of space that Syrthiss is, he better get back to making articles!111!!!!!!". Syrthiss 13:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Agree with most or all of the opposition above. Also: it's just impractical. In many previous proposals for regular review of admins, it has become clear that the necessary mechanisms would be extremely unwieldy. Reviewing 1000+ admins every year (for instance) means doing 20 a week on average. Which would be an excellent way to draw some group of people away from writing articles. And which group of people? Who are you going to appoint to decide when an admin has done "enough" mainspace writing? Not to mention the agony of defining "enough." Sure, writing an FA is an excellent thing. How about writing 50 stubs? Rescuing articles from CSD/PROD/AFD? Hmm? (These are rhetorical questions. I don't want individual answers. Especially since each individual will answer differently.) There are problems with divisions between people who dedicate themselves to writing and people who dedicate themselves to keeping the machine running. But trying to divide a diverse group of people into exactly two black-and-white groups is not going to ameliorate the problems. FreplySpang 13:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd recommend to the proposer that you read some actual RfAs - you'll get a much broader understanding of what people expect from admins, and how different the demands are. Some people want apologetic admins, others want unrelenting ones. Some people only require admins to have AfD experience, others expect five thousand main space edits plus five FAs or more and don't care about AfD. Some people think being an admin is an honourable position that should be granted to any bona fide, long-term contributor. Others insist that admins that do not participate in AfD, copyvio-resolution or similar administrative work are not worthy of "the mop", or wouldn't benefit from it. Finally, you'll find that admins instil terrible fear in some editors to the point that it's very difficult to constructively work with them on simple editing tasks. I'm sure I'm not the only admin to have considered creating a second account just so I wouldn't have to deal with "but, but, you're going to block me if I disagree with you". It's not like admins don't scrutinise each other's actions. If you have a specific complaint, you can make it at WP:AN etc., as you are no doubt aware, and if there's any basis to it, it will be dealt with. - Samsara ( talk • contribs) 13:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
At the risk of top posting, I can point out that there are other proposals getting at the same thing. First, my own view.
So, some other ideas folks have come up with, including me. I realize that they range near and far.
Anyway, this is a review of what I've seen so far. Y'all are free to support or despise any part of it, exactly as your consciences dictate, but, if you find some of these things worthy, I encourage y'all to work it up as a full proposal. Geogre 13:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Just to drop my 2p in. I have been an active article writer since March 2004 with a brief voluntary break that summer, and a brief involuntary break this summer, and had the sysop bit from January 2005 to last month. Whether admin or not my approach is that article writing is the first and most important thing and it's what I enjoy, and my writing of articles did not diminish at all when I was an admin. But, just as if you want to live in a beautiful home you have to clean it, so we have administrative chores to do in order to make our encyclopaedia better. We don't call it "the mop" for nothing. So I do think that it's a bad thing (TM) for admins to give up their article work, because it suggests that editors are at the bottom of the tree, and that once promoted into adminship, you don't have to do that work any more. Really, it should be the other way round. David | Talk 15:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I hate it that this is personalizing. That's precisely what we need to avoid. However, if it's back to "well, I find that I..." I will say that I've written more since being an admin. That's just a coincidence, though. I got here in 2002, signed up in 2003, got to be an admin in early 2004, I think, and I write. I do admin tasks, too. If I get dragged into arguments, my time gets gobbled up and I do little writing. If I actually mop things up, I don't lose any time at all. I don't think this is "you can't be an admin." Let's be honest and precise, if we're going to talk about this at all, please. It isn't maintaining a page, cleaning out a category, or even watching a page that takes time: it's chatting and fighting and arguing that takes time. That's not being an administrator, or it doesn't have to be. If folks want to consider me an inactive admin, they're free to. If they want to think that 230 articles is a low number, they may. Let's stop just asking, "Is this going to hurt me" and start asking, "Can this prevent the damage being done daily now by people being brusque, personal, incurious?" Geogre 16:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
With the Arbitration Committee agreeing to hear the Giano case even when the crux of the case is the behavior of many of the admins and Arb Com members, it is clear how the ArbCom will end up ruling. They probably will simply tell us, as James F. already has done, that we're a "bunch of idiots," and to move on, as it were. If the ArbCom shall not listen to us and blatantly flaunt community wishes, we do have an option -- Civil Disobedience. We can simply refuse to implement future ArbCom decisions. They need us to enforce their decisions, particularly on bans. That way we can send a message to the Committe of Public Safety that we are serious and that we have serious concerns. GreenCommander81 04:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Is there a policy on list articles that essentially replicate the function of a category? I'm thinking about lists such as those in the category Lists of Museums. I don't see what Museums in China does, for instance, that Category:Museums in China doesn't already do. Cordless Larry 14:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
What is the policy on allowing external links to Uncyclopedia articles? Some examples are [13] [14]. In some articles, such as German Wikipedia, some context is given on the corresponding Uncyclopedia article. Should such links be removed? Thanks. -- Vsion 21:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
The phrasing of otheruses has pissed a lot of people off in the past, and I think it could be fixed rather simply by changing the word "uses" to "meanings." I posted at Template_talk:Otheruses#All_the_meaning_problems..., but I figured here is a more visible place to draw people out for discussion. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 17:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I have noticed that some users, one in particular, have a habit of disemvowelling statements that others make on their talk page. Usually, the reason given is that "I don't want to read such nonsense". I was under the impression that, barring racist type remarks, we were NOT supposed to change in any way comments left on our talk pages. What is the specific policy on this? As an example, please refer to the talk page of Calton to see what i am talking about. Is this sort of behaviour permissable? I cannot find in ANY Wiki policies that I have gone over ANYTHING that allows this sort of thing, which honestly seems to be a form of self vandalism (if one could actually vandalise one's own talk page). TruthCrusader 16:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
"If you remove sources from articles it makes it difficult for other editors to check the matters referred to. Please don't do this in order to make a point about Arbitrarion Committee decisions having to be kept to even if you don't like them. David | Talk 15:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)"
it was changed to this:
"f y rmv srcs frm rtcls t mks t dffclt fr thr dtrs t chck th mttrs rfrrd t. Pls dn't d ths n rdr t mk pnt bt rbtrrn Cmmtt dcsns hvng t b kpt t vn f y dn't lk thm. - David | Talk 15:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)"
I don't see WHY a statement like this should be rendered vowelless, it makes no sense to me and really smacks of being massively uncivil.
TruthCrusader 18:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I think I should say something here before I end up with a request for comment about my username. Messing with other people's signed comments is certainly a no-no, and what Calton did seems to match this disemvowelling thing, while he may or may not have been aware of the connotations of doing this as described in the disemvowelling article. Actually, upon reviewing this article's history he has made some significant edits of it and so probably knows what it meant and meant it as an insult to Dbiv. I was not aware of this whole thing myself, before reading this thread and article and really don't put much consideration into the article's subtly offensive point of view. Regardless of the article, I don't think writing without vowels is at all uncivil, rude, or derogatory and I'm not going to point out exactly why, because we should all know this. DVD+ R/W 17:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I invite review of this edit, to the speedy deletion template: [16]
I'm hoping this is a step towards discouraging template-warring and some of the speedy/prod/AfD ping pong that sometimes goes on. - GTBacchus( talk) 23:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
(Please also see WT:RFA) I believe that the RfA process is under many pressures partly because there is no similar organized way to hold admins accountable for their actions or desysopp them if necessary. If we answer this latter question, we will see more people ready to say "adminship is no big deal." The consensus issue will also become less sensitive, and I'm sure that stuff like the Carnildo affair won't happen. To get the ball rollin':
The answer for #2 is WP:AN, which already exists. -- Golbez 12:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
dab (ᛏ) 12:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I've got an idea. How about something modeled after AfD? If someone specifically believes that an admin has acted improperly, instead of making them go through the convolutions of RfC or having them navigate the shark infested waters of AN/I, give users the means to get quick feedback to the effect of whether or not they have been the "victim" of a rouge admin. Here's how I would see the workflow: There's a Wikipedia:Administrator Review page. The user clicks an edit link, specifies an admin and review reason w/ an AfD style template, ala {{subst:adminreview|user=Chairboy|text=The article [[It puts the lotion on its skin]] was improperly deleted (it did not meet WP:CSD) and the admin blocked me when I asked him to review the situation. Also, we had a disagreement on a different subject at the same time, so I feel Chairboy blocked me improperly and should have involved another admin to avoid a conflict of interest.}}. This would be saved as Wikipedia:Administrator Review/Chairboy and would allow for a centralized depot for all "issues" each admin has. This would be transcluded the way AfD and RfA are and the result would almost always be a "Speedy close" or "Speedy RfC" that would then be expanded appropriately. This would give have a calming influence on frustrated users who feel wronged but aren't quite sure enough to begin an RfC, plus it would serve as a pressure release for users who need to hear from other admins that "Nope, in this instance Chairboy acted properly." Articles for Deletion has reduced a lot of tension from situations where users would have otherwise felt a single user was being capricious. Seeing everyone else agree that an article needs to go makes people stop and ask themselves "Wait, is it possible that I've misunderstood the situation?". An equivalent for admins could highlight administrators who have screwed up and give other admins the means to validate when the person has actually acted properly. This is less expensive than regular admin reviews, only targets admins who have gained the ire of others, and gives fast, unified feedback to the accusing party. Thoughts? - CHAIRBOY ( ☎) 15:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)