Jump to content

Wikipedia:Village pump archive 2004-09-26

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Angela (talk | contribs) at 17:42, 29 April 2004 (= Reg. Privacy =). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Village pump sections
post, watch, search
Discuss existing and proposed policies
post, watch, search
Discuss technical issues about Wikipedia
post, watch, search
Discuss new proposals that are not policy-related
post, watch, search
Incubate new ideas before formally proposing them
post, watch, search
Discuss issues involving the Wikimedia Foundation
post, watch, search
Post messages that do not fit into any other category
View all village pump sections at once
Other help and discussion locations
I want... Then go to...
...help using or editing Wikipedia Teahouse (for newer users) or Help desk (for experienced users)
...to find my way around Wikipedia Department directory
...specific facts (e.g. Who was the first pope?) Reference desk
...constructive criticism from others for a specific article Peer review
...help resolving a specific article edit dispute Requests for comment
...to comment on a specific article Article's talk page
...to view and discuss other Wikimedia projects Wikimedia Meta-Wiki
...to learn about citing Wikipedia in a bibliography Citing Wikipedia
...to report sites that copy Wikipedia content Mirrors and forks
...to ask questions or make comments Questions

[[da:Wikipedia:Landsbybr%F8nden]]

Summarised sections

This is a list of discussions that have been summarised and moved to an appropriate place. This list gets deleted occasionally to make room for newer entries.

East Turkestan

Does anyone know much about East Turkestan/Xinjiang? I can't say I do, but the article doesn't look very NPOV, and it keeps getting added to lists of countries, List of national flags, that sort of thing when it appears to just be a Chinese province. Scurra 17:54, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The matter is definitely a controversial one. While the area is certainly recognised internationally as part of China, it has a fairly strong independence movement - not nearly as well known in the West as the Tibetan one is, but of a similar background. Even the name "Xinjiang" is regarded as objectionable by many of the independence-seekers, as it's a Chinese (not Uighur) term, and means something like "new borderland", "new province", or "new frontier". So I would anticipate disputes over how to describe it. I imagine that the eventual solution will resemble that for Tibet (whatever that might be). As for the current situation - I agree that the East Turkestan article could probably use some work, yes. And the Xinjiang article should probably talk a bit more about the separatist movements. -- Vardion 23:17, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Really Long Lists

How long should filmographies be? Should they go at a separate page such as [[List of John Doe's movies]]? See Wikipedia talk:List.

Article in a Day/Week idea

New proposal: Wikipedia:Article of the week.

Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Article of the week.

msgs

Is there something wrong with the "msg" translation? PUtting msgs on pages doesn't cause them to be translated. RickK 05:32, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Such as where? I haven't noticed anything. Dori | Talk 05:36, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)
I tried adding msg:protected to Schnorrer and it wouldn't translate, but it seemed to work when I did it again. But there were a couple of other cases earlier today that I don't remember right now. RickK 05:40, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I think you had a space in between msg: and protected the first time, that's probably why. Dori | Talk 05:45, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)

Yet another Wikipedia: page

Following from someone's suggestion, I started Wikipedia:Great editing in progress intended as a counterpoint to Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. Please consider watchlisting it, or commenting on the idea at its talk page. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:06, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Facebook

This is going to stir up a helleva hornet's nest, I know, but it's been quiet here lately. About two months ago, someone asked about the possibility of compiling pictures of wikipedians. Well, long story short, I did it - User:Raul654/facebook is the end result. I wanted to get community opinions. On a wikiettiquite note - one user noticed it before now and objected to his picture being there; I told him to go ahead and remove it. Personally, I think it's pretty neat - I find it much nicer being able to associate a face with a name. →Raul654 17:16, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)

PS - I think I am going to move it to Wikipedia:Facebook and let people add their pictures there voluntarily. But first, I just wanted to get a proof of concept going and get some community feedback. →Raul654 18:01, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)
Interesting, a lot of Wikipedians are a lot more attractive than I imagined them to be! It'd be easier to use if thumbnails and tables (with a few images in each row) were employed. That'd be my only suggestion. And perhaps a link to the user's page. —Frecklefoot 18:23, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)
Agree with frecklefoot. If you laid it out well with a colourful background it would look really well. LUDRAMAN | T 18:35, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Good job, Raul. I second Frecklefoot's proposed enhancements. Niteowlneils 19:32, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
To be on the right side of cautionness and courtesy, I think it would be appropiate to ask each user on their talk page whether they were happy with using pictures. I know each user has uploaded the pic so are probably ok with it, but it is reasonable to ask.
More generally I think this is somehow ok in a way the WikiSex debacle wasn't. It's another one of those situations where the dividing line between appropiate and not is not well-defined, but you can tell what side of appropiate something falls when you see it.
From other forums I know that having pictures of people can change the behaviour of other users, particularly immature ones, for the worse, so I think if Wikipedia needs to have a policy on it, it should be "you are free to add to this [facebook] page if you want to, but it is not actively encouraged".
<parrot mode> This obviously should be on meta, not in the Wikipedia: namespace </parrot mode>
And my piece of feedback, how the heck am I supposed to have constructive debates with Cimon now... he looks far too wellard.
Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 19:26, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Just a couple notes. First, I have moved it to Wikipedia:Facebook -- everyone, feel free to add yourselves. Second, it couldn't go on Meta because the pictures themselves aren't on Meta, they're only on en (and I refuse to upload them, that's an invasion of their privacy). →Raul654 06:38, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)
Looks great. I've added my favourite self-portrait from my website. I never felt any urge to put it on my user page, but in a rogues' gallery I think it feels quite at home. Andrewa 02:47, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Image fair use?

I'm not entirely clear on the guidelines laid out in Image use policy. If I wanted to add (a smaller version of) this picture to the article On Your Mark (about a Japanese animated music video), would that be allowed? I believe that image is from a calendar; if I posted an actual frame from the music video itself, would that fall under fair use? I see professional movie reviewers using shots from movies all the time, must they always have special permission? If I copied a Disney park photo from a Disney park web site, would it be fair use to put that image on a Wikipedia article about the park? I have trouble seeing how the reproduction of any image here on Wikipedia would cause any sort of financial harm to the owner of the image, and an image would often help make an article clearer - what's a good rule of thumb to use in deciding whether my intentions for an image fall under 'fair use' or not? Brian Kendig 19:14, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Brian, if you've not found it already, Wikipedia:Fair use is probably the best place to read about (and posit regarding) fair use. It's a minefield, not least becase different countries have different concepts of the doctrine. I'd guess that what you plan would be okay, but the folks who hang out there will know better. Oh, if you do upload it, can you see if you can "descreen" it (as whoever scanned it didn't, making it look lumpy)? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:54, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip. Can you give me examples of when adding an image to Wikipedia would definitely NOT be covered under fair use? Brian Kendig 05:52, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Sure, in most cases. Just lifting a picture off the Intenet is usually not covered under fair use (despite the fact that there are numerous websites that have lifted images themselves). For example, we don't even have a photo of Princess Diana because most photos of her are copyrighted. Images from things like video games, movies (including covers and posters) are covered under fair use. Use of professional photos is not. If you have any more questions about fair use, consult Wikipedia:Fair use like Finlay suggested. Any further questions about fair use, you can post there. —Frecklefoot 14:16, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)
And another question: When I try to upload an image, I have to check the checkbox which says "I affirm that the copyright holder of this file agrees to license it under the terms of the Wikipedia copyright." I can't check this box: I have a feeling that if I contact the makers of the anime of which I want to upload a photo, they'll flatly deny my request so that they can cover their own tails, because there's no benefit to them in supporting Wikipedia at all. How do you balance "fair use" of an image with the fact that there's no reason why a copyright holder should agree to help Wikipedia? Does "fair use" of an image ever override the copyright holder's unwillingness to bother with anything but his own interests? Has anyone pursued the copyright owners of a copyrighted image and had them say, "Sure, go ahead and use our picture"? Brian Kendig 06:20, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Most of the website owners I've contacted are more than happy to let us use their images, as long as we attribute the image to them. This is the upside for them--free publicity. And the attribution doesn't have to be glaring--I usually just put it on the image page. For an example, see this image. —Frecklefoot 14:16, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)
So you're saying all that matters is permission from whoever made the image file, not from the copyright owner of what's in the picture? I'm not sure I'm clear on this... for example, the original artwork of that Defender of the Crown box is doubtlessly still under copyright (especially since another company bought the rights and released a new version of the game for GameBoy two years ago). Wouldn't you have had to find and contact the copyright owners of the original game before you could check the checkbox on the upload page to affirm that they approve its image being posted to Wikipedia? If not, then what's keeping me from taking a picture of anything - like, taking a picture of a copyrighted photo of Princess Diana - and uploading it to Wikipedia with permission to use my picture?
What I'm most confused about is that the image upload page "the copyright holder agrees to license it" checkbox seems to require me to contact whoever owns the original material being pictured, and would preclude "fair use" of the image without explicit permission, since it requires you to know that the copyright holder gives you permission. The image I want to upload to On Your Mark is from a calendar; is it enough to get permission from the person who took a picture of the calendar, or do I have to get permission from the calendar's publisher? I have an mpeg file of of an animated short from which I want to post a picture to Studio Gainax, but I don't see how I can check that checkbox without convincing the company's lawyers that they should grant use of their images to Wikipedia. Brian Kendig 15:15, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Request for comments and arbitration

Just wanted to know where I should post a request for comment and arbitration on a specific article. Is it in the Cleanup page? More specifically, is anybody willing to give a third party opinion (or whatever party really...) on the NPOV of the last edits in Brussels article (cf. Brussels' talk page in section neutrality for more on the issue). cheers. -- Edcolins 19:16, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You might try Wikipedia:Peer review. RickK 00:21, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Site performance

Anyone know why WP is suddenly so much slower/balkier? Yesterday I saw a bunch of 'all servers down' messages, and both then and now my browser is timing out trying to contact WP MUCH more than usual, and even when pages finally come up, even tho' they look complete, the status bar shows 'waiting for...' or 'transferring data from...' much longer than normal. Seems like some change in the past 36-48 hours severely hampered WP's performance. Niteowlneils 19:32, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

We're down to one squid since Browne went down. Dori | Talk 19:52, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)
Bummer. Thanks for the quick answer. Niteowlneils 00:02, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Random wierdness or user error?

Am I doing something wrong, or is there something funky going on? The Talk:John Kerry page was quite large so I archived old materials at Talk:John Kerry/Feb 2004 archive, Talk:John Kerry/Mar 2004 archive, and Talk:John Kerry/Family background and added links to them on the main Talk page. But the Family background page always appears in red and clicking on it opens the saved article in an edit window. I've tried refereshing several times and even resaved both articles to no effect. What's going on here? older ≠ wiser 20:13, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Should be fixed now, Bkonrad -- go back and try again. :-) I tried a couple of things which sometimes work, and one did -- editing Talk: John Kerry and saving. Usually if you make any change (even adding a period) to a page and save it, it will fix the persistent red link problem. Let me know if it doesn't work -- the problem has been solved for me, at least. Jwrosenzweig 20:29, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Thanks, it is fine now. older ≠ wiser 00:44, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Number of Registered Users

There are now 62816 user accounts. The User List doesn't make it easy to find this out though. Maybe it's time for a revamp. -- Derek Ross 04:12, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You shouldn't use the user list for that, instead try: Special:Statistics and [1]. Dori | Talk 04:15, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. In fact I would go further and state that the User List shouldn't be used for anything nowadays. The current alphabetical, searchless, minimal information layout is practically useless for the number of accounts which it has to deal with. -- Derek Ross

There are still a couple of uses for it. First two that come to my mind would be checking if a username already exists, and if a username has any special priviledges (i.e. sysop). Dori | Talk 04:51, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)
Those are the obvious uses but have you actually tried to check whether there is a user Isis, what privileges that user has and whether the user is still active ? It's possible but it involves a lot of trial and error. Give it a go to see how much. -- Derek Ross 05:03, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I have actually tried it, and it is a real pain (not to mention much load on the servers for no good reason). Dori | Talk 05:06, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)
Upgrading Special:Listusers has been on sourceforge feature requests since 2002. Feel free to fulfill it. -- Tim Starling 04:45, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take a look. -- Derek Ross 04:48, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

is it ok to have quiz pages ?

I believe that quiz pages would enhance the browsing experience of readers. By quiz pages, I mean a page with 10 or 20 questions related to an article. For example, a quiz in astronomy would include questions like these:

  • Who walked first on the moon ? response
  • Who found the first evidence that the universe is expanding ?response
  • How old is the universe ? response

The difficulty of the quiz would depend on the corresponding article. Also, a list of quiz would allow quick access to all the quiz. There would not be any counting of good responses, and results would not be stored (i.e. this is not a competition).

I have not yet seen such pages on wikipedia. My concern is that this is not a typical content for a encyclopedia, so I would like to have feedback on whether this is accepted, and whether some guidelines should be followed (e.g. is the word 'quiz' ok ?). If OK, I would be happy to start ! Pcarbonn 05:15, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I wouldn't like the idea, as it doesn't seem "encyclopedic" to me, but that's just me. RickK 05:17, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Quiz pages as a means for instruction -- take it to Wikibooks. As a sort of rhetorical thing to introduce a subject, I still don't think it's that appropriate. There's a certain tone one tries to achieve in an encyclopedia article - such questions don't help it fit that tone. Dysprosia 05:26, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I agree that this would be more useful for Wikibooks. For Wikipedia, what we should strive for is making these same key facts easily accessible in the articles -- by using infoboxes, summarizing long sections and linking to important related articles.--Eloquence* 06:02, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)
Yep, I agree that it's not something one should find in an encyclopedia. But a "general knowledge quiz" wikibook, graded by subject and difficulty, would be a great idea. Only last month someone asked me to set a pub quiz, and of course I set one that was too hard, and had no pop-music or sport questions (and so didn't go down very well). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 13:22, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
World Book, at least in their CD-ROM version, has like questions, but more than pure trivia, more higher-level in their scope. They place them at the bottom of the article. They're usually grade 3-5 average skill level. I agree that this would be best kept to Wikibooks; I'll create a Wikibook now, it will be a general book to be used as a teaching supplement for any Wikipedia article. -- user:zanimum
I'd like to announce the creation of the Wikibooks entitled, Teacher's Guide of Questions and Lesson Plans, to Wikipedia Encyclopedia. To contain all of the subpages with questions like that. Visit [[2]] for the new resource. -- user:zanimum
Just because one particular encyclopedia has accepted a particular type of material doesn't mean we should. As I've said before (but now buried deep in the archives or lost completely), one of my pleasures when under 10 years old was reading the Waverley Press Book of Knowledge, which was regarded as an encyclopedia and was written for adults (as well as for children). It contained several beautifully illustrated children's stories, original works I think written for the encyclopedia. I don't know exactly why they were there! They were imbedded in the text between more conventional encyclopedia articles, and I didn't even notice any particular correlation to the material adjacent to them. AFAIK other encyclopedias didn't adopt this practice, and we don't need to either (and I don't think there's any chance we will). Agree the Wikibook is a good idea. Andrewa 17:35, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I believe it is a great idea to provide ways to access Wikipedia from Wikibooks for the class room, and all your suggestions are good ways to do that. I'm also sympathetic to your concerns that articles should have an 'encyclopedic tone', and that quiz are not in line with that tone. I'm still convinced that there is also a need for the general public to access the encyclopedia in a more 'fun' way, i.e. via quiz, and wikibooks would not be a solution to that because wikibooks is for the classroom. Could I suggest the following as a possible solution agreeable to all ?

There would be 2 ways to browse wikipedia: article to article to article; or quiz to article to article. That is, the list of quiz would be accessible only from the left-hand menu of the (main) page. The policy would be that no quiz can be included in article (so no browsing from article to quiz to article). This way, the general public could choose the tone at the start of their browsing session, and the ones that want an encyclopedic tone are not embarrassed with quiz. Those that like quiz would choose it in the left menu. What do you think ?Pcarbonn 05:12, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

While your quizzes would likely be useful to someone, the important thing to keep in mind is that there are many useful page additions that could be made, and that the singular goal of Wikipedia is to provide a simple interface to a straight encyclopedia with no frills. This is already a very difficult goal, and what you propose would require not only software changes by our already overburdened developers but also a task force of contributors devoted to quizzes.
Also, such quiz questions are unlikely to apply to all topics; like general Wikipedia content, many quiz questions would be missing or of poor quality, or unevenly distributed in different areas.
In conclusion, I think this is a can of worms we don't want to open; create it, even correlate it with articles if you like, but keep it off the Wikipedia proper. I think anything else would contradict Jimbo's focused vision, which gives Wikipedia its edge over projects like E2.
Derrick Coetzee 07:02, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I understand your goal and constraints, and I agree with your view. Thanks for clarifying them.

I can also see a potential problem: there is no reference truth on the question "which item should be in a quiz ?", so that the dynamics of creating a quiz is quite different from the dynamics of creating an article. The quality of content could suffer from that, as you suggest. So let's drop the idea. Pcarbonn 11:01, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

How to move a page?

I want to move the Dark tranquillity page to Dark Tranquillity but there is a redirecting page there and it won't let me. How can I do this?

You cannot: a sysadmin has to delete the second page :-( Anárion 12:24, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Fixed. Was fairly awkward as the two pages had overlapping histories, so the usual (admin only) trick of delete target, move source to target and undelete old target would've screwed up the page history diffs. Instead I moved DT to Talk:Dark Tranquillity/Old duplicate version and then deleted DT, moved Dt to DT and wrote a note on the talk page explaining where the remaining history could be found, covering all our GFDL obligations, I hope. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 14:03, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
There's an equally elaborate workaround procedure to merge page histories which might have been used here, and could perhaps now be used to tidy the results. But it's to be used with extreme caution as it's irreversible, unlike most sysop actions, see the page for details. I'm not game, it's for experienced hands only IMO and I'm not completely sure it will work in this instance. Andrewa 17:19, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
That is not the right solution in this case, as you rightly suspected. That is the "usual (admin only) trick" I refered to. It wouldn't work in this case because both page histories overlapping dates, so although I could merge that way, I would be left two mixed page histories for which diffs are nearly useless. Thus I went to the fallback option described above. This is the boring stuff that adminship was intended for :-). Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 18:38, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
AHA! OK, understood. I didn't recognise the similarity between the procedures described before, I do now. Yes, that would make a very nasty mess! Andrewa 02:17, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sort of related: How do you move an Image? I want to move this image to a new, more specific name, such as [[Image:DefenderOfTheCrown_AmigaBoxCover.jpg]], but the utility won't let me. Is there a special process for moving images? —Frecklefoot 17:40, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)

You can't. You have to reupload it with the new name, and get someone to delete the old one. Dori | Talk 17:46, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)

Contribution statistics

Is there a way to find the current number of contributions of a particular user instantly? The way I do it now is to use the <next n> link successively from User contributions page and using lesser and lesser values of 'n' when the limit is reached until I get a page of 19 or less edits after which I manually count. This method - I found is rather ridiculous , and painstakingly slow. Is there a better way ? Why don't we have a line saying something like Displaying 500-550 of 4832 contributions or something similar. I would even prefer to have the number of minor edits, Talk Page edits, and other non-namespace edits displayed separately. I wasn't sure if there was a reason this has not been implemented yet. If people find this a good idea, can this be a new feature request? Thanks. Chancemill 13:53, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)

i do not second that request: that will lead to Slashdot-like karma whoring (i have more edits than you, etc.). Have you seen this list? Anárion 14:08, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Yup, I have seen that, but it is not frequently updated and does not contain everybody's statistics on the page. One needs to actually download this (also dated) csv file and do some tinkering with it to find where one stands. Reg the karma whoring problem - it is not that counting the number of contributions is impossible now per se. Actually, I did find a better method of doing it - by approximating the number of contributions in the URL text at appropriate places. I don't think it is going to hurt to make this easier. The reason why I bounced upon this question, was that I found self-evaluation of my own contributions very tricky. For example, how useful was I in the past month? How much of my time here was on content addition and how much on Talk Page wars/niceties etc ? But, that's just me. Anybody else thinking the same? Cheers Chancemill 14:29, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)

At a unix prompt, try curl "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&hideminor=0&target=***username in question***t&limit=50000&offset=0" | wc and then subtract 49 from the first number (line count). That's the fastest method I know of. Nohat 18:51, 2004 Apr 28 (UTC)

If that is the way to find the number of edits, probably I'll write up the PHP code sometimes soon:-) --Rrjanbiah 04:32, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I have been meaning to add a statistics field to the user table for a while now. A nice big blob, where we can break down edits by hour of the day and by namespace. The current two SQL queries required to count contributions are easier on the database than using Special:Contributions, especially for more active contributors. But it still takes as much as a minute or two. Keeping track in the user table shouldn't be difficult. --Tim Starling
Hmmm.. sounds like a nice idea. BTW, the stats code is ready at my user page :-) --Rrjanbiah 10:46, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

NASA text, PD?

Although original content is nice, is text from NASA pages, like at http://deepimpact.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/factsheet-text.html, considered fair use or public domain, for use on Wikipedia? -- useR:zanimum

Far as I know, all .gov content (unless it says otherwise) is public domain. RADICALBENDER★ 15:21, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)</nowiki>

http://www.nasa.gov/audience/formedia/features/MP_Photo_Guidelines.html

NASA images generally are not copyrighted. You may use NASA imagery, video and audio material for educational or informational purposes, including photo collections, textbooks, public exhibits and Internet Web pages. This general permission does not include the NASA insignia logo (the blue "meatball" insignia), the NASA logotype (the red "worm" logo) and the NASA seal...

NASA emblems should be reproduced only from original reproduction proofs, transparencies, or computer files available from NASA Headquarters. Please be advised that approval must be granted by the Public Services Division (see above information for address, numbers, etc.) before any reproduction materials can be obtained.

Any questions regarding application of any NASA image or emblem should be directed to: Bert Ulrich Public Services Division NASA Headquarters Code POS Washington, DC 20546

Tel: (202)358-1713 Fax: (202)358-4331 Internet: bert.ulrich@hq.nasa.gov

Hope that helps. →Raul654 23:34, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)



Hear now the GodKing

Tangentially related to the facebook discussion above, it looks like you can now hear the voice of Jimbo Wales. This Newsweek interview has the link, unfortunately I can't check for sure it works where am I right now. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 13:43, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I listened to it yesterday. His interview is the second half of the clip. :) fabiform | talk 15:53, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
For those who do not like proprietary audio, or who have problems playing it, or who want a local copy of this interview, I have created an Ogg Vorbis rip which only includes the Jimbo segment: download this (4 mins, 2 megs). This is on my own server, and I consider it fair use.--Eloquence* 00:31, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)
Awesome, I was about to post a request here for someone to do that very thing. Andrewa 01:57, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
It's very interesting to hear how he pronounces a name wikipedia. I mean that's certainly not the way I do. -- Taku 04:56, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)
I guess talking phonetics is hard (unless we're International Phonetics Alphabet experts, which I'm certainly not) in text.. but I'll give it a go... they pronounce it wi-KA-pedia initially and then it drifts towards wi-key-pedia later on. I pronounce it the latter way. How does someone from Japan pronounce it? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 14:43, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think that adding links to the corresponding page on http://nutritiondata.com to food-related articles might be a good idea. Do other Wikipedians agree, and does anyone know of a nutrition site which might be better? Eurleif 00:41, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, adding links looks useful, I started linking food and nutrition to the homepage.--Patrick 10:53, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

New feature

You can now paste an IP address into the search box and click "go", and it will take you to the contributions page. -- Tim Starling 03:26, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)

Cool.. but there's a bug :o) It doesn't take care of articles which have the name of an IP address. For e.g., 127.0.0.1 is the name of an article, but giving it in the "Go" button doesn't take it to the article. Jay 12:28, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Oh diddums. You won't be able to access the only two articles in the entire database which are named after IP addresses: 127.0.0.1 and 155.69.5.236 with the go button! I guess I'd better disable it, I wouldn't want you having to type the URL. -- Tim Starling 14:17, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)
Why not check if the page exists before going to the contri list? Just moving the if block down right before the "No match" should do the trick.--Eloquence* 15:34, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)
Make that one article. I orphaned 155.69.5.236 and deleted it. UninvitedCompany 16:05, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

image upload problems

I tried to upload some images but kept getting 'This image cannot be displayed because it has errors'. I think others may have the same problem. Is this a software/system bug? -- Kaihsu 12:53, 2004 Apr 29 (UTC)

Which images do you refer to? The last two you uploaded (Image:StopIqaluit Copyright1999KaihsuTai.jpg and Image:RichardHarries20040428 CopyrightKaihsuTai.jpg) display fine here. Maybe you should clear your cache? andy 12:59, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Seems to be working now. Image:BeachBarahona2001 CopyrightKaihsuTai.jpg -- Kaihsu 13:14, 2004 Apr 29 (UTC)

Reg. Privacy

Could anyone please tell me how Wikipedia handles privacy issues? For example, keeping passwords and keeping the watchlists. Is it readable by any others? TIA --Rrjanbiah 14:27, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, there is the draft privacy policy, but as far as passwords go, no other users can access your password. No other users can see your watchlist either. AAMOF, there was a discussion about implementing a feature that would allow users see others' watchlists not too long ago and it was overwhelmingly voted down. You can see all the edits that any user has made, however. As far as what guys working on the server-end can see, I don't know. They probably can see your watchlists, but your password is most likely encrypted. —Frecklefoot 16:42, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)
Developers have access to the hash of the passwords, but not the passwords themselves. They could also see your watchlist if they wanted, and details such as when you logged in etc. Sysops used to have the ability to read watchlists a while ago, but I believe this was removed, and is certainly not possible now that special:asksql has been disabled. Also, contrary to popular misconception, only developers can access your IP, not admins, stewards or anyone else. Angela. 17:42, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_archive_2004-09-26&oldid=3385064"