Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing. — Jimbo Wales [1]
A certain user, JuanMuslim, seems to be posting his own school assigments on Wikipedia: see Virgin Mary in Islam. Some of this information could probably be incorporated into another article, but it doesn't really work alone. His page Juan Galvan also seems to be autobiographical, so I'm not sure if the information necessarily belongs in an encyclopedia. What does one do in this case? (Sorry, I'm new to Wikipedia.) Emiao01:26, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response! Another question: I know how to revert pages, but how do you produce the edit summary "Revert changes made by X to last version by Y"? Do you have to write the whole thing out? Emiao05:33, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Blocklog
Hey, SV, that's a very good question—I ran into a similar problem a little while back. It turns out the problem is that when Jtdirl blocked the user, he put "User:Leifern" as the username instead of "Leifern". The system ignores the extra "User:" and still blocks the appropriate person, but it won't show up on the block log unless you change the title field to say "User:User:Leifern"; see [2]. There's no way around it that I know of except to ask people not to block "User:User:xxx". Maybe I should see if I can add a note to the block page. — Knowledge Seekerদ04:39, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Greater Serbia
Ahem...In case you haven't noticed:
the issue was thoroughly discussed at Talk:Greater_Serbia, pt. 1. (Vuk Karadzic's linguistic pan-Serbism)
the user "Dejvid" started a revert war with his unsubstianted claims and revisions
he failed to justify his revisions and, during the debate, simply avoided to discuss the tricky questions. Or, vice versa, heaped unimportant jounalistic material as a "proof" of his theses etc.
all dubious points are thoroughly discussed at the Talk page. So, the whole "affair" is not about differences in opinion, but about vandals who would like, at any cost, to impose their distorted perception of reality. Mir Harven08:33, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
First I have checked the history and I'm sure I didn't break the 3RR. I may have broken the spirit of the rule and were you to say that I would not take issue. I accept that "3 reverts is not a right" but it is an important line and I really don't think I crossed it. Please check that bit again.
The real problem is not that there is no longer any discussion but when there was we were talking past each other. My perception is Mir is to blame for that and likewise Mir thinks the same about me. Really we need a 3rd opinion but no one responded to the request. Maybe that is not surprising as the reputation of a 19th century Balkan linguist must sound pretty boring to those not in the know and that isn't helped by the condition that the request for a 3rd opinion must be neutrally worded. Any advice as how to make a third person feel it interesting enough to take the time to get involved would be much appreciated. As the problem is not over facts but their interpretation it really wouldn't matter if the 3rd person initially knew nothing about the background.
In the meantime I will try discussion. Who knows, it might work out better this time.
Just so you know, I would have just warned this user for the 3RR violation, had it not been for a previous block for the same thing on the same article. I am not in favour of blocking on technicality, but when the offence is apparently repeated, I would definitely act more harshly. Smoddy(Rabbit and pork)16:47, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you remove your comments from here: [3] to avoid looking like an idiot.
Fine, they claim they are the copyright holder in that notice, but I still fail to see where and by the burden of what evidence they are able to substantiate the claim that they are. El_C04:48, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I still can't bring it up, so maybe it's a different problem. I assume that it's the same one as the Molloy salute photo on this page http://fightdemback.blogspot.com/. I don't think that would be a good photo to use for a number of reasons. One of the other photos on fightdemback may be suitableto add as well. I see that a previously uninvolved editor has just added back the old version of the banner photo, to my surprise. Cheers, -Willmcw 00:00, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
I resized the image, so it can fit well. But, if the consensus is to have the image be gone from the article until the (c) issues are taken care of, then so be it. However, I think the logo should be moved to the top of the article. Zscout370(talk)00:24, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me that the consensus is the photo should stay. I'm going to leave a note for Molloy asking for some evidence from the NZNF that they're the copyright holders. SlimVirgin(talk) 00:37, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
Sorry for crashing your talk page, Slim. If we can properly claim fair use then it may not matter who the copyright holder is, though of course we should record that info. Cheers, -Willmcw 00:49, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
I also apologize too, but as El C (?) said, Molloy will have to come up with evidence that he is the copyright holder. Also, one more thing, what is Yase!? Zscout370(talk)00:56, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not comfortable with the thought of Wikipedia succumbing to bullying by essentially anonymous editors making unverified/false claims. I suspect this is how the group operates in real-life as well, mostly bullying and unverified/false claims. Jayjg (talk)01:12, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
snow-coat.jpg?lang=en)
