A dispute has arisen between myself and User:Dr Zak over whether Image:Inglis.jpg counts as "unsourced" and should be deleted because it doesn't contain the name of the photographer - simply the (reputable) website where it was found. There are thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of images hosted on Wikipedia that 'do their best' to correctly attribute the source and rationale - in fact, I daresay the vast majority of image sources contain the url where the image was found, not a photographer/newspaper name (which is certainly also acceptable). I would appreciate any clarification if this image is in fact somehow deserving to be deleted since we list the immediate source, but not the pressPhotographer/newspaperName - or if we have indeed done all the work necessary to try and find the original source of the courtroom photo, and it is all but an Orphaned work. Sherurcij ^{( Speaker for the Dead)} 21:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, since it has no sourcing information, we don't know if it's actually news print, or what, so we can't really know how much value we're hurting by including it. It seems as if we could make an argument for inclusion based on uniqueness, but how do you know the picture's even really him if you don't know where it's from? Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 21:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It does say where it's from, http://www.murderfile.net/names/inglis51.htm - a reputable site Sherurcij ^{( Speaker for the Dead)} 22:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

How do we know that [1] is a reputable source? The site doesn't even list the name of who runs it! Has anyone else ever cited murderfile.net? On the other hand, most everyone will trust the Times, Guardian, or any other British broadsheet, and if the image was sourced back to any newspaper it would be credible immediately. Dr Zak 22:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm seeing http://www.murderfile.net/research.htm which clearly says John Eddleston, the creator and webmaster of this site has written nine true crime books. I've since eMailed him to ask if he remembers his source for the Inglis photo - but even if he should not remember, he is a well-known author who runs a reputable website. This isn't exactly geocities quality, it's a database of murderers, their photos and their stories...a lot more reliable than say, Rotten.com's database, which is a lot less reputable. Sherurcij ^{( Speaker for the Dead)} 02:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Why should the verifiability policy not apply to images? Unless we know where the image has been published we can't even be sure that it's James Inglis who is on that picture, and the picture should be deleted until a source is found. Dr Zak 22:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• The source cited has to be the person, organisation or website that actually holds the copyright to the image. If the image is reproduced from a newsprint original, then the copyright of the digitized photo still remains with the newspaper even if the photo is put on another website. The website wouldn't hold copyright on the photo. Therefore, the image in question doesn't have a source from which we can double-check the copyright status. Kavadi carrier 15:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not going to disagree that this particular image is insufficiently sourced, but "source" shouldn't be interpreted to mean "copyright owner" must be established for every image, as long as it's at least sourced back to the work from which it derives, so that we know how the owner used the image, i.e., the context in which it was first published. For example, a screenshot from a film is usable in an article on that film regardless of who owns the rights to that film. The fair use analysis doesn't change based on whether Paramount owns the copyright, Paramount owned it but later assigned it to DreamWorks, the director owned it, the director's widow inherited it, etc. Before anyone objects, ask yourself whether we actually verify current copyright ownership, or just assume (reasonably) that whomever produced it owned it in the first instance and continues to own it. In this case, however, we don't even have enough source info to tell us what use was made of the photograph when it was first published. Postdlf 16:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Could someone please helpt me explain the meanings of WP:V and WP:NOR here? Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 18:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be rude in my discussion, but I do think you are taking those policies to the extreme. -- Pinkkeith 18:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm skeptical of the dance moves, but most of the references in that list are so inherently obvious that a source stating "X is a reference to Y" is just unnecessary. For example, one does not need a secondary source stating that the line "My mana tap brings all the boys to the yard" is a reference to the lyric "My milkshake brings all the boys to the yard" from the song "Milkshake," because there is no other plausible explanation for that particular phrasing being used. The only needed sources are thus the game containing the reference, and the song containing the lyric that is referenced. The same with the He-Man reference: "The Arathi Basin Battlemaster is named "Adam Heman" in reference to the popular tv show character. He also has a "Zulian Battle-tiger" as a pet, in reference to his tiger, Cringer. He also appears with a gnome behind him called "Oric Coe" in reference to Orko." I'd require a source stating that it wasn’t such a reference because that is so incredibly improbable. Postdlf 18:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

but it's still a judgement call and an original observation. If I disagree what are you going to cite? That's why we have WP:V. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 18:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

To take it out of pop culture, and into the kind of inherently obvious assumptions we make all the time as Wikipedia contributors: if I have two biographies that both state that they are about a man named "Franklin D. Roosevelt," and both tell the story of a New York governor with polio who is president for four terms and leads the country through WWII until his death, would I need a source stating that the biographies are both about the same individual before I can assume that? Postdlf 02:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Except that your example doesn't prove the argument. The argument (if you were to transplant it to the Roosevelt biographies) is that the second biography is inspired by the first because they talk about the same things. It's not at all obvious that that's the case - maybe both biographies were inspired by a third source. ColourBurst 04:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't the question. Assume they don't completely overlap in their coverage of his life and that they aren't otherwise written similarly, if you need to to stay focused. This is the only question I presented: would I need a source stating that the biographies are both about the same individual before I can make that assertion? Why or why not? Postdlf 15:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The word reference doesn't mean they're talking about the same character - the universe is not the same, the characters are not the same (convince me that Linken in WoW is the same character as Link in LoZ), so your Roosevelt biography analogy does not apply here. Referencing, in this context, means that the object/character/so on in X directly caused the creator in Y to make a similar object/character/so on in Y. It doesn't mean they're talking about the same person. ColourBurst 20:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't my question because that wasn't my point; I'm aiming broader than that right now. My question is framed to ascertain only whether a conclusion based on the direct comparison of two sources is ever obvious enough to assert, such that reliance on a third source that itself sets forth that conclusion is unnecessary. If you're going to respond to my post, please respond to my actual content. So is it permissible to state such a conclusion without a source? Address that underlying issue first and then we can address the next step. Postdlf 02:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It is obvious right now and for you because you happen to know this song. That does not hold for others in the future. If you can't come up with reliable sources on it when I ask, then it doesn't belong. This is an encyclopedia. — Centrx→ talk • 03:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

That the lyric is in the song is sourced by reference to the song itself. That the quote from the game is a reference to the song lyric is an obvious conclusion that follows from a simple comparison. Can you respond to my biography analogy? Postdlf 04:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• See also Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles. >Radiant< 11:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • That's the only proper argument against this article. I happen to think that a list that explains references is not quite trivia. Postdlf 15:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Citing info from a source isn't an observation or a judgement call. To verify a song lyric, just listen to the song. To verify a line of dialogue from the movie, just watch the movie. That's referencing a source, not doing OR or observation. The reliable sources are the game and the song. Obviously wikipedia allows using primary sources (as does any encyclopedia) - would it really make sense if to say in the article about Romeo and Juliet "Romeo and Juliet die at the end" I couldn't use Romeo and Juliet as a source and had to find the info somewhere else? It would be practially impossible to write about any fiction at all. I can see why some oppose the article on "cruft" concerns, but NOR unquestionably does not apply and isn't grounds for deletion - if it was, the vast majority of articles on fiction could be deleted on the same grounds. -- Milo H Minderbinder 15:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Except that writing a summary about a plot point isn't what the article's doing. It also has analysis (X came from Y is an analysis - one that people are arguing is trivial, but still an analysis). WP:OR doesn't care about whether the analysis is trivial - it only cares about whether the analysis is published. ColourBurst 20:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

That's not true. The article doesn't claim that every one is necessarily an intentional reference, specifically "references may or may not be accidental". But there are clearly items on the list that require no analysis whatsoever. For example, "Who is John Galt"/"Who is John Galt". If something is the same, it's the same, zero analysis required. Are you going to tell me that determining whether those two are identical requires "research" or "observation"? There may be references on the list that are questionable, but the fix is to remove the specific items, not the whole list. Or just rename it "similarities to pop culture" instead of "references" if you honestly think it's possible the game designers unintentionally created dozens of bits that happen to be identical to elements of pop culture. -- Milo H Minderbinder 21:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: This was cross-posted at Wikipedia talk:Categorization, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies

Category:Terrorists was up for CfD, which passed as Delete. In a deletion review, I proposed an alternative categorization that would merge several top-level categories into one. My proposal is at User:Irixman/TerrorismProposal. Before I am bold and just do it, I really want some feedback -- should I? What do y'all think? :) Please direct any and all comments to User:Irixman/TerrorismProposal#Comments -- Irixman ^{(t) (m)} 16:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Please also note that the closing of that CFD as "delete" is being challenged at deletion review. Postdlf 16:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Could there possibly be a better voting system on Wikipedia than having to manually type the vote and reason? I mean, could there be a bunch of users set up to handle a certain vote (say, on their talk pages, or even their user pages), and then archive it once its done? Pages such as WP:RfA are getting quite cluttered with all of the questions, votes, and opinions on the pages. Could a consensus vote be handled on a user page, and the discussion on the talk page? Someone please add on to this. Diez2 02:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, you should know that we don't "really" vote around here. RfA is about as close as we ever get to a straight vote and even there, we permit some "wiggle room". There is a lot of philosophy behind our non-voting system and I won't attempt to summarize it here -- sorry, but I can't even point you to just one or two links that sum it up.

I will start you off somewhere, and that is Consensus. Read that before Wikipedia:Consensus. I'll also toss in the simplest argument against voting on an open wiki: We don't really know how many of you there are. You could register 12 different accounts, make enough edits from each of them to qualify, and vote with all of them. I'm sure you wouldn't but I don't know about him. Sorry.

Perhaps you'll say you understand all this. But if you really understand, then you'll see that we don't want votes at all -- not pseudo-votes, not comments that consist entirely of the word "Support". We'd like to have a reason attached to each support, oppose, or neutral comment. In other words, the discussion is what we want to see. John  Reid  ° 06:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• For more information, you could try meta:don't vote on everything and meta:voting is evil. >Radiant< 09:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The reason WP:RfA is "cluttered" is because it is a collection of many individual pages on which discussion happens. It is just an overview, and the discussions don't take place there. And the individual discussions are archived and removed from the page. Does that make sense? -- Milo H Minderbinder 15:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The last thing we want to do is encourage voting. Votes here are a means to finding consensus, not to be encouraged as a decision process in themselves. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 21:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Is there a policy/guideline on putting image attribution in captions within articles? I looked at Wikipedia:Image use policy and Wikipedia:Captions, but could not find anything, and am not sure where this would go exactly.

I think the traditional approach has been not to attribute the author of an image in the caption (whatever the licence - fair use, GFDL etc), but instead to do it on the image description page. For example I have never seen caption attribution in a featured article.

What do I say to a photographer who uploads a {{ Cc-by-sa-2.5}} image (the licence requires attribution) and then insists on putting their name and website in the caption? At the moment I tell them that it is not the Wikipedia way, but pointing to a policy or guideline would be helpful. Cheers -- Commander Keane 02:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

No policy. For longstanding example, see Image:AsimovOnThrone.png at Isaac Asimov. I don't have a problem with credit given where due, nor do I insist upon it for my own works. To tell the truth, I'd probably be happiest if images were routinely credited; if a distinct display style were reserved for the purpose, rather than in the body of the caption. I have always liked magazines that credit photos with small, all caps, sans text rotated to the vertical. John  Reid  ° 06:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I could extend WP:NOT#Not a soapbox to captions under the advertising clause; I think that's the policy cited for linkspam. I wouldn't have the same objection to an external link in the image's page itself. Durov a ^Charge! 15:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

This has come up here before. The Creative Commons license requires attribution "reasonable to the medium or means" [2]. Putting the copyright information on the image page only would, in my non-lawyerly opinion, be perfectly reasonable to the medium (a wiki) and thus would be in full compliance with the license. I was actually tempted to email Larry Lessig and ask his opinion on it (seeing as how he wrote the license). Raul654 19:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Does this summary constitute a legal threat? Dylan Lake ( t· c· ε) 02:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The most beautiful girl in the world since September 9, 1989. DONT COPY THIS AT ALL! ANY USE WITHOUT PERMISSION EXCLUSIVELY WRITTEN BY ME WILL BE SUED TO THE FULLEST EXTENT OF THE LAW!

Well, it certainly isn't an acceptable license statement for an image to be used on Wikipedia, so the image tagged with it should be deleted. *Dan T.* 02:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Dealt with. JoshuaZ 08:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

OT but what was the picture of? A 17 year old girl? Someone who won the 1989 Miss Whatever? Nil Einne 13:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm tired of new users not understanding what this thing means and not realizing that people are leaving them messages. What if we changed it (through MediaWiki) to say "A Wikipedia user has left you a message. Please read it and respond if necessary"? -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 22:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't think that would change much. Perhaps a help link might be more helpful (like "What's this?") Fagstein 01:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

When you get the "you have new messages" notice, don't you already get a link to your talk page and a diff link?

Maybe something like "A Wikipedia user has left you a message on your talk page, click here to view it" would make it a bit more obvious? -- `/aksha 02:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

How do we get it changed? -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 02:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Isn't there a place to go to request for changes to system messages? It would be a good idea actually, new users don't nessasarily realize their "talk page" is a point of contact for them. -- `/aksha 02:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought this was it. I am an admin and I could change it, but want to make sure there's consensus. I'm making sure there isn't another place. -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 04:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 04:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think the desired reaction with new members is "What the hell is this?" as they click on it, discovering their talk page in the process. I think it works just fine, but something a bit more obviously worded would probably work well, too. EVula 03:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Often, or at least for me, the "what the hell is this?" lead to "why the hell do i have a so-called discussion page named after me?". -- `/aksha 08:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Why on earth should this cause problems in the first place? It's a fairly straightforward statement. -- Necrothesp 21:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I reversed it before seeing this discussion, but looking at it now I don't think there is a consensus for it. "A Wikipedia user" is misleading. The message could be from an IP (not a user account); it could be from a bot (not a person); it could be from someone passing by who has never edited Wikipedia before and may never again or from a banned user's several sockpuppets (not a Wikipedian). The message is shown simply when the user talk page is changed, and adding more specific verbiage of this kind separates it even further from its real meaning. — Centrx→ talk • 02:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

How about "You have a new message on your Wikipedia talk page" which should make it clear. Part of the issue seems to be that people see and assume it is one of those advertisements that tries to get you to click on it by saying you have new messages. This wording should alleviate that problem. JoshuaZ 02:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately some don't quite get the concept for a talk page. They then don't see stuff like block warnings. -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 02:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, that wording is better than the current wording, and to be blunt, if people can't even get the idea of a talk page then they might be dumb enough thay it would be best if they didn't edit anyways. JoshuaZ 02:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah... so should we go and change it? -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 04:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I like JoshuaZ's suggestion - although can it still retain the 'last change' link for those of us who read in diffs? I got the "A Wikipedia user" bit the other day, and somehow the knee-jerk reaction was 'damn joke banners!' One more thing to get used to, I guess, if it changes. riana_ dzasta 19:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a reason why it wouldn't need to include the 'last change' afterword.. JoshuaZ 05:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

This seems good. Regarding people clicking on the joke new messages, I would think they would just change the joke to the new wording and we would have the same problem. — Centrx→ talk • 05:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, no, I wasn't complaining, I just stated my reaction when I saw something new. Of course, there wouldn't have been a joke banner on my watchlist :) riana_ dzasta 06:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Are we discussing change for the sake of change ? Maybe reverse psychology is in order here. Something like don't click here !!! Jcam 01:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Where did this idea that people don't understand what "You Have New Messages" means come from? Where is the evidence that people aren't seeing vandal warnings? How does adding "on your Wikipedia talk page" solve that? If people don't understand new messages, then they're certainly not going to know what a talk page is. If this was a site with flashing advertisements everywhere telling people they've one things, then this might be understandable. But there's not a single advert on this side (apart from possibly the contents of CAT:SPAM). -- Steel 18:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Albertotineo10. -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 04:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

We are changing the site-wide settings just because of one user? Kavadi carrier 06:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

No, because of the many like him. -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 18:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It's BRIGHT orange. It's bold. It shows up on every Wikipedia page until you deal with it. How more obvious can it be. If a user appears to not be reading their messages, then either a) they don't want to or b) they have read them and have chosen not to respond. Users that are so dense as to not be able to figure out what that means aren't aware enough to be much a harm to wikipedia anyways. -- Jayron 32 06:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Rschen, I fail to see how that is evidence for anything, other than that the user clearly doesn't want to discuss whatever he's doing. That user was left his first message on the 12th September. Are you suggesting that in two months he's not once clicked the bright orange banner which won't go away? -- Steel 15:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• It's not explainable otherwise. -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 18:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Sure it is. He read the warnings, said "screw you guys, I'll do whatever I want" and continues to vandalise. He may have stopped reading his talk page because it contains nothing but dozens of vandal warnings, but really, if it contained dozens of vandal warnings, is this a user we want around? -- Jayron 32 04:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Not to be blunt, but this is a change for change's sake, and that pretty much gives the impression that we believe that users are dolts who should be using Microsoft Bob. Also, remember that no one reads the manual, so we should be trying to make that bar shorter, not something like:

Tito xd^{( ?!?)} 08:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Why are wikipedians obsessed with warning templates? Why does WP:AIV tell you not to bother listing a vandal if they haven't been warned 4 times or vandalised within the last 5 minutes?

For example: a user who replaces "Nelson Mandela" with "Buttfucker" doesn't need to be told that his edit is considered vandalism... if he's smart enough to edit a page, he's probably smart enough to know that it's vandalism.

I'm an admin on other wikimedia projects. If someone vandalises a page, they get blocked. No warning, no cute templates added to their user page, nada... just blocked.

Blatant and sophisticated vandals who upload nasty images and/or alter templates are blocked permanently. No warning, no templates, etc. Should WP:BITE really apply to vandals? Why does blocking vandals cause an existential crisis? -- SB_Johnny| ^talk| _books 17:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think it might be over-clinging to WP:AGF. In such clear-cut examples as the one you've given, I'd slap their talk page with {{ anon vandal}} (assuming it was an anon, of course), which is listed as a "final warning" template. I never use the lower-level warnings for anything other than minor issues (adding personal POV, unsourced claims, etc.) rather than mind-boggingly obvious vandalism. EVula 17:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm with you, Johnny -- it's nonsense. I've been dealing with a bunch of vandals in the last few days on a few articles about high schools, and I get seriously frustrated with having to follow up "warning" them repeatedly. Clearly, they know what they're doing. Why are we chasing people around constantly? This morning I pulled up my watchlist, and 7 of the top 10 lines were "revert vandalism" or equivalent. It's out of hand. And we wonder why we're so stressed around here? How about we get a little more hard-handed with vandals? No more 24/hour bans, no more one week bans. 6 months for stupid vandals, indefinite for repeat offenders. Where can we go to show our support for a new policy of harsher sentences for Wiki Criminals? :) -- Wolf530 01:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. Especially with regard to blatant vandalism and "sophisticated" vandalism, I see little need to assume good faith. Edits like the Mandela/Buttfucker example are irrefutable proof of bad-faith editing; it's simply foolish for us to assume that the editor was a misguided newbie. I would strongly support the equivalent of a zero-tolerance policy in these cases. -- Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 01:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

You might want to look at Wikipedia_talk:Assume_good_faith#Proposal_to_consider_the_removal_of_this_paragraph_from_Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith_policy — Omegatron 03:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! That's a good start. I'd really like to see some discussion about making the admin policies/guidelines reflect something closer to a zero-tolerance policy, as well. Is that going on anywhere? -- Wolf530 03:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

As someone who may not edit here every day, I find it frustrating to have to nominate a (previously warned)vandal for blocking within 24 hours of his vandalism. - Freekee 05:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

In my heart I'm sympathetic to this thread. In practice this would take a lot more administrators. The majority of random vandalism is just that: some unregistered user surfs into the site, toys with a page or maybe four, and surfs away never to bother us again. Even if they're vulgar in those four edits I consider it a more productive use of my time to sleuth claims about established editors who might be violating WP:OWN or persistently harassing other Wikipedians. When an IP creates persistent problems I'll be more proactive. Recently I made several e-mails and phone calls over a school account that had been blocked eight times in twelve months. The district's IT staff were responsive and friendly and the result might be positive for Wikipedia: my suggested solution was to assign the offending children to improve an article about local history. Take a look at the ratio of administrators to registered accounts. [3] If page vandalism is the equivalent of roadside litter, do you really think we have the police force to examine every chewing gum wrapper for fingerprints and fine the offender? Durova 05:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Look at your argument another way -- instead of having more admins, we currently require more editors to do tedious follow up tasks. We're asking people to follow up with vandals and leave arbitrary templates on their talk pages, instead of just having them blocked -- a quicker and easier solution that cuts down on the vandalism in the future.

Furthermore, when you think about it, as long as everyone follows the procedure and lists the vandals on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, after a while the amount of vandals will start to go down (they'll be blocked), so we'll need less admins to keep up with the nonsense ;) -- Wolf530 06:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow! Durova, your dedication and positive attitude are amazing. Your resolution of that particular case sounds like an ultimate win-win situation. But at the other end of the spectrum, I've requested, and been granted, Sprotection on 4 different articles in the past 2 days alone; the high levels of vandalism (largely profanities and the addition of blatant nonsense) were literally clogging my Watchlist. Reverts were required on an hourly basis if not more frequently.

We really need a better balance between encouraging new Wikipedians, which you managed so adroitly, and limiting the damage done by individuals who obviously have no intention of making useful contributions. The current system is far too cumbersome, despite the valiant efforts of editors and admins alike. I don't even bother dropping a warning on User Talkpages that already boast over a dozen of them; why plant another tree in that damn forest? Surely there is some better way to handle this problem. -- Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 06:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

That's great, Durova. Let me tell you my story, since it's a little different than the IP vandalism of your examples. I recently reported a vandal who already had a warning template on his userpage. He was registered, and the account had only been used to replace the same piece of garbage to the same article. He was one of a group of very persistent vandals. I can only hope that if I had discovered his vandalism more than 24 hours afterward, that the admins would have disregarded the technicality and blocked him anyway. - Freekee 16:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The devil is in the details, of course, but under the right circumstances I've waived 24 hours. Durova 18:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Glad to hear that the rules are not straitjackets. I just hope seeing the rules don't scare people off from trying to report vandals. -19:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to make the point that this is a Crime Prevention vs. Criminal Lockup discussion. I don't think that we need to swing to either polar extreme by either blocking fewer people and trying to stop people from vandalism with pleading/educating or blocking everyone at first infraction. Right now, however, I think we're giving Wikicriminals -- the type who are committing crimes for the thrill of it -- too many chances. I think we're giving the Wikinaive -- the folks who are driving down one way streets because they don't know the area -- the "right" amount of discipline. I do think we should follow up where good faith is necessary and try and bring people onto the right path. Anyone, member or IP, who is committing any type of vandalism that is detrimental to the wiki and does not appear to be acting in good faith, needs to see less of our "other cheek," though. We don't need to be issuing four template warnings for people who are clearly doing wrong for the heck of it. For everyone's sake -- editor and admin alike -- we need to begin blocking vandals faster and for longer periods of time. Everyone's stress will go down, we'll see less reversions overall, and admins will be chasing fewer people around the streets cleaning up after them. -- Wolf530 06:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

That's the kind of middle-ground I was looking for; thanks for your eloquence. What I'd really like to see is "more":

• More support for newbies.
• More immediate blocks for blatant vandals

In other words, we need to be able to nurture the flower while rather ruthlessly pruning undesireable growths. -- Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 06:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Doc, for the vote of confidence. Part of what I'm saying is a nudge to more of our dedicated editors to try for adminship. The English language edition has one of the lowest ratios of administrators to registered users in the Wikipediverse (is that a new word?) Also, some of the things I've tried are things any editor can do. Just click the "Whois" "IP Info" link on a problematic school IP talk page until you find an e-mail or a phone number and then contact the school. I'll speculate that a good portion of our vandals make their first marks with buddies in their school library, discover they can get away with it, and carry the habit home. If we address these nexus locations - the schools themselves - it might have a positive ripple on the overall vandalism load. A side benefit is that these young users are in libraries full of books they can use to improve Wikipedia if the schools push in the right direction. Durova 06:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the goof. Durova 21:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips Durova, it never occured to me to follow-up that way. The possibilty of turning Problem Child into useful contributors would be worth some significant effort. In fact, I may pursue that idea on your Talkpage in the near future. I also heartily agree that we should promote more admins; in addition to vandalism, some of the "Backlog" logs now list thousands of items that need attention. With so many editors on en-wiki, there must be many available who would make fine admins. -- Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 06:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Quote Durova: "the Wikipediverse (is that a new word?)" - well, that spelling is not very common, though Wikipediaverse is more common. BTW, I really like your idea of getting schoolkids to ransack their libraries for sources to add stuf to Wikipedia. It would teach them vital skills as well. Some schools and universities are doing this already. See Wikipedia:Schools and universities project. Carcharoth 08:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Adminship is good, yes... but the bar is pretty high. I've been here for 3 years and haven't amassed close to the level of "experience" that is supposedly required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolf530 ( talk • contribs)

Close to 1500 edits, that's not bad. Have you checked out Wikipedia:Esperanza/Admin coaching? Durova 07:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

There may have been some confusion due to a forgotten sig. Wolf530 has three years experience; I'm practically a newbie :) -- Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 07:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

No confusion. I picked up Wolf's username through the page history. Probably should have added the unsigned template but I was too busy looking at the user contributions. Durova 08:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm having some problems with my sigs tonight. :) More "police" (since I'm using that analogy...) on the street is always a good thing. More janitors are a good thing, too! But the more you have, the more potential for corruption you have. I wonder if, like I mentioned above, it's better to become more efficient (ask the community to streamline the processes; do more blocking for longer periods) instead of getting more hands on deck? -- Wolf530 08:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

We probably need both. While a number of admins are certainly controversial, I suspect that actual "admin corruption" is relatively rare. I've never encountered it personally, and when I follow threads from complainants I've always found justifications for admin actions. Certainly no group or individual is perfect, but on the whole there seems to be a lot more smoke than fire. -- Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 08:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Head over to Wikipedia:Requests for comment and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration to browse. Administrator misconduct is one of the most common accusations made by editors whose own conduct is under scrutiny - usually that complaint is longwinded but unsupported by page diffs or other involved editors. The same editors who've been sanctioned sometimes come over to Village Pump to air their complaints. I try to keep an open mind because occasionally there's genuine misconduct, but the most recent time I gave the benefit of the doubt and actually went out on a limb for one of those posters I got dragged into an ArbCom proceeding as an involved party and the same editor I tried to help wound up making colorful insults about me. If you dig a bit you'll find the case. Depending on how you view things it's amusing or it's sad. Definitely a huge waste of time. Durova 18:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrary conversation break

As far as the AGF argument goes, I thinik it's more important to assume the good faith of the people reporting vandals than it is to assume that vandals might not know they're vandals. It just seems a bit over the top to require that vandals be warned 4 times before a block can be "justified", and good-faith users shouldn't be required to "build a case" about the vandalishness of the vandals (unless we want to assume that people regularly report vandals because they're wikisadists and only want to block vandals because that's how they get their jollies). This only serves to further frustrate people who are already frustrated by having to waste time reverting bad-faith edits. It would be a lot nicer if when checking my watchlist I'd find mostly additions to the articles (maybe even really good additions that will teach me something new), rather than yet another reference to questionable uses of cucumbers.

I think the problem is rooted in misplaced empathy. We (the good-faith contributors to wikipedia) would be terribly unhappy if we found ourselves unable to edit. Vandals on the other hand will probably find something else to do (like throwing gobs of wet toilet paper at the nearest librarian). And even if they are terribly unhappy about being unable to vandalise wikipedia... so what?

There's a difference between newbie tests, clever jokes (which seems to be what the {{ test}} templates are designed to address), inane vandalism (blanking, toilet humor, etc.), and sophisticated vandalism (uploading and placing obscene images, altering templates, and so on). The latter two kinds of vandals should just be blocked on sight, no warnings, no messages on their talk explaining it (i.e., no "monuments"). Rollback the edits, block the vandal, delete the nasty images, semiprotect regular targets (autoconfirmed only), move on. We were having a big laugh on IRC yesterday after importing a 1-page document that had over 300 revisions. A lot of the articles we import have rediculously long contrib histories full of mostly vandalism and reversions of vandalism, and a lot of the vandalism was by the same users. We don't put up with that kind of nonsense on wikibooks.

As far as needing more admins: yes, we probably do (though it's hard to believe... aren't there over a thousand already?). I've considered doing an RfA myself, but I suspect that having the tools but not being able to use them properly (because of unneccessary bureaucratic requirements) might be even more frustrating than just not having them (which is actually much more frustrating when you're used to having them). Doing an RfA on wikipedia seems to have become something akin to running for U.S. congress... it's not supposed to be a big deal. As far as "corrupt" admins are concerned, desysopping someone who isn't using the tools properly shouldn't be a big deal either.

There are exceptional cases, of course. You generally wouldn't want to block a school IP for a long period, though if the school IP is consistently a source of vandals, then it's obvious that the school either can't or doesn't bother to keep an eye on their students... if they can't be bothered with that, then their students will just have to sign up accounts on other computers (they can still read the encyclopedia, of course). And of course you can't permablock IPs (they sometimes change hands), but if an IP is causing a lot of problems, you can block them for a year (during which time the vandal might experience some personal growth). The problem is that we're making the rules based on the exceptions, which is an ass-backwards way of going about things. -- SB_Johnny| ^talk| _books 12:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying we're making rules based on exceptions per what we're doing here? Or what already exists? Because I think the exception to the rule is "good faith" naivety. I think the "rule" is generally "bad faith" vandalism. -- Wolf530 16:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm saying that the current policy seems to assume that vandals are most likely good faith editors who are having a bad day, which seems to me an unlikely (i.e. rather exceptional) case :). -- SB_Johnny| ^talk| _books 17:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if User:SB_Johnny was found to be vandalising, I'd hope someone would block the account, because that would mean that someone had somehow logged in with my username, and I'd be most unhappy about that! -- SB_Johnny| ^talk| _books 17:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay that makes sense/is logical! -- Wolf530 17:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes and no. An editor who drops f bombs on a dozen articles is obviously up to no good. In other cases even blatant vandalism may be nothing more than a breaching experiment. Last week's article from the Chronicle of Higher Education begins with an example of a university professor who began as a vandal - just to test the wiki process - and later turned into a positive contributor. Durova 18:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Would being blocked for vandalising be any less informative about the wiki process? -- SB_Johnny| ^talk| _books 18:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Probably equally informative, but that could cause credibility problems for WP:AGF and WP:BITE. Durova 18:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Slightly over 1000 volunteer admins isn't all that many in relation to the size of the English language edition. That's fewer than 1 admin for every 1000 articles, fewer than 1 admin for every 2000 registered accounts. These last several days the administrators' noticeboard has seen repeated appeals for help with the WP:AFD backlog. I specialize in dealing with personal attacks and requests for investigation, which require careful attention - most recently I've been addressing problems at an article where a disruptive user has a copious sockpuppet drawer. At a different article that was subject to heavy anonymous vandalism I've semi-protected and culled away joke claims about the Hotel California and an arm wrestling match. Another anonymous editor has been altering Formula 1 racing tables - probably good faith attempts from someone who doesn't speak English - I've issued three blocks so far and conducted an unsuccessful search for a Japanese bilingual editor to intervene. I could go on. Believe me, I wish I had time to block more of the vandals who change biographies of saints into crude sexual slurs. If that's your editorial calling, then get sysopped and go do it. Durova 16:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

That being said, trying to encourage more people to reach for adminship is a long process. What can we do now to start making change that will help everyone? -- Wolf530 17:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Earlier at this thread I proposed contacting schools that have persistent IP vandal problems. Another approach is to plug gaps at the policy and guideline level. I was one of the editors who helped draft Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. A related idea I keep meaning to start would be Wikipedia:Editor honesty as a corrolary to typical university academic honesty policies: I consider it shameful that this site has no official statement to condemn the deliberate falsification of citations. Type Wikipedia:Plagiarism and you get a redirect to Wikipedia:Citing sources which devotes most of its space to the nuts and bolts of Wikimarkup and the merits of Harvard referencing, but barely mentions plagiarism at all. If you're feeling proactive, just click my friendly red link and begin a draft proposal where I'll join. Durova 18:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it's just theat the political nature of wikipedia's RfA process is e-vile, and scares people off. I think I'll just nominate myself to prove this point (I'm easily qualified, but I bet I'm going to get a lot of no votes and have my motives and/or mental health questioned!). -- SB_Johnny| ^talk| _books 18:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

For sure. I think it's hard to get someone to put their name up on the block when they know it's just going to be a roast of their edit history. And for what...? You end up being everyone's whipping boy :-\ To boot, there's an extremely strong anti-elitism feeling about/for admins. So, there's definitely incentive not to go through the process. That's why I think streamlining policies is a great way to go, because it cuts down work for editors and admins. -- Wolf530 18:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily true. I'd had my eye on submitting an RfA for a while (my personal requirements for it, though, kept getting pushed back; originally, I felt like I would be experienced enough at 2k edits, but once I got there, realized I wasn't... wash, lather, repeat). Lowering the bar increases the number of admins, but if those admins don't have as firm a grasp on wikipolicy as their more seasoned brethren, not only do we end up with shitty new admins but resentful old ones, too. Personally, I think we need to be more pro-active in finding good admin candidates; there are plenty to choose from. EVula 18:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong -- I am not advocating lowering the bar for adminship, and I completely agree with what you're saying. What I'm saying is that there are strong incentives against RfA for a lot of people. Take myself, for example -- I run another wiki that has 2000+ pages on it. I'm here a lot, and I think the general trend of my edits is towards cleanup and maintenance, so I'm comfortable with a mop. I've been dealing with jerks who have threatened me numerous times in the RPG I've run for 12+ years. Nonetheless, I'm not comfortable going up on the RfA block and having 100 people tell me that I should have inflected this word one way, or not used that word with another editor because it makes me a bad Wikicitizen. It's a lot of nitpicking, which may be useful, but in the end I'm not sure if I'd be motivated to keep doing what I'm doing after everyone has ripped me apart. :-\ -- Wolf530 18:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I might have waited longer than I should have. From my reading of recent nominations, the things that tend draw negative votes are uncivil behavior, recent blocks, and really inadequate experience. Most other nominees get sysopped, maybe with fewer total votes. Durova 19:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• NOTE: Many of our allegations in this discussion involve students. If you notice troublesome edits from an obviously young contributor, you might mention it at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Youth Foundation. I had this come up recently and their response was both speedy and discrete. I was also going to suggest that we might offer bounties for blocking vandals, but then I considered how many editors would create socks, just so they could turn themselves in... :) -- Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 19:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

My two cents here... I have noticed significant increase in vandalism since early September when school started. College/University students are not so much a problem, but high school and lower are often a source (when I run the IP through WHOIS). This school year, I am far less tolerant of vandalism. If the talk page has past warnings, I start with {{ bv}}, and then block. Another useful tactic is to look through their recent contributions of articles they have vandalized. Pick the most embarrassing one, make the heading "Your edits to Mental retardation", for example [4]. If it's a school, corporate, or government IP, I will also add {{ Ipowner}}, such as here [5] and [6]. With this template, the name of the organization can be made into an external link; I will try and find the school's computer use policy and link to that. [7] Though, kids may still vandalize, anyway. If the vandalism is really blatant, such as involving an obscene image or a template, it indicates the vandal knows what he/she is doing and will be blocked on sight. Of course it's tricky when the school IP is a shared IP. In those cases, the blocks may be relatively short, but long enough so that the kid has moved on to something else (e.g. next class). As pointed out above, we have just slightly over 1000 admins (not all that many). It's a waste of valuable admin time, to go through test, test2, test3, test4, and then block if the intent is obvious. Basically, zero tolerance is needed when the intent is clear, their vandalism is particularly harmful to Wikipedia, and I don't think they will stop. Other times, instinct tells me the vandal wants attention, and it's best to revert, ignore them, and they go away. And sometimes, the "vandalism" is really a test, and will handle it accordingly. -- Aude ( talk) 19:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

If these suggestions are normal policy, then we need to update Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. That page makes it very clear that all vandals need to go through the scope of templates before any action is taken. -- Wolf530 ( talk) 20:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess that's the point I meant to make with the school IP thing... if a school IP is being used for vandalism, it's probably just some troubled kid looking to trouble someone else. A short block will give him time to find other trouble to make (which is not our problem). If it's a constant problem, however, a more serious block may be appropriate. I do wonder, however, why it's we who have to call the schools... seems to me that if they're dropping the ball and want to take advantage of the great thing we have going here, they should be the ones contacting us!

BTW: my RfA is going exactly as expected... point proven? (This is not a WP:POINT move... I'd love to have the tools, but the response I'm getting pretty much illustrates the problem with both the bureaucratic rules and the RfA process!) -- SB_Johnny| ^talk| _books 20:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I noticed :-\ -- Wolf530 ( talk) 20:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Purposefully loading your RfA to fail proves absolutely nothing. Any RfA that says "I'm not going to be one of the most active of admins on wikipedia" is guaranteed to fail. EVula 20:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

SB_Johnny, I happen to agree heavily with you on the whole warning template thing. Is it really such an awful thing to block a school IP for two hours so that annoying kid will go away? And will Wikipedia collapse if we ask AOL users to register an account? At least 80% of what comes from high schools must be vandalism, probably more like 90%. Although I voted against your adminship on these grounds (sorry!!), that was because you didn't seem to understand the policy, not because I thought it was a good one. I, for one, think the warning templates ought to be used for cases where's it's questionable, not for the "buttfucker" changes. And established users who do that crap should be blocked on site for 1 day, to give them time to think, in case it was a momentary lapse of judgment, to which they later feel remorseful. (I've seen this happen). Second offense and they're done. - Patstuart ^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Changing Policy

This shouldn't fall into archive. Per my above, if it is normal policy that blatant vandals do not need the whole range of template warnings, then Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism and the other policy pages which require this action need to be updated. I don't want to go updating without consensus, though... -- Wolf530 ( talk) 16:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually I think the policy is for giving the warnings... my argument is that these warnings are appropriate for people who are being genuinely funny (but still need reverting), since they basically just say: OK, haha, please stop now because you're wasting our time (I have often wondered why the templates don't link to uncyclopedia). But most of the vandalism is just straightforeward vandalism, not clever, just inane additions intended to annoy wikipedian editors. Keeping the "must template" rule just brings means that their nonsense requires more work from wikipedians, and helping them in their goal of being annoying and wasting the time of strangers.

There was a discussion a while back about not building "monuments" to the "famous" vandals (Willy, Bobby, etc.). A talk page full of warnings is another kind of monument. And it's a kind of monument that in itself can get someone's goat (nothing like reverting 8 pages, then going to leave a warning only to find the user has been warned 100 times before). Like I said, other projects don't do this (they just block and move on, which might be part of why no other project has vandalism problems like the english wikipedia). The blocking admin can tell how many times they were blocked already, and take it up a notch as appropriate while on the block dialog page. No medals, no monuments, just quiet, business-like blocking to avert further trouble. -- SB_Johnny| ^talk| _books 18:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

So the question becomes, how the heck do we go about changing or making policy? I'll bet that if we made an attempt, there would be a large consensus that we don't need to be as lenient on the "buttfucker"/"jonny's mother is a gay whore" vandals as on the vandal that puts "hi" at the end of a page. Any ideas? - Patstuart ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, there is the {{ blatantvandal}} user template, but no policy for it as far as I know. It would seem commonsensical enough, to just treat it as a long term t-4, no repeat/recent warnings necessary for reblocking, racheting up the blocks every time. As far as changing the policy, I don't know... this page seems as good a page as any (it certainly gets more eyes here than on a proposal page). -- SB_Johnny| ^talk| _books 20:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

What Johnny mentions about Template:bv is exactly right. We don't need to change a policy in order to implement this, just show proof that 1. they were warned with a message that informs them they will be blocked if they continue and 2. they continued to vandalize. Give your 2 diff links, and you're set as far as WP:AIV goes. -- tjstrf Now on editor review! 05:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Created essay Wikipedia:Editor honesty per suggestion by User:Durova

As suggested above, I was bold and created the essay as suggested by Durova. Everyone else should be bold as well and edit or comment on the essay. What do y'all think? -- Jayron 32 05:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that sandboxes should be created in userspace only. If article X exists in wikispace, is it ok to create X/Sandbox to work on a potential addition to that article? Is there a guideline on this? I thought I saw something that said it was ok in certain cases but cannot find that information now. *Sparkhead 14:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if there's a guideline, but I suggest you don't do it. There are hundreds (thousands?) of /draft, /temp and whatever "articles" in the main space, long abandoned by their creators, but counting as articles, showing up on random pages, and so on. I suggest creating them in the article talk namespace or your userspace until they're ready to stand alone as articles. But since our articles are all works in progress, the need for draft versions is not really all that great. -- W.marsh 15:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't create it, another editor did. I'm looking for an official policy on it. I believe I've seen one but my searches reveal nothing. *Sparkhead 15:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's not a policy for everything. The {{ copyvio}} template used to direct people to create temporary articles in the main namespce, and that's where a lot of these come from. I don't think anyone's really going to mind if you move a temporary page to the talk namespace, or if you delete it entirely if it's long abandoned and redundant to the main article (under G6, housekeeping deletions). -- W.marsh 15:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The guideline is at Wikipedia:Subpages. I just learned that /temp pages in the main space are deprected, didn't know that before... Kusma (討論) 16:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, there we go. Maybe there is a policy for everything! :-) -- W.marsh 16:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone would find this useful. What I often do is WP:Sandbox and then fiddle and use "Preview" but don't save the sandbox at all. Then I copy the thing, past to Window's Notepad and have a useable copy to save to disk in case of meltdown. And can work later on it or paste it wherever appropriate. Terryeo 20:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

That is useful. Though I'm wondering if using "preview" leaves a trace anywhere, even temporarily. It must do, because there is data being sent to and from the servers, but I guess it is all treated as temp stuff, and then expunged fairly soon afterwards. Carcharoth 15:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I've no idea about "leaves a trace". I think that would be a technical issue about how wikipedia creates and uses temporary memory storage. I suspect it gets overwritten in a dedicated portion of hard drives. Terryeo 18:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no "trace" left anywhere (to my knowledge) outside of the PHP parser--I just installed MediaWiki 1.8.2 on my home machine to test (and because I've been meaning to for a while). What happens is that it's submitted to the server as an HTTP "POST" value. That value is parsed and spat back out to the user who did the preview. It's not saved anywhere, unless it happens to hit virtual memory because PHP pages out--and that doesn't count. This, however, I don't see actually happening mid-send, especially not on a server farm. Hope this helps! Ed Ropple - Blacken - ( Talk) 21:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

A user has posted a photograph that is almost certainly a picture of herself, but the image has embedded on it a copyright notice with the name of the photographer. The image was uploaded with I, the creator of this work, hereby release it into the public domain - what is the correct way to deal with this? -- ArmadilloFromHell 01:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

What's the image? Link it. As for action, you should stick a disputed tag on it. I forget the exact template. – Someguy0830 ( T | C) 01:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by link it - for articles that violate copyright I put a speedy delete db-copyvio tag on and I do that daily, but I don't think I do that with images - and this is the first copyright image problem I found. -- ArmadilloFromHell 01:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Link it means add a link to it here so we know what you're referring to :). (For images, use a colon first so the thing doesn't render, i.e. [[:Image:IMAGEFILENAME]]). -- SB_Johnny| ^talk| _books 01:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Judypringlephotoshoot 620.jpg Presumably the image of the user who uploaded it, but (c) 2006 John Pringle is probably the photographer, and professional photographers usually retain copyright, so it seems wrong to state I, the creator of this work, hereby release it into the public domain -- ArmadilloFromHell 02:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Unless said uploader can prove they're the copyright holder listed on the image, they can use a PD tag on it. I'm sure there's an improper license tag to put on it. – Someguy0830 ( T | C) 02:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. I've done it already. – Someguy0830 ( T | C) 02:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I noted what you did so I can do the same thing next time I get that problem. -- ArmadilloFromHell 02:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Note that if the uploader is the photographer, they're at liberty to make conflicting declarations. They can always choose to put into the public domain an image that they first claimed copyright on. In that case the copyright notice is only confusing; since it's embedded in the image, it can't be easily removed. An explicit note from the photographer/uploader clarifying the intent would be helpful if this is the case. However, from what we have here, it looks more like the photographer is the husband or other family member of the uploader. In that case the PD notice would be void since only the copyright owner can declare something PD. Nice picture, by the way. 207.176.159.90 04:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The image is watermarked, which is against policy and grounds for deletion in itself. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 19:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

To most people in general, a copyright is simply atool to keep your work from being copied, however, copyrights have been abused multiple times and there isnt a plan to stop it. Copyrights have impeded progress in genetic research and many other things. I think a copyright should only apply to things like competitors (using copyrighted things for profit). -Charlie34 8:13 09 November 2006

Perhaps it would be better to have four special question sections, review questions, open questions, article concerns (typographic, factual and compo), and one for non-neutral points of view.

I also believe that the focus of Wikipedia should be based primarily on comprehending, with a bias towards the sympathetic, sort of like Wikinfo. Lets all get on the same page. Then try to understand other people and synthesize if we can. I think that's the best way.

Yes, let's be like Wikinfo, where you can have two totally conflictory articles about the same thing. The focus of Wikipedia is building an encyclopedia. Sympathy is not factual. There are people sympathetic to racism, sexism, gay-bashing, euthanasia, creationism, flat-earth theories, and everything else. Being sympathetic does not lead to comprehension. Facts, that can be verified and checked, and solid writing that builds those facts into an article gives you comprehension. I'm not trying to bite you, but your suggestion just comes off as...well, unworkable. And please sign your comments. -- Shrieking Harpy ^{Talk| Count} 05:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I've overhauled Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works) based on a 2nd round of feedback. Possibly it's complete and ready now?

The only thing I forsee as being potentially contentious is the chronological ordering of filmographies, but I still suspect (hope) a supermajority will quickly emerge, once put to wider discussion, favouring consistency and traditional listing standards.

Feedback (at it's talkpage) or improvements welcome :-) -- Quiddity 20:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

One of our Indian editors, Bharatveer, feels very strongly that Hindi/Hindustani names and words should not be rendered in Nastaliq script in Bollywood-related articles. He has removed the Nastaliq script from more than a dozen actor/actress articles, claiming that since Urdu is not their native tongue, their name should not be given in Nastaliq script. He is up to three reverts on Anupam Kher.

This is a complex issue. One underlying language ( Hindustani) has been written in two scripts for centuries. Muslims tended to use a Perso-Arabic alphabet (which is what they used to read Arabic and Persian literature) and Hindus used Devanagari. The Muslims also tended to speak a Hindustani that contained more Persian and Arabic loan words, a dialect generally called Urdu. The Hindu version of Hindustani is called Hindi and contains more Sanskrit loan words. Since the Partition of India, the divergence between the Pakistani version of Urdu and the Indian version of Hindi has increased. However, at the level of the man in the street, people still speak Hindustani, without fancy loan words. Bollywood films aim for the widest possible audience and they are generally written in a Hindustani-leaning Hindi that is easily understood by Pakistanis as well as North Indians. Not only that, movie titles and credits are usually given in both Devanagari and Nastaliq scripts, so that all audiences can read them.

The continued presence of Muslims and Muslim script in India is profoundly irritating to followers of Hindutva, an Indian political movement, and Bharatveer seems to be following a Hindutva line in most of his edits. Recently he tried to remove the Nastaliq script from the Bollywood article; a long edit war ensued, in the course of which it was established that most Bollywood films use both scripts in their titles and advertising, and that if there is any justification for adding Devanagari versions of words, names, and titles (the convenience of South Asian users of the English WP), it applies equally to Nastaliq.

Bharatveer gave up trying to remove Nastaliq from the Bollywood article, but has, in the last couple of days, switched to removing it from the actor/actress articles. He says that if the actor/actress isn't a "native Urdu speaker," then his/her name shouldn't be given in Nastaliq script. But of course the issue isn't native speech (many actors/actresses are NOT native Hindustani speakers -- they had to learn Hindi in order to get roles) but giving the name in forms that allow South Asian readers to figure out the proper pronunciation (which is not apparent from the Romanized form of the name).

Can we have a blankety-blank policy that says that if Devanagari is used to render a Hindi word, that Nastaliq can be used also? Without a policy, I forsee a grinding war of attrition over all the India and Indian cinema related articles, in which some editors are adding the Devanagari and Nastaliq forms of words, names, and titles, and Bharatveer is removing the Nastaliq. Over and over. He's removing information that could be useful to some users because he wants to make a political point, and it's taking time and energy away from writing the dang encyclopedia.

If a policy isn't the proper way to handle this, what is? Is this going to have to go to RfC and Arbcom? I'm not sure that stopping Bharatveer's personal anti-Nastaliq crusade would solve the general problem, since there are other Hindutva WP editors who would be happy to take up the struggle. But I'd be open to any suggestions for stopping the edit wars. Zora 08:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

That's interesting, I didn't realise that was such a problem. I think your suggestion is good - try to make it a policy that all Indian actors/films will have their names in at least those two scripts, as well as whatever language is native to them (Bengali, Malayalam, etc). If not an absolute policy, at least a WP:INCINE policy. Hopefully that should curb the edit-warring, at least for some time. I hope you can come to some sort of agreement with them. If not, I guess an RfC would have to be the next step. riana_ dzasta 11:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

this is similar to the question, should the Turkish names of assorted Greek islands be given? (we give that of Crete at the moment, for instance; the presence of Turkish names is at least as irritating to Greek nationalists as the presence of Arabic script is to Hindu nationalists, even more so, since we are discussing actual territory, not cheesy starlets). Fwiiw, I am opposed to an overall "Indian actors/films will have their names in at least those two scripts" policy. It will depend whether the title or name in question were at all released or advertised in Urdu. If this can be established, by googling or otherwise, both scripts should be used. If there is a reasonable case that the name was hardly ever spelled in Nastaliq, Wikipedia shouldn't introduce such a spelling. Case by case, I guess. So much for the content side. Bharatveer's disruptive and belligerent behaviour is a question of user conduct and outside the scope of this page, but he could obviously do with a reminder that policies and guidelines apply to him as well as to everybody else. And by "reminder" I mean "blocks", since he has shown beyond any doubt that he is not willing to learn from debate alone. dab (ᛏ) 11:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Zora has made some very good points here. It is also noteworthy to know that when the issue was discussed and polled on the Talk:Bollywood page, an overwhelming majority of participants wanted to keep both the Devanagari and Nastaliq scripts of the Hindi-Urdu ( Hindustani) language (see first discussion, poll, and second discussion. The arguments are evinced here. I would support a WP:INCINE policy to keep both scripts. Thanks for your time and understanding. Anupam ^Talk 20:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I should perhaps add that I was against adding the scripts during the first discussion, fearing just the sort of religio-political combustion we're having now. But, having scripts seemed to be the consensus of the other editors. We don't require that names/titles/words be given in both scripts -- it's up to individual editors to add them. If someone adds Devanagari (as Bharatveer is doing now), that's fine. If someone wants to add Nastaliq, that's fine too. (If there's no accepted version in Nastaliq, that suggests that one isn't necessary.) So far, we've just had a policy against deleting Nastaliq or Devanagari once someone adds it. However, Bharatveer does not recognize this policy. What must we do to make it an enforceable policy? Zora 00:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me suggest, first, that you broaden the scope of your proposal to include all articles. I'd venture something along the lines of Multiple names/spellings/scripts are not required but once inserted, do not delete. There's a tricky bit where you define which alternate expressions are reasonable. For Indian movies, any script or language common in India seems very reasonable, while there's no real justification for Japanese or Basque. Come up with a logical test to determine what's "reasonable"; a simple, local discussion (as you've had at Bollywood) is a fine test.

Getting your proposal into policy is not a straightforward process. You need to do quite a bit of policy work to see how it goes. There's the high road, the low road, and the one that goes round and round -- for a start. Short answer: Write it up, tag it {{ proposed}}, discuss it for awhile. If it looks like it has broad support, tag it {{ guideline}}. Encourage those with inevitable objections to edit the proposal to address their own concerns. Compromise and negotiate. When a solid consensus exists behind the guideline, tag it {{ policy}}. Sounds easy.

If you do get to the point of establishing policy, then you can bring violators to heel. Meanwhile, look into violations of existing policy. It's hard for an editor who isn't in step with the rest to push his bias consistently over time without breaking a long-established rule.

Normally I'd say, "First, make every effort to address this one editor's concerns." But it sounds as if you've done that already.

If there's any way I can help, see me on my talk page. John  Reid  ° 07:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I would agree to an extent with what Dab says. If it can be established that both scripts were released in the movie, have both of them. Baically go with the existing policy of verifiability. I think policy is a very broad word and while such a proposal can be discussed on MOS etc, to name it a policy would be quite an extreme step in my opinion. I see that a total of four people participated in the poll. As John says, a policy really requires much broader support and participation -- Lost ^(talk) 07:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, some guidelines for ALL articles would seem to be useful. In addition to dealing with Devanagari and Nastaliq, I've also run into Arabic (lots of Arabic), Persian, Turkish, Tamil, Bengali, Malayalam ... It gets to be just too much at the start of an article. The article will start like this: XXX (script A, script B, script C) blah blah blah. That's actually kind of hard to read. Suppose we had a little infobox (as small as feasible) that could sit off to one side and hold the various non-Roman scripts. In tiny print. Enlargeable. No more than four scripts? I'll have think about general guidelines for which to choose. Very good points re thinking in broader terms. Zora 08:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

As a Wikipedist who deals in primarily articles about upcoming films, particularly superhero films, I'm curious about others' perspectives about how to determine when to create articles for upcoming films. What criteria should an upcoming film meet if the film has not reached the production stage yet? Is it enough to have a writer and director attached, like Ant-Man? What about films that don't have anything attached, but still generate the occasional news, like The Punisher 2 or Wolverine? What about the notability of a sequel based on its predecessor's success, such as The Dark Knight? I've used the crystal ball and notability policies both ways, defending something like Interstellar or voting for the deletion of something like Battle Angel. When can an upcoming film go from its subsection on the source material's article or a director's article to become an article that would grow in time? -- Erik ( ^talk/ _contrib) @ 18:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any guideline regarding the issue, but personally I would assume once the release date of a feature film is announced, then you can be sure there is enough useful information to atleast start a stub. Otherwise no point making an article about rumours. - Tutmosis 18:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

That's the issue, though. Projects have been announced without a release date. I've kept in store a lot of Variety articles that say how a studio acquired the rights for this particular adaptation and have attached the director (who is usually in the middle of something, as most mainstream directors are). These aren't rumors. In addition, something like Interstellar doesn't have a release date at all, yet the article exists due to the reasoning that it's an upcoming Spielberg film. -- Erik ( ^talk/ _contrib) @ 18:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The general guideline is Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Essentially, if there are reputable, reliable sources (i.e., not a forum or blog post, but a newspaper or magazine) about the upcoming film, the article is legitimate. AfD is woefully inconsistent when it comes to reviewing them - too many people misread the crystal ball policy - but if you can back it up with sources, you should be fine. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 19:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Personally, to me it would make more sense to just state it on the director's/(officially announced) actors articles rather than create a new article as soon a new film is announced to be in production. - Tutmosis 19:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Or on the fictional character article, or on the film to which it is intended to be a sequel. Individual articles really aren't justified by slavish records of the dates of pre-production press conferences and interviews. Postdlf 19:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Studios buy a lot of scripts, often even announce directors and cast as "attached", but often something (usually financing, that frequently comes from third parties outside the studio) throws a monkey wrench into the works. Personally, I'd be more comfortable if we waited for a reliable report that filming actually has started, not is "in pre-production" which can mean almost anything. Spielberg could announce he's going to film the Yellow Pages and people would line up to finance it. It's a little more chancy to fund the kind of projects you're talking about, and these tend to fall apart before filming a lot more frequently. Fan-1967 19:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

What about a film like Watchmen? It's been in and out of production, and I wrote the extensive project history for that film's article. Where should information like that go, if there was substantial coverage about the film's development? What about something like Luke Cage or The Punisher 2 where information are not rumors, but actual news about the so-called progress of these films that have yet to take off? -- Erik ( ^talk/ _contrib) @ 19:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The Watchmen article is rather interesting, but let's face it, it's not really about a movie. It's about failed (so far) attempts to make a movie, which is not really the same thing. It kind of raises the question: is the process of trying to make a movie in itself notable? Based on the amount of press coverage (nice citation work, BTW) it would seem so, but, as I said, it's not really a movie article, since, as yet, there doesn't seem to be an actual movie. Fan-1967 19:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The Watchmen article is part of a larger patchwork, as well, that of the articles on the Watchmen comic book series. Like Fan-1967 says, it's not so much an article on a film as an article on an attempt to adapt a notable work. Steve block Talk 22:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Something of note: seems like there is already a proposed policy at Wikipedia:Notability (films). - Tutmosis 19:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The proposal does address this in general terms at WP:NOTFILM#Unreleased_films, but I would suggest slighly more specific rules of thumb. For a clearly notable project (with say James Cameron attached, an article may well be appropriate any time after the film is green-lit by a studio/production company as long as there are multiple, non-trivial sources for it. For an average comercial film, I would prefer to wait until actual production (i.e. filming or the equivalent) has begun. Films of questionable or limited notability should not have articles prior to their completion and release (if any). Eluchil404 13:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Articles about unreleased films (and books etc) tend to attract speculative edits. One should keep an eye out for these. >Radiant< 14:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Many articles in Wikipedia contain the phrase "it is interesting to note...". Perhaps I'm being nitpicky, but that doesn't seem NPOV. Who it to decide what is interesting? The "interestingness" of something is completely subjective. Encyclopedias shouldn't tell us what is interesting and what is not. I propose that all such instances be replaced with "it may be noted that...". -- Munchkinguy 04:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The two aren't semantically identical. I think the first is generally used to suggest that the "interesting" information being noted contradicts or undermines the previous statement, almost like a "However, ..." ("Bush urged private citizens to house Katrina refugees. It is interesting to note that Bush did not offer to host anyone at his 2,000 acre private ranch.") I don't think "It may be noted that..." has the same suggestion; by contrast it seems like an attempt to make the instant statement more tentative, as if you're hesitant to advance it. But both are probably surplus verbage, to be edited out based on the surrounding context. Postdlf 05:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I delete 'em all. "It is interesting..." -- let the reader decide it's interesting. "It may be noted that..." -- excuse me, if it may be noted, then note it, and once you've done so, you don't need to announce that it may be noted. "Interestingly and ironically, it should be noted that..." -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 05:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Go ahead and be bold. My guess that it is in imitation of the 1911 Britannica, or perhaps even leftover text from when articles were often just copies of the public-domain edition, and "It may be noted that..." has the same antique flavor. In many cases, such phrases are just fluff that can be dispensed with. In other cases, something more direct would be preferable. If many students find the concept difficult because it is counterintuitive, then call it counterintuitive. If the point has important consequences, say so: "This lemma has important consequences." If someone notable has called the point surprising or interesting, then quote them: "Edward Witten has called this the most unexpected result since energy quantization." Robert A.West ( Talk) 05:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

As a professor once told me, if something "is interesting enought to note" then this is assumed by mentioning it and so calling it "interesting" is usually not necessary. Similarly, if something is noteworthy, then that is why you're including a mention of it. Telling the reader it's noteworthy is not necessary. -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 12:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Just delete it. If it's not noteworthy it shouldn't be here in the first place.-- SidiLemine 13:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, to be pedantic, I wouldn't call the precise average molar mass of Oxygen, for example, particularly interesting. (The way it's derived from the isotopic masses and abundances, and the way those are determined, could be more interesting, if we went into any detail on that.) But we still note it, since it may be useful to some people. — Ilmari Karonen ( talk) 15:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• See also Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. >Radiant< 13:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I've added a suggestion to a POV term that I think should be avoided at Wikipedia_talk:Words_to_avoid#Homophobic. I would really appreciate comment on this one. Patstuart ^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

You might not like mine, but I've given it. Durova ^{Charg e!} 06:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

In the "See Also" section, user-friendly articles include links to both the wikilink dump and related articles, but less user-friendly articles only include a link to dump.

The practice of not including related links within the article hides information from novice users, who rely upon their browser's 'find' tool to locate specific information quickly. If a 'find' search fails to locate the keyword within the article, novice users are likely to assume that Wikipedia does not contain the information they seek. [This happened to me when I tried to find a list of Philippine holidays; I am sure that this situation has happened to others as well.]

Some articles are more useful than others because the "See Also" layout guidelines do not specify that the "See Also: wikilink dump" format can not be used to fulfill the requirements of the See Also section.

Discuss here 70.112.29.65 12:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

You're going to have to try to explain that again, because I for one have no clue what your point is! Thanks/ wangi 12:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Ideally, see also sections are unnecessary, because everything in them would be covered in the body of the text. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 15:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Wangi, thanks for admitting that you don't understand. I'll explain the problem in a different manner: Assume that 1) The user wants to find a list of the public holidays in a certain country, 2) The primary article for that country does not contain the list, 3) The list is in another article related to that country, 4) The user uses the following methodology:

1) User types the country name into the Wiki search box & selects "go" --> Result: User is redirected to the primary article for the country.

2) User types in 'Holidays' into his/her Internet browser's "find in this page" search tool.

The result of step #2 varies, based on the layout of the "See Also" section at the end of the article. In user-friendly articles, (such as the United States), the browser finds the link to the information in the article's primary "See also" section. In less user-friendly articles, (such as the Philippines), the browser fails to find the link to the information. Novice users may incorrectly assume that Wikipedia does not contain the information they seek.

The reason for the failure is that the See Also section in less user-friendly articles only gives the link to the relevant "List of xyz related articles" (the Wikilink dump). Whereas, the primary See Also section in user-friendly articles include links to the related articles and the link to relevant "List of xyz related articles" page.

This problem can be corrected by clarifying the layout guidelines for the primary "See Also" section at the end of the article. It should require that the primary See Also section contains individual links to all the related articles. 70.112.29.65 23:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Uhm, what do you mean by "wikilink dump"? The United States see also is nearly unreadable, while the Philippines one is much better. I would prefer that they did list the most major sub-articles there, but it's certainly better than the US article's multiple screens of uncollapsed templates. -- tjstrf Now on editor review! 23:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Well I think maybe what lost me was your example of a "good" article - the US article links to a single article just like your bad example does although with a template too, maybe that's a recent edit. I'd agree with Night Gyr that ideally no article would have a see also section.

However I do not think we can possibly include enough links on any given article to match every user's expectations - it's simply not maintainable and would swamp the real content. We do try to help people along to other articles using a number of mechanisms, including:

1. Internal wikilinks in articles
2. Categories of related articles, linked at the bottom of each article
3. The search box at the left of each article.

Thanks/ wangi 23:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Wangi, no, it's not a recent edit. But its OK that you commented before reading the links carefully. I am sure that the clarification helped others to see the problem more clearly.

You state that one of the mechanisms for "helping people along to other articles" is the inclusion of "Categories of related articles, linked at the bottom of each article." The omission of this mechanism at the end of the "bad" article is precisely my point. It should be present, but it is not.

Perhaps you intended to state that when there are just a few related articles, links to those articles are included, like in the case of Peru. However, when there are many related links, then Wikipedians could not "possibly include enough links on any given article to match every user's expectations - it's simply not maintainable and would swamp the real content."

I disagree. If a "List of XYZ related articles" page can be maintained, then the contents of that page can be appended to the primary XYZ page. To do anything less hides information from novice users.

Tjstrf, Yes, the See Also section of the "bad" article is more readable than the one in the "good" article. The "bad" article See Only section only contains one link, whereas the one in the "good" article constains more than 50 links.

In regards to your query on on the term "Wikilink dump" it was used by Howard the duck in reference to the List of Philippine-related topics. He stated, "that list is for maintainance (for checking on related changes), and is a wikilink dump." If you need greater clarification, you will have to ask him. 70.112.29.65 03:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I have a question about notability guidelines, particularly WP:WEB... if something meets a criteria and then at some point -stops- meeting the criteria. I ask because a webcomic may be notable under point 3 for being on Keenspot, but after they leave keenspot to be independent it's not clear what that means. Webrunner 20:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I may not be speaking for everyone, but the way I interpret the guidelines is that if something does not meet the guidelines at any point in time it may be nominated for deletion. — Mets501 ( talk) 20:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd think once something achieves notability, it remains worthy of an encyclopedia article even if it's subsequently forgotten. We may reassess in hindsight whether something ever truly was notable, but I don't think it makes sense to consider notability something that can be "lost," because we document history, not just current events. In the webcomic example above, the article would still able to state that it was "previously hosted on Keenspot," if being hosted on Keenspot is a sign of notability. Postdlf 20:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I echo Postdlf. That Sir Joseph John Thomson hasn't won a nobel prize in a century doesn't stop him having won one. An achievement deemed noteworthy cannot be unachieved. Whether we still deem the achievement noteworthy is the issue. Steve block Talk 20:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

As Steve Block points out, the the consensus of Wikipedia editors can change as to what it takes to be notable. So even if "hosted on Keenspot" was viewed as a sufficient claim to notability yesterday, there is no guarantee that it is still so considered today. This change is, I think, more likely to occur soon, as we focus more on quality of articles and less on quantity of articles.

In general, encyclopedic notability is hard to loose. Current event newsworthiness is easy to loose. But this is Wkipedia, not Wikinews. The past few generations, print encyclopedias had a systemic bias in favor of historical subjects. Because they were paper, they would indeed weed out and trim subjects that were becoming less significant. But they couldn't, so didn't try to, cover the current state of affairs. Even the annual updates were usually a few months out of date by the time they reached customers, due to the editoraial, printing, and shipping processes. So encyclopedias only covered subjects that would be of long lasting notability. We aren't paper, so we don't need to trim just because something is no longer meets current criteria for notability.

In the case of criteria that could be lost; there should be a reliably sourced citation to establish that the criteria used to be met. In the worst case, the Internet Archives might become the citation evidence. Better would be a independent reliable source primarily about the subject of the article that happened to mention that. GRBerry 21:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Being on Keenspot is still considered sufficent for WP:WEB 3. I bring it up because a notable webcomic was recently voted for deletion 'as per WP:WEB', and am trying to figure out if the policies support that or not (the comic is obviously notable but whether the rules state it's notable or not is questionable) Webrunner 21:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's the case that being on Keenspace is still considered sufficient for WP:WEB 3, I'm not sure it was ever established it was the case. But beyond that a link to the debate would be useful. Our deletion debates don't have to follow what the notability guidelines set out. They are, after all, only guidelines. Steve block Talk 21:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Keenspot, not Keenspace. There's a difference. You have to be chosen to go on Keenspot, it's basically an online syndicate, not just hosting. Anyway, here's the AFD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Girly - most of the deletes were citing WP:WEB Webrunner 21:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no consensus for the idea that every webcomic is notable that is hosted by either Keenspot or Keenspace, or even by more notable webcomics publishers like the Modern Tales sites. Girly is just one of several articles on non-notable Keenspot webcomics that have been deleted within recent memory. -- Dragonfiend 09:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

You helped write WP:WEB, so perhaps you can explain to me how Keenspot is not "a site which is both well known and independent of the creators". Oh, and by the way, Keenspace doesn't exist any more. Continually bringing it up (or even ComicGenesis, it's new name) is hurting your argument. Webrunner 18:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd say once notable, always notable, because we document history, not current events. Criteria changing is entirely separate from whether something has met the criteria at some point in time or not. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 18:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

An editor asked me what one policy I could enact by fiat. I had to say I couldn't do any such thing, even if I had the authority. Then I thought that was ducking the question and said No wheel warring.

I can't think of anything I'd like better than to see this tagged {{ policy}}. It's not for me to do this; I'm too involved. Before the last merge, both halves of this page were tagged, without controversy, {{ guideline}}. The page is stable and there is no controversy on talk.

I'd like to ask our community to visit this page, judge it on its merits, and see if the policy tag is warranted. If not, of course, please feel free to air concerns, propose changes, and edit this page. Thank you. John  Reid  ° 10:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Given the obvious red box under the heading of "policy", i'd say "Do not repeat an administrative action when you know that another administrator opposes it." is already considered a policy, tagged or not. -- `/aksha 12:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• That page should probably be policy considering it's upheld in several arbcom rulings; or at the very least, guideline. However, it's a very messy page and needs cleanup, and there is some disagreement over whether a wheel war starts when admin B undoes admin A's action, or that it starts when admin A repeats his action. ( Radiant) 13:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I would like feedback on whether the currently proposed wording of this guideline is an accurate description of the status quo in Wikipedia. Please respond on its talk page. ( Radiant) 10:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to solicit feedback from the Wikipedia community on the following four points concerning campaign advertisements (i.e., advertisements supporting a particular ArbCom, Administrator, or Bureaucrat candidate):

1. Is it appropriate to upload campaign advertisements to the Image namespace? (e.g., Image:FN_bumpstick.gif)
2. Is it appropriate to post campaign advertisements which use "fixed" CSS positioning so that they are always visible on the page? (e.g., [8])
3. Is it appropriate to post campaign advertisements on one's User talk page instead of one's User page? (e.g., [9])
4. Is it appropriate to post campaign advertisements on other users' User talk pages without permission? (e.g., [10])

— Psychonaut 10:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

My few cents:

1. Campaign images? Eh, may as well, I guess. Seems about equivalent to userboxes.
2. A magic floating div seems a bit annoying, period, regardless of what's in it.
3. A user's talk page is still in their userspace; some even use it as their userpage.
4. Posting to other users' pages is spamming and should be very discouraged.

That's how I look at it, anyway. I prefer to go by "your userspace is, barring serious concerns, more or less your own playhouse," but spamming, fishing for votes, and such have always been frowned upon in XfDs and other requests for comment for as long as I can remember. Luna Santin 10:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't bother me particularly. How else do you plan on getting people to vote? Without publicizing it, the arbcom elections will basically stay as a walled garden. If you actively advertise them, then maybe we will get wider input from the less prolific and less meta- editors. -- tjstrf Now on editor review! 10:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, however the problem with this kind of advertising is it is for one candidate only - if it read "Vote in the Dec 2006 ArbCom election" rather than "Vote for candiate x" , I'd be in support of it. I just dunno about the specific one-candidate promotion, but I guess that as an ArbCom candidate myself, I'm in no position to objectively evaluate this issue. Daniel.Bryant ^{[  T ·  C ]} 11:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The thing to realize there is that Wikipedia doesn't have political parties, or even the real potential for such a thing. (The closest thing to parties that I'm aware of are the deletionist/inclusionist groups, and arbcom doesn't rule on AfD.) Candidates don't really run against each other. Because of that, I don't view a "Vote for x" as divisive the same way a "Vote for Democratic candidate ________" box would be. Endorsing a candidate for arbcom on your talk page (via userbox, prose, whatever) shouldn't be divisive or inflammatory, and has a potential positive benefit of increasing voter turnout. It's really no different than the list of editors I look up to I keep on my user page.

Now if someone were to start spamming the village pump with campaign ads, or put a prominent "vote for x" message in their signature, or write some 2 page monstrosity and distribute it via AWB to everyone they knew, that might be cause for concern. -- tjstrf Now on editor review! 11:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding item 4: a request was made [11] which in this puppy's opinion obviates the need for "permission" per se. Clearly the recipient may remove the notice should he so desire. KillerChihuahua ^?!? 11:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

See also my thoughts here. KillerChihuahua ^?!? 11:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding KC's "campaign ad", my thought was that it was amusingly tongue-in-cheek, and I happened to agree with it, so I added it to my talk page. I might have put it on my user page, but for the moment that is pretty much blank. Guettarda 14:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, so far as I know, humour has yet to be banned from Wiki. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 17:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

And if humor is banned from WP, you can go ahead and perma-block me too. -- Doc "vote Flo Night for ArbCom" Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 22:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• There was, however, a recent attempt to outlaw sarcasm. ( Radiant) 13:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• To answer the question - I'd say you can do pretty much whatever you like on your own userpage and talk page. Per WP:SPAM I would advise against campaigning on other people's talk pages without their permission (or indeed, anywhere else). Also, I would advise against campaigning against a candidate; the 2004 elections had a problematic page for "disendorsements" (or "I, John Doe, consider candidate Foo to be incompetent" and nastier variants). A similar page was speedily deleted in 2005 under the criterion for attack pages. ( Radiant) 13:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Does the 3RR apply to reverts over continued insertion of copyrighted/text-dumped material into an article, or is it considered vandalism? Cheers. Bubba hot ep 09:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but in my experience admins tend to be very lenient on established users who "bend" 3RR when dealing with new/anonymous users who don't seem to understand/wantToCooperate/followTheRules of WP. Just be sure to mention in the edit summary "4th revert of copyvio material, not violating 3RR" or something and you'll be fine. Sherurcij ^{( Speaker for the Dead)} 09:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

3RR does not apply when dealing with vandalism, and yes, repeatedly inserting blatantly copied material into an article counts. If it's subtler, like a fight over a couple of sentences, then no, find other methods than violating 3RR to deal with it. But if you're going to revert that many times over a copyright violation, you really should make an urgent notice on WP:AIV or WP:CP before getting into a revert war. -- Golbez 09:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Seconding the above: Wikipedia has an obligation to respect copyright, so I wouldn't block anyone for reverting away from copyrighted text. If an editor attempts to add copyright violations to an article that many times then report to WP:AN/I. Durova ^{Charg e!} 06:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The 3RR does not apply to reversion of vandalism. Whether insertion of material into an article counts as vandalism or not really depends on the intent of the editor inserting the material. If it's clearly bad-faith, then you can call it vandalism. Unless it is blatant vandalism it's generally worth asking for a second opinion. As you described the situation, it's unlikely that you would get blocked for a 3RR violation, but it's better not to ask someone to make a judgement call. It's better to deal with the underlying problem - does the editor not understand that what they are doing is wrong? are they blatantly violating policy? are the terminally dense? - in all these cases, there are underlying problems that should be dealt with - reverting the insertions really doesn't deal with the underlying problem. Guettarda 01:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Someone pointed out recently on the Noticeboard that we had discussions about warning removal here here and here. I'm looking at the poll, at least, and it looked pretty strongly like consensus was for keep. First, why is it not then a policy? Second, is there anything that can be done about it? I find it a ridiculous example of the "free speech" clause gone overboard - wikipedia is WP:NOT anarchy, which says: "Wikipedia is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with creating an encyclopedia." I can't possibly see how warning removal could do anything other than reduce free speech. And if someone says "george bush is a buttfucker" on his page, I also can't see why they should have the "right" not to have that warning pasted on their talkpage. - Patstuart ^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Attempts to forbid removal of warning templates were defeated 4 times. Consensus is that it's usually a bad idea to remove a warning template given in good faith -- to remove it in such a way as to make people think you haven't read it or are trying to hide it. Consensus also seems to be that a lot of such warnings are given in bad faith and that additional warnings that cite non-existent policy and threaten outpolicy blocks are sometimes given in bad faith and often a bad idea. The series of templates that warn against removal of other warning templates (perhaps, even, recursively, the same ones) was deleted under CSD T1: divisive and inflammatory templates. See WP:AN#Removing_warnings_templates. Disclosure: I attempted to salvage these templates but my edits were largely reverted and I suggested that they be deleted. John  Reid  ° 06:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

OK; so then it's allowed to restore warnings given in good faith when it's clear that the editor has removed them so that they won't be seen. - Patstuart ^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• "forget what is 'easy' for you for a moment and focus on what you are doing here. User gets a warning. They read it and remove it because they don't like it. You then restore the warning. You've just edit warred. To re-insert something you know the user doesn't want to see. On their talk page. I'm sorry, but I can't see the benefits of 'easy' in not having to click on a 'history' link outweighing the 'bad' of actions which serve to greatly annoy users. Even when this is used 'correctly' (as opposed to all the times 'User A' puts a questionable or outright false warning on the page of 'User B' and then harasses them to keep it there) it is a net negative." - citing CBDunkerson on the admin noticeboard. So no, you're not supposed to restore warnings; they're supposed to warn users, and are not intended as a permanent black mark. If a user removes a warning, you can assume he's read it; if he repeats the behavior that led to the warning in the first place, you have every reason to be stern with him. >Radiant< 09:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

As an administrator who's active at Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard and Wikipedia:Requests for investigation I see this frequently. My advice is to ask an administrator to remove any dubious user warnings. That's not guideline or policy, just my take on that situation: frivolous warnings usually happen during disputes. User conduct RfCs and user block requests often follow dispute-related warnings whether the warnings were valid or not and the blanking of warnings inevitably gets mentioned in the complaint. When an administrator blanks a warning it places the action above suspicion. Sometimes I let the warning stand, explaining why it's there and how to solve the problem that caused it. I wish the community would place some restrictions on warning removal because editors who blank administrator warnings almost always continue the problem behavior and soon merit blocking for other reasons. I view the blanking of valid warnings as proof that the editor has read the warnings and as a refusal to accept feedback; this often goes along with sarcastic blanking summaries and defiant response posts. Obviously this affects the duration of a block once blocking is merited for established policies. Durov a ^Charge! 16:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Obviously, though I still have yet to understand how it progressed (see my above comments), saying "no warning removal" is going to fail. But is there any chance we can get some way to keep warnings for obvious vandals. I'm a little frustrated, for example, with a recent editor who used explicit profanity with a newbie; but I understand letting them remove their warnings (actually I don't, but I can abide by it). But I have trouble believing that any editor would have a problem making obvious-vandal only accounts keep their warnings (e.g., the "George W. Bush is a gay homo" type of vandalism). To recap, it we can't make too much an overarching statement, but some type of minimal agreement must be possible (editor John Reid, who was for the templates' deletion, is for that). We don't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. So is there a way, guys? Or has it been done too often? - Patstuart ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It's the slippery slope problem: disruptive users will claim that any edit they dislike is obvious vandalism. One prohibition that seems workable would be if the community decided that a warning from an administrator could only be removed by another administrator. Durov a ^Charge! 04:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Which is why I said "don't throw out the baby..." because I think the slippery slope argument stinks. As for the administrator idea, I don't think it would fly, simply because there's so much emphasis on admins actually being equal to all other editors, except for a few extra privledges. Though I'd support it anyway. - Patstuart ^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Since the aim appears to be keeping track of who was warned and when, a possibility would be to create a logfile for that. Since the CVU works mostly by scripts anyway, these could also be instructed to add a line to said logfile.
• The "warning by an admin may only be removed by another admin" is impractical since most people don't know exactly who is and is not an admin. >Radiant< 12:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point, Radiant. I suppose typing "Administrator warning" in the heading or a separate set of templates (egad, more templates) could address that. While I don't regard administrators as inherently better than other Wikipedians, they're usually accurate when they issue policy warnings. The central problem as I see it is that some users game the current situation: it draws administrators' time away from other matters to keep watching a particular user until the next policy violation occurs. Administrators have lives outside Wikipedia so by the time that gets caught the offending editor might have posted several more obscene diatribes. Durova ^{Charg e!} 19:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

This sounds like a bad idea - admins aren't supposed to administer (run) the site, they just have a few extra editing tools. As for templates - in general, using boilerplate to communicate with somone is a bad idea - it's insulting, and says "I can't be bothered to type a few lines to communicate with you, so I am sending you this tersely worded boilerplate. In addition, in many cases these boilerplate warnings assume the recipient is ignorant of the policy that has been violated, and spell things out in extreme detail. While this is appropriate with a new user, it is insulting to an established user, because it says "I think you are too stupid to know this basic policy". It's much better to write someone a note and link to the appropriate policy page. Guettarda 01:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• If everyone who puts a warning template on a page put a note in the edit summary that they were doing so, it would solve this problem, since the history page cannot be tampered with. A view of a user:talk history page will return the list of warnings give. I am guilty of forgetting to do this frequently, but this discussion has reinforced the importance of doing so. It also reinforces the potential need to force a non-null edit summary for every edit. When I don't fill out an edit summary, it is out of forgetfulness more than anything. -- Jayron 32 05:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but other than POV and verifiable sources, I don't think Wiki has a policy on election coverage. On the eve of the US 2006 midterm elections, this has led to considerable confusion / anarchy in certain articles while votes are being tabulated. For example, on the Kerry Healey page, announcements on her defeat by Deval Patrick in the recent MA election was posted and reposted multipled times throughout the evening.

Some people may feel that this is really a non-issue, as the controversy will tend to sort itself out, generally by the next day. However, I feel that some type of official policy should be in place for two reasons. First, it helps sort through the anarchy on election day. Secondly, and more importantly, many people use wiki (like it or not) as a source of information on current events, especially on election candidates. We all remember the United States Presidential Elections of 2000, when Florida flip-flopped between Bush and Gore all evening on the major networks. It has been claimed (though I have not seen solid evidence), that calling an election before the close of polls can discourage voting and is in itself a violation of NPOV.

PROPOSED

The wiki policy should extend to coverage on election tabulation as well.

Firstly, posting a projected winner of an election before the close of polls should be strictly forbidden as NPOV.

Secondly, stating a clear winner of an election in one where there is a) a very narrow margin AND b) a very possible recount should be discouraged unless the posted explicitly states it as such. Violations of such should be classified as a violation of Wikipedia:Verifiability.

Thirdly, posting a candidate's victory is allowed if credible sources demonstrate a substantial margin after polls have closed, though votes are not completely tabulated.

If people have an opinion on this, I would greatly appreciate your input.
Djma12 21:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps Wikipedia could rather have a section devoted to election coverage. That would be plausible - or even better. Do we want to be updated George Allen's profile 20 times in a night? I think not. The section would be nice, too, as often some media sources are bolder than others in predicting outcomes - they both could be listed. - Patstuart ^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that having a special election section would be ideal, but the logistics seem unrealistic. Such a page would probably have a lifespan of 1-2 days, require a significant amount of constant editing to be up to date, then be subject to the whole deletion process (5 days, etc...) afterwards. It seems to me that having Wikipedians simply demonstrate reasonable restraint for 24-36 hrs is easy and isn't too much to ask. Djma12 03:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Please see Wikipedia:Candidates and elections. >Radiant< 09:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for pointing out Wikipedia:Candidates and elections. I have read this before and it provides good guidance on how to write candidate/election articles, but provides no guidance on how/when it is appropriate to post results of elections. It is my contention (and others may disagree) that the premature posting of election results can actually taint the democratic process, and should thus be NPOV. Any thoughts? Djma12 18:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I really do not think we need policy to everythink I believe that WP:CITE and WP:NPOV are sufficient. If you have a reliable source claiming some result of election you can write it to the article. The only reliable source in this case is some electoral commission anyway. However I do not think that posting information like "after counting 78 % of votes XYZ is 2 % ahead of ZYX" is bad. It is NPOV and sourced information. Plus you can post information from exit polls which is also NPOV and sourced. So if you have a verifiable source go ahead and write it. If information is unsourced it should be quickly deleted. It is as simple as that and we do not need any policies. -- Jan.Smolik 22:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the spirit of WP:CITE and WP:NPOV extends to campaign coverage as well. The problem is, have you *tried* using those arguments in removing a statement before? Some people simply don't seem to agree, for example, that calling an election before even the polls close violates WP:CITE, and quite frankly I don't have the Wiki policy text to back me up when I remove such posts. The result is these long wars of posting and reposting based upon personal interpretations of CITE and NPOV. Even one of two lines added into these policies would help out a great deal. Djma12 14:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's not forget all the hassle that the Canadian federal election, 2006 caused (see here for a taster). There will be a similar "blackout" law in operation for the French presidential election, 2007 (until 2000 Paris time), so it might be an idea to get a policy together. Physchim62 (talk) 15:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Because of WP:NOR, it would be improper to post any alleged election results unless they have already been published by a reliable source (not just a rumor on a blog or something like that). *Dan T.* 05:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a recently created tag {{ Replaceable fair use}} which is used to categorizes a given image into a dated category for deletion if it can possibly be replaced by a "free" image in the future - even if there isn't one currently available. Now it looks like this is being applied to all biographies of living people, bands, etc, with fair use images. However, there is an older template {{ promophoto}} which used to say that a promotional photo (released by the copyright holder for the press) can be used "in the absence of a free alternative" (now changed) - so if no current alternative exists a fair use promotional photo could have been used, now it has been changed to say that if there is no possibility for free alternatives (which means most recent photos of living people are disqualified, as you can go out and take a picture of them).

So people who uploaded images in good faith under this criteria are still having their uploads deleted without much futher warning. Literally thousands of articles are losing their images that were put up in good faith and with a long-standing template to justify it.

Why don't we do something like what we have for fair use rationale and have some date before which these images are deemed ok to leave, but no new ones are uploaded (say October 13, 2006 when the template was changed). If it is under proper fair use then let the older ones be but do not allow any newer ones. No copyright laws are being violated here, and the only reason cited is to promote more "free" images, so I see no urgency to delete.-- Konst.able ^Talk 08:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

experence suggests that images uploaded before that date would never get deleted which isn't good. The other problem is that the exitance of "fair use" images tends to reduce the amount of effort people put into looking for free alturnatives. Geni 09:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Geni. Also, from a practical standpoint, the grandfathered images would set a bad example and inspire future violations of the policy. People copy what they see more often than they read policy. × Meegs 10:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be regarding the deletion of images as a punishment of the people that uploaded them. That's not the case. Nobody's accusing people who uploaded promotional images of having bad faith, it's just that we need to focus more on being as freely-redistributable as possible. Having made the decision to get away from fair-use images as much as possible, it doesn't seem to make much difference when the image was uploaded. That seems pretty arbitrary, in fact. — Chowbok ☠ 17:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Related question: Should a fair use promotional image be removed from an article in favor of a free one, even when the free image doesn't illustrate the subject as well? - Freekee 18:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Depends somewhat of your definition of "as well", but yes. In fact there is not even a requirement for a free licensed alternative to currently exist. As long as it would be possible to create one. Basicaly unfree images are only allowed when they are non-reproducable (historic event (and most promo pictures don't depict historic events), subject no longer exist/live and such), or when the subject itself is a copyrighted work we are unlikely to get a release for (cartoon characters, logos, movie screenshots, statues etc). -- Sherool (talk) 19:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I've seen some (fair use) studio portraits of musicians deleted in favor of self-made photos taken in concert, where you can't as well see what the person really looks like. And I've seen explanations given that free images are preferable to fair use ones. I haven't seen any really bad switches happen, but I think it's only a matter of time. - Freekee 20:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

There's a good "as well" example on the Neil Young article. A current free-use photo is buried way down, because, in the words of one fan/editor, he looks "like a potato", and, frankly, it's not that good a photo. A fair-use image from back in the 1960s-70s is at the top in the infobox. But the idea of replaceable fair-use is that all someone has to do is ask Neil Young or his people for an acceptable photo to be released under a free license.

This policy is a pretty harsh awakening. It's tended to suck the fun out of things and it's being wantonly applied in some cases. But it seems this is way it's going to be. Acceptance and adaptability are the keys.

So, I think there should be a news release to raise awareness of the need for free-use images vs copyright images. The idea that promophotos and eventually other fair-use photos can be done away with stems from the notion that Wikipedia is big enough and influential enough it ought to be able to force a change. And eventually, the thinking goes, PR agencies and companies will release their promotional works under a free license. More about this policy can be found here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fair use#Replaceable fair use and especially, Wikipedia talk:Publicity photos#This page is dangerous.- Wisekwai 03:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

You'd think celebrities, et al, would want themselves to be represented in Wikipedia by the photos that they have previously released to the press, signed for autographs, etc., rather than the 50-feet-away-in-a-crowd or papparazzi stalker photos that the (in my opinion, obnoxious) "replaceable fair use" policy seems to encourage (everyone—make a list of celebrities without GFDL photos and camp outside their homes with a camera, so we can replace the fair use photos we can already legally use! Yee-hah!). A news release encouraging the release of promo photos (and publicity stills from production companies/networks for TV series, films) under the GFDL (or direct submission to our site) is a good idea, as long as we can verify who actually submits it. Postdlf 18:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the concept of "wikirazzi" has been raised on other discussion pages. What's more practical, and what I've had some luck with, is locating an existing image of a person (or place or thing) and then e-mailing the copyright holder - the photographer or agency responsible - and simply asking if it can be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons. In other cases, talent agencies or the celebs/artists themselves can be contacted directly.

The results have been encouraging. And the more times I do it, the more success I'm having. Most folks are pretty excited about having their work in Wikipedia. I just explain the licensing terms and that it will need to be uploaded to the commons, where they will receive attribution and a link back to their site and they are happy. In just a few cases so far, I've either been flat-out ignored, or one guy wrote and said he was really sorry, he just couldn't let his work go, which was really nice, actually. At least he answered.

Flickr is a good source of images, and many of them are already under a Creative Commons license, though you have to be careful, because it's not always a CC license that is used on the Commons. Still, Flickr is a good source because you can directly contact the people through Flickr mail. And Commons has a scheme to scour Flickr for usable images to upload under free-licenses from Flickr to Commons.

Still, I don't believe the current way of going about things is the right way to go. The only people who seem to have gotten wind of this are people who have uploaded images. Understandably, many are quite unhappy that "their" images are being deleted. It is creating a lot of uncivility. There should be a general announcement to the Wikimedia community at large, as well as the general public, that free-license is the way to go and that fair-use images are no longer acceptable if they are replaceable. - Wisekwai 19:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there should be some sort of general announcement. I'm not sure how that could be done, however. — Chowbok ☠ 23:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Flickr: I didn't see a Firefox search plugin that only searched CC by and by-sa photos, so I created one. If anyone's interested, it can be downloaded here. I'm not sure how to make it so Firefox will recognize it as a search plugin and add it (feel free to enlighten me if you know the trick), but it should work fine if you manually save it to your seachplugins directory. — Chowbok ☠ 23:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

There is alot of debate in talk pages about handling a criticism section. I feel it is important to address this issue specifficaly. I think there needs to be a policy on how you address sections like this. -- Zonerocks 20:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that WP:NPOV? Specifically the "Undue weight" section. I've seen articles where criticism makes up 80% of the word count of the article. Obviously 80% is too high, but there's no magic number, how much criticism really can or should be included will vary from article to article. A criticism policy would probably be redundant to NPOV, but there's an essay at Wikipedia:Criticism. It doesn't appear very active, but I suppose a guideline on this topic could be explored. -- W.marsh 20:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why valid critical arguments must be deleted because they're overwhelming. Come up with more information to balance them out, don't delete valid information. Ed Ropple - Blacken - ( Talk) 21:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Blacken's sentiment. While too much criticism makes my eyes squint while reading any article, I could not be crass enough to go and edit 30% of it out just to balance the article. In this case building up arguments in favor rather than demolishing down negative arguments is a good solution to the problem. ¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 21:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

This form of "undue weight" is an inevitable result of the "notability" policy for inclusion. Some people and subjects are notable because they are notorious. This automatically results in a large amount of negative information, since most of the verifiable information from reliable sources is negative. Other information would be original research or from unacceptable sources. That's life. As long as the information is properly sourced and worded in an NPOV manner (simply presenting the POV, without advocating or attacking it), then there's no problem.

For controversial subjects, with editors on both sides of the issue, this can still end up with an unbalanced article. In scientific and medical matters this is because the scientists usually have better sources and are better at presenting their arguments than the quacks, pseudoscientists, and true believers, who don't have very good sources (just anecdotes or hate sites), and whose arguments are often filled with logical fallacies.

The way forward in such cases is as suggested -- to build up what's lacking, not to exercise bad faith towards other editors by deleting their hard work. Bad people or subjects should not be whitewashed by deleting valid and well-sourced information. Suppression of opposing POV is a very unwikipedian thing to do.

Wikipedia's NPOV policy must not be misused so it becomes synonymous with revisionism, censorship, whitewashing, or political correctness. One must allow presentation of both sides of any controversy. To leave out or suppress one side amounts to promoting the other side's POV. Wikipedia should include more information than other encyclopedias, not less. -- Fyslee 22:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Today I came across a personal "user watchlist" as a subpage of an editor's user talk. It's meant to be a list of editors that the editor in question feels should be watched for controversial or problematic activities. It just doesn't feel right to me, too much like a personal attack. Any comments? -- Zeraeph 23:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

This has come up quite a bit recently and caused a number of controversies. As I understand it the current consensus is that such pages are probably ok if they are "generic" (ie, give no real indication of their purpose), but a list titled "Troublemakers" or "Editors to always vote against" would most likely be deleted. Of course the existence of these pages can be (and always is) discovered, usually by someone who is on the list; this generally leads to unpleasentness regardless of the original intent of the page. At this point there is no policy against such pages but some Admins may delete them on sight. -- Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 23:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I've got a javascript tool that sort of does what you describe. Personally, I think if you want to see what a certain user is doing, you can easily look at their contributions page without doing anything wrong. I'd say a user watchlist is just a way to aggregate this information about multiple users without having to visit each one of their contributions pages individually. The problem, as you describe it, comes when you publicly list who you're watching. People could take offence if they find their name listed there. I think it's probably best if the list is kept somewhere confidential either inside a normal watchlist (which my tool does) or off Wikipedia. Tra (Talk) 00:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

This is indeed somewhat controversial. My opinion would be that what matters is how (if at all) the list is described. Having a "list of Foo users" isn't really substantially different from saying "this user is a Foo" — if the latter would constitute a personal attack, then so does the former. A special case to keep in mind is that an undescribed (or very vaguely or evasively described) list may lead people to assume less-than-innocent motives. The general rule applies here: when what you're doing is not obvious, explain yourself. — Ilmari Karonen ( talk) 00:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It is clearly described as "monitoring vandals and other problematic editors", that's what worries me, particularly as the last editor listed doesn't qualify at all IMHO. -- Zeraeph 01:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

While many are understandably upset by pages like this, they do have some legitimate uses and can be a useful tool for responsible editors and admins, especially those who frequently deal with vandals and troublesome users. As always, we should assume good faith in the absence of strong evidence to the contrary. -- Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 04:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure, whether publicized on a user's subpage or scribbled on a piece of paper, several editors have a short list of people they watch closely. However, it erodes good faith to publicize such a short list in a derogatory fashion. Terryeo 08:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as I am aware ArbCom has actually approved of such lists in the past. I have, however, always seen this as a mistake. Such a page is really nothing more than an attack page - a public statement that that user intends to stalk and harrass those on their watchlist, exercising a personal, and often immediate, veto on anything they disagree with. It is also a clear statement that the person maintaining the watchlist assumes those listed on it are acting in bad faith, jguk 09:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Depends on the list. At one point, I had a list that included several users who were knowlegable contributors, but had a poor grasp of spelling. Spellchecking articles recently edited by those users is hardly "harassment". -- Carnildo 10:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Er ... that's spelled "knowledgeable". Was that a self-referential list? :-) AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

LMAO...and I was going to ask Carnildo to add me to the list! -- Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 20:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Good point and good example. Also, tracking vandals isn't really the same as stalking. I keep several lists, but only one of them actually has a sinister and nefarious purpose :) -- Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 10:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• These are controversial, and I always point out a similar effect can be achieved through an internet browser's bookmark facility. That seems to solve all problems to me. Steve block Talk 08:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Quite. There's no need to have a public user watchlist at all - unless you want to publicise your nastiness. And, of course, there's nothing to stop you having a private user watchlist if that's the sort of person you are, jguk 13:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Follow up - This ended up in an MfD debate. After slightly modifying what was regarded as "non-neutral" language on the page in question, the result is very close to being a snowball "Keep". It seems that most editors support these pages as long as they are not clearly and solely attack pages. -- Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 19:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Careful with your wording there, Doc Tropics. The developing consensus was already almost unanimously to keep the article even before the changes were made to it. Changing the article doesn't seem to have altered the consensus. — Psychonaut 23:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Correction, most editors who were aware of the existance of the specific MFD support these pages :o) which is not quite the same thing.

Apart from which WP:5P states quite clearly:

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It is not a trivia collection, a soapbox, a vanity publisher, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, or a web directory. Nor is Wikipedia a collection of source documents, a dictionary, or a newspaper, for these kinds of content should be contributed to the sister projects, Wikisource, Wiktionary, and Wikinews, respectively. Wikipedia is not the place to insert your own opinions, experiences, or arguments — all editors must follow our no original research policy and strive for accuracy.

Wikipedia is an Encyclopaedia which I always take to mean that Wikipedia is about verifiable encyclopaedic content, not personalities, or personal opinions of other people.

Wikipedia is not...an experiment in anarchy or democracy. I take that to mean that Wikipedia is not about indiscrimately promulgating anything based soley on the fact that a majority vote could be produced for it.

WP:NOT expands on that idea and states clearly that Wikipedia is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of human knowledge.. I assume that also means personal opinions about other editors, which, once the actual activities of those other editors become past tense is all any watchlist consists of: personal opinions about other editors.

As I would interpret policy those opinions do not belong on Wikipedia, good or bad, useful or not, possibly even consensual or not, because policy would seem to state that Wikipedia is simply not a venue for discussing our opinions of other people.

If anyone feels that their opinions of other editors are important enough to publish then they should surely take responsibility for that decision by publishing them on their own websites? -- Zeraeph 21:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

"Most editors..." is definitely not as accurate as "Most editors who were aware of the MfD..."; I stand corrected :)

It would certainly be a mistake to assume that the clusters of opinions expressed in any XfD represent a true cross-section of community opinion. -- Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 21:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

If someone wants to maintain such a list, why not just encourage them to maintain it privately and offline on their own machine? Certainly we couldn't prohibit that anyway, and I think that would prevent a lot of issues. Seraphimblade 08:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Certainly, it's not right to have a "user watchlist" if it's inflammatory. However, I have one myself, and it survived an MfD because:

• I try to keep its wording inoffensive by only listing those who persist at damaging the encyclopedia as vandals and stating, "Do not take it as a personal attack if you are on the list."
• It is also used to display a wikidefcon template, and to honour exceptional contributors. -- Gray Porpois e ^{cetaceans have large brains} 21:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the correct link for the above is User:Gray Porpoise/Users To Watch Tra (Talk) 22:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you; I was wondering why the popups were telling me that it was an empty page. -- Gray Porpois e ^{cetaceans have large brains} 22:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I've created a new proposed notability guideline for albums Wikipedia:Notability (albums), and would be interested in any feedback. Thanks, Addhoc 13:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I know no policy or guideline directly covers the issue of removing warnings but I'm seeking advice on a specific case, see Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Removing warnings#Advice on what I should do Nil Einne 10:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Several proposed policies to forbid warning removal were defeated. As such, people remain allowed to remove things that they don't like from their talk page, and that includes warnings. Revert warring to replace a warning is bad form. One may assume that a user removing a warning has read said warning, so if he persists in the behavior that lead to the warning in the first place, sanctions may be appropriate. ( Radiant) 13:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• I disagree with this - while there are no policies forbidding the practice, it is considered very poor form to remove such warnings, and restoring them is often appropriate when the user is rapidly on their way to being blocked, especially when not doing so might cause other admins to just leave a redundant note rather than do something. -- Improv 14:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with Improv. It may be "allowed" but it's strongly discouraged. In many cases it's a clear cut attempt to hide a pattern of vandalism, especially when warnings are issued repetitively. Pascal.Tesson 14:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The key points are that "warnings for removing warnings" shouldn't be used (they escalate the situation), that "blocking for removing said warnings" is a no-no. The best thing to do, if you think "removal of such warnings is due to the user trying to avoid others spotting a pattern of behaviour", is to bypass the talk page and go straight to the contributions page and see if there is a pattern of disruptive behaviour that continues after the removal of the warning. Then take the appropriate action. Carcharoth 17:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

While Improv and Pascal are correct that it's poor form, I don't see how edit warring over the user's talk page is going to help. If you replace the warning, the user is likely to remove it once more. Lather, rinse, repeat. ( Radiant) 10:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

What is the community position on retrospectively adding references to support facts?

Regarding this edit; the reason for the "unneeded notations" were that I had added the refs to somone else's work. Why do I consider this a potential problem?

A) If we don't know the actual source, there may be legal/academic issues in implying someone got a fact from a particular place, when in fact they got it elsewhere.

B) Circular references:-

1. Person A includes uncited "fact" in Wikipedia article. We don't know if fact is accurate and/or if a citable source actually exists.
2. Person B uses sees Wiki article, and includes A's "fact" in their article at www.othersite.com. (They don't mention that they used Wikipedia in their research).
3. Person C sees that A's Wiki article lacks a reference/back-up, and searches for one on the web. Sees B's article at othersite.com, notes that fact *seems* to back up A's. Not realising where B got fact from in first place, he/she includes it as reference.

Fourohfour 15:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

A) If a source supports the assertion, it is irrelevant whether the original editor used that source or another. There is no ownership of articles and hence no implication that any particular editor used any particular source. B) is a potential problem, but is only one instance of a more general issue related to evaluating the quality of sources. There is no shortage of internet sites and publications that make all manner of dubious assertions. Unfortunately, there is no simple heuristic for determining what constitutes a reliable source that covers the entire range of topics in Wikipedia. Circular self-references are only one variety of issue that clueful editors need to be aware of. older ≠ wiser 18:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia could use a lot more editors who add good citations to existing text. Per WP:RS, the sort of site that would just regurgitate Wikipedia's information shouldn't be used as a reference. Durova ^{Charg e!} 22:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed although I think that we have to live with poorly cited articles on a short term basis. The FA and WP:GA processes insure that some of the more important articles (or at least most dear to some) eventually reach a state where they have to get references. It's just hard to make sure people understand that Wikipedia has to be used with some circumspection. Pascal.Tesson 23:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Durova, you're missing the point in some respects. These sites aren't necessarily "just regurgitating Wikipedia's information" a la answers.com. (Straight copies are actually *easier* to spot). On the contrary, the owners of the sites I have in mind could simply be using it to add (or even verify) one or two facts that they aren't too sure of themselves.

Now, since we can't tell which sites are using Wikipedia as a source if they don't reference it, this means that all sites/articles that don't give references can't be used, full stop.

That's not going to happen; I think it would make more sense to note the potential problem in an unobtrusive way. Fourohfour 17:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

There is currently some debate on whether to keep WP:RS as a Guideline or demote it to Essay status. The issue revolves around what the community consensus is (one side claims that the Guideline has lost community consensus support and thus should be demoted, the other contends that there is consensus to keep it as a Guideline - although it may need continued work). Please pop over... read the guideline and the discussion on the topic, reach your own conclusions and tell us what you think. Blueboar 01:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

If there are enough people saying that something does not have consensus, then quite clearly, it does not have consensus:) jguk 13:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, if not WP:RS, an editor should be directed to some discussion page for questionable sources. The issue comes up frequently as the internet's spectrum from unreliable, unattributed newsgroups and webpages fills in, right up to very reliable webpages. We need someplace to discuss the ongoing questions which arise. Terryeo 18:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Guidelines only exist while there is consensus for them. As soon as consensus lapses (either because more people become aware of the page, or because the page changes in ways that people don't like), it is no longer a guideline. You don't vote guidelines off the island; you don't have to form a "consensus to demote" a guideline. They are automatically demoted when people stop agreeing with them. Even Blueboar agrees that the page needs a major rewrite. Until that rewrite is finished and a large number of people agree with it, the page is not a guideline, no matter how many people stick a tag on it. Consensus comes first. Then a guideline tag. The only tag it should have in the meantime is the Disputed tag. Am I right? — Omegatron 03:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Is there a template to flag disputed guidelines? If so, I'd like to use it at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television), where we're currently having a big debate about whether the guidelines can be enforced "as law", or whether good faith exceptions can be made by consensus, like at certain WikiProjects. My own opinion is that some of the participants are confused about the difference between a policy and a guideline (they also keep using the word "vote" <sigh>). Anyway, if anyone's interested in weighing in on that particular debate, please see Wikipedia_talk:Naming conventions (television)#RfC Episode Article Naming conventions. -- Elonka 20:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

There is. {{ Disputedpolicy}} Some people seem to think that a page can be both disputed and a guideline at the same time, which makes no sense to me. Guidelines are pages that have a wide consensus among editors. — Omegatron 05:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Aha! That's what I needed, thanks. I was looking in Category:Dispute templates and not finding it. I've added it to that category now, thank you. -- Elonka 20:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

A single person can "dispute" a guideline, yet concensus still exists at that time by all other editors. A bunch of users can dispute a policy, and yet it can still hold concensus amongst most editors. Concensus =/= 100%, nor 90%, nor any number. Concensus is determined by discussion, and until that discussion takes place, it keeps it's old status, because presumably its status hasn't changed yet. That's why it is being disputed. Daniel.Bryant ^{[  T ·  C ]} 07:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Guidelines are determined by consensus. Rejected guidelines are determined by a lack of consensus; not a "consensus for rejection". See Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#The differences between policies, guidelines, essays, etc. — Omegatron 08:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

It would be great if an unbiased soul could attempt to put an end to the issue at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television). It seems awfully clear to me (24-7 in favor of the current guideline) but certain people are trying to change it by attrition. — Wknight94 ( talk) 21:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Voting is evil. What do the 7 people not like about it? — Omegatron 03:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Probably best to just look for yourself and hear it in their own words. -- Milo H Minderbinder 15:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Elonka, please do not distort reality in order to gain sympathy. You were one of the people who were asking for a poll in the first place [12]. We could delete that poll right now and still have the discussion area, which would still support what is being said in the guideline. I've also stated that I would not have a major problem with restarting the poll to make this all more clear, since you had concerns with the poll changes. The poll is simply a list of people who agree with certain statements, but we do not need numbers to come to the same conclusion. -- Ned Scott 23:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Ned, again, please read WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. The kind of language that you used above is not helpful. -- Elonka 07:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Elonka: "Hi, I'm gonna go votestack", Ned: "Please don't vote stack", Elonka: "I've been attacked!" -- Ned Scott 07:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Ned, to be fair, you said, "please do not distort reality in order to gain sympathy." That statement really goes further than necessary into speculation into Elonka's motives, don't you think? I've found that there are ways to say "please don't vote stack" that come across better than that. Your mileage may vary. - GTBacchus^{( talk)} 08:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep as is. I see no problem with keeping this guideline as it is. We need clear-cut guidelines to help people to establish what a reliable source is. This is one of THE MOST cited guidelines on places like AfD. Even though a vocal group of editors is raising objections to the guideline, it does not mean the represent a consensus. Consensus is not measured by volume. The fact that people site the guideline ALL THE TIME in adminstrative discussions like AfD points to the consensus. Just because people don't show up in droves to say "I like this guideline, keep it" on the talk page every day does NOT mean it does not have concensus. Evidence of concensus exists in its ubiquitousness. On a second note, a guideline of this sort, whether as-is or edited to something better, is VERY IMPORTANT. If an article is to be adjudged Verifiable per WP:V and not Original Research per WP:OR we need a concrete basis to judge by. WP:RS is needed in that vein. Without this guideline, or something like it, we are left with anarchy WRT to our ability to regulate articles here. Many decisions are made every day to keep or delete articles based on the availibility of reliable sources. Without this guideline, what are we to do? For those proposing to delist this guideline, what alternative do you propose??? -- Jayron 32 04:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep. This is one of the most important policy/guideline/essay articles for editors who support the intent of Wikipedia under WP:5P. In the recent AfD and policy discussions that I've read, the people who reject consensus for WP:RS are generally the same people who reject WP:V in favor of "I like this game fan forum, I use it a lot, and that other website has an article so this one has to!" In other words, I'm not persuaded that there's a lack of consensus among policy-based contributors. Barno 16:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting discussion when the fair use photos are to be deleted: when the free replacement is theoretically possible (e.g. photos of any living person) or then they are already present. See Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use#A_change_to_FUC_.231 Alex Bakharev 00:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Is information about one of our biographies which is included in a "gotcha" youtube video useable? Would YOU TUBE be the source? Reportersue 19:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The source would be whoever created the video. Cite the author of the video and the place of first publication. If the place of first publication is YouTube, then so be it. — Psychonaut 19:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

A lot of people upload a lot of things to youtube, and a lot of people have fairly sophisticated editing software, so they can create whatever they want to. If there isn't an original Reliable Source for the video, I don't see how we could consider it adequately verifiable. Fan-1967 19:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

YouTube is not exactly what would be considered as a reliable source (see WP:RS#YouTube) and if referenced, should be done so with assured verifiability (seeing as many can copy the original author's video and upload it themselves). As stated above listing the reference (if valid) may not be as harmful as linking directly to the reference. ¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 19:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikibooks has has Special:Import for about a month now, and I've been doing several imports per week in the hopes of cleaning up Category:Articles containing how-to sections and Category:Copy to Wikibooks. After transwikiing, I replace whichever template it was with {{ Copied to Wikibooks}} or {{ Copied to Wikibooks Cookbook}} (I should probably make a third to replace the how-to template?).

This adds the pages into the category Category:Articles copied to Wikibooks in need of cleanup. I had been adding to the transwiki log as well, but it's gotten to be enormous, so I've given up on that and just log it in on wikibooks. For the how-tos, I've recently been adding {{ howtobook}} to the talk page as well to make sure editors are informed.

The problem is that even after the copying, templating, etc., 2 things are happening:

• In many cases, the how to sections of the article continue to be added to. There's no point transwikiing if the how-to sections continue to be developed here, rather than there. We can of course re-import any number of times, but that would get tired rather quickly.
• In other cases (the majority), the how-to sections aren't actually added to, but they aren't removed either. I personally am a bit shaky on where exactly the line falls between "describing a process" and "providing instructions", so I generally just leave them alone and work on the wikibooks side to adjust the articles to fit the Wikibooks MoS.

In cases where the article seems to be nothing but a how to, I just prod it (I also prod things that are much too stubby for wikibooks... stubs don't fare as well there as they do here on wikipedia). But what to do about these other cases? People seem quick enough to add the tags, and while I'm happy to do my part and help wittle down the backlog in the to-be-transwikied cue, there seems to be no follow-up on the wikipedia side rewriting the articles to be "encyclopedic".

I'm bringing this up here because on the Category:Articles containing how-to sections page, it reads

• "There is currently no consensus as to how the how-to articles should be edited. To-do lists may be replaced with great prose, or more simply, introduced in a way that reduces their how-to-ishness."

Now that Wikibooks has the tools to run down the wikipedia backlogs in this area, maybe it's time to come up with some sort of policy on this? -- SB_Johnny| ^talk| _books 14:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I think your best bet would be to remove the how-to'ing information and mark the page as {{ stub}}, or if nothing much remains (or the title is inherently indicative of a how-to) throw the page on WP:PROD or WP:AFD. ( Radiant) 11:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I do that sometimes... problem is that there's usually a lot of work to do to them on the wikibooks side (the Wikibooks MoS is dramatically different), so I was hoping there'd be some way to standardize the how-to removal for better "wikidivision of wikilabor" in getting the cleanup done :-).

Moving to wikibooks is a great way of honoring and preserving contributions that don't happen to jive with the Wikipedia MoS, but once the copting is done, cleanup should follow promptly. -- SB_Johnny| ^talk| _books 13:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

In recently noticed that the template for the stubs appears in the stub lists inside the stub category. And most often amongst the stub articles under the letter "T". Wouldn't it be more logical to have a category for stub templates and not include template the stub category. If it is necessary to place a link to the stub template, why not put it on top of the respective stub category in the how-to section? OMG, you may have to read this twice cause I got dizzy just writing it. Robin des Bois ♘ ➳ ✉ 10:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• They appear under 'T' since 'Template' starts with T. They could be placed at the top by employing a category sort key, e.g. [[Category:Foo|*]] places something at the top of the category. ( Radiant) 11:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Better yet, use <includeonly> for the category affixed by the stub template, and <noinclude> for the category of the stub template tself? -- SB_Johnny| ^talk| _books 13:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I know all that, but some people seeem to think they belong in the stub category rather than in the stub template category and remove the includeonly clause. Or they misplace the templage page by removing the noinclude in [[Category:Page<noinclude>|*</noinclude>]]. What is the policy on that? Robin des Bois ♘ ➳ ✉ 20:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:217.21.232.179 you can see that repeatedly giving gentle hints is pointless. These type of vandals know from the start that it's vandalism. It's not accidental in the slightest, and I can imagine them laughing at the suckers who keep on posting them "do it 3 more times and you'll be blocked" "do it 2 more times and you'll be blocked" messages. My plan? If the vandalism is pointless and not accidental (this is usually obvious) give them one warning. After that, block for 6 months. Pussyfooting around, trying to "win them over" is not going to work. If you don't believe me, take another look at the page. Thanks. -- SpookyMulder 09:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

{{ blatantvandal}} is what you're thinking of. Also, it's very difficult to ban IPs for such periods unless they're deemed to be a single person or a continual source of vandalism. I only know of a few IPs that have been banned for such a period. – Someguy0830 ( T | C) 09:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is it difficult to ban IPs? I realize more than 1 person may use the IP. Is it possible to block an IP except when use by particular usernames? Someone said before in a previous section on this page that most anon edits are vandalism. None of us wants to spend hours blocking vandals, and it's gonna take DAYS if we have to send them several warnings each time too, after which they just wait 2 days and their IP is unblocked again, or they change IPs. We can do without these idiots. Don't feel sorry for them. The warning you mentioned states that they may be blocked without further warnings, which is good, as long as such a block is a long one. A 2-day "time-out" period is pointless. It needs to be at least several months.

SpookyMulder 09:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW when you a BV has been given, and vandalism persists, as happened in this case, remember to report to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. I did and user was blocked for another month Nil Einne 09:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

imho, vandalism-only IPs may well be blocked for a couple of months at a time. Just put a polite note on the user page, along the lines, we apologize if you run into this block guiltlessly etc., bona fide users can always request unblocking. I am thinking on a guideline like, if an IP shows persistent vandalism with not a single good edit for more than half a year, feel free to block it for three months. After all, our vandal-fighting and RCP resources are limited and we don't want to waste them on pointless friendliness to dyed-in-the-wool vandals. dab (ᛏ) 10:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that would be a good idea. 3 months sounds like a resonable time. I'm doubtful above user is going to get any better so until and unless other people start using the IP (in which case they can request an unblock) there's not much point letting him/her come back. AFAIK, a number of admins do indefinite blocks on persistent vandal usernames who've done nothing useful so I assume the only reason we don't with IPs is because we easily risk blocking potentialy contributors who may use the same IP. Nil Einne 16:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

NB noticed the IP has been traced to the City of Stockholm so may be a shared IP. This is obviously one of the problems. We should attempt to ensure that IPs don't appear to be shared when doing 3 month blocks. Nil Einne 16:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh and I noticed the above IP did make at least one constructive edit just before being banned here. There were probably a few more earlier. Whether it was the same person or not, who knows? But given the amount of vandalism/constructive edits, I'm guessing it's probably only one persistent vandal Nil Einne 16:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I submit that the terms vandal and sockpuppet are frequently misused when discussing a user who contributes to Wikipedia in a questionable fashion.

To vandalize an article is to deface it, with obviously out-of-place or out-of-context additions -- almost always profanity.

If a user adds questionable material which is not obvious defacement they should not be called a vandal. They may be silly, misguided, foolish, defying the NPOV or citation principles, or otherwise damaging the credibility and/or accuracy of Wikipedia. They need to be corrected, of course. But please, use the correct language!

To sockpuppet is to use multiple accounts to attempt to build false consensus.

Making second accounts without the intent to build false consensus is not sockpuppetry. If it is for the purpose of editing Wikipedia while blocked, it may well result in further blocking. But to give the reason as 'sockpuppetry' is a complete lie. Just say: this person has been banned, and will remain banned so long as there is any indication that two accounts belong to the same person. Yes, this requires more typing! But at least it is fair and accurate.

I'm sure that this over-use of the 'vandal' and 'sockpuppet' epithets is for a simple reason: Wikipedia has clear and simple rules that forbid vandalism and sockpuppetry. To expand the definitions of either of those two terms is a simple, lazy effort, and it effectively condemns the offending user without ambiguity. But it is nonetheless a misuse of language.

Please, admins and other individuals who monitor Wikipedia for unhelpful contributions: use the right language. Be brave -- call someone an idiot, if they are indeed being an idiot. Remember to uphold the spirit of the law, and do not be overly concerned with the letter of it.

Please, discuss!

Takesh 20:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this. Another similar "epithet" is calling any external link "spam" whether it is or not. Why debate the merits of a link when you can just make an accusation (even if it's false) that most won't want to argue with. -- Milo H Minderbinder 21:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Umm, I highly suggest you don't go around calling people "idiot"s. Insulting other editors is never a good idea for many, many reasons. Wickethewok 21:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

You're right. The idea I was trying to express is that an admistrator (or other policing editor) who only uses the terms 'vandal' 'sockpuppet' and 'troll' to describe someone who makes dubious edits will not have much success in helping that person become a useful editor. Takesh 23:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Observing Hanlon's razor is a good idea though. Postdlf 21:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree about vandalism. Too many people label content disputes as vandalism. (Though there is a lot of vandalism that doesn't involve profanity: that's just the most visible.}} I don't have a problem with using sockpuppet for anyone who registers a second (or 3rd, 4th, ... 79th) account for dishonest reasons, whatever those reasons are. If you're pretending not to be yourself, youve created a sockpuppet. Now it is true that "sockpuppet" is often wrongly used to describe meatpuppetry, but that's a separate issue. Fan-1967 22:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
      • From what I've seen, "sockpuppet" is even used to describe "I can't think of any other explanation for so many people disagreeing with me". -- Milo H Minderbinder 22:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
        • For example? Tizio 22:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• In Wikipedia, a sockpuppet is any alternate account (see WP:SOCK), not necessarily one used to build a "false consensus". Sockpuppetry is not by itself forbidden. Tizio 22:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok -- well if sockpuppet has been expanded to include that sense, I guess it's ok. Still, I get the sense that very expansion was a product of laziness. But, it's a Pandora's box thing. No going back now. Takesh 23:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree that the words are used carelessly but I very much disagree with your definitions. Someone who maliciously changes dates in an article is a vandal. Someone who deletes sections of an article is a vandal. So is anyone who knowingly decreases the quality of an article, I don't think profanity has anything to do with it. Similarly, any alternate account which is used knowingly to game the system is sockpuppetry, whether or not they are used to build false consensus. That includes evading blocks. Pascal.Tesson 00:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

"Someone who deletes sections of an article is a vandal." Always? so I'm a vandal then? We need to be careful about making blanket statements like that. ~ ONUnicorn^{( Talk| Contribs)} 16:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding overuse of the word "vandal", I believe Wikipedia:On assuming good faith is a relevant essay. - GTBacchus^{( talk)} 00:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Also, given the connotations of these terms on Wikipedia, calling an editor a "vandal" or "sockpuppet" is both incivil and a personal attack if you don't have any evidence to back up your claim. Hanlon's Razor is a good one; some editors characterize anyone that disagrees with them as a vandal, but that's definitely not acceptable behavior. ( Radiant) 11:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. As a member of the AMA I have come across numerous unfounded accusations of sockpuppeting; some users slam anyone who argues with them with the label of "sockpuppet". "Troll" is another one that's overused; people tend to misinterpret WP:NOFEEDING and describe any user they don't like as a troll. Walton monarchist89 13:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza. I have already commented there that I believe that's the wrong venue for disbandment and deletion of a wiki-project. I'm not endorsing or opposing any views, but letting everyone know what is going on. I hope that we can actually have some discussion here as opposed to what goes on there. - Royalguard11( Talk· Desk· Review Me!) 00:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, so I was editing this while that above was posted. - Royalguard11( Talk· Desk· Review Me!) 00:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

There is quite a bit of discussion there...just what is it that you are implying is going on there? — Doug Bell  ^{talk• contrib} 00:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I think there should be a discussion as opposed to a vote (and don't deny it, each discussion is preceeded by something like "delete" or "keep"). - Royalguard11( Talk· Desk· Review Me!) 00:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Let us please not have a discussion here! From what I saw, there is actually a lively discussion on the MfD. Sure, people vote but we all know that this does not currently have a snowball's chance of garnering consensual deletion so the votes are more like a summary of people's feelings. Pascal.Tesson 00:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, MfD is the place for discussion. MfD is not a vote. — Centrx→ talk • 00:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. And for the record, my comment (the third only because of 2x edit conflict) was not preceeded by either a delete or a keep. — Doug Bell  ^{talk• contrib} 00:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I know this is just an opinion here, but if it were just a discussion and just that, then there would be no bold words at all. We wouldn't bold the words delete or keep at all. - Royalguard11( Talk· Desk· Review Me!) 01:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought XfDs were now called X for discussion? Like WP:CfD. Or was that the only one to get changed? Carcharoth 01:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Categories for discussion also makes decisions on merges and moves, unlike the other *fDs. People suggest and support moves and merges on AfD, of course, but the only thing AfD makes an actual decision on is deletion. -- Sam Blanning ^(talk) 01:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks for that. Carcharoth 02:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, 150,000 keystrokes in the first 12 hours. That's an almost-audible 3.4 hertz. Certainly a lively discussion. -- Interiot 04:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but what percentage of that is esperanza-inspired extra-long sigs? Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 17:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It's always a bad sign when an MfD has it's own WP Shortcut. WP:MFD/EA. Wow. Anyway, the discussion seems to have done some good, but if someone goes after further parts of Esperanza (specifcally the Coffee Lounge) should it be taken up here, or on a new MfD? -- Elaragirl |||||| ^{Talk| Count} 14:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

MfD worked last time, why not again? I don't see a lot of active Esperanzians around the Village Pump, so the discussion might not be very even. riana_ dzasta 15:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I have cross posted this from Wikipedia talk:Categorization.

I have noticed a few users "categorising" articles by simply adding stub tags, (often replacing the {{ uncategorised}} tag with a stub for example). Can we formally add a sentence explicitly explaining that a stub tag (or any maintenance tag) does not categorise an article (in an encyclopedic sense), despite the fact that it does add a category.

Please reply at Wikipedia_talk:Categorization#stubs_and_categories. thanks Martin 16:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, that would be good, but I think your best bet would be educating the relevant users whenever you spot them. >Radiant< 12:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• A topic added to "Wikipedia talk:Stub" in June entitled "Stubbing is out of control" is relevant to this thread. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 03:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I just had this idea. Most anonnymous users, even if doing good edits, do not enter edit summaries and therefore it is difficult to distiguish good intentions from bad ones. In preferences there is a check box saying "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary". If you check this and forgot to fill edit summary, editor returs once again and asks if you really mean it. You can still go without edit summary, but you have been warned. What I propose is to make this behaviour default for anonymous users. It will not stop the vandalism, but it will prompt good users to explain their edits. The side efect is that it might slow vandals who do not fill edit summaries as they will have to send form twice. Is this a good idea, bad idea or what kind of idea? -- Jan.Smolik 12:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like an excellent idea. I don't think it'll noticeably slow down- and hence discourage- either legitimate users (fortunately) or vandals (unfortunately). However, it'll make differentiating good edits, ropey-but-well-intentioned edits, tests and blatant vandalism much easier. Nothing's stopping a vandal from lying, but they could do that anyway- and if they do, it's clear that it's not a legitimate test. Fourohfour 13:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

See also WP:PEREN. >Radiant< 13:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not think it is the same thing. I am only proposing this as a default for non logged users. You can always create account to get simpler behaviour. Anyway EVERY edit should have summary. If anybody cannot be bothered with filling it is he really helping us? What more, even good reverts are to be reverted as vandalism this way. Let's say Mr. XYZ was born in 1971, but our aricle incorectly states 1970. Anonymous editor comes and changes it to correct 1971. But I see vandalism becouse somebody changed only one number without explanation and I hit revert button. There is no other way 90 % of edits as such are vandalism. So unexplained edits from anonymous users are generally going to be reverted anyway so where is the reason to do them at first. -- Jan.Smolik 22:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

You shouldn't revert like that. If someone changes a fact, you should try and verify it before changing it back (and if it can't be verified easily, the article probably isn't well sourced). It's a violation of WP:AGF to assume that an edit is vandalism just because it's anonymous and it doesn't have a comment. -- Milo H Minderbinder 23:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately such a change would probably lead to vandalism going undetected in cases where the vandal uses an edit summary and the user browsing the recent changes assumes good faith and takes that summary at face value. I often come across vandalism edits with unrelated (and good) edit summaries as things are just now... Ta/ wangi 14:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

A recent proposal on the mailing list was to force edit summaries only if for edits that remove a consistent part of text. This is in response to a recent episode when the subject of an article removed libel from the article about herself, and an administrator reverted and blocked taking her for a vandal. Forcing an edit summary would have solved the problem, becuase that subject had to explain what she was doing. Tizio 16:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why this is a user preference for anybody. All edits must have edit sums, IMO. John  Reid  ° 06:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

In mainspace, probably. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 22:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Radiant that this is an excellent idea. Can't think of any downside at all. The other issues are not going away, but this change will be a net improvement regardless. — Doug Bell  ^{talk• contrib} 11:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it's already a default setting. At least; when I first edited as an anon I got a "Reminder: You have not provided an edit summary. If you click Save again, your edit will be saved without one." message. I remember thinking; "edit summary? What the hell's an edit summary? I just want to fix a friggin typo here!" ~ ONUnicorn^{( Talk| Contribs)} 17:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Logged out - this is a test to see if it prompts an edit summary. 198.179.243.50 19:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess it doesn't. I thought it did. Strange. 198.179.243.50 19:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)