Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

• Table of contents
• First discussion
• End of page
• New post

The assistance section of the village pump is used to make requests for assistance with Wikipedia.

If you wish to report vandalism, please go to Wikipedia:Requests for investigation or Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism instead.

If you have a specific question to ask, you may go to Wikipedia:Ask a question instead.

« Archives, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

Discussions older than 7 days (date of last made comment) are moved here. These discussions will be kept archived for 7 more days. During this period the discussion can be moved to a relevant talk page if appropriate. After 7 days the discussion will be permanently removed.

Trigger Happy

Dear Wikipedians: I, like you, am an editor; I create articles and make edits. But, many, I am sure many other people out there, are tired, frustrated and angry with the behavior of many Administrators. I am certain that it is appallingly easy to revert and article, that someone has undoubtedly spent allot of time and effort writing. I have, in the past spent hours, researching, planning, writing, checking and revising an addition to an article only to have the whole lot deleted forever three minutes afterwards.

I know that deletion of material is essential in a free-to-edit encyclopedia, but if you see an article that someone has anonymously devoted their time to writing, why could you not revise it, change it or give a reason for you action? They deserve one.

I know all Administrators are not all Drunk-With-Power-Trigger-Happy-Nazis, many of you do an excellent job and you know who you are.

In closing: Create, don’t Destroy. Make a distinction between “what is right, and what is easy”. Be enriched and enrich others with the knowledge of other people.

And keep that finger off the trigger.

(If I don't cop flack for this one, I will climb the Reichtag Bulding in a Spiderman outfit).

Dfrg.msc 07:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• See also Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Trigger Happy, begun 6 June. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Unusual crisis - losing focus of contributing to Wikipedia

I am facing an unusual type of crisis on Wikipedia. In short, I am losing my focus as a Wikipedian.

I joined Wikipedia in February 2006. For several months, I had read articles about websites and Sinagpore TV shows, and I found lots of information about them on Wikipedia. However, I soon spotted loopholes - missing or incorrect information or missing articles. When I realized anyone could edit, I decided to join the project and contribute my knowledge. I was warmly welcomed.

Therefore, from the very start, I focused on contributing information to articles about websites and Singapore TV shows. I created the GTalkr article, and contributed information to the NeoPets and Gmail articles. In the beginning, I struggled to understand the wiki markup and policies, so I started with small additions. In addition, I often participated in discussions about Wikipedia on various talk pages, as a way of becoming familiar with the wiki markup and policies.

Over time, I became bolder, and wrote the Google Groups and Homerun articles. (To date, 99% of the content in these two articles is still by me, so I would welcome feedback.) My discussions also lead to the birth of Wikipedia:Requests for feedback, a place for newcomers to get feedback on their articles that will help make them better writers. (This arose out of personal need - I found it very difficult to get feedback on my articles!)

Eventually, the pressure of school decreased my time on Wikipedia. Still, I managed to contribute information to articles on my niche topics, and participate in discussions to improve articles and Wikipedia as a whole.

Finally, my exams ended, and school holidays started. I have lots of time to contribute to Wikipedia. However, now I seem to be losing my focus as a Wikipedian. I am finding it difficult to contribute information to articles on my niche topics. This is partially due to various issues on Wikipedia that are affecting me. I think, however, that it is more due to the lack of organization and direction in my contributions.

In the past, I would chance upon errors and omissions in articles, and contribute some information or correct the errorneous information. However, I think I must organize my contributions into sub-goals. For example, I could have a sub-goal of improving all Google-related articles. Every week, I would pick a Google-related article and make significant improvements to it, and, if the article is good enough, nominate it for GA or FA. If a Google-related article should exist, but doesn't, I should create and expand the article (e.g. Google Groups, which was written by me). I could do this until I improve all Google-related articles by a notch.

I recently had an idea for a sub-goal. This subgoal concerns articles related to Yahoo! I noticed that the exclamation mark in Yahoo! is often omitted, even in Wikipedia articles about Yahoo! I therefore decided to add omitted exclamation marks to Yahoo! in Yahoo!-related articles. I think WikiProjects could be used for sub-goals, so I created Wikipedia:WikiProject_Yahoo! to encourage other users to follow suit and add omitted exclamation marks. User:Mets501 used AutoWikiBrowser to automate the adding of omitted exclamation marks to over 300 articles.

If WikiProjects are useful for helping me find sub-goals, I would be interested in finding such WikiProjects for my niche topics (websites and Singapore TV shows). Although I usually work independently in school, I understand that Wikipedia is an online community. Therefore, another goal of mine will be to build up a good working relationship with several fellow Wikipedians that will help us collaborate to improve articles in my niche topics. Would WikiProjects help me do so as well? Regardless of the answer to the previous question, how do you suggest I find editors to build a good working relationship with, so we can collaborate and contribute to articles together?

As I started losing my focus, I started "wasting time" on more discussions on Wikipedia. For example, at the Village Pump, I suggested a Wikipedia-Google partnership. The suggestion was not well received. I also participated in several surveys, such as one to prevent anonymous editing, and one regarding my reasons for contributing to the project.

I think the wiki concept is great, and I wish to make significant contributions to this mammoth project. However, I am running out of ideas for doing so, and I would appreciate some pointing in the right direction. Some may suggest that I start combating vandalism. In fact, if I spot any vandalism to articles about my niche topics, I will most certainly revert it. However, reverting vandalism is not my cup of tea, and not my purpose in contributing to Wikipedia. Many people are much better vandal-fighters than I am.

I could spend my June school holidays working on my user page, letting everyone know I'm a 14-year-old boy from Singapore who contributes information to articles about websites and Singapore TV shows, and finding userboxes, and I am currently working on my userpage, but the question remains: After I complete my userpage, how can I make further contributions, now that people know who they are working with?

Several other issues are distracting my ability to contribute information to Wikipedia, and are increasing my WikiStress levels. Resolving these would certainly help me regain my focus, although I think it is still imperative to have sub-goals. Despite these issues, I would probably continue to contribute with focus if I could work in sub-goals.

My IP, User:202.156.6.54, is shared by practically all of Singapore (over 4 million people). There are several egregious anonymous vandals using this IP address to vandalize Wikipedia. As a result, the IP is often blocked, and I am affected as well. I find myself unable to edit Wikipedia a quarter of the time, and this is very frustrating! I have tried to raise this issue elsewhere, but this problem has not been resolved yet. I had to resort to edits which were deemed violations of WP:POINT. Please sign at Wikipedia:Blocking policy proposal.

Some policies appear to have been deliberately designed to make contributing very difficult for me. I will single out the verifiability/original research policies. A considerable percentage of my contributions have been tagged as original research. Unfortunately, given my niche topics, it is very difficult to find and cite reliable sources for my facts.

For example, I contributed information to the NeoPets article and nominated it for FA. It failed - the primary objection being the lack of reliable sources for the Criticisms section, and therefore the over-use of weasel words. As an experienced NeoPets user, I agree with most of the information in the Criticisms section, and I wish to point out that it is difficult to find reliable sources criticising a website. Much of the criticisms are user opinion, and it is unlikely that these criticisms would be published in a reliable source such as a newspaper. It is possible to find such information in unreliable sources such as anti-NeoPets websites.

Similarly, almost all of the Homerun article which I wrote is original research! While writing the article (especially the spoiler), I watched the movie to verify the information I wrote in the article. Unless one has actually watched Homerun, it is practically impossible to verify the information in the article! When I contribute articles about Singapore TV shows, I will have it even worse! It is unlikely that the TV shows will be aired a second time, so it is almost impossible to verify the information, except by reading the storylines at the MediaCorp website.

Although I am more experienced with Wikipedia than I used to be, I still occasionally slip up with wiki markup, particularly with the helpme and peerreview tags. User:Commander Keane recently banned me from using helpme. I was also involved in a dispute regarding the Internet Explorer article. I contributed some information to the Criticism section. Several editors pointed out that my information had serious POV issues, and reverted my edit. I read their feedback and worked on cleaning up the information to become less POV. I then re-added the cleaned up information to the article, and posted on the talk page. My edit was immediately reverted without any explanation or consideration that I had cleaned up the information. On the talk page, User:Warrens called me "a biased critic whose only purpose here is to disrupt", which could be a violation of WP:NPA and WP:AGF (I'm not sure as I'm not very familiar with Wikipedia policy) and did not offer any explanation or consideratoin. He then banned me from editing the article. Even if I lose the dispute, I hope to learn from it. [1]

I hope someone will help me find/regain my focus as a Wikipedian and also offer advice regarding the various problems I have encountered while editing Wikipedia. I am unsure whether the Village Pump is the best place to post this; if there's a better place, please redirect me to it. Is there a page where Wikipedians can ask questions to help them develop as contributors to Wikipedia?

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not familiar in any way with you as an editor, I'm sorry to say, but here a few random thoughts that you may find useful nonetheless:

• Stay cool. Take a Wikibreak if your Wikistress gets too high.

• June holidays are the worst time to take a Wikibreak - when I have the most time to edit Wikipedia! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry, no one is going to waive WP:NOR for you. Try to live with it. This policy exists for a number of very good reasons, and should be rigorously enforced. In a nutshell, what good content we lose because of it is a lot less important than the tidal wave of crap, cruft and crankery that would otherwise flood Wikipedia.

• I understand the rule is there to prevent conspiracy theories. I'm just frustrated with how it hinders my editing. Perhaps the policy should be modified to give the editor more leeway in verifying the facts, especially if he can prove he is reasonably knowledgable about the subject. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• For getting more feedback, you could try WP:ER; to resolve your issues with other contributors, you could try one of the methods listed at WP:DR.

• Thanks. Will check out WP:ER. Please check out WP:RFF. I created it to help new articles get feedback. As for WP:DR, I posted my dispute there but did not receive any response Wikipedia_talk:Resolving_disputes#A_dispute_I_hope_to_learn_from.

• You're 14. You've got all your life in front of you. Eventually, you'll get to know more stuff that will give you ideas for Wikipedia content. Call it a fringe benefit of life.

• Perhaps I should utilise my teenhood to surf more websites and watch more TV shows so I can write more articles. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Best of luck, Sandstein 16:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you know any other languages—if you do, you could help with interwiki translations. No one will criticize your lack of activity as long as you give it a reason (i.e. wikibreak). For what it's worth, you are way ahead of the standard, writing articles and interacting at your age (most wikipedians are, which is why you may not realize it). It's OK if you step back from what you are doing in order to reevaluate yourself, because you are at the point in your life where you are defining, categorizing, and trying understand the motives of the people who surround you, and it can be stressful to do a million things at once, especially write an encylopedia :).-- The ikiroid  18:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

"You are way ahead of the standard" - does that mean I'm mature? Cool - my friends on Google Groups say so too. Yes, I'm at that stage, and it's stressful, but I'll get over it, and I hope to find help in re-evaluating myself. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Check out Wikipedia:Community Portal for a list of Wikipedia tasks that need to be done. Editing Wikipedia is not just about writing articles. It also includes editing other people's articles, resolving disputes, reverting vandalism, wikifying articles, working on Wikiprojects to coordinate work across multiple articles, etc.

I mentioned earlier that I do revert vandalism to articles on my niche topics (websites and Singapore TV shows), if someone doesn't get 'em first. It seems many Wikipedians are engaged in fighting vandalism, and few actually contribute information and expand articles. I hope to find ways to continue improving the content of articles about my niche topics. I think I need to co-ordinate and organize my edits, perhaps in terms of sub-goals (outlined above). I understand that WikiProjects could be used for this purpose, so could anyone recommend WikiProjects for my niche topics? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Check out what it takes to become an admin. It may be too early for you to apply but learning what it takes to be a good admin is a useful thing and may give you a broader perspective on Wikipedia.

Becoming an admin? I guess I can only dream. They probably wouldn't want a 14-year-old who violates WP:POINT and lacks understanding of wiki markup for an admin. Anyway, it's not my style - as mentioned earlier, I came here to contribute information, not to fight vandalism. Still, I'll read it. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Consider joining a group of fellow editors at WP:Esperanza,Harmonious editing club or {{WP:Concordia]]

A good place to make new friends? OK, I'll check it out. I know Wikipedia isn't Friendster or Myspace. The reason for having Wikifriends is to work towards a common goal. My goal is to improve articles on my niche topics, mostly by contributing information. If other editors also wish to improve the standard of articles on the same niche topics as mine, then it makes sense to become Wikifriends so we could collaborate and contribute together. That's why Wikipedia is a community project. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Good luck. Don't take Wikipedia too seriously. At the end of the day, it's just a bunch of magnetic charges sitting on a bunch of disks in Florida. There's more to life than that.

--Richard 19:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I have no life. I spend practically all my time online - on online communities, playing some online game, surfing for information, blogging, or editing Wikipedia (natch). OK, I lied. I do have some life. I usually do well in my exams, with about half of my report card showing As and the other half usually Bs. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I joined when I was 14. *whistles* Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 14:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

While I realize you're frustrated by being repeatedly blocked, things such as this and this are out of line. Furthermore, nobody ever blocked you except User:NSLE, once, for those two edits (and you were unblocked 28 minutes later for—ironically—collateral damage). User:Commander Keane never blocked you. If you're having trouble editing Wikipedia, unfortunately, the only thing you can effectively do is wait for Mediazilla:550.

As for WP:NOR, I suggest that when noting criticism of, e.g., NeoPets, you link to websites criticizing it; for Homerun, cite the movie itself, giving the time in the movie where something occurs. Nothing verifiable needs to be unsourced. (If a TV episode isn't going to be rerun, though, and can't be otherwise obtained, it's not verifiable and shouldn't be in Wikipedia.) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess I'll wait for MediaZilla:550 then, and strongly suport the proposal, and grit my teeth when I'm blocked. This does not affect me alone - it affects almost all Internet users in Singapore, and others, such as User:Stefan, have complained. Commander Keane didn't block me - he left a note on my talk page telling me to never use helpme again, after I used it and messed up Talk:MSN Groups. I will consider your suggestions regarding citations. How do I cite the minute in the movie? Remember I'm not good with wiki markup. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

All DVD players and VCRs will tell you exactly how far you are into the movie, I believe, at least if you know how to look. To cite, just write <ref>''Movie Name'' at [time]</ref> or something of the sort, and make sure <references /> is somewhere appropriate on the page (see m:Cite.php). It's not pretty, but someone will clean it up eventually. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 08:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

This comment is an excellent example of why we should limit participation in this project by minors. Chronological adulthood is not easy to verify, true; it is no guarantee of mental maturity, also true. But experience has shown that young people need more direction than older ones. Some users are always going to require that more work be put in to their support than we will harvest from their efforts. John Reid 18:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting point. From a technological angle though, a frusteratingly high amount of adults need much guidance in navigating the internet, let alone editing wikipedia. I suppose we see a high number of minors swarming wikipedia and net groups because their generation has grown up with this technology as part of their cultural zeitgeist. It is much easier to follow and learn things when the peers that surround you are moving by the same ebb and flow of ideas and technology.-- The ikiroid  02:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no respect for people or websites which practise age discrimination. I usually take about 6 months to get fully familiar with a website. For example, I joined Google Groups last August, and by this February I owned a successful group and was an established member of several other successful groups. I joined Wikipedia this February, and my familiarity with wiki markup is increasing. I am now thinking about making long-term contributions to Wikipedia. This is why I wish to get involved in WikiProjects and such. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 16:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The assertion that younger users are going to require more effort than they're worth is baseless and prejudicial. Some of our best contributors, admins, and even arbcom members are young users, many of whom required very little handholding. No user gives a return on investment right away, but in the long run they have the ability to offer knowledge that those who helped them do not possess. Deco 06:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Thanks for your support. I hope to become a prominent member of the community. Not everyone can write articles like Google Groups and Homerun like I did from scratch. Now I want to write and improve more articles, and I want to find appropriate WikiProjects to organize my edits. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I have recently joined the Good Articles WikiProject. I nominated four articles - Criticism of Microsoft, Chelsea F.C., Gmail and RuneScape - for Good Article. Three of them passed, while RuneScape is still awaiting review. I have also sent two articles - Yahoo! and Neopets - for Peer Review. Please review them. It looks like my current direction will be to increase the number of deserving Good Articles on Wikipedia.

However, I would still appreciate any suggestions for appropriate WikiProjects I can join to improve articles on my niche topics: besides websites and Singapore TV shows, I am also interested in chess.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 16:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

For those who don't understand, I'm looking for some WikiProjects on my interests to help me co-ordinate and organize my contributions. I usually contribute information to articles about websites and Singapore TV shows/movies. I'm also interested in chess, but have not contributed to ches-related articles yet.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 02:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Should an edit that reverts vandalism be marked as minor?

My main purpose on Wikipedia is contributing information to articles on websites and Singapore TV shows. However, I occasionally revert vandalism to articles on my niche topics. When I revert vandalism, should I mark the revert as minor? Or does this depend on the level of vandalism - e.g. mark minor if vandalism was minor, don't if vandalism affected large section or whole article? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 16:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The automatic revert which is available to admins marks the reverts as minor. When I revert a large amount of vandalism, or if I have to pick and choose because a good edit occurred after the vandalism, or if there are several vandals in a row, I put an explanation in the edit summary and don't mark it as minor. User:Zoe|^(talk) 16:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Generally, I would mark a revert as minor if it's, well, a minor change. Rewording a one-word sneaky vandalism is minor; reverting a replacement of the entire page by a thousand penis images is not. Deco 17:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

And I would generally disagree with that. I believe the one word, "sneaky" vandalism should not be marked as minor, as it may well be beneficial for others who may disagree that it was vandalism to review the change. When an article is replaced by a million penis images, well, there's no need for anyone to review that change as it's quite obvious what I'm doing--I'd mark it as minor, or, in the case of a rash of similar attacks from one user, I'd use "&bot=1" to completely hide my reversions from Recent Changes (only admins can do this though, I believe). Essentialy the determinant between what should and should not be marked as minor is "Is there a need for someone else to see what I'm doing here?" AmiDaniel (talk) 10:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

If you really feel that it's more useful to mark edits that don't need to be reviewed as minor rather than editors that are minor, I suggest we rename "minor edit" to something that actually reflects this. Deco 19:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I normally use Vandal Proof which marks reverting vandalism as minor. If doing it manually then for very obvious changes I would mark if minor (e.g. blanking, inserting rubbish). I tend to mark it as major if reverting more than historic version or I suspect their is a chance the edit could have been done in good faith. Broadly if I believe nobody is every going to dispute the reversion then I go for minor; otherwise go for major. --MarkS (talk) 10:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I generally mark my own reverts of vandalism as 'minor'. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• They're usually marked as minor by tools so they can be filtered from "Recent changes". Whenever I revert vandalism without a tool, I don't mark my edits. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

something to ask

I am at the college crossroads and I want to know what is the best path to take if I want to devote all of my spare time to creating and maintaining featured articles.

and by that I mean if my only goal in life is to see an article I contributed heavily to on the front page, regardless of what it's about, how should I go

Unfortunately I can't do it now because I own no books and during school I have no time to check out books to read, though the main limiting factor right now is that I don't know jack about any specific topic

I mean I am like 15% of the way to being a Civil Engineer but screw that

Dude, don't abandon your degree. :-P Check out Wikipedia:What is a featured article?, which lists the primary criteria we use when considering an FA. As you noted, one of the most difficult to fulfill is 2c, factually accurate, including citations and references. Many citable resources can be found online or via digital subscriptions - many school libraries have subscriptions that cover all students, check with your library. Finally, keep in mind that no featured article was written by a single person - do the part that you do best.

If you're worried that you don't know enough about any "encyclopedic" topic, note that many of our featured article regard figures from popular culture, politics, video games, or other venues that you might have interest in only as a hobby. See if you can expand on your hobby interests. Researching and expanding a small existing article in your area of interest is a good way to get started. Hope this helps. Deco 11:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Besides, you don't have to know anything about the subject when you begin writing about it. You just need to be willing to research it and be able to separate good sources from bad ones. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I dunno about the rest of you, but this kind of stuff gives me goosebumps, and not in a good way. Honestly, I could not possibly recommend that anyone make getting an article they have contributed heavily to on the front page the only goal in their life. That way lies the kind of horror that makes Comic Book Guy look well-adjusted and socially capable. Wikipedia's cool, absolutely, and it may be a good thing in your life, but it's not your life. -- Captain Disdain 18:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Dispute over External Links

I am current involved in a rather slow moving debate over the use of blogs in external links of a particular article. Out of a matter of respect, I won't name the article, until assistance is needed. At any rate: I argued that a particular link (links, actually) shouldn't be on the "External links" section, as it was a blog hosted on some website. It failed WP:WEB, and thus I figured it should be removed. My opponents replied back, stating that by following Wikipedia:External links, their blog deserved to be on the article, as it was "closely related to" the article content.

Now, am I alone in assuming that an unpopular blog (that is, based on the fact that there have been no comments to the blog posts ever since it started) shouldn't be linked to in Wikipedia? Also, the fact that the article contributors were the one and the same two people whose blog the article is linked to. Both WP:WEB and Wikipedia:External links state that WP isn't a repository of links, so I'm caught. Any suggestions? Kareeser|^Talk! 19:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I would recommend that in the future, you do link to the specific dispute, and furthermore inform all other disputants that you've brought the issue here. Summaries by an interested party are no substitute for firsthand examination of the dispute's facts, and bringing the matter to the community without telling others who are involved could be viewed as dishonest. And finally, there's no mileage in breaking up a discussion. In the future, I suggest you say something more to the effect of "Anyone who's interested, there's a dispute about external links at Talk:Digital signage. Comments are welcome.". You'll find that this is routine at the various Village Pumps, particularly at WP:VPP and WP:VPM.

I've commented at the talk page in question. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

My bad. It's my first time using the Village Pump, and I was (at the very least) a tad annoyed over the issue in the first place. I suggested bringing in an arbiter (which was the point of this thread, actually), but didn't, because I thought it might seem like I was, to borrow a colloquialism, telling on the bully. It's childish :) It won't happen again. Kareeser|^Talk! 07:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Generally speaking, blogs or not suitable external links. If I were to start a blog on film making, for example, it would be "closely related" to the topic, but Wikipedia is not a repository of links and unless the blog provides sourced information not available elsewhere (not opinions), it should be removed per WP:EL. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Generally I think an external link should be authoritative, in the sense that it is not merely relevant but "official" or at least notable/widely-known. For example, if a game company created a website for some new game they're releasing, that site would be eminently suited for a link from the game's article, regardless of quality or how long it's been up. Deco 02:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Adding userbox?

How do I add/propose a new userbox, and how do I know if it's accepted/added? --69.204.179.124 17:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Just create it. Create a page the name of which begins with "Template:", like "Template:foo", then include it with {{foo}}. Be warned that many people like to delete userboxes and read the Templates section of Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Deco 18:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure? The WP Userbox page says One thing that is reasonably clear is that, at the present time, you should not make your userboxes into new templates.. --69.204.179.124 18:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I've never read that page, and it's not policy, but I suppose it's best to do what it says. I think it's silly though. Deco 21:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

So, back to my original question. How do I add/propose it, and know if it's accepted? --69.204.179.124 16:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is sort of chaotic. You can just create it, and you'll know it's been rejected if it gets deleted. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

According to WP:Userbox, Wikipedia talk:Userboxes/New_Userboxes seems to be where new userboxes are proposed. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 22:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I actually added one to New_Userboxes, but how do I know if it's accepted? --Zeno McDohl ^(talk) 22:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Why does it need to be a template, if people care that much why dont the put the code on their page, or make the tamplate in their namespace. Philc _T^E_C^I 22:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

By that logic, why do any userboxes need to be a template? --Zeno McDohl ^(talk) 18:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• I think that's Phil's point. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

need help with references markup

User:Wikimachine has put in a lot of work into Jang Yeong-sil, but the article needs some outside attention. most noticeably, the references are not formatted correctly. he's a relatively new user, & eager to nominate the article for Portal:Korea. i'm not familiar enough with the markup style to fix it. can someone fix this & give some comments at Talk:Jang Yeong-sil? or is there a better place for this request? thanks. Appleby 21:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Answered on article talk. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Systematic removal of references to 'mildly popular' website

There is an anonymous user(s) (User:68.180.3.103) who is systematically removing references to content residing on the external website for WrestleCrap. Some of the things removed have been accompanied by an edit summary suggesting (rightly so) that the external site is only moderately popular and inclusion of items in lists maintained by purveyors of the site might well be non-notable information. What I'm wondering is what the current thinking is on this type of behavior (systematic removal of critique-type information from entertainment-related articles based on the critiquing entity being non-notable in the measure of the editor). Note that the web site is sufficiently notable to have an article here ... if the web site did not have an article here, there would be no question in my mind about the appropriateness of the removal of information as I've described. Thanks for spending a brain cell on this. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It sounds perfectly proper to me. If the links are inappropriate we should be grateful that someone is diligent enough to remove them. Chicheley 22:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Removing of information deemed non-notable by an editor is a good faith action, whether in one article or many articles. If you believe they are in error, you should discuss this with them on their talk page and come to a consensus, but you would have no basis for unilaterally reverting these changes. Deco 02:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Where to start

HELP!

I am a total noob at this. is there a bsic guide some where...? I can't even figure out how dto put a picture on a page for god sakes! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SovietComrade (talk • contribs) 02:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I recommend that you begin with Wikipedia:Introduction. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Casino advertising on Wikipedia

There's been a recent spate of articles about specific hotel/casino operations in Nevada. Now there's even an infobox for "Laughlin (NV) casinos". Some are blatant advertising: Ramada Express Hotel and Casino was actually copied out of the hotel's advertising, so I marked that as a copyvio. Others, such as River Palms Casino, are not quite as blatant. What's policy on this? Can all of these be deleted? --John Nagle 05:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Uh, say what? I just checked a Laughlin hotel article and didn't see a specific casino tempalte - just the same old {{Infobox Casino}} that's always been in use. Yes, I'll agree with you on the Ramada one - I added the speedy as it was created just a few hours ago - but I think that the Colorado Belle is pretty notable (which you prodded). But, hey, this is just feeling, I'm not referring to any guidelines or the such. Hbdragon88 08:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I think he means this one template:Laughlin casinos Philc _T^E_C^I 22:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Ahhh...byt that's not a infobox - it's a navigation template. I don't think it's really that bad; it's a useful template. Hbdragon88 06:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd say all the major hotel-casinos in Vegas are article worthy. Several of them are very famous indeed. Chicheley 22:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

temporary ban for supposed vandalism

User_talk:AmiDaniel left a message that an unsigned in user from my computer address had done some vandalism. I can only assume that I was doing my regular editing and cleaning up and had failed to log in or possibly not filled in the summary bar? How can i find out more on his accusations as he hasn't answered my response on his page. He didnt say what the problem was. I can only think it is on the poetry lists I have been working on cleaning up the red dead links.?? WayneRay 17:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)WayneRay

Many ISPs do not assign IP addresses permanently, but allocate them to currently logged in users (logged in to the ISP) using Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol. If you had recently turned your computer off and back on again, almost certainly your ISP assigned an IP address to your computer that somebody else had recently used to vandalize Wikipedia. AOL takes this one step further and uses a large pool of IP addresses as proxy servers for use by its subscribers when connecting to the Internet. If you are an AOL user, please see Wikipedia:Advice to AOL users. If this happens again, please contact the administrator who issued the block (or any other admin) and let them know the IP address and it can be unblocked. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:Double-NPOV

There used to be a template for "doubly-disputed" articles where there was a question as to whether the article should even be disputed or not. However, I did a thorough search and did not find it. Was it deleted? 69.140.157.138 10:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems to have been redirected, but still exists as a redirect. See Template:DoubleDisputed. -- Rick Block (talk) 13:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. 69.140.157.138 15:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

External editors on Mac OSX?

Is there any way to use an external editor on Mac/OSX? I've looked at Wikipedia:Text editor support, but as far as I can tell, none of the solutions described there work on OSX. I'm happy to use either Safari or Firefox. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Lacking a better alternative: mark area needing revision, copy to clipboard, open text editor, paste to text editor, edit, mark edited article, copy to clipboard, paste into article. -- Hoary 09:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The "Saft" plugin isn't free, but it does have a feature like that. Zetawoof^(ζ) 04:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

I was directed here by anther user, as I need some help curtailing the constand vandalism of FIFA World Rankings, exasperated by the on-going world cup, and more worrying, as it is up for FA. So if some people could add it to their watchlists to help or something, another problem is often the page is vandalised repeatedly and only gets rolled-back one version, so vandalism remains, and then it gets mixed in with legitimate edits and is a lot of effort to remove. So if you could just look out for these things, thanks in advance for the help. Philc _T^E_C^I 22:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

This page looks to be vandalised a lot. When there are multiples vandals then rolling back one version often fails to clear all the vandalism. This is something we all need to watch our for especially when using semi-automated tools such as popups and vandalproof. --MarkS (talk) 08:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Oversight

Anyone knows what happened to the oversight log? It seems that the function is still active (Special:Listusers/oversight), but Special:Log/oversight gives nothing. Just wondering. --Zoz (t) 22:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

They removed it to everyone but those with oversight privlage itself. Even that I'm not sure of. In any case, very few if any can see what the oversight users delete now. Kevin_b_er 02:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Um, yes, I found this and this. At any rate, I would have appreciated a notice of this change somewhere. --Zoz (t) 14:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I whipped up WP:OVER & Wikipedia:Oversight to handle questions and answers regarding the Oversight permission. It's currently a blatant ripoff of the page from Meta, but now that we've got a local copy to play with and reference, it'd be good to incorporate what information we have there. Just FYI. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 05:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, thanks. --Zoz (t) 11:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Goosebumps

I want to get a bit of concensus (non binding, just looking for views on the matter) about whether to have An article on almost every single one of the Goosebumps books, and a related stub catagory. I personally don't see why we need an article on every one, some of which just say that they are a book by R.L Stein. If I get a reasonable concencus on the matter I may nominate them all for deletion. Please ntoe that I am not against listing al the titles, I am just questioning whether an article on every single book is necessary. Viridae 00:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

If I remember rightly (and I can't remember where I read this, nor am I looking for it at almost 2am), mainstream published books are deemed notable enough to be worth having articles, so in my opinion stubs of these books shouldn't be deleted. Having said which the list of the books looks like a bit of a waste of space - I'd recommend hiving it off as a category, Category:Goosebumps books, or something, and then just linking to it. --JennyRad 00:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I know mainstream books deserve article space - paticuarly those that caused as much fuss as goosebumps, however I am questioning whether we need an article for every single one, because on their own they are not notable. The articles are mostly "such and such is a goosebumps book" or a synopsis of the storyline. Viridae 00:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I see no problem with them. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

As long as they're actually articles, they're fine; I just deleted one that completely lacked context, and was merely a post of the copyrighted summary of the plot by R. L. Stine. Postdlf 05:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm a fan of being consistent. If a few of the books justify full articles then I would make them all articles. However, I suspect there isn't really enough material to justify articles for even a few of the books. I would probably go for a list with a brief summary under each book. --MarkS (talk) 08:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• I'm with MarkS on this. Goosebumps books are notable, but "X is a book in the Goosebumps series by RL Stine." isn't even a sufficient stub entry. I would redirect all titles to a list of the books with short non-copyrighted summaries and break out a book if something more can be said of it. Some were also made in an episode for the tv series. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Drive space is cheap and Wikimedia buys in bulk. I wouldn't worry about using up all the harddrive space, especially not with text. Don't forget that when you delete an article, the text still hangs around on the drive to be dug up later! ~Kylu (u|t) 05:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I need stuff to do!

Point me to some stuff I can edit because I'm bored bored bored! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krein (talk • contribs)

• How can you be bored in Wikipedia? There is always something to do. Lots of ideas can be found half way down the Community portal under "To do lists". Pick something, try it for a bit and if you don't want to be involved with that try something else in the list. --MarkS (talk) 08:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you do my math home work and mow the lawn?

Please?

A controversy in the Conservatism article

The following section is proposed for the article Conservatism. A somewhat different version is in the article currently. User:beneaththelandslide insists that the entire section be deleted. More than a month has gone by, and the section has been completely rewritten many times. The section is currently being mediated by the Cabal, and a number of compromises have been proposed. The response from beneaththelandslide to all rewrites and compromises is the same. "I offer no compromise with idiocy." The Cabal mediator suggested posting the problem here might lead to some constructive suggestions. Rick Norwood 15:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Critism of Conservatism

Conservatism is the belief or claim that tradition is of primary importance. From time to time, people have expressed criticism of conservatism.

One criticism is that conservatives may tend to punish deviations from tradition too harshly. Plato, in his Apology, gives a sympathetic picture of Socrates, who was sentenced to death in 339 BC on the charge that he was "a doer of evil, who corrupts the youth; and who does not believe in the gods of the state, .."[6]

A second criticism is that conservatives sometimes use appeals to tradition as a cover for self-interest. The Roman historian Livy, in his History of Rome[7], describes one such instance, in the year 445 BC, when conservative Romans, to preserve their political power, appealed to tradition and found war preferable to change:

"…the tribune Canuleius introduced a bill for legalizing intermarriage between the nobility and the commons. The senatorial party objected strongly on the grounds not only that the patrician blood would thereby be contaminated but also that the hereditary rights and privileges of the gentes, or families, would be lost. ... It was with great satisfaction, therefore, that the Senate received a report, first that Ardea had thrown off her allegiance to Rome in resentment at the crooked practice which had deprived her of her territory ... . In the circumstances it was good news, for the nobility could look forward even to an unsuccessful war with greater complacency than to an ignominious peace."

Another example is the dispute over the corn laws in England in 1845. Benjamin Disraeli, himself a member of the Conservative Party, claimed that those members of his party who opposed the corn laws were the very people who stood to gain the most financially from their repeal. He wrote in 1845, "A conservative government is an organized hypocrisy." [8]

A third criticism of conservatism is that it stands in the way of progress. Unlike charges of excess and hypocrisy, this criticism speaks directly to the conservative philosophy itself.

In France, in the 18th century, conservatives supported the Ancien Régime, revolutionaries opposed it. Writing in support of the revolution, the English poet William Wordsworth wrote, "Bliss in that dawn it was to be alive, but to be young was very heaven!" [9]

After the failure of the revolution, Vicomte Louis-Gabriel-Ambroise de Bonald, one of the two leading French conservatives in the age of Napoleon, set forth the principles of French conservatism in Théorie du pruvoir politique et religieux (1796): "absolute monarchy, hereditary aristocracy, patriarchal authority in the family, and the moral and religious sovereignty of the popes over all the kings of Christendom." Napoleon himself criticized French conservatives for trying to hold back progress. In his final days he said that the principles of the French Revolution would triumph in American, France, and England; and “from this tripod the light will burst upon the world.” [10]

(end of section)

Deleting nearly 50 articles

I started the deletion debate for List_of_United_States_musicians (AfD page); the conclusion that was drawn was that ALL of the "Lists of bands from ___ state" should be deleted and replaced with categories. Going through the AfD steps for all of them would be incredibly tedious: is there any way they can all be deleted as part of the decision made on the United States list AfD discussion? --Stellis 07:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Contact an administrator at WP:AN Viridae 07:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Signature

I'm going to ask here before I attempt to make changes and cause all sorts of glitches =)

I would like my signature amended to include a link to my contributions, not just my talk page, and would like to avoid it being to long by having the links subscript and superscipt, as below. Can someone guide me through it please - I'd like "words" - the existing link to my talk page - to be subscript and "deeds" - a link to my contributions - to be superscript.

Cheers for any help doktorb | words 11:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

You have to go to "My preferences" and check "Raw signature (no auto link; don't use templates or external links in this)". Then you enter this into the box:

[[User:Doktorbuk|doktorb]] <sub>[[User talk:Doktorbuk|words]]</sub><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Doktorbuk|deeds]]</sup>

Then make sure to press "save".

This will generate the following: doktorb _words^deeds

Is this what you wanted? —Mets501 (talk) 15:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Checking recently creating usernames

How do I access the list of recently created usernames? - Richardcavell 03:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Special:Log/newusers -Kmf164 (talk contribs) 03:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Is this vandalism?

An anonymous user has been modifying the Shockwave (roller coaster) article by adding a 'fact' template to virtually every sentence in the article. I've been a minor contributor to this article, but am far from the primary author. I understand that portions of the article need better cites, but I have been reverting his changes because having a 'fact' on every sentence, including such basic, undisputed facts as the first sentence ("Shockwave was a large roller coaster manufactured by Arrow Dynamics at Six Flags Great America in Gurnee, Illinois.") is clearly ridiculous. I have politely told him several times that what he is doing is non-constructive, and to please discuss his concerns on the Talk page. He responds with comments in edit summaries such as "yes it is constructive, now get your lazy butt to work!".

The primary source for info in the article seems to be a forum post, which is linked at the bottom of the article. Granted this probably isn't considered a "reliable" source, but the info seems to be correct, by and large. I don't see why we should delete large portions of the article, or litter them with 'fact' tags when very little of the article seems to actually be in dispute. I suspect someone is just trying to yank some chains here.

Anyway, just wanted to make sure I'm not totally in the wrong here. I hate getting caught in a revert war, but this person doesn't seem to want to discuss what his actual issue (if he really has one) is. --Rehcsif 14:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we should be careful here. Ideally every statement in Wikipedia should be backed up by a suitable reference. This editor is just added the 'fact' template to each statement that he things needs verifying. Yes he is probably being a little liberal in scattering around the 'fact' template especially when compared with the rest of Wikipedia (which is rather lacking in references) but I don't think it is vandalism. He might be trying to 'yank some chains' but I don't think what he is doing is wrong. Just leave a message on his talk saying it would be more helpful if he could help fill in the references. --MarkS (talk) 18:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The user is anonymous, and has posted from several IP's, so doesn't have a talk page. I have asked him via edit comments several times to list his issues on the article's talk page, but instead he just posts semi-personal attacks as noted above (and in the article history). Do you really think every single sentence in the article should be footnoted? If the facts are not in dispute (e.g. is there anyone out there who believes that Shockwave was NOT a coaster at SFGAm built by Arrow Dynamics?) why is he placing citation requests on statements like that? The article does have a reference listed at the end. I'd be happy to try to provide more refereces, but I'm not an expert on this subject. Please look at the version he is attempting to submit in the article history and tell me if you really believe that it is constructive to the Wikipedia process.

I also have a real problem with people who go around placing cleanup tags, etc. on articles, but are not willing to do any cleanup themselves-- particularly when it's done with the air of superiority that this fellow is doing.

Can I get some other opinions here? If others feel like MarkS that this user is really acting in good faith and that an aticle with 'fact' tags on every sentence makes for a better article, then I'll bow out (and be very disappointed with the whole WP process, frankly). --Rehcsif 18:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree his edit summaries are rude and this is not helping his cause. I'm just inclined to give him the benfit of the doubt. If these type of summaries continued then it would become vandalism. As to the need to references then I do think you need to be able to verify each statement. This doesn't necessarily mean each sentence needs a reference; if a paragraph covers a single topic and a good reference source covers the whole paragraph then just add the reference to the end of the paragraph (likewise if the whole article is covered by a single good reference). However, here we only have one reference, a forum which anybody could post almost anything to. Personally I don't know anything about who built this rollercoaster (and I suspect most people are with me on that). If I were researching this rollercoaster and came across the wikipedia article then I would want to check the references and at the momment they are just not good enough. I would want a better reference than a forum to confirm who built it. As I said originally I think he is being liberal, probably too liberal, with his references but I do believe the fundamental reason for the edits is justifiable. --MarkS (talk) 19:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I added a few basic cites, as well as a general external link/reference, and marked the two major "questionable" paragraphs as 'uncited'. This sure seems far superior to marking every single sentence as needing a cite. This isn't my article, but it sure bugs me to see someone abuse it in this way.--Rehcsif 19:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the anon editor's behavior is not vandalism per se but it is possibly borderline abusive. I have encountered similar behavior from a registered editor. However, as annoying as the delivery of the point may be, the point is still valid. As other editors have said, every statement should be sourceable to a reliable source. Any single statement that is challenged should be backed up with a citation. Now, challenging every last statement is seriously annoying behavior to the point of being abusive.

That said, are there no publications about roller coasters that can be used as reliable sources? While the comment was put in a nasty way, maybe a bit more effort is required to dig up reliable sources for this article.

In theory, the anon editor would be supported by official Wikipedia policy in deleting any and all statements that are unsupported. (An extreme and outrageous act but technically within policy.)

--Richard 20:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

What you describe in your last sentence is not within policy. Disrupting Wikipedia to make a point and harassment are both violations of policy. -- SCZenz 20:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeh, I know. I thought about that. However, it's a judgment call between what is policy and what is harassment and WP:POINT. We could debate this all night long and, at the end of the day, it would still be a judgment call.

As I stated, I've been on the receiving end of this kind of behavior but only over a single paragraph that kept getting deleted. The best defense against this sort of borderline harassment is to provide sources.

--Richard 20:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The ridiculous amount of use of the 'fact' tag, combined with the edit summaries, makes this a clear case of abuse in my book. Please show me a single Wikipedia article which has footnoted sources on every single sentence. That's what the 'fact' (which says 'citation needed') on every sentence is asking for. And asking for citations on such things as "Chicago is a city in Illinois" (hypothetically) is beyond ridiculous. If we have to bend over backwards to appease folks who just want to disrupt the process, then I don't want to be a part of this process anymore. If people have legitimate concerns with the quality, including citations or quality of sources, of an article, then they should use the talk page, and use the templates sparingly. If this isn't blataant abuse, then I don't want to be a part of Wikipedia anymore, because evidently the community puts a greater stake in not offending the troublemakers than it does not offending the true contributors. --Rehcsif 21:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Chill, dude. Step back and take a deep breath. In the greater scheme of things, this is really not that important.

Look, we basically agree with you. I have to admit that I was at a disadvantage earlier because the current version of the page doesn't have all those {{fact}} tags. I went back and looked at the history just now and saw the {{fact}} tags and the edit comments that you were talking about. The Internet is a funny thing. The anon editor is probably not trying to be malicious but trying to push you towards a better article although in an obnoxiously condescending way. Too bad he's better at pissing you off than at helping you improve the article.

In the face of unreasonability, act reasonably and ask for help.

Work on getting more sources and citations if you can. If the anon editor puts the {{fact}} tags back, you can ask for help here or a number of other places. Try WP:ESPERANZA, WP:HEC or WP:Concordia. I'll put the article on my watchlist and try to help as appropriate.

--Richard 22:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Although I appreciate your help, I'm only a minor contributor to that article (I'd almost hesitate to call myself a contributor at all -- I basically changed a couple wikilinks appropriately) and am not in a position to rewrite it. I do, however, know that most, if not all, of the info in the article is true. I also don't respond well to hostile demands from non-contributors, such as "come on, lazy butt, try again". Tell you what, I will take that article off my watchlist and whatever will be, will be. The rest of you can either keep feeding the trolls, or deal with them. --Rehcsif 22:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

"I do, however, know that most, if not all, of the info in the article is true": unfortunately (or maybe fortunately) you can't cite your own knowledge! Something that nobody here has pointed out yet is that {{fact}} is not used to indicate a fact is disputed, merely that it needs a citation. For example: if the entry on Tony Blair did not include a source that mentioned he was Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, then the introduction of the article would read: "Anthony Charles Lynton Blair (born May 6, 1953) is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland." Not because anybody is disputing that Blair is the British PM, but because a claim has been made without a citation to back it up. Rude edit summaries aside, the anon's actions seem well within bounds, but {{fact}} was an unusual choice as it involves spraying templates around all over the place, so {{unreferenced}} may have been a better choice. The truth is, probably 70%+ of Wikipedia articles ought to be (according to policy) absolutely coated in {{fact}} and {{unreferenced}} tags. The fact they aren't is not a reason to assume this anon was acting outside of policy. The problem is that they were probably acting in bad faith.TheGrappler 00:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

special symbols

Hello, I have set up a small independent wiki and would like to use the box with special characters that appears here in Wikipedia when editing a page. Could anybody tell me where the template for this can be found? I tried looking for it but couldn't find it... thanks.. --Sacca 16:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You mean MediaWiki:Edittools? It's used in conjunction with some javascript as well, specifically MediaWiki:Editmenu.js. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

yes hat's the one I need. thank you. Sacca 01:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You'll also need CharInsert. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Request to usurp

Hi. I posted this request yesterday to Requests to usurp. Not that there is a big hurry, as the account is blocked, but I am suddenly uncertain whether Request to usurp is actually followed as there appears to be rather old requests there, without any feedback. Did I post in the appropriate place? Should I post this to another place? Thanks. Alex lbh 19:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Current policy is to never fulfill such requests. I'm not sure if it's a software limitation or a policy limitation. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

If that would be the policy, how would you explain the very existence of the page Requests to usurp ;-)

Actually there is currently no policy at all.

The "request to usurp" page exists and can be reached from the page Changing username, more specifically from that section that states "Occasionally, someone will request to be renamed to an account that exists (has been registered) but has not made any edits. While there is precedent for making such changes, as yet there are no guidelines for handling such requests. If you like, you may note your desire on this subpage. Current practice by many bureaucrats is to refuse to perform these requests without a specific policy allowing it."

And a quick search brings me to Wikipedia:Usurpation which a proposed policy.

You know, as explained in my initial request, there is no real hurry as an admin blocked the account and the issue will probably eventually be solved by the Single User Login when that one comes (well, I sure hope so) and I would eventually get the account.

But keep in mind this is the result of an identity theft (see my request for details) and that's what really bugs me: the idea that some troll of the french Wikipedia giggles because he made a good joke on an admin ;-) Alex lbh 17:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I did get my identity back on Wikisource and on Commons. What seems to be the problem here? Alex lbh 17:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Advice on unencyclopedic edits.

How do I go about advising an editor to behave more professionally? I have no other words to describe the editor's actions. Here's an example of the edits he's made:

• "I love the smell of napalm in the morning" [2]
• "This also made the aircraft much quieter, as witnessed by people in Seattle who saw it fly over."[3]
• "What happens when you combine a bad car with a bad boat. You get a good car for watching the Boston Pops or hydroplane races 40 years after they were made."[4]
• Is responsible for much of the content on List_of_famous_successes_in_science_and_engineering, (currently up for afd), which is amateruish and all OR, and consists of blatantly false and POV statements such as:

• "Bell UH-1 Huey Revolutionized ground warfare to counter guerilla insurgency." (Completely wrong)
• "UNIX. A large-scale operating system built for any computer which still triumphs over any proprietary operating system, even Microsoft"
• "Internal combustion engine - solar power is not there yet."
• "M-113 The outstanding not-a-tank of the Vietnam war. First modern aluminum APC and IFV. Has been challenged by faster, sleeker, and better armed, but some say still the best as they are in Iraq with a new turret and armour."
• M-4 Sherman Disasterous in one-on-one against Panther or worse, but overwhelming numbers won the war at some cost in tank crews. Effective in six-day war with 105mm guns as well. Inspiration for M-1 getting it right for once.
• RPG Still not equalled by the west. Caused cancellation of stealth RAH-66 when most helicopters in Iraq are downed by RPGs guided by Mark one eyeballs.
• AK-47 A fine weapon if you can't afford to maintain your M-16.

He has started similarly amateruish pages List_of_successful_automobiles, originally titled List of automobiles considered to be the greatist ever

I am currently engaged in an content dispute with this editor, and when I called the user out on blatant mistruths that he has been spreading (tangential to our content dispute), he proceeded to challenge my certifications and personally attack me "As far as I know, I have no reason to believe that you have even a bachelors degree, ever taken a course in writing or logic, ever wrote a computer program, or even held a job, let alone an IQ over 100, purchased, borrowed, browsed or even read a single book, magazine, watched any media or even visited an aviation museum exhibit on the F-14. You're up against an entire F-14 community that has all of the above." I filed a wikiquiette alert Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#28_June_2006 concerning his abusive behavior. This is not an attempt to forum shop, but to raise concerns about the quality of content that do not fall under wikiquette.

Since I'm already in a content dispute with the editor, I ask that a neutral party look at his contributions and give him some constructive advice on making better contributions to wiki. The issue of reliable sources and original research has come up, and I believe he understands the need to cite sources, but he continually miscites sources to say what he wants them to say. (details are on the Talk:F-14 Tomcat page, but it's a bit involved. However, his edits continue to be of poor quality, are loaded with POV, and reflect a very simplistic picture of events. E.g. [5] --Mmx1 06:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Impersonation

An edit which I did not make has appeared under my name, and is listed in "my contributions". The edit is to the article on OJ Simpson, it was posted at 08.32 on 29 June 2006. At that time (if it is in my own time zone, GMT), my computer was not turned on, and I was busy feeding my son. In any case, I did not make this edit. How is it possible for it to appear under my name? RolandR 17:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Somebody must've found a way to access your account, I suggest you change your password immediately before it happens again. --ApolloBoy 00:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Demography template

Hi, is there anything like this http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plantilla:Demo ? I need to put population values in some articles. Thanks. --Emijrp 10:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I have found this Template:Demography_7col.--Emijrp 10:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there a standard way to cite a Whois entry?

I need to cite a Whois entry of a domain name. Is there a standard way to do this? Thanks. --John Nagle 16:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know of a specific guideline for this information source, but I'll give my recommendations. If you are citing as a note or reference in an article, treat it as a web citation per Template:Cite web. If you are adding it to a User talk page for a anonymous user (identified by an IP address) there are a series of templates that can be used, indexed at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace#Other messages; I've lately eschewed the use of these templates, though, in favor of a one-line header statement with a) whois resource links, b) organizational affiliation of address and c) IP address block range in which the address sits (see for instance User talk:203.202.5.75). User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Need copyright help

Image:Rudy Giuliani face.jpg is marked with a federal PD tag but plainly appears to come from a Washington State government source (per Commons). This is especially important, since this is a very popular image, part of a popular userbox. Can anyone deal with the situation please? - CrazyRussian talk/email 07:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The image is from here and the issue seems to be resolved now (licensed under {{cc-by}}) -SCEhardT 22:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Demographic data

Hi. Is there any copyright problem for copying demographic data from http://www.ine.es ? Is Berne Convention useful here? I need it for municipalities like this Abla. Thanks--Emijrp 09:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a note. Pure facts are not copyrightable. That is reasonably disputed of course, as baseball statistics are under controversy, but if there's zero creativity in said facts, there's nothing to copyright. Kevin_b_er 05:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

How to deal with suspected vandalism

I have recently encountered an edit which seems rather odd, but which I cannot really say is vandalism. Is there a template or similar action that can be taken in order to mark an edit as suspected vandalism, since reverting it would seem very harce, and could probably be attributed to my ignorance.

The specific incidence that has caused me to ask this question is the edit about Fusion Drawing Machines on the disamibiguation page FDM. Googling the subject turns up no relevant pages.

Bfg 11:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you point us in the right direction as to the suspected vandalism? Provide a diff link or similar? You might want to check out Wikipedia:Template messages/Disputes and see if any of these fit your purposes. Alternitively, revert the article and contact the editor to cite sources if they re-edit it to include the new information. If it is a hoax, por you suspect it is you can nominate it for speedy deletion (WP:CSD) or if you are unsure, WP:AFD. Lastly you could add this template: {{hoax}} Viridae^Talk 12:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought I did point you in the right direction. Anyway I left a message on the talk page of the article that would hopefully clear things up. In summary What is a Fushion Draw Machin?. I also put up the hoax template in the main article. I think I have gotten it right now, please advice me if any other action should be taken. Bfg 18:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry didn't see that. I had a look at it (didnt realise it was a disambig page - thought it was an article). A hoax template isn't suitible for a disambiguation page - especially one with multiple entries. If the fusion draw machine had an article I would have out it there. As it was, it was a redlink so I just removed it. If they want to create an article about the thing they can re-add it, but at the moment there is no point in having it redlinked on a disambig page. If you come accross a full article and still think it is a hoax - add that template to that article. Sorry for the mixup, that would have been a lot simpler if I had read your help request properly in the first place. Viridae^Talk 23:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Hoaxes cannot be nominated for speedy deletion. Please see WP:CSD#Non-criteria, bullet point "Hoaxes". Deco 00:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Whoops - should have checked that. I would have dones so had I been nominating the article, but this reply was on the fly and in a hurry. Thanks fo rpointing that out. Viridae^Talk 01:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem. :-) Deco 02:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

zomg i am wikidepressed

I've been here 20 months and my only edits have been interwiki links, spelling fixes, and 2 sentence edits of NES game articles. Basically I feel too uneducated about every topic I come across to make any worthwhile edits, which is upsetting because I come across articles all the time that I would like to create/unstub/expand/cleanup or even get to featured article status. If I wasn't banned from taking non-engineering courses I might take a class on something that interests me but my only shot is self-education.

Stuff that seems to interest me (but I never really edit because I have no confidence lol)

• Video games (wow a lot of these suck but how do I reference a 15 year old cult classic)
• Metallurgy / Minerology / Chemistry
• Marine biology
• Art

Crap I wish I knew what my question was.

I guess I just need advice on how to help the Wiki

Particularly on cleanup and helping to get more featured articles

Try Wikipedia:Contributing_to_Wikipedia for a starter. I remember the phrase, contribute to what you know or would like to learn about, and I find that to be excellent advice. A personal favorite of mine is eliminating red links (see the link to the red link recovery project on my user page if you want) by starting articles or more commonly by finding the article that very often exists with a very similar name. Just today I did that by creating the cutworm redirect. You could also check my contributions for an idea of how others like to contribute. Good luck! Spalding 18:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Another thing I recommend is whatever interest you have, look up its subjects as you encounter them in Wikipedia. (For example, I just heard jazz artist Hank Crawford on the radio, who is new to me as many jazz artists are, but there is no Wikipedia article on him, so I (horror) had to Google him.) Read the article if there is one for information, and make small tweaks, get it on your watchlist. If there is no article, Google it and create a stub with some relevant freelinks to start building the web on that subject. Believe me, with that technique you can waste all the time you have available and then some! --Spalding again

I do frequent editing on articles whose subject matter I know absolutely nothing about. This is possible because bad grammar, spelling errors and the like can be recognised regardless of the subject. So I can edit any article and so can you! Just get editing, best of luck - Adrian Pingstone 19:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not all about the writing, either! If you are into engineering I bet you can put a decent diagram together. Have a look at Wikipedia:Picture requests for that. Also, you may be able to contribute photographs from your local area. Have a look under Category:Wikipedia requested photographs and find your local subcategory. You could also help by identifying articles which need a picture, and adding them to their appropriate category. An alternative way you could help Wikipedia is by getting involved in one of the projects like Wikipedia:WikiProject Categories, that aims to sort Wikipedia's information by adding categories; or Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles is looking for people to help review the quality of some of Wikipedia's better content. TheGrappler 21:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

If you want to write new content and learn about your areas of interest, my advice is to visit a University bookstore and purchase textbooks in those areas. Read the book, do the exercises, and if you have questions, many teachers are happy to answer questions for a confused student, regardless of what he or she is registered for (nobody teaches for the money). And it's not wasted effort either - later on, you may be able to exempt relevant courses based on your acquired knowledge. Don't let the bureaucracy get you down. Deco 00:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Articles (for years) 1700 to 2099 have Roman dates

Every article regarding years 1700 through 2099 in Wikipedia (English language) has the Arabic numerals immediately followed by the same as Roman numerals. Why? Is there a template that drops this into the article? If so, why? Is this some The Da Vinci Code crap reference? --Charles Gaudette 09:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Irrationality & Augur

Hi fellas,

I just added an image to both of the articles. Could you improve the sentence I added, I think that despite the meaning is clear it could be levelled-up (I think I'm only en-3).

Yours,

--Lilliputian 12:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I have done as you request, however, since augury refers specifically to flights of birds, I think a picture of birds flying would be better than the picture you have chosen, in both articles. Rick Norwood 13:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

how do i add pictures to articles??

hi,

i've tried to look around to find out how to add pictures to articles, but no success so far.

can someone please help me out??

thanks. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tajik-afghan (talk • contribs) 19:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

See Help:Contents/Images and media. The most important rule is: Don't upload anything that you didn't take yourself, unless you are thoroughly familiar with American fair use law and you know that you have a strong argument in favor of fair use. Otherwise, your uploads WILL be deleted. --Coolcaesar 23:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Seeking Caretakers for Open source intelligence sub-pages

Hello. Although I am new to the process of contributing to the Wikipedia, I have admired it for some time. When I was recently asked to create a private wiki for practitioners of Open source intelligence, I chose instead to attempt to join our knowledge to the wiki process. Initially there was one hateful individual that constantly deleted stuff, but he seems to have been contained and I have been ably mentored by several individuals.

The purpose of this note is to seek assistance in expanding the sub-pages. For example, there are eight communities of interest that use open source information: government (civilian), military, law enforcement, business, academia, non-governmental organizations, media (including niche media), and civil societies (including advocacy groups, labor unions, and religions. Similarly, there are diverse open sources, softwares, and services.

In the ideal, we could emulate the LINUX guys, and have one person become the shepard or caretaker for each of these communities and each of these capabilities areas. Any interest?Robert Steele 17:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

What to do if one suspects a threat has been made against them?

I am sorry to have to bring this up here but I do not know how else to proceed. The threat was not issued directly, it was an exchange on the talk pages of two people who were advocating for the deletion an article, whereas I had taken the opposite position. I have posted the exchange between them on my talk page. I believe it constitutes a threat against me and am looking for advice on what to do. Can someone please check out my brief summary at User Talk:Tiamut and ask me if they need more info to make a determination on what to do? Deep appreciation in advance. Tiamut 18:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Tell them not to threaten you. If the threat is severe enough and the behaviour is chronic, it may be useful as evidence at a disciplinary hearing. Till then, don't panic, they don't know where you live. Deco 18:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I was one of the editors involved in this and I believe it has been fully explained on my Talkpage and Tiamut's, hopefully to the satisfaction of all. Somehow a joke about an article got interpreted as a threat, but I think it was clearly a misunderstanding. However, anything which might be percieved as a threat must certainly be taken seriously. Most of the thread can be found on my Talkpage in the section labeled "OUTSTANDING!". The thread actually begins on the Talkpage of Aeon1006 where I (jokingly) suggested a betting pool on the length of time between a contentious article's AfD and its recreation. I find this situation very unfortunate and would encourage responses from the community. I'm also going to create a section on my Talkpage titled "Critique" and I invite anyone interested to post their comments there as well. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 07:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Doc Tropics for patiently responding to my concern and putting it to rest. Tiamut 18:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

This is Aeon, I have no idea how Tiamut took it as a threat against him (Still trying to figure it out) since the comments and joke were about the AfD of What really happened. Hopefully he will understand that there was no threat made against him. Aeon 18:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I think Tiamut needs to grow a much thicker skin. Saying that an AFD needs to be treated like a vampire does not meet the "reasonable person" standard for threats. --SarekOfVulcan 18:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I know hopefully He will figure that out, he seems like a reasonable editor so this should blow over. Aeon 18:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I left a message for you at User Talk:Doc Tropics. As I said there, I accept that I made something of a mountain out of what should have remained a molehole, with a few scattered pieces of earth. It was a lesson for me on how not to go about dealing with a suspicion. I'm sorry you had to be my practice case. I hope to do better in the future. I hope there will be no hard feelings. Tiamut 18:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this issue is done. Everyone settled there issues and even a few barnstars were given out. Aeon 19:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

No hard feelings anywhere. This was a great example of the power of good faith and civilty. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 20:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

change category name

how do i propose to change a categories name? is this the right place to ask this question?Qrc2006 02:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion to propose a name change for a category. Concerning your other question, I think Wikipedia:Helpdesk is the best place for those questions. But this works too. Garion96 ^(talk) 02:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Related question: When a large category gets renamed, how does one typically go about moving all of the articles? Is there a way to request bot action? ~ Booya ^Bazooka 23:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Usually, the admin taking on the task will run a bot, or manually use AutoWikiBrowser or such similar tools. Circeus 00:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Weird References

Hi. I was bored, so I started working on the Empires: Dawn of the Modern World Article. I've added a lot on to it, but I still don't know how to reference it. The three references I have are the game itself, the manual, and these sheets that give a description of each civilization. The sheets are almost like pamphlets. I don't know what to do. I know how to cite standard things, and I have a Writers Inc. book, but I need some help. --Clyde Miller 19:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Just write "from manual", try also {{cite video game}}. Circeus 23:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

When templates collide

Bagnolo di Po. Just thought I'd share. If someone has a cure. --Tagishsimon (talk)

The NavFrame class in MediaWiki.css lacks a clear:both style.It must added on a template-by-template basis.Fixed forthis template now. Circeus 23:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Cleanupbox problem

I've attempted to make a cleanup template for WP:MUSTARD which can classify the article into various categories based on what needs to be cleaned up. The part I thought would be hard, using the switch ParserTemplate, was actually easy. But there's a huge blank space that I can't get rid of. You can see it in action at User:TUF-KAT/Test. Any suggestions? Tuf-Kat 00:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Problem was the linebreaks between the switches. Fixed now. Circeus 00:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability

This may have been raised elsewhere and if so simply direct me there and I apologize. Would pictures or screen captures uploaded to Wikipedia be acceptable sources of information for which there is no reputable (or sustainable, as many websites' stories are available for a limited time) source?

The question came to me when I noticed The Twilight Zone is used on the Sci Fi Channel in the US as part of "Cable in the Classroom" which is commercial-free programming for educators aired at ungodly hours so they can record it. I can (probably) find a reputable source mentioning this if I Google it, but I want to ask for future reference. Say no one has mentioned this fact at all - not too big a stretch considering it's only an hour of programming every few weeks! In that unlikely event, would, say, a screen capture of the programming guide information on my Media Center PC be considered original research? Modlin 09:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Citing a publication or linking to an external website would certainly be preferable, but I tend to feel that any verification is better than none provided it's not a copyvio. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 17:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Changes to Billy Meier

This article about a UFO contactee and photographer has gotten rather large lately, with the addition of "The History of the Earth and Humanity According to Billy Meier". This section is longer than the rest of the article, going into considerable detail on how space aliens have created the various human races. I have asked the contributor of this material to slash it down to reasonable size (say, two or three smallish paragraphs) and refer to some external summary.

He doesn't seem to agree with me on the relative importance of this material.

I'd appreciate a third opinion, preferably from an editor willing to do some of the re-write. I'm on vacation and don't care to begin a big edit dispute right now.

Many thanks. Phiwum 14:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the tedious world history bit to a sub page which cleans things up Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 14:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Need a more experienced users help

I think this needs to be fixed [6] [7] but there is no history to be reverted. Found it whilst seeking info to make myself another subpage for keeping track of my prods and speedies. It might something an admin only can fix and I don't know who to ask.--John Lake 17:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It looks like it might be a "work in progress" situation. I think there's no harm in just watching for a while to see what develops (but I'm not an admin). --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 17:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I left a message on Talk:Dr. José L. Duomarco and User talk:Rtierno asking for an explanation. --Richard 18:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• It looks like he created the article in an inappropriate place and tried moving it to the right place. I moved it to José L. Duomarco per naming conventions, and deleted the redirects resulting from the moves at User:Example/Sandbox and Wikipedia:Dr. José L. Duomarco. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Could an admin please move this.

Lunar Surface Access Module (Project Constellation) has been listed at WP:RM for a while now, and no objections have been raised to it's move to Lunar Surface Access Module. Please could an admin carry this out, as the destination has a page history, so I cannot do so myself. --GW_Simulations_{|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 19:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Done. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Help with a good freeware SVG converter

I'd like to convert some images with the {{Convert to SVG}} tag to SVG, though I don't know which freeware SVG program I should get. Does anyone have any good recommendations for a program of this sort?--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 19:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Try commons:Commons:Village Pump. Deco 05:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I will do that.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 14:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

9-11 bias

Hello, the article September 11, 2001 attacks is, according to many people, biased (just have a look at the talk-page). Some editors however do not want to see the {neutrality} tag and are very persistent and quick about guarding their version of the 'truth'. Therefore I request that the tag is put up there and that the page (or the tag) receives some protection against removal.

Is there any moderator who would be willing to implement this? greetings Sacca 20:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Possible illegal post in George W. Bush article's discussion pages

I noticed that Queen of Sheeba posted an entry that Bush should get the death penalty. I think it is illegal to say this. How do I report it to wikipedia so that it can be deleted?

Thank you,

BMIKESCI 22:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)BMIKESCI

I blanked the comment for being absurdly trollish, but probably not illegal. I've also invited revert and comments if my action was improper. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 23:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• and I removed the similarly trollish responses that strawmen arguments on the George Bush talk page tend to attract--152.163.101.14 23:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

And after a flurry of edits and reverts, the entire section has been deleted; probably for the best :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 23:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not illegal to say "X should die". This is just an opinion. Quite a different matter is saying "I'm going to kill X and this is how I'm going to do it". Deco 05:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Article White People

The section Footnotes, Sub-Saharan African slaves in the article White people is unreadable [8]. The talk page is protected so I can't post on it. Someone really needs to look at that section. It looks like the letters are all squished together and is unreadable. Probably some sort of vandalism. I was reading the article when I saw it. --71.28.252.27 07:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Neither White (people) nor Talk:White (people) are protected. The talk page appears to have been left semiprotected by mistake; this should soon be corrected. Also, I've fixed the issue that was screwing up the footnotes. Zetawoof^(ζ) 08:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason to protect the page or the talk page, imho. We do have a 3RR problem going on though with user Al Andalus.Yukirat 08:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The following is a message I sent to a user after he contacted me, and which he later retracted his comment because of the situation with Yurikat. Please see my talk page.

Thanks for your message. May I recomend, however, that you compare the edition that is being put up by Yukirat. He deletes content which on top of being sourced, also has consensus in talk. The content which continues to be deleted was not contributed and researched by me, but by other users. Personally, I don't agree with much of it, but it has been sourced and they have their references.

I have already put a complaint against the users constant use of "that's anti-White" as his sole defense for deletion of sourced content. If he want's to make allegations (and I've evven asked the user to define what to him constitues "anti-White") then he has to back them up. I am not the first user, you can see the talk page, that has asked him to explain himself and all that is given back is either silence or more one sentence replies stating over and over again "anti-White", "controversial", "hate", but not once define or explain what or why they are so. Al-Andalus 07:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

There's a block on its way for both of you, I'm afraid. 3RR still counts even if you're reverting someone who's gone over three reverts themself. Sit it out for a bit, then take it up on the talk page. Zetawoof^(ζ) 09:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Image licence with conditional commercial use?

Hello,

I'm going to upload some images to Wikipedia but I would like them to be available for commercial use only with my consent.

It's fine by me to have them freely distributed for non-commercial use but I don't like the idea that they, at least hypothetically, could be used on some commercial website etc.

I couldn't find a type of licence for the following: free, with attribution to the author, commercial use only with consent of the author.

Please help. Thanks!

You're thinking of what is more or less a {{noncommercial}} license. Unfortunately, such a license is not compatible with GFDL. Zetawoof^(ζ) 09:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Integration

WP:ʃ

For the last month, myself and 1-2 other individuals have been jumpstarting a massive cleanup project as an attempt to bring order to Wikipedia. I think I have the methodology sorted out: now we need participants. There are more details on the project page. Thank you. Cwolfsheep 12:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

jorge arturo

hello everybody im arturo marin from mexico some times I remember an italian film above a family owner of a medicinal laboratories and their modern troubles that make out of bussines the Roffee labs. in this movie remember the gerent a whoman says many medecines have no clients for the products they are producing I always think that is a problem for the humanity in the future but im watching merck labs make more money than many countries in the world I like to know how can I find this film for reference and then try to exolain to my family and friends some problems in this times. for example im diabetic person like millions in this world and I writting a sci fi tale La teoria de aprender a jugar a ser dios empezando por estarnos quietos in spanish maybe one day I can gyve to knows to the world thanks

Try Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous for knowledge questions. This page is for assistance with Wikipedia. And it would help if you used some punctuation, as your writing is very hard to read. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Undoing unlogged-in edits?

I think the answer is you can't do this, but is there any way to merge them into my username or at least get rid of them? Sorry to ask here, but finding things like this in Wikipedia is becoming difficult due to its sheer size. Also, I found the documentation on how to force logging in for edits, but since I have no LocalSettings.php file, I'm wondering if that can only be done globally for the whole server and not for individual clients? Thanks, Spalding 15:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

LocalSettings.php is a file internal to the MediaWiki server. It's not something that can be set per-user. Zetawoof^(ζ) 07:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright question

Hi there. I'm a bit new to wikipedia and I was wondering if somebody more experienced than I could check on the copyright status of the following image: [9]. I want to use it on the Minamata disease article which I have been editing recently. I obtained the image from a website called Masters of Photography. In their FAQ it states that "You are free to use up to five or six images from the site for any personal non-profit, educational purpose.", subject to a link back to their website. What copyright tag would be correct in this instance? Thanks for any help you can give! Bobo12345 06:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

None. The images are under a {{noncommercial}} license, which isn't permitted on Wikipedia. I've tagged the image as such; it's going to get deleted. Zetawoof^(ζ) 07:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)