Jump to content

Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)/Archive N

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Village pump (assistance) archive  

This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (assistance). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.

< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

About your links' underlining

I'm a frequent reader of both the Spanish and American Wikipedias, and even when they both are wikis, I find one difference between them mostly annoying: The Spanish version of the Wikipedia is the only one that has its links to other articles underlined, and it really bothers me and a large number of other users, too. The thing is, I would like to know your reasons for not underlining your links in the articles, so that I can try and propose the same thing on the Spanish Wiki, since the last time I tried to, even when the number of supporters of the idea was rather large, nobody did anything to change it.

So, the question is: Why (and when) did you decide to stop using underlined links in your aticles? --201.250.8.212 05:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Our wikilinks are underlined. --tjstrf talk 05:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Not to me. Keep in mind if you can login you can customize such things. He means that, by default, eN doesn't and eS does.
I have the default customization for links, and they are underlined. Same thing if I log out. This is in FireFox, if that matters. --tjstrf talk 06:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Compare the Spanish article to the American one about Argentina. Can you see the difference in the link format between them? That's what I was talking about.

--201.250.8.212 05:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Why? I really don't know... I suggest asking on the technical VP maybe. 68.39.174.238 06:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to clarify a tangential point: this isn't an American Wikipedia. People from around the world edit the English language Wikipedia. DurovaCharge! 04:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

What are you viewing it in? On my browser (Firefox 1.5 and IE 6.0) it appears as non-underlined on both. Orderinchaos78 10:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • If you are not logged in on either wiki, the links on that wiki will not be underlined.
  • If you are logged in, you can change whether the links are underlined by:
Tra (Talk) 14:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

How to make a new user feel hugely unwelcomed

I joined up here on Wikipedia a few weeks ago. So I'm reading an article on baked ziti that's only one sentence long. At the bottom, it says "This cuisine-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it." So I did just that. But, my God, I didn't realize my horrible crime -- I added a recipe. Yes, I didn't read endless pages of policy where, stuck in the middle of one, is a single sentence of fine print that says recipes are strictly forbidden, notwithstanding, of course, there actually are hundreds of recipes in all sorts of articles all over Wikipedia. But, by God, we've got to stamp out those evil recipes, so we have more room for wonderful pornographic filth like this and this. Think how dangerous it would've been had a child read about baked ziti; thank goodness that horrid recipe has been removed, so children can spend their time here learning about filth like this and this.

A friend told me "Wikipedia is a perfect example of online lunatics running the asylum." Well, that certainly seems to be the case here. A specific page encourages me to contribute -- the online equivalent of a "welcome" sign -- then I'm treated rudely and shabbily for doing just that. Maybe the tags should say, "This cuisine-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it, but first read these eighteen pages of fine print bureaucratic policy first. Filthy pornography is AOK, but no recipes."

I didn't violate anybody's copyright here. I didn't post pornography. I didn't post anything with obscenities. I didn't threaten anyone.

I posted a simple recipe.

Congratulations on treating a new user rudely and making a new user feel really unwelcome. I feel like Goldie Hawn in that movie Deceived when she asks, "Is there any adult with a shred of common sense in charge here?" Carmela Soprano 09:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Those thinking of responding may care to read this first. -- Hoary 09:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Hoary, I wasn't asking for specific assistance on the baked ziti matter, but thank you for your quick response. I posted this more rhetorically. I feel sort of like I went up to a shop, where there's a big sign in the window that says, "welcome, please do come in," and when I go in, I'm punched in the face.
I read the following on this page: "Newcomers are always to be welcomed. There must be no cabal, there must be no elites, there must be no hierarchy or structure which gets in the way of this openness to newcomers.... The process should be virtually invisible for newcomers, so that they do not have to do anything to start contributing to the community."
How unlike my actual experience. Carmela Soprano 09:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
If deletion of your addition -- even an addition that makes perfect sense, that wasn't a copyvio, wasn't offensive, etc etc etc -- truly felt to you like being punched in the face, there's no arguing with that. I've had my additions of similar length deleted in the past, and though it was irritating I felt much happier than if I'd been punched in the face. All my teeth were in place, my nose was unbloodied, no concussion. But that's just me; perhaps I'm peculiarly thick-skinned about editing, or peculiarly sensitive to brute force. ¶ As for the articles related to sex, I wonder how you even know about them. "Bukkake" (one of your choices) is a newish word to me; "felching" is entirely new to me. Still, nobody can argue with somebody else's statement that he or she is offended by an article on a subject that would appear to need some searching. -- Hoary 09:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Hoary, perhaps "slapped in the face" would be a better analogy than "punched in the face." No blood was lost, no scarring involved, but a rude comeuppance, nonetheless, particularly after being welcomed. The problem here isn't baked ziti or a recipe. The problem here is a system that welcomes you on one hand and encourages you to jump right in, then hides complex bureaucratic rules in pages that are not easily found. And I wouldn't have minded if the other party replaced the recipe with suitable information (as I now have done). But simply blanking something without explanation or replacement is rude and counterproductive. It violates everything I quoted from Mr. Wales. As for the dirty words, I had to ask my husband. I was so shocked by what I saw on those pages, I didn't read anything after the first page. I'm still dumbfounded that kind of pornography is welcomed and okay, but a poor little innocent recipe is verbotten. Carmela Soprano 10:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Hang on: you were so appalled by your mistreatment that you called your husband over to the computer and asked him to tell you the names of some of the juicier episodes within porn videos so that you could type these in to see if offensive articles existed for them? This is odder and odder. Anyway, Rhobite explained the deletion, which does not seem at all offensive to me. If it seems offensive to you, that's a pity. -- Hoary 10:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Hoary, you state, "Rhobite explained the deletion." I'm sorry, that's not correct. Look at the history at that baked ziti page. His first action was blanking with nothing more than "rm recipe." There was no explanation of the deletion. My work was gone, poof. Tossed out like so much garbage. Yes, I was offended. I was treated shabbily. If he was a new user like me, that would be understandable. But he's an administrator. Per the "newcomers" guidelines that he links on his own user page, he should've contacted me. The second time he deleted it, he still didn't explain that it was a policy problem -- he made it out like he, personally, didn't want any recipes. As for the dirty words, my husband is a criminal prosecutor. He already knew, unlike me, about the dirty content here on Wikipedia. It has become some kind of an issue in a local prosecution involving pornographic content filters.Carmela Soprano 10:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Carmela Soprano: I have read over the discussion between you and Rhobite. I understand that you're upset that your recipe was deleted. It's hard, when something we put a lot of work into doesn't fit here at Wikipedia. Maybe Rhobite should have explained his deletion on the talk page first, but a lot of administrators are very busy cleaning up vandalism from, and it can be difficult to determine which contributions are serious. Furthermore, it can be difficult to separate the true new users from the sock puppets. After you reverted the deletion once, I feel that Rhobite dealed with you in a polite and understanding manner. He provided you with the information you asked for, and went out of his way to explain that your recipe belongs on Wikibooks, not on Wikipedia. Yes, the Wikipedia guideline is Be Bold!, and all the rules may seem confusing, but I think the key fact to remember is that Wikipedia strives to be encyclopedic. If you wouldn't expect to read in in the Encyclopedia Brittanica (like recipes!) then it really doesn't belong here. (note that, in everything, there are exceptions to this rule that have been agreed upon by the community). As for those so-called "filthy" links, they are of use to many people. Since your lawyer husband knows about them, there must be other people who hear those words (perhaps in a courtroom) and must look them up. -sthomson 17:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Carmella, I think you're vastly overreacting to this whole situation. The deletion of the recipe was completely reasonable and explicitly supported by wikipedia policy. When you asked for a policy explanation, you got one. Quit blowing this out of proportion and get back to something more useful. Seriously, you posted this to Jimbo's user talk page? --Milo H Minderbinder 00:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Uninvolved administrator weighs in. Recipes do belong in Wikibooks rather than in Wikipedia. If you have more recipes to share then you're welcome to post them there. DurovaCharge! 03:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Somewhat unrelated but I wonder to what degree simply defining terms like "felching" violates WP:NOT a dictionary and should be PROD? I mean I see a definition and then some places where the term was used. I see no real content other than a definition; the other content is trivial. --Justanother 16:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Carmela: I fully empathize with you. I fully agree with everything you said. My only advice would be that remember, Wikipedia is run by people. Surely you know plenty of people in real-life who you don't particularly admire. The same goes for Wikipedia. Anyone who comes here with idealized notions of a benevolent, enlightened group of free-thinkers running the show will be in for a very rude awakening.

That said, just browse around Wikipedia. It has so many fantastic articles that it's not even funny. Work for the sake of posterity, and remember that everyone has their foibles and quirks, and that there's a huge amount of acrimony and hostility that goes on here every day -- so do your best not to add your own. Cheers! Vranak 03:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Being a newbie on Wikipedia is a bit confusing and disconcerting. I fully appreciate Carmela Soprano's dismay at having her entry immediately reverted with minimal explanation. I have a few comments:
  • However, this is not that different than the kind of online experiences one will find in many other places on the internet, unfortunately. I can remember many ugly episodes on the internet over the years.
  • It is a bit difficult for a newcomer to understand what is allowed in Wikipedia and what is not. A lot of the rules seem sort of arbitrary and capricious. Which they are.
  • The copying and copyright rules, which one person brought up on the talk page, can be a bit hard to understand at first.
  • It would have been better if the editor who blanked the material was more conciliatory and apologetic. Let's not bite the newcomers means exactly that. If you met Carmela in person, would people act towards her in the way that I have seen in some of these dicussions? I think not. She did something that may or may not have been against the rules. But how is she supposed to know? And when she questions what seems like a sort of strange rule that appears to be violated constantly in practice, she gets caught in a mess of nonsense. It makes me sad to see a new editor treated like this. What did she do that was so wrong? Even if she cut and pasted the recipe from someplace which may or may not have violated a copyright, what did she do so wrong? In some of these entries I see some fairly unpleasant suggestions about her knowledge of pornographic terms on wikipedia. Why could she not have found them after this entire episode, in an attempt to show the arbitrariness and strangeness of Wikipedia policies? Seems perfectly reasonable. I do not know those terms myself but I have heard them before. I would have to look them up to know what they meant however. I am not even sure how many sources there are to look up such things. So Wikipedia is valuable for that. It is also valuable for lots of other obscure information, like a recipe for example. It seems strange that such an anti-recipe rule exists on Wikipedia. The rules get bent all the time anyway. But anyway, the rule exists. I agree with Carmela that the main issue here is not the existence of a bizarre rule or two, it is that no one had the courtesy to be polite to her when explaining the bizarre rule. Shame on us. --Filll 18:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Image upload broken?

In the last couple of days, I've tried repeatedly to upload (to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload) a couple of plain-vanilla JPEG images. No joy on either -- the current one returns a message that '.' is not an accepted image format. Yes, it says '.' Help?

Pete Tillman 19:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

In case anyone wants to try to duplicate this, try uploading this image (fair use of a book cover): http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/images/n28/n143506.jpg Title it "Telzey & Crest Cats", in case it works... <g> Pete Tillman 20:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help at [1]. I just tried again, using Safari, no joy, same '.' message. Very annoying. Pete Tillman 21:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Update: rebooted, ran self-check and disk-repair routines, tried Safari. No joy with any of these. Here's the details, if anyone else has had these problems:
  • iBook G3, running OS10.3.9
  • Firefox 1.5.0.4 (Mac)
  • Safari 1.3.2


This must be an uncommon problem, judging from the sparse response. Bu aggravating! Pete Tillman 22:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The 7th Portal, It Was Deleted...Why?!

The following is my post on Centrx Talk page about the online comic called "The 7th Portal", which was created by Stan Lee...I have no idea what "Seven Sorrows" he is talking about but it's no related to the aforementioned title; so when will the article be replaced because he just is not listening and it's pissing me -- and others -- off!



Why was the article for this topic deleted?!?!

If you are referring to Seven sorrows, it was deleted because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, the articles of which must be verifiable in reliable published sources independent of the subject. —Centrx→talk • 22:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not know what the 'Seven Sorrows' you are speaking of, I am referring to the Stan Lee online comic called "The 7th Portal" -- as can be found here (not the article in question, but an archive of T7P webisodes): http://www.stanleereturns.org/7thportal.php -- which was linked to the Stan Lee article

Responded at Talk:The 7th Portal. —Centrx→talk • 00:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC) Well, still awaiting a response from you..?!

Response was already given, see link above. —Centrx→talk • 22:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You gave a response that has NOTHING at all to do with Stan Lee's -- you know the comic book creator -- "The 7th Portal" webisodes that came out in '99...I still have no idea what the "Seven Sorrows" you are refering to is; but the one thing I do know is it not part of "The 7th Portal" and do you see the difference between the names? You really need to go and do some research!

At a guess, the "response was already given" refers to, as mentioned, Talk:The 7th Portal, where there is a clear answer to why The 7th Portal was deleted. Indeed, though, this was not a link. Notinasnaid 07:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


But, there are a tonne of sources on the 'Net that talk about Stan Lee's "The 7th Portal"...and I remember when it came out as well!

Should the following page be deleted?

While searching for misspellings of position as "positon" I found the following page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Kaminski

It seems to be self-promotion and the creator/editor has only worked on this page. Can anyone handle this kind of problem, i.e., delete the page or does an administrator need to? Thanks, Dblomgren 01:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Deletion requires an admin. The best thing to do is to use add an appropriate speedy deletion template to the article. In this case {{db-nonsense}}. Is the most suitable imo.--Nilfanion (talk) 01:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. That's perfect. --Dblomgren 03:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Input Assistance

I've filed an RfC and a Peer review, but I'll be honest, as the days pass and we get no input, the situation isn't getting any better. I'd appreciate it if anyone with time could head over to James Kim and give some input on the timeline issue. See current version [2] and this earlier version [3]. You can't miss the long talk about it on the talk page. Debate is essentially over the timeline itself, split fairly down the middle about keeping it and not keeping it. Against seem to be focused on duplication of content, article length and minutia. For seem to be focused on the timeline making it easier to understand. We had a brief productive discussion last night which resulted in the current version as a proposed compromise in formatting the section to be easy to follow without duplicating content. However brief the initial success was, it didn't seem to actually get us any further.--Crossmr 08:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Part of the issue seems to be whether there is consensus to do something, and what that consensus might be. I've started a straw poll at the end of the relevant discussion sections.--Kchase T 09:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
That is part of the issue. The other part is not enough input to really form the consensus.--Crossmr 16:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
You've chosen a difficult topic, but the time-line, no matter how contentious or difficult, is part of the story, and I think it needs to stay; I shall give my 2cents' worth as you requested. (If you were against the time-line, sorry -no intetion to offend you.)GordonWatts 11:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad you couldn't tell, I was hoping I wrote that neutrally enough that whatever I was in favour wasn't apparent.--Crossmr 16:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

On 8 Dec, I uploaded an image with copyright permission, not that it was needed (many others have used merely fair use), but I got copyright permission proper to upload said photo, after I learned one of the actors didn't like the photo being used.

So, I asked the copyright owners for permission -and then when I obtained it, I made the edit changes, but shortly afterwards, the photo was deleted -I mean this upload doesn't even appear in my edit history.

It had been months if not years since I've edited here, and I forget where I ask for help, but I shall ask here.

After I asked for help, I got this reply from a spokesperson from the company: "Gordon, I saw Meghan's request for a new picture. Do you have a suitable picture she would not object to having posted? If so, please email a copy to me for review. If the picture is acceptable I will seek an OK from James or J-Lo for a one time post OK. The reason for the post about Wiki and IMDB is more the IMDB issue. But I have looked at both today and there are many factual errors regarding information. You may send the email with picture to me at GE_1947@adelphia.net I will answer via this PM feature. Thanks! Gary E PS... by the way Meghan knows who I am ..."

Then, I sent him the photos; He replied as follows: "Gordon, I have had no reply about Meghan's request. If she indicated a choice to you, use that; otherwise in the reply you sent one picture where she is sitting in the captain's seat ... so that is what I would say to use ... it is the best appearing picture of Meghan of the three you attached. Rather than waiting any longer I am Okaying you to make this one time change on behalf of Retro Film Studios as asked by Meghan. Thanks Gordon. Gary Evans 7-December-2006"

If other photos are uploaded and left alone when all that is used is Fair Use, I don't see what is such a big deal with making edit changes -it's not like the talk page had any opposition.

Here are the links in question:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Trek:_New_Voyages&diff=92857422&oldid=92747223 (Edit diff)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:NewVoyagesRand2.jpg&diff=next&oldid=92856431 (Upload diff -it has been erased somehow.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:NewVoyagesRand2.jpg (Image link -it no longer exists, but I made all these edits on the same day, yet only one still remains in my edit history:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/GordonWatts (My edit history)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek:_New_Voyages#Secondary_characters (The current version)

You can click on http://www.startreknewvoyages.com/1024/downloads.php#TSAMD and verify that I am indeed affiliated with Star Trek: New Voyages (see the 16th mirrors, 16a and 16b) -and you can contact New Voyages on their contact page to verify that I indeed did get copyright permission as I allege.

What is Wikipedia now days? A sand box where creative and appropriate edits are erased -even when no consensus exists to do so?

Thank you,GordonWatts 03:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Clarification is in order here: We did reach some sort of consensus: The actress involved started the ball rolling, opposing the current pic; An admin who speaks for the copyright owners and myself supported her; The user who put the current pic neither opposed nor supported the edit change, but he agreed with the spokesperson for the owners of the copyright in that he would hold off on editing. The "consensus" was not reached on the talk page here in Wikipedia, but rather the talk page at New Voyages, but as there is no requirement that "talk" must occur here, I am reporting the results. (I was cool with the current pic, but I did not mind supporting the "vote" of the actress in question, since I found an equally good photo.)GordonWatts 12:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
The deletion log for the image is here. The deleting admin states in his edit summary "i3", which is Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Images/Media, number 3, reading in part: Improper license. Images licensed as "for non-commercial use only", "non-derivative use" or "used with permission" that were uploaded on or after 19 May 2005, and for which no assertion of fair use is provided. Your image was tagged for speedy deletion as soon as you chose this license. You may have thought this sort of restricted license was OK if you'd uploaded images under it prior to May 2005. Deleted edits do not appear in contribution histories.
As for why we allow people to choose a license that tags their image for speedy deletion, you would not believe the number of people who will lie about the licensing as long as they can upload an image they want. You need to either to upload the image with a fair use tag and fair use reasoning, or ask the copyright owner to release the image under a free license (Creative Commons Attribution Share-alike, GFDL or public domain) and upload it under that license. It would be best if the copyright holder publically stated their release on their site, to avoid later headaches of people trying to confirm the license.
And not so much a sandbox, as sort of a virtual Thunderdome. "Two Wikipedians enter; one Wikipedian leaves!" Tina Turner, anyone? Anyone? - BanyanTree 04:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I straigtened it out; Thanks for the assistance, BanyonTree. Take care,GordonWatts 07:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

user creating home page on wikipedia

this guy[4] looks like he creating a home page on wikipedia, but people edit it. i think this is not allowed. what do i do? warn or report somewhere? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.59.132.69 (talk) 22:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC).

I have put a note on User talk:Donschiff regarding our discouraging autobiographical articles. I've taken a soft-handed approach to this as the article isn't flagrantly vanity in content and the person appears at first glance to be notable according to Wikipedia guidelines on such things. There are a problems with the article I see right off the bat, but there are many articles that are in much much more serious shape and the point of view is relatively neutral. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Looks like he meets WP:MUSIC. I find it interesting how it's usually the people on the low end of Wikipedia's threshold of notability who edit their own site bios. I doubt Oprah Winfrey or George W. Bush bother. DurovaCharge! 01:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Privacy fences

I have been confronted with an assumption regarding the construction of privacy fences. Not fully accepting the assumption, I combed through Wikipedia and several other resouces and didn't find an answer. The question or assumption is that a privacy fence (described in Wikipedia) is more wind resistant if the vertical wood slats are alternated on either side of the fence. It is frustrating not to find any reference that can be sighted to either confirm or debunk this assumption. Can the Wikipedia Village Pump help? I am new to the Wikipedia community. Thanks, ColoMtnMan

Try the Reference desk for this type of information. Tra (Talk) 22:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

How do I do citations when I have to use a reference multiple times?

I have a question regarding Kaliningrad Chkalovsk, which I created today. As you can see, I only had two sources to work with and had to refer to them repeatedly. What is the proper way to do this so that (A) they don't appear multiple times in the References block and (B) so that they conform to standards? And is my use of "ibid" correct? I'm not comfortable with it since sentences can get moved around, and "ibid" might accidentally start referring to the wrong item. I'm not sure how to do this. All of the information I've found only deals with situations where a citation appears just once. -Timvasquez 20:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the "ibids" to refs using ref name so the ref can move with the sentence. - BanyanTree 21:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Excellent... I think that solves the problem. Thanks! -Timvasquez 23:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

daily article visits/hits statistics

Is there any way to see how many users per day visit certain pages? For example, I'd like to know how many people visit the World Music page on a given day. This is just one example. Thanks! amla

For performance reasons, this feature has been disabled. However, you can get this data for the top 100 most viewed pages at Wikicharts. Tra (Talk) 23:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
If the data collection interferes with performance, wouldn't it require far more resources for the most viewed articles than for the least viewed ones, and how could Wikipedia select only the top articles for data collection? Surely they collect viewing data for all articles, but refuse to report it for most. Edison 23:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
If the feature for showing the number of visits per day to a certain article was enabled, then every time a user visited an article, the page would need to be regenerated entirely for them because the hit-count at the bottom would have changed. Additionally, the database would need to be updated to add 1 to the count. All of this uses up too many server resources for a large site like Wikipedia so instead, the hit-count is disabled so users only access pages from Wikipedia's cache, which is less server intensive.
Wikicharts works differently. Every time a user accesses a page, a piece of javascript says that about every 800 page requests, an additional request is made to the Wikimedia toolserver, which logs this and can then display a list of the most requested pages. The once-every-800-page-requests part means that impact on the toolserver is reduced but also makes the hit-counts shown there slightly innacurate, so for less-viewed pages, the margin of error would be so great that the results would be useless. Tra (Talk) 01:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

oops I made a mistake

Can this article be deleted? William Jennings Bryan, Jr.. It has no content.--Filll 05:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You can request deletion of items you make "on accident" or even on purpose but are done with (such as in your userspace sandbox) by putting {{db-author}} on the article/page. See WP:CSD for more info about speedy deletes. --MECU≈talk 13:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm a motorsports photographer and uploaded a lot of images, after reading about the different licenses. I picked: Attribution + Noncommercial + NoDerivs. Is this allowed? It is listed as one of the alternatives, now somone says I have to allow commercial use. Is that true? If I have to allow commercial use, can I put a watermark with my company name on the photos? thanks CCWSF1 19:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

No, we must allow commercial use. The image must be a free license. Anything with "noncommercial" will not be allowed at Wikipedia. Also, adding a watermark to the image would also not be acceptable, since licensing it under a free image someone could just crop the watermark out anyways. See free licenses at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Free licenses. See Wikipedia:Image use policy for watermarking information (that you shouldn't) and other image usage/creation questions. If you do decide to license your images freely, you should upload them to commons. --MECU≈talk 20:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
In addition, NoDerivs is also not allowed.--NMajdan•talk 20:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Mecu and Nmajdan are right. Non-commercial and no-derivs are not free enough for Wikipedia/WikiMedia. No-derivs would even prohibit cropping, and since we want to allow commercial re-uses of our content (such as someone selling a booklet with Wikipedia articles), non-commercial isn't good either. Visible watermarking is discouraged; Wikipedia gives the image credits on the image description pages, not in the images themselves. You could, however, use invisible digital watermarks, or mention your name in the EXIF data.
Still, you got great images there, and I'd hate to lose them because of such an annoying licensing problem. Why did you pick non-commercial and no-derivs?
If you're worried about stand-alone commercial reuses of your photos (such as a newspaper taking an image to illustrate an article, or someone producing postcards from them and selling those), may I suggest that you license your images as {{GFDL-self}}? The GFDL is a free license; it requires attribution. It allows derivative works, but requires that the author(s) of the base version(s) be attributed, too. Any republication of the original or a derivative version must also be under the GFDL. The GFDL also requires that any republication be accompanied by the full text of the GFDL. This requirement makes stand-alone reuses of a GFDL-licensed image somewhat unlikely. Imagine the postcard example: the postcard would have to carry the full text of the GFDL, which isn't exactly feasible as it runs to several pages. (Well, unless you print it so small that you have to distribute a magnifying glass with the postcard :-) Technically, the GFDL does allow commercial reuses, though. Someone selling a booklet with text containing your images can do so, as long as he attributes all the images properly and reprints the text of the GFDL in an annex.
Would the GFDL be an option for you?
If not, please consider uploading only smaller images that are unlikely to be used commercially (e.g. 300-400px wide). Such small images are still usable in Wikipedia articles. You could license these small images under a free license such as the GFDL or {{cc-by-2.5}}, without needing to release your larger versions, which you could thus still exploit commercially yourself. If you choose this way, please make clear (by stating so on the image description page) that you only release the version you uploaded under the free license and that any larger versions remain proprietary. (If you publish larger versions elsewhere, they might otherwise end up here under the free license because someone might not be aware of this distinction.)
HTH, Lupo 21:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
"If you're worried about stand-alone commercial reuses of your photos (such as a newspaper taking an image to illustrate an article, or someone producing postcards from them and selling those), may I suggest that you license your images as GFDL-self? The GFDL is a free license; it requires attribution. It allows derivative works, but requires that the author(s) of the base version(s) be attributed, too. Any republication of the original or a derivative version must also be under the GFDL. The GFDL also requires that any republication be accompanied by the full text of the GFDL. This requirement makes stand-alone reuses of a GFDL-licensed image somewhat unlikely. " This license and 400 x 300 should work for me. Is that GFDL-self in the dropdownbox? Who do they have to credit? My Wiki usernane means nothing. Can I specify my company name as the copyright holder? Thanks CCWSF1 21:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I think GFDL-self is in the downdown box, but you could also just put {{GFDL-self}} on the page and ignore the dropdown box. This would work well for doing lots of images then you could just paste in the same text. You can declare how you want the credit to occur, such as your real name or your company. Just state so in the text something like "Please attribute to "XYZ Motorsports, Inc.". Again, please consider uploading the images to commons. Then they can be used not only here, but EVERY wiki related project! Your exposure could increase! Good luck! --MECU≈talk 21:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, take a look at this template: {{GFDL-self-alternate}}. This can be used to specify who gets credit, such as {{GFDL-self-alternate|Your Name}}.--NMajdan•talk 21:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Everybody! What did I do wrong here? I wish Wiki used standard HTML! [5] It seems that the F1 info box uses a different formula than the CCWS info box. How can that be? - CCWSF1 21:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
That is very possible, it all depends on how the infobox was created. One may want the entire image link string ([[Image:Image_name.ext|200px]]) while another may just want the image name. I fixed the issue for you.--NMajdan•talk 21:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, So the F1 box automatically sizes the pic to 200 wide. That's neat. CCWSF1 21:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for all the good advice everybody! If I wanted to add a page of, say 12 pics to an article, like the Long Beach Grand Prix article (just added one there) is that something that would be welcomed, or not? CCWSF1 22:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
12 pics wouldn't be a problem, 120 maybe not so. But they could be put on a subpage, but even better would be on commons. Then there could be a link on the article to the commons gallery where there could be 12000000 images and they wouldn't care. Use the <gallery> tags to make this section. Look at Wikipedia:Gallery tag. And come back here if you need more help! --MECU≈talk 23:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
A gallery section within an article is okay. A subpage, or a separate gallery page, in general, is not okay. See Wikipedia:Galleries and Wikipedia:subpages. BlankVerse 09:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Special:Contributions

Very recently I edited a page, Rouge, to include link to a page I was about to create.

My edit looked like

* A [[Rouge (Goal)|Rouge]] was a method of scoring points in early footballing codes.

Before I could get my act together and create/edit said page it was changed by Special:Contributions/143.167.16.16 to read as follows

* A [[Rouge (football)|Rouge]] was a method of scoring points in early footballing codes.

Rouge already exists but it certainly is not the whole story which I was planning to include on the 'Goal' page. It is infact a page relating to Canadian Football and the Single Point - which is in fact derived from Rouge.

Questions follow

  • 1. What IS Special:Contributions?
  • 2. How can I discuss the change? - it obviously is not a normal user
  • 3. What is the wikiquette (sp?) now? My gut reaction was to simply undo the change - Would that have been appropriate?

A Rouge is much older and far reaching than the Single Point in Canadian Football - so what do I do next? DamienLaughton 15:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest (a) creating the page that you intended to create, and then (b) changing the link to the way you want to. Don't do a revert, do an edit, and note that the article being linked to now exists.
"Special:Contributions" is simply a list of edits that someone has done. You have such a "special" page yourself, as does every editor here. 143.xxx is a normal user, just an anonymous one.
You don't need to discuss the change until after you've created the new article and changed the link, and then only if (rather unlikely) 143.xxx shows up and changes the link again. If that happens, discuss the matter on the article's talk page, Talk:Rouge. If 143.xxx continues to revert, but doesn't respond to your post on the article talk page (extremely unlikely), post a (polite) note at the user talk page of the user. If the user continues to revert without discussing (extraordinarily unlikely), report him/her at WP:AIV as a vandal. John Broughton | ♫♫ 15:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protect userpage?

I've been getting some regular IP vandalism on a template for my userpage (just a list of userboxes). What is the appropriate measure to address this? Would a semi-protect be appropriate? --Mmx1 22:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

One or two a day for the past week - fairly minimal. You can always put in a request at WP:RPP, the worst that will happen is that they say "no". You do seem to have made someone unhappy enough to come in via a number of different anon IPs to attack you, for some reason; pretty much impossible to block an IP or small range of IPs. John Broughton | ♫♫ 02:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Spider-Man: The Animated Series characters

These pages, created by the same user, definitely aren't in standard wiki format and could be considered fancruft. I guess some sort of merge or split is appropriate? SUBWAYguy 00:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. They should definitely be merged and wikified. Also may want to check for copyvio.--NMajdan•talk 22:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

What can be done about this article? (Banned films)

I'm seeking guidance on what to do about a problem article, Banned films. It's been around quite a while, has a fair amount of encyclopedic potential (even though it's mostly a list with some explanatory material), some good bits of writing and some bad bits, but it has a fatal flaw: it is completely unsourced. It has been edited by dozens if not hundreds of editors, who have listed banned films by country, but not one of them that I can find actually listed a reliable source (or heck, even an unreliable source) for the banning or unbanning of the film(s). This is maddening. I attached the {{unreferenced}} tag and posted to the article's Talk page last May, hoping to spark interest in sourcing, but it didn't happen. So basically what's up there is a bunch of unverified assertions about movie banning and censorship. I'm sure most of them are probably correct, but that's not good enough, by Wikipedia policy. So, then, what to do?

  • AfD. That's a little too much WP:POINT for me, and it does have encyclopedic potential.
  • Stub the article. Tempting, but really, essentially everything would have to go.
  • Article RfC. Not really appropriate; there's no ongoing content dispute.
  • Peer review. Not sure it's appropriate; article is not yet of sufficient quality to attract good reviewers.
  • Continue to harangue editors on the Talk page.
  • Post this issue on another project page or noticeboard.

Not sure what to do here, though I'm leaning toward peer review. Any ideas? Thanks, --MCB 02:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Have you brought this to the attention of Wikipedia:Wikiproject Films? I'm fairly sure you would be able to find capable editors there who would be interested in sourcing and otherwise improving the article. Try the project talk page and see if you don't get some response. Good luck. --Tkynerd 02:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
If you have no luck with the above suggestion, you could source a few existing films mentioned to get the ball rolling (plus it would show future editors by example how to make inline citations), and then stub the article. However, instead of removing the material entirely, move it to the talk page. That could then function as a staging area, with instructions to future editors to add the material back into the article but only if sourced, and to remove the material from the talk page as it is adding back into the article so that as the one is added, the other is depleted. I don't really see what a peer review would accomplish, as I would think most comments would simply reiterate your present objections to the material.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to you both for two good suggestions! --MCB 07:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

where do I write my evidence against deletion ???

this message has been posted above an entry i wrote... it instructs me to add "hangon" at the top of the page and to explain reasons why this should not be deleted, but it doesn't allow me to assess the page in order to write these things. I am not sure how to add "hangon" and where and how to write my reasons why the page whouldn't be deleted.... help ?

new contributor. (e-mail removed)


This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion. The given reason is: it is an article about a person, group of people, band, club, company or website that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. (CSD A7) Speedy concern: it is an article about a person, group of people, band, club, company or website that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. (CSD A7)

If this page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. If you created this page and you disagree with this page’s proposed speedy deletion, please add: 

   {{hangon}}

to the top of this page, and then explain why you believe the article should not be deleted on its talk page.

This will alert administrators to your intention, and should permit you the time to write your explanation. Administrators, remember to check what links here, the page history (last edit), the page log, and any revisions of CSD before deletion. 

   Please consider placing {{nn-warn}}  Mikepapas 04:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC) on the User Talk page of the author.
Hangon added, reply on your talk page. --TeaDrinker 05:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

What is the correct stance with respect to duplication of information?

List of bus routes in the Bronx is a list of all routes in the Bronx, with details for those with a "Bx" prefix and prominent links to lists of routes with other prefixes. See the talk page: it's being argued that the exact information for these routes that cross into the Bronx from other boroughs should be copied and pasted from the other tables. I oppose this for reasons of consistency: someone updating a route or adding history to one table may not notice that the other table also needs to be changed, and for regular editors to be expected to copy every change to the other articles seems bad. --NE2 00:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

One option is to use transclusion, whereby content from one article is automatically included in another. Whether it's possible depends to some extent on the way information is laid out. Details are at Wikipedia:Transclusion and Wikipedia:Transclusion costs and benefits. -- John Broughton | (♫♫) 01:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I remember reading somewhere that templates should not be used to transclude content, but I can't find it at the moment. --NE2 02:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

How do I put an article in it's second AFD?

I looked and didn't see how to do it. I put AFD on Deal or No Deal (UK game show) records (which had an AFD on it in the past), but I don't think I set it up right. The debate goes to the previous one. RobJ1981 18:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, when I look at the article, it's a redlink, and per the instructions at WP:AFD, you need to create the page it links to. --Tkynerd 19:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm learning the procedure with you. Here's the apparent steps:
  1. Use {{afdx}} on the page you are nominating for deletion for a second time (don't forget to substitute). Click on "this article's entry" in the afdx template.
  2. Add to that page: {{subst:afd2 | pg=Deal or No Deal (UK game show) records (2nd nomination) | cat=M | text=Reason the page should be deleted}} ~~~~. I would strongly suggest linking in the "Reason the page should be deleted" section, the previous afd debate, as well as citing to some policy page or guideline for your rationale. Use a descriptive edit summary when you save, such as "Creating deletion discussion page for [[PageName]] because..."
  3. Finally, you would go to today's afd page, here, and post at the bottom: {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deal or No Deal (UK game show) records (2nd nomination)}} and save with an edit summary not unlike "Adding [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName]].
Like I said, I'm learning with you; not 100% sure I have it right in the absence of going through the steps.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe that at Step 1, you should state the number of the nomination as a parameter, so {{subst:AfDx|2nd}} for example. See Template talk:Afdx#Usage for more. - BanyanTree 06:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Help with an editor who is removing and tagging copyrighted images for deletion

Hello. It is possible I am mistaken and I need your help. A user has selectively removed specfic copyrighted photos of famous Minneapolitans and trademarked professional sports team logos from Minneapolis, Minnesota. The user also removed the names of thirteen persons. Removal reasons are in the edit log (and not the talk page where the list of Minneapolitans is a current discussion). This is the same user who has tagged one specific photo I uploaded as replaceable twice. Is this person authorized and encouraged to do so? May I revert his edits? Is wholesale removal of visual material occurring Wikipedia-wide?

"remove gallery of fair use sports logos which are decorative, please see WP:FU for the restrictions on using fair use images in Wikipedia" and "remove fair use images from gallery, also removed Ventura as it is likely not free and probably fair use, please see WP:FU for restrictions on using fair use images @WP."

Regarding the logos, quoting Wikipedia Logos Guidelines "This does not mean, however, that one person may veto a consensus on the use of the logo, unless that person is the owner of the logo." By my reading of the guidelines, they are used in Minneapolis, Minnesota: Sports

  • To illustrate the organization
  • In a postitive setting
  • Near neutral text
  • In the article about the city that supports the teams
  • Non promotional, non decorative use
  • Accurate and high quality

Regarding photos of Minneapolitans before and after some are tagged fair use in the Minneapolis article. I am happy to come up with a list of reasons why the people who contribute to life in a city are relevant to its article if you think it would help. I will leave the user a note that I posted my questions here but am not willing to engage in a prolonged debate. Thank you. -Susanlesch 18:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe my actions were to being the use of these images with compliance with the fair use policy. It was not my intention to remove the names of these people from the article, I thought the names were duplicated above, but it appears that assumption was incorrect, and I shall restore those names into the list. But the sports logos were not appropriate usage in this article because the article is not about these teams, and their use is decorative. Further, the use of the fair use images that depict what these people look like is also not appropriate on this article, since it's not about them and the fact they are from Minneapolis is trivial and not a substantial addition to the article. I am not vetoing the consensus, I am upholding the consensus that fair use images should not be used in this manner. Reverting my edits (sans the people names) is not appropriate. And yes, a user may do this. Any user may do this. If I had a gallery of fair use images in my userspace, any user could remove them. --MECU≈talk 19:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, he is right. And he learned this lesson himself the hard way. In order to meet the criteria for the use of fair use images in an article, that image has to contribute significantly to the article. Having the logo of a sports team that plays in the city does not meet that qualification. That use is purely decorative. That policy also applies to all fair use images, including those of people. I also occassionaly sift through the mounds of fair use images to look for those that are orphaned or are being use where they aren't supposed to and it can be time consuming to notify the user every time you come across these instances. While it is best practice to do so, sometimes it is not done. In the future, if you have a dispute about an image being removed, please ask the person who removed it to comment on it before bringing it up here or somewhere else. If it then turns into a "prolonged debate," then feel free to bring it up elsewhere to get the input of outsiders. I worked with Mecu a lot and I know he would always be happy to explain his reasoning. On this issue, I do agree with him.--NMajdan•talk 19:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • An inclusive section on professional sports teams from one city is about those teams and in a context that gives them meaning. A list of people is less informative and less meaningful than a table showing photographs of real people of real notability. Neither use of visual images strikes me as decorative or out of sync with Wikipedia's rules for fair use of copyrights and trademarks. The article itself is illustrated completely in the spirit of using free images when they are available. I am not a lawyer and I do understand there is a long history of discussion. Sorry but unless someone can tell me that you folks are lawyers or administrators or authorized by lawyers or administrators I expect based on my reading of the Wikipedia fair use policy that I will be able to revert these edits. Thank you. -Susanlesch 19:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Being a lawyer or administrator on Wikipedia, in short, having credentials is meaningless. (for the record, I am not a lawyer or admin) Saying "Minneapolis has sports teams" is not about the sports teams, it's about Minneapolis. Having a picture of someone because they are merely "from <city>" is trivial. The fair use image is on their article (if they have one, if not then they probably shouldn't even have a fair use image on Wikipedia) if someone wants to see what they look like. Using a CD cover to depict The Andrew Sisters on this article is almost explicitly against the fair use policy (See counterexamples). The decorative use has been established and "galleries of fair use images" is explicitly not allowed. Again, you should not revert these edits. To NMajdan, Susanlesch likely brought the complaint here because of our history involving a fair use rationale dispute over a former mayor of Minneapolis image (which has been resurrected because she uploaded a similar (cropped) image), but I do agree that something like this shouldn't likely occur in places like this immediately, but that explains why we're here.--MECU≈talk 19:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
The section for Sports in that article is four sentences long. The exact wording of fair use criteria #8 is: "The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose." The fair use logo do not contribute significantly and I don't know how you can argue they do. The same point gets across by using text. For instance, the use of the Minnesota Twins logo on the Minnesota Twins article is perfectly ok as the logo identifies the subject of the article. Or if there was a detailed section on the Twins in an article like "Sports in Minneapolis, Minnesota" then you might have an argument for the inclusion of the logo there as well. But having a section on this page called "Sports" then the logos does not follow Wikipedia guidelines. I know of several Admins that would agree with me, so if that is the route you want to take, I don't think it would be an issue.--NMajdan•talk 20:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Respectfully, I will restore the article. I imagine you do this with the best of intentions as Mecu's User page and edit history are about policing images. Maybe you have a different reading based on discussions that I am sorry to say I do not find in the policy. In any case maybe it would help to repeat that this article is in discussion on its talk page in hopes of reducing the number of people listed and the number of images. I truly do hope that happens soon but as I said it is a new discussion. Take care and best wishes. -Susanlesch 20:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I guarantee they will end up removed from the article but I don't wish to get into a revert war. I would still like to hear how you feel the images significantly contribute to the subject of the article.--NMajdan•talk 20:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I request that you revert your revert of my edits. You have been told not to revert with policy backing it. The "discussion" on the talk page cannot possible change the policy so that these logos and images would be valid to use in this article. Please revert your revert. --MECU≈talk 20:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The context is a brief list of which teams play there, what sport they play, and where they play it. unless there is a particular point you are making about the logos which ties them to the article on the city, then there is no Fair Use claim to be made, and they violate FUC#1 (the free adequate alternative to [badge][name] in this context is [name]). ed g2s • talk 21:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I have removed these images, and also all the "Fair Use" images being used to illustrate people. If there is any need for these images at all (they may fall under "replaceable fair use") it definitely isn't on an article about a city. ed g2s • talk 21:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
ed g2s (I see you are an administrator), I would have been more than happy to add inline fair use rationale HTML comments which I forgot if that is what you found to be a problem. I also see you have deleted all images under Famous Minneapolitans including all of the public domain images. I consider the matter closed but respectfully suggest that other outcomes were possible and might have benefited Wikipedia more. -Susanlesch 22:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
The Fair Use images were never going to be allowed on that article. I possibility could've gone through the entire gallery and found the free ones, but the pressing matter of copyright violations is far more serious than a list missing a few decorative images. ed g2s • talk 13:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
"Is wholesale removal of visual material occurring Wikipedia-wide?" It sure is. I myself just recently eviscerated the article Brasilia. I have serious doubts whether this is a good thing, but that doesn't matter; what does matter is that it is Wikipedia policy. Herostratus 03:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Who says they can't be used? And, just because they exist, doesn't mean they should be used. Just because your car can go 150 mph, doesn't give you permission to drive that fast. But, just because the speed limit is typically much less than 150 mph, doesn't mean there aren't places you can go to drive your car that fast (such as a speedway) --MECU≈talk 14:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Rwrrblog has added an external link to The Real World/Road Rules Blog on just about every article that falls under this subject, see Special:Contributions/Rwrrblog. Though the blog is filled with some useful information, a lot of the information is not verified. There is a lot of advertising on the blog. Also the manner in which the user added the links appears to be linkspamming. Can anyone advise me on how to proceed with this? I will be happy to go and revert all the changes with a nicely worded warning to the user, if that is in fact the best way to proceed. Thanks in advance. --Mattarata 21:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

With the name "Rwrrblog" and then spamming that url on over 75 articles, I would call it spam/advertising. It's well known that folks introduce items into Wikipedia to try and increase exposure, there are even "companies" people can pay to do this. I wouldn't go alone on my opinion, but I think it's spam. WP:SPAM. --MECU≈talk 21:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Reverted and warned. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Just needed some consensus. --Mattarata 23:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

How to create my own article

Hey guys how do I create my own article? Thanks Wiki101— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki101 (talk • contribs)

Well, the short answer is; go to the page you want to create and start typing. When you're done hit the "Save Page" button. The longer answer is to first read How to write a great article and the applicable notability guideline to make sure you should create the article you want to create, then follow the instructions to create it, remembering to cite your sources. Wikipedia:Citation templates has some useful fill-in-the-blank type things that make that easier. If you've got further questions, ask on my talk page. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
The very long answer is do all of the above ... but also read up on WP:Reliable Sources, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, and a host of other policies and guidelines... you will need to have these memorized (especially the fine print) so you can defend your article in various RfCs, AfD debates, and POV pushing attacks on the article's talk page. Have fun. Blueboar 19:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Also see Wikipedia:How_to_start_a_page. Superm401 - Talk 10:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Very strange formatting issue

Can anyone figure out why the second and third paragraphs of Long Island Rail Road are being bunched together? Thank you. --NE2 11:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean? I see a second paragraph starting at "In addition to commuter trains", and that appears to correspond with the source. Superm401 - Talk 12:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
It seemed to be a problem with a comment tag. I've added in a few spaces that seems to have fixed the problem. Tra (Talk) 17:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's actually an issue with a [citation needed] succeeded by a link. It very strangely doesn't work in user space or Wikipedia space. See This page is for testing a bug that only seems to happen in mainspace. for a demonstration. --NE2 05:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

How to contact another editor?

There is an article I'm interested in researching and expanding: Kit Carson. Another editor had conflicts, and seemed to have left, but asked to be contacted if someone was interested in hearing more of what he had to say. I would like to do that, but can't seem to find out how that would occur. Is this possible or not? Richiar 07:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Presumably you have tried their Talk Page? Fiddle Faddle 07:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes. There is some sort of strange address on the users talk page, I don't understand how to interpret it. I'll send you an elaborated response.Richiar 03:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:User talk and Wikipedia:email. Superm401 - Talk 12:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Ksyrie

User:Ksyrie is making changes to Macau, Hong Kong, List of countries by continent, and List of countries‎ without discussion and consensus. I reverted him twice on each article and he has made his changes again (3 time total). On List of countries by continent he has made the changes 4 times as he was revert by another user. Can an admin look into this/warn User:Ksyrie that a consensus needs to occur before a change is made -- (Shocktm | Talk | contribs.) 00:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, under WP:BOLD, an editor does not need to seek consesus before making a change. However, common sense tells us that if such a change is reverted, and the editor who made the change disagrees with the revert, he/she should go to the talk page and discuss the issue. At that point consensus is needed. It's a nit-pick... but an important one. I only bring it up because new editors come here and are influenced by what we say. We should be accurate. Blueboar 13:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Per Help:Reverting, Do not revert good faith edits. I take that to mean that if the edit is about a point that could be disputed, then per WP:AGF, the edit should be modified or discussed (on the talk page). (On the other hand, if someone is (say) revising an article to place Canada in South America, that's vandalism, not a good faith edit.) And as Blueboar said, and I'll emphasize: An editor is free to edit articles without posting notice of intent to edit or trying to achieve consensus first. There are obvious exceptions - if something is being worked out on a discussion page, then an edit of the article can disrupt that process. But, in general, Wikipedia was built upon editors who just went and edited. See Wikipedia:Editing policy#Boldness.
If the matter does come down to a dispute over what is right for the contents of the article, please see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. -- John Broughton | (♫♫) 14:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism

Require the support of an Admin to stem the vandalism from IP 209.202.75.50 on articles Copper Sunrise and Bryan Buchan and they have recently moved to other topics. --HJKeats 17:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

209.202.75.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has already been blocked. In the future, please warn vandals with the standard talk page warnings and then report vandals who don't desist at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. - BanyanTree 18:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Page move

I suggested a long long time ago that Petersfield, Hampshire be moved to Petersfield. The latter is a disambig page that points to the former, as well as two redlinked pages, which are not linked to by any other pages.

Google searches all point to the town in Hampshire also, and so I'd suggest a move of that to the Petersfield page, and the disambig move to a Petersfield (disambig) page.

Does anyone have the time, inclination and authority to do this? Grunners 16:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Requests like this are better posted at Wikipedia:Requested moves, so admins with experience in evaluating such things can take a look. - BanyanTree 18:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Guidance and experiences for learning about wikipedia categories

Wikipedia Categories.
If have not found an accessible (in the sense of easy to follow or scan) means to understand the categories in existence for say, American History, American Politics, and the like. What are people's experiences on understanding what categories exist for particular, but a still fairly general topic? Thanks. -- Yellowdesk 02:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I find Wikipedia's entire category system confusing and messy. I try to avoid working with categories, generally thinking someone for whom it makes sense will fix it. When I do work with categories I find Wikipedia:Categorical index is generally a good and helpful place to start. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
This isn't an area that I spend much time with, but perhaps Wikipedia:Categorization would also be useful to you. -- John Broughton | (♫♫) 14:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Experienced Editors wanted at Wikipedia Drawing Board

I have recently joined the Wikipedia community. I use Wikipedia all the time now to look up general knowledge and even have it as my homepage. A month or so ago, I found out about a certain religious group and decided to look them up here, but to my surprise there was no article on them yet. I negotiated the pages on how to request a new article, and since I had information to help start the article, I was directed to the Wikipedia Drawing Board. I made my request there with relevant information on the topic, and one editor had made a suggestion to verify the notability of the organization. I gave published articles on the organization for notability concerns but have not had any other editors comment on the feasibility of the article. In fact, I don't think that many experienced editors monitor the Drawing Board to help these new requestors/contributors. In looking at the Community Portal, I didn't see anything advising editors to monitor the Drawing Board to help newcomers to Wikipedia. I have already posted a request for experienced editors to help the Drawing Board on its discussion page. If experienced editors could be informed of their requested help in maintaining and monitoring the Drawing Board, then I think this will greatly aid Wikipedia in the creation of new quality content. Please let me know of any way to address this issue on my talk page. - cgilbert 14:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll be honest. I don't see the purpose of this page. You can create the article on your own, and should if you have sources and think the topic is notable. Be bold!. Superm401 - Talk 10:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
There is also the matter of overlap with Wikipedia:Requested articles. -- John Broughton | (♫♫) 14:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
In regards to overlap with Wikipedia:Requested articles, that page itself states right above the contents, "If you want to do more than just request an article and would like to discuss and plan its creation go to the drawing board." Following that link is how I first arrived at the drawing board and came to be a proponent for its use. - cgilbert(talk|contribs) 15:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

what if my AMA becomes inactive?

My AMA was a great help in moving the editing process along on a contentious page. We subsequently ran into another stalemate, and I need my AMA's advice on how best to proceed. He was a very active user, but since December 18, he has about four edits, spaced weeks apart, and hasn't responded to my requests for help for five weeks. I'd prefer to wait for him since he's done the tedious work of informing himself on the issues involved, but presumably he has outside concerns right now keeping him away from his regular WP participation. What's the maximum reasonable time to wait before getting a new AMA? And how exactly do I do that? 0-0-0-Destruct-0 00:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I think your AMA indicated the advocation process had run its course per following comment, 3rd Jan. [6]. You indicated agreement shortly after, 4th Jan. [7]. Full disclosure, I am involved in this debate myself. Steve block Talk 00:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
    • The above response is from the party whose behavior caused me (and continues to cause me) to seek the assistance of an AMA in the first place. He is not informed as to the email exchanges I had with my AMA before my AMA's longtime regular participation ceased about five weeks ago. The AMA has left the case open, and I would be thankful to anyone who could advise, in light of the AMA's sudden inactivity, as to a reasonable length of time to wait, and how to get a new AMA if that becomes necessary. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 02:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I am the AMA in question, I did indicate that the AMA process has been as useful as it can be in this instance and another method of deciding the conflict on the article will need to be considered. •Elomis• 10:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Which is a good intro for citing Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, which discusses alternatives. -- John Broughton | (♫♫) 14:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
          • I had thought the issue was settled, but if this does have to go to arbitration then so be it. Third parties have been brought in, comments have been requested and a consensus was established on the talk page. Steve block Talk 16:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
            • The AMA indicated that mediation was the next step, which I agreed with. Because of my unfamiliarity with that process, I was expecting my AMA to assist me with mediation, and any later processes, so I've been awaiting his return, per the advice at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, which said: "While you can request the assistance of an advocate at any stage, please seriously consider use of a member advocate in the later stages of dispute resolution." Before proceeding, though, I was hoping my AMA would advise on what aspects of the case are the strongest and worth pursuing. There have been developments since the last time my AMA communicated with me, but I don't want to waste time pushing a case if, in the AMA's opinion, its foundations aren't as solid as I think. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 18:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
              • Arbitration is the next step. Mediation appears to me to be a dead duck since given the discussion so far I don't see that our views are reconcilable. Steve block Talk 19:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
              • That said, it would be more pertinent and useful to all on Wikipedia if you aired your thoughts here rather than in an email. That may change the nature of the debate and the options open. Steve block Talk 20:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia article for Sandra Bernhard plagiarized in Newspaper

"Key to Philadelphia," a Philly, PA based free newspaper has blatantly plagiarized the Wikipedia article on Sandra Bernhard. I have contacted their editior via phone and emailed him the text and links. It is hugely evident that the "journalist" who wrote the article for them used the wiki-article as the source for most of his tidbits and "facts", and he copied one paragraph almost verbatim. What tipped me off is that he used a misquote from the article from The View's Elisabeth Hasselbeck: the article quotes her as saying "Don't you honey me, HONEY!" when in fact she said "First of all, honey yourself." Is there someone for Wikipedia who this should be reported to, or is it 100% acceptable for news outlets to copy Wiki text word for word? Midnightguinea 18:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that the Commons that Wikipedia is released under allows this to some extent which is why you have to agree to give up all individual rights to material that you put on wikipedia.
perfectblue 19:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
IANAL but Wikipedia's content is licensed under the GFDL, which means anything published here can be published anywhere (including for profit) but only so long as the original source is credited AND it is republished under the GFDL (a similar copyleft license). This is fairly different from "give up all individual rights ..." (which sounds more like public domain). In addition to Wikipedia's copyright terms, you still own authorship rights to anything you write here and you can republish under whatever terms you'd like as an individual author. Please see Wikipedia:Copyrights for more details about Wikipedia's copyright policy and Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks for what to do about content reuse outside the terms of the GFDL. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC) (amended Rick Block (talk) 18:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC))
It means content can be redistributed if the GFDL and copyright notice are maintained and the content remains licensed under the GFDL (including derivative works); other copyleft licenses are not acceptable. Superm401 - Talk 18:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd be astonished if the Wikimedia Foundation had ever sued for a case of plagarism, as this was, and no, there isn't anyone or anyplace here at Wikipedia that I can think of to whom it would be worth reporting. On the other had, I commend Midnightguinea for having contacted the editor; this is simply bad journalism as well as a (minor) insult to Wikipedia. -- John Broughton | (♫♫) 01:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Foundation doesn't have standing to sue. Only original authors due. However, for our process for systemic copying, please see Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. It seems this case was dealt with well, though. Superm401 - Talk 06:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

How to use a template as a signature

Can I use an active template as a signature (without the SUBST: argument)? I am using the following command in the preferences to sign articles: {{SUBST:User:Iradigalesc/Signature}} and I want to use the template {{User:Iradigalesc/Signature}} to update my signatures at the same time I update the page User:Iradigalesc/Signature. The problem is than when I type {{User:Iradigalesc/Signature}} in the preferences, the program adds automatically the SUBST: argument.

Thanks! --Iradigalesc (discussion · +) 18:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't find any official policy on this, but I think what you're trying to do is frowned upon. By not SUBSTing the template, it must be reloaded every time any page containing your signature is loaded. That means a lot more strain on the Wikipedia servers. If just a few people with signatures on several pages did this, it could cause significant performance problems. That is probably why the SUBST argument is automatically added. So basically, once you sign a page with any given signature, that's the one that'll stay. If you want to change it, it will only change for subsequent signings.
By the way, you don't need a separate page for your signature. You can set it in your user preferences. Just make sure the Raw signature box is checked, and put the HTML/Wiki markup in the signature box.
—PurpleRAIN 19:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Article Is Link Farm

I stopped watching Kickball a long time ago because I was sick and tired of constantly fighting link spammers. I checked back recently and somebody took the valid section of Adult Kickball and created a new article with it called Adult Kickball. Not per se wrong but it made an already short article into two shorter stubs. But check that new page out and you'll see it's only real purpose is as a total link farm, advertising adult kickball leagues all around the United States! Unless I'm wrong, that is totally against WP policy. If somebody went over there and wiped out all the link spam it'll just restart the 50th edit war just like it did on the original kickball article. So what's the right thing to do? I'd personally rather just post this notice and let somebody else take care of this because its so frustrating, but my suggestion would be to return the Adult Leagues section back to being a section on the main article (because Adult Kickball doesn't really deserve it's own article) and speedy delete Adult Kickball because the only reason somebody split it off was to abuse it for advertising links. Otherwise there's not enough content for an independent article. Fife Club 18:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I've remerged and redirected to kickball. There's certainly enough content for an article, but it seems to have been split at least partially to escape a debate about the spam. That is one of the worst reasons I've seen for a split, in that the result was to maintain and expand the web directory. If it gets recreated, put the split article up at AFD and let the community weigh in on the quality of the new article and if a merge is appropriate. - BanyanTree 20:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Should the history be split?

I've been working on improving Long Island Rail Road to featured status. It was suggested on the talk page that the history section be split into a new article, because "probably some readers who want to know what the railroad is, rather than what it was, are having trouble with it." However, I feel that the LIRR basically is its history; a lot more happened in the building up of the system than recently. In addition, I've heard the complaint that featured articles are often on very obscure subjects, and the more relevant subjects are ignored. If the history is split, I will probably not work on improving the main article, helping to fulfill this prophecy. What do you think? --NE2 09:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Responded at Wikipedia:Peer review/Long Island Rail Road. - BanyanTree 16:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Not Sure if "notable" - assistance requested

Hello,

My name is Troy Rutter and I am cited in an article on Babylon 5, and am a member of the Screen Actor's Guild, and published a book available on Amazon.com. I believe I am therefore able to create an article off of the Babylon 5 article for myself as an individual, but I do not want to violate a "notability" rule in doing so.

The B5 article is at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon_5%27s_use_of_the_Internet

Maybe my hesitancy is that it also seems egotistical. So my question is: Can I create a personal entry for me using the citation already given in an existing article, and then build that article out with the necessary bio information about myself and the book, etc? Or do I have to wait for somebody to create a page FOR me, before I can contribute to its updating.

Or, should I not do anything of the sort. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trutter (talk • contribs) 18:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

You shouldn't do anything of the sort. WP:AUTO explains why. And by the way, your hesitancy is commendable and is something we see all too little of around here when it comes to this kind of article. Best regards, --Tkynerd 18:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank-you, I apologize for not finding the WP:AUTO article before posting my question. I looked but should have looked harder. Thanks again. --trutter
No problem -- I often have trouble finding particular help articles that I know about; if you don't know exactly what you're looking for, it's even harder. --Tkynerd 19:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
If you really think you're notable, though, feel free to suggest the article on Talk:Babylon 5; just leave the decision and any editing of the article to others. Superm401 - Talk 06:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
It's always helpful to provide sources of information. You can use WP:CITE if you really want to be helpful, or just list the information needed (publication, author, date, article title). You probably have a clippings file that could save a Wikipedia editor a lot of work. If you have links to websites, definitely include those when/where you suggest the article - it will make it lot more attractive to an editor (who then doesn't have to find sources him/herself). -- John Broughton | (♫♫) 00:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Image of a non-living person

I would like to add an image into the infobox on the Virginia C. Andrews article. She is deceased so I obviously can't find take a 'free use' picture of her. She was a very secretive woman and the best image of her I can find is at this page. But I couldn't work out under which license I should/could upload it. Any answers? Madmedea 23:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

If you don't own the rights to this image (and I'm guessing you don't) then you need to get permission from whoever does own the rights to upload it. Please see Wikipedia:Example requests for permission. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Constantly getting messages warning me of vandalism...

During the last few weeks I kept getting new messages telling me my i.p. has been involved in vandalizing the "Mickey Mouse" page. However I have no idea why I'm getting these messages since I didn't even have account until 5 minutes ago.

I'm really concerned about this, please give me some advice

Thanks in advance, Charonic

I can't tell what IP address you're accessing Wikipedia from, but others might be able to. I do not see any vandalism messages on your talk page. If you sign in to your account when you access Wikipedia you should be fine. I'll add a welcome message to your talk page that should be useful to you in navigating Wikipedia. - cgilbert(talk|contribs) 14:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Warning messages are posted for anonymous IP addresses as well as registered users. It's possible (a) that the messages are mistaken, or (b) that there is just one, old message, or (c) that you think that because you were editing without an account, you weren't subject to warning messages, and that the message(s) are valid; or (d) that you're clicking on "last change" rather than "new messages" when you get the notification of messages, so the wiki software therefore thinks that you haven't read the warning message, so it keeps showing you the banner, which involves an edit warning for some other user who edited from the IP address that you're now assigned (since it seems like you have a stable IP address). In any case, as cgilibert said, if you have an account and you logon, you'll not see messages that are for the IP address you're using. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually the start of this thread was that account's first edit to Wikipedia. The odds are pretty good that this user was editing from a shared IP address. Someone else who used it probably did the vandalism. Don't worry too much: for technical reasons I won't get into here, account registration should clear up the confusion. Welcome! DurovaCharge! 23:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Republic of Georgia articles not referenced in English

I was stub sorting and found three related articles on a child homicide case in the Republic of Georgia which don't appear to have English sources and, because they explicitly name individuals, probably ought to be double-checked (but I have no stomach for googling this one, sorry): "Child-Killer", Leo Vardiashvili, Luka Vardiashvili. The same user also created the apparently unrelated article Malkhaz Vardiashvili. Random Passer-by 20:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I found the "Not verified" tag which puts articles into the "Category:Wikipedia articles needing factual verification" so I added it to these articles and my question above is probably redundant. Random Passer-by 23:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Layout help needed

I can't figure out how to move the contents box to the right of the page and have the text still running down the left on Suspension (body modification) if someone could help me with this, that would be great, because at the moment there is a big blank space! -- Librarianofages 01:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added a TOCleft that floats the table of contents on the left. Please see Help:Section. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Question regarding pages based on episodic programming like TV series or sub-divisions of an umbrella concept like group:album:song

I have run across mutiple pages that had the title of an episode of a television series as the article name. This seems like a TERRIBLE practice as often titles will refer to works of history or be quotes aor be other things that SHOULD be the main article under that title. Is ther ea "Best Practice" or Policy in WIkipedia for handling this? Someone please direct me. If not I would happy to propose a policy something like this:

The article title of a serialized fictional story or television show should be named: "(name of show):(name of episode)" . For instance, the episode of the (classic) Star Trek episode named "Bread and Circuses" would be named "Star Trek: Bread and Circuses"
This policy would also apply to things like the musical group:album:song articles.

I am clea rthis is a genral problem of granularity. When does an article split off and when does a single song require an article and when should it just be a section of a musical groups article. Can sopmeone point me to where this SHOULD be discussed or wher eit already has been? Thank you!!! If this is the wrong place to post this please direct me to the right place... Alex Jackl 16:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

That isn't how Wikipedia articles are named. To use your example, an article about that Star Trek episode should be entitled Bread and Circuses (Star Trek episode) or something similar. The name of the article's subject should come first, and any additional information necessary to disambiguate the name should follow in parentheses. Where there are several articles that have the same main title, a disambiguation page is used to differentiate between them. See English for an example. (I'll also note that the article in the example is actually located at Bread and Circuses (TOS episode).) --Tkynerd 16:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
And I forgot to address your final question, sorry! Basically information gets split off into a new article when the original article is considered too long, and when there is enough information to make a reasonably complete new article (and, also, when the subject of the new article can be considered notable in its own right). --Tkynerd 16:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for responding! Is that policy or de facto practice? Should articles with just a episode name or song name be renamed to say "Mr. Roboto (Styx song)"(I know I just SO dated myself!)? Alex Jackl 20:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I can't definitely point to a policy, so I'll say it's the practice here. Articles should only have a parenthetical clarification in their titles if they are ambiguous, which I don't think "Mr. Roboto" is (there's nothing else called Mr. Roboto that has, or should have, its own Wikipedia article, is there?), so in that case I'd say no. --Tkynerd 21:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
There is not a policy, but there is a guideline... see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blueboar (talk • contribs) 02:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC).
Thanks, Blueboar! Even less authoritative, but still very useful, is this. --Tkynerd 02:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Help needed fixing mess created by User:ShreveNewsMan

On 14 December 2006, User:ShreveNewsMan expanded Template:USLargestCities to the 100 largest cities in the United States with no discussion, even though at the start of July 2006, several editors (myself included) debated the issue over the size of the list, and the consensus was to trim to 50 from 75. See Template talk:USLargestCities. I have been too busy with my responsibilities as a lawyer to catch this mess until recently. Although I fixed the template on 23 January 2007, User:Squad51 just brought it to my attention that ShreveNewsMan had also put the template at the bottom of the articles of cities 51-100. I have deleted the template from four so far but I'm on a dial-up Internet connection at home and I just don't have the time to go through and clean out the remaining 46. Can a more advanced MediaWiki user please go through and fix the other 46, plus reprimand ShreveNewsMan for ignoring community consensus? --Coolcaesar 08:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Due to WP:BOLD an editor doesn't have to follow consensus to make changes, and it may be frowned upon for a third party user to go around undoing his changes. Personally I would suggest that you leave a message with him yourself, pointing him to where the consensus was made, and asking him to revert his own changes. SGGH 15:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Redirect not working

There's an article on pissant. The word is often seen as "piss-ant," and I'm trying to get a redirect page to "pissant." It doesn't seem to be working, but I'm not familiar enough even to be sure. Maybe some kind soul can fix it. Lou Sander 15:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. It's working now. Sorry. Lou Sander 15:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Help needed fixing articles mauled by WP:BLP

The following artivcles have been truncateed as apart of a users efforts to apply WP:BLP to all articles. Some of the statements removed seem like they could be good contributions to wikipedia if cited, and In the case of some, like Roman Abramovich, I feel it's vital that we get them cited and back in the article as soon as possible. Anything to do with religion, sexuality or politics will need to be partivularly well cited as the user has a particular interest in those areas and will revert anything thats less than rock solid.

I'd do more of this myself, and there may be others that deserve this attention but frankly the whole affair has left me a little drained of enthusism for doing anything Wikipedia related.

(I'm not sure that this is the appropriate space for this, or that delving into the hisotry to recover things is concidered goodd policy, but there is no equivalent of the unsourced or cite templates, and no effort to indicate what has been removed has been made on the talk pages.Feel free to repost this somewhere more appropriate) Artw 17:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest posting it on the Wikipedia:Wikiproject Biography page. SGGH 11:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

vandalism on George Pocock page

Someone wrote "Wikipedia is really wierd cos u can change everything they write so it is not reliable, c wat i mean!?" on the page, near the bottom. I went in to edit it but can't find it in the code. Someone who is more proficient than I, fix it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.105.193.172 (talk) 17:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

This was fixed about 3 minutes after it was added, by this edit. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

New Organizations WikiProject

I've just started throwing together the beginnings of what I hope will become a well-organized and active project. I'm going to be putting in lots of my time setting up the Project pages and categories but I need some technical help from people who've got experience with bots and templates. Some things I'd need specific help with are auto-assessment features I've seen elsewhere. Please check out the page → (under construction), and sign up if you'd like to lend us a hand. Cheers! Oldsoul 05:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Making pictures?

I don't know how to add a picture to an article... HELP! Also, how do I get adopted in adopt-a-user? NS Zakeruga 00:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Adding pictures is explained at Wikipedia:Picture tutorial. To ask to be adopted through Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User, add {{Adoptme}} to your userpage (which you've done, so wait a while). -- Rick Block (talk) 01:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

HELP! I AM BEING ATTACKED ON MY TALK PAGE, AND DON'T KNOW HOW TO STOP IT.

I am being repeatedly attacked on my Talk page by a clever editor who is repeatedly twisting my words, assuming bad faith repeatedly even after my attempts to explain that what I said was completely innocuous, and, even though I asked in a civil manner, will not stop his deceptive criticism of me - out of context - on my Talk page. I asked him to confine his comments to the Talk page in question (Talk:Jonathan_Wells), but he has refused to do so. The worst part is that he is an administrator! I would have thought that administrators would be held to a higher standard of behavior. I never thought it would give them a licence to blatantly and repeatedly violate "assume good faith" and also impugn editors' character on their Talk pages. He is accusing me of the very things he is actually doing. If I have the ability to lock my Talk and User pages to prevent editing, I don't know how to do it. I am a relatively inexperienced user (no longer a newcomer, but still naive enough to think that people are honest and that the rules should be followed and that people should be civil), and I need HELP! I am watching his Talk page, so you may respond there if that is the most appropriate place. -Exucmember 20:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Admins are held to the same standard of behavior as everyone else when it comes to editing... no more and no less. While I don't think you intended a personal attack, from the outside looking in it is easy to see how Guettarda could have taken it as such. Beyond that, I wan't to point you to WP:USER and WP:OWN; you don't own your user talk page so even if you could lock it, there would be no reason to; nothing Guettarda was saying really constituted a personal attack or incivility as it would commonly be defined here. The bottom line is that this appears to be a simple misunderstanding over the usage of a phrase and at this point Guettarda has indicated he will drop it, so case closed.--Isotope23 21:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Our Cry For Help

Dear Wikipedia and Wikimedia Affiliates,

I am a current high school student who has had trouble with the accreditation of your site as a useable resource. On behalf of the many student here at my school, my friends and I have started a petition to allow Wikipedia and Wiki resources to be used as credible, official sources in reports, essays, and research. My fellow Wiki advocates and I fully understand the workings of contributors, editors, and the occasional vandalizers, yet we believe that Wikipedia in its whole is a valuable source and is at most times more credible than other sources available to us. We understand that when researching, one should double check citing and information, and yet one should always do the same for all sources that are used. The other complication that had been aroused from our teachers was the necessity for a proper citation for Wikipedia. I explored the content section in your database and was pleased to find not one but multiple examples of each type of citation. I hoped that from this e-mail concerning your site your supporters and I would be able to acquire some positive feedback from any position in the inner workings of this helpful source. I hope to get a reply soon and to the site and its future, we give our best wishes.

Sincerely, Tom Hart

1/14/07

I attempted to send this email to "Wikipedia information team" and got no response other than that they thought that I wanted to make a change to the site. I really don't want anything to change because I love the site. I was just hoping to get some response to my plea and this is my last idea of where to send this request. Please give me something I can bring back to my friends or somewhere else to send this message where I can get a response.

Please and thank you, Tom Hart

1/25/07

I think it is great that you are taking an interest in working out with your teachers what you think is a credible resource. With regard to citations, you can click on the "cite this article" from any article (it is in the left column at the bottom). You have to choose which citation style you use, in the US, MLA is quite common in high school (if you're not sure, your teacher should be able to clarify which style is prefered).
In regard to the concerns about credibility, you may want to check out Wikipedia:Replies to common objections and Wikipedia:FAQ. Beyond that, you may want to consider how to argue a source is credible. Is it more or less credible than a website, for instance (anyone can put up a website). Because Wikipedia is easier to edit, does that make it less credible? How do you decide in general if a source is credible, and then apply those criteria to Wikipedia.
Finally, keep in mind that there may be secondary goals behind keeping Wikipedia out as a reference. Not so long ago, when I was a high school teacher, my school generally let students have only one Wikipedia article citation. We did not want students to give up doing their own research. Moving on to college, you will find professors and TAs not accept any encyclopedia as a reference (or rarely), simply because they expect primary research and sythesis of ideas from multiple sources. Your teachers may be trying to prepare you for that.
Hope all goes well and you can reach an agreement with your teachers. --TeaDrinker 02:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a Wikipedia sysop and I sympathize with where you're coming from - but for the most part I agree with your teachers. Way back when I was in high school the English class came right after study hall and cave painting, just before they taught us how to carve spearheads from rocks. Starting at age fourteen the rule came down like a hammer: no encyclopedia citations...none. We could use an encyclopedia as a starting point to look for other material, but we could expect a dismal grade and probably an order to rewrite the assignment if we broke that rule. Now once in a while you might find a subject where the school library doesn't have any material but Wikipedia does. On a case-by-case basis, go to your teacher and see if they'll make an exception. We're here to help, but the site isn't perfect. Best wishes, DurovaCharge! 23:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I too would agree with your teachers on this. Wikipedia is not (yet) a reliable source for information. Our goal is to make it so, but we still have a long way to go before that is achieved. Given that our own rules and guidelines don't even allow citations from Wikipedia articles (or articles from other wiki type encyclopedias) to be used, I am not at all surprized that schools don't allow them. That said, Wikipedia can be a good place to start your research... it can be a very useful tool for compiling a bibliography of sources that can be used in school. Blueboar 15:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Same with my school! When they see you using wikipedia they get angry! They say its not reliable source because anyone can edit, but that isn't true because if you were a vandal, then you would want to destroy the whole page - not just make a change in the facts. In the report I was doing, I compared the facts of book I checked out with the site, and it was all verifiable and trustworthy information. Some of my classmate agree with me, the facts on their topics with wikipedia are the same, yet they still don't allow it. The requirements for a secondary source for my school thing are: site should end in .edu or .org, must be updated recently, and creator must have credentials (editors). A sad NS Zakeruga 01:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This appears to have been lifted wholesale from here, however, it is my understanding that since NASA is a US government agency it might not strictly be a copyvio. This aside, it seems distinctly not on to simply lift texts wholesale. Thoughts? Chris cheese whine 13:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The work of U.S. federal employees carried out in the course of their official duties is public domain, per the message on {{PD-USGov}}. The work of "Steven J. Dick, NASA Chief Historian" definitely applies. Wholesale copying is not illegal, but it's considered good manners to acknowledge the source. If you want, you can add a note, either to the bottom of the article, like {{1911}}, or to the talk page acknowledging the source. - BanyanTree 14:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I've added an explicit notice of the source. Superm401 - Talk 08:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
True as that may be, I'm not really sure that the fact that we can implies that we should simply lift text from elsewhere. Wouldn't this somewhat hurt the 'Pedia's credibility ("Hey, they'll copy from anyone if they can ...")? Chris cheese whine 03:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Well then you might as well delete all of Category:Wikipedia_articles_incorporating_text_from_the_1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica. Lifting content from a public domain source is perfectly acceptable!  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 19:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Is redirect broken?

I tried to make a redirect at National Wildlife Service but I do not think it worked.--Filll 00:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

There was an extra linefeed in the link. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Searching for templates

Recently, I saw an article that used a template that does something cool - it sets a quote out in indented style, with a pair of very big, colorful doublequotes around the text, and with some special handling for the name of the author of the quote. Today I want to use that template, and I can't remember the article.

So I really have two questions: What was that template? And, more importantly, how do I search for templates? David.Throop 23:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You're probably thinking of Template:Cquote. I found it by guessing template:quote (which is probably not it), and following the category link to Category:Quotation templates. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Need help with list of uncategorised articles that previously had categories

User:Alai has made a list of articles that previously had categories but lost them because of some reason. A big reason is vandalism, usually very old vandalism even. Help is appreciated since it's a depressingly big list. The list can be found here. Garion96 (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Should we do anything to indicate ones that have categories now? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 19:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Just remove them from the list. But still check for vandalism, often a categorie is replaced, but old vandalism/blanking can still be there, usually from an IP. Garion96 (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Web.com

I just tagged this article for an NPOV problem. Basically, every edit made to this page in the last few weeks have been done by SPA and IP's who only edit this and related articles, including removing references to a lawsuit against the company at it's former name. I suspect a rather orchestrated attempt to scrub the article. I don't know if anyone is interested in taking a look and doing some research here, but I thought I'd toss it out here since it could use some attention from people with an outside viewpoint.--Isotope23 18:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind... User:Ohconfucius just did a bang up job on a rewrite.--Isotope23 18:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Unlinking years?

Does anybody know why there are editors who seem to be going around Wikipedia relentlessly unlinking years, even though Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Partial dates specifically says there is no consensus on this? I don't much care either way, but to me it seems more civil to leave articles alone that other editors have worked on, rather than risking starting edit wars over this small matter. AFAICT these are not editors who have otherwise worked on these articles. Recent example: Stockholm Metro, which is on my watchlist. But I've been seeing this on several of my watched articles over the last few days, and I don't think it's always the same editor. Has a new consensus developed, or is there a movement I don't know about? --Tkynerd 01:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I thought there was consensus on this. I prefer delinking solitary years. Not whole dates of course because of date preferences. It just seems so pointless to link to 1994 when all the sentence says that the green line (to take your example) was built in that year. Garion96 (talk) 14:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I like linking to years; it gives context to historical events. In an article about the green line (to stay with that example), saying it was built in 1994 and linking to the year allows you to look at that year and maybe the few years before and after to see what could have happened that made Stockholm decide they needed it, and if it was effective in solving the problem. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 15:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
In matters of politics, history, and art, then years should be linked. But things like this show how unnescessary it is to link every year in every case. doktorb wordsdeeds 16:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Can you expand on that? Per ONUnicorn's post above, I don't see that it shows that at all. --Tkynerd 16:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
That has changed - at one time it was a clear consensus that standalone years should not be wikilinked unless they were historic. I am one of the editors who undoes the links unless they are specific to topis, like 1983 in music, or older than 1900. (One of the problems with the wiki system is that the rules also get edited over time - but who goes back and checks those again and again?) I agree that links like 1994 are pointless distractions. - DavidWBrooks 11:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
If there is no longer a clear consensus for this, why do you do it, and why should anyone else do it in an article they randomly happen upon? That's my question. In my view, it's one thing to do this in an article where you're doing other work, and quite another to perform these edits in an article you otherwise have nothing to do with. Also, what on earth does it mean for a year to be "historic"? --Tkynerd 11:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I think it's clear that "In 1995 the City Line opened" is different to "In 1995 The Prime Minister of Where-ever resigned" doktorb wordsdeeds 12:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't see a significant difference. It's almost always better to explain oneself than to assume that everyone else knows what one means. --Tkynerd 14:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

My password request eMails are not arriving.

I was unable to sign into my account SquidThing and so I requested a new password. I have tried on two days now, but the eMails are not arriving, it is possible (although, I think, unlikely) that the account has a now obsolete eMail address.

Where should I got to try and resolve this problem?

Regards,

Andrew 62.49.21.229 20:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You might try Wikipedia:Contact us/login problems. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 23:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

List of Major League Baseball players suspended for performance-enhancing drugs

A lot of the information at List of Major League Baseball players suspended for performance-enhancing drugs is sourced from SteroidList.com. I asked this on the article's Talk page, but it has not been answered. Does anybody have any idea how reliable SteroidList.com is? Is it a reliable source? Corvus cornix 16:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I've replied at the talk page. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 21:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Which photographer is best?

Hi all, I've been organizing to get a photographer at the Annie Awards, which are animation's highest honour. I need to decide which photographer we're sending by this afternoon. Who should I choose? (Edited list of applicants.)

  • Jason Jones:
  • Roger Snider:
  • John Mueller: "I use top of the line Nikon cameras & lenses and can either FTP or send you a copy of the images within a couple days." Ace Young Birthday Benefit, Red carpet for cancer benefit
  • Lafayette Height: "My experience includes more than 15 years behind the lens as a professional photojournalist and an event photographer for corporate events, parties, private celebrations and weddings. My cameras are a minimum 6.5 megapixel resolution."
  • Alicia Hopson: "I am currently pursuing my degree in Photography and would like the opportunity to come in for an interview. The equipment I use are the Canon 20D, Canon Rebel XT (back up), Polaroid 600SE & Mamiya RZ67. I'm familiar with the Hassleblad 500c but do not own that camera. I have experience in BW printing & developing as well as color. I also have experience in shooting event & portrait photography."
  • Kevin Knight: "I'm a big animation and comic book geek."

I'd like people to pick their top 3, in order of preference. This person will then be "accredited" by Wikinews. -- Zanimum 15:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Peer review is backlogged

Lots of articles currently on Peer review, inlcuding the one I put there yesterday (ANGI Homeservices, Wikipedia:Peer review/ANGI Homeservices) are not being adequately reviewed. There is a bot that does reviews and it gets to most of them, but that's not exactly a peer review. I'm gonna stick a backlogged tag at the top of peer review, and I'd like to encourage denizens of the Villiage Pump to head over and review articles. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 15:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Lufthansa History

Hello. I search wikipedia for the following information:

What are 4 towns of SouthEastern Europe that received Lufthansa's service for the first time since 1967?

Can anyone help me where else to search for ?

Thank you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Akrepja (talk • contribs) 09:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

I assume you've read Lufthansa, so I would suggest you ask at the reference desk. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 15:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for assistance

Hello, if anyone who understands esoteric template syntax could help me out at User:Angr/Template request, I'd be very grateful! Thanks. (Crossposted to WP:VPT.) —Angr 23:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The best place to make requests of this sort is at Wikipedia:Requested templates. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 21:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

attitude poem

i have been trying every way i can think of to find the saying that talks about attitude. the last line in the saying says something like 'life is 10% what happens to you and 90% your reaction to it'. can anybody help me? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.241.227.254 (talk) 23:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

Try asking at the reference desk. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 15:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Different IP addresses, same vandalism MO

Recently, several fairly minor Wikipedia pages have been being vandalised. The reason I'm coming here for assistance rather than reporting it to WP:RFI or WP:AIV is because there are so many different IP addresses involved, and every time the vandalism takes place, it's with a different IP. I would normally guess that this meant it was a dynamic IP address (say from an AOL account) but some of the IPs aren't even in the same range as each other.

The articles affected have included The Dreamstone (now semi-protected), The Bluffers, SuperTed, The Dreamstone Pilot, Danger Mouse and Victor and Hugo. The vandalism consists of replacing entire blocks of text in the articles with nonsense (in the case of Victor and Hugo, the main body of text was removed entirely and replaced with what looks like a Spanish translation). This link shows a typical example of this vandalism. There is an obsession with certain random words such as 'mouse' and 'police'.

The IPs involved so far are User talk:80.189.172.7, User talk:80.189.172.74, User talk:84.65.26.30, User talk:84.66.78.177, User talk:81.79.196.181, User talk:90.240.251.88 and User talk:84.71.6.250, and I'm fairly sure that doesn't cover all of them, and that there are others on articles that I haven't noticed. Many of the IPs have been warned by myself and others, though not to the point of a final warning. The problem is that a block will have no effect, since the IP addresses change with every instance of the vandalism. I'm not sure exactly what can be done to stop this vandalism; even if you semi-protected all the pages that had been vandalised, the same vandalism would likely take place on other related pages. The other problem is that the pages involved are what I call 'minor' pages - pages that aren't read by very many people - so the vandalism has remained for hours, even days, before someone has noticed it and reverted it.

I'm sure this isn't the only time something like this has happened, and obviously I'm not an admin so beyond warning them - which has no effect - and reverting the articles, there is little I can do. As far as I see, there's no really easy way of stopping this vandalism, but perhaps some admins will know what to do? --Stevefarrell 16:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Based on a couple of IP lookups, it appearst that all the IP addresses are associated with RIPE in Amsterdam. I'd guess that the only way to stop this vandal would be to file an abuse report with that ISP - see Wikipedia:Abuse reports. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 23:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't really narrow it down that much - the RIPE Amsterdam thing is a kind of 'backbone' in Europe - if I was editing with my IP address, it would trace back to that as well. I'm just really confused as to why those articles are being targetted. I'd hardly say they were high-traffic articles, and they're certainly not controversial. --Stevefarrell 02:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
RIPE is the RIR for Europe, responsible for dishing out IP addresses. If you do a whois at ARIN on an address not administered by ARIN, it will show up as the relevant RIR. You need to do a non-specific whois (aimed at a DNS server, Or Something) rather than an ARIN-specific one. The first two are Brightview (UK), the next three are Energis (UK), the last two Cable & Wireless (UK). Definitely looks like one or more people with far too much time on their hands got bored. Chris cheese whine 02:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Help with my page

I was trying to sqaush down the space in my awards section by adding the following code:

<div style="height: 300px; width:100%; overflow:auto; border: thin solid black; background: #FFFFFF; padding: 4px; text-align: left;">

but when I scrolled down, the smily pictures immediately began floating out of place [8]. Can someone help me with this? --AAA! (AAAA)

Anyone? --AAA! (AAAA) 22:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Is this a browser problem - does it behavior the same in IE7 as in Firefox? -- John Broughton (☎☎) 21:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I dunno. I use IE 6. Another thing about it is the cookie picture doesn't float out of place, but the smilies do. I think it's something in the HTML code. --AAA! (AAAA) 08:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Portal stuff

I'm working on a portal at the moment, and I have a question: Is it acceptable to copy and paste the lead paragraph of a selected article into a "selected article" section of the portal, like the main page does with FAs? Or should I write a separate paragraph to go into the section? Thanks, PTO 18:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The Main Page doesn't copy text from the FA, it transcludes it - you can see this if you select "view source" at the main page. You can find more about transclusion at Wikipedia:Transclusion.
And, to answer your question, yes, it would be (in my opinion) acceptable to copy a paragraph from an article in mainspace to an article in portal space, though copying (unlike transclusion) has the disadvantage that the two paragraphs may diverge. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 21:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure you understood my question. I am transcluding a portal sub-page onto the main page of the portal. My question had more to do with the acceptability of using the lead of the article as the blurb that is transcluded. Cheers, PTO 21:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Merging pages

I want to merge Florida Soft-shell turtle and Florida Softshell Turtle but I don't know how, can someone please help Tremewanbill 04:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Check out Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages. - BanyanTree 05:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

How to report abuse???? Lawrence Eagleburger page

I have been trying to figure out how to report a page that obviously contains incorrect/abusive material. Is there no SIMPLE way to do this??? It is incredibly frustrating.

Th following page seems to have been vandalized: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Eagleburger

It seems that some of the quotes do not match the source cited. Additionally, foul language and poor attempts at humor are used. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.150.209.62 (talk) 17:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

Hello. The simplest thing to do is to fix it yourself. This can be done by clicking on the tab up top that says, "history" and then editing the version before the most recent one. See Help:Reverting for more on how to revert. However, since you didn't know how to do it, posting here is fine and I have taken care of it. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
When you're dealing with articles about living people, the best place to discuss it is at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Corvus cornix 17:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I wish to make a request to the administrators here. I am doing some research on Wikipedia and I wish to survey fellow Wikipedians on what motivates them to contribute their time, effort and knowledge to this great resource. I have prepared an online survey form hosted on my school server and I wish to contact Wikipedians to help me fill out this survey form, by email or by posting the link on the user's discussion page. Should the user not reply or delete my post , I would not pester them. Is this acceptable behaviour on WP? I don't wish to unwittingly flout the rules here. And also, any data collected would be kept private and confidential. I would only be asking questions that are related to my research and probably the most sensitive questions I would ask for are the Wikipedian's username and simple demographics (no income and such). I would require the Wikipedian's username because I am going to engage in a lucky draw for gift certificates as a reward for respondents who complete my survey. Is this OK? --WikiInquirer 15:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)talk to me

You could post the link here and see who bites; that's what's usually done and ensures more of a random sample than putting it on people's pages. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Or post at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous). But, to answer your question, as long as you don't post to individual user pages requesting partipation (that's considered internal spam), you're pretty much okay. Other places you might want to post to would be the talk pages of Wikipedia:Who writes Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Meetup, and Wikipedia:Wikipedians. Try to keep the posting down to four sentences or less - interested editors can follow a link to your site to read about privacy, for example, or any specifics on the type of questions; the shorter your posting, the less likely someone will object to it. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 21:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

But I have drawn up a sample of Wikipedians to be surveyed (to satisfy some research criteria) and the only options open to me would be either to contact these people via email or post to the user's talk page. Can I post on the user's talk page and limit my request to just 4 lines like you said? I would KISS. In addition, I would state clearly that if the user deletes my post, then it is understood as a sign of objection and I would not pester them again. I would also send the soliciting message block to you for approval before circulation. --WikiInquirer 06:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC) talk to me

Military units claiming an Alliance

I hope that the experience of others can provide me with some direction as I have searched several times and found no definitive answers.

I have been working on the Canadian Military unit The Grey and Simcoe Foresters. And, as with all Military unit pages, there is a heading of Alliances. This heading is what is confusing to me. Many Military units claim a Alliance with other Military units (and some rightly so), but I can find no reference sources for this type of claim in many cases. This is especially so for the case of a Forester unit (as there is only 1 other in the world that shares the Forester designation ... that being The Sherwood Foresters ). I don't want to add any additional implication of a link between the Units beyond their names by listing an Alliance.

Is it fair enough to simply remove the heading ?
Is there a reference source that I (non-military type that I am) am overlooking/missing ?
Is there a source where I might find info about the headings on Military units pages ?

exit2dos2000 11:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It is completely acceptable to leave out a section if you have nothing to add to it. Someone who knows more can always add things later. If you want to investigate further, the folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history, especially in their Canadian military history task force, are probably your best bet. (If you work on Canadian military units with any sort of regularity, you may just want to join as a participant.) - BanyanTree 17:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Swedish editor needs help

I just got done proding a series of articles on articles created by Matrix17 (talk · contribs) about contestants on the forthcoming Melodifestivalen 2007. The creator seems to be a bit challenged by sourcing these articles and demonstrating how these artists meet WP:MUSIC as well as correct wikiformating for a band page. Some of these articles may be about notable artists; I don't speak Swedish so I'm having a bit of trouble finding sources that I can understand. Anyway, if an editor from Sweden could perhaps look at the articles he's created today and clean them up/source them I'm sure he'd appreciate it (and feel free to deprod them in the process).--Isotope23 20:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I've seen a few of this guy's articles, and it seems like he has problems with English. If anyone who speaks Swedish could help him out, it would be great. GhostPirate 23:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
For a while, Matrix17 has been creating substubs with bad grammar, no context and a complete lack of capital letters on the Swedish Wikipedia, and didn't change his/her behaviour despite instructions, suggestions and appeals for better edits from around ten other users, including a complete "How to write a good stub" tutorial by LX. As a result, he/she has been blocked for progressively longer periods, currently two weeks. I have not been directly involved with the case and do not know whether the blocks have been reasonable, but I thought it would be worth noting that Swedish-speakers have already discussed the matter with him/her. //Essin 04:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Unrequested password changes? Hacking?

Hello, I have received a few e-mails now from 'wikipedia' telling me that I have had a request to reset my password from (most recently 82.38.8.75) IP address. I have not requested to reset my password at all recently, nor is the IP address mine. Does anyone know how or who would be generating these requests..I'm am not technically savvy enough to figure this out myself.

Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Liv (talk • contribs) 00:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

It is nothing to worry about, someone at that IP is saying that they are you, and requesting a new password. That then gets e-mailed to you. There is no way for them to see it, so you can just continue using the password you usually use, and wait until they give up. They may have thought they registered your username, or they might just want to annoy you, but it isn't a threat to your account's security. Prodego talk 00:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Dominator UAV

Hello, would people with experience in naming conventions for articles please chime in at the Discussion page here: Talk:Dominator UAV. I am flexible on the article name, but I want to ensure people using search engines like "Google" and "Wikipedia" will find it quickly and easily. Thank you Headphonos 16:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

You are complaining at the wrong place. You should be taking this to WP:Air, which, by the way, has a policy for aircraft article names. You were not conforming to this policy, which is why you ran into difficulties with your chosen name. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 17:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Northland Communications cable possible spamming

User:Bill_Clark appears to be engaging in spamming on behalf of "Northland Communications."

See for example this change.

There may be hundreds of these in the last few days. See this list.

Would you be kind enough to look into this? Spamreporter1 02:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, sorry if I've violated some policy. I'm not partial to Northland Communications, it's just that they were first on my list. I've just recently compiled the list of cities serviced by Mediacom and was planning to add Public utilities sections to each of the pages for those cities. I'll probably end up doing some smaller cable companies as well, before I finish with Mediacom (it's a huge list). I've also restructured the templates for Cable Television companies in the US (see {{CATV USA}}). My interest is in cable companies in the United States, in general. --Bill Clark 03:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: I'm going to begin removing the external links on city pages, since I think that will resolve this issue. I'm announcing this here so that I can refer to this message in my edit summaries. This issue has also been discussed here, here, here, here and here. --Bill Clark 19:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC) UPDATE: I'm done removing the external links. I'm going to continue creating new articles for US cable companies that are missing from WP, but will wait a while before editing any articles on cities, to give enough time to make sure everyone's objections have been addressed. --Bill Clark 20:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I have left a note for Bill Clark on his talk page thanking him for starting the removal of the commercial links. However, there remain a number of commercial links, and I have asked Bill Clark to please continue with the removal of all the commercial information. Spamreporter1 07:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I have moved the discussion from my talk page to the discussion page for WikiProject Cities. --Bill Clark 15:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

name of page

I signed up on wikipedia to help get a hip hop artist a bigger fanbase. I got the page all set up, had no issues with that at all. The issue i am having is the title of the page. All these other band/artist pages i'm seeing all have their band/artist name at the top with no errors. The title to the page that i created looks like this: "User:NeeziePleaze" and it's irritating me. I cant change it for the life of me. All i want it to say is "Neezie Pleaze" someone, please help.— Preceding unsigned comment added by NeeziePleaze (talk • contribs)

Well, it seems like what you're describing is generally not allowed. It is not a good idea to write an article for publicity purposes, see this page for more info. As for the "User" thing, it means that you've written your article on your userpage, not in the main namespace. I can't in good conscience tell you how to move an article written for promotional purposes to the main area. GhostPirate 23:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I've posted a note at the user talk page about a number of policies and guidelines the user should be aware of. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 02:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Moderator needed

A longtime effort to improve physics needs a neutral moderator to help referree the different POV. The person need not be an expert, and in fact there are some advantages to them being a nonexpert in physics but having some exposure to other sciences or even philosophy of science. The relevant pages can be viewed at:

Suggestions? Comments? Ideas?--Filll 19:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You can find a mediator at Wikipedia:Mediation. There may be a backlog, so don't be surprised if a mediator doesn't appear immediately (we're all volunteers here). -- John Broughton (☎☎) 02:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Image resize in mediawiki install

i realize this might not be the right place to ask this because it's a mediawiki question and not a direct wikipedia question... but: i have mediawiki 1.9.1 installed, everything is going great but when i try to use [[Image:image-name.jpg|100px]] it does not resize the image. i'm new so forgive me, i really did try to find the answer myself. is there something simular to templates where i need to have another page assist with the resizing?

Kevlar 05:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

nude photos

HELP! I want to research on Feb. 5 page, and found nude photos there. don't know how to delete them (looked in recent changes but couldn't find. g —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.243.3.46 (talk)

It's been fixed. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

help with a conflict of interest

From time to time, I have made edits to the James Anderson (computer scientist) article. Editing the article has been very contentious at times because of the outstanding claims that Dr. Anderson has made.

The article recently came to the attention of Ben Moore, one of the authors of an article about Dr. Anderson. Mr. Moore is understandably sensitive about the whole issue because he has been roundly criticized for his reporting on Dr. Anderson's work. However, for this reason, I don't think he should be editing the article. He has repeatedly inserted weasel words to soften the description of this criticism. He has edited from the IPs 132.185.240.120, 132.185.144.120, 132.185.240.121, and 132.185.144.122. He has also edited as User:Benthebiscuit‎.

I'm not quite sure how to move forward here. I'm also tiring of editing the article and thinking I might just drop the whole thing. Any assistance would be appreciated. Thanks, Lunch 17:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

An addendum: I didn't write the statement that so offends Mr. Moore ("[They were] criticized for irresponsible journalism"), but I think it's a fair summary of the criticism. Any hints on an appropriate Wikipedia forum where I should direct my pleas would be welcome. Lunch 23:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI, the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard was established to help with COI problems. -Will Beback · † · 01:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll try there. Lunch 01:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Signing posts script?

Is there some script that will help an absent minded person such as myself remember to sign my posts. Any help would be appreciated.--John Lake 01:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

There's a bot that helps by signing for you on some pages. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 21:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible to only watch a particular section of an article?

For example, I don't particularly care about the rest of the discussions being carried out on this page, but obviously I want to know when someone replies to this question. However, this being a somewhat busy page, I then got all the edits to this page clogging up my watchlist. I know that I can just scan the edit summaries for the right section header, but let's face it, I'm lazy. I would appreciate everyone's help on this! Thanks! --Aervanath 18:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I wish it were, but I don't think it is. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 21:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
It might be possible if you turn the section into a transclusion of a page, and watch that page. There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#It's time to tag. When you try to edit the whole section, you get:

(Cross posted from Wikipedia talk:Fair use)

{{Wikipedia talk:Fair use/Tagging1}}

But when you edit within the section, you end up editing the transluded page, which puts that page on your watchlist. It also seems a very good way to cross post efficiently. There are probably some disadvantages to this method though, so don't use this unless you know what you are doing. Carcharoth 21:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
That seems useful, but limited. That means that every section of this page (for example) would have to be a transcluded page. That is, it would have to be already transcluded from somewhere else. Or, every time I join a discussion on a high-traffic page, I move the discussion to subpage, then transclude it back to the original page. This seems like a pain in the gluteus maximus to me. Thanks for the idea (I learned about transclusion, which was interesting) but remember, the reason I want this is because I'm lazy. Now if every high-traffic page were to be in that format automatically, that would be cool. I doubt that'll happen though. Thanks anyway! --Aervanath 22:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, and then imagine if you wanted to watch just a section of an article rather than a talk page... can you imagine having all articles consist of transcluded sections? That'd be really confusing for newcomers. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 15:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
You might be able to transclude a section to a subpage (I'm not sure; maybe I'll experiment with it some); but if you watched the subpage via your watchlist changes to the section wouldn't show up on your watchlist at all. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 21:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Portal:Isle of Man

Could an interested editor please take a look at this portal and touch it up? Thanks. >Radiant< 08:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Weirdness

I have, on two occasions, gone to a Wikipedia page and seen some vandalism (a couple sentences that were clearly fake and poorly spelled to boot). The first page was Gambling and the second was J.K. Rowling. Both times I clicked on the edit tab to delete the offending section but it did not show up on the edit page to delete. Then, when I went back to the article, the incorrect section was gone.
Anyone have an idea what happened here? The only explanation I can think of is that in between the time that I first went to the article and then went to the edit page, someone else (Speedy Gonzalez apparently) saw the vandalism and deleted it. Has this happened to anyone else? --PickettJ 18:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Probably true. You can check the history of any article to see who edited it when. Rmhermen 18:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Renaming an image file

How do I rename an image file?--Janarius 14:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I think (but could be wrong) that you have to re-upload it. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 15:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you have to reupload it. Be sure to mark the non-used image as redundant to the new image so it gets deleted please. Put {{isd|<newfilename>}}. --MECU≈talk 15:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

what do the numbers mean

on a history page there are these numbers in brackets such as ....(+6,434).... what do they ,mean? JUBALCAIN 08:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

They mean how many bytes have been added or removed from an article during an edit. They are good for identifying blanking and nonsense. --AAA! (AAAA) 09:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

fanxJUBALCAIN 09:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Given the number of times we get asked this question, I keep wanting to answer it with: "It's a vote tally on whether other editors like your hair done that way ... (You did know that we spy on you through your computer, didn't you?)"  :>) Blueboar 19:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Game-cover Merge again

Some may recall 2 months ago when I posted something about a merge proposal for game-related fair use templates. After waiting a while with no objections I performed the merge. It has now been reverted by someone who thinks I did not make enough of an effort to contact interested persons to obtain concensus. So here we go again. ANYONE INTERESTED IN Template:Game-cover, Template:Boardgamecover, OR Template:RPG-artwork IS INVITED TO JOIN A DISCUSSION AT Template_talk:Game-cover#Merge ABOUT MERGING THESE THREE TEMPLATES. I'm cross-posting this to all the Village pumps. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Fetus review request

I have been involved with content disputes on a number of pages with Ferrylodge (talk · contribs). Dealing with this user is too stressful for me, and I believe I am too emotionally involved with the conflict so I am backing out, reluctantly, because I feel that Ferrylodge has been able to bully controversial content into articles. I would request that any editor interested review the talk page and article history of Fetus over the last month.

Here is how I remember things from the beginning. Ferrylodge went to the fetus page and copy and pasted information from his pro-life advocacy cite verbatim into the article. This information was cherry picked data from questionably reliable sources emphasizing that a fetus was nothing more than a little adult human. At that point, the article had a section called "fetal development" and we had an article called "fetal development", and I pointed out that our content forking policy said we should just summarize the existing article, and any new information should go to the main article (it would be backward to have content not found in the main article in a summary section). So instead of moving content to the "fetal development" article, Ferrylodge moved that article without a proposed move or talk page concensus (based on a narrow definition of the word 'fetus' which is ironic*)and played semantic games with section titles in the Fetus article to try and avoid addressing my concerns. Since then I have tried to make the article more concise, and move related content together, while Ferrylodge wants to be redundant, and spread out similar content over multiple sections. I am frustrated, and if you look at the talk page, you can see a number of other editors who are similarly frustrated and have left. Because of my history with this user, and the recent content dispute, I do not feel like I can rationally deal with this issue, but would like to see a third party at least examine the history. Thank you for your consideration.

*It's ironic because a previous content dispute was over the definition of stillbirth where I was arguing for a narrow definition which I believe is the most widely used definition, and Ferrylodge was arguing for a broad definition. Any interested users may want to review the Stillbirth article as well, because I still believe it is giving undue weight to the idea that stillbirth is synonymous with early miscarriages.

(if I posted this in the wrong place, I would like to hear suggestions on where else to post). The main issue is that people involved in the abortion debate have started messing with content in science/medical related articles. I feel strongly that these article should use college level textbooks and journal articles as primary sources, and that we should be summarizing the scientific consensus, instead of inserting obscure facts that are favorable to pro-choice or pro-life arguments. Thanks again.-Andrew c 22:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Try an article content request for comment to bring in fresh perspectives. DurovaCharge! 03:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Please help clean up

A page which I watch monthly came under fire of vandals...

Page is Brian Thornton

Could someone give it a once-over and see what could be improved?

Thank You —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.26.58.64 (talk) 06:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

Alternate mindset explaining WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NOR to a newbie

I wonder if one or two folks with extra time could have a look at the verging-on-lengthy conversation I've had with user:Cnewmark beginning at Talk:Craigslist#proper_etiquette and continuing to the next section, Talk:Craigslist#Article errors. (BTW, I have no reason to doubt he is Craig Newmark.)

Somehow I'm failing to communicate what he needs to be done to add a few facts he has for inclusion in the Craigslist article. I thought I was clear, but what should be swift progress is not happening somehow. Thanks in advance for any help! —EncMstr 08:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Cousin and Consanguinity

These articles are important, but not very good. They require the attention of a subject matter expert. Where can I request that attention, provide details, etc.? Lou Sander 19:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You can put {{expert}} or {{expert-subject}} on the page and that adds it to a category for articles needing expert attention. Then use {{Expert-talk}} on the talk page to provide details. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Done. Thanks. Lou Sander 22:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Links to the same article in tables.

I know that Wikipedia guidelines say that link to the same article that are fairly close together should be removed. Is an exception made when the links are in a table?

Pretty much. Think about if you're reading a paragraph, when would you want to go to the other article? Usually on first reference. In a table, you might start at any row, so unless the entries are all right next to each other, it would make sense to link them. It also makes for a more consistent appearance, though linking only the first occurrence can make it clearer when a series of tabular entries refer to the same thing. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Need a bot written

I've just created the article Christian heresy with text extracted from Heresy. There are lots of articles that link to Heresy. Most of them need to link to Christian heresy. What I need is a bot that will go through a set of links and either automatically or interactively change links to Heresy into links to Christian heresy. Where can I post such a request so that a kindly bot writer will see it and maybe help me with this? Or... is there a bot in existence that will do what I want done?

--Richard 23:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Bot requests. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

{{cleanup-subst}}

I want to make {{cleanup-subst}} presentable. What it does is, if you put {{subst:cleanup-subst}} on a page, it substitutes in a {{cleanup}} tag with the appropriate timestamp subst'd in. SgeoTC 21:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

If you take out {{must subst}} from the template then the code it generates should look cleaner. Tra (Talk) 21:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I didn't even test {{must subst}}'s effect on the template, other than in previews. Before I used that, I modified and used some code from somewhere that made the generated code look clean, but the template page itself look bad (the sort of thing at User:Sgeo/sandbox/cleanup2.. I wonder if I can make {{must subst}} do a cleaner code thing..SgeoTC 21:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I meant it looked bad when it wasn't subst'd in. I'll change it back to the custom code. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sgeo (talk • contribs) 22:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

SPLC and identifying hate groups

For reasons that follow, the SPLC should not be considered a reliable source for who is and who is not a 'hate group'. 1.) USA Today reported that "... in a recent report on arsons at black churches in the South, his Klanwatch newsletter included five 1990 fires in Kentucky. The article doesn't mention they were set by a black man."[1] 2.) Stephen Bright of the Southern Center for Human Rights describes Dees, the SPLC leader, as " a fraud who has milked a lot of very wonderful well-intentioned people. If it's got headlines, Morris is there."[2] 3.) The Montgomery Advertiser has said that from 1984 to 1994 the SPLC received almost $62 million in contributions but spent only $20.8 million on its anti-poverty and anti-discrimination programs.[3] 4.) Harpers Magazine has said that most alleged 'hate' groups on the SPLC's list are non-violent.[4] 5.) The American Institute of Philanthropy gave the center one of the worst ratings of any group it monitors 6.) David Horowitz of Front Page Magazine writes, "The effect is to multiply the number of racial hate groups, to scare well-meaning citizens into the belief that mainstream civil rights organizations like the Center for the Study of Popular Culture are really fever swamps of hate that deserve to be lumped alongside the Ku Klux Klan. The purpose of this fear-mongering is transparent. It is to fill the already wealthy coffers of your organization by exploiting unsuspecting donors into helping you promote leftwing agendas under the guise of civil rights"[5] In short, the SPLC is to social work what Robert Tilton is to televangelism. Using it's statements to mar other groups with the label "hate group" is indefensible. However, in many articles on Wikipedia it has been used for just this purpose and attempts to point out its dubious legitimacy have been systematically shot down. It should be noted somewhere on Wikipedia that the SPLC is not a reliable source when it comes to what is a hate group. I should also point out that because it has been used on several different articles, one RfC for one article isn't sufficient.-Psychohistorian 18:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Unless you are presenting a private agenda here, shouldn't this discussion be on the pages in question in which the SPLC is being used as a source? Corvus cornix 23:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
A seperate discussion on each page? Discussion is fine, but there really needs to be a place where it can all be consolidated instead of reinventing the wheel over and over and over again.-Psychohistorian 00:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, discussions over whether a source is reliable or not usually take place either on the artcle about the source or in the articles where the source is used. That said, I dispute the relevance of the assertions made above. 1) This one omission does not make the enormous amount of information provided by the SPLC unreliable, and the context of the omission isn't dealt with. 2) This doesn't appear to be relevant to the reliability of the source. 3) Foundraising and reliability are separate issues. 4) How does this assertion make the source unreliable? The SPLC doesn't contend that all hate groups are themselves violent, only that they encourage or spread hate. 5) Again, that deals with fundraising. 6) David Horowitz is a fringe figure. -Will Beback · † · 21:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

1.) Really, then exactly how many bogus claims need to be made before there is room for doubt? 2.) You want us to believe that being called a fraud by a third party (in addition to being caught red handed making bogus claims) doesn't speak to one's reliability? Please come back from bizarro world 3.) You want us to believe that passing yourself off as a social activist group so that you can pocket the money (see point 5 as well) doesn't speak to your integrity? Can you even find the path back from bizarro world? 4.) So, its a hate group if a group which has been caught and documented spreading lies and pocketing an insane percentage of its fundraising money calls it a hate group. That's really not helping your argument. 6.) According to what standard? He's frequently on national cable news. The SPLC is not. So, he's more mainstream than the SPLC. Again, the SPLC is to social work what Robert Tilton is to televangelism. Finally, as I have said, because this issue stretches over several articles, it needs to be addressed in one place, not over and over and over again. I am looking for that one place.-Psychohistorian 17:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the Talk page for WP:RS? 216.234.128.8 23:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
The SPLC is a reliable source for who it considers to be a hate group. Under NPOV, we attribute the "hate group" label to the party that applied it, i.e., "X is considered a hate group by the SPLC," instead of stating it as simple fact. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Where is the part of the article on NPOV which discusses slanderous self-serving accusations by third parties such as the SPLC? I tried to replace this with what is below, but its been restored, so if people want to see it that's cool.-Psychohistorian 02:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
It is important to understand that verifiability (of which reliable sources is a central concept) and NPOV are to be interpreted together. Attributing a claim to a source is a good way to address NPOV issues, but only when such sources are reliable sources. The SPLC is not a reliable source.-Psychohistorian 04:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Using a video game as your main reference

Abus Gun, and I suspect several other contributions by the main editor, draw on video games as their main sources of information and reference. Is this reasonable or advisable?--Filll 15:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that another source would be needed. Although the Age of Empires series tends to be accurate, there is no way to be sure that this information is correct without consulting another source. GhostPirate 16:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
A video game, like any work of fiction, is definitely not a reliable source, except for information about itself. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Some advice?

I have a suspicion that Actors who have played Hamlet is "indescriminate". Is it? If so, can someone AfD it, since I can't? 68.39.174.238 22:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Actors who have played Hamlet. Tra (Talk) 22:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Would someone check this for me?

I think anyone should be able to access the on-line version of this reference; but as I'm logged in on the website right now I'm not sure. If it's not free to access on-line without registration I'll put a quote from it in the article rather than just referencing it as the source of the information. Would someone check to see if anyone can access it or if you need to sign up? Thanks.

Ucci, Mary (April, 2006). "Playdough: 50 Years' Old, And Still Gooey, Fun, And Educational". Child Health Alert. 24. Retrieved 2/12/07. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help) ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving

Nope, sorry. It doesn't work for me. Garion96 (talk) 22:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Now... I hope what I'm wanting to quote doesn't push the limits of fair use for text. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 22:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
NP. It shouldn't matter though, the fact that it can't be accessible online doesn't mean it can't be used as a source. Garion96 (talk) 22:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I know that. The thing is that I really want to quote part of it, but the article itself is quite short and the part I want to quote is fully half the article - pushing the boundaries for quotations. If it was easily accessible on-line I'd just put the footnote as a reference and word the sentence in such a way that I'd strongly suggest readers check it out, but since it isn't I might go ahead with the quote, dubious though it may be. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 22:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah good. Thought I'd mention it to be sure. :) Garion96 (talk) 22:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Template:32TeamBracket-Compact

I have been trying to create the Template:32TeamBracket-Compact-Tennis3, but I'm doing something wrong. Here is the result. Could anybody help me? Thank you. MontanNito 17:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

If you want to create it, just put the template code into it as you would put text into a normal articel, EG. Go to Template:32TeamBracket-Compact, edit it, paste the markup, hit save, and then add it to the appropriate articels. 68.39.174.238 22:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
There is always Wikipedia:Requested templates if you want help. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Add {{dubious}} tag to "Regions" row header in Michigan template?

The Michigan template contains a list of "regions" in Michigan. The regions link to Wikipedia articles about the region. I can find no official government designation of regions in Michigan. There does not appear to be a commonly accepted definition of the regions in Michigan, either boundaries, or region names. The various Michigan region articles (e.g. Southern Michigan, Central Michigan, etc.) do not reference any sources that would provide justification for the boundaries chosen. Definition of regions in a state is subjective. The boundaries of the regions of Michigan apparently have been chosen by the author(s) of the Michigan region articles. Does that not constitute "original research"? Would I be out of line if I added a {{dubious}} tag to "Regions" row header in Michigan template? Perhaps we should consider removing the Regions section from the Michigan template on the basis that the regional boundary and name definitions cannot be verified as fact? Perhaps we should consider removing all "region" articles and Region sections for all states and their corresponding templates? What do you think? See Talk:Southern Michigan for further discussion. --TRosenbaum 17:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Explanation and photo missing

Hello. Could someone with the tools necessary tell me please what happened to this photo? I looked on my talk page (I tagged the image) and on the uploader's and in the article history and find no communication or explanation. [9]. Thank you. -Susanlesch 16:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC). P.S. In case it helps or isn't obvious, the image was Image:Senator klobuchar.jpg (a US government portrait, source given, and tagged US Congress PD). -Susanlesch 16:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Checking the deletion log here for that image reveals that it was deleted by User:Jonathunder as a copyright violation. May I suggest you communicate further with him to establish a way forward? Cheers. The Rambling Man 16:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a bunch, Rambling Man. Yes I will write to that user. Best wishes. -Susanlesch 16:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Why do we have to "sign" our posts?

Why do we have to manually "sign" our posts? It seems completely and utterly ridiculous that a person has to manually put their username after their comments on talk pages...this is the internet........

It's like if a person had to make sure to include their e-mail address in an e-mail lest the recipent not know who it's from...

What's even crazier is that what happens if you don't sign your comments is...they're signed for you. They're automatically signed for you and it says: "the previous unsigned comment was made by ________".................if you have the capability to automatically "sign" people's posts then why is the primary method still MANUAL? Why isn't AUTOMATIC "signing" the standard?

You talk about signing like it's a necessary step but it's not! This isn't a little pen-and-paper guestbook in an art gallery this is the freaking INTERNET! You have my username and you have my IP address—now do your job!

Automatic signing also eliminates the possibility of type-os. —Hmmmm...why don't I just do this for everyone? (talk • contribs) 01:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

The automatic siging is a recent feature is is done by a user run bot. ViridaeTalk 01:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
haha; cute that you didn't sign this posting. The only way I can identify you if you don't sign is to go to the history and scan through contributions to attempt to find your post (which can be quite tedious). What if I you say something interesting and I want to follow up on your user talk page, or you are a new user and I want to welcome you or you post at this page about a problem with a particular article but don't tell us the article's name (very common). I would then want to check your contribution history but I wouldn't know who you are (etc.). For more on the rationale, see Wikipedia:Signatures. As for automatic signing, first, there are pages where not signing is proper (e.g., all mainspace articles)--we would need a bot trained to only sign particular pages; I'm not sure how feasible that is, though it may be. Second, people sign their posts in different and often preferred ways that a bot could never know. For example, I always sign with two dashes before the signature tildes. Other users sometimes use a link for their talk page, and sometimes not. But more importantly, one can choose to sign with (~~~~} and without (~~~~} a date stamp or with just a date stamp (~~~~~); a bot couldn't know which to use. Furthermore, having a bot sign for you would require two edits where only one was needed which would be a drain on the server.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
"Why do we have to "sign" our posts?" Interesting question.... Well, from WP:SIG:

Signatures on Wikipedia identify you as a user, and your contributions to Wikipedia. They encourage civility in discussions by identifying the author of a particular comment, and the date and time at which it was made.

That's the purpose of signatures. Get it yet? People need to know who the hell they're talking to. Imagine looking at a talk page with a wave of comments without any identities :X. Signing is a necessary step because most editors wouldn't bother seeing the history of the talk page to see who had made the comments. If you're lazy and don't want to do the simple job of signing, I suggest you should feel grateful when the HagermanBotBot help you with it. ;) PeaceNT 01:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok I know what the purpose of signatures is--let's just call it ID.....so, no I don;'t think people should just be anonymous that's absolutely not what i was saying at all

All I was saying was that we shouldn't have to manually sign our own posts (not because of laziness--don't gimme that)

Fughettaboutit seemed to know where I was coming from and from what I understand she's basically just saying that the software isn't good enough at this time and that crude, manual signing is the most reliable at the moment

But fuggettaboutit, what were you talking about about me not signing my own post? The bot signed it, as he's always been doing lately (as he SHOULD) and I just altered his text as you can see and in the process I accidentally deleted my Wikified name

Edit: now I'm even more confused because my talk and contribs is still there so what was that convoluted process of trying to find my username u were describing? signed posts seem to give 3 links to the users pages and I only deleted one of em—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lumarine (talk • contribs).

I see what you're saying. It's true that right now we have a bot which automatically signs for people but it's a necessary evil. Since most posts are already signed, the bot only has to fill in the gap for a very small number of unsigned posts. It would be a great drain on resources if it had to do this for the majority of posts. Second, the preferences issue is not to be discounted. Many, many users have a preference a bot could not know. It's signing not the way a person wants it to sign, but in one manner only, so it gives no choice and can't make decisions about time stamping or other signature preference. When I was speaking about tediously finding your identity, what I meant was, if there was no signature here, I would have to go to the page history of this page to scan for your post, and if this page was very active, and you didn't leave an edit summary, finding out who you were would be a pain (for a really old post, a really huge pain). Finally I don't see what's crude about it. Typing four tildes is incredibly fast. Note that the bot is really not fast enough even for the small load it handles, relatively speaking. You didn't sign the above post, and in order for me to add {{subst:unsigned|Lumarine}} above as I am, I had to go to the page history.--Fuhghettaboutit 11:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Automatic signing uses up a significant amount of resources? Wow, I thought it was marginal

I suppose online forums use up a pretty good amount of resouces since every single post you make is in an ID-card layout

I'm not saying we should be like forums, I realize this is an online encyclopedia and that talk pages aren't the main purpose, but I really wouldn;'t think that automatic signing would take up any resources.

Also, about unique signatures: if automatic signiong became the standard a person--by manually signing using the tilda code or whatever it is--could cancel out the bot from signing, that's all! OR even better and more logical: a person could simply program their own automated signature but I guess that would be too taxing--you guys conserve your bandwidth for bigger things I guess

Also, I'd just like to add that I'd be very surprised if no one else was taken aback by the concept of "manual signing" because everywhere else on the internet that involves communication your ID is displayed automatically in one form or another without question. When you input text to a computer to communicate with soemone it's pretty much considered akin to SPEAKING DIRECTLY TO THAT PERSON and this "manual signing" is like me saying "by the way I'm John" after everything I have to say!!! ^__^—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lumarine (talk • contribs).

Ok, I have a signature now!

——Lumarine

How do you like it?

Now I just hafta figure out how to add the time and date! ——Lumarine

You can add your signature with the time and date by typing in four tildes like this: ~~~~ which will automatically be replaced with the correct text. For me, it looks like this: Tra (Talk) 03:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
We don't autmoatically sign every contribution to a talk page because not every edit made to a talk page is a new piece of discussion - they may be a fix to a typo, or changing the message at the top of the talk page, or adding a header, etc. Automatically signing every edit would result in signatures popping up when they should not, all over the place. Proto::► 13:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

should these be AfDed?

List_of_dialing_codes_in_Greece_alphabetically, and List_of_dialing_codes_of_Greece_numerically both seem strange for wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a directory (ie phonebook) right? The list also has many entries that leads to other fishy articles like Greece_dialing_code_26230 and Greece_dialing_code_22440. Should these be AfDed, proded or something? JoeSmack Talk 20:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

There appears to be precedent - List of North American area codes. I agree that there's an argument about whether they belong that an AFD might be useful in deciding, but it affects a lot of articles. - BanyanTree 18:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I've tagged the two lists for merger (which should probably be moved to List of dialling codes in Greece). I suspect the area code articles should probably go, as they have no potential for anything other than duplication. Drilling down to a list of which areas within the code have which nmber prefices is not really the sort of thing we do. Chris cheese whine 06:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
All the individual articles on dialling codes I found have been deleted, as not one of them had any real content. Proto::► 13:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

testN

Are ordinary (non-admin) users allowed to post these warnings? The wording of them gives an impression of authority, and it's unclear from anything I have been able to find who is allowed to post these. --Random832(tc) 12:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, ordinary users are encoraged to post those warnings to the talk pages of users who are vandalising. The number of warnings posted to a talk page is a signal to adimns that it's time to block the vandal. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 15:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
It just seems kind of "off" somehow, for a non-admin to be able to issue a "last warning". But anyway, is there a page with instructions on this? (I saw someone mention elsewhere a "recommended edit summary") --Random832(tc) 15:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
WP:VAND has instructions on aspects of fighting vandalism. --TeaDrinker 23:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

How does someone copy an Italian Wikipedia page to create an English Wikipedia page here in the USA?

This site [10] is Wikipedia in Italy. There is no Wikipedia page for Fr. Gioacchino here in the USA. How does someone merely translate the Italian page so the USA page can be created? Or is there an easier way to do this? Wikipedia Translator maybe?

Thanx in advance - wh1skeyman

Well, if you're somewhat adept at reading Italian, you could translate the article into English yourself. I wouldn't at all recommend using any kind of system translation software or website, they tend to give very very poor literal translations, and some words won't translate properly at all.
You could also simply start an article yourself if you know something about the subject, rather than translating it. --Stevefarrell 00:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Translation might be useful to read. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 02:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Just a little clarification: This Wikipedia is for everybody in the world who speaks English, it isn't the USA Wikipedia.  :-) Corvus cornix 17:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


John Broughton's suggestion is the answer I was looking for. I started a translation request page for Fr. Gioacchino's article. I would love to do the translation myself but my Italian reading and writing skills are limited to the Sicilian dialect, so hopefully someone can translate the Italian article 'for everybody in the world who speaks English' to use : ) Thanks to all of you for your help. --Wh1skeyman 23:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

J.P. McEvoy

I have this book by J.P. McEvoy, Eclipse, written in 1999. When I searched on Wikipedia for the author, I found another writer, who died in 1958. Normally, this wouldn't be a problem, because I'd just put J.P. McEvoy (writer), but seeing as they're both writers, I'm not really sure what to do. This is kind of a trivial question, but I didn't know where else to ask. - Im.a.lumberjack 23:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd label the second J.P. McEvoy as J.P. McEvoy (novellist), neatly solving the problem. Proto::► 13:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
You could also use their date of birth in brackets after their name, or go into more detail. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) has more detail. Proto::► 13:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest?

Could I get a third, or fourth, or etc pair of eyes on this. I've been keeping an eye best I can on this article RateItAll which is going through some serious clean up as there are some PoV issues, and reliable source issues that need cleaned up. In my process of checking sources, I found this mentioned in the official blog of the site Blog Entry where the person who's been heavily working on the article says "Go for it. Sign up with Wikipedia and sing the praises of the RIA!" and yet claimed on the articles talk page he was the most neutral person around. Anyway, some additional feedback would be appreciated as I'm keeping an eye on a lot of articles right now.--Crossmr 23:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

See also, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard -Will Beback · † · 23:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I wasn't aware there was a noticeboard for it.--Crossmr 05:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Template Help

Could someone please help me with my new infobox? I want all but the title and location parameters to be optional.--MrFishGo Fish 20:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

All the parameters are now optional apart from {{{name}}} and {{{location}}}. I have also changed the template so that the stations are specified using {{{stations}}} rather than {{{lines}}}, which it shared with the row above. Tra (Talk) 21:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

XanGo

XanGo is a multi-level-marketing (MLM) company that sells mangosteen juice. It has been criticized by the FDA, the UC Berkeley Wellness Newsletter, the Mayo Clinic, and other reputable sources. The article, at one point, contained a neutral overview, and sections for supporters and critics. Until recently, there were only two pro-Xango editors, both of whom admitted to being involved with the MLM. Recently, we've had an influx of new editors who have agreed on a censored version of the article that removes all criticism. When I restore the uncensored version, I'm immediately reverted. I've put up an RFC and no one has come, so far as I can tell.

I suspect, but cannot prove, that the new editors are also involved with the MLM. Censorship of the article serves their financial interests, and no one else's.

Just WHERE do I go to get some help? The Noni article has also been taken over by Tahitian Noni promoters. I know that there was a lot of indignation that articles re politicians were being edited by their staff members ... this seems to be the same sort of thing. How come no one cares? Where do I find someone who cares? No one responds to RFCs any longer. Zora 02:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I've completely rewritten the [XanGo]] article. I found problems with both versions - for example, the one you preferred has far too lengthy quotations from anti-XanGo articles, and unnecessarily (in my opinion) shortened the information on the MLS sponsorship. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 04:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm willing to accept your version. Perhaps I was getting too angry and shrill. Thank you very much for intervening to restore balance. Zora 05:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  1. ^ Andrea Stone, "Morris Dees: At the Center of the Racial Storm," USA Today, 3 August 1996, A-7
  2. ^ Andrea Stone, "Morris Dees: At the Center of the Racial Storm," USA Today, 3 August 1996, A-7
  3. ^ Montgomery Avertisor, Feb. 13-14 1994
  4. ^ ^ Ken Silverstein, "The Church of Morris Dees," Harper's Magazine, 1 November, 2000, No. 1806, Vol. 301; Pg. 54 ; ISSN: 0017-789X. Text can be viewed at the Federation for American Immigration Reform website here (scroll down). Harper's article verified in D.F. Oliveria, "Dees can Buy Poverty Center a New Name," Spokesman Review, Feb 12, 2001.[1]
  5. ^ http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/Readarticle.asp?ID=9830
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(assistance)/Archive_N&oldid=1096877209"