Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 46

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

This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (miscellaneous).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

< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78

Hello

Please Conect the article Vyacheslav Malezhik with the russian one. In article there are references. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.185.175.84 (talk) 13:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 20:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

ECJ and the "Right to be Forgotten"—Consequences for Wikipedia?

Today, the European Court of Justice held in Google v. González that search engines must delete references to online sources (even factually correct ones) if an individual "wishes the information appearing on those pages relating to him personally to be 'forgotten' after a certain time." In the words of BBC News, this basically means "that anyone who does not like an old story about them can ask for it to be wiped away."

Now am I paranoid, or is this a potentially disastrous ruling for Wikipedia? All of our WP:BLPs reference online (or other) sources, and plenty of them contain information that the individual in question would like to be "forgotten". Think of Rachida Dati and her sex affairs, or Derek Conway and his nepotism. Can they now sue Wikipedia to have this information removed? --bender235 (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Which are the limits on that? I'm sure that, for example, Bill Clinton can not ask to erase the references to the Lewinsky scandal from internet. And is it just for search engines (something that wikipedia is not), or something for just any page that makes links to other pages (something that wikipedia is)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cambalachero (talk • contribs)
According to the press release linked above any online service that "‘retrieves’, ‘records’ and ‘organises’ the data in question, which it then ‘stores’ on its servers and, as the case may be, ‘discloses’ and ‘makes available’ to its users" is affected. --bender235 (talk) 14:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
The scope of this particular judgment, as far as I can tell not being a lawyer, as set out in the full text of the judgement, is explicitly search engines, not publishers such as Wikipedia. E.g. in paragraph 41:
It follows from all the foregoing considerations that... the activity of a search engine consisting in finding information published or placed on the internet by third parties, indexing it automatically, storing it temporarily and, finally, making it available to internet users according to a particular order of preference must be classified as ‘processing of personal data’... when that information contains personal data...;
and paragraph 85,
...the data processing carried out in the context of the activity of a search engine can be distinguished from and is additional to that carried out by publishers of websites....
However, it does state in paragraph 26 that
the Court has already had occasion to state that the operation of loading personal data on an internet page must be considered to be such ‘processing’ within the meaning of Article 2(b) of Directive 95/46 (see Case C‑101/01 Lindqvist EU:C:2003:596, paragraph 25).
How far that earlier ruling applies to Wikipedia is a matter for actual legal experts. — Scott • talk 16:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
The European Court of Justice has no jurisdiction over the United States, whose laws govern the site. Resolute 14:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
One would think, right? On the other hand, “the Court rejects the argument that the processing of personal data by Google Search is not carried out in the context of the activities of that establishment in Spain. The Court holds, in this regard, that where such data are processed for the purposes of a search engine operated by an undertaking which, although it has its seat in a non-member State, has an establishment in a Member State” (p 2). I'm not so sure about that anymore. --bender235 (talk) 15:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I think, in the end, you will see data removed from google.es rather than google.com. Regardless, what happens if Spain says "remove it" and Wikipedia says "no"? Besides, as Scott mentions, Wikipedia isn't a search engine. Resolute 15:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. This is an issue of concern for es.wikipedia and maybe other European Wikipedias (if at least that a number of sources that archive.org hasn't crawled are going to start disappearing), but not es.wikipedia or Google.com, because they're based in America. We can probably respond to any requests to remove information with a picture of one of our butts with the words "Don't Tread on Me" written on it. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Actually, all wikipedias are based in the United States. Their language is just the interface. Cambalachero (talk) 16:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Not so regarding Google. Condensed version of the first three paragraphs of the ruling (paragraph 4 discusses the issue of public interest in the data in question):
[T]he operator of [a] search engine must be regarded as the ‘controller’ in respect of... processing [of personal data, which] is carried out in the context of the activities of an establishment of the controller on the territory of a Member State.... [W]hen the operator of a search engine sets up in a Member State a branch or subsidiary which is intended to promote and sell advertising space offered by that engine and which orientates its activity towards the inhabitants of that Member State. ... [I]n order to comply with the rights laid down in [the European directives relating to personal information, in applicable cases] the operator of a search engine is obliged to remove from the list of results displayed following a search made on the basis of a person’s name links to web pages...
Note that the ruling, as I read it, is not limited to the operations of such a subsidiary. — Scott • talk 16:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC) (still not a lawyer)
This ruling is not just valid in Spain, but in the entire European Union. And the judges explicitely stated that it affects Google despite it being an American company. Don't get me wrong, I hope you're correct. But I'm a bit anxious this ruling does affect Wikipedia in the end. --bender235 (talk) 19:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
The judgement says information must be removed "unless there are particular reasons, such as the role played by the data subject in public life, justifying a preponderant interest of the public in having access to the information". Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 10:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
I would guess that if this goes through, it would merely result in the Google search result for the Wikipedia page in question being suppressed in the EU. However, the "role played by the data subject in public life" clause will, I suspect, mean that many of our BLPs are exempt anyway. Black Kite (talk) 10:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm thinking that the plaintiff's privacy interest would have been far better served by reading Streisand effect than by creating a WP:Notable lawsuit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Cornelius Gurlitt

I would appreciate additional opinions and comments here. Thank you for your attention. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Bearded Lady

For Pete's sake, can someone get the bearded lady off of the home page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.71.223.168 (talk) 22:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:15, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Watch articles that use Marie-Louise Gumuchian of CNN as source

CNN fired Marie-Louise Gumuchian for plagiarism. If any articles use her as a source, check if CNN changed the content or deleted the article. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Watchlist

Is my Watchlist ever visible to other regular editors? --DThomsen8 (talk) 20:00, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

No. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
"Not wittingly" ;>) Blueboar (talk) 20:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Someone with your watchlist token (see Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-watchlist at the end) could see it. It seems unlikely to happen. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for all the advice.--DThomsen8 (talk) 11:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Can someone fix it?

In Instrument of Surrender (1971) the "Text of the instrument" section has a hardcoded layout. It is interfering with article readability, especially on mobile screens. Can someone fix it? Aditya(talk • contribs) 04:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I know enough about tables to be dangerous, so someone should check what I did. It solved the immediate problem, but possibly the gridlines may not be wanted. Johnuniq (talk) 08:16, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Hardly encouraging-a little psychology needed here.

I posted a five second stub last night-- the sort of thing we encourage nervous new users to write. So what happened? This. 

(diff | hist) . . m Doubling (textiles)‎; 02:42 . . (+64)‎ . . --blanked-- (talk | contribs)‎ (gen fixes, added uncategorised, deadend tags using AWB)

Hardly the enthusiastic encouragement we would expect. We do explain to our trainees that we have a policy WP:BITE and all contributions are welcomed-- but AWB seems to have some very nasty teeth. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say that this is evidence of an improvement in the response to a new article: your stub wasn't tagged until it was almost 12 hours old, it only got two tags, and both of them were reasonably actionable, rather than vague, newbie-confusing stuff about copyediting or notability. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Undue weight at Hofbräuhaus#Hofbr.C3.A4uhaus_Pittsburgh

Today while patrolling I came across an edit to this article that read like advertising copy [1]. I removed it and etc. (rest of that part of the tale not relevant to this question). I am in communication with the editor who added the copy who feels that the copy that was there regarding a lawsuit that had been filed against the location was slanderous. The original copy made a causal connection to the accident from the restaurant. I've removed that causal connection as non-adjudicated; the settlement made no such statement [2]. The editor still feels strongly about this statement, though I've informed them that something that is true is not slanderous. As this passage is sourced to a reliable source, it meets the bar for Wikipedia:Verifiability.

However, I'm concerned about undue weight being given to this passage about the lawsuit and settlement. I've tried to add other material to the section [3] but remain concerned. I'd like some other eyes on this. Discussion has been happening at User_talk:Hammersoft#Edit_taken_down_for_Hofbrauhaus_Pittsburgh. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

- From Matt - Please just delete Pittsburgh as a location. This is an unfair item to have on the wiki page and isn't factual. If we can't get that off and just focus on the restaurant, can we just take Pittsburgh off completely? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.29.24.53 (talk) 02:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest rewriting the entire 'Outside Munich' section to be more balanced and less like a laundry list. At the moment there seems to be undue emphasis on Hofbräuhäuser in the USA compared to those in Australia or Europe. In a more balanced section, the specific case under consideration here wouldn't be an appropriate inclusion, I feel. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

-From Matt - @Alextiefling, who would make these edits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.29.24.53 (talk) 02:53, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Anyone can edit Wikipedia, so anyone who know more about the topic than me would be a good start! If you've got some sources, go for it. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I've tried to explain before that the section as it is written is supported by cites. Whether or not it is factual or not is a bit beside the point. The section, as written is a direct reflection of what has been reported by the press. I think there are concerns about undue weight that should be addressed. But, removing it as not being factual would be wrong. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm not arguing for it to be removed as untrue; I'm arguing for the entire section to be rewritten as better prose, and the undue weight issues to be addressed. My own feeling is that the specifics of the legal case would disappear in such a rewrite, because it should be a description of the overall business, not a series of substubs about individual branches. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Style guide for writing about disability related topics

Input, opinions and comments are welcomed at WT:WikiProject Disability#Developing a style guide. The idea is to create a guideline for editors writing about disability-related topics that steers the middle path between obviously offensive language on one side, while also avoiding political correctness for its own sake, which can be just as offensive, on the other side. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:MEDMOS has a bit of this, but I believe there is more that could be usefully said. Are you hoping to make a WP:PROPOSAL for a formal community guideline, or just to get good advice written down on a handy WP:WikiProject advice page? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Actually MEDMOS has very little - it does mention people-first language but the word "disability" doesn't occur anywhere on the page. In any case the medical POV of disability is widely deprecated and criticized in the disability rights community. To your second point: let's start with an "advice essay" and see where it goes - leave the door open to develop it into a formal part of the MOS. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Evaluation of Visual Exploration tool for English Wikipedia

Dear Wikipedia,

Please help me to evaluate a new visual exploration tool for English Wikipedia. The development of this program was inspired by the existing DBpedia tool "Relation Finder".

The invitation letter:

"A growing number of computer tools aims to support creativity of the web users. Visual Exploration Search technology enables interactive online navigation and visual exploration of search results providing the web users with an alternative way of seeking online information.

"Visualisation of Relatedness" is a freely available online application which visually organizes Wikipedia articles that are relevant to the concept of user’s search interest in the form of an interactive semantic network allowing the users to visually navigate within Wikipedia articles.

Adult participants(age 18 or older) are kindly invited to participate in the research by trying out the Visualisation of Relatedness application and completing a brief anonymous online survey (approximately 5 minutes long) about your experience.

Please begin by visiting http://visualisationofrelatedness.alwaysdata.net/ and entering a one-word query in the search box provided. When the visualization of relevant Wikipedia articles will appear on the screen feel free to re-arrange the layout by dragging the nodes with the mouse. You may use the tool box (located at the right bottom corner of the screen) for zooming, panning and providing an overview of the visualized information space. The graph nodes can be clicked for further exploration of their contents. Kindly take the time to expand nodes of interest to deeper levels.

Once you have familiarised yourself with the "Visualisation of Relatedness" tool (you may spend as long as you please doing so), please fill in the online survey which is accessible at https://www.esurveycreator.com/s/c1ff967

Thank you very much for your co-operation and support!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marina M M M (talk • contribs) 21:06, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry... I don't take downloads from strangers. Blueboar (talk) 21:14, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, what is this? --k6ka (talk | contribs) 13:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
@Blueboar: I opened/tested it in a "private window" and didn't see any download requests. It appears to be an Adobe Flash based site. What kind of download request did you see? (possibly it was just a misconfigured code/server error?) –Quiddity (talk) 23:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
@Marina M M M: Interesting. Your tool (screenshot) reminds me of http://www.theyrule.net/ (screenshot, or click "popular maps" to get a quick sense of it). I adore these types of interactive infographics - I hope one day we'll be able to display information like Outline of forestry in a format somewhat like that, with expandable nodes, going all the way up and down the ontological tree. My tests didn't work very well with articles such as botany (not enough detail given, despite their being plenty of content at http://dbpedia.org/page/Botany - I also ran into some display problems with the zoom going too far out, or not showing anything (screenshot)
Also, note that you should include more links and technical details, to give context to your project, and so that we can give better suggestions (eg. I assume you are limiting the source-data to just dbpedia? If not, I'd suggest looking into the navigation-templates on articles, eg Template:Mindmaps and Template:Software development process, as another good data-source). (Also, it's helpful to link to the items you mention, eg Relation Finder :)
Hope that helps. –Quiddity (talk) 23:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
@Quiddity: Thank you Quiddity, I tryed Relation Finder before creating my program. It was performing quiete poorly and even failed to find any relation between concepts 'husband' and 'wife'. My task was to create a creativity-enhancing tool for Wikipedia. Is not a search tool for finding a particular article. It is a visual exploration tool for people who do not known the exact terms they are looking for. The idea was that creative thinking can be stimulated through helping the users to discover something surprising. The tool aims to stimulate curiousity of the users helping them to get new unexpected insights into domain of their interest. It doesn't intend to retrieve all relevant DBpedia information. The amount of retrieved DBpedia knowledge is actually limited to prevent cluttering of the visialisation.

BTW, the problem with display the zoom going too far out is the overview functionality. When you press 'double arrow' in the tool box, everything is going to be fit into the screen. To go back you need repeatedly press 'plus'.

The problem remains where I can find participants to try out my program ... I wish to know the opinions of Wikipedia users who are 18 years or older. Do you know any Wikipedia-related online resources when participants can be found? –Marina M M M

Is there any way to / anyone who can access lexis / nexis?

I'm trying to get ahold of the Montreal Gazette article mentioned in passing here. Thanks! - Richfife (talk) 20:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Richfife: Try the Wikipedia Resource eXchange. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 20:31, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! - Richfife (talk) 22:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello

Please connect my articles Mikhail Kalik, Karen Gevorkian, Mikhail Yuzovsky, Georgi Yungvald-Khilkevich and Dmitri Nagiev to the russian ones. Thank you. Scymso (talk) 12:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Please see H:ILL, the portions about Wikidata. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Stop nagging me to make an account

Every time I edit now, afterwards I get an annoying thing coming up telling me to make an account. I don't want to, so stop harassing me, get rid of this stupid annoying "pop up" thingy. Sorry if this the wrong area to post this, it's not very easy to figure out where to post this sort of thing, please move if there's an area where such complaints are more appropriate.98.243.94.83 (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

It has also been reported at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 126#Prompt to create an account whenever I make an edit. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly agree with anon 98. I find it peculiar that registration is not required to edit primarily because Jimbo doesn't want long-term editors to gain too much control, so instead of requiring anons to register, it was decided to worry the crap out of them with this popup. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 23:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to be a bit pedantic and point out that Jimbo has nothing to do with registration not being required. It's a community issue and its reasons for not being required are given here.AioftheStorm (talk) 02:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Removing source

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive262 § User: Alexzr88

--Redrose64 (talk) 20:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Can someone warn this user who registered a month ago, because he removes source for this article (and many more) just because author isn't a historian? His only contributions were removing Milan Tutorov's book as a source. Thank you. Alexzr88 (talk) 07:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

You can. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I meant someone who is administrator. Alexzr88 (talk) 19:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. Start off at level 1 - for example, {{subst:uw-delete1}} - and if it's clear that they've read that message and are ignoring it, escalate as necessary. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Being “reverted”?

I was amused to be notified that someone had “reverted” one of my recent edits. I believe revert is an intransitive verb—that while something can “revert”, you can't “revert” something. Perhaps WP means “reversed”? (BTW, if this is too trivial a topic for this page, I'll appreciate it if you'll direct me to the More Trivial Discussion section. I looked for one but couldn't find it. Of course it may not exist, as we editors are so rarely concerned with trivialities.) – AndyFielding (talk) 11:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

"Reverted/Reversed": same thing. Here we use the word "revert/reverted" meaning "undone". You'll see the term a great deal. We use the term in software development too. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 14:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Bearing mind that Wikipedia is based in the USA, I'm just happy that it wasn't "Reverterized". Try Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language, they like pondering trivialities in there. - X201 (talk) 15:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
That's brilliant... I propose that we add this new term to our Wikijargon. And when you undo a revert, it would be a "disreverterization" Blueboar (talk) 13:51, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
....leading some to self-identify as disreverterationalists, which, as night follows day, will lead other to decry their direverterizationalism...Lesser Cartographies (talk) 20:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, and the editors who decry disrevertalization would be engaging in Antidisreveratlisationism. I note that Wikipedia policy frowns on that sort of behavior. Blueboar (talk) 13:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Conflict with Wikidata

Hello, I provide a list of conflicts between date of birth and date of death for articles of English Wikipedia and Wikidata as you can see here for birth date and here for death date, each page is a package of 100 conflicts for example see this. My main request is to check these reports and fix mistakes in English Wikipedia (and if you like) fix mistakes in Wikidata:)Ladsgroupبحث 21:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I checked two at random from User:Ladsgroup/Birth date report/Conflict with Wikidata/110 - and you seem to have the column headings reversed. Rmhermen (talk) 12:58, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Appearance

Is it my misconception, or have most infobox images become smaller?--The Theosophist (talk) 12:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 127#Infobox Image.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 13:06, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Help with table

The table here is coming in all bold font and dark background. Can someone help it? Aditya(talk • contribs) 07:20, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I fixed the problem that each row started with "!" instead of "|" ("!" is for column headings). Johnuniq (talk) 07:52, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Aditya(talk • contribs) 08:45, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Is this website a derivative work of Wikipedia (CC-BY-SA) content?

This person has designed an interface around planetary information from Wikipedia. It even has live updates based on the edits on the source pages.

http://www.tuurlievens.net/planets/

At the bottom of the page, there's a copyright statement. Isn't the site creator forced to relinquish some parts of the copyright framework here due to the "SA" in the CC-BY-SA license? - Anonimski (talk) 21:07, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes he is; he should probably be told to change his statement to "Design copyright... Texts from Wikipedia" or something. Johnbod (talk) 22:28, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
It could be a copyright infringement. However it does not automatically make the derivative the same license, the person who makes the derivative must release it under the same license. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:38, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

FYI: MOOC on Open Knowledge in Stanford

You might like to know that from September through December, Stanford University runs a MOOC on Open Knowledge: Changing the global course of learning about everything Wikipedia and its sister projects are about and more (open source, open science, open data, open access, open education, open learning). It's free, as all materials used in the course will be. So I thought I'd share this with you.—via Wikimedia-l.--Aschmidt (talk) 00:54, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

RfC: remove the attention flag from WikiProject banners

See the discussion here. RockMagnetist (talk) 03:46, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello

Please help add references to my last 3 articles. Thank you. Scymso (talk) 15:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

To be slightly more successful, you might want to mention at least the topic of those "last 3 articles" to not make everybody click twice to realize afterwards that they have no idea about the topic? :) --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 01:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
FYI... I checked... they are bio articles (currently in a one line stubby-stub state) about somewhat obscure European footballers.
Scymso, I would suggest that the best place for you to ask for assistance would be Wikipedia:WikiProject Football. That's where you are most likely to find other editors who know something about the topic. Blueboar (talk) 12:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello

Please note that Gheorghe Urschi is the most important humorist from Moldova and he is also a author of humorist textes. He is notable enough for a wikipedia article. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.185.175.84 (talk) 15:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The article says "If you wish to contest this speedy deletion, clicking the button above will allow you to leave a talk page message explaining why you think this article should not be deleted." and links to a place where to bring this up, instead of this page here. --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 16:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Add preference to allow turning off of the in-webpage thumbnail expander for non-videos.

I realize this is a bit specific, but I think the two are different enough that video is usually useful, but images not so: I work in featured pictures; if I'm clicking on an image, I generally want to look at its image information page, or view it at full size. The number of times when seeing it at an intermediate scale is useful to me while in editing mode is minimal (and, anyway, the image information page can be set to have a larger thumbnail.

This is not a criticism of the feature as a whole, simply that it's complex enough to get between the enlarged image and the image information page that I'd like to be able to turn it off when doing image work. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know, the newly implemented Media Viewer is only for images, and unrelated to the similar functionality for videos. To disable it, go to the Appearance section of your preferences and uncheck the box labelled "Enable Media Viewer". Novusuna talk 07:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! That's really helpful! Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:44, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Talk:International Women's Day

I know that you may leave something at a talk page, come back in two years and find it unanswered. I hate it when this happens, so I post it here too.--85.74.125.119 (talk) 18:54, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

note

something is not correct in table in section Studio albums in this article - I'm thinking of Greatest Hits album 149.156.172.74 (talk) 16:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Should be fixed now. Thanks for the report. Chris857 (talk) 17:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, this edit didn't add a "new row" marker and was also short of a few cells. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Wellstone death missing from two Wikipedia lists, can someone fix this

US Senator Paul Wellstone's death is missing from lists of congressmen who died in office as well as those killed in office here on Wikipedia.[1]

  1. ^ observation of pages on Wikipedia

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.53.230.126 (talk) 10:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I have added Paul Wellstone to United States Congress members who died in office#2000s. United States Congress members killed or wounded in office is only for Congress members who were killed by people seeking to do them harm. Paul Wellstone died in a plane crash which was found to be accidental. There is apparently a conspiracy theory but that is not a proper basis for adding him to the list. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Massive iPad repair spam

I've noticed a bunch of new users spring up with a specific spam link (mail-repairtogo.cm) (replace "cm" with "com") in their userpages. Can we have all such users blocked, their pages deleted, and that link added to the blacklist? Right now, I've tagged three such userpages for speedy deletion under U5. Gparyani (talk) 20:34, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I think this is partly a WP:SPB matter. It doesn't look like there are any links left. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:09, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

BAG membership nomination

Per the bot policy, I am making this post to inform the community of a request for BAG membership. Please feel free to ask any questions/comment there. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Reversion of vandalism compared to five years ago

Was musing on this as my impression was that reversion and pickup might not be as prompt or complete as (say) five years ago - I only base this on a hunch or a couple of slow reversions here or there, and I guess I hope I am way off the mark, but was curious to see what other folks thought/observed/felt about this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

If you're talking slow reversions, you have to consider the fact that the vandalism got missed completely at a previous time. You can't consider this incident, for example, as an example of vandalism-reversion deteriorating since 2006. Nyttend (talk) 14:40, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Good point - I'm just interested in a broader view. Vandal-reversion is not usually an area I work in...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:44, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Same for me; I discovered this by accident. Just responding to your "hunch or a couple of slow reversions"; I have no idea about the broader view. Nyttend (talk) 15:52, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Without someone double-checking the refs every time a stat gets updated, some of these subtle vandal edits are always going to squeak through. Maybe someone could design an edit filter for edits to statistics, or edits that only change numbers? As for reversion in general, I think it's gotten much better in recent years with ClueBot doing the lion's share of the work pretty much instantaneously, and an army of editors who sit on recent changes. I find almost every recent edit that I roll back has already been reverted by the time I hit the button. Of course I've only had rollback for 6 months but I've been an off-and-on recent changes patroller for years. Ivanvector (talk) 16:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I think Ivan sums up much of what I was going to say. There is a small army of maintenance minded folks, some future admin hopefuls, some just gnomish types, who do nothing but revert vandalism using Stiki and other tools, like it was a video game. Helpful folks, to be honest. The bot has gotten better as well, so often it is a race to beat the bot and these new changes patrollers. When I see a reference to vandalism in my watchlist, it is usually from Clue or one of these guys who have already zapped the vandalism, even when I'm just refreshing in the middle of a session here. The problem is subtle/stealth vandalism. The bot will revert once from IPs but usually not twice. This is particularly true with stats and stuff like that. As was linked above, those can slip by. I have no idea how to fix those problems. I still think overall vandalism response is probably quicker now than when I started in 2006, noticeably so. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:09, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't want to start a thread about it here, but suffice it to say that he isn't around, several of us are looking for him. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't here five years ago, but my understanding is that the automated tools (AWB, Twinkle, Huggle, STiki, etc.) have sped up the detection, reversion, and warning process. I'm not sure if those efforts are keeping pace with the sheer volume of edits on Wikipedia not to mention the sneaky vandalism only subject-matter experts with references at hand would catch. Chris Troutman (talk) 07:15, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Don't forget Wikipedia:Snuggle, which any vandal fighter who is interested in supporting good-faith new editors should look into. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 22:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Subtle vandalism will always be a headache, but fortunately most adults probably wouldn't wast their time doing it. AFAICS, hardest hit pages for vandalism are BLP - especially football/soccer players and porn-bios. School articles attract a lot of vandalism, but of the immature kind like the nonsense that gets scratched on toilet doors, but often hard to detect. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Similar names

User:Gomesgames and User:Gomesgotun have similar names. This leads to some suspicions. Here are the possible outcomes.

  • Outcome: They could be sockpuppets.
  • Pro-theory: They have similar names.
  • Anti-theory: There were several years between their creation.
  • Outcome: Gomesgames is a vand-only account, with Gomesgotun used to create a diversion.
  • Pro-theory: Gomesgotun has zero edits. Gomesgames's only 2 edits are vandalism.
  • Anti-theory: Same as the sock theory.
  • Outcome: They could be totally unrelated.
  • Pro-theory: That would be the normal outcome.
  • Anti-theory: Who makes an account with zero edits without a good reason?

What do you think it is? Lightning BOLT! (talk) 01:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the instructions at WP:SPI are informative:
  • When you open the investigation, you must immediately provide evidence that the suspected sock puppets are connected. The evidence will need to include diffs of edits that suggest the accounts are connected.
  • You need to actually show why your suspicion that the accounts are connected is reasonable.
They have similar names does not come anywhere close to this, so WP:AGF. VanIsaacWScont 01:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
"Anti-theory: Who makes an account with zero edits without a good reason?"
I believe I've heard that the majority of new accounts don't make any edits within their first 30 days. I didn't. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Forgot password for alternate and doppelgänger account

I've tried every possible password I could think of but cannot log in to my alternate and doppelgänger accounts. I've forgotten the password for User:TheGeneralUser(alternate) and User:TheGeneralUser(doppelganger) and there are is also no e-mail address registered for any of those accounts which means that I cannot get any password reset e-mail. Is there any way a system administrator could send me the password reset e-mail on my main account's e-mail and/or register the same or new e-mail id on those accounts since those two accounts belong to me and this being a legitimate request ? I would like to know every possible option that can be taken in this case. Thank you. TheGeneralUser (talk) 07:23, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

This page may help. Out of curiosity, why do you need two alternative accounts? Blueboar (talk) 12:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
@Blueboar: I don't need any of them, one is an alternate account for use on public computers (if necessary) and another one is a doppelganger account which will never be used for editing. I already knew that if a person forgot the password for their account, they would either have to send a password reset e-mail or create a new account. In this case I forgot the password and don't have any registered e-mail on them to request a password reset e-mail, so wanted to know if there is any other possible way I could get access to these two accounts. Even if that's not possible, it won't be a big deal since the alternate account has never been used anyways. TheGeneralUser (talk) 14:23, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Slightly off topic, but that's not really how doppelgangers work. Nobody who has half a shred of sense (then again, we are on the internets...) would try to impersonate you by creating an account called User:TheGeneralUser(doppelganger). Something like User:The General User or User:Thegeneraluser might make more sense as a doppelganger. Just saying. 111.184.28.18 (talk) 14:26, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Well you could ask for it to be blocked, and then use a new account for the purpose. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:56, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
@Graeme Bartlett: That won't be necessary, thanks anyways. TheGeneralUser (talk) 14:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Or if you really want that username anyway, create a new account with a different username and then WP:USURP it. --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 02:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Gender of biographical subjects

I'm currently using the excellent Wikidata game to tag biographical entries in Wikidata as being about male of female subjects.

It's quickly become apparent that we have a large number of English-Wikipedia articles, for example Randy Borror, where the gender of the subject is not mentioned (no pronouns such as "he" or "she", no phrase like "son of" or "daughter of", etc.) and there is no photo. In that example, the name "Randy", like "Kim" or "Pat" and others, is gender-ambiguous. In many cases, a non-western name (say, Chinese or Thai) will not convey gender to most English speakers.

We could, and I believe should, address this by displaying a gender icon in our various infoboxes, drawn from the gender property in Wikidata. The display only needs to be a single "Mars", "Venus" or "other" character.

You can see how this would work in {{Infobox user}} - there's an example on my user page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:23, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata game

Hi Andy Mabbett,
I thought I'd try out the game, and the one it gave me was hr:Tena Novak. The article says that it's a band named after the violinist, but the Wikidata entry says that it's a person. Do you know how to fix that? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:34, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: Short answer: Use the red flag icon, top right (and then "don't know", to skip the entry), and someone else will do so. Long answer: go to Wikidata (click on the "Qnnn" link) and change "instance of - human" to "instance of - band". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:47, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll try that next time. When I tried to find the entry (via the "add links" item on the article), it tells me "You need to be logged in on this wiki and in the central data repository to use this feature", even though I'm already logged in to both, and I can't get anywhere from there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry; I can't help there, try asking on WP:VPT. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:03, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: There are times that I believe that I'm logged in as normal, but when I visit another project (such as mw:) where I should also be logged in (because of the central login feature), it hasn't worked and no amount of page refreshes will show me as logged in (e.g. my watchlist link is missing). Clicking the "Log in" link displays a message that I am already logged in, so something's mixed up somewhere. If I then go to my "home" Wikipedia (in my case, en.wikipedia) log out and log in again, I then find that when next visiting mw: (the problem site), it's working as normal. I think it's because of a missing, expired or corrupt cookie: logging out invalidates all the cookies, and logging in creates a fresh set. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Having read the above, I thought I'd see what Wikidata games are. Unfortunately, I was unable to find out. This is the message I got after first being told that to play a game (not explained), I had to log in (Hmm, usually we are first asked to register, but I guess it is using my Wikipedia account, but then, I was already logged into Wikipedia.) When I then went to log in, I got this message: "Widar would like to do the following actions on your behalf on www.wikidata.org: Perform high volume activity High-volume editing Interact with pages Edit existing pages; Create, edit, and move pages Perform administrative actions Rollback changes to pages; Delete pages, revisions, and log entries." I thought I was going to do some-thing, but instead I am being asked to allow some automated system (I guess) to do all sorts of things 'on my behalf.' It's all very murky and scary. Kdammers (talk) 11:00, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry, WiDaR is safe. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 21:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedian in Residence

As of today, I am Wikipedian in Residence at ORCID. The role is described in Announcing ORCID's Wikipedian-in-Residence. Please let me know if I can assist you, in that capacity. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I've restored the above, which was wrongly deleted as "spam". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello

Please note that de Burgos died on 11 june 2014 acording to spanish wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.185.175.84 (talk) 11:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Apparently refers to Rafael Frühbeck de Burgos; our article has already been updated. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Dislike change to image pages

Can't right click and save an image anymore. Can't click on the image to get large image (for instance in 'list of woodcuts by durer) you could click on the 1st image in main aritcle and then after clicking on the image displayed singularily in the browser, get the largest image http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/D%C3%BCrer_Apocalypse_0.jpg Now you can only get a smaller file. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_woodcuts_by_D%C3%BCrer#mediaviewer/File:D%C3%BCrer_Apocalypse_0.jpg (example). Not getting the larger images easily. Is this possibly because you are trying to more effectively support mobile devices? I liked to collect the best image simply. Now I can't even find them. Was even resorting to google image search to find the wikipedia largest image. It is inacessible. First off, I thought the problem was in the page but I know now that it is because you can't get the largest image from a page. In the case of landscapes or pictures of buildings, these images are very large, expanding over the browser window. This was never a problem (as you could click on the portrait displayed image, to get the larger version. Complaint. 86.128.235.177 (talk) 13:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Please see WP:VPT#MediaViewer, the new VE / Flow / ...? and Wikipedia:Media Viewer/June 2014 RfC. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello 86.128.235.177, thanks for reporting your issues with Media Viewer. The multimedia team just rolled out a couple new features that may address some of your concerns for viewing images in larger or different sizes:
  • View original file: A prominent button to open the original image in your browser, so you can zoom in to see its details, or download it for re-use. (#630)
  • View different sizes: Prominent links to view images in different sizes from the 'Use this file' tool, so you can open them in your browser. (#664)
Both of these features can be tested on Commons today (see sample image]) and should be released on English Wikipedia tomorrow, if all goes well. Note that you can click on 'Use this file' below the image to access a range of features, from download to embed and share. We're also working on many other new features based on community feedback, as outlined on this discussion page. Thanks again for sharing your concerns, which we are taking to heart. Be well. Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 21:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

On the test image URL, it diverts to a larger image, but I get a web page, not the jpg file, when I press ctrl-S. I ctrl-S on https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Center_of_the_Milky_Way_Galaxy_IV_%E2%80%93_Composite.jpg#mediaviewer/File:Center_of_the_Milky_Way_Galaxy_IV_%E2%80%93_Composite.jpg and I get the opportunity to save "File:Center of the Milky Way Galaxy IV – Composite.jpg - Wikimedia Commons.html", (web page). Which seems strange. It shows the jpg in the url bar. I just cut that out, but it saves a full html page containing it. Still no way around this, as far as I can see. Used to be able to click directly on the image, also and get the largest image. Having to right click, select save image from the menu, then click again, is retrograde if you are heavy (permanent) Wikipedia browser, saving images all the time. Clicking on an image should give you an image. That's all. Firefox 29.0 ... Just ctrl-s'd on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Alcyone_%28AKA-7%29#mediaviewer/File:USSAlcyone%28AK-24%29.jpg and I get "save as" 'USS Alcyone (AKA-7) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.html" That's the Main complaint, rather than what I was trying to say in this heading 'Dislike change to image pages' 86.128.235.177 (talk) 16:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I didn't review the entire discussion above, but if you mouse over the image, you'll see a pop-up button at the bottom that says "More details at Wikimedia Commons". Click on that and it will bring you to the original (old style) page with all the details. From there you can open the original file, whatever size it may be. Granted, it's not as fast as the old method, but it is the same content.
If that doesn't work for you, you can turn off the feature as mentioned above. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 16:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Er, Frecklefoot, you can only turn off the feature if logged in. It's therefore not an option for 86.128.235.177 --Redrose64 (talk) 17:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Have just found the "view original file" button. I hope that goes live (isn't currently). 86.128.235.177 (talk) 16:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Can the button be made more visible (it goes invisible if using 'blank your monitor' firefox plugin. Which makes the pages white text on black background. Button is still on the test page 86.128.235.177 (talk) 17:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Editathon

Tomorrow, Thursday 12 June, I'm going to be running an editathon in conjunction with Barclays Bank:

Around 350 Barclays staff will be editing Wikipedia - some for the first time - throughout the day from several different locations including Singapore, India, Lithuania, England and the US. They will all be logged in, but some may not be autoconfirmed yet and may not know their way around the Wiki. I'd be grateful if due courtesy could be extended to these new editors, please.

The last time I ran an editathon, one of the members of the Royal Society of Chemistry was blocked during the session for "suspicious activity", i.e. several new editors were creating similar user pages under my direction. I'd really prefer this not to happen again, so I'm posting here to notify admins of what is happening. As an aside to checkusers: many of the new editors will make edits originating from a very limited range of IP addresses (the proxies that Barclays uses for its outward-facing connections to the internet), so please consider the possibility of a Barclays editor, should you receive a report of multiple new editors that you can see are using the same (closed) proxy.

Thanks in advance. --RexxS (talk) 18:40, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, it might be a good idea to post this on Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention. 31.3.77.131 (talk|da-wiki profile) 07:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I actually cross-posted to the Administrators' Noticeboard following some earlier advice. The event went smoothly anyway, so I'm pleased that none of my worries materialised. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 23:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet At Wikimania 2014

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to: Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 14:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Abusive speedy deletion

Hi,

A.Minkowiski added a speedy deletion tag one minute after a started a new article. This is really not acceptable. No wonder that contributors leave Wikipedia to do something else. I started the article at 00:07, and he added the tag at 00:08. See Rosamund Lupton. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I already told you that do not put your article containing only one line having no source except self-promotional website. When you create any article, please follow article wizard or use sandbox. When you complete your article, then submit it for review as I suggest you before. Any article about real person having no any source would leads to PROD or CSD, no matter it is whether after one minute or two. A.Minkowiski _Lets t@lk 19:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the tagging was way too quick, but that said, the version that was tagged met the criteria to be speedily deleted. Also, Yann, you removed a speedy deletion tag from an article you created, you should never remove a speedy deletion tag from an article you created. The proper thing to do is to fix the article so it does not meet the speedy deletion criterion and to contest it on the article's talk page. It is best when you create an article to have the very first saved version that is not speedy delete-able. In summary, A.Minkowiski should slow down and Yann should not remove speedy deletion tags from articles they created but should create articles that are never speedy delete-able. GB fan 19:16, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
He! I have been here for nearly 10 years, so don't try to teach me the policy. I got an edit-conflict when Minkowiski when he added his tag, so how can I write a meaningful start if you don't even let me doing it? Beside, this is a famous writer, not a second-class character of the Pokemon series. There is no way that adding a speedy tag one minute after I started this article would be an acceptable thing to do. Yann (talk) 19:30, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
@A.Minkowiski: Unless it's a clear G3 or G10, don't be trigger-happy. See WP:NPP#Special:NewPagesFeed and patrol from the back, not the front. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:36, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Agree with GB fan...
A.Minkowiski, you jumped the gun. Before you nominate a brand new article for deletion, it is simple courtesy to give the creator at least a few hours to build the article. It is also a good idea to at least do a quick google search, to see whether the article is likely to grow, before you nominate it for deletion. (I was able to find several potential sources that might be used to build and support the article... with nothing more than a ten second Google search.)
Yann, unfortunately there are some people who get over-zealous about tagging new articles... it is annoying, but something we have to live with (and not really something to be overly upset about... in this case, the speedy request would have been reviewed and quickly denied once it became clear that you were continuing to work on the article, and that sources exist to support it). That said, to avoid going through this sort of angst again, it really is a good idea to write up an initial draft in your user space and, once you have added a few sources, cut and paste your draft over to Article space. Sure, doing a first draft in user space is not required... but it is a good idea nevertheless. Blueboar (talk) 19:53, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
@Blueboar: I suggested same to Yann. And you all should assume good faith. No worry and Happy editing Yann. A.Minkowiski _Lets t@lk 19:59, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
I think everyone here is assuming good faith (at least none of us are assuming bad faith). But assuming good faith does not mean the same as no criticism. Blueboar (talk) 20:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
I admitted whatever you said. I prologize if I made mistake in hurry. Will you keep on criticism ? A.Minkowiski _Lets t@lk 20:20, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
If you do it again... sure... if you don't... no need.  :>) Blueboar (talk) 20:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
That's cool :) A.Minkowiski _Lets t@lk 20:29, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Why So Many Pixies Featured Articles?

There are a total of SEVEN featured articles related to just one band - The Pixies. Is this typical, or is the person/persons who choose Wikipedia featured articles a fan of the band? I've never seen any other band have that many featured articles related to them (including band members, albums, singles, and the band itself). 2604:2000:FFC0:1F9:4BE:10F9:EAC4:E40D (talk) 04:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Featured articles aren't "picked". People write articles, and when the reach a very high standard in prose and sourcing, they can be nominated through the Featured Articles nomination process. At that point, a half-dozen or more members of the community spend between one and two months making sure that the article is polished and as good as it can possibly be, before supporting the article's bid to become featured.
People select articles to work on for a variety of reasons, but most often it is because the subject of the article is something that interests the writer. What likely happened here is that one talented editor really liked that band, and brought a bunch of Pixies articles through the Featured Articles process. Among the other topics that are heavily represented among Featured Articles because of a small number of talented editors interested in those areas are hurricanes, coins, and battleships. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Why are a few people who are interested in certain topics allowed to hijack or influence the Featured Article candidates? Seems like there is a fucking hurricane article featured like once a month. It gets annoying after a while seeing some obscure hurricane featured when there are so many other good Wikipedia articles out there. 2604:2000:FFC0:1F9:4BE:10F9:EAC4:E40D (talk) 06:20, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
If you want something featured, wouldn't the better approach be to work on what you want than to complain about what other people choose to do with their free time? See Category:Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page where the hard work is already done. Let's not forget that there's also an issue of WP:Systemic bias to consider but I think you'll find a large variety of articles at Category:Featured articles that have appeared on the main page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:28, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

is Wikipedia dying?

Posted at three locations; please discuss at User talk:Jimbo Wales. Johnuniq (talk) 08:09, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

just few years ago I could find artciles about everything new, but now I can't:

what happen to Wikipedia?
deleters are clailm that "wikipedia already has articles about evering and now new articles are needed", but I see IT'S A LIE! why they become so POWERLFUL? why metapedists who do nothing just delete are more equal the thouse who write articles? why noone see the AGONY of Wikipedia? why noone tryies to save it? (Idot (talk) 06:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC))

a lot of these article stubs could be readily filled in .. maybe even semi-automatically

many commenters online are just getting around to posting masses of new articles .. it's going to take some time for people to get organised

you could say that wikipedia is now recovering from the shock of it's invention 86.128.235.177 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

not enough women

hi ...just wondering when you all are going to get it together to start seeing to it that your front page features have a few more females featured... at this point, since i have suggested this before, i am calling for 50-50... unless of course you all think women are not as interesting as men...

last time i brought this up some sort of lame reason was given about 'the stories featured are the ones suggested' ri i i ght...
turn on the radio... if 50% of the voices you hear on each station you tune to are females then that is amazing... in fact i dont think it is possible...
i would guess the percentages are more like 10-90 ...seriously

so just leaving it up to The Masses to see to it that half the human race gets half the coverage...
gets noticed half the time...
gets brought to the attention of readers half the time...

leaving it up to The Masses i think is at this point criminal

but thats just me
a female
and what do i know

lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1:9A00:592:7ACA:39FF:FEB0:6D92 (talk) 01:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Well said. I can't wait to see what excuses people come up with in reply to this. — Scott • talk 08:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
By all means, please help get more articles on women up to featured status. But until that happens, we're either going to have to relax the front page requirements on featured content for women, or veer far towards events and locations for featured articles in order to deny men enough spots to be held back with the rate of women in featured content. We'll also need to severely curtail elections and other political items from In the News in order to deny overrepresentation through male-domination of politics in most areas of the world. On this date also will need to be throttled or skewed, since women have historically been under-documented in contemporary sources throughout history, and scholarship on historical women is thus limited by lacunae of documentation. Really, DYKs and featured pictures are really the only place where you could really attempt this with the current production of source material. VanIsaacWScont 09:48, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. If we were to limit featured content to show male subjects no more often than female, we would only be able to show 42 biographies from 2013 - 21 men and 21 women - and thus have to come up with an additional 65 non-biographical articles of featured content. Eliminating 60% of biographies from being featured content and coming up with another 20% non-biographical content: that's a pretty tough sell. Instead of making capricious rules to effect cosmetic changes, actually working on content is probably a better use of resources to help alleviate this issue. I have a feeling that some of the same dynamic that makes Wikipedia editor activity overly masculine could also be at play in making female biographies less likely to go through the formal process of GA and FA, even when the content is largely up to that quality. VanIsaacWScont 03:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The solution to this "problem" is simple: just work harder in the articles of the topic that you like, to promote them to GA or FA, and they will have the greater coverage that you ask for. As for women, have in mind that Wikipedia has biographies of people from all of human history, and women rights are a relatively new phenomenon. Before the XX century women were hardly ever allowed in roles of power or social leadership, and the consequence is that the vast majority of people that made it to the history books are men. For each Joan of Arc you have dozens and hundreds of male generals. For each Cleopatra you have dozens and hundreds of male kings (or similar things such as pharaohs). It may be unfortunate, but it's the way it is, and Wikipedia reflects the world as it is, not as we would like it to be. Cambalachero (talk) 03:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. I work mainly in railway history articles; and the overwhelming number of individuals who might be notable are male. Go to the library, pick up any book on railway history, and you'll find that the architects, civil engineers, locomotive designers, directors, management are pretty much all male. The only female engineer that I know of who worked in railways was Penny Dwyer. Sometimes a TV report on a railway matter might have an interview-to-camera with a female representative of the railway - but they tend to be from the company's PR staff, not individually notable. --Redrose64 (talk) 05:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
this [4] makes some interesting theoretical points suggesting why there might be more male railway architects - and it's not about "patriarchy". Our standards of notability enforce a systemic bias by their nature, since we rely on sources and the sources themselves are biased.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I kind of liked this article. Too bad it wasn't sourced. I don't mean it sarcastically: it's easy to write 'Women are if anything more likely than men to perpetrate domestic violence against romantic partners' and, really, it could be true (I can see that maybe women hit their partner more, but a wife slapping her husband is not considered the same as a husband slapping his wife — I'm not saying it should be considered the same), but… hey, mate, what makes you say that? Is there any, like… data on the subject?
Thouny(talk), on 09:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Someone could also review Category:Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page and just look for female individuals if they wanted to cut to the chase. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:38, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Editor Survey Report – April 2011". Wikimedia Foundation. Retrieved January 7, 2011.

Singaporean MPs considering legal action, according to local newspaper

Just a notice that according to a report by the Straits Times, Singaporean MPs may consider legal action against a specific Wikipedia user due to this edit. Depending on whether things boil up or not (hopefully not), this page may need additional attention, so it would probably be a good idea for a few people to keep watch over this. Here's to hoping that nothing serious happens, though. --benlisquareT•C•E 07:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

  • That's more than just one user name... perhaps just one person. But hopefully this will blow over. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
    • I've just semi'd the article after seeing this thread. Belatedly — there's been a lot of vandalism by non-autoconfirmed obvious socks. It seems to have fallen through the cracks a bit. :-( ClueBot and others have been reverting, but I guess no admin saw it. Bishonen | talk 07:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC).
Wow, threatening to sue over vandalism that was quickly reverted. Someone needs to get a thicker skin. —Farix (t | c) 10:25, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I suggest you read into the area's views of defamation. Indonesians are just as sue-happy. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:27, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Ronn Torossian

Talk:Ronn Torossian Can editors pls add comments to page Milseyes (talk) 09:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

WeAreWikipedia

The Twitter account @WeAreWikipedia is operated by a different Wikimedian each week, and discusses not only Wikipedia, but sister projects. Anyone may apply to run it. I'm running it this week. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:01, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Mobile talk page

First mobile view of London article. The left of the box is to edit the article, the second option is to add an image and the final is to add the article to your watchlist. There is no option to go to the talk page.
Second mobile view of the London article showing the mobile menu. Again there is no option to go to the talk page

There is one thing I do request when it comes to using Wikipedia on mobile. This is a simple request yet I feel it is fundamental to the whole of Wikipedia. When editing on mobiles, it is hard to access the talk page unless you actually know of the link. Could this be added to the mobile menu?

Difficultly north (talk) Simply south alt. 12:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't this go better at WP:VPPROP or WP:VPT? --k6ka (talk | contribs) 16:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
There is related discussion in the bug tracker at bugzilla:52165. --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 10:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
@K6ka: I think that would go better at WP:VPPROP A.Minkowiski _Lets t@lk 06:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
@AKlapper (WMF) and A.Minkowiski: Simply south (talk · contribs) (the main account of Difficultly north (talk · contribs)) has already followed K6ka's advice, although not exactly, and has received a reply at at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 14#Mobile talk page. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:25, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I was meaning to reply to say that I did that. Simply south ...... time, department skies for just 8 years 13:39, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

An editor is destroying a University's page. What can I do?

It started when I disagreed about the removal of a link.
In response, he removed the listing as well.
Then, I disagreed again and he started to remove other listings on the same page, chipping away at information about a school.
I need help before Kennesaw State University is no longer on wikipedia.

The editor was Mcgeddon. He has attacked others as well, proudly listed on his talk page.

Carl Spencer Krendel (talk) 14:26, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

You're being a bit overly-dramatic. The other editor removed non-notable people, including you, from the alumni lists. If the people do not pass our notability criteria, i.e. they do not have their own Wikipedia bio, then they should not be listed on the university page. An encyclopedia is not an alumni directory. Tarc (talk) 14:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Yup. And please read the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guidelines. Using Wikipedia to promote yourself in a political campaign is contrary to policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Also, don't panic. Previous revisions of a page can always be restored. If the editor removes useful information, we can pull it back from the page history. It's never gone for good. Ivanvector (talk) 17:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, technically speaking, Tarc has overstated the case. It isn't necessary for a Wikipedia bio to already exist for an alum (the difference between "already existing" and "qualifying for, but nobody's bothered to start it yet" matters), and editors at a university article are permitted to choose other list-selection criteria, including listing people who don't qualify. However, Tarc is basically correct in practice: it is rare for editors to choose to list alums on a university page unless the alum is WP:Notable in Wikipedia terms. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

No WikiProject for English?

I find it rather odd that the English Wikipedia has projects for a zillion different topics - including some pretty obscure languages, but there is no project for editors to consult each other when the topic is the English language. Yes the language refdesk fulfills some of the functions but it is not as all-encompassing as a WikiProject would be as it isn't concerned with articles about English per se. Has there ever been a WikiProject English that failed for some reason or is there an "inherent" opposition to such a project being started? I came here with this question as I have just accepted a new draft at AFC about the English department at a university in a non-English-speaking country - to my surprise I couldn't find a WikiProject English template for the talk page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Start one. We didn't have one on Editor Retention until I started one two years ago. It only takes someone willing to create the page and rally the troops. We all have our niche. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
It's not really my niche at all. If I build it, will they come? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I have just planted the seed. Please feel free to water it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:37, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Draft: space is for draft articles. If you want to propose a new WikiProject, please see WP:WPPRO. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) We never suggested or asked permission, we just started the project in Wiki space, btw, but I knew I had a solid crew before we started, and I'm kind of bold that way. If you aren't sure, starting in WPPRO might be a better idea. Once started (however you choose to do it) I suggest putting warm and welcoming notices at WP:WER, Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors and other places that are arguably connected or interested. And recruit a few able bodied people to help with the heavy lifting. Projects like this tend to attract attention at first, but many editors lose interest fast, so it takes a big crowd to get a small core of dedicated people. Finding current/former English professors, librarians, etc would be helpful in forming a core group. Getting non-US English specialists is a must, as is personally asking editors that have a gaggle of FAs under their belt. Success depends on attracting others and letting them shape the Project. If you want a good list of potentially interested people, try this: Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations. My one FA/TFA was really due to riding the coattails of someone whose skills in the English language is legendary. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
(ec)My experience of the WikiProject Council is entirely negative. They have still not approved a WikiProject I and a few other editors started several years ago and which is doing just fine in spite of the council's indifference. Thus my confidence in the WikiProject Council's ability to do anything constructive is exactly zero. Draft space is for drafting whatever I feel like drafting, there are no limitations on what it can be used for beyond the limits on Wikipedia in general. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
WikiProject Council never "approves" WikiProjects (or disapproves, either). They (or "we", since I'm a participant, too) provide a central discussion point and some advice, but WikiProject Council does not control the creation of WikiProjects. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
In that case it should not be called a "Council" - that creates an impression of being an authority. The whole structure of the page and the workflow there also reinforces the impression of authoritarianism. Anyway, back to recruiting more participants.... Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:28, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
As it was created rather before my time, I don't know why that name was chosen. If you have a better idea, then you should feel free to propose it at WT:COUNCIL. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Was "Intel wiki" tool discussed by the community before?

I am reviewing articles for the upcoming Wikimedia Research Newsletter, and one of the them discusses "Intel wiki" project (see YouTube video, website. It's interesting, but as far as I can tell there's no public tool, no open code, and no engagement of the author with the Wikipedia community (no Wikipedia: , page, no listerv discussion, etc.). Correct me if I am wrong and I missed something (please ping me), as if I am wrong I'd gladly put a foot in my mouth (but as of now, my review is critical of the researcher for doing research seemingly for his thesis, with next to no thought about actually helping our community by contributing anything substantial back to it). Ping potential researcher in question: User:Nawaz.noor. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:13, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

inXile Entertainment

I don't know where to ask, so I'll put question here: how should one write company (or product) names like this ? Uppercase InXile Entertainment or lowercase inXile Entertainment (vide [5]) ? Sir Lothar (talk) 10:23, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Since the linked-to article is lowercased, I would say that the link should be lowercase too. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Can someone put some sense into this person?

Talk:Bikini waxing#None of my posts on this page are POV. Objectivity is on my side. $500.00 if you can prove me wrong. - an amazing amount extremely idiotic comments are happening here. Can someone, please, get some sense into this person? Please? Aditya(talk • contribs) 14:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

No, nobody can. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Generally, comments on talk pages aren't as stringently tested for accuracy, concision and brevity as article text in Wikipedia. There are occasionally editors who view themselves as competent to edit other people's talk (beyond curtailing stemwinders relative to article content, which, yes the offending passage you refer to is). Common sense would seem to favor letting a more senior wikipedian deal with the issue, if it indeed deserves the attention.
"Putting sense into people" generally implies their receptivity to facts, and is actually a core mission in wikipedia; we expect readers to read properly-written articles, after which (ideally), sense will have been put into them. Answer your question? loupgarous (talk) 03:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion policy

I sorry to tell that I just had my worst wikipedia experience. I made a new article, named Evaluation of 2014 FIFA World Cup Group strength, which I put quite a bit of effort in. The intention was to give an evaluation of the groups strength based on the official FIFA rating and points. It was not at all controversial, but for some reason, this article was "awarded" a speedy deletion tag, and before I could give my comments to this action, the article was deleted. I am furthermore very much disturbed by how one individual, namely User:alik_Shabazz can delete a contribution from a long lasting contributor to wikipedia. I am practically out of this place. --Eivindgh (talk) 20:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Eivindgh, I'm sorry that you feel that way, but an article which contains a user's evaluation of events, based on their own subjective criteria, is unlikely to survive very long. Such things are best left to personal webpages such as blogs. Wikipedia has a core policy, No original research and the subsection WP:ORIGINALSYN makes clear the problem here: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." In this case, I nominated the article for speedy deletion under criteria A11: "An article which plainly indicates that the subject was invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally, and does not credibly indicate why its subject is important or significant" as it was clearly invented by you. Malik Shabazz correctly deleted the article under that criteria. It's possible that some of that may be included in the main article 2014 FIFA World Cup, however, I would strongly suggest that you discuss its relevance with other users on the talk page first. Valenciano (talk) 20:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm so much out of here. Thank you, for seven years.--Eivindgh (talk) 20:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
@Eivindgh: Recreating your page, Evaluation of 2014 FIFA World Cup Group strength, less than an hour after it was speedy-deleted is likely to end in another speedy deletion. I notice that this new version is entirely unsourced, please see WP:V. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
How do I speedy delete all my contributions through seven years to wikipedia? Just tell me, and I will do it. In agony. --Eivindgh (talk) 20:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
WP:CSD sets out the various speedy deletion criteria. The main one applicable to pages that you created is WP:CSD#G7 but if anybody else has made significant contributions to the page, the speedy deletion request will not stand. For pages in your own user space, you can use WP:CSD#U1. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Eivindgh:, don't be a WP:DIVA. Any article that lacks sources (against WP:V), contains nothing but original research (against WP:NOR), consists of just statistics (against WP:INDISCRIMINATE), and does not in any way indicate why it is noteworthy (against WP:GNG) is going to be deleted. It has nothing to do with you, beyond that being mistake you made. And it was so minor a mistake that you could just walk away from it and never face any trouble for it, but recreating the page an hour after it's deletion and being a diva are only going to bring trouble upon yourself.
Your best course of action would be to create the page as a user subpage, and work on it until it's finished (with sources, no original research, more than random statistics, and establishing its notability). It won't be deleted while it's there.
Or you can be a diva, and not be missed when you runaway to join the circus. Your choice. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I've moved the page in question to User:Eivindgh/Evaluation_of_2014_FIFA_World_Cup_Group_strength, so Eivindgh can work on it there. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
User:Eivindgh, surely, after seven years, you've heard that when someone thing is deleted, the first step is to check with the deleting admin? Having made a deletion in error just today, I was happy I was contacted rather than some other action. I don't think the deletion was in error, but you haven't attempted to even inform Malik that there is any question about the deletion. Note that your attmepted ping is a red link. On the content of the article, you might want to check out 538 which has some interesting analyses of relative strengths, and might help you with a reference.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:17, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
User:Eivindgh I've had similar experiences - not with having articles speedily deleted, but with having a page I was working on "protected," and being accused by the editor (other names for this person, some earthily Anglo-Saxon in etymology, come to mind) of waiting until Christmas to make my edits so no other editor would see them, an outright lie and a crashing violation of WP:Assume_Good_Faith. This person reverted several very well-sourced additions to the page in question just prior to the "protection." But being a good wikipedia trooper, I had a long and fruitless talk page conversation with this editor, in which no support for the changes short of a dove alighting from the heavens with my changes in its bill would have made this person happy. Someone else picked up the cudgel later after I decided I had better things to do with my time.
At about the same time, had another editor accuse me of all sorts of mopery and dopery (of which I was innocent) on MY talk page relative to a different article - he evidently confused me with someone else. I referred both incidents to an administrator who'd responded to me before, and that was last December/early January of this year. No response.
So I indulged in a little drama on my talk page and announced I'd stop editing until there was "something done" about the incidents which angered me. I was ignored. And I'm back editing, because I've done this for well over a decade, and not even wikipedia's own inattention to all the supposed arbitration measures it boasts of will stop me from doing what I do well; which is edit articles for accuracy and concision. That matters to me as a point of existential pleasure. YouTube Jimmy Buffett's "It's My Job" for more information - most wikipedia editors do the job because it needs doing, and our work has redeemed wikipedia from being a byword for inaccuracy and amateurism. Only wikipedia's administrators can decide when they'll intervene in unfortunate incidents as I described; in the meantime, the work remains.
If that's not enough for you, good luck on your future endeavors, because it's unlikely you'll be vindicated. Only you can decide what to do when the machine breaks and bites you (although I happen to agree that what you did was, by your own admission, Original Research and not permissible here).
I decided to get back to work and let karma deal with the assholes - and to take good care not to become one myself. Hope you can deal with your anger as I have. loupgarous (talk) 04:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello

Note that Jacques Bergerac died on 22 june 2014. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.185.175.84 (talk) 08:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

That belongs on Talk:Jacques_Bergerac, and requires a citation. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 14:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I've updated the article (with a reference). Qwfp (talk) 14:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, 109.185.175.84, for taking the trouble to let us know. I'm sorry you were not welcomed more warmly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

When did Template:Citation needed become unprintworthy?

Well, the question in the header pretty much sums it up. I printed out a page today and the {{Citation needed}} notations did not print. A few weeks ago they did print. Can someone point me to the discussion on this? Rgrds. --64.85.216.102 (talk) 11:33, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

It appears it happened 11 May in [6]. See also [7] and Template talk:Citation needed/Archive 8#Redundancy. I haven't tracked the whole history but it seems it was already supposed to be unprintworthy and an editor just implemented that. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

A children wiki encyclopedia has just reached 1000 articles (in English)

Vikidia in English has just reached 1000 articles after 4 month, let's build a children wiki encyclopedia!

Here is the link: http://en.vikidia.org/ and some explanations: http://blog.wikimedia.fr/vikidia-in-english-opens-today-lets-build-a-children-wiki-encyclopedia-6400

I you have "finished" your articles in the favorite domain, you may help, this wiki works best with editors of any ages.

I would be glad to answer any question about this project. Astirmays (talk) 17:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

What official relation, if any, does Vikidia have with the Wikimedia Foundation? Would prior history on Wikipedia be counted toward an admin application there? (Not particularly interested in admin'ing here, but come heck or high water, I'm going to be teaching next year). Ian.thomson (talk) 17:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, we have thought about this project being adopted by the Wikimedia Foundation, somewhat in the same way as Wikivoyage was, yet this is no longer the case. Vikidia is well known and supported by Wikimedia France, it has some links with it through the peoples involved in it. About adminship, we manage it nearly in the same way as on the WMF's wiki, (yet on them being an admin on one wiki doesn't make you admin in any wiki). Our counterpart in dutch WikiKids.nl makes it slightly otherwise, the team in charge choose the new admins if needed. Still we would certainly recognize if someone is skilful and involved! Good luck in your teaching job next year. Some teacher in France have given writing assignment/projects on Vikidia even in hight school (16-17 yo), they felt that writing for younger pupils could be a good exercise. Astirmays (talk) 17:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I actually brought up the idea of using a class- or school-restricted Wiki for students to write and maintain the class's textbooks in my education courses, which is why this caught my interest. Suggestions of using this site in class usually got an immediate "Oh dear Christ, please no" from me, but a separate site where I'm less likely to get personally involved in content disputes (but still have international involvement) sounds cool. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Bathroom singing

What WikiProject is appropriate for Bathroom singing? go ahead and add one if you know.--DThomsen8 (talk) 21:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

"Bathroom singing" is in Category:Habits, which is in Category:Human behavior. Talk:Human behavior has a template for Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology and a template for Wikipedia:WikiProject Sociology. Therefore, it seems to me that those two WikiProjects are appropriate for "Bathroom singing".
—Wavelength (talk) 21:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC) and 21:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Video formats

Couldn't know why wikipedia uses .ogv extension for videos and not mp4 or 3gp extension. Would have been easier if it was mp4. Or a way within we could convert the videos or audios within wikipedia would have been nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Learnerktm (talk • contribs) 03:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

This is probably a topic for Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), but from what I know, .ogv is an open format, whereas m4p is Apple's proprietary format (from the Internet: "Audio files of the M4P type are copy protected using a proprietary DRM technology created by Apple"). 3gp files are mainly for mobile devices, which not all of Wikipedia's use. Staying with open formats prevents us from copyright infringement and licensing nightmares. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 13:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
We don't have MP4's basically because the majority of contributors at Commons would rather be purely open source than have videos that most people can easily view (without adding software extensions, etc.). See commons:Commons:Requests for comment/MP4 Video for the most relevant (and very long) discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Loopy bot

I just got a message from a bot (?: It was signed: Technical 13 (e • t • c) 1:10 pm, Today (UTC+9)) saying that an article I had just created was subject to speedy deletion because it duplicated an existing article. The article that I "created" was actually this: 2008-09-17T12:26:59‎ Kdammers (talk | contribs)‎ . . (29 bytes) (+29)‎ . . (moved Angel cake to Angel food cake over redirect: See discussion. This is the usual American name. The article says it is originally an American cake.) . Since then, I have not touched the angel-cake article and only made a few touches on the angel-food-cake article in that same year. Besides the strange time relationships, the reason for the speedy delete is not a good one: Cake and Angel Cake are no more the same than Monkey and Howler Monkey. Does any-one know what's going on?Kdammers (talk) 05:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

That's User:Technical 13, not a bot. I reverted the speedy delete tag because "A10. Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic" is not appropriate. However, a cake fan may want to consider replacing the page with a redirect to Cake because there is nothing sourced in Angel cake. Johnuniq (talk) 06:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) No, T13 is not a bot, but a regular human editor (or maybe it's an elaborate Turing test that's managed to fool me). And someone else has already removed the speedy tag, so this is going to have to go through AfD if it's going to be deleted. The only pages that I think get bot tagged for CSD are year-old drafts, so when this sort of thing happens again, just add your objection to the talk page. VanIsaacWScont 06:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Not sure if I want to feel insulted be being called a "loopy bot" or proud and accomplished... I was half in the bag when I tagged that and since I consider the two the same thing, and the one I tagged added nothing useful (or I might have tagged it for merging), I tagged it as a duplicate topic. Anyways, I'll look at the current state of the article later, see if I can find a source, merge the article with the Angel food cake article and leave a redirect as a bold action. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 10:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
    • I suggest not tagging anything for deletion when you are "half in the bag", whatever that's supposed to mean. — Scott • talk 12:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Question on Wikipedia traffic statistics

I want the stats-classic.grok.se version's top 1000 list to be downgraded to December 2010 data. I didn't want January 2014 data to be on the list when it went down back in early May. I'm ok if data is outdated; plus I prefer the old version, and I forgot to check a few articles' 2010 rankings, and I want to know them. The old version won't show data in 2010 for any article (not even topics that existed).

(Article) has been viewed 0 times in 201012. I want this issue to be fixed. Anyone? A Great Catholic Person (talk) 04:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

stats.grok.se is not operated by Wikimedia, so there is nothing we can do from here. You might try pinging the person who maintains it (iirc, his contact info is on the website), but if you do, I would suggest using a slightly less demanding tone, seeing as how you are complaining about a free service being provided by a volunteer. Resolute 16:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Getty now allows free embeds, but...

Getty now allows use of their images as an embedded image in a blog or website. However, the Terms of Use are incompatible with Wikipedia, so cannot be added here.

Getty page

I am posting this because it is possible many editors, especially new ones, may focus on It's easy, legal and free and miss the non-commercial restriction, so we may need to be on the lookout for editors trying to use Getty images, even more than usual.S Philbrick(Talk) 14:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Toddst1

This admin through his/her reckless actions over the last 6 years hurt the wiki project. There were tons of complaints against this user, and never action taken. When this user finally was going to be held to account, they blocked themselves. I have seen so many good users leave over the years because this user thought he was the sole authority. Measures need to take place to insure admins like Toddst1 are dealt with sooner rather than later.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.23.117.174 (talk)

Wow, you'd think an experienced editor who's had conflict over the years with an admin would know how to sign his posts. Anyway, it looks like this has been handled, as Toddst1 is currently blocked. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 19:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes I agree it has been handled. However, like you state, it should not have taken 6 years. There needs to be checks and balances to ensure that it does not happen in the future. Thanks for you comment.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.23.117.174 (talk)
Toddst1 blocked himself. In effect this was handled by an admin falling on their sword. I've had a couple of run-ins with this admin that upon reflection was fueled by ambivalence on both our parts. Not sure what the way out of this would be. Admins having 'term limits'? A committee of genuinely uninvolved admins i.e. not WP:Arbcom? Badanagram (attempt) 09:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:Personal acquaintances goes international

The tool for Wikip/medians to confirm that they have met a real person behind a user account was started in 2008 in de:wp and has meanwhile been translated into 7 languages and spread to more than 13 WMF projects. Over 1,500 users have given more than 50,000 confirmations since. The English language pages in en:wp, de:wp, wmflabs and Commons are looking for native speakers to improve the text and for more Wikimaniacs to go to WP:Meetups and connect to each other. Spread the word and let's make it a big thing at the upcoming Wikimania in London (please help improving the English text for the Wikimania leaflet). Looking forward to meeting you! :) --.js (talk) 21:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Bot to create start class articles about Site of Special Scientific Interests in Wales

There is an open bot request at: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Faebot. Please raise your voice. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Two Issues

Two issues I want to bring to the attention of users who know how to use Wikipedia much better than I do:

The article for Robert Costello has two references, both which are for IMDB. Shouldn't this article be deleted since I always thought IMDB isn't considered a reliable source?

The article for Paul Edgerly is spelled incorrectly. The proper spelling of his surname is Edgerley.

Hope this helps ... BikeRider95 (talk) 01:23, 29 June 2014 (UTC)



Can anyone help out in nominating the Robert Costello article for deletion? I can't quite figure out how to do it myself as I'm new to Wikipedia, but I couldn't find any reliable sources for that person, and the only two sources link to IMDB. BikeRider95 (talk) 14:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

The instructions for nominating an article for deletion are here. They're pretty clear, if tedious. However, I don't think it has much chance of being deleted. IMDb isn't considered a very reliable source, but unless you can prove it's misspelled or a hoax, it will probably be nominated to be kept. But you're free to give it a shot. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 14:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
@BikeRider95: I added {{BLP IMDb refimprove}} to Robert Costello and fixed the spelling of "Edgerley" in the infobox in Paul Edgerley. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 23:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Am I Smart Enough To Edit Wikipedia?

I only have an 8th grade education (technically 10th grade, I dropped out of High School after 2 years but those last 2 years I got C's and D's and did the absolute bare minimum of schoolwork) and my tested IQ is around 112 (slightly above average). I just wanted to ask if a person like me would be able to participate and edit on Wikipedia since as I've browsed the website the past 2 or 3 years I see how many of the users here are probably very intelligent and educated and use proper grammar consistently, whereas my grammar isn't the greatest. It's been about 10 years now since I've had any formal education and I notice my brain is rusty on certain things when I type e.g. proper placement of commas, syntax issues, and other grammar issues. What do you think, how educated do you have to be to edit and participate on Wikipedia? How important are things like proper grammar and proper placement of commas, etc.? BikeRider95 (talk) 08:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Anyone with enough intelligence to have a bit of self doubt has plenty enough of everything needed to edit Wikipedia constructively. Dmcq (talk) 12:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
There are plenty of regular editors who do jobs that don't involve much text-writing, or any, though we are not always good at pointing out such areas to newcomers. Adding good references is highly useful, for a start. Wikipedia:Cleanup will lead you to many options here. Johnbod (talk) 13:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
If you are smart enough to create an profile and obviously finding your way here on Wikipedia I kind of think you have answered your own question. Also no article is ever fully complete. If you create an article, no matter how good you think that particular article are there will always be other users who will find words to change, add etc etc... Just a suggestion, do not overthink your edits just do them. Overanalyzing your own importance will not lead to any good. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
This has already been discussed at the Help Desk. The rule that Bikerider95 is thinking of is competence is required. Your post appears to display competence. The competence issues that I have seen involve: lack of knowledge of English, combined with ignorance of one's lack of knowledge of English, and Bikerider95 appears to be a native writer, probably an American; some (but not all) editors with mental conditions (some Asperger's people are excellent editors and some are terrible editors), and Bikerider95 doesn't appear to be in one of those categories; some (but not all) young teenagers, and either Bikerider95 is an older teenager, or the 95 doesn't have its expected meaning; and editors with fixations, such as those who are pursuing so-called truth aggressively. Welcome! Robert McClenon (talk) 20:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Find topics youre interested in and suitable sources to write about them. Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers is a Wikipedia behavioral guideline, however its sometimes not easy to distinguish between bullyish behavior and wise hints of the auld. :)Serten (talk) 21:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
@BikeRider95: If you read a Wikipedia article (e.g. Paul Edgerley) that could be improved but you're not comfortable making the edit yourself, feel free to post your ideas on the article's talk page (e.g. Talk:Paul Edgerley), and other editors can provide assistance. Welcome to Wikipedia! GoingBatty (talk) 23:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia advanced

http://en.wikipedia.org.advanc.io/wiki/Cancer

I've never noticed this before. Is it a WMF project? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Doubtful. I'm not going to click. –xenotalk 13:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
It's just a quite pretty reskinned clone. They've done some nice work to make things look a little less clunky. I prefer http://wikiwand.com/ , who've done a fantastic job of implementing a layout that resizes with your browser. — Scott • talk 14:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm just wondering about the use of "wikipedia" in the url and site-name. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
They're using misleading subdomains… a questionable tactic given its use in phishing, but it doesn't seem directly malicious here. More troubling is how faceless the site is (no about page, etc.), while encouraging users to install software from it. Very sketchy. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 16:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
User:Mdennis (WMF) is notifying the WMF's trademark people. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Bronze Star recipients

I would like to add my late father to your list of Bronze Star recipients.

In 1945 PFC. John Comstock Jr. from Greenfield Indiana volunteered to attempt to take relief supplies to a unit that was surrounded and under heavy enemy attack. This attempt was made after two other men had been sent out and failed to complete the mission. PFC Comstock drove a two and a half ton truck loaded with ammunition and medical supplies through a artillery barrage to deliver the supplies to the unit. After arriving he served as a machine gunner until the counter attack to reach the unit was achieved.

At the time of the request to volunteer PFC. Comstock was a member of the 397th Infantry Regiment, 100th Division, 7th Army. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.194.41.182 (talk) 19:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

If you're talking about the category Recipients of the Bronze Star Medal, that's not a comprehensive list of recipients, it's just a list of recipients who have a Wikipedia about themselves. If your father has received significant coverage in reliable books, articles, etc. (this guideline explains the necessary level of coverage, and this guideline explains what we consider to be reliable sources), you may create an article for him. The people at the help desk will be happy to show you how. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I hope the people at the help desk will point out that Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide states "Do not edit articles about yourself, your family or friends..." and instead show you how to create a draft or provide enough information for someone else to create an article for you. Good luck! GoingBatty (talk) 23:24, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

IP continously attempts to reset my password: what can I do?

I'm not sure whether this is the right place for this matter, but I didn't know where else to turn to: twice over the past four days I received the following email message from wiki@wikimedia.org:

Someone (probably you, from IP address 107.199.75.44) requested a reset of your password for Wikipedia (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page>). The following user account is associated with this email address:
Username: Bender235
Temporary password: xxxxxxxx
This temporary password will expire in 7 days. You should log in and choose a new password now. If someone else made this request, or if you have remembered your original password, and you no longer wish to change it, you may ignore this message and continue using your old password.

First of all: is this a genuine Wikipedia system message, or a scam? And second: how can I make this stop? The IP in question, 107.199.75.44 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), is from Salinas, California. It was the same IP in both cases. It is not me (I'm currently located in Berlin, Germany). What can I do about this? Should I do anything at all? --bender235 (talk) 20:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The wording is very similar (most of it is identical) to one that I got on 26 April 2014. It's probably somebody trying to obtain a password and thereby get into your account, not realising that the email goes to you, not them. I ignored the email, but I also changed my password - not immediately, I waited a few hours, and used something totally different from both my previous password and the temporary password given in that email. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
bender235, it might be someone who thinks that he's registered your username. Would you check something for me? Please click on Special:Preferences. Look under "Basic information" (the first section), at the "Global account status" item. If it doesn't say "All in order!", then there may be another "bender235" out there, who thinks that he's supposed to have this account name here. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Global account status says "All in order!" when I checked it. --bender235 (talk) 22:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I've had a few of those in the past, though none recently. Like with other services that have password recovery by e-mail you can just ignore it. Whether in error or up to mischief someone has tried to reset your password, but they don't have access to your e-mail so it's secure. Your old password is never given out and this new and temporary one is only seen by you. You can change your password if you want but that's up to you. Services that ask or expect you to change your password periodically are if anything less secure, as the more often you have to come up with a new password the more likely you'll choose trivial/easy to remember/easy to generate ones, and the more likely you are to need to write them down.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 22:13, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The strange changing of the last name of Peter willam Marshal to William Herbert just lately

This is a very unusual recent change in this last name. From Marshal to Herbert overnight almost as it were. This only happened after the Australian Mr.Timothy Leif Herbert of that family name started to make investigations as to the validity of the correct family name holders of the current estate of the Earl of Pembrokeshire.

Why was this name changed?

The question in my mind is this ; Is the family name of Marshal the true Estate and title holders of the titleof Earl of Pembrokeshire? If so, then why the name change? Was this legal? Was this done in accordance with the Magna-carta acts of the Sovereign authority? Was this done covertly to throw or stave off any Herbert Claimants? Are the Herberts of the Herbert/McDonald linage the true Holders of the Title and the estate.?


THESE QUESTIONS NEED TO BE ANSWERED. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.168.213.68 (talk) 11:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Which article are you referring to? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:04, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
It may be about William Herbert, 18th Earl of Pembroke. But all the Earls of Pembroke have been named "Herbert" since the first creation of the earldom in 1468. Maproom (talk) 18:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
According to the 'Earl of Pembroke' article, nearly all the Earls of Pembroke have been named "Herbert" since the eighth creation of the earldom in 1468. The Earls of the second creation in 1189 were Marshals, but they ran out of male heirs in 1245. So Marshal to Herbert took 223 years; hardly "overnight almost as it were" unless you're a geologist. Qwfp (talk) 19:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

No-, sorry , i dont believe that is the reason for the change. the timing of all of this is just too co-incidental, why? So ask yourself this , is it because after this man started to question it, i dont believe that response from the responders from the area below, i would like to know who made the additional changes to the pages and their modification dates . If it is the case that the line of marshal are known as herberts, then why hasnt that info been listed before?. Why did that info only come up in april , may and june of this year, no-way . i think there is something being hidden here, and i dont believe it for 1 second. really, why did it only come into wiki when that man started to question the name line?, for his benefit of knowledge?, not.

Something strange is going on here, because that info on the whole family line should have shown up in the first place, and it did not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.169.127.242 (talk) 11:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Possibly it might be an idea if the australian were to be contacted by The earl himself in order to clarify his position, just a thought. I would imagine the australian man shouldnt be too hard to get a hold of, afterall his info for contact is avaliable, isnt it.?

It all just seems to be a really unusually timed situation, wouldnt you agree.?

Therefore my questions kinda still remain, and the biggest one is this; isnt it possible that the Herbert line of william thomas is not dead and buried, think about it, All Herberts of the last name must be related and rather closely. As I know that his family line are descendants of Anne Boleyn, and we all know who that is. So why is it not possible then therefore with the knowledge of that the family line of Herbert and the timing of this info investigation are not linked somehow, as i said its too co-incidental. So whats going on here? Can anyone find this man.?

If the Current Earl is the great man he is known to be, why wouldnt he contact Mr.Herbert in some way to help him clear some air , as it appears he may be confused on this matter. Makes sense to me, or is something wrong with all of this. Just a friendly suggestion, thats all. or

Has the Australian nailed something about all this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.169.127.244 (talk) 12:40, 4 July 2014‎

Dear OP: Please stop extending and refactoring your earlier comments; you're making it look as though you said all that before the replies below, which isn't true. Please add further comments below the replies they go with. And in response to your updated query: I know nothing about this case without researching it, but we don't go by people contacting other people for information - we go by published reputable sources. If there aren't any, then we don't publish. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Reguarding Guidelines to extended comments edited by me in the strange name of the case of marshal/ herbert

My apologies to the establishment, first time user here. thanx for reiterating comment alteration and furthered guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.169.170.148 (talk) 13:59, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

No problem, everyone has a first time. Please also help us out by typing ~~~~ after your comments, which will sign them. — Scott • talk 14:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello

Note that I added a reference to Mihail Popovici. Also, help find a reference to Andrei Filotti. Thank you. --Scymso (talk) 18:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk page stalker template

Can we get a few more opinions here: Template talk:Talk page stalker? --NeilN talk to me 20:20, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

What Motivates People To Edit?

I just wanted to ask people who have been editing Wikipedia for a while what motivates them to make edits and use the site? What pleasure do they get from editing Wikipedia articles? I myself have browsed and read for years but never got into editing because I am super busy with so many things and don't really have the time or passion. I'm also wondering if the typical Wikipedia user is unemployed or stays at home a lot (not that there is anything wrong with those things) since I would think it is pretty time-consuming to edit and use Wikipedia on a regular basis. BikeRider95 (talk) 14:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

The pleasure I get is the same one may get from organizing a messy drawer, vacuuming a dirty floor or organizing a closet. But that probably is related to the type of editing I do. YMMV. Also, editing Wikipedia doesn't have to be time-consuming. Creating an article doesn't have to be hard, either. A stub can be banged out in minutes and it can later be expanded by others, little by little, to become a featured article. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 14:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
By editing, I learn. I now know more about the history of the Pershing missile than I did when I was a missile tech. Ditto for Lone Scouts of America, Boy Rangers of America, American Boy Scouts, Sons of Daniel Boone and other historical Scouting organizations— I never heard of these when I was a young Scout. --  Gadget850 talk 14:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I like to write. And by writing/improving articles on Wikipedia I reach a wider audience than other methods I've found. (Except for that one message I left on a building wall many years ago.) -- llywrch (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
As an example of what Frecklefoot said, I created this stub when I'd been editing for four months. Others improved on that, and ten months after creation, it was promoted to featured article, although it's not yet been Today's featured article. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
The first two articles I created (Perspective and MNIST database) were motivated by the thought "I can't believe they don't have an article on that." Also, there's a certain satisfaction in cleaning up a project that's used by so many people and knowing that something you have created has helped others in a concrete way. I recently met someone who basically learned about the field of artificial intelligence largely through the article Convolutional neural network. APerson (talk!) 01:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Couple types of motivation. Photography-wise, current motivation is "why doesn't Wikipedia have this? / Wikipedia deserves to have this" (especially with NRHP sites). Article-wise, a decent amount has been "this local topic deserves better coverage" a la Italian Hall and Jacobsville Sandstone (both articles I started). Chris857 (talk) 01:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Quite frankly, the reason I edit is because something I care about is missing. I view the world in terms of interconnections and patterns, and when the best that the world's encyclopedia has is some scattered mentions without any larger context, it is an intellectual imperative to get that content out there in a way that shows people the connections that I can see in my head. I guess it's a manifestation of intellectual loneliness, or possibly arrogance - I want others to be able to see things the way I do. VanIsaacWScont 06:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Some Office Hours, with Gayle Karen Young

Hello, all. Tomorrow, the Foundation's Chief Talent and Culture Officer, Gayle Karen Young, will be answering questions in an IRC Office hour. The topic will be "Experiencing Transition: an org perspective." Please join us for the discussion.

Showing support Comment

On a WikiProjects talk page is there some standard way to attribute support to someone else's comment? For example, if a proposal is made, just to say.. "Yeah, I think that's a great idea".. without writing "Yea, I think that's a great idea" .. To get behind it and show your support. i.e. (thumbs up) ? David Condrey (talk) 23:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

No. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Perennial requests#Template:Support. Qwfp (talk) 11:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes. Some people 👍 Like the {{like}} template. If you look at the template's page, there's a long list of similar ones towards the bottom. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Srebrenica massacre

This article should be called Srebrenica genocide. ICTY's verdict in this case is clear and it's internationally recognized. I know that this issue was discussed earlier, but it's still status quo. Who doesn't allow to call things by their real names? -- KWiki (talk) 23:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:Holocaust massacres and pogroms are all genocidal too, but that doesn't mean they have to have "genocide" in the article title.--Pharos (talk) 01:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Srebrenica genocide redirects to Srebrenica massacre, and the article has "Srebrenica genocide" in the first sentence. Apparently this issue has been debated on Talk:Srebrenica massacre - you may want to check the archives there. GoingBatty (talk) 02:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Pemoline

I was appalled that a individual would put Pemoline drug into a horse's system for the sake of money! After reading what this drug does to human's alone a equine. The article I was referring to was at United States Trotting Association in Suspensions for 7/11/2014. Seeing this I had to look up this drug and see what side affects this has to do with humans. My question is what would happen to any equine if given to them and side affects over a long period of time. Far has I'm concerned all individual's who apply any kind of narcotic to Equine should be jailed and sentence for life from that industry and barred from ever entering any racing building in the world period.

Frank — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superfectkid (talk • contribs) 17:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here for us to express opinions about how different forms of behaviour should be dealt with, but you may find some statements about how it is dealt with in the article Cruelty to animals, which focuses heavily on this topic. For your question about effects and side effects, you could try Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
We could also use some help improving Equine drug testing, which goes over many of the various banned medications (and the ones that aren't but should be). If Pemoline is being used on racehorses, it probably needs to be added there. Montanabw(talk) 19:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Is this OK？

(My English isn't very good)I see that in this artice:Liu_Liankun,the picture of "template of Chinese military stub" has been changed to a photo of Jiang Zhongzheng,is this oK?-- パンツァー VI-II ❂Fu7ラジオ❂In the Republic of China 103rd.民國103年 13:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Sure, why not? It's better than the generic person icon it used to have. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 14:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
This puzzles me. At Liu Liankun, there are two stub templates, {{China-mil-bio-stub}} and {{China-hist-stub}}. The former was added with this edit; the latter with this edit. Both of these were more than seven years ago. Of the images in those stub templates, the current image in {{China-mil-bio-stub}} was added with this edit, and the current image in {{China-hist-stub}} was added with this edit. Again, these are not particularly recent. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Can someone who knows about China change the images to more recent or more appropriate ones? --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:44, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

We need more eyes on this

A request for comment here has drawn the attention of the same old editors. We need some new eyes on this question: Should a list of journal articles written by Daniel Amen be used in his biography? 20:23, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I have rarely participated in this kind of discussion (if ever), but I was pleased to respond to your request. --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

WikiGnome

How do I get a Wikipedia:WikiGnome instead of a red mushroom on my talk page?--DThomsen8 (talk) 15:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Change your "topicon" template to {{WikiGnome topicon|alt=yes}}
Happy editing, WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

New category idea: Visitor attraction trails (or groupings)

I have an idea for a category but I have a problem. I can't find more than two articles that will fit into it, although I would think there would be more. The category would be called "Visitor attraction trails" or "Visitor attraction groupings" (or any better phrase others can come up with). The description I have is "This category includes groupings of attractions grouped for (usually) industrial commonality and guided travel between the destinations. These could also be called suggested itineraries." So far, I can only find Kentucky Bourbon Trail and The Industrial Heritage Trail that would go into it. I'm open to all suggestions, including not creating this category at this time, but ideally, I'm hoping there are other articles that fit in the category. My motivation for creating this category is that Kentucky Bourbon Trail was categorized in "Trails" but then incorrectly moved to a hiking trails category. My initial thought was that there should be at least several similar kinds of trails notable enough to have articles here. Thoughts? Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 21:40, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Templates written by banned editor

I know that a number of templates have been speedy deleted (WP:G5) because they were created by banned editors, but I do not know hw to find them. Can someone help me?--DThomsen8 (talk) 00:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

See the related discussion on "What to do with articles written by banned editor" over in Village Pump (Idea lab)--DThomsen8 (talk) 01:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Please note that other editors transcluding the template exempts it from the G5 CSD criterion, and it needs to be brought through PROD or TfD. VanIsaacWScont 03:21, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I believe (but so far I cannot find them) that there were a number of templates by banned users deleted in July, particularly connected with Philadelphia and Pennsylvania, by whatever method. Please provide help on this situation.--DThomsen8 (talk) 17:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
You can find the names of the ones I deleted by going to the deletion log and looking for 2 July.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:38, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

What counts as a violation of the 3-revert rule?

If an editor has reverted three revisions of the same article in one day, does this count as a violation of the three-revert rule? JayJ47 (talk) 03:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

If you've reached the point when you're doing any actual counting, someone has already broken the rules against edit warring which is a blockable offense already. People should not use the ability to undo the work of others to repeatedly force their own version of an article over competing versions during an active dispute. That's it. Shouldn't require any counting or stop watches to decide if people are doing that. --Jayron32 05:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
If the reverts were motivated by an editing dispute, can anything be done about the user? The user also vandalised a user page and was given a warning for that. JayJ47 (talk) 05:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Audit Subcommittee vacancies: Call for applications (2014)

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint three non-arbitrator members to the Audit Subcommittee ("AUSC"). The Committee is comprised of six members and is tasked with investigations concerning the use of CheckUser and Oversight privileges on the English Wikipedia. The AUSC also monitors CheckUser and Oversight activity and use of the applicable tools. The current non-arbitrator members are Guerillero, MBisanz, and Richwales, whose terms were to expire on June 30 2014 but were extended until August 27 2014 by the Committee.

Matters brought before the subcommittee may be time-sensitive and subcommittee members should be prepared and available to discuss cases promptly so they may be resolved in a timely manner. Sitting subcommittee members are expected to actively participate in AUSC proceedings and may be replaced should they become inactive. All subcommittee members are given both CheckUser and Oversight access. They are subject to the relevant local and global policies and guidelines concerning CheckUser and Oversight.

If you think you may be suitably qualified, please email arbcom-en-c@lists.wikimedia.org to start the application procedure for an appointment ending 31 August 2015. The application period will close at 23:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC). Further information is also available here.

For the Arbitration Committee,
WormTT(talk) 09:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Discuss this

Hello

Heinz Zemanek died 0n july 16 or 17? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.185.175.84 (talk) 16:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

17 (thanks to Google Translate). Next time, the Reference Desk or the article's talk page would be a better place to ask. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 16:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
16, says his former university. The dateline in K6ka's link is giving the date the story was filed (by the ASCA news agency in Rome). Qwfp (talk) 20:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

use of single quotes

Resolved

The first paragraph of CDC 3000 uses a phrase in single quotes three times. I've seen it in quite a few other articles. To me this seems improper - single quotes are to be used as a quote within a quote, as far as I know. Is there any policy or guideline about this? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

MOS:QUOTEMARKS and MOS:QUOTE. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Per those sources, it would seem the use of the single quotes is incorrect. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 13:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Is there a way that I can link to this section after it is gone? I see these single quotes so often, I'd like to be able to refer someone to this. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:28, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
@Bubba73: Link to this section as normal, i.e. Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 46#use of single quotes. This page is archived by ClueBot III (talk · contribs) which will fix incoming links as necessary when it archives this thread after seven days. --Redrose64 (talk) 06:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
@Redrose64: What if User talk:Example had link Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 46#use of single quotes? Surely ClueBot would not adjust the link on Example's talk? I had assumed it would only adjust links on this page. A WP:Permalink could be used on another page to link to the current state of this section. Johnuniq (talk) 09:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: ClueBot III fixes inward links from anywhere that isn't protected higher than semi-prot. Consider these fourteen edits: the earliest two (those at the bottom) are the actual archiving, the next eleven (example) are where links are adjusted to point to Archive 263 instead of the original. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Amazing, thanks. My heart sinks thinking about the overhead involved, but it's clever! Johnuniq (talk) 23:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

thank you. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 07:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Trying to avoid WP:WAR over spate of AfDs and PRODs

Community input is requested about a serious question. Out of the blue a user decides to focus on deleting a series of articles in an area he has not been known to edit. He nominates at least 15 articles for AfDs or PRODs and it looks like he has more in his sights. This rush to mass delete is picked up by editors in that field who realize that while all the articles may not be perfect, some are good, but they all have been built up over many years and are important to the field they belong to. A discussion and RfC is started about the haste and propriety of the rush to delete and how it can be slowed down by setting up a system of requesting that the articles in question should be improved, and what should be criteria for retaining and waiting for the improvement of the articles. But the tough unbending nominator has not responded to these suggestions and entreaties and indicates that he will continue doing so as it seems. Such is the case of what has happened when User Namiba (talk · contribs) (aka "TM") within the span or a couple of days nominates the following articles about synagogues for either AfDs or PRODs them for speedy deletion, ignoring or oblivious to the key role that synagogues play in organized Jewish life anywhere:

  1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beth HaMedrosh Hagodol-Beth Joseph
  2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congregation Tiferes Yisroel (2nd nomination)
  3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anshei Sfard (Louisville, Kentucky)
  4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congregation Arugas Habosem
  5. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congregation Beth Israel (Malden, Massachusetts)
  6. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Temple Anshe Amunim (Pittsfield, Massachusetts)
  7. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congregation Shomrei Emunah
  8. Temple Oheb Shalom (Baltimore, Maryland)
  9. Congregation Shomrei Emunah
  10. Beth Israel Congregation (Salisbury, Maryland)
  11. B'nai Israel Traditional Synagogue
  12. Beth Sholom Congregation and Talmud Torah
  13. Temple Anshe Amunim (Pittsfield, Massachusetts)
  14. Congregation Shomrei Emunah of Borough Park
  15. Kesher Israel Congregation (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania)

A RfC discussion then ensues, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#RfC: Should there be mass AfDs of articles about Orthodox synagogues? but during that it still has not influenced the nominator from continuing with his actions. A big problem is that we have a great shortage of active Judaic editors in this field, and many of the original editors and creators of the synagogue articles are no longer active on WP, so while Namiba "contacts" them it is useless because they are "not home"! That is why his radical moves to delete all these synagogue articles needs to be brought to the attention of any current editors who can potentially contribute and improve and stop this destruction of good beginnings. It is hard to keep up with Namiba's nominations at this pace, while some have rushed to improve the articles but they cannot keep up with the pace of the AfDs and the PRODs. Okay, nominate one or two articles, but a mass deletion process is alarming. The WP:CIVIL and right thing for him to have done, to reach some sort of basic WP:CONSENSUS in order to avoid the onset of WP:WAR, was to make efforts to reach out to the active WP:EXPERT editors in the field familiar with the topic and somehow or other make his intentions known in a more friendly manner at a forum such as WP:TALKJUDAISM or anywhere else of his choosing and then ask for help and volunteers to improve the articles since these articles are important parts of Jewish American history, and at a minimum if they are not up to snuff (following suitable discussions) they can be incorporated into better sections of other articles rather than face this brutal process that Namiba has instituted. The community is requested to provide its input into this phenomenon. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment: I've been participating in AfD discussions for a decade now, and this isn't remotely the first time that IZAK has raised the specter of anti-Semitic bias, animus or IDONTLIKEIT at someone filing AfDs on Judaism-related subjects; it happens often enough to be a stock in trade. Whether this stems from a persecution complex or it's a delaying tactic, his frequent assumptions of bad faith are uncivil and injurious to the encyclopedia. For someone with as much experience at AfD as IZAK, I am surprised he hasn't realized before now that group or clustered AfDs are common, and there's nothing sinister about it. I've made them myself, and no doubt from the same motives as the nominator on these: that I've found a category of related articles where, upon some poking, many of the subjects fail of notability.

    IZAK’s exhortations notwithstanding, no one filing PRODs or AfDs are required to obtain any WikiProject’s permission before so doing, they’re not asked to jump through hoops not required of them by WP:Deletion policy, they’re not required to wait for a response from the article creators, they're not required to be a frequent contributor to the pertinent WikiProject, there doesn’t need to be a critical mass of active editors from an associated WikiProject, and the only one who seems to be seeking a “war” is IZAK himself ... not for the first time.

    That being said, it’s peculiar that IZAK is using up so much time and energy sounding the trumpets – never mind his outrageous suggestion that we shouldn’t be deleting articles about synagogues because of Israel’s political situation – instead of doing a very simple thing that would guarantee the retention of these articles: source them. Sorry, but sourcing articles is not some vast chore: five minutes is usually all it takes to come up with a couple reliable sources which satisfy the GNG in all but the most obstinate of articles. What’s stopping him from doing so? Why is he using all this time and effort to raise the battle flags instead of bothering? Ravenswing 06:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

    • @Ravenswing: Your response is absurd. The problem is that the original editors of most of the synagogue articles are long gone. I do not usually write on the topics of synagogues but I noticed them listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism. In my case I have thousands of articles on my watch-list and it is impossible to track all of it. There is no way to track PROds, they weren't listed by Namiba on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism either AFAIK. By the time you pick up on it the articles are often gone. The only way I came across the PRODs is by taking a look at Namiba's recent edit history and saw that he had not just nominated the AfDs but also foisted his list of PRODs. If Namiba would slow down or let some active Judaic editors know then they could spend time improving the articles. No one can "jump" to another editor's whims especially if it takes time, and it takes way more than "5 minutes" (good joke, there is so much cyber junk on Google it takes a long time to hit the right sources). Otherwise it is ridiculous to say, "oh I have just nominated 15 articles for deletion or prodding, go work on them". We are not Namiba's or anyone's slaves, we are all volunteers here and we have enough work cut out for us without being flooded by capricious mass deletions. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 07:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Well, for one thing, it is not the purpose of deletion policy to make it impossible to delete articles; it is, by contrast, an easy thing to recreate articles when proper sourcing is available: which the original creators were required to provide and should have provided in the first place. Beyond that, no one asked you -- or any other editor -- to put thousands of articles on your watchlist so you could personally "defend" them, or requires you to be a "slave" to properly source them. If neither you nor any other editor wants to spend that time sourcing articles, then so be it; I just don't think it necessarily follows that the provisions of WP:V and WP:GNG concerning the requirement that articles be properly sourced should be suspended because of that. (This quite aside that you've averaged over two dozen edits on Wikipedia per day since you've joined, so suggestions that you lack the time to source articles falls just a little flat.)

        In any event, if you find five minutes an impossible amount of time to find sources for an article, you're doing it wrong -- it takes me a minute flat, usually. Ravenswing 08:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the task of defending these from deletion is even easier than that. Since GNG is a property of the article subject, and not the article itself, you don't even have to source the article, all you need to do is point to reliable secondary sourcing on the article subject in the deletion discussion. You don't have to do a thing with the article itself. A single secondary source that talks substantively about the article subject meets the GNG criteria. VanIsaacWScont 09:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @Ravenswing: I basically NEVER look at my watch-list (just because it's there means nothing!), I don't have time for the watch-lists, the only reason my watch-list is full is because of all the edits over the years and it takes time to clear it out. The only thing I DO look at is Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism and on that NONE of the PRODS were there AFAIK. You also know full-well that articles have been coming in from the time of WP's inception when policies were not well-formulated and now even editors who are not experts in WP policy also contribute articles. Many editors are new and we must just WP:AGF and follow WP:DONOTBITE even long after they have moved on their early work remains, and it is the job of more experienced editors to be more careful and welcoming and not act destructively, otherwise this encyclopedia will never be built up. How anyone uses their time on WP is their own private business! In any case a lot of my edits are corrections of minor spelling and typos that I try to fix. I devote various chunks of time to various aspects, and it is not anyone's business to tell others how to allocate their VOLUNTEER and FREE OF CHARGE time on WP, to do so would be a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and the mark of an ingrate. In this instance I see an egregious misuse of AfDs and PRODs that are counter-productive and harmful to developing the subject of synagogues on WP. That someone is WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT is their problem and no one else's. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 10:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @Vanisaac: The problem here is that the PRODs came up so quickly within a day or two 8 articles put up as PRODs in addition to the 7 AfDs to contend with (we do not have supermen and superwomen to edit at such a speedy rate -- your "calculations" to contrary) and the notifications went to long-dormant and inactive users that it was impossible to know about them, let alone try to improve them. On top of that there are few willing and able good Judaic editors on standby in this area who can do the job. That is why my complaint is against the improper brutal and blunt process being deployed here by User Namiba (talk · contribs) by not creating the right venue to start a discussion about improving the articles. It's like having a gun pointed at one's head and then have no choices, that is not called a conducive environment to collegial editing, it's more like slave-driving and walking the plank, terrible manipulation and gaming of the system, the very opposite of seeking WP:CONSENSUS and acting WP:CIVIL. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 10:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • It is never a good idea to nominate a great many articles of the same type at once; if they are all similarly weak, in practice if does make it difficult to defend them them. Proper sourcing takes time--for most topics, not all potentially relevant sources will be easily accessible online. I usually figure that doing it may take well over an hour omn the average, even if I am already in a situation with adequate library facilities,. There are, simply, a great many potential places to look. And I am someone with wide experience on wiki-- and much wider and deeper experience in the RW-- in doing this efficiently. In a really tricky case with older subjects not covered in standard treatises, I have sometimes spent several days if the project is sufficiently important. Sometimes there is some efficiency in batching questions to be sure, but a situation like this with widely scattered regional sources, it can be particularly difficult and inefficient.
I recognize that sometimes one comes upon a neglected type of article, where there are many that merit deletion. Normally, they will not be truly cut-and-tried--there is likely to be some dispute about whether the existing sources will be sufficiently substantial and reliable, and our practice may be uncertain, as is the case here, where our view on places of relatively local importance is quite variable. The practice I follow, and that I advise, is to first nominate one of the weakest articles, and see what the result is. If the deletion succeeds, the next step is to nominate two or three of the stronger ones. At that point, the nature of the arguments against deletion will be clear--if it is clear that the community thinks them utterly hopeless for a reason that applies to even the strongest, only then would I do a substantial batch.
Anything more rapid is unfair, not just because of the problem of finding sources. There's also the problem of an unwanted snowball effect, where people look at one potentially article and conclude that all the others must be similar-and this is an effect that can work in both directions. There's also the problem (which clearly does not apply in this case) of ensuring the appropriate people take notice of the problem-- and this too can operate in both directions.
Myself, I'm not sure my view on the notability of the actual articles. What I've said shouldn't be taken as a comment on that (I should mention that IZAK notified me of the deletions; he knows of my interest in the subject, and also knows that I do not infrequently disagree with him.) DGG ( talk ) 17:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I am personally overwhelmed by the flash flood of AfDs and PRODs of synagogues submitted by Namiba in the past few days. I tried to source two of the nominations, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anshei Sfard (Louisville, Kentucky) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congregation Tiferes Yisroel (2nd nomination), but I simply don't have the time to research 15 in the course of a week. I strongly suggest that Namibia withdraw these nominations and list them on WP:Wikiproject Judaism so that active editors can address them one by one. With good faith, I'm sure we can clear away the dross and keep what's notable.
Ravenswing, it's not clear to me exactly what you're sourcing in your five-minute slot. Each of the two nominations that I tackled took me more an hour to locate reliable online sources and write the prose without close paraphrasing. If it really takes five minutes to find sourcing, I daresay that even the AfD nominators would do it.
VanIsaac, your "one-minute" trick also doesn’t hold water, for the simple reason that the article needs to show the sources, not the nomination discussion. An article that no one edits is a speedy candidate for AfD (second nomination). Yoninah (talk) 22:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
No, it does not. An article nominated under GNG, ie that the subject of the article is not notable, does not need to have any sourcing added to the actual article. All that needs to happen is that you can establish its notability through a secondary source, which can (and should) be done at the deletion discussion. Literally nothing needs to happen to the article, although it's always nice when an article gets some of its unrelated kinks worked out because of a deletion nomination. Of course, if the article is nominated for deletion because of sourcing problems, eg an unsourced BLP, that's a completely different matter, but it's not germane to the actual situation being discussed here. VanIsaacWScont 05:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually, one source does not cut it. You need to show citations (doesn't have to be in the article but needs to be identifed) of multiple sources with significant secondary, independent coverage of the topic to meet the GNG. If you are defending a PROD, you can probably get away with one, but that doesn't prevent an AFD from showing that. --MASEM (t) 05:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Rapid-fire / mass deletion nominations, and more broadly, invocation of multiple simultaneous processes by a single editor, are rarely a good idea in any part of the project. One person, by doing that, creates a disproportionate amount of work for many other editors, and it tends to overwhelm everyone's capacity for improving the encyclopedia. The results can be spotty and inconsistent, if the outcome of one process is debated and decided without reference to the others, so you end up with a swiss cheese of missing and extant articles in one subject area, in this case some orthodox American Jewish congregations might have their articles deleted and others not. Here there appears to be an underlying policy question about notability, what makes congregations and temples notable, and what the inclusion criteria should be. That is best discussed, and probably left up to the projects. At worst, the deletion discussions should be centralized and all overseen by the same administrator rather than handled willy-nilly. Ten is not a completely unmanageable number, but if this continues and we have dozens of similar articles simultaneously under deletion nomination I would suggest a speedy close on all of them to allow time for people to figure out whether and how to handle it. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Incidentally, I did a quick check on Namiba's edit history. Their approach to deletion could be improved in my opinion but it is not beyond the pale and I see no evidence of bad faith. Namiba seems to follow topic area interests for a while here and there, as most of us do, and occasionally makes more than one deletion nomination when they're looking at a topic area. They're not particularly focused on Jewish issues. There was a similar ruckus with multiple synagogue / congregation nominations on Boxing Day 2011, but also some small batches of nominations here and there without incident over college buildings and associations, nongovermental entities, retail stores, and so on. Their hit rate appears a bit low. It looks like the majority of articles with speedy and PROD tags are still here, so perhaps a little more WP:BEFORE is in order. On the other hand, some of the synagogue articles that editors are staunchly defending right now do not seem to have any significant secondary reliable sourcing, so at least some of them do look like apt nominations. If anyone happens to be looking at a topic area and see 10-15 articles on subjects they think aren't notable, I'm not sure what the best approach would be. I personally wouldn't nominate more than 2-3 at a time to see what happens, but then what? - Wikidemon (talk) 00:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Agree this is not desired behavior; in fact, this is something Arbcom has said in regard to fait accompli. [8] If the editor does believe that these articles fail notability guidelines but they number more than a few, then the process should be to open discussion either at the appropriate project page, or on the village pump to request input on how to proceed. 15 AFDs of the same type of topic I think would certainly qualify for fait accompli. --MASEM (t) 05:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Back in 2006-2007 some of us tried to create a notability standard for religious congregations, Wikipedia:Notability (local churches and other religious congregations),or WP:CONG, but it failed to reach a consensus. Perhaps there would be more consensus for such a standard today. Edison (talk) 17:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment There is nothing wrong with nominating articles for deletion when they do not meet notability. During discussions, it is unlikely that valid articles will be deleted, and it sometimes might lead to improvements. Deleted articles of course can be restored or re-written. OTOH, if this editor is cconsistently nominating articles that clearly meet notability, that would be a problem. You need to assess whether that is the case. Probably best to await the outcome of the AfDs. If they were mostly improper nominations, and the editor continues, then you could request an AfD ban at ANI. TFD (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Update

So far, as of 21 July 2014, the following AfDs have resulted in Keeps or "No consensus":

This shows that with AGF discussions the articles can and are being improved and that it is always best to seek WP:CONSENSUS and input from editors who are willing and able to work on the improvements. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 07:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Fraudulent sites with similar domains

I have recently heard that Eikipedia is a malware site hoping users will stumble across it by accidentally hitting the "e" instead of "w" key when trying to access Wikipedia(I haven't checked for myself because of fears D:). Has the WMF ever considered purchasing up similar sounding domains to Wikipedia, or trying to go after these sites?AioftheStorm (talk) 19:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if Eikipedia really sounds similar to Wikipedia, and I can imagine that there's better things to spend money for than random URLs. Plus aforementioned page does not look like Wikipedia so an average user should realize that they ended up on a different page. What's the problem? --Malyacko (talk) 23:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
It's my understanding that the Foundation legal team, possibly with the assistance of MarkMonitor (Wikimedia's domain name registrar; MarkMonitor also offers "brand protection" services) regularly take down sites like these using the UDRP. Most cases deal with trademark issues (e.g. cases like "softwarewikipedia.com"), and for those you can send an email to trademarks@wikimedia.org to let them know. This case seems to be mainly just typosquatting, but maybe they deal with that too? Not sure about the specifics, but probably better to notify the legal team than not. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 00:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
@Malyacko: Eikipedia doesn't sound similar, but the "e" key is right next to the "w" key, making it likely enough typo.
@Nihiltres: Thanks for the response I will contact the legal team about it to see if they want to do something.AioftheStorm (talk) 01:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Weird project page

Excuse me, is this article, Wikipedia:Congoboy99k, unintentionally missed by admin? -- Hysocc (talk) 05:54, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Deleted. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 06:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia blocks 'disruptive' page edits from US Congress

FYI front page news on BBC Wikipedia blocks 'disruptive' page edits from US Congress. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 14:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

This is one of the edits mentioned by the BBC. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I added it to Wikipedia:Press coverage 2014#July. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I brought this up, inappropriately it seems, at Main Page talk. I take the liberty of reproducing part of the exchange below. Sca (talk) 16:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

WP's congressional block

Are we going to say anything about this? Sca (talk) 14:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

In what capacity or location do you think something should be said? 331dot (talk) 14:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Good question. Suggestions? Sca (talk) 14:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
The best place would probably be ITN but we would need an article to link to(and add this info to) for the nomination. 331dot (talk) 14:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Doubt it would meet ITN criteria. Sca (talk) 14:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps we should have some sort of "To our Readers" page? Sca (talk) 15:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
For what? The story you linked to is not likely to be of significant interest to our readers. It may be of interest to some editors, but we already have the newsletter for that and besides, I'm not sure it's that interesting to most editors except for those affected (who will find out if they try to edit). Nil Einne (talk) 15:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
We have a place for this kind of 'about Wikipedia' content. It's called The Signpost. I suggest you bring it up there. Modest Genius talk 15:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I've seen The Signpost before. Do you think the general public using Wikipedia looks at The Signpost on a regular basis?
Why do the general public care that a single government office is banned for less than a fortnight? AlexTiefling (talk) 16:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
How does this differ from any other institutional range-block? Why does this one need a special announcement? AlexTiefling (talk) 15:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Not being involved in administrators' duties, I don't know how it may differ from others.
I thought it might be significant because it targets a high-profile government institution, and because the BBC thought it noteworthy enough to write a story about it. Sca (talk) 15:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

As a US citizen and tax payer, I am somewhat pissed off that a congressman (or more likely a staff member) was spending time editing Wikipedia from his office computer. Governmental officials and employees have far more important things to do than edit Wikipedia. They are welcome to edit Wikipedia when they are at home, during their off hours ... they should not be editing from their offices - that's when they are supposed to be working. I have no problem with the ban. Blueboar (talk) 13:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Blueboar I assume that most people who work in an office, and edit Wikipedia have done so from their work computer during their lunch break. Nothing wrong with that, assuming you are not vandalizing there is nothing inherently wrong, with reading or editing Wikipedia during a work break. Jeepday (talk) 18:07, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps the code of ethics is different from workplace to workplace, but in most private sector offices you can be fired for using a company computer for personal reasons... even during lunch break. Workplace computers are purely for work. I could see a governmental official or employee having to use his/her workplace computer to search Wikipedia for information ... but they should leave the editing to their personal computers. Blueboar (talk) 19:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I've worked in both sectors, and in my experience such rules are a) rarely enforced, b) loosely enforced, as in cases of flagrant abuse, or c) enforced only as a pretext for getting rid of someone disliked for other reasons. Of course, others may have had different experiences. Sca (talk) 21:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Where I last worked (private sector), restrictions on use of the internet were different according to whether you were on duty or not. During duty, the internet was to be used only for work-related purposes: sales staff could look up potential leads; buyers could search supplier's websites for good deals; the finance manager could buy and sell foreign currency; etc. Even the fork-lift driver in the warehouse could use the internet within reason - such as if the truck needed urgent repairs. Outside duty hours, rules were more relaxed and editing of Wikipedia was certainly permitted. It wasn't free-rein though: social networking was only permitted if you didn't say nasty things about the company or its employees; gambling and porn sites were forbidden. We were all warned that on duty or not, all internet usage was logged and could be produced in evidence in an employee discipline case. And it certainly was, at least twice to my knowledge: I was asked to assist with examination of the evidence. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:11, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Blueboar, maybe you should expand Congressional staff to talk about the longer-than-normal working hours, the lower-than-normal pay, and the complete lack of job security before complaining too much about someone wasting five minutes.
As for whether this is normal, all of my employers have accepted occasional internet use, so long as it didn't interfere with job duties. The difference between "read personal e-mail" and "took a personal phone call" is trivial. The difference between "left the office on time, because I needed to go shopping" and "stayed two hours late, because I could order everything I needed online without leaving my desk" is beneficial. One of my employers even permitted visiting porn sites on the company network (so long as nobody else was around to see it). I don't recall any of this causing any problems. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Dates of festivals

Hi All! Various festivals, like the Category:Hindu festivals, Category:Islamic festivals and many others follow the calendars of their respective religions. Most calendars being lunar, there is no fixed date of Gregorian calendar to observe a given festival. Hence, the infobox of these articles includes few recent dates; e.g. see Eid al-Fitr where 2013-16 dates are seen. These dates would vanish after a few years and would be replaced with the then recent ones. Now my question is; is this historic data worth keeping somewhere or is it trivial enough to let go? If not in Wikipedia, is there any other project which would store this database; maybe Wikidata? Basically if and when expanded it would be a comparison of various calendars. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

my emails keep bouncing...

I have made four attempts to send emails to Wikipedia this morning, July 28th 2014, and all have bounced. I have checked the addresses etc and they are correct.

What goes on??

Nic Szeremeta — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.102.122.47 (talk) 10:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you using the "Email this user" feature in Wikipedia, or are you sending an email from outside? --Redrose64 (talk) 13:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
How do you "send emails to Wikipedia" and do you use Yahoo as email provider? --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 13:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Facebook Sharing

Why is there not a Facebook sharing button on Wikipedia pages??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.30.142.79 (talk) 15:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Share pages on Facebook, Twitter etc.-gadfium 22:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Audit Subcommittee vacancies: last call for applications

This is a reminder that the application period for the three non-arbitrator seats on the Audit Subcommittee will close at 23:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC).

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint three non-arbitrator members to the Audit Subcommittee ("AUSC"). The Committee is comprised of six members and is tasked with investigations concerning the use of CheckUser and Oversight privileges on the English Wikipedia. The AUSC also monitors CheckUser and Oversight activity and use of the applicable tools. The current non-arbitrator members are Guerillero, MBisanz, and Richwales, whose terms were to expire on June 30 2014 but were extended until August 27 2014 by the Committee.

Matters brought before the subcommittee may be time-sensitive and subcommittee members should be prepared and available to discuss cases promptly so they may be resolved in a timely manner. Sitting subcommittee members are expected to actively participate in AUSC proceedings and may be replaced should they become inactive. All subcommittee members are given both CheckUser and Oversight access. They are subject to the relevant local and global policies and guidelines concerning CheckUser and Oversight.

Please note that due to Wikimedia Foundation rules governing access to deleted material, only applications from administrators will be accepted.

If you think you may be suitably qualified, please email arbcom-en-c@lists.wikimedia.org with your nomination statement to start the application procedure for an appointment ending 31 August 2015. The application period will close at 23:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC). Further information is also available here.

For the Arbitration Committee, WormTT(talk) 10:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Discuss this

What is "Wikimaps"?

Hello, Village Pump. Some articles have external links pointing to maps labelled as "Wikimaps" or similar. Just search for "wikimaps" and you'll find a lot of them. These links usually point to Wikimapia (open-content collaborative mapping project), though at least one points to http://www.wiki-maps.com/ .

We don't currently have an article Wikimaps. Could you tell me whether "Wikimaps" (or some variation in capitalization or punctuation) is an alternate name, a former name, a proposed but never used name, or a frequently used incorrect name of Wikimapia? Is it perhaps the name of a competing project that is often confused with Wikimapia?

Once we know that, we can create Wikimaps as either just a redirect to Wikimapia, or a short article or disambiguation page explaining the situation. Further, we can decide what can be done with the label of those external links.

Thanks in advance – b_jonas 14:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

PS. there are also some links saying "Wikimap" without the "s". Same question applies. – b_jonas 14:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Wikimaps project, Wikimania 2013
Hi b_jonas, there are a lot of words like "WikiMaps", "wiki-map", "wikimapia" etc. and they are not really related. I don't really see any that deserve a Wikipedia article (Wikipedia:Notability).
My favorite, the "real" Wikimaps project ;-) is this: commons:Commons:Wikimaps. Take old (free) maps and wrap them on real, current OpenStreetMap and go timetraveling. Pure awesome. --Atlasowa (talk) 14:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

counting the total number of pages under a category and its subcategories?

This is probably a silly question, but how do I recursively count the number of pages under a category and all of its subcategories? I know there is a tool that is supposed to do this, but it doesn't seem to work at the moment. Can anyone point me to a working one?

Thanks! --Ixfd64 (talk) 19:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

@Ixfd64: Have you asked Edokter (talk · contribs)? BTW questions like this are better posted to WP:VPT. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't have a toollabs account. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 21:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
AWB will do it, although you need a bot account for large category trees. GoingBatty (talk) 23:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

What is Orain & what does it have to do with Wikipedia?

I took a peek at my editing stats -- something I do from time to time -- & once that page came up I found at the top of the page a banner promoting a site called "Orain.org". It looked a lot like an ad, which surprised me. I clicked thru & took a look at this "Orain", & it appears to have no official connection to Wikipedia. (The person running it states he is a contributor to Wikipedia.) Although it claims to be non-profit, I'm not clear what it's purpose is, beyond having something to do with Wikis, maybe in the form of the old Meatball Wiki, now in read-only mode. Wikipedia has no article on it.

In short:

  • What is the relationship of Orain to Wikipedia/Wikimedia?
  • If it's not notable enough for an article, why did the Foundation allow it to run a banner on fmlabs.org?
  • Will we expect to see more of these kinds of banners promoting various non-Wikimedia websites?

(PS, I know, I know, I should be asking this over at Wikimedia.org. Last time I posted there, unless it was something the Foundation was interested in promoting my comments were routinely ignored.) -- llywrch (talk) 15:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I saw that too, and I got the impression that the piece of software which creates the edit stats will also do the same job for people who edit Orain. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
The edit counter is operated by an individual editor, not WMF (It's only hosted by WMF), and it's obviously not WMF's decision to put the banner on the counter. Plus I don't see why it isn't allowed. By the way, the "Orain" looks like a non-profit version of Wikia. Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 07:53, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no revision history

I figured out how to get to the revision history of a deleted page, but I would have thought it said I did not have access to it. Instead, it says "There is no revision history". Maybe I'm just being picky, but it seems like this should be accurate.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

That's a regular revision history (even admins see the message "There is no revision history for this page."), not that of a deleted page, which is Special:Undelete/Ali Mohammad Pshtdar. Try that and see what you get. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I wanted to see what that was like.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 14:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Audit Subcommittee appointments (2014): Invitation to comment on candidates

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint at least three non-arbitrator members to the Audit Subcommittee, and is now seeking comments from the community regarding the candidates who have volunteered for this role.

Interested parties are invited to review the appointments page containing the nomination statements supplied by the candidates and their answers to a few standard questions. Community members may also pose additional questions and submit comments about the candidates on the individual nomination subpages or privately via email to arbcom-en-c@lists.wikimedia.org.

Following the consultation phase, the committee will take into account the answers provided by the candidates to the questions and the comments offered by the community (both publicly and privately) along with any other relevant factors before making a final decision regarding appointments.

The consultation phase is scheduled to end 23:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC), and the appointments are scheduled to be announced by 27 August 2014.

For the Arbitration Committee,
WormTT(talk) 08:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

IP account took my account to close Toyota Aygo merger talk

Talk:Toyota Aygo, I've removed fake signature and warned him. And I can't see the contribution of this IP address --John123521 (Talk-Contib.) RA 12:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

An IP user had copy pasted a 2010 merge discussion from a separate page. I've reverted the talk page to before that addition. - X201 (talk) 13:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I've got to the bottom of it, for the purpose of history and understanding here's what happened:

  1. 2010 merge discussion started that covers three articles.
  2. Discussion peters out. Proposed merge not closed.
  3. 2014 IP user A attempts to re-start merger, but only does half the job and doesn't create discussion.
  4. John123521 acts in good faith, and links 2014 merge to 2010 discussion.
  5. IP user B copy and pastes text from merge discussion to Aygo page.
  6. IP user C creates fake posts by John123521.

I've reverted the talk page to remove the copy and paste, I've closed the 2010 merge discussion, and all links to it from other pages and I've removed the proposed merge from the articles concerned. - X201 (talk) 13:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Antarctic lakes redirect wrong

The Antarctic lakes article is a redirect, but the redirect is wrong, and no help. Can someone please fix this?--DThomsen8 (talk) 04:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

@Dthomsen8: The redirect is correct; it's going to the right place. In some browsers, such as Firefox 31, it appears to be going to the Asia heading, which is the next one down, but this is coincidence, and an undesirable effect of having collapsible boxes scattered through the page. What happens is that the page is loaded with all collapsible boxes in their expanded state; the browser moves to the correct heading; the collapsible boxes get collapsed; text below collapsible boxes is moved upwards to avoid leaving a gap where the expanded boxes had been. This is the problem described at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 126#Redirect not working right.
In this case, there is one collapsible box earlier than the Antarctica heading: it is the navbox titled "List of lakes of Africa". The difference in height between the expanded and collapsed states of this navbox just happens to be the same as the distance between the Antarctica and Asia headings, so in Firefox 31, having got to the Antarctica heading, the page moves upwards by a distance that puts the Asia heading at the top of the window. You should find that if you visit Lake of Venezuela, that Venezuela is off the top of the screen because of the collapsing of various navboxes.
BTW this is really a WP:VPT matter. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Copy and paste moves

Someone didn't follow correct procedure when two radio stations changed call letters. They didn't bother to fix the talk pages. Would someone please check my recent contributions to make sure there's nothing left that needs to be done.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

@Vchimpanzee: Which pages are involved? --Redrose64 (talk) 19:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
The content from WNWW was moved to WKSL, whose content was moved to WNCB. I remembered that "What links here" also has to be checked.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:55, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
WNWW (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
WKSL (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
WNCB (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Oh dear. Ordinarily, I'd revert the edits and then move the pages properly. But too much other editing has happened, and that's not just your talk page edits. I think that we may need to call in an expert - such as Anthony Appleyard (talk · contribs). Also, a {{subst:uw-c&pmove}} should be sent to Mostlyunfinished (talk · contribs). --Redrose64 (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
I was asking if I did the right thing.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I have history-merged the older edits of WKSL to WNCB (about the Raleigh-Durham market of North Carolina radio station). I have history-split the older edits (Neptune Beach, Florida) of WFKS to WFKS old, leaving WFKS's newer edits (Florida's Space Coast area) where they were. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I have history-merged the old deleted edits of WFKS (via WFKS old) to WNWW Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:05, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
I didn't handle the talk pages correctly. What should we do there?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I see he's done it. Thanks.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Wait, now we have what appears to be a duplicate article at WNWW.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  • These 3 articles' talk pages seem to be in the right places. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Apparently. I went back to the old history of WFKS to understand why that article was ever involved, and restored some history that was taken out. Some of it wasn't appropriate for Wikipedia, so I left it out.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Wanted: Images Needing Articles

Once quite a good article factory, it has now become overpopulated with windmills and bugs that are not selling. I'd like to invigorate the page by swapping in some fresh images.

So, if you find nice images that need articles, please drop the link at the talk page. I'll look after the formatting (and duplicate/synonym checks where needed) and add them to the page.

Oh, and if you know a better place to draw attention to this request, please say.

Thanks to all. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

To me this is backwards... I don't think we should start with an image, and then write an article in which to place it. We should start with an article, and then find images to illustrate the content of the article. Blueboar (talk) 13:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Enoplometopus antillensis replied here. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
We apparently work both directions. Category:Wikipedia requested photographs (article first, image later) is the more popular approach.
Anna, thanks for posting this; now I know what to do with the occasional image that I run across and can't find a home for. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Political promotion on page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newcastle_City_Council <- leader of that council 'nick forbes' you click on "It is currently controlled by Labour and led by link Nick Forbes. /link The Current Lord Mayor is Cllr Jackie Slesenger." 'nick forbes' (link), in that & you get through to http://www.nickforbes.org.uk/ (political promotion). Firstly who did this. Secondly please revert it (someone). Never seen that done from a wikipedia article, ever. Long term reader/commenter here. 86.139.41.73 (talk) 14:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Removed, thanks. I didn't go looking for who added it though. It isn't completely uncommon for people to use an external link for subjects who aren't notable under Wikipedia's standards. For that reason, I can't say for sure if that was intended as political promotion, but I agree that the external link shouldn't be there. Resolute 14:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Have been on Wikipedia every day for years, & that's the first time I've seen something so blatant, a promotional link inserted into an article. It has quite obviously been typed by Nick Forbes or a party of Nick Forbes 86.139.41.73 (talk) 20:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Israel–Gaza naming pattern

Boy. I just created List of Israeli attacks on the Gaza strip. That is not systematic, it looks like Wikipedia (we) use the Israeli name by default. That is not even. As it is now, enwiki is not neutral (Israeli war names used mostly). I suggest we move all into use a naming pattern. I propose these wars are named "Israel–Gaza (year-month)" generic. -DePiep (talk) 23:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Dic You Know... 8/8/2014

The DYK for August 8th appears to be the one already used on August 7th.
☺ Dick Kimball (talk) 11:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

@Dick Kimball: Problems with the Main Page should be reported at WP:ERRORS. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello

Please move Ralph Bryans to 6 august in the deaths list. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.185.175.84 (talk) 05:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source for the death date of 6 August at Talk:Deaths in 2014 and Talk:Ralph Bryans. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 01:20, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Stub Contest

running again in Septembere......take a look. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:29, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

User groups and right to vote

Dear enwp,

does your language has a scheme like this:

I hope you will understand the german captions. May you tell me, when I get the right to vote? --Kopiersperre (talk) 12:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

In most cases anyone can vote. There are a few instances when an unregistered user can not vote such as in a request for adminship. There are also some limitations on when registered users can vote such as in ARBCOM elections. Where do you want to cast a vote? GB fan 12:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
I just want to understand the voting limitations for comparison--Kopiersperre (talk) 15:25, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
The English Wikipedia says that WP:Voting is evil. When people do cast a vote, they often call it a "!vote" (Unix code for "not vote") and pretend that they're not voting.
Voting is common at most other projects, including the English Wiktionary. The Germans are generally believed to have the most restrictive voting rules. If you want to know what other projects are doing, you might get more useful responses by asking at m:Wikimedia Forum. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:39, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Mobile editors and user talkpages

Do mobile editors even receive a notification telling them that someone's posted a comment on their user talk page? I've come across maybe 3 or 4 cases within the past few months where it appears that users don't even know that someone's trying to talk to them, and these same users trigger the "Mobile web edit" tag every time they make an edit. --benlisquareT•C•E 12:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

If no one else knows, then User:Maryana (WMF) is the person to ask about this. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:45, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

When you meet yourself 3000kms away

Hello there, I'm Kanchelskis of italian Wikipedia. I just wanted to share with you a curious fact that happened to me. Years ago I have submitted a lot of articles and media files on it.wiki concerning most of all Ireland being a fan of the place. This year I have gone once again in Ireland for my holidays and discovered in Donegal Town that they were using on their twinning roadsigns a 3d coat of arms made by me years ago (and still in use both in en.wiki e it.wiki pages). I was really surprised (and pride) to discover something created by me in a place close to my heart but very far from my common life and I must thank wikipedia/media for this. I hope that you enjoy this miscellanea almost quite than I was happy there. Kanchelskis PS: of course I have made a lot of photos of myself near the roadsign :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.231.254.196 (talk) 18:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Nice story, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Very cool --S Philbrick(Talk) 15:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Five pillars

Wikipedia:Five pillars is ...um....actually not sure what it is. Come and tell us what you think it is (or want it to be) at Wikipedia_talk:Five_pillars#What_is_this_page.3F. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

elayne angel bio disappearance

i had contributed to a biography of public figure elayne angel at one point(several years ago), correcting some factual errors to a page that already existed, (about the body piercer, author of the piercing bible and former manager of the gauntlet). this whole page has recently disappeared. i didn't realize this could happen, and since she is still a public figure wonder at the motivation of whoever did this. i.e. personal and not in keeping with the ideals of wikipedia. i would be grateful for any information anyone can give me about this issue.

statenisland777 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Statenisland777 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

You can find the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Elayne_Angel. The article did not meet the general notability guidelines, which require reliable professional sources (academic or journalistic) that are focused directly on the subject (instead of merely mentioning her in relation to someone or something else), and are completely unaffiliated with the subject (so no press releases or websites put up by the subject or her employees or employers). Ian.thomson (talk) 14:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation taking applications for two Wikipedian positions

Wiki Education Foundation is hiring two experienced Wikipedia editors for part-time (20 hours/week) positions: Wikipedia Content Expert, Sciences and Wikipedia Content Expert, Humanities. The focus of these positions is to help student editors do better work, through everything from advice and cleanup on individual articles, to helping instructors find appropriate topics for the students to work on, to tracking the overall quality of work from student editors and finding ways to improve it. We're looking for clueful, friendly editors who like to focus on article content, but also have a strong working knowledge of policies and guidelines, and who have experience with DYK, GAN, and other quality processes.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello

Please determine when died Pierre Ryckmans. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.185.175.84 (talk) 01:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Try posting your request at Talk:Pierre Ryckmans. Good luck! GoingBatty (talk) 03:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Create a BOT to alphabetize and organize categories automatically

As someone who has been doing this manually for years, I hereby dutifully beg of anyone who is technically proficient and knows how to create and run a bot that will:

  1. Automatically sort all Categories on each article and category page alphabetically;
  2. Create a uniform system for where to place categories on each article and category page that commence with numbers, such as years of birth/death, centuries, and any category that starts with a number/numeral.

Please see the centralized discussion at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 61#Create a BOT to alphabetize and organize categories automatically. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:16, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion re-opened at VPP

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 114#Create a BOT to alphabetize and organize categories automatically. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 22:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Tech help required to improve categories

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#CatVisor and User:Paradoctor/CatVisor#Planned features if you are willing and able to assist this innovative WP project move along it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 23:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Request for Noratelimit Rights

I often write for Wikimedia Foundation blogs about various language Wikipedia communities, e.g. Punjabi Wikipedia, Esperanto Wikipedia, Sanskrit Wikipedia, Urdu Wikipedia, etc. In this connection, I need to send Wiki-mails to a number of respondents. As expected, I get only a handful of responses from the total number of recipients. While I respect the right of individual Wikipedians to respond or not to do so, and I do not complain about non-responding persons, I request help me in overcoming the daily mail-sending limit from English Wikipedia as I AM NOT SENDING ANY SPAM. I only conduct surveys which showcase Wikipedia communities.

I am asking this help here because take the case of my writeups on Esperanto or Punjabi Wikipedia. Whatever I've written is a onetime activity. I need not be requiring send emails again to the same Wikipedia members UNLESS I'VE GOT A GOOD REASON FOR IT. English Wikipedia is unique because my work extends research across many Wikis and at least some of the Wikipedians of other languages have handful of edits on English Wikipedia in addition to their language Wikipedia. Therefore easy contacts thru Wiki-mail can be done over here. --Muzammil (talk) 12:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@Hindustanilanguage: This is the wrong venue to request additional WP:RIGHTS. The "noratelimit" permission is not given alone, but normally bundled with others. These bundles are: bot (request at WP:BRFA); administrator (request at WP:RFA); bureaucrat (request at WP:RFB); account creator (request at WP:PERM/ACC); and global rollbacker (request at m:SRGP). --Redrose64 (talk) 16:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
@Redrose64:Isn't Mass message sender Wikipedia:Mass message senders the relevant permission?--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Hindustanilanguage asked for the noratelimit right. This is not available as a selection at Special:UserRights/Hindustanilanguage; and is not listed as included with mass message sender at either WP:RIGHTS or Special:ListGroupRights. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:08, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry if I wasn't clear. OP asked for noratelimit, but explained it on the basis of wanting to send a lot of messages. Isn't that what Mass message sender allows? In other words, I'm suggesting OP asked for the wrong thing, but I know you know this place better than I do, so if I misunderstood, I'll shut up.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that the mass message sender right has anything to do with sending emails. The rate at which a user can send emails is restricted, unless they have the noratelimit bit (see mw:Manual:Edit throttling). --Redrose64 (talk) 22:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Pictures of letters at Kharosthi

The list of letters of Kharosthi shows up as nothing but boxes (this is true of all of them.) Can anyone replace the characters that show up as boxes to make them images of the letters?? Georgia guy (talk) 18:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

This is called tofu, and whether you see tofu or the proper characters varies greatly, influenced by: your operating system; the fonts that you have installed; the browser that you use; and personal customisation of Wikipedia. Replacing text with images is not a good idea for accessibility reasons. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Original research on talk pages

I was always under the assumption that WP:NOR applied just to article content but that there was freedom to discuss other stuff on talk pages. I was quite surprised when a section I had started was put in a collapsible box labled WP:FORUM, WP:NOR. I am really just curious about the rules but if you want a look the discussion is at: Talk:Antisemitism#Identity. thanks chaps Gregkaye (talk) 01:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

sorry to have bothered you. WP:NOR States: (This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages.) Gregkaye (talk) 06:10, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
WP:NOTBLOG, however, definitely does. --erachima talk 06:43, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes we can venture into original research on talk pages... within reason. The key is that the discussion should directly relate to editing and improving the article (which is what talk pages are for). Blueboar (talk) 12:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Is there a template for articles that are badly organized?

Is there a template for articles along the lines of, "This article is badly disorganized and is stuffed with arcane minutiae in inappropriate places with no background given to the point it is unreadable to the general public"? (could be called {{too convoluted|date=August 2014}}) The article I have in mind for it is Khidr.

Thanks. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

{{cleanup}} —Farix (t | c) 20:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Isn't {{cleanup}} more for fixing grammar and punctuation? Any tag oriented more towards content/organization problems? --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:12, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I think you're looking for {{cleanup-reorganize}}. There are already a lot of cleanup-related templates. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Is there any (written) guidance on what to include in "Notable residents" type sections?

In articles about towns and cities, I mean. Anybody know? It's not a pressing issue, and there's a kind of de facto standard of mostly only including bluelinked people in most cases I think (which is fine). But still... looked at Category:Wikipedia essays on notability and didn't see anything right off, those're mostly about whether whole articles should exist or not... mooting writing an essay if there isn't something already. Herostratus (talk) 23:25, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

In most cases you can discuss this on the article talk page. On List of Eagle Scouts we decided on people with articles to end the interminable arguments over notability. List of Scouts was nowhere as contentious (long story) so we don't enforce that rule. --  Gadget850 talk 23:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Addressing the original question, it not reasonable for every single town and city article to have a separate discussion about this. In most cases, you can apply WP:NLIST. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 23:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Herostratus, see WP:LSC for slightly more help. I don't think it will help you very much, since the basic idea is just to figure out what you want to include, and then write down the answer so that future editors will know what you were doing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:32, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I'd say you got it right the first time: if they aren't bluelinked, then omit them until and unless they are. Otherwise, you get autobio, spamming and other forms of vanity and promotion. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
My opinion is that they're WP:TRIVIA, they're a magnet for local rumors that celebrity X has a house in the town, unrefferenced, of course. - X201 (talk) 06:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Lists of people associated with a place, organization or activity generally conform to one of three levels of exclusivity:

  • People who are notable for their association with the subject. Jim Henson is primarily notable for being a puppeteer, and would therefore merit inclusion on a list of notable puppeteers using such a system. Sean Connery would not; although he meets our notability criteria and has a documented association with puppetry, he is not notable for this activity. Such lists are normally short, relevant and easily compiled.
  • People whose notability relates generally to the subject. For example if the notable chef Gordon Ramsay were a documented patron of a particular restaurant or food supplier, it might be reasonable to include him on a list of such while omitting Tiger Woods. For parity, Ramsay might not make a list of users of a particular brand of golf shoes where Woods would. There is an element of judgement involved in making such lists that can be problematic; they tend to require active curation and discussion of the relevance of some entries.
  • Notable people who merely have a documented association with the subject. Tom Cruise was born in Syracuse, New York; this is documented but his notability doesn't particularly relate to the place. These lists are normally trivia and/or space fillers and best avoided.

-TB (talk) 14:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

To the original question, there is Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Settlements: Article structure#Notable people. And some additional nation-specific guidance which is perhaps ripe for consolidation:
older ≠ wiser 14:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I think the rule you need to follow depends on the size of the town. For a small town, you might list some key figures in the town's history (e.g., someone who was the mayor for decades) even if you're pretty sure that Wikipedia is unlikely to ever have an article about the person.
For a large city, you want to avoid those sections if possible, and to confine their contents to people who are either so famous that even "trivia" might be acceptable ("Queen Victoria lived here" or "Elvis Presley lived here", depending upon your area of interest) or so critical to the city's history that the article would be incomplete without it (e.g., Chicago and the Daley family, Boston and the Boston Brahmin). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

How do you find out who deleted a page?

It doesn't matter who, I suppose. The point is I recreated a page Daas (disambiguation) and then committed the very same offense that got the page deleted before, redirecting to DAAS (now the pink notice is gone, of course). I saw three hatnotes on one page and decided that needed to be changed to disambiguation, since the use I added would have been a fourth. The most convenient template works for the article I created, but I was going to redirect DAAS there when I made the discovery it already WAS a disambiguation page.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Here. When you look at an article's history, there's a "view logs for this page" link. Tarc (talk) 15:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. This person is inactive, so I'll just assume my action was correct until told otherwise.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:39, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Is there a tool to say who added certain text?

I vaguely recall there was a tool which would enable one to select text and the tool would say who added it. I believe it required it's own dedicated server and was not easy to install. I find myself wanting to know who added certain text, and reviewing the change logs can be tedious and time consuming. Is there or was there such a tool? Marteau (talk) 20:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:WIKIBLAME. This question comes up every few months at WP:VPT. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Script by Schnark: artikel-statistik
mw.loader.load('//de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benutzer:Schnark/js/artikel-statistik.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');

mw.loader.load('//meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Hedonil/XTools/XTools.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');
--Atlasowa (talk) 22:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Can Blocked Users Still Edit?

In Page Curation, an alert is shown if an article was created by a blocked user. If a user is blocked, how is it possible to create an article?
Writing Enthusiast (talk) 00:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure, but I believe this means that the user was blocked after the page was created; but when you find pages that were created recently by a user who was subsequently blocked, it can be a red flag that there's shenanigans going on. Of course they cannot create pages while blocked, but if you invert the order, you can understand how it works. --Jayron32 00:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Someone blocked could still edit their talk page and slap the "subst:submit" template at the top of a draft. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Oxo Biodegradable

Hello, sorry if I am posting on the wrong page (I am familiar with the French Wiktionary and tried to find a page similar to the Wikidémie there). While reading the page Oxo Biodegradable, I found that there seemed to be a kind of edit conflict there, resulting in some sentences not being finished and statements being questioned or negated in mid-sentence. There are only a couple of references at the end of the article. As I was looking for information about the subject, I am not at all knowledgeable in this field and therefore cannot fix these problems myself. Can someone have a look at the page? I may not have much time nor feel comfortable writing in English, but I could try to improve some things with your help. Eiku (talk) 12:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I have just now noticed that these problems have already been pointed out on the talk page. @2pou: might be interested in this conversation as well. Eiku (talk) 13:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
The most glaring error - that of the unfinished sentence "OXO plastic if discarded in the environment, will" was caused by a vandal edit, which replaced the word "degrade" with a newline. I've reverted that, and also removed two of the more obvious WP:NPOV violations plus two violations of MOS:TRADE; like this. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I may have undone your trademark MOS edits accidentally. However NPOV means including both sides of a controversy with attribution so it's better to achieve NPOV by attributing than by removing. And that's the approach that I have taken. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)/Archive_46&oldid=1142561594"