As I already mentioned 2 days ago on the village pump (misc), the guidelines at WP:FUC and WP:FURG don't have the same standards for fair use rationales.

WP:FURG only asks for purpose, portion and replacability

By the way: the last requirement Any other information necessary to assist future Wikipedians in determining whether this image qualifies for fair use is just plain stupid. Why not just write "A fair use rationale has to comply with WP-policy" then.

WP:FUC requires much more, incl. a rationale for why there is no free version (which is totally obvious in most cases), minimal use, previous publication and significance (although there seem to be various interpretations of the last one).

FUC 6 is only a link to other guidelines and essays, including one to meta:Avoid copyright paranoia which includes this great statement:

• "As a practicing lawyer, I hate all the incredibly over-the-top "copyright paranoia" as you've so elloquently put it. I've taken copyrights, I've taken trademarks, I've taken international IP (so a bit of patents ;-) ) all while a law student. Infringing uses are easy to see and easy to remove on Wikipedia --yet people here get caught in such absurd legal minutia, seriously compounded by their often half-baked legal knowledge, that has such a small likelihood of becoming a problem. And what's the biggest joke of it "becoming a problem"? Simple: any of us can "erase" the problem material in a few keystrokes. Honestly people, to quote a famous decision in copyright law "the parties are advised to chill." Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc., 296 F.3d 894, 908 (9th Cir. 2002). --Bobak 19:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)"

What's even more confusing is that Betacommandbot's example of a good fair use rationale ( [1])is absolutely generic, while User:Durin, who seems to be the defender-in-chief for Betacommandbot, constantly argues that FURs have to be unique to each specific use in each specific article they're used in.

As long as the policy isn't clear, what's the use in tagging thousands of images.

Malc82 09:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The same as it always is; reduce the amount of copyrighted material on Wikipedia; further erode fair use rights; prepare Wikipedia for a "German-style" fair-use free future. There are some who claim it's all part of a major scheme to put billions of dollars (Google-sized bucks!) in the pockets of the foundation and Jimbo; I won't go that far, but I can see how some would believe this. Some Wikipedians seem quite excited to act on their evangelism for free/libre content, ignoring the inconvenient truth that the fair use of copyrighted material is still allowed on Wikipedia. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 09:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

And the sad part is, it's happening AGAIN. Betacommand has been down this road before - it's what cost him his admin status. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand#Automated_image_deletion for a prior round of mass image deletions, for which his was temporarily blocked. When was unblocked, User:Geni said, "I don't think he's going to be doing that again." Guess what? He's doing it again. (There's more good historical reading at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand#The_image_deletions_were_conducted_inappropriately and so on ... Eventually, his admin tools were stripped, but not, apparently, his desire to "purify" the Wiki-image world. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 09:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, just read through Betacommand's RfA (took some time). Incredible how someone with such a record of bot-abuse and antisocial behavior can get his bot approved in the first place. Malc82 10:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

No what cost him his admin status was running a bot under his own account. This one is approved. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 11:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

That really understates the "why." Betacommand lost his admin status for these reasons:

1. A poorly run automated image deletion
2. An image deletion campaign that ran counter to policy (sound familiar yet?)
3. Unsatisfactory communication regarding image deletions
4. Inappropriate username blocks
5. Unsatisfactory communication regarding username blocks
6. Use of an automated tool to disrupt Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names
7. Disruption of WP:AIV
8. High-speed removal of external links
9. Inappropriate link removals
10. The link removal was conducted inappropriately
11. Unsatisfactory communication regarding link removals
12. History of inappropriate blocks
13. History of poor judgment

That's not just "running a bot under his own name". And it's ridiculous that THIS is the person running a large-scale image tagging and removal campaign, when he/she has shown before, he/she can't handle it. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 16:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, WP:FUC is policy, while WP:FURG is a guideline. The guideline needs to fit the policy. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 11:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to make precisely this remark. If a guideline violates a policy, there is no "conflict", it just means that the guideline is probably wrong and needs {{ sofixit}}. Kusma ( talk) 11:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Then why does Betacommandbot link to a guideline that differs from the policy? This means that thousands of Wikipedians are asked to write a FUR that still violates the policy, meaning the next round will be that the bot contacts all of them again and asks for a better rationale. Do you see how stupid that is? Malc82 11:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I only got four warnings, but just look at [2] and you will see why this is disastrous. Malc82 11:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite see why you point me to the talk page of this user who has been indefinitely blocked for copyright violations. While this user can't review the images, others can, as the bot also leaves notes on the talk pages of articles using the disputed images. Kusma ( talk) 11:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The bot's edit summary links to WP:NONFREE, a page that transcludes Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Kusma ( talk) 11:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the bot's user talk message (as of minutes ago) is:

• Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image name. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

there are two links to WP:FURG, specifically linking to "suggestions on how to do so". Malc82 11:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

From what I can see here, Betacommand is doing nothing wrong. He was desysopped primarily for running a bot on his admin account and failing to respond to concerns related to the trouble it caused. He shouldn't have done that, and I can't argue with the decision to desysop for it. However, this time, he has been careful to act within both policy and norms ( CSD I6 is policy, it's actually not required that one notify the uploader or leave a message on the article talk for that, but it is considered polite, and he has done both of those things), and he is performing the bot actions with a flagged and approved bot. The editors who have violated policy are those who have uploaded and used fair-use images without providing proper rationales, not Betacommand for bringing that to their attention. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Eagle101 and Kusma, copyright is non-negotiable. Where it is stated in policy that a fair use rationale must be included according to Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria policy, and the consequences of violating this policy could result in deletion of images, sanctions if repeatedly violated by a user or worse if a copyright problem occurs, then the Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline should not be a standard that everyone should follow, as a guideline is defined, but it should be a policy that everyone must follow. As well, should WP:FURG become policy, the file upload wizard for fair use images should be changed to allow the input (maybe even insist on a licence, source and fair use rationale before an image can be uploaded under fair use?) of a fair use rationale, alongside the source text box and licensing drop down box. -- tgheretford ( talk) 17:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with copyright LAW. Where an identified LEGAL infringement is identified by a human user of Wikipedia, then I am 100% behind that user.

Obviously, there is a perceived problem with this indiscrimate and random bot (our friend Betacommandbot), and I personally feel that one major problem is its indiscriminate and apparently random nature.

If you give me, as an occasional Wikipedia uploader over the years, the chance to respond to ANY accusation of an invalid copyrighted upload, then I can FOR SURE answer you.

But if you give me 2-7 days only to respond, then there is no way I can guarantee a response 365-days-a-year, 24-hours-a-day - I am one of those humans who sadly has a non-Wikipedia/Internet-based life. However, since Wikipedia is (I understand) populated by human beings with a propensity to discuss any issues intelligently in lieu of idiotic knee-jerk reactions, I wouldn't imagine this could ever be a problem, and I therefore feel I am among understanding friends.

Well...

Not unless bots are introduced arbitrarily to make such apparently obvious complex and human decisions - and to make them, no less, in such totally arbitrary and unintelligent ways as regards time or context ("bot detects a bunch of text in the right place or not" appears to be the "intelligent" programming on display here).

The laughable situation seems to be this - if WP editors enter random licensing text such as "this is random licensing text to fool idiot bots", then the troublesome bot will almost certainly leave them alone.

Such is its intelligence.

Such is its value to Wikipedia.

Has it a value to Wikipedia then?

My answer would be: "absolutely not".

Note I do not dispute for one moment any "Wikipedia policies" - that is NOT the issue here.

And apologies in advance for any perceived cynicism.

Regards. -- DaveG12345 01:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

This section was about the fact that WP:FURG, which is the guideline stating how to write FURs, didn't comply with WP:FUC, the policy. This problem has been more or less solved in the meantime (by addition of one sentence linking from FURG to FUC). That FURs are needed if the policy states so wasn't the question brought up here (although it's a good one). To which extent FURs are needed is a different debate at WP:FUC. If the bot is achieving what it is meant for in a constructive way is another ongoing debate, mainly at its talk page. Malc82 08:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Please note that Betacommandbot only tags images, it's still up to a human being to actually do the deleting. If you have a problem with the actual deletion, take it up with the admin who did the deleting. Corvus cornix 21:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Please note that without BetacommandBot tagging, massive out-of-policy image deletetions wouldn't be happening. Or happening again. Make no mistake: BetcommandBot makes these deletions possible. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 04:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok Jenolen, before you make an ass of yourself read what your linking to. the ArbCom issue was a mistake that I made I wasnt careful and made a rookie admin mistake. Ive been through this before. DONT bring the arbcom case into this as it has NO wait in this case, its a blatant attempt to make me look like a stupid user. well Im following policy to the letter. the policy points to FURG on how to write a rationale. and as for Naconkantari's deletions, if you actually read the discussion instead of just pointing to it you would know that the admin made a mistake due to a recent change in the wording of the template. so instead of character assassination why not help improve the wiki? yes FURG had some errors but its being fixed. If you think Im the only thing making it possible you might see WP:CSD#I6 and WP:CSD#I7 which is policy. and has been used for a very long time. Betacommand ^{( talk • contribs • Bot)} 04:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

OK Betacommand, would you like to explain why you had to write "make an ass of yourself" over less offensive wordings like "make a fool of yourself" or "say something you might later regret"? Or do you honestly not care that you annoy or offend countless people with not only your actions but your language? I can think of several people who could run the exact same bot, tag the exact same images -- yet stir up far less trouble because they attempt not only to talk to their critics, but do so with repsect. -- llywrch 03:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand is right, those Arbitration findings have absolutely nothing to do with what is going on now. Betacommand is merely enforcing long-standing policy via an approved bot. If you have issues with what's happening, you should fix the policies and guidelines involved, not try to stop Betacommand from enforcing them. These images have been around for years violating the policy. As they say, don't shoot the messenger. ^ demon ^{[omg plz]} 04:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to correct my basic understanding of these instances: In both cases, yours and Naconkantari's, there was a massive, out-of-policy deletion of images that had been tagged by a robot as not conforming to Wikipedia policies. (From the arbcom ruling, passed 9-0: Betacommand's image deletions were conducted inappropriately and showed poor judgment because he used an inappropriate methodology of deleting all images tagged for speedy delete, with no regard for {{ Replaceable fair use disputed}} tags or talk page disputes concerning whether fair use deletion criteria applied.)

The key factor: In both cases, there was no HUMAN determination as to whether or not the images actually conformed to policy. And in your instance, you keep saying "Yes, I made a rookie mistake." (And in the other, you say Naconkantari made a mistake.) Uh, yes, you did! It's okay; thanks for fessing up to it. But I think it's important for people to realize that thousands of images were wiped out, wrongly. The encyclopedia is that much poorer... wrongly. And when the BetacommandBot tags thousands of images, and another editor then deletes those images, it's more than just a minor "whoops." I'm well aware you believe you are "following policy to the letter." You might perhaps be better served understanding policy, or working on understanding the reasons for policy; it's obvious that your enthusiastic enforcement actions have been the source of trouble for you on Wikipedia before. And while there must be those who admire your moxie and determination to keep doing what you think is right, I think there's a sizable (and growing) contingent who think you've definitely gone too far. I have yet to see a single post from you (and I'm sure they're out there, somewhere) that is anything but combative, or genuinely tries to build consensus. You have yet, to my knowledge, said anything like, "You know what, maybe I did go too far"... But of course, you don't think you have, and so, not unlike a certain President's dedication to courses of action, facts be damned, you push ahead. Great. More power to you. The more your 'bot deletes (or helps delete), the more editors realize that not only is your interpretation of policy not the proper direction for the project, but your 'bot is actually doing more harm than good. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 05:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok per m:Wikimedia Foundation policy users who upload copyrighted material must provide Rationales. also per a foundation resolution we must be 100% compliant by April, 2008. at current estimates there are 350,000 fair use images. Of the 350,000 ~30,000 have zero rationale. and an additional ~70,000 have improper rationale, that can be bot detected. that means that at least 30% of our current images dont comply with policy. Im guessing an additional 50,000 images have improper rationales that cannot be detected by a bot. My actions are not pro-deletionist, the issue is we have a massive problem that users ignore. the small group of user who attempt to correct this problem cannot do it by them self. If we ignore all future non free image uploads we have to review, and fix 556 images per day from now until April, 2008. that would be ignoring a total of at least 81,000 images. we need to motivate users into fixing their improper images. we cannot do that unless the whole community joins in. what BetacommandBot does is far more than what editors would do. It notifies all the users in the images file history, and leaves a note on all the talkpages of articles where images are used. My only objective is to fix images that don't comply with policy. We either have to fix, or if no one is willing to do that delete them. as for going to far, I haven't gone far enough yet. we have a problem that needs fixed. I have yet to see anyone propose an idea that is feasible, and could be implemented except for mine. Instead of complaining about Foundation resolutions, and character assassinations, why not help fix the problem? as for deletions, they are the responsibility of the person who deletes them, not the person who nominates them for deletion. Betacommand ^{( talk • contribs • Bot)} 15:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

But what you're doing is annoying. I mean, a lot of the stuff you're tagging is blatantly fair use, and should not be deleted. If you really want to have every single image on wikipedia say "this is fair use because it's not prohibiting the original creator's ability to make money" instead of just implying that it's fair use for said reason, then whatever. But you shouldn't delete images which are ALREADY confirmed to be fair use just because they don't have an elaborate reason. J'onn J'onzz 12:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Beta, I would certainly agree that, as you put it, we have a problem that needs fixed. Our idea of what that "problem" is, however, is probably not in synch. You think it's imaginary requirements for unique fair use rationale (remember, there's never been a single piece of copyrighted material on Wikipedia that has ever been challenged on "fair use" grounds), I think it's the BetacommandBot. Good luck with your campaign. I'm not sure Wikipedia will be "better" for it, in the long run. But you can take pride in knowing your complete inability to assume any iota of responsibility for these massive improper image deletions truly sets a new standard, one to which future Wikipedia responsibility-dodgers will have a hard time living up. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 07:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, material is challenged on fair-use grounds all the time. The case that springs to mind immediately is Image:Crosstar.png, which has been challenged repeatedly. -- Carnildo 05:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Background

For those who might be interested, a very short "history" on FUR and FURG: WT:FURG#A little history on FURG. -- Ned Scott 05:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

If there is a fair use rationale for use of an album cover, does that rationale apply to articles about the songs on that album, or only to the album itself? Corvus cornix 20:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest, no. An album cover is created for the entire body of work, and only as an identifier of that complete work is the use of the image permitted. LessHeard vanU 21:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The rationale for an album cover is usually specified only for use in the article about the album. If the song was released as a single, then that cover should be used to identify it. If it wasn't (e.g. Stairway to Heaven), then it is possible to write another rationale for the image to be used in the article about the song. ShadowHalo 22:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

A few days ago I was in process of applying a block to a persistent vandal, and on arriving at the block page I found that in addition to usual "account creation" and "IP block" boxes, a third box had appeared giving the option of applying an e-mail block.

This was not directly challenging, as on going to WP:BLOCK I was able to find out about it. But just coming across it was disconcerting - I missed User:Ryulongs comment in WP:AN where he announced that he wished this change implemented.

I would like to propose that when changes to the software are made which impinge directly and immediately oo administrator functions, an e-mail is sent out to all administrators (or, if preferred, all active administrators) notifying them of the change, with if necessary an indication as to where details of the change are posted.-- Anthony.bradbury ^"talk" 21:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it would be a good idea to e-mail all the active administrators about every change to the software that relates to administrative functions, as it could be perceived as spam. If you are interested in being notified by e-mail about software changes, you can subscribe to the Signpost (which covers this) and have it sent to you by e-mail. Tra (Talk) 22:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Its a feature, rejoice that the devs are working and improving mediawiki. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 00:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I did not say that it was unwelcome. I did not even say that was a difficult concept. I just said that it would be nice to know about before suddenly discovering it. I take the point about Signpost.-- Anthony.bradbury ^"talk" 09:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah keep an eye on the signpost, but don't expect the devs to e-mail us every time a new feature is added, there are more wikis beyond just the english wikipedia. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 17:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You can also subscribe to the mailing list ( wikitech-l) if you want to keep right up-to-date (you can also view this via Nabble if you don't want to clog up your inbox). HTH HAND — Phil | Talk 17:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like to know why it is allowed to remove requests for citations within articles without providing said reference material.

This is supposed to be an educational site- yet people here post POV without citing credible sources.

How do you block someone from removing citation needed requests?

Thanks I vonH 20:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Tell me about it. Some editors just don't seem to care about WP:V, WP:RS or WP:REF. Whenever I spot a tag being removed inappropriately, I usually replace it with a polite advisory summary. The onus of attribution is on the editor who added the material, and there is always the option to contest (or remove in some cases) the most questionable statements and add {{ fact}} to others. Adrian M. H. 20:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's nothing inviolate about a request for citation. I've seen such reqwuest that I thought were inappropriate due to adequate citing or other reasons. This is known as a content dispute and it happens all the time. If you have consensus on yoru side, it should be no problem to restore the tag. If it's more split or you're in the minority, check out Wikipedia:Resolving disputes for a variety of options. - Chunky Rice 18:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Does official Wikipedia policy reflect the consensus of editors. Is there a requirement for an administrator to uphold policy?

For example, if an editor is demonstrably uncivil, and I report it, should an Administrator be able to decide whether to ignore it, or should they be duty-bound to do something? And if the incivility continues, for how long can an Admin ignore it? -- 84.9.191.165 16:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Admins may not "trump" policy, but they may apply WP:IAR in some situations. In your given example, it's hard to imagine justifying incivil behavior, but it may be the opinion of an admin (or anyone) that the behavior isn't really incivil. In any case, if anyone, admins included, seems to display a pattern of ignoring policy without any real justification, it'd be the sort of thing that might warrant some kind of review. Arkyan • ^(talk) 16:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There is no requirements that an administrator actually "do something". However, admins are bound to uphold policy. So, for example, an administrator is not permitted to be blatantly uncivil but if you report this to another administrator, there's nothing that compels them to do anything about it. As a general rule, you should be reporting to the noticeboards, not to a particular admin. -- Yamla 16:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

If you have a problem with an admin, try chatting it out with them, but if you feel that this is not working take it to a noticeboard. Just be prepared for the folks on the noticeboard to agree with the admin. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 16:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Because our guidelines for when and when not to provide a citation are hopeless vague, the degree to which an article should have citations is a recurring problem with featured article candidates and reviews. A while back, I created user:Raul654/When to cite as a (work in progress) primer for when a citation is or is not required. Following yet another thread on wikipedia:attribution about this very issue, I've moved it to Wikipedia:When to cite with the intention of turning it from a workshop into policy. As the page says, I'm interested in getting as much input into this page as possible. Raul654 15:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Note: WP:REF#When_to_cite_sources ... deals with much of the same material. Blueboar 13:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

A discussion as to whether all schedules and programme lists for channels, along with a proposal for a change in What Wikipedia is not policy is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Schedules & program lists. -- tgheretford ( talk) 16:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

As per consensus, section 1.7.3 has been changed and updated to meet consensus on the talk page. -- tgheretford ( talk) 11:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like to ask if there is any policy regarding the notability for festivals and their value in making films notable. I ask because I am in a discussion in New York International Independent Film and Video Festival and I stumbled on this (subscription to IMDB required), establishing some guidelines. What do you think? Stellatomailing 23:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia notability covers festivals: A festival is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I think that IMBD can be edited merely by loging. However, I think IMBD has some oversight, so it's better than a web page, but I don't think it appropriate to copy information from http://www.nyfilmvideo.com/, into IMBD, and then into Wikipedia, citing IMBD as a reliable sources. New York International Independent Film and Video Festival has received significant, independent coverage, but that information does not seem to be making its way to the article. The present criticism section is POV, especially with words such as "high pressure", "exorbitant", "lack of legitimate festival status," "failed to capture mainstream media recognition," etc. -- Jreferee ^{( Talk)} 00:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jreferee, please note that the word preceding the comments is "reported" and there aren't WP:RS saying that the festival is good. Maybe those details would be better discussed in the Article talk page. But just to explain better my goal here, is if we can come up with an objective way of saying what are "good" festivals and what are not, like IMDB says in their page; some kind of exclusive policy, like we have for books. Stellatomailing 00:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

You might try your request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Festivals. -- Jreferee ^{( Talk)} 02:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm not exactly sure where to put this, but I think this is the right place to ask this.

I am wondering something about Wikipedia's policies. Why is it Wikipedia's Policy to merge separate articles. The cases I'm thinking about specificlly, are character pages. For example, Midna from The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess originally had her own article. It was then merged into the List of characters in The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess article.

My question is, shouldn't every separate idea, in this case, Video Game characters, have their own article?

I think each having a separate article adds to the overall detail of Wikipedia.

-- Mooshykris 19:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Because some articles are not notable, do not have enough verifiable sources, or fit better under the scope of a larger topic. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. Sephiroth BCR ( Converse) 19:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, to add comprehensiveness and context. If every VG character had a separate article, many of those would be very short, and either lacking in explanation for what they're about, or redundant in this explanation with related articles. Hence, lists. Works for TV characters, too. Relevant guidelines include WP:FICT. >Radiant< 13:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• When WP:FICT undergoes a rewrite (that will hopefully gain consensus), it will ultimately take this concept further. Junkyard lists are, after all, a temporary solution, and it's coming to a point where either those lists are turned into general articles about the cast of characters/world/whatever (by attaining an out-of-universe perspective). If that is impossible, they will be transwikied or (as a last resort) deleted. I'm looking forward to presenting the draft in the coming weeks, but for now, it's a matter of finding time to polish my ramblings :) — Deckill er 20:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

New proposed guideline: Wikipedia:Relevance. It's a big subject, naturally, so wide participation in its discussion is requested. See Wikipedia talk:Relevance for the rationale for its creation.-- Father Goose 04:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The question of what should go in an article may depend partially on its Wikipedia quality grade. Wikipedia's quality scale for biography articles is here. Any one editor can grade an article as Stub, Start, or B status (think development status). However, GA, A, or FA status (think refinement status) usually is determined through agreement between two or more editors. In particular, what goes in or remains out of GA, A, or FA articles is guided by predetermined criteria: Good Article (GA) criteria, A article criteria, and Featured Article (FA) criteria. For example, whether a particular piece of information is relevant to an Good Article GA-class article can be determined by reviewing the available Wikipedia reliable source material against the Good Article (GA) criteria. Not all facts or information makes it into a GA, A, or FA article. However, if a statement meets Good Article (GA) criteria, then it should be added (or should not be excluded). As for articles falling in Stub, Start, or B status, they have less criteria than GA, A, or FA articles. Some of the information about Stub, Start, or B status is listed in the quality scale. A lot of it has to do with whether the information to be added is supported by a Wikipedia reliable source. Generally, whether a statement should go in a particular Stub, Start, or B status article can be answered by reviewing Wikipedia's five article standards. In short, relevance seems to be particularly covered by Good Article (GA) criteria, A article criteria, and Featured Article (FA) criteria and generally covered by Wikipedia's five article standards. -- Jreferee ^{( Talk)} 17:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

There seem to be a lot of bots that do remove vandalism on Wikipedia quite effectively...however a huge section was deleted from London Bridge yesterday [3] at 00:46 which I have only just restored- seemingly noone who monitors that article having noticed it? Is this a flaw in the bot system? Why did it not stop this? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 00:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Bots aren't perfect. They will miss things on occasion, especially when faced with a persistent vandal. — Someguy0830 ( T | C) 01:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

There will always be RC patrollers to cut some slack.-- Kylohk 17:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem was caused by the fact that shortly after the initial vandalism (9 minutes) another user removed the vandalism word [4], but failed to restore the deleted text [5]. Is there any way to get the bots to detect that this has happened and revert to before the initial vandalizing occured? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 18:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It appears that minutes before, vandalism from the same user to the same article was actually reverted [6] and a message was left on their talkpage User talk:72.228.46.128. Perhaps there would be some way that ips that have been warned can automatically be put on a blacklist and have their edits reverted automatically? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 18:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Doing that would almost be equivalent to blocking them on their first offence. Tra (Talk) 18:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that people who vandalize suddenly change their ways and make good edits? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 20:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Some of them will stop if warned. Not all, but enough. — Someguy0830 ( T | C) 21:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Final warnings are often a powerful enough deterrent to keep them out of action for a while, I've rarely reported users I gave final warnings to on WP:AIV since they often stop.-- Kylohk 15:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Should we maintain huge lists of persons known by a certain first name as, e.g., in Sophia? What's the point? Do we really expect that people would search, say, Sophie Amundsen, under "Sophia"? -- Ghirla ^{-трёп-} 22:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe; I think the point is that there are some people named Sophia that will be searched by their first name (thus necessitating the disambig page), and you know the snowball effect of WP - Once the page exists, everyone who's interested in anything that closely resembles the subject of a disambig will drop their little favorite item/person/place/band/concept on there. I don't really think there's a solid way to decide which ones "deserve" to be on there - and I don't think there's a lot of precedent (or need) to cite the reason for inclusion on disambig pages. CredoFromStart ^talk 14:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

To address your issue, I clarified what may be added to Sophia based on the information listed at disambiguation. In addition, I added {{disambig-cleanup}} to the bottom of the page. See generally Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation. -- Jreferee ^{( Talk)} 15:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm interested in proposing to my girlfriend by creating a wikipedia page in which the search criteria are her first name and my last name. I've checked, and the page doesn't already exist. Is this a violation of the rules for article content? I don't really care if it gets deleted after the proposal, although it would be kind of nice if it remained on the site for a while for our friends and family who are interested to view it. Any info. would be great.

Thanks.

It would be deleted way too soon to be of any use to you. Friday (talk) 18:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

What you could do is make a userpage, and put it on there, but I don't know what the odds are of getting a google search on that. Martijn Hoekstra 19:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not MySpace. There are many sites that would be more useful to you for this idea. User pages are indexed by search engines, by the way. Adrian M. H. 19:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Dude! If you can't get it together to do the "present ring, drop to knee, stare deeply into eyes, and intone "Will you make me the happiest dude inna world...?" routine" then simply tell her your periods late and your family honour is at stake. Anyway, who would want to get engaged in the middle of an edit war? LessHeard vanU 19:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This is NOT a very good idea; if this page managed to survive more than 10 minutes, it would probably be hideously vandalized. I can see it now:

21:54, 13 June 2007 206.23.34.1 (Talk | contribs) Boopsie, will you marry me?

21:55, 13 June 2007 MisterVandal (Talk | contribs) Boopsie, will you marry me, you fat pig?

21:56, 13 June 2007 Quibbler (Talk | contribs) Boopsie, will you marry me, you fat pig? ^{citation needed}

21:57, 13 June 2007 WikiGnome (Talk | contribs) Boopsie, as a fat pig, ^{citation needed} will you marry me?

Also it doesn't belong here :). CredoFromStart ^talk 14:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this should have posted at Village Pump (proposals) . . . ;) Adrian M. H. 14:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

<Clicks link />. <Slaps forehead /> - Tiswas^{( t)} 15:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Ho ho. If you want to propose, just go pay her a visit! Wikipedia's not the place to do such things since it's not a social network, and your fiancee doesn't seem to be notable enough to warrent an article. Congratulations, by the way.-- Kylohk 15:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (films) has been debated as a proposed guideline for some time now. Two editors now propose that it be adopted as a guideline since there has been no discussion pro or con for some time. This seems to be reverse logic to me, but I'm tired of fighting that fight. I suggest that anyone with an interest visit that discussion ASAP. -- Kevin Murray 12:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note that Kevin is misstating the issue to cast a page he doesn't like like in negative light. Asking leading questions really isn't helpful. >Radiant< 12:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Why discuss the issues when you can discuss the opponent? -- Kevin Murray 13:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Indeed. I've been trying to get you to discuss the issue for quite a while, but for some reason that never seems to register. >Radiant< 13:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
      • In the absence of reasonable objection, it can probably be safely promoted. 81.104.175.145 15:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• To provide clarity that the discussion is over and that a consensus has been reached, it may be important to close and then archive the proposal discussion. To close a proposal discussion, indicate the outcome at the top. To archive a proposal discussion, a "top" template generally is be placed between the header and the top of the discussion and a "bottom" template will need to be placed at the bottom of the discussion. (See Template:Discussion top). -- Jreferee ^{( Talk)} 15:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

(firstly, sorry my english is not good enough)

I often read articles about Jewish people from differrnt countries. However, the fact they are Jewish is never mentioned absolutely. First of all it isn't written in the opening paragraph only in "Early life" or "History". But, even in these paragraphes the fact is not cleared, for example ( Albert Einstein):"Albert Einstein was born into a Jewish family in Ulm, Württemberg, Germany..." The fact he was born to a jewish family doesn't necessarily mean he is Jewish; it should be like "albert Einstain is Jewish-German-American". Secondly, Judaism (not as Christianity or Islam) is not only a religion but it is also tradition, culture, nationality and race. Therfore it is that important to write it in the opening paragraph clearly in addition to writing other origin/nationality.

GOER 17:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The German Wikipedia specifically mentions that while Einstein supported some Zionist goals, his relationship to Judaism was never of religious nature (being a staunch believer in the Old testament would be a little odd for a foremost expert on physical cosmology anyway). If it wasn't a central part of what he is notable for, then it shouldn't be in the intro. Malc82 17:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Einstein was just an example. you can see it in many other articles. However, I didn't talk only about religion. A lot of Jews are not religious but they are part of jewish culture, nationality... GOER 17:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's why it is mentioned in the text. But unless they are notable for being Jewish, it shouldn't be mentioned in the intro. If we did that every biography article would have to point out the religious and socio-economic background of its subject in the intro, which would also provoke unnumbered heated debates as to "How Catholic was JFK really" and so on. Malc82 18:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to explain it again... Judaism not as Catholic Christianity is not only religion, this is the difference. there is the "Jewish people", Zionism, Jewish culture... the religion marginal in this case. GOER 18:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, in my opinion there is no need to outline someone's Jewish roots in every lead of biographies. BTW, who is a Jew? Additionally, no cabal is supposed to be here :) -- Brand спойт 19:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

race? oh my...-- Svetovid 00:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

What religion isn't a tradition and part of a culture? The key is self identification. Too many Wikipedians are in a hurry to label subjects of biographies, either to stigmatize or claim ownership in a group. But our first responsibility is to understand people as they understand themselves. "Born to a jewish family" is a fact that can be established without overstepping that boundary. To label someone "Jewish" or "Christian" or "liberal" or "conservative" or "Marxist" requires a reliable source, preferably one that shows the subject personally identifies with the belief in question, and the baggage it entails. MoodyGroove 01:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

If you write that he's french for example, you need to write that he's jewish either, because it is the same thing. He belongs to the Jewish people exactly as he belongs to the French people. GOER 08:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. Being 'French' is an objective thing. France is a distinct political entity; a person is born within its borders or a person is not. An individual holds French citizenship or an individual does not. You can argue as much or as little as you like about how much that person identifies with a particular nation, but the place that they were born and the original citizenship that they held can be determined objectively. There's no objective, universally-agreed-on definition for Jewish. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 15:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

And if someone borns to french parents in America? is he French? it is the same thing. GOER 21:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Being French is certainly subjective... I know of a man, who's Father was born in Paris... but only because his grand-parents were traveling there at the time of his birth... All involved, man, father and both grand-parents are US Citizens. Not only does the French Government consider the father a French Citizen (because he was born in France), they consider his son to be a French Citizen (because he father was French, you see.) Of course the US Government will say they are both Americans.

So are father and son French? They certainly think of themselves as Americans. But you could argue that Technically they are French, but that would not really be an accurate discription in the context of an article ... and certainly not in any potential article about the son, who does not speak the language, has never even set foot in France and in fact highly dislikes the French (he was one of those who liked to call french fries "Freedom Fries" a few years back).

In any "labeling" of a person, we should primarily use whatever label they self-identify as... and then only if that self-identity has a relevance to why we have an article on him or her. Getting back to the original question, as writers of an encyclopedia, we have to ask: Does the issue of someone's Jewishness play a part in what makes him or her noteworthy? For some subjects the answer will be "yes", but for others the answer will be "no"... Einstein is a good example of that. He is notable for his brilliant physics... not his Jewishness or lack of it. So there really isn't any reason to make a fuss over it in his article. I would even argue that it could be left out all together as being irrelevant. On the other hand, an article on comedian Jacky Mason should mention it prominently, as his Jewishness is a very large part of his humor... ie what makes him notable. Blueboar 22:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not the same thing. It's not case of one person but a case of people. for 2000 years the jewish people has been scattered all over the world. If the they didn't keep their culture, tradition etc... in USA there is a big Jewish community (about 5 million). about einstein, he was associated with Zionism which associated with Jewish people...

you can't compare between being jewish to the 'french case' we mentioned before.. it is just not true. (& again.. sorry, my english is bad:P) [[User: GOER| GOER]] 20:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The ambiguity of this is exactly the reason that self identification ought to be the gold standard. It's not for the Wikipedia to decide who people are by labeling them. One should tread carefully, because we have a responsibility to get it right. It would be unfortunate if someone read their own biography and felt that we misrepresented their beliefs, or implied something that wasn't strictly true. It shouldn't happen. MoodyGroove 21:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

I have already writen it some times.. try to ignore the beliefs, we aren't talking here only about religion. There are a lot of things that affect jewsihness of someone. For example, in Einstein case, even though he wasn't religous he was associated with Zionism which associated strongly with someone's jewishness. Read the article you can see him with a kippa in synagogue, visiting Israel, he was proposed to be the president of Israel after Haim Weizmann and so on...

'Jewishness' was absolutely part of him. If some one does not deny his Jewishness I don't see any reason why not to write it. GOER 07:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I am speaking of the general case, and you are speaking of the specific case. As I said, the gold standard ought to be self identification. The next best thing is multiple reliable sources in those cases where the belief (or religion) is notable and important to the biography. I'm not an expert on Einstein, but if it's true that he was a practicing Jew with strong ties to Israel, it seems to me that the article should cover those facts. To me, that is more substantive, and more important, than the mere act of labeling him a Jew, which is sometimes abused on the Wikipedia in the form of yellow-badging. My point is that labels can be simplistic and imply baggage that may or may not exist in the subject's mind. So ask yourself this question: are you labeling someone for your own reasons, to push your own beliefs, or to make the article more accurate and informative, from a neutral point of view, with fairness of tone, and with a commitment to accuracy? I find it hard to believe that there aren't some very reliable sources available on someone as notable as Einstein, that discuss his Jewishness, and the extent to which it formed his identity. But giving carte blanche to label people Jewish in the lede, whether or not the person considers him or herself Jewish, and whether or not the person's Jewish is a notable part of the person's identity is not the answer. Again, we need to get it right. We have that responsibility to the subject of the biography. MoodyGroove 16:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

The first G-hit with the terms 'Einstein' and 'Jewish' is from the American Museum of Natural History. It reads in part:

As a young boy in Germany, Einstein was inspired to observe Jewish religious practices, but as he grew more fascinated by science, his interest in organized religion faded. Yet he retained a powerful sense of his Jewish identity. Einstein once referred to his relationship to the Jewish people as "his strongest human bond." In 1919, Einstein joined the Zionist movement and supported the establishment of a Jewish homeland in the Middle East. At the same time, he stressed the need for cooperation between Jews and Arabs.

However, the current section in the article that describes Einstein's religious views (which appears to be well sourced), tells me the question isn't settled, because it's not clear that Einstein believed in the God of the Bible. So for these types of situations, when it's important to discuss someone's relationship to Judaism (or any other -ism) why not go the extra mile and describe the relationship thoughtfully? In all its complexity? The question "What does it mean to be Jewish?" is philosophical, defies a simple answer, and Einstein was a complex man. Can a Jew reject the God of the Bible and still be a Jew? If there's a consensus about this point within Judaism, then it's reasonable to refer to Einstein as Jewish in the lede. MoodyGroove 22:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

I don't believe in god... & I am still proud Jewish... I am zionist, Israeli.. but i'm not religous. Am I not Jewish? GOER 08:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The question of what should go in an article depends partially on its Wikipedia quality grade. Wikipedia's quality scale for biography articles is here. Any one editor can grade an article as Stub, Start, or B status (think development status). However, GA, A, or FA status (think refinement status) usually is determined through agreement between two or more editors. In particular, what goes in or remains out of GA, A, or FA articles is guided by predetermined criteria: Good Article (GA) criteria, A article criteria, and Featured Article (FA) criteria. Albert Einstein now is an A class article. Whether the Albert Einstein article should include a statement such as " Albert Einstein is Jewish-German-American" can be answered by reviewing the available Wikipedia reliable source material against the A article criteria. Not all facts or information about a person makes it into a GA, A, or FA article. However, if a statement such as " Albert Einstein is Jewish-German-American" meets A article criteria, then it should be added. As for articles falling in Stub, Start, or B status, they have less criteria than GA, A, or FA articles. Some of the information about Stub, Start, or B status is listed in the quality scale. A lot of it has to do with whether the information to be added is supported by a Wikipedia reliable source. Generally, whether a statement such as "xxxxxxx is Jewish-American" should go in a particular Stub, Start, or B status article can be answered by reviewing Wikipedia's five article standards. -- Jreferee ^{( Talk)} 14:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

This template makes a row in a table, which can easily be made with table formatting. The table formatting is more flexible, allowing for cases like a bridge on a county line. The template is also harder for new editors to learn. Why do we use this? -- NE2 21:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Because (1) bridges are not supposed to be in junction lists. (2) Templates may be easier to learn than tables, as I only started editing tables ~3-4 months ago. [It may not be the same for other users, but] I got the hang of templates immediately. (3) It looks like you're only bringing this up to illustrate WP:POINT, in which other users have disagreed with you in the past. ( → zel zany - fish) 22:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking for input from other people, not the ones that are already involved. -- NE2 22:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Concur with Vishwin60. Well, they'll oppose too because only you want this changed and other project members don't. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 22:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Projects do not own articles. Can you guys can it until we get more input? Thank you. -- NE2 22:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Then you can say policies and guidelines don't own it either. ( → zel zany - fish) 22:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me that the template is preferable because of the colors and the tooltip text on each cell. Tables with all the styles would have code that looks intimidating and harder to manage. If someone ever decides to change a color or tooltip, it's much easier to change this way. – Pomte 12:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• It's been suggested that productive editors get special treatment, and Administrators may turn a blind eye if they are uncivil, edit war, or break other policies. Is there a policy to support this?
• I would argue that this is counter-productive, since one productive editor with poor behavior, does not out outweight all the editors they affect, nor the other editors who might contribute to Wikipedia if things were more civil, and there was less warring? -- 84.9.191.165 16:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It also, perhaps, gets applied more along the lines of giving better treatment to editors with a lot of powerful friends, rather than necessarily ones actually better for the project in general. *Dan T.* 16:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think productive editors get "special" treatment... but I do think their view points tend to be given more of a hearing by admins when settling disputes. One could make the argument that longtime editors have earned some extra respect due to their productivity. The solution for the relative newbie or unproductive editor is to become a productive editor themselves... by contributing good edits to the project. That said, poor behaviour should never to be condoned, and both long standing productive editors and newbies should always be corrected (politely) when they engage in it. Blueboar 17:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Like it or not people who take the time to register and use their account names when editing get more respect and have more credibility. -- Kevin Murray 20:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Anon vs. non-anon is a whole different matter than productive vs. non-productive, IMO. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 21:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can make a mistake every once in a while. Even a big one, like 3RR violation, that normally earns a block under the rules. When you make that mistake after 3 years of productive contribution rather than 15 minutes after registering though, people are more understanding and less likely to block you or claim you're a vandal. Since blocking is intended to be preventative of future damage rather than a punishment, this is both sensible and in accordance with the spirit of the rules. If you are a productive long-standing member, we have seen your actions and know that you are not trying to harm Wikipedia. As such, it is much harder to justify blocking you preventively vs. warning you that you just did something that would normally earn a block and should make sure not to do it again. -- tjstrf talk 20:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• My experience more closely follows *Dan T.*'s suggestion of "giving better treatment to editors with a lot of powerful friends", and that productive editors do seem to get "special" treatment, as illustrated by another editor's comment "he's too productive an editor to deal with more harshly " [7].
• We could all be more productive if we didn't have to follow the rules, and admins turned a blind eye.
• And yes, I also have more respect for people who register with their real names, but that's not justification for some to misbehave against them.
• And yes, people make mistakes. But how many times are they allowed to make the same "mistake". And experienced editors and Admins should know better -- 84.9.191.165 20:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Asshole anons and asshole established editors are still assholes. Position in the community should have very little weight on any administrative issues (though note I said "should" and not "doesn't"). It's not like we'd turn a blind eye if Jimbo deleted the main page or anything. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I feel that tjstrf's comment most closely approxiamates the spirit of WP's position, in that infractions are viewed in context to the miscreants general contributions. However, I acknowledge that *Dan T.*'s observation is (depressingly often) evident when an contribtor launches an Appeal to Authority argument when warned/commented about actions, which are then supported by other editors (or sometimes promoted by them).

Anyone who says "I have been a Wikipedian for X years with Y,000 edits to my name, so my actions are correct" rather than attempt to explain their actions does not seem to have understood the ethos of WP in all that time, but one with such a record who transgresses may often received AGF where there might be extenuating circumstances. LessHeard vanU 22:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• I think it's actually more like Everyone gets the benefit of the doubt - some editors have just used theirs up. Established productive editors are usually handled gently - but so are new editors who haven't earned any "street cred". Editors who've demonstrated they're only here for inappropriate purposes aren't likely to be given the extra leeway we might dispense otherwise. Wily D 14:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe that we expect all editors to adhere to community-established standards of courtesy and civility. I have occasionally blocked longstanding editors for persisting in various sorts of antisocial behaviour. If it seems that new contributors get less leeway or are blocked more often, there may be several processes at work:

• If a user conduct problem arises, the amount of effort the community is willing to put into redeeming a user is roughly proportional to the amount of effort the user has put into a community. Wikipedia is not therapy; past a certain point, we're just not going to be willing to put thankless effort into trying to acculturate a new editor who just doesn't 'get it'. We are apt to put more effort into an established editor with a history of good contributions—in such cases we know that they are capable of positive contributions.
• Editors who have been around for a long time are familiar with the culture, and have seen how Wikipedia is managed. They take warnings more seriously (or recognize when they are about to be blocked, at least) and know when to back off. New editors don't have this experience.
• 'Old hands' are also more likely to realize, after they've screwed up, that they have screwed up. If they do get blocked, they're more likely to have the good sense to acknowledge their error, offer a mea culpa, and be unblocked. New editors have a tendency to fly off the handle and start screaming about 'censorship' and 'abuse'—this strategy seldom results in an unblock.
• Long-term editors are more of a 'known quantity' than new or unregistered editors. Admins are more likely to trust (or at least, to know if they can trust) editors with whom they are familiar. Long-term editors have a vested interest in maintaining their reputations, and may be less likely to risk their credibility by resuming an edit war after receiving an early unblock.
• There is a natural selection process at work, as well. Senior, long-term editors are, by definition, individuals who both enjoy contributing to Wikipedia and who have successfully avoided doing anything to earn a long-term block. Editors who don't fit Wikipedia's culture get weeded out early, consequently the preponderance of blocks goes to newer accounts.
• Editors who have been on Wikipedia a long time are much more likely to be admins than people who just signed up (or who lack an account altogether). This may contribute to the impression (for the reasons I have listed) that admins or a cabal or clique of oldtimers exists which gives preferential treatment to senior editors.

Hope that helps. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 14:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, editors who've been shown to consistantly edit war are far greater risks to keep doing it than editors with an established history of not doing it. People aren't blocked for violating rules, they're blocked to stop their disruptive behaviour. Editors with long histories of non-disruptive behaviour are far lower risks of being disruptive than editors with long histories of disruptive behaviour are. Wily D 14:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think established editors get special treatment. I have seen this editor who has made major contributions to a WikiProject, and yet is sent to the ArbCom numerous times and eventually banned due to edit warring. So, I guess equality holds most of the time.-- Kylohk 11:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia should have a function that allows readers to send articles through email. The sender should be able to include their name, email address, and a brief note.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.51.81.217 ( talk • contribs)

If you want to create a page without registering an account with Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Articles for creation, but it's easier to create an account. No personal information is required. What advantage would a system of creating articles by email have? The only situation I can think of is for someone who has access to email but not the World Wide Web, or who is blocked from editing wikipedia by a local policy, such as one which bans any url with "&action=edit" in it.- gadfium 06:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Also see Wikipedia:Why create an account? Sala Skan 20:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware there was recently a large RfC regarding {{spoiler}}, but I simply don't have the time to delve through all the talk. Would it be appropriate to place a spoiler warning in a section of an article about a TV show regarding events which not have aired? Thanks. east . 718 21:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

{{spoiler}} provides instructions on its present appropriate use. However, it might be kind to consider other user's opinions at RfC Spoiler warning before taking action. Of course, many editors operate from a Be Bold approach. In the end, we all are responsible for our own edits and its best to strive to make each edit one that will improve Wikipedia. -- Jreferee ^{( Talk)} 02:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

How can an encyclopaedia article cover events that haven't yet happened, and who goes around changing all these articles after the show has been aired, and do they take into account the fact that the show might not have yet been aired in some other country? Dan Beale 18:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I was looking through CAT:TEMP today, and I noticed the huge amount of user talk pages in the category. Should user talk pages be ignored when deleting pages in this category, or should they be deleted just like a user page? Sean William @ 23:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks like Template:Indefblockeduser adds indefinitely blocked user pages to Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages. This was discussed here, where Pathoschild explained that

Indefinitely blocked userpages are deleted after roughly a month, as the category description explains, except for sockpuppets and banned users. The category allows administrators assisted by scripts to easily find such pages, without false positives such as Wikipedia:Template messages/User namespace.

-- Jreferee ^{( Talk)} 17:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm talking about user talk pages. Are they fair game for deletion as well? Sean William @ 17:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

How do I delete my user and user talk pages? has some information about deleting talk pages. Unfortunately, it does not specifically address User talk pages with CAT:TEMP on them. Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages seems to address user pages, but says nothing about user talk pages. -- Jreferee ^{( Talk)} 19:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Right so should we delete the talk pages or not? —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 19:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

My guess is "No" per How do I delete my user and user talk pages?, but I requested clarification from Pathoschild on his talk page and asked him to respond in this thread. -- Jreferee ^{( Talk)} 19:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The same logic generally applies to user talk pages which only contain warnings, trolling, or mundane discussion. That said, a deleting administrator might sometimes decide that the discussion is significant enough to keep indefinitely; a good balance in those cases is to blank the page with {{ indefblockeduser|historical}}, which keeps the discussion available in the edit history while removing it from search results and removing it from the deletion category.

So, yes: user talk pages should be deleted as well, unless they're historically significant. —{ admin} Pathoschild 20:58:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to clarify this. -- Jreferee ^{( Talk)} 21:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The images used for the flags at the Brethren Court article are listed as being on Commons, some of them created by users, others copied from other sites with claims of GFDL. But all of them are derived images from the film. Can somebody take an image like a flag, from a movie, draw it up, and then claim they own the copyright to it and release it for Wikipedia's use? Corvus cornix 23:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Check out Commons:Derivative works. -- Jreferee ^{( Talk)} 21:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It looks like those images need to be deleted from Commons. Corvus cornix 18:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Can screen shots from movies or TV shows be used to illustrate articles about the characters who appear in the screen shot? Or can they only be used in articles about the shows/films themselves? Corvus cornix 22:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

If there is something distinctive about the character's appearance which would not be satisfactorily explained with a (presumably free-use) image of the actor, then it would seem reasonable to use a screenshot. The only alternative would be for someone to take a picture of the actor "in costume" at some event, and even then there are issues (I seem to recall that pictures of people in Darth Vader outfits infringe something or other). HTH HAND — Phil | Talk 17:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand that screen shots can't be used in the actor's article, but I'm less sure about the character's article. Corvus cornix 18:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Some of the talk pages for the tags at Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags/All#Screenshots screenshots address this question. Also, the TV tag reads "for identification and critical commentary on the station ID or program and its contents" and the movie tag reads "for identification and critical commentary on the film and its contents." They may come across differently if they read "program or its contents" or "the film or its contents." It seems that you could use a screenshot of a character as "contents" if it were being discussed as part of discussing the TV program or the film. As for using a screenshot of a character in an article about the character rather than an article about the TV program or the film, I think Phil's answer covers it. -- Jreferee ^{( Talk)} 21:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Corvus cornix 18:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I have started a notability proposal for awards. I invite everyone to edit the proposal and comment on the talk page. - N 17:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

What is the policy on deleting from a article's discussion page? Having not paid attention to an old discussion from months and months ago (which seems to have been resolved), I'm unhappy with some of the aspersions cast therein! Any suggestions? Blaise Joshua 12:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleting talk info is not within the limits of standard practice, however, archiving the talk pages certainly push old discussion into the "out of sight, out of mind" area. Check out WP:ARCHIVE for instructions on the the best way to do this. CredoFromStart ^talk 17:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

In mid-April, a major change to WP:RS went by with little notice. Previously, the "Scholarship" section began:

"Wikipedia relies heavily upon the established literature created by scientists, scholars and researchers around the world. Items that fit this criterion are usually considered reliable. However, they may be outdated by more recent research, or controversial in the sense that there are alternative scholarly explanations. Wikipedia articles should point to all major scholarly interpretations of a topic."

It was changed by this edit to read:

"Wikipedia relies in part on material written by scientists, scholars, and researchers around the world. These may be outdated by more recent research, or may controversial in the sense that there are alternative scholarly and non-scholarly treatments. Wikipedia articles should therefore ideally rely on all majority and significant-minority treatments of a topic, scholarly and non-scholarly, so long as the sources are reliable.

(Substantive changes are bolded.) Notice that this puts scholarly and non-scholarly sources on an equal footing. Do we really want to put newspaper op-eds and the like on a par with peer-reviewed journals and reports from the National Academy of Science? I'm really bothered by the fact that a major change to one of Wikipedia's most important principles went by with nary a peep, and was implemented with an edit summary of "tidied writing, removed bits that made little sense or stated the obvious."

More discussion here, which I encourage all interested to read. Raymond Arritt 22:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this. Adrian M. H. 15:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll on the proposed replacement for this section. Tim Vickers 22:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, but perhaps the article could have mentioned the different views in different ages in the history section, such as when they used to claim the sun goes around the Earth, etc.-- Kylohk 21:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been seeing a major problem with "semi-protected" pages especially in relation to the Brock Lesnar page. Though there are numerous other pages with the same problem, My personal experience is with that page. That page is on an "indefinite full protection"(it keeps being re-protected when the time expires, for months on end) apparently due to a single vandal making sockpuppet accounts. Apparently this person makes "sleeper accounts" and waits for a few days to be able to edit semi-protected articles and then vandalizes them. I wanted to know if it would be possible to change the policy to make it so editors can't edit semi-protected pages unless they have both waited 5 days as well as have made at least a dozen good non-vandalism edits. This would erase the possibility of making "sleeper accounts" because most vandals would not go through the trouble of making 12 good edits simply to make one vandalism edit which will instantly get reverted and get them banned as a sockpuppet. I believe this would drastically decrease the amount of vandalism to semi-protected pages on Wikipedia and prevent pages such as Brock Lesnar (just a single example among many) from being indefinitely protected due to fear of a single vandal. We're currently being held hostage by vandals with "sleeper" sockpuppets who are able to vandalize pages after waiting the amount of time needed to edit semi-protected pages. We need to make it so in order to edit semi-protected pages you need at least 12 good edits and must be a registered user for at least 5 days. When I say "good edits" I simply mean edits of anykind because if they were vandalism, the person would be banned before ever being able to get to the necessary 12 to vandalize semi-protected pages. Both the waiting period and the minimum edit-count would be required to curtail many vandals who vandalize semi-protected pages. It should be both a waiting period of a few days as well as an edit minimum prior to being able to edit semi-protected pages. If they had a choice they would choose to build sleeper sock puppets, making several at a time just to wait out the time period and then vandalize pages. There needs to be both a waiting period as well as an edit minimum prior to being able to edit semi-protected pages. I got support for this when I posted it on Wikipedia talk:Protection policy and was told I should bring it here which has higher traffic. I would like some input on this proposal as well as methods for enacting such a policy. I believe it would drastically improve our ability to fight vandalism against semi-protected articles and spot vandals prior to them being able to edit semi-protected articles. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 11:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• I think that you are on the right track, but the proposed standards should be stricter. For example (1) registration to edit, and (2) one month waiting period to edit semi-protected articles. A serious new contributor with good information can submit the information through the talk page. I think that a criterion for number of "good edits" could be defeated in a matter of minutes with minor meaningless edits. -- Kevin Murray 11:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I disagree. A 1 month waiting period might be too long firstly, I believe that 1 week is more than enough. Secondly, A minimum number of edits is absolutely necessary IN ADDITION to the waiting period prior to being able to edit semi-protected articles. Many vandals make "sleeper puppets", several at a time, and then let them wait the minimum amount of time required before they can edit semi-protected articles and then vandalize them copiously. Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Verdict is an example of such a person who basically holds articles such as Brock Lesnar hostage so they must be in an indefinite state of total protection which harms the articles themselves. It's true that some vandals might make the 12 necessary edits to vandalize an article however it's not as easy to make 12 edits as you might think. If you think they could easily defeat the criterion for the number of edits, then we can make it 20 or 24. Would a vandal really make 24 edits and wait a week just to vandalize a page once or twice? I doubt many would. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 12:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe the current wait period for new accounts is 4 days. Has this been shown to be insufficient? The proposal to add 12 "good edits" makes some sense, but doesn't cover 12 vandalism edits done by a 4-day old account. You could possibly specify 12 edits done at least 4 days before the wait period expires (enough time to catch a vandalism account), but as you add more and more restrictions against abusers like Verdict, you shut down legitimate contributors in the process, and truly determined abusers can adapt to any restriction anyway.

I was unable to upload a touched-up version of an image I had uploaded to a new account on the Commons, and had to wait 4 days. Although that particular situation could be fixed (new users should be allowed to overwrite their own images), each restriction you add can inadvertently affect good editors. Restrictions should be judged against their impact on every editor before judging their effectiveness against bad editors.-- Father Goose 20:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe a 7 day waiting period plus a minimum edit count of 30 edits would make more sense. 99% of vandals won't go through the effort to do this and if they just started randomly vandalizing they would be banned long before they reached 30 edits. This would only apply to semi-protected pages which new users can't edit to begin with, IP editors can't edit at all. The advantages would far out weigh any potential problems. Good faith editors could easily request on the talk page the changes they want to have made or just wait the 7 days and make 30 edits to change it themselves if it's not that important. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, just so everyone knows, I've created a draft proposal at Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed Proposal about this change, and I've also got confirmation from a dev that this is possible. So lets get this implemented soon. - Royalguard11( Talk· Review Me!) 01:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

A proposal has been made to incorporate a new wording on reliable sources (that is based on a proposal that was approved unanimously in a straw poll at the WP:Reliable sources talk page) into the WP:Verifiability policy. The proposed new section is on the policy talk page at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Sources 2. Tim Vickers 20:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Background:

I had a disagreement about the name/nature of a spin off page recently that was unresolved. In the interest of WP:AGF I've given some time for everyone to cool off, but I still would like to resolve the dispute and be able to apply the resolution to my future interactions regarding similar future issues. On the L. Ron Hubbard article, I added a significant amount of information concerning his service during WW 2. The info was spun off into an article now called L. Ron Hubbard and the military.

WP:SS as I understand it:

Summary style is the way large articles are organized and trimmed down to sizes which are outlined in WP:SIZE. Since the WW2 service was spun off I maintain that the new article should be about the information moved from the main article.

Other's view:

Several respected editors assert that the new article is not an extension of the original article into a series. They gave me the impression the article is a sort of sub-page for detailed discussion of his relationship with the military in general via his brief USMC service and later forming a paramilitary type organization.

Question:

I simply want to know how this guideline is interpreted. Anynobody 00:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd think that either would be an acceptable sub-article, and we can always revise the scope of an article or sub-article if there is similarly themed information that isn't a full article yet but still long enough for it to be desirable for a split to be made from the main page. If there's enough information on his paramilitary organization for its own page though, then keeping it and his WWII page seperate would probably make more sense. -- tjstrf talk 01:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure this was done with the best of intentions, but I think there's a *lot* to be said for keeping our L. Ron Hubbard coverage in a single article. -- Visviva 01:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It is a difficult situation, since both arguments do make sense. How I came to the view I have was by laying them each out in a flowchart and seeing which one "flowed" better (FYI The Sea Org is the paramilitary organization I was referring to.) Anynobody 01:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Visviva I don't disagree with your point, but if the article were to be split how should the split page be treated? (Not just for Hubbard but any article) Anynobody 01:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion taking place here regarding whether infoboxes should be used for opera singers. Please weigh in if you'd like. (Notes left at WP:VP, WT:WPBIO, WT:CM, and WT:MUSICIANS.) -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 00:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

If a user who may be in danger of a ban claims to have created many sockpuppets in advance for the purpose of harassing certain users in the future, what would be the right course of action to take? DrumCarton 13:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

First, consider reporting him to WP:AN/I or WP:RAA for such behavior since those channels deal with block evading users. If he does do that due to the ban, report him at Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets, and quote that particular phrase as evidence. That should be able to handle the situation.-- Kylohk 17:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Kylohk... Threaten to block all their sockpuppets. Then report them. MPS 19:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

But the user isn't blocked yet. I'm wondering is there anything to be done now? DrumCarton 22:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

If you think you have an idea of what the sockpuppet user accounts are, it would certainly be a good idea to start listing them. IMHO it is a perfectly legitimate use of your user account namespace to compile draft information that might later help your editing/contributions. An example would be wikilinking all the suspected accounts at User:DrumCarton/samplepage. Wikipedia:wikiquette would probably dictate that you don't distribute this list around until you are 90% sure that there is sockpuppetry going on and 95% sure that the names on the list are related to the original person. The ethic of Wikipedia: Assume Good Faith means that you take due diligence to avoid inclusion of unrelated user accounts among the accused sockpuppets. Yeah, so... that's what I think... others may have other opinions. Peace, MPS 00:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I have been attempting to upload a picture file, and have now secured for it the CC 3.0 license. However, my Wikipedia mentor has told me that it hasn't been declared free enough for our use here on Wikipedia. I would like to know, when do you think this license, more so than the 2.0 or 2.5, might become free enough for standard Wikipedia use? While I want to attempt to secure a lower-level (2.0, 2.5, etc) license in the meantime, I really would like to know why this current license is not also relevant. Thank you, Mediathink 02:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• It hasn't been evaluated yet, and Wikipedia is very sensitive to licensing. I took a look at it, and I noticed it added a requirement the previous ones did not (preservation of change history). Isn't that one of the incompatibilities with the GFDL? - N 03:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, the problem arose because some editors felt that explicitly mentioning moral rights made the license too restrictive. The Creative Commons offers a good explanation of the change here. The CC-BY-SA-3.0 states "You must not distort, mutilate, modify or take other derogatory action in relation to the Work which would be prejudicial to the Original Author's honor or reputation."

You could request that copyright holders dual-license the work under both the CC-BY-SA-3.0 and the CC-BY-SA-3.0-US. The CC-BY-SA-3.0-US does not explicitly mention moral rights. — Remember the dot ^{( talk)} 05:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

If it's an image for an article, you may want to see if it falls under Fair use. Od Mishehu 08:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is the now valid link for the CC 3.0 Discussion : commons:Commons_talk:Licensing/Creative_Commons_3.0 – Esurnir 02:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion closed. Please deal with content disputes in an appropriate location.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi, I, User:WHEELER was one of the early editors at Wikipedia. I was chased off awhile back. I came back on just to add Sparta as a republic at List of republics. I am constantly reverted. I have a ton of evidence! I posted all of it. But the last time I was one the biggest policy was NPOV but now I have come across another even greater policy "PER CONSENSUS". You state that Wikipedia is NOT a democracy---But in the bowells of Wikipedia--there is Clique that I must pass muster and no matter how much evidence-----------I am reverted! Consensus? How does a Monarchist, a traditionalist as myself, have "consensus" with Marxists? I can't edit the republic article because I am constantly reverted! I had my article The Spartan Republic published at Sparta a Journal. Yet, I post this, and the Clique will NOT allow Sparta on the list of republics. Why is that? Furthermore, how can you have NPOV when a Consensus must approve of my edit? that is Illogical! What happened to verifiability and NPOV? You can't have NPOV AND consensus at the same time---that is illogical. I am glad I am at Wikinfo. I don't have to satisfy a clique of Marxists!!! WHEELER 19:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC) NPOV? My ass! Consensus destroys NPOV. WHEELER 19:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC) ONLY the POV of the clique is allowed WHEELER 19:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC) You've posted this message at three locations already. The proper location to hold this discussion was at the article's talk page (where you did happen to post this also). I have replied there. Again, you are part of the consensus building process. There is no sense of consensus having to "approve" your edits, but that you must participate in a consensus building process if there are disagreements regarding a certain edit. Sancho 19:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC) I'm not sure that I completely agree. Sometimes a cabal gets hold of an article and area and special interests can manipulate consensus evaluations. I'm not sure that there is a simple solution, but I'm glad that Wheeler shared the concern in the light of day. No easy answer. -- Kevin Murray 20:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC) To quote another editor, this is systematic POV-pushing by a known purveyor of Original Research. Sparta was a monarchy; in fact, it had two kings at a time. This is a single-purpose account, pushing an obsolete definition of "republic" he found in a book published in 1824; it is being given due weight as the view of a tiny minority. I thank Kevin Murray for his care and his courteous retraction. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC) This is NOT original research at all. I quoted Political Ideologies and the Democratic Ideal, Terence Ball and Richard Dagger, 2nd ed, HarperCollins College Publishers, l995. I quoted Paul A. Rahe who wrote a three volume study on Republics, Ancient and Modern. There are TWO definitions of republic Modern and Classical. There was a modus operandi, a consensus, many moons ago at Wikipedia between Kim Bruning and myself. The Moderns had their Republic article and I had Classical definition of republic. The link was in the inro to the Republic article. I was fine with this arrangement. Later on, Classical definiton of republic was voted off. And SimonP created like three different articles out of that Mixed government, Classical republics, Classical republicanism. Classical republics should be conjoined with mixed government or vice a versa. I have not posted my opinions on republics but only from Rahe and Terence Ball. That is NOT original research. And according to original research, my paper, The Spartan Republic did get accepted to a Journal in England and is online. There is an academic advisor on board. And they did accept it. WHEELER 21:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC) WHEELER's quotation from Ball says nothing about Sparta; I cannot comment further without a copy of the book in front of me. Rahe is a Carolina eccentric who believes, like John C. Calhoun, that the Constitutional Convention was a mistake. His views are, perhaps fortunately, still those of a tiny minority. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC) You said yourself, "still those of a tiny minority" that means NPOV kicks in. The definition of a republic by Ball says, "A republic is mixed". That is what it says. It doesn't say anything about Sparta. I have classical reference books that state Sparta is a republic. And Cicero, who is a Roman Lawyer, said Sparta is a republic due to it being MIXED. You can't mistake that. WHEELER 22:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC) There are only two things wrong with this quotation: It is incomplete: What Ball actually says is that the Roman Republic was a mixed government, and that "A republic, then, was a form of popular government, but it was not meant to be a democracy." It is out of context. Ball is summarizing the views of Polybius and Aristotle. He is not stating his own. I see no profit to discussion with any editor who abuses his sources so badly, as WHEELER has always done. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC) Pmanderson expresses a majority viewpoint because academia, who are majority democrats and a lot of them socialists, do not speak or tell the truth. WHEELER 22:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC) It is our policy to follow the consensus view, not WHEELER's claim of the Truth. Hire a blog. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC) I said I was open to negotiation at the Talk:Republic page. I am very open to negotiation. I placed my references. They were deleted. I ask with references being deleted why verifiability? Everything I post is with references. That doesn't seem to matter at all. WHEELER 21:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC) Getting a little more PISSED OFF You talk of consensus. I am on Talk:List of republics. I have refuted every argument, and placed copious amounts of references. Just now, I go back and User:Pmanderson has just reverted and added his own stuff. I have the quotes. Paul A. Rahe said Sparta IS a republic. Where is the discussion? THERE IS NO discussion on the talk page. Pmanderson refuses to acknowledge references! I am not leaving. Sparta is a republic and IT WILL BE PLACED on that page! NPOV is the WP policy! Who is going to enforce NPOV over the clique that guards those articles.! He even deleted the references. Sparta and Crete had the only references on that page---and User:Pmanderson erases it all. What's up Wikipedia? What is going on Wikipedia? WHEELER 21:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC) Where is the negotiation? WHEELER 21:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC) You are correct, there hasn't been any discussion. I will ask Pmanderson to join discussion at the article's talk page. Sancho 21:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC) Oh, it was happening above... sorry. I got confused. I started a section in the article's talk page that you two can hopefully use together to come to an agreement. Sancho 21:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC) Thank you Mr. Sancho for starting negotiations. I am at Talk:Republic. WHEELER 22:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC) Regarding your question on consensus and other policies This was transferred from my user talk page. I think you've missed something here; perhaps I can explain. Wikipedia's policy of consensus does not override other policies, it's how those other policies work. It is through a consensus that phrasing is accepted as NPOV, it is by consensus that we judge whether references are relevant and useful where there is uncertainty. If we did not seek consensus, every single person would simply battle away with their own personal view of the One NPOV Truth, and we would be left with permanent edit wars and incoherent, contradictory articles. Hope this makes sense. -- Nema Fakei 00:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC) That is not the definition of NPOV when I started at Wikipedia. NPOV meant that ALL AND ANY information is included. I thought NPOV is about inclusion of both sides. I have a reference that says A. And another one that says B. Both are included. See Nema Fakei, your answer sets me up for it says that User:Pmanderson can just disqualify any and all references I make. This is what he has done. He doesn't accept NOTHING. Your answer Nema Fakei backs up User Pmanderson to stall, obfuscate and DISCOUNT EACH and every reference I have. This is what consensus means is that a whole majority can sit there and deny and deny freely and by doing so censor opposing viewpoints. Your consensus nullifies any reference I make and so negates NPOV. This is how you get around NPOV. IT is called gaming the system and that is exactly what your friend Pmanderson is doing. WHEELER 01:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC) I have had reference upon reference that backed each other up and he deletes it. Pmanderson refers to I. M. Finley who calles Muller's research a "Thousand page fantasia". Now, Muller is critical of democracy and is a promoter of Aristocracy. I read his book--It is fantastic. Werner Jaeger, the German classicist who wrote the magesterial Paideia quotes him. I. M Finley is a Communist and a member of the Frankfurt School. Just because this Commie belittles a book, gives the right to User:Pmanderson to discount every reference from Mr. Muller. This is consensus. On references to Paul A. Rahe. User:Pmanderson says Rahe is an eccentric, so the Consensus says--we discount him. By attacking all my references, the clique in control, "This secret consensus", can discredit every single reference I have! This is now Wikipedia Policy! I have had enough of this BS. WHEELER 01:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC) I tried explaining this on the policy page a long time ago. What happened with the Classical definition of republic is that a whole bunch of British (modern) republicans ganged up and voted that off! FACT: over some 80% of all American faculty of colleges and universities ARE democrats and especially Socialists. Socialists do manipulate language and learning to further their ideology! That is a Fact. With a majority who are democrats and socialists teaching a majority of people----Me and people like me, Old School, traditionalists, Monarchists---are shit out of luck. With your """consensus""" you ensure that we are marginalized and censored. But that is the whole point of WHO CREATED THE Consensus Policy at Wikipedia! WHEELER 01:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC) Remember to stay civil in your comments and please do not jump to conclusions such as Wikipedia's consensus policys being only supportive of a certain political ideology. Captain panda 02:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Korean wikipedia admin say following:

• All user can't quote any copyritghted texts.
• All user can quote free license texts only.
• Beacuse Korean wikipedia policy don't allow american fair use.
• So all quoted non-free text must be deleted.

It is Official Policy of wikipedia project?

I Can't quote any copyritghted texts? It is nonsense.

I want to know what is foundation's official policy.

I think korean admins do vandal acts. -- WonYong ( talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 06:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The foundation policy is here: foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy, but it deals mostly with images. I don't know what policies they have over at the Korean Wikipedial, but there is probably no need to invoke US fair use for simple text quotes. Most legal juristictions will have some laws that allow for brief attributed quotes from copyrighted material, I'm pretty sure they could find something suitable in Korean law. The question is wheter or not the Korean porject want to allow quotes, if they do the foundation policy will allow them to draft up a "EDP policy" based for example on Korean law (it's likely not more liberal than US so not rely a problem there). However we can't force them to allow this, I suggest you take it to whatever suitable noticebord there is on the Korean Wikipedia for policy issues. Maybe the admin is just very overzelous or maybe it's actualy the policy, I don't know, but either way this is a matter for the Korean community, not the English one... -- Sherool (talk) 07:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It may depend on how much text you are quoting. In the English version of Wikipedia, quoting a sentence or two is ok (especially if you provide a citation and give proper attribution to the quote), but quoting a large chunk of text is not. In any case, Sherool is correct, this is an issue for the Korean community. If you think one Admin is wrong, ask other Korean Admins for their opinion. Blueboar 13:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

For your information the Korean Copyright law state

Article 25 (Quotations from Works Made Public)

It shall be permissible to make quotations from a work already being made public; provided that they are within a reasonable limit for news reporting, criticism, education and research, etc. and compatible with fair practice.

That's all I know about the quotation right, if there is something else I didn't saw it, and if there is a case law about what is a "reasonable limit for education and research" then the korean wikipedia have a better position to answer that question than I do. – Esurnir 02:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Community input is solicited regarding significant changes to interpretation and use of the biographies of living persons policy. Please make comments or suggestions at the talk page. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Seraphimblade, could you please provide a link to a section heading? Shalom ^Hello 06:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I could provide quite a few. :) Quite honestly, there are changes proposed all up and down that page, it's not all confined to one section header. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

As I already mentioned 2 days ago on the village pump (misc), the guidelines at WP:FUC and WP:FURG don't have the same standards for fair use rationales.

WP:FURG only asks for purpose, portion and replacability

By the way: the last requirement Any other information necessary to assist future Wikipedians in determining whether this image qualifies for fair use is just plain stupid. Why not just write "A fair use rationale has to comply with WP-policy" then.

WP:FUC requires much more, incl. a rationale for why there is no free version (which is totally obvious in most cases), minimal use, previous publication and significance (although there seem to be various interpretations of the last one).

FUC 6 is only a link to other guidelines and essays, including one to meta:Avoid copyright paranoia which includes this great statement:

• "As a practicing lawyer, I hate all the incredibly over-the-top "copyright paranoia" as you've so elloquently put it. I've taken copyrights, I've taken trademarks, I've taken international IP (so a bit of patents ;-) ) all while a law student. Infringing uses are easy to see and easy to remove on Wikipedia --yet people here get caught in such absurd legal minutia, seriously compounded by their often half-baked legal knowledge, that has such a small likelihood of becoming a problem. And what's the biggest joke of it "becoming a problem"? Simple: any of us can "erase" the problem material in a few keystrokes. Honestly people, to quote a famous decision in copyright law "the parties are advised to chill." Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc., 296 F.3d 894, 908 (9th Cir. 2002). --Bobak 19:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)"

What's even more confusing is that Betacommandbot's example of a good fair use rationale ( [8])is absolutely generic, while User:Durin, who seems to be the defender-in-chief for Betacommandbot, constantly argues that FURs have to be unique to each specific use in each specific article they're used in.

As long as the policy isn't clear, what's the use in tagging thousands of images.

Malc82 09:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The same as it always is; reduce the amount of copyrighted material on Wikipedia; further erode fair use rights; prepare Wikipedia for a "German-style" fair-use free future. There are some who claim it's all part of a major scheme to put billions of dollars (Google-sized bucks!) in the pockets of the foundation and Jimbo; I won't go that far, but I can see how some would believe this. Some Wikipedians seem quite excited to act on their evangelism for free/libre content, ignoring the inconvenient truth that the fair use of copyrighted material is still allowed on Wikipedia. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 09:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

And the sad part is, it's happening AGAIN. Betacommand has been down this road before - it's what cost him his admin status. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand#Automated_image_deletion for a prior round of mass image deletions, for which his was temporarily blocked. When was unblocked, User:Geni said, "I don't think he's going to be doing that again." Guess what? He's doing it again. (There's more good historical reading at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand#The_image_deletions_were_conducted_inappropriately and so on ... Eventually, his admin tools were stripped, but not, apparently, his desire to "purify" the Wiki-image world. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 09:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, just read through Betacommand's RfA (took some time). Incredible how someone with such a record of bot-abuse and antisocial behavior can get his bot approved in the first place. Malc82 10:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

No what cost him his admin status was running a bot under his own account. This one is approved. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 11:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

That really understates the "why." Betacommand lost his admin status for these reasons:

1. A poorly run automated image deletion
2. An image deletion campaign that ran counter to policy (sound familiar yet?)
3. Unsatisfactory communication regarding image deletions
4. Inappropriate username blocks
5. Unsatisfactory communication regarding username blocks
6. Use of an automated tool to disrupt Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names
7. Disruption of WP:AIV
8. High-speed removal of external links
9. Inappropriate link removals
10. The link removal was conducted inappropriately
11. Unsatisfactory communication regarding link removals
12. History of inappropriate blocks
13. History of poor judgment

That's not just "running a bot under his own name". And it's ridiculous that THIS is the person running a large-scale image tagging and removal campaign, when he/she has shown before, he/she can't handle it. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 16:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, WP:FUC is policy, while WP:FURG is a guideline. The guideline needs to fit the policy. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 11:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to make precisely this remark. If a guideline violates a policy, there is no "conflict", it just means that the guideline is probably wrong and needs {{ sofixit}}. Kusma ( talk) 11:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Then why does Betacommandbot link to a guideline that differs from the policy? This means that thousands of Wikipedians are asked to write a FUR that still violates the policy, meaning the next round will be that the bot contacts all of them again and asks for a better rationale. Do you see how stupid that is? Malc82 11:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I only got four warnings, but just look at [9] and you will see why this is disastrous. Malc82 11:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite see why you point me to the talk page of this user who has been indefinitely blocked for copyright violations. While this user can't review the images, others can, as the bot also leaves notes on the talk pages of articles using the disputed images. Kusma ( talk) 11:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The bot's edit summary links to WP:NONFREE, a page that transcludes Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Kusma ( talk) 11:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the bot's user talk message (as of minutes ago) is:

• Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image name. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

there are two links to WP:FURG, specifically linking to "suggestions on how to do so". Malc82 11:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

From what I can see here, Betacommand is doing nothing wrong. He was desysopped primarily for running a bot on his admin account and failing to respond to concerns related to the trouble it caused. He shouldn't have done that, and I can't argue with the decision to desysop for it. However, this time, he has been careful to act within both policy and norms ( CSD I6 is policy, it's actually not required that one notify the uploader or leave a message on the article talk for that, but it is considered polite, and he has done both of those things), and he is performing the bot actions with a flagged and approved bot. The editors who have violated policy are those who have uploaded and used fair-use images without providing proper rationales, not Betacommand for bringing that to their attention. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Eagle101 and Kusma, copyright is non-negotiable. Where it is stated in policy that a fair use rationale must be included according to Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria policy, and the consequences of violating this policy could result in deletion of images, sanctions if repeatedly violated by a user or worse if a copyright problem occurs, then the Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline should not be a standard that everyone should follow, as a guideline is defined, but it should be a policy that everyone must follow. As well, should WP:FURG become policy, the file upload wizard for fair use images should be changed to allow the input (maybe even insist on a licence, source and fair use rationale before an image can be uploaded under fair use?) of a fair use rationale, alongside the source text box and licensing drop down box. -- tgheretford ( talk) 17:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with copyright LAW. Where an identified LEGAL infringement is identified by a human user of Wikipedia, then I am 100% behind that user.

Obviously, there is a perceived problem with this indiscrimate and random bot (our friend Betacommandbot), and I personally feel that one major problem is its indiscriminate and apparently random nature.

If you give me, as an occasional Wikipedia uploader over the years, the chance to respond to ANY accusation of an invalid copyrighted upload, then I can FOR SURE answer you.

But if you give me 2-7 days only to respond, then there is no way I can guarantee a response 365-days-a-year, 24-hours-a-day - I am one of those humans who sadly has a non-Wikipedia/Internet-based life. However, since Wikipedia is (I understand) populated by human beings with a propensity to discuss any issues intelligently in lieu of idiotic knee-jerk reactions, I wouldn't imagine this could ever be a problem, and I therefore feel I am among understanding friends.

Well...

Not unless bots are introduced arbitrarily to make such apparently obvious complex and human decisions - and to make them, no less, in such totally arbitrary and unintelligent ways as regards time or context ("bot detects a bunch of text in the right place or not" appears to be the "intelligent" programming on display here).

The laughable situation seems to be this - if WP editors enter random licensing text such as "this is random licensing text to fool idiot bots", then the troublesome bot will almost certainly leave them alone.

Such is its intelligence.

Such is its value to Wikipedia.

Has it a value to Wikipedia then?

My answer would be: "absolutely not".

Note I do not dispute for one moment any "Wikipedia policies" - that is NOT the issue here.

And apologies in advance for any perceived cynicism.

Regards. -- DaveG12345 01:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

This section was about the fact that WP:FURG, which is the guideline stating how to write FURs, didn't comply with WP:FUC, the policy. This problem has been more or less solved in the meantime (by addition of one sentence linking from FURG to FUC). That FURs are needed if the policy states so wasn't the question brought up here (although it's a good one). To which extent FURs are needed is a different debate at WP:FUC. If the bot is achieving what it is meant for in a constructive way is another ongoing debate, mainly at its talk page. Malc82 08:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Please note that Betacommandbot only tags images, it's still up to a human being to actually do the deleting. If you have a problem with the actual deletion, take it up with the admin who did the deleting. Corvus cornix 21:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Please note that without BetacommandBot tagging, massive out-of-policy image deletetions wouldn't be happening. Or happening again. Make no mistake: BetcommandBot makes these deletions possible. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 04:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok Jenolen, before you make an ass of yourself read what your linking to. the ArbCom issue was a mistake that I made I wasnt careful and made a rookie admin mistake. Ive been through this before. DONT bring the arbcom case into this as it has NO wait in this case, its a blatant attempt to make me look like a stupid user. well Im following policy to the letter. the policy points to FURG on how to write a rationale. and as for Naconkantari's deletions, if you actually read the discussion instead of just pointing to it you would know that the admin made a mistake due to a recent change in the wording of the template. so instead of character assassination why not help improve the wiki? yes FURG had some errors but its being fixed. If you think Im the only thing making it possible you might see WP:CSD#I6 and WP:CSD#I7 which is policy. and has been used for a very long time. Betacommand ^{( talk • contribs • Bot)} 04:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

OK Betacommand, would you like to explain why you had to write "make an ass of yourself" over less offensive wordings like "make a fool of yourself" or "say something you might later regret"? Or do you honestly not care that you annoy or offend countless people with not only your actions but your language? I can think of several people who could run the exact same bot, tag the exact same images -- yet stir up far less trouble because they attempt not only to talk to their critics, but do so with repsect. -- llywrch 03:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand is right, those Arbitration findings have absolutely nothing to do with what is going on now. Betacommand is merely enforcing long-standing policy via an approved bot. If you have issues with what's happening, you should fix the policies and guidelines involved, not try to stop Betacommand from enforcing them. These images have been around for years violating the policy. As they say, don't shoot the messenger. ^ demon ^{[omg plz]} 04:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to correct my basic understanding of these instances: In both cases, yours and Naconkantari's, there was a massive, out-of-policy deletion of images that had been tagged by a robot as not conforming to Wikipedia policies. (From the arbcom ruling, passed 9-0: Betacommand's image deletions were conducted inappropriately and showed poor judgment because he used an inappropriate methodology of deleting all images tagged for speedy delete, with no regard for {{ Replaceable fair use disputed}} tags or talk page disputes concerning whether fair use deletion criteria applied.)

The key factor: In both cases, there was no HUMAN determination as to whether or not the images actually conformed to policy. And in your instance, you keep saying "Yes, I made a rookie mistake." (And in the other, you say Naconkantari made a mistake.) Uh, yes, you did! It's okay; thanks for fessing up to it. But I think it's important for people to realize that thousands of images were wiped out, wrongly. The encyclopedia is that much poorer... wrongly. And when the BetacommandBot tags thousands of images, and another editor then deletes those images, it's more than just a minor "whoops." I'm well aware you believe you are "following policy to the letter." You might perhaps be better served understanding policy, or working on understanding the reasons for policy; it's obvious that your enthusiastic enforcement actions have been the source of trouble for you on Wikipedia before. And while there must be those who admire your moxie and determination to keep doing what you think is right, I think there's a sizable (and growing) contingent who think you've definitely gone too far. I have yet to see a single post from you (and I'm sure they're out there, somewhere) that is anything but combative, or genuinely tries to build consensus. You have yet, to my knowledge, said anything like, "You know what, maybe I did go too far"... But of course, you don't think you have, and so, not unlike a certain President's dedication to courses of action, facts be damned, you push ahead. Great. More power to you. The more your 'bot deletes (or helps delete), the more editors realize that not only is your interpretation of policy not the proper direction for the project, but your 'bot is actually doing more harm than good. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 05:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok per m:Wikimedia Foundation policy users who upload copyrighted material must provide Rationales. also per a foundation resolution we must be 100% compliant by April, 2008. at current estimates there are 350,000 fair use images. Of the 350,000 ~30,000 have zero rationale. and an additional ~70,000 have improper rationale, that can be bot detected. that means that at least 30% of our current images dont comply with policy. Im guessing an additional 50,000 images have improper rationales that cannot be detected by a bot. My actions are not pro-deletionist, the issue is we have a massive problem that users ignore. the small group of user who attempt to correct this problem cannot do it by them self. If we ignore all future non free image uploads we have to review, and fix 556 images per day from now until April, 2008. that would be ignoring a total of at least 81,000 images. we need to motivate users into fixing their improper images. we cannot do that unless the whole community joins in. what BetacommandBot does is far more than what editors would do. It notifies all the users in the images file history, and leaves a note on all the talkpages of articles where images are used. My only objective is to fix images that don't comply with policy. We either have to fix, or if no one is willing to do that delete them. as for going to far, I haven't gone far enough yet. we have a problem that needs fixed. I have yet to see anyone propose an idea that is feasible, and could be implemented except for mine. Instead of complaining about Foundation resolutions, and character assassinations, why not help fix the problem? as for deletions, they are the responsibility of the person who deletes them, not the person who nominates them for deletion. Betacommand ^{( talk • contribs • Bot)} 15:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

But what you're doing is annoying. I mean, a lot of the stuff you're tagging is blatantly fair use, and should not be deleted. If you really want to have every single image on wikipedia say "this is fair use because it's not prohibiting the original creator's ability to make money" instead of just implying that it's fair use for said reason, then whatever. But you shouldn't delete images which are ALREADY confirmed to be fair use just because they don't have an elaborate reason. J'onn J'onzz 12:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Beta, I would certainly agree that, as you put it, we have a problem that needs fixed. Our idea of what that "problem" is, however, is probably not in synch. You think it's imaginary requirements for unique fair use rationale (remember, there's never been a single piece of copyrighted material on Wikipedia that has ever been challenged on "fair use" grounds), I think it's the BetacommandBot. Good luck with your campaign. I'm not sure Wikipedia will be "better" for it, in the long run. But you can take pride in knowing your complete inability to assume any iota of responsibility for these massive improper image deletions truly sets a new standard, one to which future Wikipedia responsibility-dodgers will have a hard time living up. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 07:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, material is challenged on fair-use grounds all the time. The case that springs to mind immediately is Image:Crosstar.png, which has been challenged repeatedly. -- Carnildo 05:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Background

For those who might be interested, a very short "history" on FUR and FURG: WT:FURG#A little history on FURG. -- Ned Scott 05:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest to enact a policy against usernames with less than three letters in it. This becuase of the following reasons:

• Usernames of one letter can induce the feeling of an elite of Wikipedia.
• Usernames of less than three letters can be a sign that the user doesn't want to be searchable by a search engine. This can give a bad inpression, as Wikipedia is a collaborative project.
• Changing to a one-letter username, can give the impression of trying to hide.
• A one-letter username can confuse people, as it's difficult to match a specific user with just a letter, with no other references to build up a mental picture.
• There is a high probabillity for the username to match a shortcut page, and thus give the impression to some that it represent official wikipedia thing.

I hope I didn't miss anything. I think there should be a policy to avoid too short usernames, especially usernames with only one or two letters in it. _{→ Aza Toth} 07:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

There are only a few hundred of these names, and I believe they are all taken (a few could be usurped). The number of active editors with names less than three letters long is quite small. So I don't see the need to forcibly rename these users. — Carl ( CBM ·  talk) 07:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll take these in turn.

1. They don't in me.
2. It doesn't give a bad impression to me.
3. It doesn't to me.
4. I don't have a mental picture of more than half a dozen or so people. To me, User:Y is no more of a nobody than you are.
5. These users would be rather slow-witted.

User:Y's username excites one emotion in me: Envy. Why didn't I think of it and grab it for myself first? But I didn't; they did, and good for them. -- Hoary 07:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Ironically, when you look at User:Y's contributions as of right now, his last admin action was a username block... anyway, the proposal above is unnecessary instruction creep, which WP:U doesn't already have a shortage of. I call on any supporter of this proposal to show how short usernames harm the project. szyslak 07:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Usernames that are common first names are probably viewed more often as elites. One-letter names just look gimmicky. – Pomte 09:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Oi. - N 21:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you consider either a reason for a ban on such names? We could point out hundreds of other names that "look gimmicky". Some might consider my own name gimmicky. szyslak 18:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

To make it clear, those are not reasons for banning at all. – Pomte 18:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, that proposed policy seemed to be assuming bad things about those users. If you are meant to assume good faith but not elitism, you shouldn't restrict short user names, especially if a minority of users will actually have the envy to take users names to be "personalized license plates".-- Kylohk 19:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

This disregards the simple fact by placing a bar after your username (or using the signiture option) an editor with a username with many characters can be depicted as having three, two or less letters. LHvU 23:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, but certainly that particular sig button is widely used for almost every user to know what those two dashes mean?-- Kylohk 17:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I, for one, am against passing more rules restricting user conduct based on somebody suddenly deciding that something was annoying or offensive... people are almost unlimited in their capacity to find things annoying or offensive if they go out of their way to look for them. *Dan T.* 18:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a well thought out suggestion but I disagree with it based on reasonings similar to those above. I just don't think it's much of a problem at this point. MPS 19:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is nothing so disruptive or offensive about a single letter, is there? And there are only 26 of them!-- Kylohk 14:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

There's a discussion going on at this page involving a change to "What Wikipedia is not" that I want to bring up here, involving the word "indiscriminate" and how its vagueness is causing problems. To repeat the topic sentence: "I find often in AFDs people are misusing "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". The problem seems to be with the word "indiscriminate", which people either don't understand or find vague. It seems some people think this term can be applied to any list, and many other articles. Not to mention, the title of the section doesn't have all the much to do with the section itself. My suggestion is to retitle the section something like "Wikipedia is not a guidebook or instruction manual". And to put a separate section under notability or lists which is something like "Article subjects should not be indiscriminately thrown together" (example: Not indiscriminate - List of United States Senators from Ohio, indiscriminate - List of United States Senators with three or more 'E's in their name)." CitiCat 22:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I've recommended an addition to the exceptions for our WP:3RR policy. Comments requested please at Wikipedia_talk:Three-revert_rule#Recommended_additional_exception. Thanks, -- Durin 14:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Would this be best as a separate proposal, or floated first on the talk page of Wikipedia:User access levels, Wikipedia:Articles for creation, or here on the Village Pump? I really don't think the VP has the permanence to discuss intelligently an issue of this magnitude, and the last thing I want to do is take it to the mailing list like Jimbo did when he instituted the original change. Please see Renesis's idea at Wikipedia_talk:Autoconfirmed_Proposal#Mainspace.3F if you want to see where it's at presently, but it's really tangential to the actual proposal there. -- nae' blis 15:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC) (not logged in at present)

• Your best bet would be a new page, advertised and linked from all those pages you mention above. >Radiant< 11:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been busy reverting vandalism today, but I don't really feel at ease with leaving my signature on all the talk pages of the vandals (my userpage is likely to get vandalised). Would it be okay if I don't sign these warnings? If not what arguments are there for having to sign on these pages? Freestyle 20:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments on the talk pages should be signed for the same reason that they should be signed on all talk pages. So other users know who left the comment without having to go through the pages edit history. It's also not like not signing your warning is going to protect you from anyone that might retaliate by vandalizing your userpage. Leaving the message will trigger the "you have a new message" message and when the user follows the link, your username and a link to your userpage and talk page will be at the top of the page. All in all, one of the downsides of vandal fighting is that you're opening yourself up to retaliation. -- Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

In addition, and this might not be of any consolation, but in my experience, the vandals that tend to persist in vandalizing and trolling user pages and user talk pages seem to be more aware of how Wikipedia works than many others, and will follow links in the history page.

There is also an issue of accountability. The vast majority of warnings are made in good faith, but some aren't, so it is better to know who is saying what quickly, without having to examine the page history. FlowerpotmaN ( t · c) 20:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, your answers are clear. I am used to not signing warnings on IP-pages (it's policy on the Dutch WP), but I saw here that everyone does sign them. I will sign them from now ofcourse. I'm not really convinced though by the arguments; It's likely to me that not signing will reduce the chance of the vandals visiting my userpage. If necessary for some reason one can always check in the history who wrote the message, but apart from that the important thing is that the message be read by the vandals, not who is giving out the message (it could've been anyone who noticed the vandalism). Freestyle 20:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding possible vandal trashing of your user page, I really wouldn't worry about it too much. I do a fair amount of vandal reverting and warning, and usually it doesn't get too personal if you stick to the stock warning templates.

And even your page does get vandalized when you're not around, it's likely to be fixed pretty quickly. I and numerous other users regularly check the recent changes log for IP edits to user pages [10] - those edits are 90%+ vandalism so it's a target rich environment (yes, I know Wikipedia is not a battleground, but you know how we vandal patrollers love military metaphors). So sign away and don't sweat it. --  Satori Son 20:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

In addition, that actually helps filter out serious vandals. And I concur, I've given dozens if not hundreds of warnings, and I've only had seven userpage vandalisms so far, and each was quickly reverted CitiCat 16:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Do we need another subject specific guideline at Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Notability. Trying to define notability of team sports has been tried at WP:ORG without acceptance, and now is being tried again independently. It seems to be more well intentioned but congestive creep. -- Kevin Murray 23:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. For the couple of thousand articles that relate to college football, we can have another notability guideline. I didn't actually read it, but I'll leave the details to people who care about them. The point is that this guideline would not be redundant with anything we already have. Yechiel Man 07:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

A proposal has been made to incorporate a new term ("ownership forking") to describe portions of existing guidelines on content forking.. Discussion on the proposed clarification is on the guideline talk page at Ownership forking revision proposal. -- Jreferee ^{( Talk)} 15:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Are victims of 9/11 inherently notable? I ran across Waleska Martínez, who seems to be notable solely because she was a victim. Thoughts? -- SatyrTN ( talk | contribs) 21:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Waleska Martínez may also be notable because an actor played her in United 93. — Remember the dot ^{( talk)} 21:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Short answer: No. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered. I don't think that being impersonated makes her sufficiently notable. Malc82 21:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
    • If we let her article remain, the details of her life should only be the ones portrayed in the movie. I hereby dub this the " George Costanza test". If wikipedia can document the fictional life of George Costanza (religion, love interests, friendships, professional life, family), it can certainly document the fictional life of Waleska Martínez... who happened to be a real person. Since the notable movie is her only claim to notability, then let this article document her character's life as portrayed in the movie. MPS 00:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
      • The thing is, that person is notable for only one event. In that case, it may be a better idea to just redirect her to United 93 per the WP:BLP. (Unless she has done other more dramatic things in her life before her demise, that is.)-- Kylohk 14:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Strictly speaking BLP wouldn't apply as she's not "L"... Still I fully agree with you. - Nabla 16:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Oops, I've goofed. That's not a BLP, it's a BDP! Anyway, things notable by only one event should be redirected to that event.-- Kylohk 13:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Précis: No, they are not. And the desire of people to write memorials for them on Wikipedia was why the September 11 wiki was created in the first place. Uncle G 14:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

I've spent a fair bit of time reading Wikipedia policy, and I think that AGF is a bit silly.

By all means, an account that has been doing good work for sometime should be afforded good faith.

But IMO a brand new account that does something stupid... it should probably be blocked for an hour. But the block message should be some sort of non-accusatory one that clearly states:

• The block is only to protect the encyclopedia
• This block will never be held against them

Thoughts? Best username yet 23:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

By jumping on a user's back, especially a newcomer's, you can scare people away from editing. For various reasons, more editors are useful for Wikipedia. There are bound to be newcomers who make a mistake, learn from it and then go on to become good editors. By not assuming good faith, you risk blocking an editor who makes a mistake. Besides, if you enforce a block for doing something stupid, then I fail to see the point of the warning templates at all. x42bn6 Talk Mess 23:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not jumping on a user's back if it's done nicely though, is it? Best username yet 00:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Why is a block required? Why not just point them to the rule they were breaking or the mistake they made? There's no such thing as being a jerk to someone in a nice way, so, yes it would be jumping on their back. Mango juice ^talk 00:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright, take an example of where someone's edit to a page ends with an edit conflict to another user's comment. So basically this newcomer, unaware of what an edit conflict is, ends up overwriting that user's comment. Then, according to this, we can block this poor newcomer for one hour until he/she learns his/her awful mistake of deleting other users' comments, when it was a mistake. Horror! No, because it is generally really easy to fix newcomer mistakes (except the occasional cut-and-paste move or bad moves), it's best we fix these mistakes and then tap into the potential of getting more productive edits from this newcomer. x42bn6 Talk Mess 00:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not talking about that sort of thing. More about replacing a page with, e.g.

<big><big><big><big><big><big><big><big><big><big><big><big><big><big><big><big>WANKER

which I have seen today, but the person got a warning about it. I can't see how that is a genuine mistake, really. 00:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hide that next time - you can crash computers by putting stuff like that without nowiki-ing it. Anyway, WP:AGF says, "Assume good faith unless there is evidence to the contrary." This is the "evidence to the contrary" part. x42bn6 Talk Mess 00:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

If a user is doing something extremely disruptive, you can use the instant level 4 warning template. (Only for extreme cases though, if those first edits are tests or what not, use only level 1s.)-- Kylohk 18:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Another editor once suggested that assuming good faith does not preclude not assuming common sense... LessHeard vanU 21:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed; as the AGF page itself says in paragraph #5, "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." -- Visviva 16:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I use Wikipedia almost every single day. I use it to read up on all types of things in my career field, math and sciences. If I had to purchase books with the variety of information that I need, I would have to spend a fortune.

I think of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, much like the old World Book encyclopedia. And never during my encounters with a World Book encyclopedia, was I able to encounter photos of a woman with cum / semen / jizz on her neck. Nor in World Book was I able to find photos of a woman who had been 'creampied'. (Porn term for 'the dude came inside of her and the viewing audience gets to watch it drip out.')

However, while I was trying to learn about Pearls, (about which many children and teens might have to write a book report), I found that I was able to access an article on the sexual connotation of Pearl Necklace. It had a charming photo of a woman with semen on her neck.

To see how pervasive this was, I began typing in other sexual terms (as a curious young teen would do) and I was able to find photos and movies of a guy's erection shooting semen through the air and well as of a woman's vagina dripping semen out of it. There was also a wealth of information about bukkake and bios on p*rn stars that led to other porn star bios and other sexual articles.

Now, I read you policy about not really attempting to censor articles. But I think that you are asking for future legislative trouble, if a virtual encyclopedia becomes the avenue used to spread pornography to the masses.

There already seem to be 'billions and billions' (Carl Sagan term) of places that a person can go to if they want to be 'informed' about creampies, bukkake, pearl necklaces, deepthroat, etc. I hate to see a respected virtual encyclopedia, dedicated to becoming the CENTER of the spread of knowledge, become the CENTER of the spread of porn photos.

I mean really . . . do you want some child 'spreading the news' to other children (and eventually his parents and teachers) that they get their best porn from Wikipedia?

Think about that 'censorship' clause again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Software engineer 1 ( talk • contribs)

So, your objection seems to be that when you looked up sexual topics, you found sexual content in the articles? What exactly did you expect? Friday (talk) 17:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

OH NOES, MY VIRGIN EYES... THEY BLEED.... Raul654 17:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest that you avoid Googling 'black cock' when looking for images related to Santeria, in this case... 64.126.24.11 17:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Knowledge is not always pleasant, and knowledge of that which we oppose makes us more equipped to combat. Some of these images are demonized out of residuals from Victorian morality. Why is semen more offensive than blood or saliva? However, I do think that it is important that we not slip over the line to titillation. When I was growing up in the 1960’s the big thrill in elementary school was looking at bare breasts in National Geographic, and that publication has not suffered in reputation. -- Kevin Murray 17:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Unfortunately some people see "not censored" and use that as an excuse to cram all kinds of objectionable material into an encyclopedia. I have no idea how this 'problem' could be changed, you made a polite suggestion and look at the responses you're getting. Weirdly, I am allowed to show all kinds of dodgy photos, but I'm not allowed to call myself "EjaculatingPenis" or whatnot. Dan Beale 18:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Some would say 'Wikipedia: It's not your Father's encyclopedia.' For one, Wikipedia uses in-line citations with up-to-date information whereas print encyclopedias required you to take their word for it. I deleted the image in Creampie (sexual act) since it did not show ejaculating in the vagina or was not otherwise relevant to the text of the article. If an article tilts to much towards titillation, Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography may be the best place to address such concerns. Also, you can read about efforts regarding your concern at Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for encyclopedic merit and it's talk page. -- Jreferee ^{( Talk)} 18:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure that I support your removal of the picture, as it was an accurate portrayal of the result of the act; however, it doesn't seem necessary to have a picture to understand the topic. -- Kevin Murray 18:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I considered that position, but I really couldn't see the resulting evidence as the photo wasn't that clear. The white looked to be from camera glare rather than evidence of prior presence. If you can see it in the photo, feel free to add the photo back in and revise the caption. -- Jreferee ^{( Talk)} 19:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• The short answer is - if you don't want to learn about sexual topics, don't look. If you think Wikipedia not covering semen or penis will mean 9 year olds on the internet won't be able to learn about them - I have a surprise for you. You always have a right to copy Wikipedia to your own servers if you don't like it - or use Conservapedia or Citizendium, both of which are strongly censored to be family friendly (whatever that means). Wily D 18:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

There's a difference between covering a topic in an encyclopedic manner and allowing exhibitionist nerds to photograph (and display) their anus/penis/etc etc. Most cases, a good diagram conveys information better than a photograph does which is why botany still uses illustrators so much. Dan Beale 19:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

If your position is that a different picture would better illustrate the article, by all means use it. I don't think anybody would object to that. - Chunky Rice 19:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

This always depends on context - in general, drawings and photographs don't convey the same information - and I have field guys that use photos, field guides that use drawings (Ornithology). Wikipedia has space to convery as much information as we can - typically this'll mean both. Wily D 19:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

There's a fine line that needs to be drawn. On the one hand, Wikipedia is not, and should not be "censored." In that sense, it is perfectly acceptable for Wikipedia to (for example) have a photograph of a penis on the penis article. On the other hand, Wikipedia is edited, and it is undeniable that there is material that is occasionally put up for no reason other than prurience (continuing with the example, articles like penis have the problem that they end up with thirty-eight pictures of penises, as well as having people edit war to put the picture of their penis back on the article. A similar issue happened recently on the pubic hair article, which was overrun with an out-of-control gallery.) In situations like these, some editors inappropriately invoke the "no censorship" clause to claim that Wikipedia needs 38 blurry pictures of penises on a single article.

The goal for all responsible editors should be to make sure that topics are appropriately illustrated. That means both making sure that there is a picture when it is called for, and making sure that there aren't inappropriate, tangential, or otherwise overwhelming pictures. Editing is not censorship. Nandesuka 19:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I agree with this. Penis should have a picture of a penis, it should not have 38. Wily D 20:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree that Wikipedia should not be "censored" however wikipedia should still be in "good taste", meaning it should not use photographs that would make people NOT read the article. Naturally many people (including myself) would prefer not to see actual images of penises if we're trying to learn about sexual anatomy. I simply don't read pages that have such images because the images are so "in your face" that it's impossible to even read the article. Some of you might object that aversion to such images is "Victorian" or puritan however the fact is many people don't like reading articles littered with images of penises or ejaculation or vagina's, especially if they are doing school projects on sexual anatomy. Dan Beale makes a perfect point, If wikipedia is truly "Uncensored" why are so many objectionable user-names banned but obviously objectionable images not? MANY people want to learn about anatomy but they don't want to see images of hairy putrid vagina's, dirty anus's or blood red erect penises. Images of both the Vagina and the Penis and the Anus which are drawn or animated could easily be used to replace images of actual body parts and they are less objectionable, which is why so many reputable encyclopedias use them. I simply don't even edit or read let alone look at such articles with disgusting or offensive images. I would prefer to be able to continue to eat my breakfast if I'm editing Wikipedia or trying to learn about anatomy. I know MANY people feel the same way and I believe that such images don't add to the articles but take away from them. As Dan Beale said: "There's a difference between covering a topic in an encyclopedic manner and allowing exhibitionist nerds to photograph (and display) their anus/penis/etc etc." Wikidudeman ^(talk) 11:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

...your argument (from what I gathered from that paragraph) is basically "I want to be able to eat while reading up on penises and vaginas, but I have a weak stomach". If your stomach is that weak, don't go to articles where you will be upset. Not difficult. Superfluous images can be an issue, but a sketch of a penis is not the same as an actual picture of one. " I don't like it" is a horrible argument. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

In general, sketches do not convey the same information as images. They compliment each other, not replace each other. Wily D 16:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

(reply to WilyD)38 would be excessive, but I would suggest that 1 would not be representative of the variety even for humans (and I note in that example the rest of the other species are severely under-represented), many of whom who are so endowed may have issues as regards what conforms to the average. So, to properly illustrate an article in a medium that supports images, you do need a fair representation of "types", and that is something an illustration can rarely manage. LessHeard vanU 15:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you don't want to know about those things, don't visit that page. If a page related to those things has too many images that are of bad taste, there is nothing wrong with you removing several of them since Wikipedia's not a photo gallery. The topics can be there, but fortunately they aren't supposed to be saturated with images. So this problem is kind of covered.-- Kylohk 19:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I take a somewhat middle ground on the subject being discussed. I think it's a shame that, in its present form, I wouldn't allow my children to use Wikipedia without supervision. I think it's a shame that whenever anyone brings up this subject, the mixed replies always seem to include mocking and supercilious replies ("Oh no! My virgin eyes!"). However, with regards letting my children use it, there are things Wikipedia is and Wikipedia is not. As someone always trumpets in such debates, "Wikipedia is not censored for minors" and that's fair enough. One objection I do have to Wikipedia, however, is its presentation of what it terms as "human sexual practices" that I don't believe have much practice outside of the porn world. A person may look up snowballing, for example, and conclude that this is a practice that is routinely performed between sexual partners. Of course, I cannot provide any statistical evidence on this, but I strongly doubt this practice exists in any significance outside of porn. I can't back this up, I can't verify it and I certainly cannot reference it, but I believe that there are numerous such practices detailed on Wikipedia that would fall into this category. The presentation as normal or usual of practices that are rare, unusual, abnormal, etc, is a flaw in Wikipedia. How can it be addressed? I don't know. I certainly wouldn't favour a sudden change to a censored encyclopaedia. In it's present state, however, I would always treat with a certain incredulity and caution what I read on this medium. Of course, though, that's how every source of information should be treated. Blaise Joshua 09:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source saying which sexual practices are common and which are not, that would be a fine entry to put into each article. In fact (and I write this as a proud member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography) if you can find and include a reliable source saying roughly how common each act is in pornography, I'd give you a barnstar... :-) -- AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

While it's a tempting challenge, I don't have the time to edit articles on topics I know something about, let alone this. Besides, like I said, I don't think I can back up what I think - not in a way that can be used on Wikipedia, anyway. I don't think such data exists. I'll have to earn my barnstar some other way : o ) Blaise Joshua 14:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The (N)POV guidelines indicate "If the issues are minor and there is no recent discussion, remove the tag". The Neutrality Project guidelines recommend changing the POV tag to POV-check to request a review.

As the author of an article that's been recently tagged, my bias is that the issues flagged on my article are minor or unfounded - and I'm inclined to just remove the tag... so I'm requesting input/recommendations; is this the right place to post such questions/discussions? Background below:

An editor recently added a couple of Neutrality Disputed flags on one of my articles: Perl OpenGL (POGL)

His concerns were fair enough, so I responded to his issues on the article's talk page, and sent him an email asking what more, if anything, he felt was required in order to remove the flags.

There's been no response on the talk page or by email. As the author of the article, as well as one of the authors of opensource module presented in the article - I accept that I may be unintentionally biased - and I'm open to constructive suggestions for improving the article.

However, since all the benchmarks referenced in the article are available as source and reproducible by anyone who has the desire to do so, I'm unclear as to why the article's neutrality is being flagged - other than the simple fact that I'm author of both the article and subject.

I figured I'd wait for a week to see if there were any further comments, and if not - just remove the POV flags.

Thanks in advance for any feedback/recommendations!

I think your response is satisfactory to show that there is no real conflict of interest concern here and the tags can be removed. – Pomte 12:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I dont understand how I can see if a picture used in an article is copyrighted or not. Such as: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Morgen53.jpg . This is a picture taken from a memoir book, but is it infriging to use this picture or is it legal, as i could not see much info about it. Korrybean 07:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• The image page claims the book was published in 1918 - anything published before 1923 is in the Public Domain in the United States (if it was published in the States, probably otherwise). So if the claim it was published in 1918 in the United States, its copyright has lapsed. Wily D 07:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

This template makes a row in a table, which can easily be made with table formatting. The table formatting is more flexible, allowing for cases like a bridge on a county line. The template is also harder for new editors to learn. Why do we use this? -- NE2 21:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Because (1) bridges are not supposed to be in junction lists. (2) Templates may be easier to learn than tables, as I only started editing tables ~3-4 months ago. [It may not be the same for other users, but] I got the hang of templates immediately. (3) It looks like you're only bringing this up to illustrate WP:POINT, in which other users have disagreed with you in the past. ( → zel zany - fish) 22:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking for input from other people, not the ones that are already involved. -- NE2 22:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Concur with Vishwin60. Well, they'll oppose too because only you want this changed and other project members don't. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 22:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Projects do not own articles. Can you guys can it until we get more input? Thank you. -- NE2 22:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Then you can say policies and guidelines don't own it either. ( → zel zany - fish) 22:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me that the template is preferable because of the colors and the tooltip text on each cell. Tables with all the styles would have code that looks intimidating and harder to manage. If someone ever decides to change a color or tooltip, it's much easier to change this way. – Pomte 12:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

How about creating a list of new pages that are somehow related to Wikipedia so that other users can link the pages on existing Wikipedia-related pages if they think it's related, it might already exist considering the size of Wikipedia, but I thought I'd mention it anyway. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 13:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Special:Newpages, linked from Recent changes. If you mean articles, someone writing one should know to add it to Category:Wikipedia and link it from related pages as well. – Pomte 12:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean articles, I mean policies, guidelines and essays. I know that the person creating the policy can link it but it would be better if the whole community can look at and add it to the "see also" sections of policies, guidelines and essays that they think are related. They could also help improve it quickly. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 13:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

To see new pages in the Wikipedia namespace, you can go to the dropdown list at the top of Special:Newpages and select Wikipedia as the namespace. Be aware that most of the new pages in this namespace are likely to be subpages, e.g. AFD nominations so you would have to sift through quite a lot of material to find the pages you are interested in. Tra (Talk) 13:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

People writing essays know to propose it at WP:VPR anyway. Special:Recentchangeslinked/Category:Wikipedia essays and similar related changes can also help. – Pomte 13:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Would it be a totally gonzo policy for findings from scientific literature to take precedence over media hype? Reputable newspapers are valuable resource for some subject areas, but when it comes to those that are amply covered in journals, such as global warming, editors selectively adding speculation from them can be a big waste of time to those of us that take the time to glean material from peer reviewed articles. I'm referring to the media reporting this Dutch dossier based on British Petroleum data, which some editors have taken as a warrant to replace the current, scientifically informed, stance. I'd appreciate it if some of you would follow up the discussions on talk:global warming and talk:List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions, bearing in mind that what we are looking at is a SINGLE informal instance of guestimation being used to refute the climatological papers that get published every week, all using the official EIA data. Thank you. Bendž| Ť 20:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The policy on WP:Verify states that "exceptional claims require exceptional sources." and WP:UNDUE states "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all." Hope this helps. TimVickers 02:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a fairly large collection of articles on Wikipedia on first names (such as Stephanie or Tamara (name)), as well as surnames (such as Leonard (surname) or Thompson). Many of these articles (see links for examples) are dominated by long lists of "Notable people named x." To me, these seem unencyclopedic (few people would go to the Johnson article trying to find Samuel Curtis Johnson, Sr., for instance) and should generally be avoided. While the penumbra cast by WP:TRIVIA, WP:OVERLINK, and WP:NOT seems to be consistent with this view, what would people think of making this part of the Manual of Style? It could either be a seperate page on MOS for articles about names, or added to/subsection of Wikipedia:Proper names or WP:TRIVIA. Thoughts? -- TeaDrinker 00:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The lists, I agree, are unencyclopedic, but editorial consensus so far seems to favor them at least as often as not. See User:JHunterJ#Name articles for some links to prior discussions, ideas, and AfDs. -- JHunterJ 00:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I have gone to "Name" pages in a few cases where I couldn't remember a notable person's other name. They're index pages, which have their place in a reference work -- they're more than a disambig but still not articles. I find Wikipedia more usable with them than without them, although they're in need of standardization -- they should have a template and category, like disambiguation pages.-- Father Goose 01:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

(Just looked at the Johnson page) The list in that one ought to be split out, though. The article on the name itself seems okay, if not perfect.-- Father Goose 01:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

(More research) Okay, they do have a template and category... but it's not always used. Name pages in general would benefit from a cleanup/standardization Wikiproject. (Who knows, maybe there is one.)-- Father Goose 02:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The List of people by name contributors have performed cleanup to other name pages in past. But given that nearly 1000 pages of our work + notes on talk pages was deleted after uninformed DRV discussion, I don't think many of us will bother to join any such standardization project again. jni 07:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• I'd suggest getting a Wikiproject together, and/or making a {{ proposal}} for a Manual of Style page on the topic. >Radiant< 11:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  There is a nascent project: Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy -- JHunterJ 12:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it is fairly logical to search for people on their last name (first names of Keats, Faraday, Goethe, Chirac, ... may not be directly known by many people), and it is probably a good first introduction to Wikipedia for many people (e.g. young Johnny Hannon checking if there are any famous Hannons). Of course, this second argument could theoretically also be used for first names, but the chance that he will ook for famous Johnny's seems smaller. Anyway, my opinion is that surname disambig pages are good, first name disambig pages are bad except for those people mainly known by their first name (royalty, some artists, Classical names), like e.g. Flavius. The page Kenny is a decent example: only those subjects probably referred to as just "Kenny" are listed, not all people with Kenny as their first name Kenny G, Kenny Rodgers, ...). Kenneth is an example of what to avoid though :-) Fram 14:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't kill Kenny. ( SEWilco 18:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC))

The disambig pages are needed, as we don't have an Index for such referencing. Standardization of common article formats is often done and this seems like a common article format. ( SEWilco 18:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC))

This just in: Category:Middle names. That may be going too far (if we haven't already). -- JHunterJ 11:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Deletion policy/names and surnames and its talk page. Uncle G 14:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• I have seen that before. Deletion policy seems to be an odd (at best) place to discuss disambiguation-page guidelines. The newer consensus at WP:D and WP:MOSDAB is to treat lists of name-holders (who aren't known by the single name) separately from disambiguation pages when lengthy, or as subsections within an otherwise-needed disambiguation page when the name-holder list is short. -- JHunterJ 16:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Your claim to consensus is bogus, as pointed out elsewhere. Read the summary of the discussion that I pointed to. Also read the various contradictory AFD and CFD discussions. Uncle G 11:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Backstory: a particular user edited his own Editor Review page, violated 3RR, and then wasn't blocked per 3RR because users are given "serious laditude" over pages in their userspace: [11]. The rest of this post is cut-and-paste from WP:AN because I would like this issue to be discussed by a broader range of wikipedians than just Admins and people who have something to report. The way I see it, there are three issues here:

• 1) Should an editor who lists himself for Editor Review have the "serious latitude" you mention to remove comments they don't like?
• 2) Should 3RR violations be ignored simply because an editor was cleaning their own Editor Review? and
• 3) Does an editor maintain "ownership" over an Editor Review page in the same way they would over a page in their Userspace?

As an Editor Review is entered into voluntarily, and occasionally to "test the waters," as it were, for a run at adminship, I believe that once created, a user should leave the substance of reviews regarding them alone. This is both to the end of maintaining an atmosphere that allows for free expression of thoughts on an ER, and maintaining an accurate records of people's opinions of an editor seeking review. What is the good of an ER if people are worried that negative reviews constitute harassment or vandalism? What is the good of reviewing an editor's ERs when said editor is seeking elected position if the editor has cleaned every negative comment up? To that end, I believe that an editor (1) should not be allowed to remove comments from their own ER. If something is harassment or vandalism, it should be obvious enough that someone else can clean it up. It follows that (2) 3RR vio's on ER pages should certainly constitute serious violations. Finally, because of the previously listed reasons, an ER should (3) not constitute a personal page, and the reviewed party should not be affored WP:OWNership rights over it. It is in the WP namespace, not the User namespace, for a reason. 65.30.184.61 05:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the reviewed editor is well within his or her rights to remove apparent trolling, as in this case... — Scien tizzle 06:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

As of March 2007, Arbitrators are no longer required to provide a rationale for their RfAr vote when requested. (edit diff) The explanation provided is that one person decided to make the Arbitrators more elite and less transparent. (editor's talk page) The policy phrasing is also more ambiguous. ( SEWilco 15:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC))

• Yeah, but it usually comes down to "content dispute" or "please try other steps in dispute resolution" or "I don't see an ArbCom case here" anyway. I'm not sure how much is lost when arbitrators simply say "Reject - jpgordon" (or whoever). Of course, I think it's only fair and expected that arbitrators be transparent if someone asks for futher explanation or advice. Yechiel Man 17:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • "Usually" does not cover everything, such as Arbs who think a case includes things which are ignored and Arbs who don't know what is involved in a case which they vote for. ( SEWilco 02:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC))

There is an interesting proposal at WP:RS to creating an inline tag for situations where a source is reliable, but hardly the best of sources available. The proposed wording would be something polite and non-confrontational, like [more reliable source requested]. To give you an idea of where such a tag might be used... take an article on an historical topic, containing a statment that cites to a Histroy Channel documentary as a fact source. While the History Channel is not completely unreliable, I hope you would agree that there are probably sources that are more reliable for the same information. However, more community input is needed. (Please join the discussion at Wikipedia Talk:Reliable sources#Inline tag?) Blueboar 22:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wheel war says "A wheel war is a struggle between two or more admins in which they undo another's administrative actions".

It then lists some actions: "specifically, unblocking and reblocking a user; undeleting and redeleting; or unprotecting and reprotecting an article."

Does "specifically" in this sentence mean "limited to only these examples", or "including (but not limited to) these specific examples"?

In other words, what counts?

• Actions that can only be performed by admins due to the site's software (like blocking users)
• Actions that can only be performed by admins due to policy (like closing AfDs)

— Omegatron 05:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not an exhaustive list, but I believe it means stuff only they can do on a technical level. What would otherwise be a normal edit or revert war would become a wheel war if it were being done on a protected page, for instance. Though you will hear stuff like repeatedly closing and re-opening cycles of deletion discussions called "wheel-warring" sometimes if it's admins doing it or if it's attached to a "real" ongoing wheel-war. -- tjstrf talk 06:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like the key phrase is at the end of the given sentence: "administrative actions". So a wheel war is between big wheels who are using administrative tools in the battle, whichever specific tools are involved. ( SEWilco 15:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC))

Of course the reason I'm asking is because of a specific case. An admin "pre-closed" a DRV, another admin reopened it, and the original admin reclosed it without discussion. He claims this isn't wheel warring because it doesn't involve the specific cases mentioned in the second part of the sentence, and acts as if he has done nothing wrong.

In my interpretation, this clearly violates the spirit of the policy, the first part of the intro sentence, and the second sentence ("Do not repeat an administrative action when you know that another administrator opposes it"), so my accusation of wheel warring is warranted. If you look at the third point in Wikipedia:Wheel_war#Possible_indications, I think this also indicates that "wheel warring" is not limited to the specific cases listed in the second part of the intro sentence, either, so it violates the letter of the policy, too. If this is the case, the meaning of "specifically" should be clarified in the policy. — Omegatron 23:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I frequently come across multiply top-tagged articles. Some article pages contain as many as four different tags like {{ totally-disputed}}, {{ cleanup}}, {{ missing citations}}, {{ unref}} etc. Take a look at Neoconservatism for a modest example with only three disclaimers.

While I appreciate that most of the time the tags used in a particular article are valid and justified by shortcomings of the article itself, it appears (to me) that in unacceptably many instances, article tags are being deliberately misused as a way of POV pushing (I know, it's an ugly word) by downgrading the visual appearance and effectively using them as content disclaimers on articles. Here's the problem I'm having with this: The disclaimers themselves often enough become the subject of edit warring. And Wikipedia does not feature or endorse disclaimers on article pages, the tags are there for categorisation and for Wikipedia editors.

Couldn't there be some way to either let the disclaimers only be visible to logged-in users (I know, I know: IPs), or to reduce them to categories at the bottom of the page, accompanied by the tags themselves on the article talk page? I know these solutions would be somewhat problematic to implement, but this is less of a concrete proposal than rather a question if anyone else recognises this as a problem. — AldeBaer 10:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• on Cite Neoconservatism As with any community-built reference, there is a possibility for error in Wikipedia's content — please check your facts against multiple sources and read our disclaimers for more information Wikipedia does disclaimers article content. I am not aware of a policy or guideline that says "Wikipedia does not feature or endorse disclaimers on article pages", Keeping in mind that there is not consensus on placement of tags. {{ unref}} There is currently no consensus about where to place this template; most suggest either the top of the article page, the bottom of the article page (in an empty 'References' section), or on the article's talk page. Jeepday ( talk) 12:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• This problem of abuse does not override the need for legitimate tags to be prominently placed in an article with actual problems. Multiple tags on one page that are redundant to or imply each other may be uncontroversially removed or merged on sight. {{ Articleissues}} is a way to condense tags into one box for readability. Controversial tag disputes can eventually be settled on the talk page, hopefully. – Pomte 12:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• Those tags, except perhaps {{ cleanup}}, exist to inform the reader that there are some going-ons they need to be aware of, and that they should perhaps take what they read with a pinch of salt. I do not see that multiple tags are a problem if they are appropriate. Yes, the tags can be abused to make a point, therefore those tagging articles as {{ totally-disputed}} etc. should be burdened to provide a rationale in the talk page, and at least participate in the following discussion. -- Ezeu 13:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• Well, I guess it wouldn't be much of a hassle to create a single "integrated" problem template. Like beginning with "This article has the following problems:" and then the user can add a list of problems related to the article like NPOV, references, etc.-- Kylohk 11:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)