Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive A

• Village pump
  • Policy
  • Technical
  • Proposals (persistent)
  • Idea lab
  • WMF
  • Miscellaneous

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This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (miscellaneous).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

Who owns web page summaries?

This might be nitpicking at copyright law, but I noticed that the first sentence of Array DVD magazine comes from the site's summary. Who owns the summary displayed? Is that considered public domain or copyrighted? SWAdair | Talk 08:59, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If it's short, it's fair use, IIRC. IANAL, though. Johnleemk | Talk 09:45, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is not the case. Short quotes are permissable, with attribution, but we cannot take any portion of their work which is not a common word or phrase and use it as our own. Such portions should either be quoted and attribution added (Blah describes their stuff as follows:), or be paraphrased or rewritten. Derrick Coetzee 17:22, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

From a legal perspective, that's wrong. Quotations are a well known form of fair use, and protected by the Bern treaty (which applies in virtually every country). We are under no obligation to cite them. However, from an academic point, yes, it is good to cite sources. →Raul654 19:37, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

Assuming you mean the Berne Convention (I'm not sure what the "Bern treaty" is), Where use is made of works in accordance with the preceding paragraphs of this Article, mention shall be made of the source, and of the name of the author, if it appears thereon. [1] BTW, it's generally not a good idea to call someone wrong when you yourself have no idea what you're talking about. anthony (see warning) 16:19, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've reworded the article. Thanks. SWAdair | Talk 04:40, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

TheFreeDictionary.com

There's some peculiar behavior going on at http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/. They seem to have replaced all references to Wikipedia with Encyclopedia (which, if one refers to Encyclopedia, insinuates they produce their content); also, they seem to have censored every article with wiki in the name. Interestingly, they missed http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Wiktionary. --[[User:Eequor|ηυωρ]] 01:27, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

On the articles I checked, they are complying with the GFDL, so I don't think theres any problem. We don't use invariant sections, so they're allowed to change the text, and elect to remove any articles they want to. —siroχo 01:44, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

Certainly. It is, however, extremely weird. --[[User:Eequor|ηυωρ]] 02:58, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't think you can call them a verbatim copy, in which case they're not complying with the GFDL (for example, they don't list the authors at all, and certainly not on the title page). As for changing "Wikipedia" to "Encyclopedia", does anyone know if they were accused of trademark infringement? I know there was talk of this with some of the other forks/mirrors. anthony (see warning) 04:28, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've been looking at this -- if you want a real laugh checkout http://www.namweb.com.na/mwk/ and click on the GFDL link!

TheFreeDictionary.com are not in compliance and you can find more about it [here] Davelane 23:14, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A similar case was with Smartpedia.com who used to replace "Wikipedia" with "Smartpedia" but they stopped when I asked them to. Hopefully TheFreeDictionary will as well. Angela. 03:55, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

I've had a nice email back from TheFreeDictionary.com saying they did not mean to misuse our content in this way and that they will happily fix this when they make their next update of the mirror. Angela. 02:19, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

Dates

I went through the list of 200 articles shown at Wikipedia:Offline reports/This page links many times to the same article and removed the repeated links that causing the article to be noted. Now Rmhermen has drawn my attention to something that I was not aware of, i.e. that Wikipedia looks at two different links to construct a date. Thus a link can have an effect beyond the link itself. I am no longer able to maintain my concept of links as individual entities. It may be that this is an exception for handling dates but it may also be a precedent.

I am asking for two things:

• A bot that would sort out multiple links to the same page. Having several 100 links to the same article is silly. I made a request at Wikipedia:Bot requests. Feel free to make your views known there.

• A debate about the concept of links as individual entities rather than parts of pairs, triplets etc and how that is made explicit to editors. I was quite surprised that I am no longer able to look at the text in the edit window and predict what will happen to each link bounded by [[ and ]].

Bobblewik  (talk) 20:58, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't know if a bot would be a good idea - in prose, certainly, something shouldn't be linked more than once per section. However in some article layouts, such as table/list formats, not having every instance of a name linked is annoying. For example, in Swimming at the 2004 Summer Olympics - Men's 50 metre Freestyle you can see the final eight, but their names are not linked. You have to look through the whole page to find the first heat that the swimmer competed in, in order to find a link to the article about the individual swimmer.

I don't know if it would be useful, or worthwhile, to have a tag/template in an article that causes any link in that article to be replicated to all other instances of the same word in that article, and/or another tag/template that autmoatically removes the second and all further instances of a linked word. -- Chuq 00:20, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If we want to do this, a bot is not the way to do it. It would be very easy to change the MediaWiki code to ignore duplicate links to the same article. I don't think we should be doing this, for the reasons given above, but if we're going to do it it shouldn't be via a bot. anthony (see warning) 16:27, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Litigious society

I don't have anything like the knowledge of law to create it, but I was thinking that a Litigious society article would be an interesting addition. It is mentioned briefly in lawsuit (Some countries, especially the USA suffer from a very large number of lawsuits per capita per year, while people in many other cultures (most notably Japan) tend to avoid bringing their disputes to the courthouse) but I'm sure there must be more to be said. Perhaps mentioning landmark cases (some about people suing tobacco and fast food companies, perhaps) and the constant "accident claim" adverts. Apologies if this is covered elsewhere - I've not come across anything yet. violet/riga (t) 21:41, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requested articles. Derrick Coetzee 23:03, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to be helpful but there was a reason I posted here. I was trying to ascertain if there was already an article with similar content and if people thought that it would be a worthwhile addition with enough potential to become a decent article. I also wanted to write some sort of description rather than just post a link. violet/riga (t) 07:52, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Personally, I think such an article would be needlessly POV. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 19:23, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

It's a widely used term and doesn't have to be POV at all, imo. violet/riga (t) 11:52, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Article about saving documents in computing?

After looking around for an appropriate link for the word save in a computing-related article (thus, save as in save my document), I'm wondering whether there's any Wikipedia article about the entire phenomenon of saving and loading documents (and auto-saving, etc.) in computing and how there has been a shift away from that model in user interface design. Seems like it could be an interesting article if someone could start it (I couldn't say much more about it than I have here). - dcljr 05:41, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There's been a shift away from that? --Golbez 08:15, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, with applications like Microsoft OneNote, the user never has to save, they simply make a change, and it "saves as they go": they can close the program, not be prompted, start it again later, and it will return to where they were with everything still in place. Argument goes that the user wouldn't go and make a document, then not want to save it (at least most of the time), and that the undo function means you don't have to worry about making a change you regret, and wanting to discard the changes and open the old version of the file. Programs already auto-save changes every few minutes, why not save the main file? I agree that things like saving/loading a file are concepts independent from any one program, and as such deserve an article. TPK 09:10, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Like, with database applications and data-bindings? These aren't anything really new, (if that's what you're referring to). However, an article on the act of opening a file, editing it, and saving it, as well as discussing bindings, sounds like a good idea to me. Er, to use an example of someone who would find this useful: my mother is often confused about such things. She will open a document, inadvertantly make a change, and then she will try to close the document. When she does, she gets a dialog asking if she wants to save... which worries her, because she believes that if she doesn't save, the document might somehow get deleted. ;-) func(talk) 08:52, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I forgot to mention this when I wrote it, but after reading this comment previously and checking Save, I was surprised that it wasn't a disambiguation page. See my comments at Talk:Save. -- Chuq 08:57, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

So what about an article called File management (computer)? How a user works with files with regard to opening and closing them could be handled in such an article, along with other things, like creating directories/folders, etc. func(talk) 14:19, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Or better, computer file management. Derrick Coetzee 21:47, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've created a stub at Computer file management and moved the content of this discussion to its Talk page. Thanks, everyone, for your input. - dcljr 01:25, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Save is now a disambig page. violet/riga (t) 11:54, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Dealing with trolls

Wikipedia:Dealing with disruptive or antisocial editors/poll2 received 75% votes in favor, however it is unclear how to deal with the dissent. Where do we go from here? anthony (see warning) 16:08, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I suspect that, if there were a clear method of desysopping, we'd get ortho's vote to change, maybe even one more. The problem is, until we have a clear policy for dealing with disruptive editors, there's a lot of guesswork for sysops concerning how they're supposed to behave, which makes most of them resist a clear desysopping policy, IMO. So we may be at an impasse. Can we somehow roll them both together and try and pass a double barreled policy? Jwrosenzweig 20:48, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My objection was mainly based on the fact that we were been asked to give people powers to deal with a problem without any real idea of how big the problem is. Answer that question and then a sensible debate on what needs to be done can begin. Meanwhile, how can anyone judge what the best course of action might be? Filiocht 07:49, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If you want 'real' facts, look no further than user:Raul654/Plautus to see the timeline of the most disruptive user ever. →Raul654 07:52, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, this is one kind of fact, but what I really mean is how many users like this are there as a % of the total community. I suspect it is a tiny number, but have no way of knowing just now. If we legislate on the basis of hard cases, we'll make bad laws. Filiocht 08:11, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If I had to guess, at any given time, there are probably no more than 4-6 users who are so disruptive that they are ban-worthy. The problem is, new ones appear as fast as we get rid of the older ones. →Raul654 08:15, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

There are many more who are disruptive in a small way, often restricting their activities to particular small parts of Wikipedia which they hold on to viciously. I've encountered users who have wasted days of my time. Their only interest in Wikipedia may be to sustain a particular point of view in one or two articles. Eventually, I walked away. They won. There's so many other articles in Wikipedia that need work that one might as well let them have their say when their are worse articles around. Current dispute resolution process seems almost purposely clumsy, designed only for those who like nagivating legal procedures and are good at it. Meanwhile, the supposed Wikipedia policies are lies. They aren't enforced, and if you look closely at may of them, they seem to disappear. No personal attacks? They happen all the time. No POV supposedly. Supposedly a rule of only three reverts in 24 hours, but that's now vanished, maybe, sort of. Try to to cite supposed Wikipedia policy to stop someone who is stubborn and where it is in a minor article of little interest to most, but of great interest to two users to whose only regard for Wikipedia is as a platform for a particular, unnotable, fringe theory in one article. Filiocht's concern with numbers seems to me moot. If only a few people are being raped, then rape doesn't matter? What harm does anyone but a troll find in this proposed quick-alarm system that at least gives some substance to supposed policies that increasingly don't guide Wikipedia. No. I can't measure this. But either can Filiocht. With a two month trial we could perhaps measure it. What other way? Jallan 18:39, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think comparing this to rape is a little hysterical. You seem to be making the case that anyone who holds an opinion that is different to yours and whom you are unable to persuade is automatically 'disruptive'. Perhaps the cases that you are thinking of are, but you can perhaps see why some people are worried about where this kind of logic leads. However, I do totally agree that we need to strengthen sanctions against personal attacks, they are perhaps the single most damaging type of anti-social behavior we have, along with witch-hunting. Mark Richards 02:05, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Comparison to rape hysterical? No. I am pointing out that numbers should not be an issue. We supposedly have a policy of personal attacks being totally forbidden. It is not enforced. You know this. Currently, the de facto practice is that personal attacks are quite acceptable here, as long as someone doesn't make too many personal attacks, and doen't make them against the wrong people, or both. The case I "seem to be making" is your strawman argument not mine. I am talking about obvious breaking of supposed rules. Yes, in some cases, I or someone else might be in error, the person in the wrong, or there may be no wrong. Fine. Under the proposed policy I would be quickly disabused. Case closed! I can't see why "some people are worried about where this kind of logic leads". Jallan 14:28, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The comparison to rape is frankly insulting to rape victims. I still say that hard cases make bad laws and Jallan's intervention has reinforced my opinion. And yes, Mark Richards, there is probably more witch-hunting here than most would allow. Filiocht 11:12, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The comparison was intended to be overstrong to indicate how bogus it is to be concerned only with numbers. Can you quantify your contention that "there is probably more witch-hunting here than most would allow"? The policy as proposed would seem to me to be equally effective against fuggheadedness of a witch-hunter type where that exists. Do you not want witch-hunting to be cut down if you believe it is a problem? Jallan 14:28, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, which is why I voted against the proposal. Let's just imagine its Chriatmas and very few people are working here. Just me and three admins, in fact. They're all working on an article together and I stumble in. I find their version horribly POV and try to edit it, they label me disruptive and ultimately ban me before the holiday is over. Overstated, too, I admit, but if you can overstate, so can I. This is part of why this person is "worried about where this kind of logic leads". My concern with numbers is because they bring some objectivity and reduce the likelyhood of a bad knee-jerk reaction or the pushing through of something that serves the interests of a minority only. We have quite a good article on Internet trolls. It contains this sentence, which I think is worth pondering: However, since trollhunters (like trolls) are often conflict-seekers themselves, the loss usually is not on the part of the trollhunter; rather, the losers are the other forum-users who would have preferred that the conflict not emerge at all. My view is simple; don't feed them. Maybe there is no quick-hit solution. Filiocht 14:43, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You provided no numbers for your somewhat weasel-worded claim that "there is probably more witch-hunting here than most would allow". A concern with objectivity isn't apparent.

As to the horrid case you postulate, it is impossible. Even three rogue sysops at a time when no-one else is around would not be able to ban you. Please read the proposal that you have voted against. The most rogue admins could do would be a short term block of 24-hours, no worse than many users suffer now though no wrong-doing when a range-block is in effect or through the occasional wrongful blocking that occurs now for claimed vandalism which is later determined to be unjustified. But the reasons for this block would appear openly on the appropriate page, providing documentation for you or anyone to use to show that the sysops were acting against policy. You don't have such full protection now if a single sysop now blocks you for sneaky vandalism.

Not feeding trolls has some success on open web forums, but the usenet is a now a shadow of what it once was. On managed forums trolls are more often simply banned. If not feeding trolls is good, starving trolls is better. But if ignoring disruptors and pushers of crank POV is an option in web forum, it is not an option in Wikipedia where we are trying to build an encyclopedia and trying to maintain and improve the information here. Ignoring the content placed in articles by people intent only on pushing their own POV is not a valid long-term option. Ignoring those interested in sneaky vandalism for the fun of it is not an option. Making it easier to oppose such activities should better Wikipedia.

Jallan 18:33, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Here is a classic case of the ground shifting under you in a discussion like this. We go from the ill defined 'troll', to 'pushers of crank POVs', to people 'intent on pushing their own POV' to 'sneaky vandals', as if these were the same thing. Not feeding the trolls does not mean not reverting vandalism. To try to characterise it in this way is just muddying the waters and making discussion more difficult. Mark Richards 23:15, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Read the policy suggestions. Wrong-doing is not ill-defined there. And I don't particularly care whether someone is acting against supposed Wikipedia policy because they enjoy being disruptive (a troll) or because they strongly believe in a particular POV and don't care what policy they have to break to get into Wikipedia. You muddy the waters by caring about motivation, something often difficult to determine. The policy has nothing to do with open vandalism, which is already covered. You muddy the waters a second time. Perhaps you have not read the policy you oppose, just as you wished to be able to autovote on VfD without actually looking at what you were voting for. Jallan 20:51, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Once again rhetoric wins out over facts. As I think you know, it was my objection to deletion of pages (not to removal of content) in almost all cases that I wanted to be registered. The few cases that I believe deletion is really appropriate for could be handled in other forums. Mark Richards 23:51, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Let's just imagine its Chriatmas and very few people are working here. Just me and three admins, in fact. They're all working on an article together and I stumble in. I find their version horribly POV and try to edit it, they label me disruptive and ultimately ban me before the holiday is over. You don't seem to have read the policy. Under this policy you'd get formally warned first. When you get the formal warning, then you simply leave those pages in their "horribly POV" state for a day or two while you get support for your position. Under current policy those 3 admins could get together and protect the pages on their horribly POV version anyway, and that'd likely last more than just a day or two. anthony (see warning) 20:48, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Systemic bias in Wikipedia

Wikipedia's own page on Wikipedia states that "Wikipedia is committed to making its articles as unbiased as possible." However, there is still no mechanism for removing the systemic bias present in Wikipedia. I'm talking about the bias caused mainly by Wikipedia's demographic make-up (mainly North American computer literate types). Pages such as Wikipedia:Collaboration_of_the_week, Wikipedia:Requested articles etc don't specifically attack the problem, and often serve to perpetuate it. An example of this problem is that even after 1 million articles have been written, the article on the Congo Civil War, possibly the largest war since World War 2 (and which resulted in over 3 million deaths), have much less information than articles such as Babylon 5, Languages_of_Middle-earth, Slackware etc which appear to fit into the Wikipedia demographic. I suggest a section on the Wikipedia:Community_Portal page to deal with this issue.--Xed 18:57, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There's a very easy fix for this: Get more people involved who aren't North Americans. I hereby assign you to the job. - DavidWBrooks 18:51, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The above response sadly demonstrates the self-satisfied attitude of many Wikipedians to this problem--Xed 18:57, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Is your "someone else should fix it" attitude an improvement? Regardless, an imbalance in article quantity is not a "bias". --Doradus 03:35, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

Replies_to_common_objections#Systemic_bias. While insufficient content in an area is always an issue, an imbalance of contributors isn't necessarily one. Derrick Coetzee 19:07, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I guess the only way to stop this is expanding the Wikipedia user base with more people from different backgrounds. If it bothers you, I'd suggest you specialize in promoting wikipedia to as much people as you can to solve the problem. MGM 19:14, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not Superman. I can only do so much. With 1 million articles, this problem needs to be addressed in a more organized way.--Xed 19:30, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Such as? Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 19:37, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As I said I suggest a section on the Wikipedia:Community_Portal page to deal with this. The section would list articles which, if created/edited/expanded would counter-act the systemic bias.--Xed 19:46, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

When the Encyclopaedia Britannica, or the World Book, were written, what order did they go in? Did they start with World War II, or did they start alphabetically, perhaps with aardvark? Did they start with countries, or with people? The fact is, Wikipedia is, and will always be, a work in progress. If you want more coverage of the Congo Civil War, by all means, add it, and try to get others to help you. But the fact there is more information on Babylon 5 than the Congo Civil War does not mean there's a bias. If a writer of Britannica got writer's block while drafting the World War II article, should they not let others proceed with articles on other, less important subjects? It may just mean we haven't gotten around to it.

Furthermore, if there IS such a bias (and I will agree with you, en: is mostly computer literate English-speaking North Americans and Britons), ... there's really not much we can do about that, is there. You say, "do something." I say, "like what?" --Golbez 19:41, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

As I said I suggest a section on the Wikipedia:Community_Portal page to deal with this. The section would list articles which, if created/edited/expanded would counter-act the systemic bias.--Xed 19:46, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What can we do? All I can think of is (1) Spread knowledge of Wikipedia as far as we can, in the hope of attracting as diverse an editor pool as we can; (2) make some effort at identifying areas of poor coverage, to guide editors who might be looking for something to research. —Morven 19:47, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

So quit bitching and do something about it already. Make the list of articles that you think would help counteract the systemic bias; start it at User:Xed/Anti-Systemic-bias list and see if you can get consensus for including it on the community portal. Then go work on the articles yourself. —No-One Jones ^(m) 19:57, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Smugness about this problem, and its size, seems to be common among some people. If there's over 1 million articles I can hardly do it all myself. Furthermore, it's not up to me to make this list. Which is why I suggest a section on the Wikipedia:Community_Portal page to deal with this. The section would list articles which, if created/edited/expanded would counter-act the systemic bias.--Xed 20:05, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You may not be able to do it all yourself but you can at least make a start. If you aren't willing to put forth even that minimal effort then I suggest you quit your whinging. —No-One Jones ^(m) 20:52, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You are starting to sound like a troll, Xed. If you want to help, it is up to you to create this list. If you only want to interfere with what other people are working on, go somewhere else. Awolf002 20:28, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A troll is someone who wants to improve Wikipedia?--Xed 21:09, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• "You are starting to sound like a troll, Xed" - BWAHAHAHA! RickK 21:02, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Morven's idea is interesting - has there been any serious attempt to map the areas that have the least coverage? Mark Richards 20:31, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Xed, the part of Wikipedia you wan't to be more important, is growing. But it won't outgrow the Slackware+Babylon 5 part for some time, I guess. But IMHO, there is no conflict between these parts. Anyway, you can't transform a good contributor on Slackware into a good contributor on Congo Civil War, most of the time. But the growth of Wikipedia will give more public visibility, which will result in new contributors. Think of the North American computer literate types as the first wave of contributors with more waves rolling in. Perhaps the most important point in making this concept work, is to ensure that Wikipedia is a friendly environment for new contributors. Pjacobi 20:32, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The response here isn't too friendly. See No-one's comment above.--Xed 21:09, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The response would be a lot friendlier if you'd quit whinging, quit trying to pick fights, and get to work on the problem. Obviously. —No-One Jones ^(m) 00:26, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The bias discussed here is present in the range of existing articles, not in the text of any one article. An important distinction, imho. In the latter case, an active effort would be required to remove the bias from the text. As it is, we can just wait for WP to outgrow the bias. And if there is a decent article on the war in the Congo, it is not degraded by any number of geeky articles that may exist beside it. Yes, we are a long way from WP 1.0. But as long as nobody claims that WP is a valid replacement for the Britannica yet, this is a non-issue. dab 20:46, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The 'geeky articles' will continue to grow, so I don't see how 'serious' articles have a chance to catch up without any organized effort--Xed 21:09, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Maybe it would help to add a new template stating something in this direction: "This article needs attention, for a encyclopedia of Wikipedia's size and stature it is highly undeveloped, considering the relative importance of the subject". This allows easy categorization, and allows people interested in filling the gaps in Wikipedia knowledge, that are caused by WP demographics to be, to find these articles easily. -- Solitude 20:59, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

That is a possibility.--Xed 21:09, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Ugh, NO! RickK 21:02, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Also, while en: is the largest wikipedia, it is not the only one. IIRC, it makes up only 1/3 of the articles on Wikipedia. es:, de: and jp: are all much more likely to have articles on Spanish/Latin American, German and Japanese interests, just as en: is more likely to have articles on Anglo-Australian interests. These will outgrow with time, but we only have a million articles. ;) --Golbez 21:05, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

I'm something of a newbie, but wouldn't the Congo Civil War article (for example) be appropriate for Wikipedia:Requests_for_expansion? Jpgordon 21:10, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

For a few articles which you most care about expanding, why not nominate them for Collaboration of the Week, at WP:COTW?-gadfium 22:22, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If you can find, say, half a dozen others who want to work with you on this, you could start a project group. They don't all have to be on subject matter areas. Xed, there isn't a someone else who needs to start this, you have to decide what is important and start building, or find a group of people who want to work with you on it. It's unlikely that you will get consensus to go straight to the Community Portal without demonstrating some smaller-scale success first, and it may turn out that Community Portal is irrelevant (but do start making nominations for Wikipedia:Collaboration_of_the_week: in my experience, a cluster of related articles tend to get written. -- Jmabel 23:19, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

I cannot help but feel that the premise of Xed's argument is a little shaky. A pejoritive accusation of systematic bias is at best a value judgement. What underpins it? Why is a war in the Congo worth more wiki-inches than Babylon 5? Who decides these things, and who is able to make apple versus orang-utan comparisons? Whereas I tend to share what I assume is Xed's opinion, that it would be more worthy to read about or even write about the Congolese civil war than Bablylon 5, I note that we already have a number of Wikipedia:Requested articles pages which go some way to address/answer Xed's call for action; and also have Wikipedia:List of encyclopedia topics. In what way do these differ from Xed's section on the Wikipedia:Community_Portal suggestion? Beyond that, his/her argument seems to be a good example of the best driving out the good. --Tagishsimon

'Why is a war in the Congo worth more wiki-inches than Babylon 5?' - because the Congo Civil War resulted in 3 million deaths and is possibly the largest war since WW2. Surely it can't be difficult to see why it needs more coverage. Look how much coverage 9/11 has on Wikipedia, and that was only 3 thousand deaths. The Wikipedia:Requested articles page does not deal specifically with the issue of systemic bias.--Xed 00:15, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You should also complain to EB then. Their article on it is even shorter than ours. -- Wapcaplet 02:08, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If it is "not difficult to see", then why are you unable to explain why it is more important? If you are unable to explain why, then perhaps it is just a value judgement on your part. Waving the magnitude of the death toll does not amount to an argument. --Tagishsimon

I have explained. Your arguments would only make sense coming from a robot or a lawyer--Xed 00:58, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There I must beg to differ: you have not explained. You have articulated a value judgement with no explanation whatsoever, and you do not eecognise your judgement for what it is. Your premise is indeed flawed, and I submit that any resolution based on a flawed premise will itself be flawed. Neither have you explained by what mechanism will be determined the actions that must be taken to correct the supposed systematic bias. All in all, much heat but not very much light. --Tagishsimon

It should be exceedingly obvious that a war affecting the lives of millions of real people and having a profound impact on the politics of several nations is far more important than a television program which cannot reasonably be said to have significantly affected the lives of anyone. See abstraction, problem of universals, phenomenology, abstract structure, and reification. --[[User:Eequor|ηυωρ]] 01:08, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Doubtless it should be but it isn't. It depends upon your frame of reference, and of necessity is a value judgement. That is the way of these things; all else is little more than hysteria. But you made a slightly better stab at it than did Xed. --Tagishsimon

01010110100100110111010100011 beep beep. Would you regard the Holocaust article more or less important than Babylon 5? Or would that be a value judgement?--Xed 01:24, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It seems to me that you consider the comparitive quality of, say, Holocaust and Babylon 5 to be an issue. I think this is the sticking point in this disagreement.

In other words, you say "It's a disgrace that we have an excellent article on X but a bad one on Y." But why does the quality of article X matter? It's like you feel it's an insult to "worthy topics" to have so many good articles on "trivial topics". —Morven 01:30, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

The quality of X certainly doesn't matter. Your straw man is getting taller and taller--Xed 01:51, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If I'm an editor who knows more about Babylon 5 than the Holocaust, should I be encouraged to contribute to the article that I know, or the one that is deemed more important? (To forestall any baseless accusations right away, I am not trying to diminish the significance of the Holocaust. But this question is important to me, and I'd like to read your answer.) --Ardonik.talk()^* 01:40, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not talking about what you know, or indeed edit. Edit what you want. I'm talking about the character of Wikipedia, and how people who WANT to counter-act the systemic bias can be given more oppurtunities to do so - hence a list on the Community Portal page.--Xed 01:55, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It should be noted that most of the above discussion only strengthens Xed's position. From the crude sample here, it would appear that most Wikipedians hold a blind faith in the infallibility of community editing, minds closed to any suggestion otherwise. The community does have a systemic bias, supported by sheeplike herd behavior when anything appears that threatens the status quo. Musk oxen may be more apt: Wikipedian protectionism is generally predictably odious, mindlessly guarding of its central beliefs, and too stubborn and dense to usefully argue with. At least sheep are polite. --[[User:Eequor|ηυωρ]] 00:19, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Community editing isn't infallible, but it is all we have. You'll note that some people are A) acknowledging that the problem exists and B) making suggestions on how to fix it. You could too, instead of flinging insults. —No-One Jones ^(m) 00:26, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's not blind faith, for most of us. Community editing has its problems, but it also has its strengths. Most of us consider the latter to very much outweigh the former. Suggestions of how to mitigate the weaknesses are always appreciated, at least by me. —Morven 00:51, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

Note: User 'Neutrality' vandalised this page, before it was fixed by User Eequor.--Xed 00:29, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Stop lying. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 00:41, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

Check the history. [2]--Xed 00:51, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Xed, I don't think that's vandalism. I think you're trolling, too. --Ardonik.talk()^* 01:21, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

Xed, there are two possible routes to choose when you notice something wrong with Wikipedia. They are:

1. Say "Wikipedia's broken. You guys should fix it."
2. Say "Wikipedia's broken. Here's my proposal for fixing it. Anyone want to help?"

Oddly enough, option 2 is appreciated much more than option 1. If a problem is not important enough for you to wish to be part of the solution to it, of course everyone will conclude you're whining -- or just intent on arguing. —Morven 01:02, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

That's why I chose option 2, suggesting a section on the Community Portal page, which of course I would be willing to help with.--Xed 01:14, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Why not knock together a page inside the Wikipedia namespace, as a few people have suggested, and let people see what they think of the idea, then? —Morven 01:23, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

---

Right, hang on, let me summarise this discussion so far:

1. Xed "There is systemic bias in Wikipedia (and nobody appears to mind)"
2. Everyone else (with varying amounts of civility): "What is your proposed remedy / action?"
3. Xed "We could have a list of articles that need creating or expanding for this reason"
4. (Nearly) everyone else: "Can we have a demonstration?"
5. Repeat

More like:

1. 1. Xed "There is systemic bias in Wikipedia, here is my suggestion - put a section on the Community portal page"
   2. Others - we agree.
   3. Wikiclique - do it yourself and stop being lazy.
   4. User:Neutrality - 3 million dead is funny, I will vandalise the page
   5. Wikiclique - You are a troll
   6. Tagishsimon - beep beep I am a robot.
   7. Wikiclique - But you haven't made a suggestion
   8. and repeat

--Xed 01:36, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Xed, grow the hell up and stop calling us names like "wikiclique." I don't think you even want to be taken seriously. --Ardonik.talk()^* 02:18, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

Stop lying. I never "vandalized this page," nor did I say 3 million dead is funny. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 02:47, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

So, instead of trading insults, let's look at the deatils and feasibility of this suggestion:

• what would be the criteria for listing?
• how would it differ from other "to-do" type lists, such as Cleanup, Requests for expansion, Requested articles, and the List of encyclopedia topics that someone mentioned?
  • relatedly, how can we ensure that each of these pages retains its usefulness as others spring up with overlapping roles; or have we got too many and need to rethink how we organise them?
• do existing pages address the issue of systemic bias simply through "the community process"?
  • if not, why not, and is there a way we can change this? (e.g. some kind of rules for Requested articles that tend towards correcting rather than increasing the "lean"?)

Discuss. - IMSoP 01:25, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC) [Typed simultaneous to Morven's comment above; perhaps these questions could form the basis of such a page.]

There's an option 2a, and that is "Wikipedia could be improved, and there are several ways of doing it. Here's the one I'll work on".

I can't see any prospect of eliminating systemic bias from Wikipedia, but I can see several ways of trying to reduce it.

The one that is most likely to succeed IMO is simple Wikiquette. We are I hope all aware of the policy of not biting newbies, and also the more general policy of not biting anybody.

Sticking to these policies will reduce systemic bias by broadening our contributor base. Or, to put it another way, every time we condone violations we are increasing the bias, because the presence of rudeness, aggro and even rhetoric in our discussion pages is a far greater obstacle to the participation of minority-view editors than to others. Andrewa 01:49, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is the one long-term solution to the problem that will work. Committing a group of interested people to go and help is laudable, but in the long term, expanding the contributor base will have a far more powerful effect. Tempshill 17:23, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Surely the Congo War is an extreme case. By the argument of deaths alone, articles on Starvation, Old age, Heart Disease should be far far longer and more detailed than everything else. Surely importance is something decided by the reader - in the end, wikipedia has a target audience, and the expansion of articles is almost directly based on the level of interest this audience has for the various subjects. If no one searches wikipedia for the Congo War (possibly because despite the death toll, the war has very little global impact, unlike 9/11, and because little information is available for it from base sources), then harsh as it may be, it is not important to the average reader. So, your ire is misdirected. I wouldn't call it bias. Rather, its reflecting western culture.

On the contrary, the Congo War has had massive global impact nine different countries ahve been involved. Just because they don't happen to be in your part of the globe shows your own bias. Secondly, I didn't make the argument by deaths alone. Thirdly, a subjet shouldn't be avoided simply because it is a difficult one to comprehend or far away--Xed 02:18, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

So basically, what you are really proposing is to deploy WP as a tool to change the minds of the populace, to open their eyes. To become much less an encyclopedia, but more a source of investigative journalism. The argument then is whether wikipedia can, and should fulfill that aim.

Again, someone is putting words into my mouth. I'm talking about the character of Wikipedia, and how people who WANT to counter-act the systemic bias can be given more oppurtunities to do so.--Xed 02:18, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

So do something already. Every second you spend picking fights here is one second less for counteracting the systemic bias of Wikipedia—and yet you continue trolling rather than making a single constructive edit. —No-One Jones ^(m) 02:24, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is disappointing. Did you even read the comments by IMSoP and Andrewa? No biting. --[[User:Eequor|ηυωρ]]

(I hence wouldn't term it 'removing systematic bias', since bias is pretty vague and subjective. Its more coverage of events outside the public awareness. If this is to work at all, we need to construct a highly visible way of showcasing such content.)--Fangz 02:04, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Comments like Xed's come along from time to time, but the underlying message I always get is "you should stop working on you want to work on, and work on what I want you to work on instead, because I think it's more important". Browbeating people with charges of "systemic bias" or whatever is just a technique to try to make us feel guilty, but you know what? This is a hobby, not a job, and no one is going to push me into doing anything that I don't want to do. Stan 02:27, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Good for you. No one is pushing you to do anything. You have misread what I have said. Again and again I have said - edit what you want. DON'T STOP WORKING ON WHAT YOU WANT TO. I'm talking about people who WANT to counter-act the systemic bias and how they can be given more oppurtunities to do so.--Xed 02:35, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Raul's law of Wikipedia #3 - "You cannot motivate people on a large scale to write about something they don't want to write about". →Raul654 02:42, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

Well Xed, there's already nothing to stop random people from working energetically to "counter-act the systemic bias" that they perceive. Ergo, I conclude that you're wanting people to do something different than what they're doing now. If you don't want anybody to do anything different, then what's the point of telling us that we're not working on the right subjects? It doesn't make any sense. Stan 04:34, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Community_Portal is not locked. Xed can go there and start eliminating bias, as he has suggested here seven times without bothering to do so. Does he expect ... what? acclaim for his suggestion? Actions speak louder, you know, than those other things. Ortolan88 02:54, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

I'm going to bed. If anyone is willing to help me produce a beta version of section I sketched out above, please sign your name below. For Popperian reasons, I would prefer to have people critical of the idea as well as supporters.--Xed 03:15, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

I would like to point out that Xed is referring to "systemic bias" and a lot of you are responding as if he had referred to "systematic bias". The latter basically just means thoroughgoing bias. That's not what he is saying. Although he's not being terribly articulate about the matter, and I think he is being unnecessarily abrasive, "systemic bias" means that there are structural issues in Wikipedia that tend strongly towards certain topics getting much better coverage than others. I think that is clearly true. I also think there is a lot of reason for us, if we are trying to produce a quality work, to consider seriously what biases are built into the system and which of these can be addressed. I'm not sure if Xed's approach here is constructive, but I am sure he is describing a real problem.

Examples of systemic bias:

1. Because so many Wikipedians do their research on line, topics not already well covered on the Internet tend to be under-covered in Wikipedia.
2. Because so many English-language Wikipedians live in a very small number of countries, topics pertaining strongly to those countries are disproportionately covered.
3. Because so many Wikipedians are interested in technology, technological topics are disproportionately well covered. Ditto science fiction. Ditto libertarianism. Conversely, and presumably for parallel reasons, there is very little on (as Xed points out) contemporary events in Africa or (as I'd point out) even on African-American history or Native American history: most of our articles on Native Americans are written from an anthropoligist's point of view, whereas our articles on (for example) punk rock or grunge rock or the science fiction fandom are consistently written with insider's knowledge.

This list is, at best, illustrative. I do think we would do well to look at the systematic biases in the Wikipedia. I think some of them can be covered by adding to the efforts at translation from other languages. Others really would require recruitment to correct, and that recruitment may depend in part on a positive community decision that the recruitment is importans, accompanied by a long, hard look at what aspects of our internal culture are not seen as welcoming by certain groups. Wikipedia is disproportionately white and male, and I don't think that is good. There are probably other similar issues that don't leap out at me as readily.

Systemic biases are not easily addressed. One of the biggest factors here is a (generally commendable) tendency to write about what one already knows about. Frankly, it's a lot easier for me to write a decent encyclopedia article on a subject where, in examining sources (or looking at other people's edits), I can look at some of them and just go "this person doesn't know his/her stuff, useless." For example, I simply don't have the knowledge to know whom to believe when two well-read Slavs are arguing over the history of Carpathian Ruthenia, but I have plenty of ability to judge whether someone is talking sense about Jorge Luis Borges. Therefore, I am a lot more likely to focus on writing about the latter. And would you really want me writing extensively about the former? In other words, some of this can only be adddressed either by recruitment and/or a serious self-educational undertaking by some of our participants.

So, Xed, sign me on to participate somewhat in your project, probably more in terms of helping strategize this than in further stretching myself as to which topics I write about.

Any other takers? Because I, for one, won't do this with less than five people involved. -- Jmabel 05:37, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

It's something that I personally recognise as a problem and something that I'd be willing, within my personal limitations, to work on and help with.

Note that, in my opinion, every time you go to an off-line source for Wikipedia articles you are helping with Wikipedia's systemic bias -- at least, the bias to write about only the stuff the Web already has information on. Every time you refer to a book, magazine, journal, or whatever, you are adding a dash of another viewpoint to the online store of knowledge. I think we should all try a little to stretch ourselves beyond our comfort zones of what we already know; and that doesn't mean one can't have fun. Find some topic you wish you knew about, go to the library or somewhere and research it, and write what you learned. Even if it's not perfect, it's better than we had. —Morven 05:59, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

I think some of the things Jmabel talking about are already happening - for instance, as WP gets more complete in certain areas, there is simply no online source to raid for additional material. Most of my content additions these days are from books, and I see a bunch of other people doing the same. (A visit to a university library really makes clear just how much is not on the net anywhere.) Likewise, we see that now that every imaginable Tolkien-related topic has an article :-), interest drops off and the action moves elsewhere. I think the most important thing to do is recruitment - everybody should try their hand at WPing, but only a subset will enjoy it enough to keep at it. Stan 06:12, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm in. The more I think about it, the more enthousiastic I become about it. One is easily tempted to write only about topics that you're already familiar with, as long as your contributing, thats marvelous. But I think a section for discussion and categorising articles that really need work for Wikipedia to be taken seriously would motivate people to expand their horizon and learn about those topics, I think it could work, but giving it a proper place with current categories like cleanup, attention, expand, collaboration article, etc. could be a challenge. -- Solitude 07:48, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

Me too. How it would differ from existing pages like cleanup, attention, expand, collaboration article, etc. is that those pages exemplify the bias to some degree or another. As I read it, this proposal entails looking at all the things an encyclopaedia needs that nothing here is addressing. @Thinking outside the Wikibox', so to speak. Filiocht 09:14, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have to say I'm not particularly enthused about writing stuff which is likely to engender responses along the lines of "what do you know about XYZ, you don't even live there" which I have seen elsewhere in Wikipedia. I tend to dabble in areas where I do have knowledge, and ask impertinent questions where I don't (in the hope of obtaining a pertinent answer, obviously :-) --Phil | Talk 11:01, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

Count me in. I have just had this discussion brought to my attention, read through it all, and was a little taken aback by the way Xed, who I genuinely believe to have good intentions for Wikipedia, was immediately denounced as a troll. The fact is that Wikipedia is massively biased towards certain countries and certain subcultures, and while some of us are able to see that and realise that we are a part of it (I know far more about what goes on in Birmingham than what goes on in Kinshasa), there seem to be a worrying number of people who are blind to Wikipedia's bias and are unwilling to do anything about it. I agree though with much of what's been said here, specifically that in the long term only recruitment will solve our problems. Personally I don't mind that we have lengthy articles on obscure Tolkein and Star Trek characters, but I do mind that we have next to nothing on the Congo Civil War. We can only cure Wikipedia of its systemic bias if people appreciate the problem. Why the hell does www.wikipedia.org redirect to en.wikipedia.org as if English takes precedence over all other languages? Why the hell is the article on Georgia located at Georgia (country) so as to avoid confusion with an administrative subdivision of the USA? I could go on but I'll spare you the moralising. I hope we can all see that Wikipedia is undoubtedly biased — embarrassingly so — and we should be doing our best to make it as international and as neutral as possible. Please don't be complacent about this wonderful thing we are creating for the world. It is currently full of flaws. — Trilobite (Talk) 12:09, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If you care to take a look at Georgia there are at least 10 articles which a user might expect to find under that name: it therefore makes sense for the disambiguation page to live there and the different pages to be distinguished with suffices of appropriate type. I would be a lot more impressed with the arguments being presented if one single complainer said anything like "hey, I know an awful lot about the Congo Civil War, I'll write it up", rather than expecting everybody else to go away and find out about it. If one is so damn interested in a subject, one is behoven to write an article on it oneself. --Phil | Talk 14:33, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

(note: reinserted comment in order to reply to it--Xed 14:05, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC))(1. Georgia is not an administrative subdivision of the U.S. 2. When multiple articles with significant numbers of hits (i.e., 75%/25%) have the same name, it makes sense to have a dab page, though it would also make sense to put the country at "Georgia" and have a link to the state at the top. 3. But there's no compelling reason to change the status quo. Wikipedia articles aren't an honor, they're a means of disseminating information. 4. The horse is dead. Please stop beating it.) --dreish 13:35, 2004 Sep 22 (UTC)

Jiang's comments on Talk:Georgia are hilarious. What strange company you keep.--Xed 14:05, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is the perfect illustraton, Xed, of why people are having a problem with you. If you disagree with what someone said, respond to their argument. Instead, you have a tendency to ridicule or otherwise not address the issue. Here, you're casting aspersions on Driesh's arguments based not on their own merit, but rather on who else agrees with them. Yes, Jiang said some pretty outlandish things on that page (though I suspect they were not said with a straight face), but that fact doesn't alter the truth/falsehood of the argument, does it? —Morven 15:45, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure there was an argument to respond to, which is probably Dreish originally deleted his post. Hope to see you on CROSSBOW. Love, Xed 16:08, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I also wanted to congratulate Xed on making a stand. One area where systemic bias is particularly worrying are borderline inclusion debates. Borderline techie/geeky topics are routinely kept as there is sufficient critical mass saying keep, whereas borderline articles in other areas get deleted. This systematic problem is not easy to resolve by just saying "so fix it then". It would require forcing people to think more deeply before editing vfd - a near impossible task. Pcb21| Pete 12:22, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps we can see a new law emerge here: 'The quantity of systemic bias in a system is directly proportional to the amount of bile raised in denying its existence.' Filiocht 13:27, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to the creation of Wikipedia:Articles that can do with a non-OECD perspective. There are a lot out there such as publicly funded medicine, primary education, newspaper, and history of Africa. - SimonP 16:05, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

A few thoughts...

1. Actually eliminating systemic bias in Wikipedia is impossible. There will always be considerable systemic bias in any compendium.
2. Attempting to alleviate such bias is a meritorious task.
3. Broadening the demographic involved in editing Wikipedia is an ideal approach.
4. Actually achieving such a broadening is extremely difficult; it requires some sort of affirmative action program -- perhaps ambassadors to online or off-line systems with different demographics might be helpful.
5. Determing which articles (or which absent articles) reflect a system bias in itself carries a systemic bias.
6. Words are critical. As mentioned above, at least some of the argumentation in this discussion stems from the confusion between "systemic" and "systematic"; the latter implies deliberate or negligent action or inaction, while the former is a general statement of the shortcomings of the system per se. This reminds me of heated discussions in another venue (The Well, where I was a conference host for many years) where a fellow with a particular hobby horse would every couple of years come out with a strong declaration of opposition to "bastardy", one meaning of which -- the meaning intended by the author -- is "begetting of illegitimate children"; but most readers reacted strongly to his proposals, conflating "bastardy" with "bastardry", "being an illegitimate child". One little letter. Now, the author knew full well such a confusion would ensue, and he was a bit of a troll at heart (as well as being CEO of Network Solutions), so presented the argument with language that he knew would cause excessive annoyance. I don't think Xed was deliberately trying to agitate with his choice of words, but it worked. I guess the message is "pay careful attention to the words being used" for the reader, and "pay attention to how people might incorrectly perceive your words" for the writer.
7. Some people are just too good at annoying other people. I'm reminded of the old Fidonet rule: "Don't be excessively annoying. Don't be too easily annoyed."

--Jpgordon 18:41, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A few thoughts from a very new visitor to wikipedia.

1. I agree that there will always be some bias in this or any other encyclopedia.
2. This is a self-organising system: as it grows it will become more and more difficult to shift it in any particular direction. It'll go where it goes.
3. Having said that, as a frequent visitor to Africa I think there's a lot to be said for taking steps to increase coverage from that continent - and from developing/emerging nations in general.
4. I like the idea of on-line and off-line ambassadors - is there anything like this now?
5. I suggest approaching people like librarians at the major universities in each 'under represented' country and that they be asked to recruit undegrads (or anyone else who can find the time) to help augment the coverage for their country.
6. other government organisations - like tourism authorities - could also be approached but may be more biased.
7. I'm happy to try to get the ball running in Tanzania - a country I visit from time to time.
8. I'd also be happy to attempt to write an outline, and informal job description for the 'ambassador' role - generally speaking their job would be to raise the profile of Wiki in their country and to encourage people to contribute. (I'd add that I'm from the UK, am not a 'techie' and have only just heard about the wikipedia - likewise most of the colleagues, relatives and friends I've just told about it!)
9. Comments anyone?

Jerry cornelius 11:54, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As a sidelight on this, I found the following on User:Jimbo Wales/Pushing To 1.0:

Britannica exists to support a particular canon, that being, the British and now American concept of "what history is." It is, for instance, light on the History of India, China, Africa, Latin America and figures of those cultures - one way Wikipedia can differentiate itself is to say that it is less Anglo-centric than Britannica. Build up an audience in developing nations who can really benefit from having a neutral encyclopedia — like in China where Wikipedia.org is banned, but they won't be able to keep all the CD-ROMs out. It may thus make sense to *focus on Chinese figures and history* deliberately. How can they keep out the only encyclopedia that does their history justice?

Filiocht 12:42, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As a relatively new contributor to Wikipedia, I soon noticed the systemic bias referred to by Xed and more eloquently described and explained by Jmabel. Although you certainly could argue that such a bias will be more or less unavoidable in an English language Internet-based open project, that's not really a valid argument for not discussing what could possibly be done about it. I fully agree with Jmabel that this is something that ought to be adressed in order to improve the scope and usefulness of Wikipedia. However, as many have already pointed out, this cannot and should not be solved by forcing people to contribute in areas they have no interest in contributing to. There are a number of constructive proposals that could be made, and although none of these might come anywhere close to being the complete remedy for this problem, they will most likely all be beneficial to a larger or smaller extent. In the following list, I'll try to summarise the proposals that I've been able to distinguish in the discussion above, adding my thoughts on them.

1. A section on the Wikipedia:Community_Portal page that deals with the issue, as proposed by Xed. Closely related to this idea are other suggestions proposing different types of lists of suitable articles for expansion, such as the creation of Wikipedia:Articles that can do with a non-OECD perspective, as proposed by SimonP.
2. Using the existing Wikipedia:Collaboration_of_the_week, Requests for expansion and Wikipedia:Requested articles, adding suitable articles for expansion to these pages, possibly including a comment on the "encyclopedia that Slashdot built" problem. To some extent this is already happening, which is something I find uplifting. This strategy might be used as an alternative to 1. in order to avoid partially overlapping pages, or together with 1. as a complement. I think I'd actually prefer the former, considering the number of "to do" pages already existing.
3. Intensifying the efforts to translate articles from other Wikipedias, as proposed by Jmabel. I think that in order to actually increase the number of translations made, something concrete must be done to encourage and facilitate the process, opening participation to people lacking the courage or language skills to complete this task on their own. One approach could be forming "translation teams" consisting of one person with fluency in the foreign language in question and a reasonable but not necessarily perfect grasp of English, and one person with fluency in English, working together on the translation of an article.
4. Trying to widen the contributor base by reaching out to people representing Wikipedia minorities, encouraging them to contribute. Jerry cornelius' idea, to approach university staff in under-represented countries is one way of doing this. I think this is an excellent proposal. This kind of outreach could be extended to under-represented groups in general, for instance by asking for a mention of Wikipedia, or even some free ad space, on community and organisational web sites and paper publications catering to such groups.
5. Forming a group of Wikipedians working with some or all of these tasks. I think this is a good idea, and I would be willing to participate.

There must surely be possible to come up with other strategies, and I'd like to encourage further creative thinking on this subject. Alarm 17:40, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

(moved from policy section)

What's there to deal with. Fanboys write long and detailed articles; we deal with that all the time on VfD. The Congo Civil War is very important, so the solution is to work on expanding it. Or do you suggest that we enforce caps on the size of articles according to their relative importance? --Ardonik.talk()^* 19:15, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

No, as I said I suggest a section on the Wikipedia:Community_Portal page to deal with this. The section would list articles which, if created/edited/expanded would counter-act the systemic bias.--Xed 19:25, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Who decides? :ChrisG 19:36, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Like what? Sure, Congo Civil War, but any other ideas? And what about the non-North American bias that would start to show? At what point should we begin refocusing on stuff we know more about? --Golbez 19:42, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

This is a very valid concern. Please note, however, that we can't (and shouldn't) twist editors' arms to force them to write about topics that don't particularly interest them. Certain subjects will always get more interested editors than others. For the time being, this is a fact of life. The long-term, general solution is to expand our userbase until we have experts (or at least interested amateurs) in all revelant fields and topics.

Also: there are several mechanisms in place to address this problem now. Formally, Wikipedia:List of encyclopedia topics and (to a lesser extent) Wikipedia:Requested articles are the primary mechanisms to fill holes. Informally, User:Mark Richards periodically posts The "Encyclopedia that Slashdot Built" Awards to the Village Pump as a method of constructive criticism to help solve blatant imbalances. I'd suggest talking to him if you want to make the process more formal. Also, Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week attempts to expand an article per week. The vast majority of COTW articles have been globally relevant. • Benc • 02:39, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have no connection to the Congo Civil War, I don't know anything about the Congo Civil War, and I don't even know where to find information about the Congo Civil War. I suspect this is true of many or even most people. Don't berate us for not writing about a topic they don't know anything about. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:29, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"geeky" articles are not competing with "serious" articles. because the encyclopedia is not published on paper. I still think the notion of this kind of bias is misguided. Every article should be taken at face value, without going to check if someone may have written a longer article about Babylon 5 somewhere. WP should try to attract people of other fields of expertise, but it's certainly not a solution to make people write about subjects they know nothing about. dab 11:25, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

May require multiple projects

It's become pretty clear to me that, despite some confluence, Xed and I have very different visions of the nature of the systemic bias. I'm taking the liberty of copying the key exchange:

An excellent map of media bias can be seem here, courtesy of Ethan Zuckerman. He has also written an essay which deals with many relevant issues. --Xed 02:04, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I suggest countries not on the Bottom 100 lists below should be ignored when choosing CROSSBOW subjects: (Xed, though unsigned; his list can be seen at [3]. It's interesting.)

• Do I understand the previous comment to mean that you feel this project should not be looking at neglected aspects of women's history, African-American history, etc.? -- Jmabel 03:21, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

Women exist in the countries below. And they certainly are very neglected aspects of women's history. And American history seems well within the bias zone. For focus, the crossbow should aim at the bulls-eye. --Xed 04:08, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

OK, since you are doing this in your personal pages rather than as a WikiProject, I guess you get to call the shots. Sounds like you will not be focused on areas where I have expertise, either in the subject matter or in whom we might recruit. I'll just duck out of this. Best of luck. -- Jmabel 18:40, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

I do strongly encourage people who have expertise or interest in, for example, Central Africa and Central Asia to work with Xed on this. Meanwhile, if anyone is interested in starting a WikiProject on African-American topics, or addressing the under-coverage of women's history in the Western world, plese get hold of me, I'd love to participate and might even have ideas about recruiting people. -- Jmabel 19:17, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

A notice board might be a good way to do this. Rmhermen 01:23, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to applaud Xed for starting and Jmabel and others for sustaining a thorough discussion on a topic I've brought up many times in the past without much success, for ex. here: Template_talk:In_the_news#Americocentrism. Wikipedia is indeed overwhelmingly biased in several areas and, what is equally bad or worse, overwhelmingly reluctant to examine the issue or work against it - witness all the knee-jerk "couldn't care less" or "don't blame me" or "fix it yourself" or "that's obvious" reactions, most of which are variations on a predictable theme; I personally concluded that it was pointless trying to prod the average Wikipedian into a little curiosity about the world or areas outside their specialities, and tried to continue making the occasional edit, but the issue can't be ignored as one keeps coming up against this 'wall' even in obscure articles. Someone pops in and decides they know what's best. They make a ridiculous edit. Edit is reverted. Revert war begins. Long explanations ensue and nothing much happens because the issue is reduced to a personal confrontation everyone loses interest in - I think the more knowledgeable Wikipedians are engaged in this crap most of their time here, which is pretty sad for them and pretty lousy for Wikipedia. So my question now is not about the bias itself, but: why is it so hard to implement a few simple decisions, even detailed templates where no brainstorming is required, to curtail obvious problems in Wikipedia? -- Simonides 23:20, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Whew! I agree with Xed in principle (though living in the new "Middle-earth" I have a built-in bias!!) and with many of the other contributors to this discussion. I support Jpgordon's recommendation that Wikipedia:Requests for expansion is a good part of the solution for people who agree with some of what Xed started. Maybe it deserves greater prominence in the various lists of things worth tackling; some current writers on TV program[me]s may become excellent writers about Africa and women and other under-reported subjects if given a nudge in that direction. Robin Patterson 01:20, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Shawn Mikula

For those who care, Shawn Mikula has posted babelfished stubs to non-english wikipedias (de, es, fr, it).

Added a note on de:. andy 16:26, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As I recall, Jimbo Wales has said harassment of Shawn Mikula must stop. I suggest you talk with him. --[[User:Eequor|ηυωρ]] 04:53, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's a long story. He created a vanity article, it was voted to delete, he argued with everyone. He eventually gave up, or said he did to Jimbo, on condition that he was deleted from a special collection of BJAODN. The page Shawn Mikula is recreated now and again, but is always speedied. Suggest you do the same over there, get a few admins to put it on their watchlists.

Oh yeah, if you want a laugh, look at his wife. She's a portly lady. Dunc_Harris|☺ 16:02, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Somewhat of a..."

I have always learned that constructions like "somewhat of a bore" are incorrect - in this case, "something of a bore" or "somewhat boring" would be correct. See for instance "Common Errors in English". I haven't found any sources supporting the "somewhat of a..." form, but I have a sneaking suspicion that it might be correct in the UK. Any comments? In the U.S. at least, "somewhat of a..." is often used but is considered incorrect.
Reuben 08:26, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Considered incorrect by who? And why should be listen to them? I would avoid these constructions not because they're wrong, but because they're a little bit informal, colloquial, and awkward. Also, they're a little too wishy-washy. But wrong? I think not. Nohat 08:43, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

One example is the New York Times, which puts considerable effort into its formal and traditional style. As I understand it, that's an important component of the encyclopedic style that Wikipedia aims for. Whether to talk about things being incorrect or just informal, colloquial, and awkward is more a question of philosophy than style. Careful U.S. sources seem to avoid using "somewhat" as a pronoun. What I'm wondering is whether this carries over to other parts of the English-speaking world. I have changed "somewhat" to "something" in a few articles, but will revert those edits if they are not appropriate. If the point of style I was applying is U.S.-only, then I certainly would not want to impose it on somebody else's text when copy editing. Reuben 09:27, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Nohat. "Somewhat" is wishy-washy, but not wrong. Nor is it a U.S. taste. The New York Times style guide has no entry for it. And the "something of" construction is not familiar to me. Maurreen 16:56, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Really? I don't have access to the NYT style guide, but I have always known them to avoid "somewhat of a." A quick check on their usage, from Google: "somewhat of a" (a few hits, mostly in direct quotes), "something of a" (very many hits). Thanks for looking it up in their style guide. Also, is there a better place in the Wikipedia to ask for comments on style? Thanks. Reuben 17:20, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Maurreen 17:39, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Disambiguating GFDL

GFDL is now a disambiguation page because it also stands for Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory. If you are in the habit of linking to this page when referring to the GNU Free Documentation License, I would suggest that you start using the full name instead, or at least an unambiguous redirect like GNU FDL. --Michael Snow 02:42, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• This should not be a disambiguation page. It should be using primary topic disambiguation. anthony (see warning) 16:08, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • GNU Free Documentation License is only the primary topic associated with GFDL in a navel-gazing, self-referential sort of way. For the average reader who has no familiarity with free software or copyleft licensing, there is no reason GFDL should go directly to one or the other. --Michael Snow 17:41, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

CD-ROM version of Wikipedia

I will not donate money to the Wikipedia project because I am waiting for the CD-ROM version of the database. I will almost certainly buy it. Stop begging for money. Wikipedia has a great product (database) that many people will gladly buy. Failure to pounce on this opportunity is one of the shortfalls of Wikipedia and open source projects in general: a horde of talented people will sooner spend hours arguying about some minutae on some dusty old article before doing something practical that will ensure a long-term source of funding for Wikipedia. Get to it. EDGE 15:21, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Actually plans are afoot to produce a cd rom. There are also discussions about a printed version. The foundation can't stop begging for money. It needs it! You don't have to donate any money if you don't want to though, although many people do. Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 19:45, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Interesting. You say we have a great product, and you then order us to abandon the very principles that have produced it.

The GFDL greatly limits our ability to make a lot of money out of the CD-ROM, as you seem to suppose we could. I hope you do buy a copy, I hope many will. But we will buy it partly as a donation, that is to say, we'll buy it from the Wikimedia Foundation rather than a third party (who is equally entitled to produce one under the GFDL) because we want to support Wikipedia and copyleft.

That raises a good point. I think we are both assuming here that there will be a first-world edition of the CD-ROM. I don't know whether that has even been discussed (Wikipedia is a big place). I think that there should be, but my suggestion is that the only difference should be the price, and that if first-world users decide to buy a third-world edition, there's no point in trying to stop them. Buying the first-world edition would be a moral decision, or if you like a thinly disguised donation.

I encourage you to remain radical. Lateral thinking is precious, and I think you are good at it. But I recommend you also respect those of us who are a little more conservative. We have a valid filtering role. We should challenge and inspire each other. Somewhere in between is a direction that is both idealistic and workable, which I will call good.

One of Wikipedia's principles has been to encourage Wikilove. Some of our regular contributors have yet to get the idea, and that's fine, respect for another person is a decision, not a contract. I encourage you to turn your idealism and lateral thinking to this sometime. What characterises good discussion? Some stress is good. Is some conflict good? Andrewa 18:06, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The idea of a CD-ROM version, with the attendant problem of what to include in such a static "snapshot" of the Wikipedia content, is discussed at User:Jimbo Wales/Pushing To 1.0. JamesMLane 12:32, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The foundation can't stop begging for money. It needs it! There are lots of ways to make money which don't involve begging. Selling CD-ROMs is one. Putting up text ads is a better one. If that text ad at the top of the page begging us to donate were a google text ad we'd already have the $50,000 we "need". anthony (see warning) 20:50, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There's nothing in the GFDL which states Wikipedia can't make money. Wikipedia is only required to include the full text of the GFDL and the entire article histories on the CDs. The Wikimedia Foundation may charge whatever it likes. The Wikimedia Foundation is limited only by its non-profit status, which means any surplus it receives may only be used to support Wikipedia's growth or distribution.

The Wikimedia Foundation has no particular reason to charge any specific price for a CD version of Wikipedia, nor much reason to use a single price for the same content. I would expect the price to initially only cover the cost of producing and distributing CDs, but this may be reduced in time. If Wikipedia receives enough donations, it may be possible to provide CDs at no charge.

"Overpriced" CDs should probably be offered along with the "cost of production" CDs. For example, Wikimedia might additionally offer CD sets priced at $10, $25, $50, $100, $250, or $500. Since the zero net value CD sets exist, these "prices" are clearly donations. --[[User:Eequor|ηυωρ]] 01:07, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"It should be noted..."

Do phrases like "It should be noted that..." or "An interesting note is..." have a place in encyclopedia articles? I see them all over the place. Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 17:41, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

This reminds me of Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms. If "it should be noted that...something", or "something" is an "interesting note" then that's why it's been included in an encyclopedia, and the reader doesn't need to have this fact spelled out. — Trilobite (Talk)

I kill them on sight, with the comment "POV phrase removed". -- Jmabel 17:53, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

• Agreed. I try to reword these wherever I see them. The same goes for any "As you can see..." or "We now have..." -- Wapcaplet 19:20, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I would also suggest only cautious use of the phrase "of course", and a virtual ban on the obscene adverb "obviously". — Jeff Q 04:10, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

When a good writer inserts "clearly," it serves as a marker to the reader, to look again at what might in fact not have been perfectly obvious at the first skim, but at second look is an utterly logical and natural consequence. Don't remove expressions simply because you don't like them. A good general rule: Avoid unnecessary interference. Wetman 06:22, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree 100%. There are situations where a "clearly", "of course", or even "obviously" is completely appropriate. If you put yourself in the position of a reader, you can probably make an intelligent decision as to whether the phrase is aiding readability as opposed to simply wasting space or imposing POV unnecessarily. This should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, not "solved" with simple knee-jerking. --Chinasaur 22:45, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I find that, in practice, "It should be noted, however..." is often the introduction to unsourced POV material. -- Jmabel 06:49, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

In which case, the problem is not the phrase, it's what follows. Remove POV material, but none of these phrases is POV in itself. Filiocht 07:55, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I disagree (and agree with the other comments here). Saying that something is "interesting", "clear" or "obvious" is very POV in many cases. —Rory ☺ 18:01, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

• Thank goodness this is not just me! I find these phrases pretty irritating, and they rarely add informational content. "It is important to remember that.." is another pet peeve. To express this type of information, it's much better to present facts that clearly indicate the importance or interest; it's just bad form to push your own evaluation of interesting on the reader, or to tell him what he ought to think. — Matt 08:06, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia is addictive. I should have gone to sleep 3 hours ago.

I must wake up early tomorrow morning. This is a bad omen.

Welcome to the club, son. →Raul654 05:25, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

Oh my gosh , seek help before it s too late..!!
1.We admitted we were powerless over alcohol wikipedia -- that our lives had become unmanageable.
2.Came to believe that a Power greater ......  :)--Jondel 06:12, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, just do an all nighter, no problem. I do it all the ti.... zzzzzzzzzz -- Chris 73 Talk 06:13, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

Geee, another one who didn't read Wikipedia:Wikipediholic early enough. The next meeting of the Wikipediholic Anonymous is next Monday :-) andy 08:09, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

... I'm still here. No point in going to sleep now; I must wake up in 2 hours. EDGE 08:11, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

Here in Tokyo, I'm going home. (Yes I've been drinking editing wikipedia at work.-- Help I can't stop --)I have a badminton game. I wish I could attend the Wikiholics Anonymous meeting but its a bit far and probably expensive (coming from Tokyo) . Need to read that 12 step program for wikipediolics.(finally a program for us!)--Jondel 08:43, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

has it occurred to anyone else that, while reading an online newspaper, when I come across a typo or a badly written bit, I instinctively want to reach for the "edit" link, before realising I can't? I spent far oo much time here, recently... dab 12:25, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, that happens to me too. I think sites like this one and some other forums I visit spoil me, now I am confused when I cannot change a (paper) magazine for everyone to see, or even provide feedback. I firmly believe that this is a new paradigm, for once using that word in a meaningful way. The Internet allows people to collaborate and interact in a two-way medium, instead of the traditional one-way of television and print publications. That is its greatest strength and one of its weaknesses, witness the rise of trolls, spam, and flamebait. Anyway, I am happy to be a part of the community and contribute in ways impossible even ten years ago. John Gaughan 16:18, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've definitely had moments of slight frustration when I've noticed unfortunate typos (one in an AP article, no less!) and was unable to make the necessary corrections. Wikipedia has spoiled me rotten though I'm not complaining. Spatch 16:55, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

How do you find the time to read articles elsewhere? Think of all the Wikipedia edits you could have made with that time you just wasted!  :-) —Mike 05:12, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

I once dreamed about editing an article. My dream was the screen. It scared the hell out of me, and I went on a brief wikivacation shortly afterwards. — Gwalla | Talk 17:52, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Image upload problem

I'm have a spot of bother uploading a revised version of a Jpeg image. I'm trying to upload it onto the same name as the original file. I get the file overwrite warning, but when I proceed anyway with the 'Save File' button, I get the error message

The file you uploaded seems to be empty. This might be due to a typo in the file name. Please check whether you really want to upload this file.

Is there a problem today, or am I doing something wrong? -- Solipsist 16:33, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Must be a problem of some sort. I now see that if I force a refresh, the file has actually changed to the new image, despite the error message. However the 'File History' section remains unchanged. -- Solipsist 16:52, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've had that exact problem a time or two. Still no clue why. Radagast 23:15, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

Adjacent suburb tables

You may or may not have seen any of the adjacent suburb tables floating around in the suburb articls of Melbourne (List of Melbourne suburbs Example Example). We over at the WikiProject Melbourne have been fiddling with the concept for a while, (and made a right mess of things - there are god knows how many versions in all the articles, but that's not the point). We've never questioned the usefullness of the compass-direction linking of suburbs, but we are obviously biased (having created the idea). My question is:

Are they useful?

Have a look at the examples and tell me if you think they are a useful navigational tool, or just eye candy, or not even that. (before we replace them all - again...)

T.P.K. 03:17, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

We use the same sort of thing for Canadian towns as well, so they are useful to some people I guess :) (However I know there were people who were opposed to using them there, I don't know if you got that for the Australian ones.) Adam Bishop 20:41, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes we did, but it seems like they'll survive. T.P.K. 16:12, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Request for Comment

The below is copied from Wikipedia talk:Bots. I request comments by editors and sysops at User talk:Orthogonal/Snowspinner Time-line by those reading [[User:Orthogonal/Snowspinner Time-line. -- orthogonal 00:50, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is, like almost everything orthogonal has said in recent memory, a bald-faced lie. Snowspinner 00:26, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

I wish you had not written that, Snowspinner, as it rather requires me to be explicit. at the risk of embarrassing you, here's where you agreed that my "bald-faced lie" was in fact a an accurate summary of your actions:

Snowspinner wrote: "My view is simple and accurately summarized by orthogonal. I believe that policy exists that is not written, and that the mere failure of a policy to gather community consent (As opposed to actively gathering community rejection) does not mean that it is not policy." (from Snowspinner's comment at [4])

"I should specify - I agree that I blocked Robert for a reason that is not explicitly allowed under policy, and that I did so knowingly." (from Snowspinner's comment at[5])

Details of Snowspinner's edit warring can be found here: [6].

Evidence of his removal of votes can be found here: [7]. Please note that Snowspinner removed opposition votes as being "too late", but did not remove supporting votes which were even later.

That Snowspinner apparently forgets that he did these things, within the last month (as I won't suggest he remembers them and is lying about them), further argues that he is incompetent to run a bot -- or to make any other important decisions for Wikipedia.

Persons wishing to examine Snowspinner's record more closely are invited to see User:Orthogonal/Snowspinner Time-line and its discussion page at User talk:Orthogonal/Snowspinner Time-line. -- orthogonal 00:50, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Doesn't this belong on RFC? I see no reason why this matter is being aired on the (I presume much more widely read) Village Pump except to make a bigger deal of it. -- Jmabel 02:58, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

Techically, it doesn't fit the RfC format, as I lack a second certifier. As a practical matter, since the allegation is of pervasive sysop abuse, I'd like to see it aired as widely as possible, as sysop abuse affects all users and the Wikipedia in general; RfC seems to be read primarily by sysops. -- orthogonal 03:02, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC) And by a small minority of sysops at that. -- orthogonal 15:42, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Links to online Bible verses

Is there a standard regarding this? Is it ever done on Wikipedia? Jayjg 23:22, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. The only advice I have is, look for an online Bible that you think will be around in a decade or two. I don't know which one that might be, although if there's an official Catholic Bible website, my money is on them. 8^) Fwiw, Wile E. Heresiarch 03:02, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

And for the King James Version of the Bible (i.e. without the Apocrypha), you can use Old Testament and New Testament and even the Bible Dictionary. They don't change their URLs every couple of minutes like Microsoft, so the URLs you provide should be reliable for years to come. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:27, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

A small, perhaps irrelevant note; the King James Version originally came with the Apocrypha, and most subsequent editions of it for the next three centuries kept them. Even today a number of editions of the King James Bible include the Apocrypha. Jayjg 16:36, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Should we standardise on a 'free' bible? Ie one that is not encumbered with copyrights? Intrigue 21:16, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That would be quite fitting with the philosophy of the project...while most of the older translations are public domain, they're also written in an old-fashioned English style. There is the World English Bible (World English Bible?), which is a free Bible translation into modern English.

Having said that, my feelings are that we should link to a site with an array of translations, if any, to offer the reader the widest possible choice (otherwise we really will ignite a holy war). Maybe a search on Bible Gateway, or to do something like we do with ISBN numbers, e.g., ISBN 0596001886. — Matt 09:20, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't think we have to have a "standard Bible" for Wikipedia. Just link to one that doesn't require $$$ or have pop-ups: simple as that. — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:08, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

People, there is Wikisource, an official Wikimedia project. You can find the King James Version at wikisource:Bible, English, King James, for example.--Eloquence*

Request for comments on bot proposal

I would like to draw attention to my bot proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Bots#Darbot_registration. The bot's purpose is to change articles so that they conform to the guidelines set forth at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Scientific_style. I was informed that, despite the fact that this bot will be changing articles so that they conform to the Manual of Style, a bot still needs community consensus to run.

Darrien 10:53, 2004 Sep 26 (UTC)

Dead Link on Help:Editing

In This section there is a dead link to MediaWiki User's Guide: Using tables. --Spundun 02:27, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The link should have been m:MediaWiki User's Guide: Using tables, which is now a redirect to m:Help:Table. Patrick has already fixed the link. Angela. 07:53, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

Template:Googletest

Template:Googletest is a template which implements the "popular usage" Google test. For example, {{googletest|Wikipedia|TheFreeDictionary}} ({{googletest|Wikipedia|TheFreeDictionary}}) compares the popularities of Wikipedia and TheFreeDictionary as seen by Google. {{googletest|ain-t|am-not}} ({{googletest|ain-t|am-not}}) compares the usage of ain't and am not. The template currently links to http://www.googlefight.com/ to perform the test; if a more professional site is known, please suggest improvements. Comments are welcomed at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#September 23. --[[User:Eequor|ηυωρ]] 22:20, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

quick photoshop job

Can I have the British Rail logo at http://www.brb.gov.uk/ specifically http://www.brb.gov.uk/images/br_logo.gif with a blue background rather than a red one and without the shadow please? Dunc_Harris|☺ 21:11, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Done. See Image:British Rail logo.png. Ðåñηÿßôý | Talk 02:18, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Can we manipulate trademarks before we upload them? ✏ Sverdrup 15:11, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Never mind manipulation, can we post trademarks at all? The trademark owner have strong opinions about exact colour, format and context, and it's copyrighted. You're probably safe posting a photo—that you took yourself in a public place—that includes the logo. I would expect grabbing a logo from a website, never mind the photoshop job, is almost certain to cause trouble. Sharkford 15:41, 2004 Sep 28 (UTC)

I believe logos are considered fair use, when they are not modified. And that's key - I don't think the image is supposed to be modified at all. Don't we have a copyright template for this, ((logo)) or something? --Golbez 15:52, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you're getting this idea that fair use precludes modifications for publication. In this case, the British Rail logo has a red background on some official uses and a blue one on others, so if done correctly it's the official colors anyway. —Morven 16:09, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

I got it from the page on logos. I'm not just talking out of my ass here. Wikipedia:Logos states, "Reasonable diligence should be taken to ensure that the logo is accurate and has a high-quality appearance. Common sense says that a logo displayed prominently on the corporation's own website should be OK to use, because it represents that company's wishes about how the logo is presented on computer screens at typical screen resolutions. Avoid resizing a logo—try to find one that is a suitable size. Do not use a resized logo if it doesn't look good." I always took this to mean, don't alter in any way. --Golbez 21:44, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

Not to be pedantic, but a trademark cannot be copyrighted. The two are very different. Intrigue 20:54, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sure, trade mark protection is different from copyright, but why can't a logo that is registered as a trade mark also be protected (as a graphical work) by copyright? Copyright only protects against copying, whereas registering the trade mark will also protect against someone using marks that are identical or similar and used for identical or similar goods, but which are not copies of the original. (All written from my understanding of a UK perspective - no doubt the US is different, and an intellectual property lawyer will correct me :) -- ALoan (Talk) 10:55, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

On signs at stations they have it red, but BR went through a corporate blue period in the 1970s and 1980s (e.g. [8]). BR no longer exists. Copyright is held by the British Railways Board, who seem to have no problem with it being reproduced, e.g. for transfers for models) Dunc_Harris|☺ 09:58, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Poker biographies

I've been working on biographies of notable poker players, such as those who have won the World Series of Poker main event and those in the Poker Hall of Fame. See Category:Poker players and User:CryptoDerk/poker if you're interested in helping out. If you think there are some notable players who don't have articles, feel free to add them or add them to the list on the subpage of my user page. If you think some of those players are non-notable, let me know too. CryptoDerk 20:50, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

Google Group

I have started a google group for wikipedia members -- Wikipedia Members. When you go to the link, sign in with your gmail/google account (if you have one) and you can join if you like... — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 19:15, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Are you aware of our mailing lists?--Eloquence*

Si, mi senor. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 03:49, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Unnecessary designation of place names

Example: Estes Park, Colorado Why do articles like this have to be suffixed with the State in the title? Insofar as I am aware, there are no other Estes Parks in the world, so is such designation necessary? It is especially unhelpful when trying to link via "Go". If there are more than one of a place, if there is an obviously well known one it can take the title and others can have a place designation (such as Paris and Paris, Texas) and if there is no consensus a disambiguation page would solve this. Dainamo 18:54, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm confused; Estes Park is a redirect to Estes Park, Colorado. What's the problem? I'm sure that when Rambot made the page, it didn't know that there was likely no other Estes Park, but it doesn't seem that big an issue. --Golbez 19:17, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

It was a conscious decision that all US and Candian cities would be city, state or city, province. That's US standard naming. RickK 19:47, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

User:Danny was kind enough to put the redirect in recently, and thus this example is solved, but the issue isn't confined to this example. When originally looking for Estes Park, I thought there wasn't and article. Ok searching solved that, but I think that we should be consitent in naming conventions and most place names that have no other namesake seem to do this. I must admit though, I didn't realise it was created by a Rambot, but surely such pages should be changed for the sake of convention in title names rather than making Redirects? It's not a problem I'm going to devote myself to if others don't agree, it's just my desire for logical uniformity in a single reference source. Dainamo 19:49, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's a matter of context. In the cases of locations, it has been decided that the context is contained in the article. Redirects should be made from the noncontextualized version to the contextualized, and not all those have been done yet. It's just the way it is here. It's also for uniformity; 99.5% of American cities are in the form "city, state". It would be jarring to have a large portion of those without the state, while others did. Using context in the title is not always for disambiguation, but sometimes for uniformity, as it is in this case. --Golbez 19:53, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

(via edit conflict) Same reason we have San Francisco, California or Chicago, Illinois. Not the greatest examples, since there are other meanings for each of those, but really, I agree with Golbez - it's not a big issue. Any search for or link to Estes Park will go to Estes Park, Colorado. As RickK points out, it's consistent with our other US city article names. -- Wapcaplet 19:51, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I acknowledge that North American convention does this, but this does not happen in other Encyclopedias where "Los Angeles" would be listed without California on the end and if wiki decides to be different in adopting the practice, fair enough, nut it should then apply to other place names such as London, England; Rome, Italy etc. but I think this is as unnecessary as applying the convention to US and Canadian places where not needed. Dainamo 19:59, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't other encyclopedias. And I agree - Certain large cities in the USA and Canada should probably be at non-contextualized names. Worth a vote on each city page individually. (i.e. Chicago and LA and SF might be worthy, but others might disagree on Dallas or Denver) But either way... that doesn't include Estes Park. And it's not a *huge* issue, though I really need to move Osaka, Osaka when I get the chance. :-P --Golbez 21:52, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

http://clix.to/dallas-scotland Dallas is the famous metropolis in Scotland, Boston is of course in Lincolnshire, England, as is New York, while Denver is in Norfolk. -- Arwel 23:27, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

And London is in Ontario and Paris is in Wisconsin ... twice. Your point? ;) --Golbez 23:54, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

Part of the reason we adopted this (beside the fact that it is standard usage) is to prevent having to argue which city is most important on hundreds or thousands of pages. Instead we nd up arguing over and over again why we adopted the procedure. Rmhermen 00:06, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

Except some cities (London, Paris) ARE being declared more important than London, Ontario and Paris, Wisconsin. And yeah, ain't it fun? :) --Golbez 00:18, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

Golbez, I repect anyone's point of view but saying "wikipedia isn't other encyclopedias" is a non argument. Wikipedia's content has always strove to "encyclopedic" (if that can be a word!) and if we are to make things easy for using this grand bod y of work a place name should either:

1. take us to the only article by that name
2. take us to a diambiguation page; or
3. take us to the most obviously used one (and incidentally I would include both Dallas and Denver in this!) where a disamibiguation is also seen - example Birmingham is a page that allready does this Dainamo 00:30, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This has also been discussed at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (city names). See in particular "American cities inconsistent with every other country". Angela. 04:30, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

Indeed. Nothing was ever resolved, however. There seemed to be somewhat of a majority in favor of revising the naming standards to some extent, but nothing was ever done about it, except moving the article on New York City to New York City (eventually). john k 04:37, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Maybe "Estes Park, Colorado, United States of America" would be safer. There was a recent debate on the :fr Wikipedia about how to distinguish the two tiny villages of "Châtillon (Jura)" (in the French department of Jura) and "Châtillon (Jura)" (in the Swiss canton of Jura) :-) --French Tourist 09:52, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

One example of the city,state system running into problems is Kansas City (the main one of course) being split across Kansas City, Kansas and Kansas City, Missouri. While it might be a bistate city politically, it is a clumsy way of writing what should be a merged article on the same place. I note also many of the points that are made in favour of consistency on the previous discussion pointed out by Angela above as well as the naming conventions of other encyclopedias. While we seek to change any such conventions where they both improve and are applied consistently, I do not see either of these criteria being met in the city,state method where diambiguation is not required. The Rambot usefully created the articles but, a with all things wiki, there is no reason why we cannot seek to edit the results if a consensus on this can be reached. Dainamo 10:25, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The city, state convention saves editors familiar with it a lot of time, and conserves Wikipedia bandwidth, because, for example, if I am writing about an author born in Topeka, Kansas, I can link Topeka, Kansas, knowing I am linking directly to the article I want, instead of having to check the target article to see if someone has deemed it notable enuf to be at Topeka. Niteowlneils 03:00, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

However, in that case, there should always be SOMETHING at Topeka. Whether a city page, a redirect, or a disambig -- there should be something. —Morven 05:32, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

I agree 100%. I've created several redirs and disambs in those cases myself--sometimes ones that I just happened to discover were missing, and sometimes I've just entered city names out of one of my US road maps to specifically check for missing entries. Niteowlneils 03:23, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Formatting, particularly verse, drama, etc.

It is somewhat difficult to get material such as verse or drama quotations formatted pleasantly, particularly when there is a pattern of indenting to preserve. There seems to be no Wiki-markup intended for this purpose. I've had the best luck inserting appropriate numbers of HTML nbsp's at the start of lines, or, for evenly indented material, preceeding each line with a single wiki-colon.

But I find that my well-meaning efforts only survive for a month or so before some editor changes it, typically either by invoking an HTML "pre" tag, or by replacing my leading HTML nbsp's with ordinary spaces.

Thus,

BATTERED SOUL: I'm a pacifist.

GOD: A what?

BATTERED SOUL: A pacifist. I believe in Jesus and peace.

GOD: So you are a Christian?

BATTERED SOUL: O, no. I really do believe in peace.

becomes

:BATTERED SOUL: I'm a pacifist.
:GOD: A what?
:BATTERED SOUL: A pacifist. I believe in Jesus and peace.
:GOD: So you are a Christian?
:BATTERED SOUL: O, no. I really do believe in peace.

and

  He reads but he cannot speak Spanish,
    He cannot abide ginger-beer;
  Ere the days of his pilgrimage vanish,
    How pleasant to know Mr. Lear!

becomes

He reads but he cannot speak Spanish,
  He cannot abide ginger-beer;
Ere the days of his pilgrimage vanish,
  How pleasant to know Mr. Lear!

In my browsers (IE and Safari for Mac OS X) the former look reasonably OK, while the latter are displayed in a not-very-readable monospaced font within a distracting tinted box.

Why do editors make these changes?

1. Some people prefer the look of not-very-readable monospaced text within a distracting tinted box?
2. In some browsers, the latter actually look better than the former?
3. Some people feel that the use of any HTML entities is an indication of newbie or un-Wiki-professionalism and should be changed to something more Wiki-idiomatic on general appearance?
4. Some other excellent reason that I don't understand?

[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 15:29, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Pre blocks look extremely awful here: monospaced fonts, a tinted box, no wrapping, etc.. I don't see why they would use it. On the other hand, nbsps are not intended for spacing either: can't that be done with two levels of colons? You could of course put in a HTML comment like <!-- please leave the following markup intact -->. {Ανάριον} 15:55, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I suppose the variation in editor preference when it comes to formatting these stems from a lack of any reliable, semantically correct markup for creating such indentation. The use of leading colons for indentation, as is ubiquitious on talk pages, is currently the best way of achieving the right appearance, but is in my opinion about the worst way in terms of semantic meaning, since it is converted to a (nested) definition list (dl) with no terms (dt) - a totally wrong semantic approach in almost all situations where it's currently used. One can imagine an ideal world in which XML allows us to create a "poetry" element, displayed as blocks of text with just the right indentation, but we don't yet live in that world. The use of concurrent   entities works, but is ugly; I can understand why many editors would use the pre syntax, since it leads to prettier code (but often to uglier articles). The issue has been briefly mentioned on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Poetry, I brought it up a long time ago on m:Talk:Wikipedia accessibility, and several others have no doubt raised concerns about it. Maybe the best we can do for now is agree upon which is the lesser of evils, and try to standardize on it. -- Wapcaplet 16:21, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm with you, Dpbsmith, I think using <pre> for verse looks terrible. I think the reason most people change your formatting is reason #3. They think they're simplifying it (which they are, in a somewhat less-than-helpful way). What we really need is a standard <verse> wiki markup tag that would work like <pre> without the fugly formatting. Feature request, then, I guess. • Benc • 17:59, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I actually don't like anything but monospaced fonts on computer screens... but I know I'm in the minority there, (doesn't it bother you people that 'w' is like, fifty times wider than 'i'? ;-) ). However, the box around the monospaced text is really annoying. I don't understand it's purpose. For the purposes of showing programing syntax, the fact that it's indented and in a different font should be more than enough to visually offset code from regular text. func(talk) 20:27, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I really like the border-and-box surrounding pre text. Most of the time it's used for showing code samples or similar things, and it seems like a perfect way to separate that from the rest of the text. It's almost like a little miniature blackboard, where the WikiProfessor writes out examples. Only when used for arbitrary indentation or text alignment does it look strange to me. I guess if you don't like it, you could disable it with your user stylesheet (and by the same token, if it's ever disabled by default, I can turn it back on in my stylesheet, cuz I think it's cool). -- Wapcaplet 01:06, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I generally use <blockquote><blockquote> for the beginning of a section of verse and, of course, </blockquote></blockquote> for the end of it. But each line must then end with a <br> or <br\>. This is a kludge, pending some better Wiki or XML markup, but I think it a reasonable one. A more complicated approach would be a three-column table with one row centered horizontally in the article with invisible borders, with only a fixed number of no-break spaces approxminating a double indent in the two outside cells and with all the lines of text in the central cell. The Wikipedia use of colons for indenting is flawed for article use as it indents on the left side only, not on both sides. Jallan 18:47, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Edits I've Made... How many?

I have seen people post that they have x edits, and their nth edit was y.

I would like to figure out how many edits I have without setting the thing to a large number (or small number) and trying to get to the last page, figure out the offset (which isnt too incredibly difficult), then figure out if i'm supposed to start on 200 or 201 when i count, and count up and know it's either one or two things. I've looked in statistics and other possible places and I have no real idea, whatsoever. I did actually try the method once but wasn't sure if I was starting count on edit xx0 or xx1. --TIB (talk) 04:07, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

As you say, use your contributions page, then hit (next 50), and edit the URL with a likely number in the "offset" part until you find the end. I make your edit count just over 440. If you're in the top 1000 contributors, you can get a recent count from List of Wikipedians by number of edits. You'll need more than 690 edits before you get on this list, and that number is rising all the time.-gadfium 04:24, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps this is obvious, but considering how often people want to know this, it'd be great if it were more easily available. That said, our tendancy to judge contributors by their edit count is a bad idea — a contributor that writes 100 articles from scratch and uses preview might have only 100 edits but have made a stronger contribution than many of us. Perhaps we should be supplied a whole list of statistics judging the total value of our contributions. This would be especially useful in Wikipedia: Requests for adminship. Derrick Coetzee 04:33, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A developer or anyone with sql access can run a query to find your edit count on request. There is no feature to automatically do this in the current MediaWiki and I don't think there will be due to database strain. There is, however, the csv, a raw-data list of all users' edits from all wikis. See here for instructions on how to interpret the csv. It's updated weekly. Ðåñηÿßôý | Talk 05:27, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I would think such a feature would be relatively easy to implement if the user's edit count is stored (redundantly) in the user table, incremented whenever the user makes an edit. Then again, I haven't really looked at the code in much detail. And redundancy is generally bad within a single database copy. And we don't need to encourage edit counting. • Benc • 06:11, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The exact edit count _can_ be returned very quickly using a SQL query. User:Kate has created a script on the server, which developers can use to get at the edit count very quickly. You should ask her about it.. — David Remahl 15:44, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

On a tangential note, edit counting is generally a bad thing. No one (ideally) should judge you by your number of edits, so don't worry about what and when your nth edit was unless you're simply curious. :-) • Benc • 06:06, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Apparently the data for all users is available <aexternal free">http://www.wikipedia.org/wikistats/csv/StatisticsUsers.csv">here</a>. anthony (see warning) 11:19, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the total, according to the server, may occasionally decrease, so it makes little sense to say "my nth edit was y". n changes mainly due to articles being deleted. --[[User:Eequor|ηυωρ]] 01:53, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Donation

I seriously would make a donation to Wikipedia, it is such a good project -- but I am only 13 :(. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 03:26, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I assume your problem is that you are not able to make a credit card payment. You could either pursuade someone with a credit card to pay for you, or possibly pay via money order, wikimedia foundation probably accept them. Or, you could get a debit card, since you don't have to be over 18 to get one. Darksun 10:01, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I would assume the problem is that, you know, he's 13! No job, should be saving up for college, and all that. Ilyanep: stay in school, don't do drugs, and don't worry about Wikipedia's finances. (What the... Ilyanep is only 13???). Today happens to be my payday. I will contribute for both of us, (um... symbolically, still the same amount of money I was going to use in the first place ;-) ). func(talk) 14:03, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Bah. When I was 13 I was working 26 hours a day down the mines, and paying the owner to work there! :P But money isn't the only way to contribute to wikipedia, it's no good if wikipedia has money and noone to contribute articles :) Darksun 20:33, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Only 13!?! How do you get all your homework done? You seem to be a very active participant! In any case, it can be argued with a bit of truth that donating time is more (at least, just as) important than donating money. -Vina 23:35, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If Wikipedia had been around when I was 13, I would probably have vandalized it, (sad but true). I am convinced that most of the nefarious and infamous vandals around here are no older than about 16, (I consider it a near certainty that Mr. Treason is in high school). func(talk) 23:50, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What is a debit card and is it true you don't need a bank account to get one? How? Where? When? The bad thing is I'm in Ireland so nearly all online services aren't available to me :'(. To those who are suprised at llanep being 13, there are many good editors (some sysops or higher) who haven't hit their mid teens. I'm 14, and to the best of my knowledge, Mike Storm's only 12 or 13 and the same with ugen64. Plus some other's that I can't remember. JOHN COLLISON | (Ludraman) 13:34, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC) (PS, I was thinking of donating with my parents credit card :-)

PPS - Vina was wondering how llyanep gets his homework done. With me - I don't! I hope he cares more about his studies than I do because now I'm at the stage where all my study is wikipedia!

Well, you could do a lot worse, believe me! Ideally you would do your homework, learn from it, and when appropriate, contribute to WP what you've just learnt :) -- Solitude 12:43, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

Ilyanep, Ludraman, Mike Storm...? Amazing. The Web didn't pop up until I was a few years out of high school. You kids just make me feel very old, (I'm only 32!). ;-) A debit card is directly linked to a bank account. Unlike a credit card, where you are essentially getting an instant loan, a debit card transaction immediate takes funds out of your bank account. It is essentially the same as an ATM card, but can be used at places other than ATM machines. func(talk) 15:12, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Query?

Has the way links appear changed recently? i.e. weren't all links underlined? If this is the case a.) can i change it back on my screen and b.) where can i protest the change? I suffer from colour-blindness and find it very difficult to see the red links amongst the black text. [[User:Dmn|Dmn / Դմն ]] 23:54, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Looks like links are underlined for me right now. Which css are you using? anthony (see warning) 00:03, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If you go to your preferences page (in the monobook skin, it's the link titled "preferences" at the top of the screen), and click on the "Misc. settings" tab, you should be able to check a box to underline links. Though how the box was unchecked in the first place, I wouldn't know. Anthony may be right that this is a css problem, if you've altered your monobook.css page at all. Also, I seem to recall that, under the classic skin (I think), there was a user setting that prevented stubs from being underlined, but that may be my poor memory. Jwrosenzweig 00:24, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I didn't alter the settings or the monobook.css. However the links have just changed back to their old form by themselves. Nevermind. Thanks for you help[[User:Dmn|Dmn / Դմն ]] 01:03, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have my box unchecked and I'm still getting underlined links. It never did this until a few minutes ago. I even tried to clear my cache, but it didn't help. Is someone working on the css or system? I tried switching skins and it looks like this problem only happens with the MonoBook skin. —Mike 04:25, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

This has happened to me a couple of times. I found that switching my preferences to not underline links, then switching back and forcing a refresh fixing the problem. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 18:08, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Deletion precedent?

Quick announcement--should major-party candidates for national government (e.g. U.S. Congress, British Parliament, Japanese Diet, etc.) be article subjects, assuming they're not expected to win and aren't notable for other reasons? Weigh in at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Adam Smith (KY politician). [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 21:38, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

• Seems like this was only listed on VFD because it was a copyright violation. It should have been listed on Wikipedia:Possible copyright infringements, and the rewrite should have been put on a temp page. anthony (see warning)
• Actually, I'm the one who listed it. When I did, it contained nothing but a campaign piece (probably cut and pasted from the candidate's own site), which was clearly not encyclopedic. I wouldn't have listed it in its current form. --Jpgordon 01:02, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • We have Wikipedia:Cleanup for situations like this. Read the deletion policy. anthony (see warning) 03:00, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Notifications of planned down time

Wikipedia was virtually unuseable from Tuesday evening (Pacific time) through most of Wednesday; if it even responded to my SAVE attempts (and didn't give me an error message), it took at least 5 minutes before the save took effect. When I brought this up on the English language mailing list, Anthere said that there was planned maintenance going on. If people are planning on doing maintenance which is going to majorly impact the useability of Wikipedia, could they please let us know in advance? Thanks. RickK 18:50, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

Duplicate date on Anniversary section of Main Page

The Main Page says "Recent days: September 29 – September 28 – September 28" at the bottom of the "Selected anniversaries" section. PhilHibbs 12:36, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've changed it to "Recent days: September 29 – September 28 – September 27". 66.167.235.209 15:23, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Cleanup

Cleanup is seriously full. (See Wikipedia:Cleanup/Leftovers) This is not a problem that has been building up for very long, it is a problem with the concept of cleanup. There are too many improperly formatted articles submitted to cleanup for the amount of people working on it. I don't have a solution that would be acceptable to many people, but that list is overwhelming. - [[User:Cohesion|cohesion ☎]] 09:14, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps a category structure similar to the one now in use for stubs would help? Andrewa 22:15, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Has it helped for stubs? anthony (see warning) 23:00, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In reply to Anthony, it's a bit early to call, it's a long term strategy. And it will be difficult to call anyway. We only have one Wikipedia, so we can't say what would have happened had we followed some other route. I admit I've made little personal use of the stub categories as of yet, but IMO this is the sort of direction in which we need to be headed. Wikipedia's growth shows no sign of levelling off. This is one strategy for dealing with that growth. Andrewa 00:24, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Help request

I'm working on a page which explains the western land claims surrended by the original Thirteen Colonies in the early years of the American republic. As I've researched, it's become clear to me that there would be no better way to do this than to have a map. Is there anyone out there who knows how to do this, has software which is helpful, digs cartography or knows where I can find a public domain version of this material? I've found several examples on the web. My vomit draft of the page--did I mention it was a vomit draft?--is at User:Jengod/State_cessions. Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks.

• State claims 1
• State claims 2
• State claims 3
• State claims 4
• State claims 5
• State claims 6

User:Decumanus is reputed [9] to be a map whizz. Could ask him/her. --Tagishsimon

2001 invasion of Afghanistan

I tried asking this August 8 at Talk:Global protests against war on Iraq so I'm trying here: Is there any article similar to Global protests against war on Iraq with respect to protests against the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan? MathKnight and I have covered some of this ground in Post-September 11 anti-war movement, but that might not be the best place for some of this. -- Jmabel 00:51, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

There was less protest, so there's probably no separate page. National entities which were able to sell reactors to Iraq and whose leaders were able to profit from the "Oil for Food" money laundering scam protested less about Afghanistan, as there was no money to be made there. Things might have been different if the U.N. had started an "Opium for Food" program. - Émpire

In the UK there was opposition from the communists (a small but very organised and very vocal minority) and some Muslims, and some pacifists to the Afghanistan Campaign. In contrast the Iraq War was opposed by major a political party (the LibDems, with the SNP and Plaid Cymru, and certain sections of the Labour Party. In London, a million people marched against the War -- opposition was popular rather than coming from those who profited from money laundering, as suggested. The communists did take it upon themselves to organise everything. Once Iraq started, everyone forgot about Afghanistan anyway, so it's probably worth mentioning in the background section rather than having its own article. Afghanistan also put together the for the first time the alliance of the Muslims and the communists. Dunc|☺ 12:05, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Announcing the creation of the U.S. Southern Wikipedians' notice board

A few of us have gotten together and made a our notice board to coordinate efforts and inform each other. If you're interested, just sign up at Wikipedia:U.S. Southern Wikipedians' notice board. Y'll come join us, ya hear? [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 22:00, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

Is there a page listing the various notice boards? How many are there? I see Irish, Australian and Malaysian. Rmhermen 23:22, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:List of Wikipedian notice boards. Mike H 05:55, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

The Thai notice board was forgotten there - but it was created just 2 days ago anyway :-) andy 07:58, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Do you have to eat grits and have a double-barrelled christian name to join? ;)Dainamo 00:56, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Watchlist problems

My watchlist has just reverted to the version from 6:55:15 (last change shown). Anyone else having problems out there? Filiocht 12:26, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I am seeing a similar "blanking" of my watchlist. - UtherSRG 13:49, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Seems fine now. - UtherSRG 14:38, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My watchlist is not being updated at all since 02:05:27.--Etaonish 14:41, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

Mine is coming and going, always reverting back to 6:55:15 when not up to date. Filiocht 14:45, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Another thing I noticed is that it says "In the time period selected below, users have made all edits to articles". Strange. Nor^m 14:48, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Yes - I'm having trouble with my watchlist too! If I select "last 12 hours" it sort of works. If it's set to 1 day, it loses the Sept 30 changes. What's going on? Krupo 17:45, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

• • The Simpsons article is also having problems with its history - unable to do a revert. Krupo 17:50, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

Friends of Robert

Could someone who is not involved with circumcision and related articles please review recent contributions by Friends of Robert? In my opinion some of his comments to Theresa Knott and Acegikmo1 cross the line of what is acceptable behavior at Wikipedia. -- DanBlackham 06:51, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My only involvement in this dispute was to involve theresa's views on Robert's RFC, and from what I can see here, there seems to be enough to warrant an RFC for further investigation. Hopefully this can be resolved amicably, as Friends of Robert seems to be slightly more cordial, but as obstinate as Robert, sadly. Johnleemk | Talk 13:14, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm 99% certain that friends of Robert is Robert Brookes. He slipped up almost from the word go, by using the same phrasing etc and he has continued to make the same slips as time has gone on.User:Jwrosenzweig is trying to talk to him on his talk page. Let's hope that he is sucsessful. Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 17:52, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Given his most recent comment to me, while I am continuing to attempt dialogue, I would not call myself optimistic that progress will be made. If Friends of Robert changes the way he chooses to talk to and about other editors, there is more hope: we shall see. Jwrosenzweig 22:52, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have given up. I don't know if anyone was waiting to see what progress I coudl make, but if you were, I'd move on to whatever plan is next. Thanks, Jwrosenzweig 23:29, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please note that he is now using the username Robert the Bruce Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 05:16, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've asked him if he is willing to go to mediation. Let's hope he agrees. Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 08:33, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

He's refused User talk:Robert the Bruce Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 05:41, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Robert Brookes, AKA Friends of Robert, Robert the Bruce, et cetera, now blanks pages.

Ŭalabio 05:01, 2004 Oct 8 (UTC)

Let's assume good faith. There have been technical issues that caused section deletion and page blanking before. Rhobite 05:20, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Split infinitive

...is currently today's featured article on the main page; also listed on featured article candidates and featured article removal candidates (see the talk page). Go figure (boldly, where no man/one has gone before).

(PS - this page is now 248k long, somewhat in excess of the 32k guideline - presumably some of it could be archived?) -- ALoan (Talk) 22:02, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Vexatious and political use of VFD

While the deletion reform movement is still in stalemate, I'm more than a little worried about the increasingly political use of VFD to make political points and escalate edit wars. Does anyone have any bright ideas on stopping this? Mark Richards 17:42, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Good question. Practice wikilove. Attempt to follow existing policies even if they seem wrong, they often make more sense than you think. Relax. Enjoy all your editing including VfD, and take a Wikibreak anytime this gets too hard. Find some uncontroversial subject with a reasonable amount of work needed and return to it regularly. Intentionally visit controversial areas whenever you feel strong enough to help. Never take responsibility for anything you can't control. Pray for those who don't seem capable of any of the preceding if prayer is your thing.

Nothing will stop abuse of VfD, but these measures will IMO stop long-term escallation of it.

You'll notice I don't say anything above about fixing rules or procedures. IMO the worst rules will work with goodwill, and the best will fail without it. And as I said before, the rules aren't as bad as some think (although personally I would still like to make some improvements...!). Andrewa 21:05, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm relatively new here, and have spent some time working on fairly obscure topics. I couldn't find anything in the guidelines about how notable something has to be, and am honestly pretty disheartened. I know that my Stephen Bishop (cave explorer) page will get less than 400 Google hits, and feel pretty sure that someone is going to try to list it for deletion sooner or later. I thought that part of the joy of this site was being able to really dig deep into articles that hardly anyone would ever see, so that, if only one person is ever interested in who this person was, the information is there. I'm seriously thinking about stopping contributing because of the immense amount of energy that some people seem to be putting into tearing things down that, yes, are not mainstream, but are of interest to some. Intrigue 21:24, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I can't see why that article would be deleted; it's notable, it's very well written, and I've learned something from it thanks to you mentioning it. This is why I enjoy hitting Random sometimes, just to see all the unknown things already on Wikipedia. And it's now on my watchlist, so if anyone wants to delete it, they'll have to go through me. :) --Golbez 21:50, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

An obscure topic is not necessarily uncontroversial, as you have discovered. Work on obscure topics by all means, but my strong advice is still to find something uncontroversial to work on as well. People who work only on controversial articles don't often stay.

Reducing this sort of frustration was the whole reason for establishing the what's in, what's out page. There has also been a more recent attempt to establish a precedents page, which is a similar idea IMO. Sadly (to me) nobody has yet thought enough of either of them to include them in the VfD front matter, but it may still happen. The beauty of Wikipedia policies is that there are so many to choose from (;-> so WIWO was established to try to indicate actual practice not policy.

Anyway, a look at WIWO might give you some ideas for new articles that others think are in and which would interest you. Andrewa 01:45, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Take a look at what actually happens on VfD. Most of the articles that get listed get deleted, and most of them are deleted because they are very poor articles. I think the general disagreement between what might be called the "inclusionist" and "deletionist" factions is that inclusionists argue that keeping such articles does very little harm, and that they are seeds which others will expand into good articles; on the other hand, deleting them results in "biting the newbies." Deletionists judge differently. I would be astonished to see Stephen Bishop (cave explorer) listed for deletion, and stunned if it were actually delete as a result. It is not typical of the kind of page that lands on VfD. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 20:19, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I too would be astonished if an excellent article like Stephen Bishop (cave explorer) were ever nominated for VfD. For a minor historical personage, 400 Google hits is far, far more than sufficient. For many historical personages Google hits are not relevant at all. People know this. Generally the arguments on notability on VfD are about articles on people still living or on current events, not on the figures and events of the past (except when the article seems to be a hoax or there is some very strong POV involved or when it seems to be only genealogical vanity). There's a great difference between something being little-known but quite suitable for an encyclopedia article and something being non-notable or unencyclopedic. Jallan 21:27, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Article split

What shuld be done with a page that should be split? Prosimian has grown to be more about Strepsirrhini. I'd like to split the article in two. Should I cut-and-paste the majority of the text to Strepsirrhini, even though that detaches the majority of the text from its history? Should I move the page itself and then cut-and-paste the smaller amount? - UtherSRG 07:05, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Your first option sounds most reasonable. Just include the name of the page you are moving from/to in your edit summary. —Mike 03:16, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

Help with user 12.151.135.2 and Boston opera company edits

User 12.151.135.2 has since Sep 27th, made several (in my view) Inappropriate edits to Grammy Award for Best Classical Performance, Operatic or Choral, Boston Lyric Opera, Opera Boston, Opera Company of Boston. I've reverted changes to Grammy Award for Best Classical Performance, Operatic or Choral (because the content added didn't pertain to the article) and to Boston Lyric Opera (because of POV). The edits to Opera Boston and Opera Company of Boston are more problematic, I think they contain useful (but probably POV) content, so I don't want to simply revert them, but I'm not competent to edit them. Can someone help out with these two articles? As for user 12.151.135.2, I don't think he or she is a vandal, just someone unfamiliar with Wikipedia standards and practices who could probably do with some friendly advice. Paul August 15:50, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

Ok now 12.151.135.2's edits are beginning to look more like vandalism. I've reverted Boston Lyric Opera twice and that user has again removed all content about the opera company. Paul August 21:45, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

I've just used-up my third revert on Boston Lyric Opera. Should I refer this to Wikipedia:Vandalism in Progress? Paul August 21:58, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

Absolutely! There's no big need to sit and wait. If you see it happening, report it. - UtherSRG 03:10, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Kicking this legal threat upstairs

In the article Tony Robbins, there is/was the following text:

"Controversial issues regarding Tony Robbins:

• In 2001 Robbins was divorced from his wife Becky. This disturbed some who had read his books (one of which is dedicated to her) and listened to his cassette programs, since both liberally dispense advice on how to have a happy marriage relationship. Robbins has, however, advocated that if one is truly unable to be happy in a marriage, one ought to improve it - possibly by leaving.

• Dreamlife.com, a company founded by Tony Robbins failed and went bankrupt. This obviously shocked some who depended on Robbins for business and investment advice."

I am not the author of this text; it is part of the earliest version given on the article's history page, dated May 29, 2003 with author Jpb1968; I do not know if that was its creation date, or if it goes back further still. The last sentence of the marriage topic was added more recently, again not by me.

This text was block-deleted by an anon on Sept. 22 and I reverted it back in. It was anon-block-deleted again this morning, Sept. 27, and I reverted it again. It was then immediately deleted again, this time by a new user, User:RRIESQ, who called it false and defamatory, and put this on my talk page:

"Mr. Gary D:

You are requested to contact the Law Office of Lavely & Singer PC (310-556-3051 x247) with regard to defamatory content on wikipedia that you repeatedly have restored, and therefore posted, after deletion by our office on behalf of our clients. If you do not respond, formal action shall be required. Thank you. Lavely & Singer P.C."

I suspect this may be part of the the new-found attention WP has gained from the AP article about it that was posted on Yahoo. I have verified that Lavely & Singer is really a law firm in Century City, a toney section of Los Angeles, with about seventeeen lawyers. I know WP is very sensitive about legal threats, so I'm kicking this upstairs for whatever you want to do with it. --Gary D 22:15, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

cc:Jimbo Wales' user page

Jimbo is aware of this. He's just been talking to the lawyer on the phone. Angela. 22:52, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

You are requested to contact the law office; they are requested to state why they blank sections of a page next time. Their move. --Golbez 05:10, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

September 11, 2001 attacks

Someone moved this page (again) without discussion, leaving numerous double redirects. I would tried to return it but fear losing the edit histories. The undiscussed issue is whether it should be September 11, 2000, attacks or September 11, 2001 attacks. Rmhermen 17:18, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

Why would anyone want to call it "September 11, 2000, attacks"? It happened in 2001. Did you mean "September 11, 2001, attacks"? — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:31, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, of course, but I wonder why anyone would call it September 11, 2001, attacks. Rmhermen 22:03, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

It is interesting that the word "attacks" is attached to the article's title. The event is infamous for being most commonly referred to by only its date of occurance. In the U.S. especially, most people, including the national newscasters, often just say "9/11", ("nine, eleven"). Of course, this obviously wouldn't work in the U.K., where the typical day/month order is different. func(talk) 14:04, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The day had a lot of other things going on that day. 9/11 and everything else redirect to the attacks article; the article is about the attacks, not the day. --Golbez 14:28, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

I bet there were a lot of other "attacks" on that day, too. Maybe we should call it September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City, USA and on the Pentagon in Washington DC and on an aircraft which crashed in Pennsylvania, the state which is located in the United States of America, Earth? anthony (see warning) 18:45, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Someone forgot to make that a redirect?! ;-) Jwrosenzweig 20:28, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Even though day/month and not month/day is standard in the UK, "9/11" is universally understood and often used on news broadcasts. In fact "11/9" is never used to refer to the events of that day. Just thought I'd mention it... -- Avaragado 20:27, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Same in Australia, where we use the British system of dates. 9/11 has conversationally come to mean September 11, even though 10/11/2001 means the 10th of November 2001 and 9/12/2001 would be 9th of December 2001. 9/11/2001 is probably ambiguous or context-dependent, but 11/9/2001 would be the 11th of September 2001, quite unambiguously. Such are the curious ways of language. Andrewa 01:15, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ambiguity is why I advocate big-endian sort order: 2001/09/11 23:59:59:999 06:00 :) func(talk) 01:27, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Adopting any convention ends ambiguity. Adopting a big-endian sort order is just like adopting any other convention: it's not in itself unambiguous. - Nunh-huh 01:37, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I was just making a funny, of course, but it is less ambiguous. To the best of my knowledge, no nation or culture starts their dates off with the year, so when one encounters a date that begins with a 4 digit number, it is a near certainty that it is yyyy mm dd etc., and that it was put in that order for some computer- or sorting-related purpose. func(talk) 02:01, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it's a common convention - but it's a convention nonetheless. - Nunh-huh 02:52, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In answer to Rmhermen's question: I'm guessing that it's because some people feel that the commas in dates set the year into a subordinate clause, and need to be paired: "The events of Jan 1, 2000, caused etc etc." I use it like this but I wouldn't alter existing text, certainly not an article title. But, since it's come up, I'd vote for "Attacks of September 11, 2001". The existing title, with or without the comma, has too much similarity to "Mars Attacks!" in my mind... Sharkford 21:01, 2004 Sep 29 (UTC)

While I probably wouldn't use "The events of Jan 1, 2000, caused...", I, at least, understand it. I don't understand "The September 11, 2001, attacks...". Would you write "The USS Cole, bombing..." instead of the bombing of the USS Cole..."? Or does this only apply to dates? Rmhermen 23:14, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

I confess that I do not see why your second sentance would be less idiomatic than the first. "The Sept 11, 2001, attacks have resulted in ...". "2001" qualifies "Sept 11" and so is set apart by matched commas as a subordinate phrase. I do this with place names, too: The London, England, skyline is dominated by...". In fact, in the headline, omitting the second comma leads me to read it as a verb, as if nonsensically the year 2001 attacks us on Sept 11.

As I say, I commonly see dates (and place names) written with only one comma and so I understand that many folks do not see the year (or country etc) as a subordinate phrase. I do not propose to engage the argument, much less settle it; I hope only to clarify the terms.

But I'm only guessing that this is at the heart of the page moves. I would propose to avoid the issue altogether by naming the article "Attacks of September 11, 2001", which I think has a much more encyclopedic feel to it. Sharkford 15:39, 2004 Sep 30 (UTC)

That usage is completely unknown to me. Can anyone point out which style guides follow it? Rmhermen 15:59, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

A quick google search turns up: ["When the date falls at the beginning or in the middle of the sentence, add another comma after the year to separate it from the rest of the sentence."] [October 31, 1517, is one of...] [When a date that includes commas does not fall at the end of a sentence, place the comma after the date] [Write a comma after the year and the day when they are in the sentence. ["July 4, 1776, is regarded as..." (and "Never use only one comma between a subject and its verb.") and others. A single-comma style is advocated at Omit second commas from dates and place descriptions". Like the "last comma in a list" it may be regional. Sharkford 18:26, 2004 Sep 30 (UTC)

Were it not for the immediately recognisable subject, the phrase "September 11, 2001 attacks" actually could mean "September 11, 2001" as an entity attacked something. Attacks of September 11, 2001 is more proper. zoney ♣ talk 18:36, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Just call the page September 11, 2001. If people want to create a page about other events which happened on the date, we can put a disambig link at the top. anthony (see warning) 18:42, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sharkford has a good explanation. To use just one comma divides the phrase in two parts. Grammatically speaking, it sets up "2001" as either the subect (the "attacker") or the modifier (attacks that numbered 2,001 OR attacks of the year 2001).

Setting off the year with commas makes the year modify "September 11," and the entire date modifies "attacks."

I don't see the Cole bombing as an appropriate analogy. Also, Rmhermen, I saw that on your page, the years in dates are set off with pairs of commas. :)

Maurreen 03:17, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Better places for this topic

I think better places for this discussion are either the article's talk page (if it's just about the title) or the style guide (if it's a more general issue). Maurreen 01:25, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Soylent Green conumdrum

Wikipedia's article on Soylent Green primarily discusses the 1963 film. However the most common use of the term 'Soylent Green' today is in reference to the fictional product which is the main reveal at the end of the film. As such the lead paragraph of the article should mention both the film and the product, but I can't think of a way to do that without violating the spoiler warning. -- Solipsist 18:32, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Like, don't you want to discuss this on the article's talk page? — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:15, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

Possibly, but the problem isn't article specific. Its more about the spoiler tag and self reference. -- Solipsist 21:08, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Stick the spoiler tag at the very top. Or come to think of it, before the spoiler you can say just what you said here: "the most common use of the term 'Soylent Green' today is in reference to the fictional product which is the main reveal at the end of the film." -- Jmabel 22:01, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

Doh! You're right. Sometimes just phrasing a question carefully can show the answer. -- Solipsist 16:25, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia taboos?

Why is certain information taboo on Wikipedia? Shouldn't Wikipedia strive to be as complete as possible? I am specifically referring to things like the name of Kobe Bryant's accuser and the details of secret ceremonies. Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 00:23, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)

In such cases as this, it's not that we can't find out, especially in the former case. Maybe it's to avoid unnecessary propagation of such information on other forks of Wikipedia? [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 06:07, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)

The talk pages make it clear what issues are/were involved. There was even a vote with regard to the sports guy thing. Individual editors who care about those particular artices make decisions regarding them. If you have a problem with them, you should participate on the talk pages, and if you feel you aren't getting any where then you can recommend the page be sent to Peer Review, Clean Up, Requests for Comment, etc. I don't see the issues of these three articles you've brought up as being related. func(talk) 10:01, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

VP section colouring

Being bold, but hopefully not going too far, I've colouring the header section of this (misc) section of the VP. With the sections combined (as I tend to view it) it makes it difficult to scroll down and spot the change of section. With colours for each section (perhaps even colour-coded slightly) I reckon it looks a bit better. Sorry if anyone doesn't like it - it should be easy enough to change back. If it is liked it could then be done for the other sections. violet/riga (t) 09:41, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Incidentally, the village pump menu template doesn't seem to show, though it didn't before. Is this a limit to the number of inclusions or a mistake in the code somewhere? violet/riga (t) 09:46, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The first thing you said. MediaWiki allows the same template to be transcluded at most five times. (See: m:Help:Template#Multiple inclusion of the same template in a page.) HTH, • Benc • 10:43, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Looks fine. Incidentally, this is one comment perhaps appropriate for the Wikipedia talk:Village pump page. I still think we'd get a much more managable no./distribution of comments if we scrapped the miscellaneous section and added one or two more clearly defined headings. zoney ♣ talk 23:53, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

FAC protected?

Looks like User:Raul654 has locked the wp:fac page. There's an {inuse} tag put at the top but that was hours ago and there's no mention of why it's still locked down. Any pending changes/problems I'm not aware of or did he just forget to unprotect it? violet/riga (t) 12:59, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Fixed by User:Lord Emsworth. violet/riga (t) 13:26, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Clusty search engine for Wikipedia

I saw a blurb about a new search engine on Slashdot. It included an encyclopaedia search, and I immediately suspected that they were reusing Wikipedia material. They were, but not like most other reusers. Instead, they have simply indexed the database in a clever way, and provide a very smart search that clusters search results in categories. Try for example: a search for "cat". It identifies categories such as "cartoon", "breed", "team/league" etc. The actual search result items are links directly to the master Wikipedia server, so there are no issues with their database being out of date. — David Remahl 14:17, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Cool! Mark Richards 15:14, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps I don't understand exactly what this means technically, but if "The actual search result items are links directly to the master Wikipedia server" does that mean they are making massive hits on our site? -- Jmabel 02:14, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

I should have expressed myself more clearly...The database the results are based on may not be _entirely_ up-to-date, but seems to be updated at least daily. When a user searches, the links to the articles go to en.wikipedia.org. So yes, they're drawing traffic / hits to Wikipedia, which is a good thing (btw, did you see that Wikipedia has broken 300 in Alexa rank the last few days?). — David Remahl 02:24, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Nautical wikilinks

I was trying to edit Nautical, but find that clicking on it goes automatically to Wiktionary. How do I edit this page to add content? Thanks, Mark Richards 15:49, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Go to the edit page for any other article, and replace the title in the URL with the redirect you want to edit. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Nautical&action=edit Goplat 18:00, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've turned it into a "soft redirect". It now just links to Wiktionary rather than going to it. [[User:Norm|Norm]] 20:23, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sanity check

Before I make a faux pas on VfD, are things like SNES Screenshot Gallery and Sega Master System Screenshot Gallery generally considered encyclopedic enuf to be included? Niteowlneils 04:22, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, encyclopedias do have galleries and Wikipedia has many of them. Most of the video game galleries seem to have been created by Tyan23, so you may want to discuss things with him. [[User:Norm|Norm]] 12:37, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Somewhat of a..."

Moved to Wikipedia_talk:Manual of Style#"Somewhat of a...". Reuben 18:33, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Could use help please!!!

-> Wikipedia:Reference desk#Supermarket headquarters in Spain [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 16:16, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

Significant bias in Malaysia-related articles?

Sicne I began visiting Wikipedia, I've noticed what seemed to me bias against the government in several articles related to Malaysia, notably Mahathir bin Mohamad and Anwar Ibrahim. At first I thought it was just me, but a discussion on the relevant Talk pages recently has revealed that others seem to think so too; however, to date, little has been accomplished. To me, the article on Mahathir gets all the facts right, but twists them into making it appear like he was almost as bad as Hitler; Anwar's article also got the facts right, but omitted other significant contextual facts, leading again to a false impression. Recently, concerns of bias have appeared on a few other articles: Bumiputra and Malaysian New Economic Policy. Can a non-Malaysian please voice his/her opinion(s) of these articles' (N)POVness? I tried WP:RFC a couple of times already, but it's absolutely frustrating over there. Johnleemk | Talk 14:51, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Lyndon LaRouche founded Wikipedia

Oy, Anyway, this is being discussed in blogoland on BoingBoing Xeni is looking for comments from Wikipedia. I know there was some historical problem with the LaRouche article and things but I don't know the details. Someone should probably email her. They also get info from the suggestion link pretty fast. - [[User:Cohesion|cohesion ☎]] 18:44, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

Wikifun

we should create a free contest for users like a scavenger hunt, quiz or something along those lines. even combining them to create wikilympics perhaps! there doesn't have to be prizes the real reward is just plain old fun. who wants to do it we should vote.

Don't vote - just do it on a subpage and invite people. Mark Richards 23:40, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Disambiguating GFDL

moved to Talk:GFDL

Matthew Shepard in selected anniversaries

Re: Template:October 6 selected anniversaries, today is the anniversary of the attack on Matthew Shepard. I'm worried that our write-up is needlessly wordy and sensational. It reads "1998 - Gay-bashing & Hate crimes: University of Wyoming student Matthew Shepard was viciously and fatally attacked for being gay." I think there is one too many adverbs and one too many categories. We should remove either "gay-bashing" or "hate crimes," and also remove the sensational word "viciously." Rhobite 02:54, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

Since it only gets a day of coverage and I'm going to bed, I'm going to go ahead and make these edits. This is just a style nitpick, please nobody accuse me of homophobia until I've had my morning coffee. Rhobite 04:51, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

I changed the wording to "murdered" because "fatally attacked" just sounded REALLY weird. Mike H 06:59, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

He died on that 12th so murdered is flat out wrong. Click, click ; fixed. --mav 07:31, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

question about neutrality

Hello, I am very new here. I have come across an article which I think is not only not neutral in it's view point, but also contains an extended commentary about the topic (also, hardly neutral). What can I or should I do about this?

You could add {{POV}} to the top of the page. It adds this text: "The neutrality of this article is disputed. See the article's talk page? for more information." Then please state your reasoning on the talk page. Or you could just jump in and rewrite the article. Wikipedia:Be Bold Rmhermen 13:59, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

cross-continent countries territory measurement & other issues

There are some countries that lie on two continents: in Europe/Asia (see http://www.therfcc.org/european-1411.html, now I see that this is likely copy-pasted from Wikipedia - search for "Europe" and you will get a very similar page):

• Russia
• Turkey
• Kazakhstan
• Georgia
• Azerbaidjan

in Asia/Africa

• Egypt

in North America/South America

• Panama

can someone calculate the area on each continent separatly, for example: "Russia has xxx sq.km territory west of the Ural mountains and north of the main watershed of the Caucasus and also another xxx sq.km territory east of the Ural mountains and south of the main watershed of the Caucasus"

this sentences should be added to the "Geography" section in the descriptions of these countries and maybe also in the table with basic facts the section "Area" should have three lines: "total", "in xxx continent", "in yyy continent"

search for "Asia" and in the table with countries Cyprus is missing (maybe becouse it is island) - this should be fixed (maybe with a note that it also is regareded as european country for xxx reasons - see link at the top of this message) in the same table - area for Turkey mentions the whole area of Turkey, including european part. Maybe this should change or at least be noted. Other cross-continent countries have similar ommissions maybe? Egypt is also missing from asian countries. I have not tried Panama, but I guess the lists of South American/North American countries should be corrected too.

at the bottom of the Vatican City page (and maybe other pages) there is a link-list "countries of europe" - but this list does not correspond to the correct list (link at the top of this message) - Kazakhstan is missing, but Turkey and Russia are there (all three are geographicaly cross-continent); Cyprus is there, but Armenia is missing (both are geographicaly asian and politicaly european)

also more about what can be considered "european" - in the list of dependencies Greenland is missing (it is clearly a "North American island", but politicaly it is as much european as Armenia and maybe Cyprus - so it should be added in the appropriate lists with a note - just like Armenia and/or Cyprus)

Is it sure that "Walvis Bay" is integrated into Nambia in 1994? AmiGlobe 2002 and 1998 show it as South African enclave??

that is for now :)

I have never heard Panama called South American. For the Asia/Europe ones I remember we had polls and edit wars over what went in the list. Check some of the talk pages. I don't remember where it was exactly. Rmhermen 00:53, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

As for Walvis Bay, the Walvis Bay City Council page states "In 1994, Walvis Bay was re-integrated into Namibia after being a part of South Africa’s former Cape Province for many years." So I would say AmiGlobe are somewhat behind the times. --Roisterer 02:24, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You should also take into account France which lies at the same time in Europe, Africa, America and Oceania, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, which lies in Europe and America, and Spain, which lies in Europe and Africa. (As concerns Madeira I have a little doubt, but it seems to me that Portugal also lies in Europe and Africa). Some of these assertions can be challenged, but some make no doubt, especially as concerns Spain, whose territory includes Canary Islands with no room for even a tiny doubt. --French Tourist 18:54, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Spain also includes Ceuta and Melilla. zoney ♣ talk 10:03, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Credits and merging articles

One question: If you merge an article (A) into an article (B), do you have to credit all those who participated in the edition of article (A)? --Logariasmo 03:48, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't know that a good answer has been developed to this. If you leave article (A) as a redirect and mention the name of article (A) in the edit summary when you merge text into article (B) at least the authors can be tracked. Rmhermen 04:01, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

GNU licenses who owns copyright?

I have to write some documentation for my MSc to calculate a Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient, from some data, and I want to under the GNU General Public License. I want to include documentation with it, which will be released under the GNU Free Document License, and I want to borrow, with certain alterations, Wikipedia's article.

My question is who owns the copyright once I have altered it? Me but I can only release it GFDL, so that restriction implies the original author, but how do I credit them, do I say (c) Duncan Harris 2004, except for the bits that were adapted from Wikipedia?

It's not majorly important, it probably won't find its way onto the web anyhow, I just want to give it a professional looking license and documentation. Dunc_Harris|☺ 12:48, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You own the copyright on your work. But you are forced to release it under GFDL if you used GFDL material as the basis of your work. I believe you should credit the 5 main authors of the article. — David Remahl 16:24, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

See the first paragraph in Wikipedia:Copyrights. Also I remember readin a recommended way to credit Wikipedia in the bibliography but I can't seem to find the page. As Chmod007 said, you own the copyright on your work - in this case, on your alterations ot the original article. Tempshill 16:26, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Also be aware that you may not be in a possition to assign the copyright: many universities assert copyright over any work you do as a part of your studies with them, and make you sign a declaration as such. May not be important, but it's something to think about. -- DrBob 17:40, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Information about crediting Wikipedia in a bibliography is at Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia. Some people say that copyright of a Wikipedia article is owned jointly by all the authors, but that may be jurisdiction-dependent. In any case you don't just say "(c) Duncan Harris 2004", you need to follow the GFDL. Section 4, titled "modifications", is particularly relevant. -- Tim Starling 17:47, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia was the page I was thinking of, thanks. I'll sneakily insert links to it in a few more places so it's easier to find. Tempshill 17:39, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You need to credit the author, not Wikipedia. Mark Richards 19:30, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Right, so the main authors are User:Jfitzg, User:AxelBoldt, and UserUser:Trontonian (though how one is supposed to determine this for longer articles, I don't know). So how do I do that? Cite their username? Dunc_Harris|☺ 20:04, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It depends what contact information they have given - if you only have their username, then yes, Wikipedia user Trontonian is probably the best you can do. Mark Richards 23:55, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia referenced by BBC

Check this out! Mark Richards 19:30, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There's also this article about Wikipedia. I am particularly proud of that article because it has a screenshot of a page that I have worked on. [[User:Norm|Norm]] 23:52, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Article Xoxo

This article was created a few days ago - it obviously isn't the correct name for the article, so rather than delete it, I marked it for cleanup. However, no-one seems to have picked up on it yet, probably for the same reason I haven't done it myself - I'm not sure what to do with it! What name should it go under?

• X, O and XO make references to kisses and hugs, but no link to a relevant article.
• Love letter and Love notes don't exist.
• Kiss and Hug don't have any mention of it.
• Ox redirets to Cattle :)
• OX and Xo don't exist.

Any other suggestions? -- Chuq 04:49, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In order that the article isn't deleted, I'm going ahead and moving it to Hugs and Kisses as this is mentioned immediately as the appropriate term in the article itself. If you have a better idea, feel free to move it again. I'm keeping the capital K as it is discussed as a concept "Hugs and Kisses", but it may be more appropriate to use Hugs and kisses as the location. Incidentally, I'll add it to the see also in Kiss and Hug. zoney ♣ talk 19:54, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Washington state archives online

The government archives of Washington state, all the way back to the first election in Washington Territory, have been put online (news article). The website is http://www.digitalarchives.wa.gov/. Surely there's information here we can slide in to our 'pedia, at the very least, election and office holder records, perhaps even detailed census information. Just mentioning this here in case people didn't see it. --Golbez 21:07, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

Systemic bias section opened

After much wrangling, the beta version of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias has opened.--Xed 23:28, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Copyright status of LLNL documents?

I have a question about the ambiguous nature of the LLNL copyright status (it should, in theory be public domain, but the statement on the site implies otherwise) in the disclaimer here: http://www.llnl.gov/disclaimer.html. This came up on Talk:Protein structure, so it may be useful to followup there. Thanks --Lexor|Talk 02:28, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Help on Exxon Mobil

An anonymous user continues to revert Exxon Mobil, removing factually accurate paragraphs which are critical of the company. He agrees that the facts are correct but is removing them simply because he doesn't like them. I've reverted three times, some help please? BTW this is the same anon who created FahrenHYPE 9/11 and promptly listed it for deletion. Theresa Knott has warned him about changing people's votes on VfD. Rhobite 16:04, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

this user/users have been up to mischief for the last month, along with an occasional good edit. Exxon Mobil is not the only page they have been screwing with. They have been listed on the vandalism page and I notified two admins, I think the following accounts are related.;

• (66.144.5.25 | talk | contributions) (see [10])
• (210.142.29.125 | talk | contributions) (see [11])
• (Chuck F | talk | contributions) (see 'Hexaform Rotary Surface Compression Unit')

Duk 02:32, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

66.144.5.25 isn't me, the other one is(besides it's first edit) Chuck F 13:20, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Merging articles

While the information of two (duplicate) articles is being merged into one, it is likely that people unknowingly continue to contribute to both articles. The merge process is then complicated even further, as the information has to be moved from one article into the other one.

In order to avoid this, I thought the following message might be a solution:

This article is in the process of being merged into (article name), and may be outdated.

Comments? If you think this template message should be added, should be modified, or not added at all, please let me know.--Logariasmo 00:41, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have added the template(with minor changes), as suggested. I will be waiting for more comments before I make any additional changes.--Logariasmo 03:59, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

We have the {{inuse}} template for such situations. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 05:12, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

Road movie

I created the Road movie stub. Please have a look at it and expand it ! Hashar 00:51, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Possible accuracy problems already, see Talk:Road movie. Andrewa 21:24, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've now done a refactor of the stub, removing most of the text which seemed POV and adding some information which was missing. It's still a stub. Andrewa 20:11, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

User talk:Cheung1303

Anyone want to have a go at communicating with this user in another language? Becuase he is ignoring please for copyright info, and I think it might be a language problem Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 10:44, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Food prep categories

We have both Category:Food preparation and serving related occupations and Category:Food preperation occupations (note misspelling). I don't have much experience with Cats, but the latter seems redundant. If it's not, it should be changed to the correct spelling (but I don't know how--move doesn't work, nor does correcting the spelling in an article using it). If it is, it should be removed (and I am uncertain of the process to follow, if consensus is needed, etc.). Help? Niteowlneils 17:32, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Recategorize the few articles in the category, then list it on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. -- Jmabel|Talk 19:34, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

I've done a couple. Butcher and Chef currently have both, with the shorter, misspelled one added more recently. So it's OK to unilaterally remove Cats I consider redundant in general, or it's just OK to unilaterally remove misspelled Cats? Niteowlneils 21:34, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You can edit the categories of any article just lik any of the rest of its content (with about equal likelihood of controversy.) CfD process is just like VfD process: you list it unilaterally, but actual deletion is a consensus decision. -- Jmabel|Talk 21:58, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Argh. I've discovered it's more complicated (other than the misspelling issue)--Category:Food preparation and serving related occupations is one of 23 top-level US Dept of Labor occupational categories, which considers Butcher to be Category:Production occupations. I'm at work, and don't really have time right now to research whether the Commonwealth, and/or Commonwealth nations have comparable occupational categorizations, let alone to see if they're similar, or if moving it to the existing Cats would be too US-centric. Probably the Cats should really be driven by UN or WTO (or some other global org) occupational categorizations, if they exist. I guess I'll just remove the misspelled ones for now, and leave the broader issue to other Wikipedians, or when I have more time. Niteowlneils 22:05, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I removed them, then discovered that the cfd instructions specifically, emphatically, and repeatedly say 'don't empty a cat before posting it here', so I restored them. Niteowlneils 22:32, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I just think that's a bad instruction when the issue is a misspelling, as long as you place them in a different, corresponding, correctly spelled category. I've dont that before, myself. -- Jmabel|Talk 23:04, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Need help talking with a potential GFDL releaser

I wrote an email to Keith Stanley, a photographer with a cool website, about releasing some of his material under the GFDL:

Dear Mr. Stanley:
I am an editor of the Wikipedia (wikipedia.org), a multilingual
project to create a complete, accurate, and open-content encyclopedia.
Volunteers from around the world collaboratively edit Wikipedia, which
is one of many projects of the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation
(wikimediafoundation.org). We depend on photography to clearly
illustrate our articles.

I enjoyed your excellent photographs at your website (kestan.com).
However, we can only use your material if you are willing to grant
permission for it to be used under terms of the GNU Free Documentation
License (GNU-FDL, or GFDL for short). This means that although you
retain the copyright and authorship of your own work, you are granting
permission for others to use, copy, and share your materials freely,
and even potentially use them commercially, so long as they do not try
to claim the copyright themselves, or try to prevent others from using
or copying them freely (e.g., "share-alike"). You can read this
license in full at wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text of the GFDL).
Please do note that your contributions may not remain intact as
submitted; this license, as well as the collaborative nature of our
project, also entitles others to edit, alter, and update them at will,
i.e., to keep up with new information, or suit the text to a different
purpose.  However, the license also expressly protects authors "from
being considered responsible for modifications made by others" –
ensuring that you get credit for their work.

If you do agree to grant permission for use, we will credit you for
your work, stating it was based on your work and is used with your
permission, and by providing a link back to your website.

You are obviously an expert photographer. I hope you will consider
accepting our request.

Warmest regards,
(real name)

He wrote back to me with several questions. How can I best answer these?

Hello Mr. (real name),

I like Wikipedia and its ideal of open collaboration.  You've asked about using some of my images 
(photos) and mentioned the GFDL, which I briefly looked over.  I am willing to make some (many) of 
my images available, case by case, but am concerned about giving blanket permission for use of (all 
of) my images under the GFDL (as I understand it).  My primary concern is on unpaid COMMERCIAL use.  
As it is, those who wish to make commercial use (for example, in printed advertising media or 
online) often (sometimes) will pay a licensing fee to do so.  I'd rather not forego the income I 
earn from that source, and, of course, if someone finds one of my images on my site and wishes to 
license use, everything is fine (as it is).  

I'd like to be sure I have a clear understanding of the GFDL concerning the circumstances under 
which a commercial user might use my images download from Wikipedia.  Clause 2 of the GFDL says:
"You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially, 
provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License
applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies, and that you add no other conditions 
whatsoever to those of this License. If you distribute a large enough number of copies you must also 
follow the conditions in section 3." 

This seems to be saying that anyone downloading one of my images from Wikipedia for use would, as a 
condition of legal use, have to, with each image published, state that use was subject to the GDFL, 
publish the GFDL license, in full, and also mention my copyright interest.  Not only would the user 
have to comply with these conditions, but, I presume, so would subsequent users who acquired use of 
the image from the first user.  Am I correct in my understanding?  If so, I would not feel 
particularly threatened re my potential to earning licensing income, since most commercial users 
would probably not be willing to willing to print the GDFL with each copy.  

If my understanding above is correct, I like, if I may, to ask a few more questions:
(1)  How would I go about granting you permission to use my images under the terms of the GFDL?  To 
whom would I be granting permisson?  Wikipedia?  Any employee of Wikipedia?  Any contributor to 
Wikipedia?  
(2) Would I be granting permission for use of particular requested images?  Would I have any notice 
of which images are being used?  Or would I simply be granting blanket permission to use any 
enumerated image in Wikipedia as per the GFDL?
(3) Do you already have particular uses for particular images in mind?  Or are you asking  
permission for potential later, as yet undetermined, use (such that, for example, you might make the 
images part of a database or record of images potentially available for use)?
I want to thank you, in advance, for taking the time to address my questions.  Thanks.

Sincerely,
Keith Stanley
www.kestan.com
[email protected]

So, can y'll help me? If we can get Mr. Stanley's permission, we could have some great GFDL images! [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 03:14, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

One of the big issues with the GFDL is that, even for small amounts of material, you do have to reproduce the license. It's a problem. Intrigue 16:17, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The author is concerned about commercial re-use of his images under the GFDL. From his standpoint, the situation is even better than he thinks — if someone want to use one of his photos in a magazine under the GFDL, then the entire magazine may well be a derived work of the photo under US copyright law, and thus the entire magazine would have to be distributed under the GFDL. Most magazines would not be willing to license their entire text under the GFDL, and thus they will want to pay the author to use the image under alternate terms. (This is exactly the same principle as the GPL for software, and why Trolltech for example can distribute Qt under the GPL and still charge proprietary users: if you want to use my GPLed code in your program, your entire program must be GPLed, or you must pay me for an alternate license.) Alternatively, if the magazine is just a collection of independent photos etc., so that they fall under section 7 of the GFDL, then they still have to not only include the text of the GFDL, but they must also provide a machine-readable copy of the image under section 3 of the GFDL ... again, not something that most magazines will be willing to do. —Steven G. Johnson 22:15, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

No jury or judge would find that a whole magazine is suddenly a derivative work of Keith's photos because they included one GFDL'ed photo in the magazine. Keith's GFDL'ed photo would not "poison" the whole magazine as Microsoft would have you believe about the GPL. Also, I doubt Keith's statement that it seems unlikely his photo would be used commercially because of the need to print the required texts. It will be used commercially in some way.

My advice, Neutrality, is: (a) It sounds to me like Keith isn't ready for this; (b) you shouldn't give him legal advice on what the GFDL does and doesn't do, when he asks for clarification of whether his understanding of the GFDL is correct - he should consult a lawyer if he has questions; (c) because of (a) and (b), probably the best answer to his numbered questions is that you should pick one or two photos you'd like to start with and go from there, if he is willing to experiment. Tempshill 01:34, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Erm, IANAL, but how do you know that 'no jury or judge would find [this]'? Seems pretty dubious advice in the absence of any case law on this... Mark Richards 21:50, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

the origin of the name October

Here's a curious question: If the latin prefix "octo" means eight, then where in the world did we come up with the name October which is the TENth month?

The Julian Calendar year started in March. :) It was later adoption of the Gregorian Calendar that changed it to January. August (the 8th month) used to be known as Sextilus, which your Latin education will tell you contains the root for "Six". --Golbez 05:26, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

Same for September (7), November (9), and December (10). --mav 07:27, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

October? ;) violet/riga (t) 12:03, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hence also why the signs of the zodiac go from Aries (March/April) to Pisces (Feb/March) Dainamo 20:01, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

Some of the answers above are misleading or downright wrong. The ancient Roman calendar of 304 days had ten months running from Martius to December. A reform in the 8th century BC added Januarius and Februarius to the end of the calendar (plus the intercalary month Mercedony in leap years). But because consuls were chosen in January, and because years were named in written records after the consuls who served in that year, January became the de facto beginning of the year. Julius Caesar introduced the Julian calendar in 45 BC with the new year deemed to begin on 1 January, making that date de jure.

The traditional date of 25 March for the start of the year in Britain derives from the ecclesiastical calendar, in which it is the date of the feast of the Annunciation. Hence the name Annunciation Style for the system of years starting on 25 March. It is a coincidence that the ancient Roman calendar also started in March (but on 1 March). I see that our article on the New Year is wrong; I will correct it. Gdr 17:14, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)

It came from Oktoberfest...hehe! Just kidding!"Antonio Beerman Martin"

help for a new user

Can somebody please give a hearty welcome to User:Benschop. He is asking me questions about things down here I cannot answer, because I work mainly on nl:wikipedia. He is wondering why one of his pages (about himself as author of another article) is listed for deletion for instance. Thanks, Ellywa 22:47, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Done, customized with refs to Wikipedia:Auto-biography, Wikipedia:What is an article and, Wikipedia:Naming conventions. Niteowlneils 04:42, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If anyone thinks my message could be improved, please feel free to edit it (I know that's not standard for Talk pages, but I'd like this message to be as helpful as possible). Niteowlneils 05:01, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Does the "article" total...

...include redirects, stubs, and substubs? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 00:11, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The conservative article count is of all pages in the main namespace which are not redirects and have at least one internal link. -- Tim Starling 02:14, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Red-link reclamation project

Folks,

It's easy when linking an article to others generate 'near-misses' by using a slightly different capitalisation or punctuation of a term - for example Non-deterministic rather than Nondeterministic. Red links lead not only to frustrated users who can't find the information the want, but also duplicate articles that need to be merged at great time and effort.

I've automatically generated a large list of possible near misses and need your help to work through them. Do wikipedia a favour - visit the list and spent half an hour fixing some. Reclaim a red link today! - TB 13:39, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)

Would anyone mind making non-deterministic a redirect to nondeterministic? It would spoil the illustrative example, but.. :-). — David Remahl 21:57, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Copyright status of stamps and coats of arms

I have been tagging images, but I was wondering whether the following types of images are public domain or not. First off, stamps. U.S. stamps are public domain, but I don't know about other countries (e.g. this image.) Can we safely use non-U.S. stamp images? Second, how about coats of arms (e.g. this image)? Are they public domain? Thanks, – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 14:37, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

(By the way, it seems to me there ought to be a "copyright" section of the Village pump.)

It depends on the country and the stamp. A useful project might be to chart the copyright regimes of the rest of the world's governments (someone has probably done this already). Intrigue 17:34, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If anyone knows for sure, I'd be much obliged. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 18:46, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

AFAIK US Stamps are not necessarily public domain. "The intent of section 105 [this section] is to restrict the prohibition against Government copyright to works written by employees of the United States Government within the scope of their official duties. In accordance with the objectives of the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970 [Pub. L. 91-375, which enacted title 39, Postal Service], this section does not apply to works created by employees of the United States Postal Service." [12] anthony (see warning) 16:01, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A coat of arms is described by a heraldic blazon; i.e., words, not an image. One could, with the necessary knowhow, create a coat of arms anew given a blazon. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 20:58, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Flower request: Cosmos

For the next major version of MediaWiki, I would like to redesign the current logo (see article). Right now, the MediaWiki logo is a sunflower surrounded by square brackets. I like it, but the sunflower is very common as a symbol - a little too mundane.

I therefore humbly request a high resolution photo of the flower Cosmos, which I think is both beautiful and appropriate for what we are doing. The photo should be symmetric, so that it can be used in the logo in the same way the sunflower currently is. Any help would be much appreciated.--Eloquence*

There is a variety called Chocolate Cosmos which actually smells of chocolate (and I can testify to this having had one at home): I would like to request that this be the variety of choice. --Phil | Talk 08:49, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

I have these growing in my parents yard, if they are still in bloom i will take a picture this weekend. - [[User:Cohesion|cohesion ☎]] 08:57, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

Where to redirect?

Is there a good place to redirect Criticisms of electoralism, USA? Any time I see "Criticisms of..." articles, I always want to redirect to the main article, and merge if necessary. I can't see merging this with Electoral college, as that article isn't US specific. I almost redirected to Criticisms of electoralism, but this seems to be a deliberate split from that article. Any suggestions? SWAdair | Talk 08:06, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Looks like a simple merge call to me: Criticisms of electoralism, USA into Criticisms of electoralism. There's no reason why the "see also" links in the USA article can't apply in the main article also. Go for it. --Phil | Talk 08:38, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

Stealing from Wikipedia?

This site seems to be stealing articles directly from Wikipedia and not giving any credit. Is that allowed?

It seems to have most of the articles, and they must update every so often.

So is that legal? Stealing information from a website, without giving them any credit? 69.68.63.96 01:06, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

They indicate that the articles are from Wikipedia on http://www.all-science-fair-projects.com/copyright.html The GFDL, under which Wikipedia is distributed, permits reproducing Wikipedia content under its terms. Nohat 01:39, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ah, didn't see that page. Thanks for pointing it out. Actually, the page seems very obvious right now. Sorry for not looking into things and jumping to conclusions. 69.68.63.96 02:42, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No worries. You're not the first to have made that mistake. It ought to be in the FAQ. Nohat 06:04, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC) See also Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks Nohat 06:07, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Heh! I'm amused that looking at their page for British English they've replaced the link to Cockney with [[Censored page]]! I wonder why that could be... (though they're quite happy with "Cockney" in the text without a link). -- Arwel 17:02, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

They probably don't like Scunthorpe much either then! Dunc_Harris|☺ 11:33, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

'Clitheroe' is in so it's sexist. they have censored Cockerel, Cockermouth and cockle but not Bowdlerization. Anything word contain the substr 'cock'. Not really a very informed approach, you'd think they could manage an exeptions list.--Jirate 15:20, 2004 Oct 16 (UTC)

kids.net.au has censored the entry on felching. Some weeks ago, it was unrestricted and caused some laughs in the #wikipedia channel, since their slogan is: Kids.net.au — Search engine for kids, children, educators and teachers — Searching sites designed for kids that are child safe and clean. — David Remahl 19:06, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Unmistakable message from God"

Didn't seem right to post this on images for deletion but I couldn't think of where else it could be mentioned. Image:GODvsBUSH.gif seems to be too pro-God, too anti-Bush and way too POV to have a place on here. It's not linked to by any articles in the main namespace as far as I am aware, though some people seem to have linked to from their user/talk pages.

May I suggest BJAODN? -- Graham ☺ | Talk 15:41, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Makes you think though... Mark Richards 17:20, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Might be funnier if it were true. However... --jpgordon 23:50, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What makes this Snopes article really interesting is that the descriptive links for the 3 hurricanes point back here to Wikipedia :-) --Phil | Talk 12:43, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Interesting. Agree it's not in any way related to building an encyclopedia! But Wikipedia:Images for deletion reads This page is only for listing images which are duplicates or otherwise unneeded. For cases of (possible) fair use, see Wikipedia:Fair use. For copyright infringements, use Wikipedia:Copyright problems. For licensing issues that are not copyright infringements, use Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images so there doesn't seem any way of dealing with this. And is there really any need to? Is it doing any harm? As long as anyone wants to use it on their user page and no article uses it, I say leave it alone.

If you really want to delete it, I guess you need to orphan it, which means negotiating with the user (I only see one now) who has linked to it. Once it's orphaned it can then be listed as an image for deletion. Andrewa 00:04, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's linked to by User:The bellman/random stuff and User:Ta bu shi da yu. As it's A) horrendously POV and B) been proven false I don't see how it should be allowed, even if it's not linked to from the main namespace. violet/riga (t) 17:46, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why? There are lots of pictures that are only linked to from user pages. Either they are all OK or they should all be removed. I think we are kind of allowed to be a little POV on our user pages, aren't we? func(talk) 17:02, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Pseudo data

Moved to Wikipedia:Cleanup. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 00:32, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

Move page with incorrect capitalisation in title

Hi The page 'Heinz henghes' was incorrectly capitalised and should be called 'Heinz Henghes'. I have tried to move it but I imagine as the spelling is the same there is an error saying that the page already exists. How can this be fixed?

Looks like it's already done. --Golbez 17:04, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

Special:Whatlinkshere/Fdghjkldfghj

Can someone explain why so many things appear to link to Fdghjkldfghj on Whatlinkshere? None of these articles actually link there, from what I've seen. ~leif 00:23, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That's a mystery to me, but no more so than how you came to discover that so many things linked to Fdghjkldfghj. Care to share that? Database browsing?--NathanHawking 02:38, 2004 Oct 16 (UTC)

It's because a vandal moved Nature to Fdghjkldfghj and the links table hasn't updated yet, so it thinks pages that link to Nature are linking to Fdghjkldfghj. Angela. 06:36, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism

A vandal has attacked today's featured article, George III of the United Kingdom, and the content appears to have vanished. Can someone more knowledgeable than me fix this? [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 05:49, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

Religion

Although Meta contains List of Wikipedians by religion, little is said of religions specific to Wikipedia. I've written a brief article about the role of religion in the Wikipedian community, which can be found at Religion and Wikipedia. --[[User:Eequor|ηυωρ]] 07:19, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Uh, Ninjas? -- Solitude 06:49, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)

LOL! This is extremely funny! :) func(talk) 02:33, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes it is! Can we start a list of Wikipedians by these religions? I want to sign up as an Inclusionist. Spalding 11:45, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

You may want to join the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians. -- Felix Wan 01:07, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Very funny - and important. Paul August 15:55, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)

Text alignment: left-aligned or fully justified

I have just noticed that paragraphs in articles are fully justified rather than merely left-aligned ('ragged right'). I don't know if this is a recent change to the Wikipedia general style or if I did not notice it before. Does anybody else think it is not as good as left aligned?

As it is part of the preferences everyone can set it the way he wants. However I earlier also had a aligned article, and after doing a Shift-Reload it showed ragged-right as it should according to my preferences. Might be that caching does not remember if it saved a aligned or a non-aligned version. andy 13:33, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ah. Good clue. I tinkered with a few things and rebooted. I now see that it is gone back to ragged right. I don't know what the problem was but it is fixed now. That was before I found the preference setting for 'Justify paragraphs. It is unchecked, as it should be. If it happens again, I will look there first. Thanks.

I've also run into this now. I'm curious, is there something I can add to my personal stylesheets (like User:Mulad/monobook.css) to disable the full-justification of text? It might be a workaround for the Squid proxy strangeness... —User:Mulad (talk) 18:10, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)

indications about bibliographic item(s) (see Catalog)

See also: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)# meta name="KEYWORDS" content="..."

• Dear friends, looking at different xx.wikipedias I realize over and over again that many articles about persons do not have indications about how to find them in catalogues. It mainly relates to persons living in Middle age, coming from other cultural societies and it is not obvious how to find their work: names as Erasmus, Arabic names with abu or ibn, Icelandic names ...
• Most of the medieval names are used differently in many languages as Copernicus, Juan Luís Vives ... Should there be a link to a new biblio.wikipedia.org where these variants could be listed?
• I can imagine that some work has been done at international level so far. We should reference to it or to the actual (evolving) state.
• I am aware, that this is a meta issue. Please let me know where to find more details about this subject and how it is handled in wikipedia. Regards Gangleri 23:15, 2004 Oct 9 (UTC)

Ideally, variant names should be listed in the article, and redirects should be made there. See Solomon Ibn Gabirol for example. Adam Bishop 04:50, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Adam Bishop for your contribution. I am researching about Juan Luís Vives and could see so many spellings. I think that some recommendations should be available somewhere to have a comon look and feel. I am new here and any comment is wellcome. I do not know how calagogues in US and Canada are build up. I searched at [13], [14], [15] ... In talks and e-mails we discussed to mention the names in Catalan (now a new ortography is used), Spanish, English, Latin (because he wrote in this language), Hebrew (the family was an old rabbinic family forced to convert to christianity) and for translation in Wikipedias in other languages of cause the spelling in that language as Jean ... for French, Jan for Polish. Regards Gangleri 14:32, 2004 Oct 10 (UTC)

Additional notes added at (see timestamp): Gangleri 01:39, 2004 Oct 11 (UTC)

Well, don't use too many names - I suggest using his name in his native language (Catalan?), his name in Latin (if he wrote in Latin he probably signed his name with a Latin form), and English (because this is the English wikipedia). His names in French or Polish are not relevant here. Adam Bishop 22:17, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oh I see...well then, whatever his name is in other languages is up to those wikipedias to decide. Adam Bishop 02:58, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Halló! The search to find out why completely different forms for Al-Idrisi / Al Idrisi / Idrisi where used in different articles took some hours. Please take a look at Talk:Muhammad al-Idrisi and Talk:Ahmad ibn Fadlan. Thanks! Regards

this is part of the larger issue of consistent transliteration of foreign languages (written in non-latin alphabets). We should draw up guidelines for that, as it will be a pain to clean up the encyclopedia for consistency later. Consistency is not the first concern: The spelling chosen for the article title is of course the one most current in English. (For example, we wouldn't move "bin Laden" to "ibn Laden" if our guidelines demanded that, because "bin" is clearly the current form. But in the case of "Al-Idrisi", who is not current at all, there should be guidelines to prescribe a particular spelling. The same applies to Chinese, Japanese etc. etc.... dab 21:50, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I see not why it should be part of another project Gangleri... However, some more guidelines are certainly necessary to clarify all this. SweetLittleFluffyThing 22:12, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

a good example is Al Battani. We have redirects from Al-Battani, Al-Batani and the latinized Albatenius, Albategnius, Albategni. The full name is also given right at the beginning of the article. dab 08:08, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC) from: User talk:Dbachmann#Arabic names Gangleri 14:23, 2004 Oct 18 (UTC)

---

Added comments to Talk:Al Battani and Talk:Solomon Ibn Gabirol. Gangleri 20:50, 2004 Oct 18 (UTC)

Home Army

Since there is no Wikipedia:Contact an administrator page yet I decided to put this here. Could any of the admins move the Home Army page to Home Army (disambiguation) and make the earlier article a redirect to Armia Krajowa? I posted this solution as a proposal on Talk:Home Army two weeks ago and notified the original author of Home Army page ([16]), yet there was no opposition whatsoever, so I assume that this should be acceptable. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 05:46, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

Home Army (disambiguation) was a redirect to Home Army with no history other than a redirect. This means you could have just moved Home Army there without an admin needing to delete anything. This is only the case for history-free redirects. Anyway, it's moved now. Angela. 06:40, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, I didn't know that. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 11:01, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

There is a page Wikipedia:Requested moves for this but it is very new. Rmhermen 13:01, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

Maybe Wikipedia:Contact an administrator would be a good idea? Filiocht 11:53, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

meta name="KEYWORDS" content="..."

• Some articles about persons, plants, animals, objects could be refered also by many alternative names and / or misspelled variants very commonly used and having top rankings at search engins listings.
• What is your opinion having somthing like <content> list of alternative names / spellings </content> to influence meta name="KEYWORDS" content="..."?
• Should meta name="KEYWORDS" content="..." contain olso the REDIRECTed variants?
• This could make live easyer. At the end of a page Alternative names, Biographical names could be written with smaller size followed by Misspelled variants, eventualy with REDIRECTed variants. Regards Gangleri 20:41, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)

for goodness sake, no mis-spelled variants, please. we don't want to feed the web with those. common alternatives are normally listed initially, in the lead section. dab 22:32, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

a good example is Al Battani. We have redirects from Al-Battani, Al-Batani and the latinized Albatenius, Albategnius, Albategni. The full name is also given right at the beginning of the article. dab 08:08, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC) from: User talk:Dbachmann#Arabic names Gangleri 14:20, 2004 Oct 18 (UTC)

• Note: This issue is related to different spellings / translations of names (Greek, Arab, Chinese, Japanese, Middle Age - names etc.), locations (latin names, in old and new ortography, names in different languages spoken there (see Cluj-Napoca) etc.), animals (and breeds) and so on. Gangleri 01:39, 2004 Oct 18 (UTC)

date/time format for page update

At the bottom of every page I see something like this:

This page was last modified 15:45, 14 Oct 2004.

As far as I can tell, that is not even one of the standard date time formats referred to in the Wikipedia Style Guide, nor does it correspond to the ISO order. This "SMALL:SMALLER, BIG:BIGGER:BIGGEST" format is almost as bad as the traditional screwy "Unix order". Why not make it conform to the ISO date/time format ordering? Largest unit to smallest. I think that, except in situations where you have an explicitly requested user preference, you should always default to a locale neutral "spelled out ISO" format:

This page was last modified 2004-Oct-14 15:45. (my personal favorite)

or

This page was last modified 2004 Oct 14 15:45.

or

This page was last modified 2004 October 14 15:45.

or something similarly universal for English speakers if you don't want to go to full universality with 2004-10-14 15:45. (And I can understand why you might want to avoid the all numeric form in an English-language article for clarity.)

Because it's more common the way it is - it's the normal way of writing time/dates - and I very much dislike seeing the year first. I also very much dislike to see the mm/dd/yy format. violet/riga (t) 09:27, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You ought to be able to choose the form with Chinese characters for "year, month, day" even in English text. There should be a "preferences" option for this. I am saying use Chinese characters because absolutely no English equivalent exists. As for pronunciation, I don't worry about this. Think about how "$14" is pronounced: "four-teen-dollars", right to left, even though in general English is left to right. -User:Juuitchan

The Original 28 Articles

I read on a statistics page that when Wikipedia first started in January 2001, there were 28 articles added in the first month. I'm now curious what those 28 articles were and if they can still be seen in their original form. MK 04:38, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I was going to give you a link, but it seems there's nothing there. Any ideas what happened to that page? func(talk) 04:44, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A wild guess: Slashdot, 2001, Ontology, Nupedia, Wiki, United States

Even if it was active ancient pages wouldn't be much use, it shows the pages that have not been edited recently not the first created. From what I have heard it is unlikely the Wikipedia from January 2001 could be recreated. In the early days Wikipedia did not keep permanent page histories and it is impossible to see the history of some articles prior to the fall of 2001. In the first year user pages were also in the main namespace so I would not be surprised if LarrySanger, JimboWales and some more of those twenty-eight were really user pages. Also remember that CamelCase links were then used and when this was corrected all the moves were by cut and paste, so the old history is at pages like UnitedStates. - SimonP 07:39, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)

Guess you're wrong. See here and here. OntOlogy and NuPedia are both listed. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 15:08, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)

That's intersting: ThomasEdison (in CamelCase) shows up as Wales' first contribution, on 23 Jan 2001. It is very strange looking: words in the article are also in CamelCase, like WilliamKennedyLaurieDickson and LightBulb. func(talk) 16:59, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

CamelCase was used in the original Wikipedia to designate links. RickK 05:39, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

A lot of the article histories were scrambled by the software changes. There are several articles that list me as the first author when all I really did was change a typo or something similarly small. I was impressed that the ThomasEdison article included a full first sentence which mentioned the article title. I notice it didn't yet have /talk at the bottom to enable the talk subpage. Sometimes we would get competing /talk and /discussion pages on the same article. Rmhermen 17:27, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Announcements January 2001, there were 617 "pages" by January 31. Of course "pages" isn't the same as articles which have also been counted differently in the past. Rmhermen 23:35, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)

The slashdot article is an example of the missing histories. The first edit in the article hiistory is from Dec 3, 2001 while the first talk page comment is from much earlier, Jul 18, 2001. (The redirects date from 2003). Rmhermen 00:08, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Wikipedia's oldest articles

Vandalism close to home?

It seems that someone with an IP address very close to mine (presumably within Australia) has been "vandalising" articles since mid-September. The IP in question is 202.67.65.166. Can anyone tell me which articles have been vandalized by this user?

Regards,

Alokavon;

17/10/04

Try http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=202.67.65.166 -- Chuq 06:34, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Dispute with IP

I'm having a POV dispute with 4.23.83.100. They seem to be a Korean user who is adding blatantly POV Korean apologetics and attackes on Japan to multiple Korea and Japan-related articles. I've left a message on their talk page, and I'll leave a message on a talk page of one of their articles, but if there's no response, what's the procedure then? I don't know if people should be blocked for POV stuff, or what, probably not. So what's the routine? Just reverting all their changes every time they make it? RfC? RfA?

Basically, what's the procedure when dealing with a noncommunicative IP? --Golbez 07:16, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)

I would revert and protect the articles in question in order to force him to talk. Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 00:31, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

Strawpoll for settling dispute about sexual intercourse

---

Could intact men and the women who love them please settle a dispute at talk:sexual intercourse. Basically, please just answer this simple question:

¿Can the mucusa/skin-system of an intact man move independent of the erectile tissue; thus, reducing friction; thus, reducing the need for artificial lubricants?

• Yes

1. Ŭalabio 10:19, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)

• No

Comments:

---

You have asked multiple questions here, and then suggested that a simple yes or no will do the job. You've also asked hidden, agenda-driven questions. (after the confusing terminology is removed):

1. Can the foreskin of an uncircumcised man move independently of the penis?
2. If it can, does this reduce friction during intercourse? (and masturbation? You guys seem to talk about masturbation a lot).
3. Does any of this have anything to do with artificial lubricants?

These are the hidden questions you've asked:

1. Do circumcised men use artificial lubricants?
2. If so, do they do so more often than uncircumcised men?
3. If so, does all of this support my POV pushing?

This is my question:

1. For those people who use lubricants, why do you use them?

This is my answer:

1. As women grow older, they begin to experience difficulties in self-lubrication.
2. Some younger women also experience difficulties in self-lubrication:
   • some for medical reasons
   • some for psychological reasons
   • some because they have an insensitive lover who does not engage in foreplay and other arousing activities
3. Some people use lubricants so that they may engage in forms of non-vaginal intercourse.
4. Some men (who seem to call themselves intactivists) apparently use lubricants during the act of masturbation, and they're pretty upset about it....

func(talk) 14:31, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

Ŭalabio 10:19, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)

I demonstrated to two accounts of Robert Brookes the simple engineering principle which allow intact men two make love with intact women for hours without artificial lubricants. Robert Brookes (currently Robert the Bruce) refuses to concede. Here we go again:

The skin/mucosa-system of the penis is not fused to the underlying structures. Women can lubricate continuously for the same reason men cannot spit every minute on the minute for hours at a time.

During coitus, as the time goes by, the amount of lubrication drops. The skin/mucosa-system sticks to the inside of the vagina. For an intact man and his paramour, this is of little consequence because they can continue to make love.

With circumcised men, as sex goes on, the lubricant drops off, and the skin/mucosa-system stick to the vaginal walls. Since most circumcised men have no modile tissue on their penile shafts, coitus literally grinds to a halt (unless one uses artificial lubricants).

¿Any Questions?

Ŭalabio 18:29, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)

Yes, a few:

1. Why are you trying to use Wikipedia for original research? Where are the medically peer-reviewed studies that back up this mucosa thing?
2. Why are you and others (self-admittedly) using Wikipedia as a platform for social and political change? Can you show me any other encyclopedias that state extremely marginalized viewpoints as "facts"?
3. Why is it that you and your crew can't stick to the obvious articles where one would expect your POV pushing? Why do you also have to have to drag unrelated articles like violence, infant, and pseudoscience into your agenda?

¿Any Answers?

func(talk) 19:20, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is not original research. Robert Brookes refuses to concede. I figured that this might force him to stop vandalizing. ¿Have any of you ever tried to work with Robert Brookes or his sockpuppets? Please read talk:sexual intercourse and you will see what I mean. He lost but he keeps reverting. He refuses to understand the issue (he believes that this dispute is about smegma as a lubricant). He is the most infuriating user whom I ever had the displeasure to meet.

Ŭalabio 20:39, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)

I, for one, have tried to work with both factions in the circumcision debate and I think both are equally bothersome. Maybe Robert has been a bit more rude, but in terms of expanding the scope into unrelated articles, you and DanP win the prize. Rhobite 01:34, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

I've read the question, the article, and the talk page. What possible need is there for this to be on [sexual intercourse], beyond a nod to the possible differences in sensation and certain difference in mechanics? This is obviously a POV, hidden agenda, kind of thing. And I'm strongly anti-circumsision. P.S. Anyone can screw for hours without artificial lube, it's called spit.

---

WTF?! Mark Richards 17:49, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

OMG!? Someone set us up the bomb. ;-) func(talk) 19:20, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Question about Solar Tower article

I've been working on cleaning up Solar Tower, which was riddled with trademark symbols and likely advertisements for a specific company that develops solar towers. I'm concerned that the article describes generic solar chimneys, but presents them as the property of a company. This company goes by the names "Enviromission," "AEldwood," "Solar Mission," "Opensource Energy," among others. The company owns the trademark for the term "Solar Tower," note the capitalization in both the term and the Wikipedia article. An anonymous user, who I believe is affiliated with Enviromission, recently moved the article from Solar chimney, a term which I believe is unencumbered. The user added numerous links to the company, and a confusing note about the trademark status. Personally I think it's odd that someone invoking the spirit of open source would care so much about protecting their IP, but that's beside the point.

What do we do about this article? I think all generic information should be moved back to Solar chimney, and Solar Tower should focus on the activities of the company which owns that trademark. Right now we are muddling the technology with a specific product. It's like if Operating system redirected to Microsoft Windows. Thoughts? Also posted on the article's talk page. Rhobite 14:02, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

I've written stubs to replace three inappropriate redirects from solar tower, solar power tower and solar chimney. The Solar Tower project is an instance of the last two, it's not even an instance of the first. Lots still to do to remove promotional material from the article itself, and yes, some historical material should be moved back to solar chimney.

And if you want an example of how one contributor's passion can introduce bias into a range of articles, look no further than its link list, it's now linked to from everything from hydrogen to PEMFC (which needs some work too). Andrewa 11:03, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This same one contributor has a very questionable user page, (spam-like). I've left him a note about it on his talk page. func(talk) 02:17, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

He's also angrily quit Wikipedia twice, then promptly resumed editing. He also called me a turkey. Rhobite 02:25, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

Libel

I've seen a few potentially libelous articles, with statements along the lines of someone was "arrested for ..." If the person hasn't been convicted or pleaded guilty, the sentences should be reworded. For example, "Joe Blow was arrested for killing his wife" says Joe was arrested because he DID kill his wife.

That can be avoided by writing "Joe Blow was arrested and charged with killing his wife" or "... arrested in connection with his wife's death" or "on suspicion of killing his wife.”"

"Sued for" is a similar problem. Maurreen 23:15, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Google returns about 410 hits for site:en.wikipedia.org "arrested for". Gdr 00:33, 2004 Oct 18 (UTC)

Good point. Paul August 18:02, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

Add:Biography - Peggy Kerry

Just click this link and you can add it yourself. Gdr 01:08, 2004 Oct 18 (UTC)

Done. anthony (see warning) 17:53, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

And now it's listed on VfD. anthony (see warning) 19:12, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Accusation

I thought this was a regular, online encyclopedia. I came here to look something up and got the message:

User talk:152.163.100.135 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism </wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism>. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox </wiki/Wikipedia:Sandbox>. Thank you. - Lucky 6.9 </wiki/User:Lucky_6.9> 22:45, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I haven't posted to this enclopedia previously. I understood that I needed to create an account to post. I did that to respond to the accusation. I clicked in the posters name/number but I think I'm Alice in wonderland. It seems there is so much extensive info for using this site and I don't collaborate in writing. So Lucky 6.9, wherever you are, I think you may have misidentified me. Sorry for your trouble, maybe retracking your steps will help.

Sincerely,

[email protected]

The most likely answer is that someone else from your ISP was vandalizing Wikipedia, and eventually, you got that IP (152.163.100.135 in this case). This is easily possible if you dial in to your ISP, instead of having a constant cable or DSL connection. That way, the ISP gives you a different IP every time you log in, and that's why, eventually, it was possible that you'd get this one. So you have nothing to worry about... Lucky did the right thing in attempting to warn *that* user, and there's little we can do to prevent that message from being given ot others. Maybe we should construct a more user-neutral message? Like "Someone from this IP has been vandalizing ... if you aren't them, please disregard", etc. --Golbez 01:26, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

As it says immediately after the part that you quoted:

"This is the discussion page for an anonymous user who has not created an account yet or who does not use it. We therefore have to use the numerical IP address to identify him/her. Such an IP address can be shared by several users. If you are an anonymous user and feel that irrelevant comments have been directed at you, please create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users."

Obviously someone else from your ISP has previously vandalised Wikipedia, and Lucky 6.9 was quite correct to try to contact him by leaving a message on that talk page -- I've done the same myself. -- Arwel 11:43, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How long does the big orange "You have a message" warning last for an IP? - SimonP 17:44, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

Until somebody using that IP goes to the Talk page. RickK 22:11, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

viz article

Hi. I'm new to Wikipedia, and I've recently made a change to a page and would like to know if I did all right or if I didn't and should just leave everything alone. The page is viz.

After reading a book for class, I found viz interspersed frequently in the text. After not finding it in the dictionary, I came here. The definition seemed a little lacking. There was only an "ambiguous" page. Anyway, after learning more about viz I returned here and altered the page.

Please give me feedback.

okay. We're all nice here, well most of the time. We welcome any sensible contributions from you. We only don't like you if you're a vandal, and even then we're strangely accomodating! (See template:welcome). I have to warn you though that Wikipedia is not a dictionary; we have Wiktionary for that. Viz probably should be on the British magazine containing rather unfunny and rude cartoons of the same name. Dunc|☺ 16:43, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't believe you read much of it to dismiss it all as "unfunny" Dainamo 17:59, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I can't believe we don't seem to have an article on Viz (magazine)! Any takers? The Recycling Troll 17:03, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It is already done as VIZ.--Jirate 18:03, 2004 Oct 18 (UTC)

All right. Thanks. You're right about a definition of viz being inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Is there any way to get comments like yours without having to post a message here? I'd hate to have made that viz contribution and never learning how unhelpful it was.

If there is anything else interesting to say about it, it won't be just a dictionary definition. I added a bit about the origin of the abbreviation, I hope that helps. Adam Bishop 05:05, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia in court cases

Wikipedia has been cited in some court cases. From The Volokh Conspiracy.

"The Eleventh Circuit case that struck down mandatory metal detectors (pdf) for protest attendees (cited by Orin Kerr below) is noteworthy for one reason besides its important and likely controversial holding: It cites Wikipedia, a free online collaborative encyclopedia, for information on the Department of Homeland Security Advisory System."

One of the other people on that site is concerned about Wikipedia being used for things like this and checks some pages and finds USA PATRIOT Act to be factually incorrect in many ways in it's overview section. - [[User:Cohesion|cohesion ☎]] 18:13, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

The thought of wikipedia being used as a source for evidence in a court case is scary. "It said on wikipedia, your Honor, that the defendant is t3h gay!"

Suggestions for speakers for the Wikimedia Event 2005

There will be an international event for Wikimedia projects in 2005. This will be held in Dublin, Frankfurt or Rotterdam.

I'm helping to plan the programme for the event and would appreciate any suggestions for potential speakers and workshops. If you'd like to volunteer, or have a suggestion for a notable person who might want to make a keynote presentation, please add it to Wikimania:speakers on Meta. Thanks. Angela. 03:46, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

Chinese paper art

(picture request moved to Wikipedia:Requested pictures)

Indonesia-interwiki

Hi, I noticed that on the "Recent Changes"-page there is no "interwiki-link" to the Indonesian wikipedia (Bahasa Indonesia). Can one of the moderators fix this? MartijnL 08:05, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Done. However it didn't need a moderator to do it, every user can edit the Recent Changes - just use the small "edit" link in the "Projects" row on top. andy 16:23, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

List of pages to watch for NPOV?

Is there a list of p[ages to watch for NPOV? Of particular worry to me are the Lauren Jackson and Erik Morales pages; I keep on NPOVING them and the original posters keep reverting them to the original, point of view filled, versions.

Thanks and God bless! "Antonio The Incredible Martin"

It's an interesting question, athletes and entertainers seem to be the target of positive POV from anonymous users who might think this is a review site or a fan site. Don't know the solution, but I guess we all need to branch out on the type of articles we watch. Rhobite 18:30, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

This is probably what you are looking for? Category:NPOV_disputes Tomos 23:18, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

2001 invasion of Afghanistan

(copied from archive - archived in error Paul August 17:03, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC))

I tried asking this August 8 at Talk:Global protests against war on Iraq so I'm trying here: Is there any article similar to Global protests against war on Iraq with respect to protests against the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan? MathKnight and I have covered some of this ground in Post-September 11 anti-war movement, but that might not be the best place for some of this. -- Jmabel 00:51, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

There was less protest, so there's probably no separate page. National entities which were able to sell reactors to Iraq and whose leaders were able to profit from the "Oil for Food" money laundering scam protested less about Afghanistan, as there was no money to be made there. Things might have been different if the U.N. had started an "Opium for Food" program. - Émpire

In the UK there was opposition from the communists (a small but very organised and very vocal minority) and some Muslims, and some pacifists to the Afghanistan Campaign. In contrast the Iraq War was opposed by major a political party (the LibDems, with the SNP and Plaid Cymru, and certain sections of the Labour Party. In London, a million people marched against the War -- opposition was popular rather than coming from those who profited from money laundering, as suggested. The communists did take it upon themselves to organise everything. Once Iraq started, everyone forgot about Afghanistan anyway, so it's probably worth mentioning in the background section rather than having its own article. Afghanistan also put together the for the first time the alliance of the Muslims and the communists. Dunc|☺ 12:05, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A New Vandal in Town

Hi. There's a anon user around that has vandalized some articles by erasing information for no good reason or by addind controversial sentences. If you check his/her list of contributions, however, you will notice that in a few instances he/she appears to have made some valid contributions. Those are vastly outnumbered by what we would classify as vandalism though. Incidentally, the history of contributions suggest that this person is either Indian or has a particular interest in India-related articles (although some unrelated articles were vandalized as well). Should we do something about this or just wait and see if he/she is even coming back? I should note that I personally think it to be a total waste of time to place one of those "please experiment in the sandbox" messages in a anon user's talk page — he/she will never read it, and even if he/she did, since this person has nothing better to do than to vandalize this project, that is highly unlikely to have any effect on his/her disposition. Regards, Redux 18:20, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• It's an outgoing web proxy for The Indian Institute of Technology Madras, so its not just one person. Much like the AOL proxies, there's little we can do without preventing a lot of people from editing, apart from keeping a critical eye on all activity from this IP. --fvw 18:59, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)

Project Pages

Someone should make a list of Wikipedia project pages including Wikipedia:Wikipediholic and Wikifun

Wikifun was missing from Wikipedia:Topical_index#Fun_stuff, but it's there now. Niteowlneils 23:46, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I also added it to Wikipedia:List of pages in the Wikipedia namespace and Wikipedia:Alphabetical index. Niteowlneils 23:52, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Problem with WP:VfD

Someone has listed Anton Solomoukha for deletion. But the page which was created was Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Anton Solomouka (without "h" in the name) and there is no section title "Anton Solomoukha" in the list in W:VfD. I've seen that and have thought that moveing Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Anton Solomouka to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Anton Solomoukha would "repare" that, but there is still no entry title in W:VfD, just the text of the page after the section for Hoatan ([17]) and before the section for Agitation ([18]). Could someone "repare" that? Ma'ame Michu 17:28, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

(sections between the previous tag and this one were archived on 12:07, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC))'