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 Niteowlneils (talk | contribs) at 21:49, 14 May 2004 (=Wikipedia rules for External links?=). 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


For general problems with Wikipedia not pertaining to any single article, see Wikipedia:General complaints [[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.


foo Day

I think for greater community spirit we should hold certain theme days, or days where people concentrate on certain subjects that need attention, for example we could have 'fix stub day' or a day where we would all fix stubs, ( of course participation would be voluntary. There could be a page where people would nominate what days to hold and what subjects to consentrate on, it could be anything, like gathering information about a tricky subject or cleaning up some pages.

Sorry in advance if this has been brought up before. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 16:02, 2004 May 6 (UTC)

I think it's a great idea. Perhaps have a signup page such as Wikipedia:Flying squad or Wikipedia:Gala days which would list supporters and keep a calender of such days, past and future. Those interested could then watch the page, and discuss ideas for new Gala Days on its talk page.
One severe caution, we would want to make sure that there were clear guidelines as to exactly what was to be done, and have plenty of review of these by some old hands. Done in this way, newbies participating would learn a lot. But without this preparation, there's the prospect of many hands all at once creating the same sorts of problems for admins and developers to sort out... Aaaargh!!!! It's enough to make you want to bang your head against your monitor to see which breaks first. Andrewa 20:26, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, there would have to be clear guidelines about what specifically would have to be done, --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 08:54, 2004 May 11 (UTC)
Probably worth mentioning Wikipedia:Article of the week here. --bodnotbod 12:05, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

This is almost at the top of village pump now which means it will be chopped off soon, any ideas where this discussion could be continued? Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 19:55, 2004 May 13 (UTC)

HTML to wikitext converter

There are a few out there, including Magnus Manske's C++ version and David Wheeler's version in C, but I decided to create my own HTML to wikitext converter anyway. It differs from others in that:

  1. it's got a web-based interface (http://diberri.dyndns.org/html2wiki.html)
  2. it's in object-oriented Perl, as HTML::WikiConverter
  3. it shouldn't break on considerably broken HTML code (though I don't know the exact threshold for other converters)
  4. it has some nice image-handling DWIMmery (read more at the URL above)

When I get a chance, I'll upload the Perl module to CPAN, but for now I figured I'd share the tool with the WP community. Please comment on my talk page. --Diberri | Talk

Combining one of these converters with Epoz could be a good start for WYSIWYG editing (See meta:WYSIWYG editor). -- Gabriel Wicke 01:01, 8 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I've uploaded the module to CPAN. It's available at my CPAN author page. --Diberri | Talk 00:38, May 11, 2004 (UTC)



Protocol for Alternate Definitions

I am putting together a page for Marie-Louise von Franz and have found that some tangential topics do not exist. To this end, I would like to create them. As an example, there is an analytical psychology term amplification. There is an extant page for this term, however it is only a generalised definition. What is the protocol for adding a specific alternate definition?

2. Amplification: Expansion of dream content through personal associations and comparison of dream images with images from mythology, religion, and so on, which resemble the dream content. This concept can also be applied to myths and faerie tales.

Would something like this be appropriate?

this is discussed in more detail (on policy, technology, and practice) than you could ever want in Wikipedia:Disambiguation -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:36, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
It's one approach. Another might be for an article which defines terms used in analytical psychology (to avoid multiple small articles which have little chance of being expanded): you might include individuation, anima, animus, ego (in its use in analytical psychology as opposed to psychoanalysis), self, collective unconscious, complex, archetype, etc... though most of these seem to already have their own (short) articles - they might perhaps be constructively grouped together in one article, with redirects to it from each of the terms. - Nunh-huh 22:42, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]


User:24.232.198.99

Maybe I'm just suffering a brain-freeze, but I can't figure out what to do with this IP[4] that's uploading a bunch of lyric articles to only moderately noted songs. I don't want to bite the newbie by simply listing them on VfD, but as far as I know, these articles aren't really appropriate. Niteowlneils 00:08, 9 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

You delete them (put msg:delete on them) as lyrics are usually copyrighted, and they're not encyclopedic anyway in most cases. Dori | Talk 00:18, May 9, 2004 (UTC)
Actually, some people may argue that at least one of these should be listed on VFD to set a precedent. Dori | Talk 00:26, May 9, 2004 (UTC)

Nexuscience — A new mirror?

Various Nexuscience issues: WikiSpam, GFDL compliance, and on-going issues over whether this project is in good faith or a scam. Please continue discussion at Wikipedia talk:Mirrors and forks#Nexuscience.

Loughall Martyrs

See Loughall Martyrs

1. The name of this article may be POV; but what is a better one? 2. Although this is a sensitive subject, I think the article generally is pretty NPOV. 3. Where do we go for advice on POV disputes? Duncharris 10:56, May 9, 2004 (UTC)

I have renamed the article to a hopefully less POV name. -- The Anome 13:23, 9 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

The names of diseases: policy?

There is a wide gap between lay terms and doctors' jargon when it comes to the naming of diseases and medical procedures. Several doctors on Wikipedia (see WikiProject Clinical medicine) feel that articles should be named by their scientific names, rather than the lay terminology (myocardial infarction instead of heart attack).

Arguments:

  • Many of these terms appear to denote something that they're not (heartburn does not affect the heart, nor has it anything to do with burning);
  • Some terms are imprecise: heart attack does not specify the nature of the attack (infarction) nor does it mention the fact that the heart muscle (myocardium) is affected;
  • Some terms are bound by geographical constraints; diseases have different names in different communities and countries;
  • People might actually learn something about medical terminology, especially if the redirects are in place and the page explains that myocardium is heart muscle and that infarction means dying tissue due to lack of blood.

See also Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions#Medicine, where I've raised this point and received a deafening silence.
JFW | T@lk 15:50, 9 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Why not name it to the scientific name and have a redirect of the lay name? RickK 22:40, 9 May 2004 (UTC) [reply]

Yes, RickK seems to have the best solution there. The trouble with using medical terminology alone is that it will render the articles invisible to anyone but doctors. The person suffering from the condition who may come here for information won't find them. --bodnotbod 23:00, May 9, 2004 (UTC)
I suggest that you'll need to preemptively create redirects to the common names for diseases, otherwise well-intentioned users will inevitably come along and create new articles using the common names. No biggie and it happens all the time here, but just thought I'd mention it. You might even want to create some sort of cross-referencing index page to help keep track of things (also helpful to use the Related Changes function to see updates made to the articles on the list). older≠wiser 23:52, 9 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

RickK: User:Ksheka tried moving heart attack to myocardial infarction but there was no consensus on the issue because "Wikipedia policy" was supposed to be that lay terminology is employed. My aim is to see if this should indeed be/remain policy, or that we can follow your suggestion and employ judicious redirecting. The Wikiproject Clinical medicine policy is to keep pages aimed at the general readership, only escalating the difficulty to address technical issues (e.g. what cellular molecules participate in the development of atherosclerosis in patients who smoke?)
JFW | T@lk 09:10, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

It should work to have --using heart attack as an example-- an article in layman's terms in that location, and one in medical terms filed under myocardial infarction, each with reference to the other at the top of the article. (Is this discussion redundant?) I don't think redirecting is the answer here. ;Bear 01:01, 2004 May 11 (UTC)

note: new blueblox

There's a new bluebox at MediaWiki:US currency and coinage. It's my first one, so I'm probably missing a lot of style thing. If folks would like to fix it up and make it better, I'd appreciate it. Also, the pages it appears in---I didn't know whether to put it at the top or the bottom, so I generally picked the bottom. Is this policy? Grendelkhan 16:43, 2004 May 9 (UTC)

Looks nice. The bottom of the page is the normal location for blue boxes like this. -- Arwel 22:42, 9 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated contents

What should we do, if we see the contents of a page are unrelated to the subject? For example, in the farsi section, the page under "philosophy" is just christian propaganda. Should it be moved to "Christianity"? "Propaganda"? deleted?

You have a number of options, though you've made my task harder by not naming the article. I've been to farsi and there's no philosophy section so you must mean some other article.

Anyyway:

The first option is the most admired. --bodnotbod 22:45, May 9, 2004 (UTC)

Neutral point of view (NPOV)

Neutral point of view (NPOV) is the official, non-negotiable law established by Jimbo Wales. I think it is a crucial Wikipidia policy, but I don't see much attention being paid to it. Are my search skills poor? Are there reams and reams of discussion, but I haven't found them? I support the policy, I think it is an excellent policy, and I think it needs more exposure. I don't think it is a policy that is intuitive. One has to study and learn it. Have most Wikipidians done that? I think not. Worse, I am afraid people don't even agree on what it means, and many think it means to do exactly what it really is prohibiting. Therefore, to help generate some interest in wider publicity, as well as agreement on what the NPOV policy is, I have written a short story (moved the page and fixed the link --Jiang 23:03, 9 May 2004 (UTC)) that hopefully will generate some talk. I invite all people who edit on Wikipidea to read it. I hope you find it entertaining as well. ChessPlayer 22:33, 9 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Many Wikipedians have heard of it, but many Wikipedians are humans and can fail to adhere to NPOV at times. It's up to you to either discuss what you feel is POV on the talk pages (where all the discussion usually goes), or you could try to change it yourself if the issues are not explosively controversial. Dysprosia 22:52, 9 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Your story is in the article namespace. Can someone move it to the users subpages? I don't know how that's done, and I'm assuming that the user doesn't either. --bodnotbod 22:57, May 9, 2004 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:How to move a page. --Jiang 23:03, 9 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for moving it. I didn't understand what the colon did or that I had created the page in the wrong namespace. I thought it was in my user space.ChessPlayer 23:13, 9 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
The story shows a grasp of the essentials of NPOV, but as your travails at Talk:FOX News and Talk:Jesus over the last few days have surely proved, it can get a lot more subtle and complex than that in the real world. Thank goodness only a tiny fraction of articles have these in depth problems. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 00:15, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Actual disputes can be more complex, there is no doubt; also, they can be mired in bias and partisanship based on specific issues. I think it best to not link to real world disputes here, as that may drag partisanship into the discussion on this page of NPOV. ChessPlayer 00:44, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I want to again repeat my observation: Wikipidians for the most part do not know the NPOV policy. ChessPlayer 05:44, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Overzealous brand documentation?

Is it just me, or are we seeing a lot of overzealous documentation of the specifics of commercial products—the verbatim copying of ingredients lists, labels, the detailed listing of all the products in a specific product line, and so forth? My perception is that this material is not being contributed by people trying to promote the product, but just by people who, for whatever reason, just like to do it. Fans of the products, I think. I don't want to single out Sharpie other than as an example of the sort of thing I mean. Is it really valuable to note that it is available in Fine, Extra Fine, Ultra Fine, Super, Twin, Super Twin, Chisel, Metallic, Grip, Industrial, and Professional tips, and in Yellow, Black, Blue, Green, Orange, Red, Brown, Purple, Turquoise, Lime, Aqua, Berry, Olive, Marigold, Navy, Plum, Burgundy, and Silver ink? I won't remove valid information just because I personally happen to think it's silly, but... is this getting out of hand and, if so, do we need to draw a line, and if so, where? Dpbsmith 23:38, 9 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I think people do this not only because they like the product but because they want to contribute an article with "encyclopedia-like" details, but can't think of something to write about. And I have cut out most of this ridiculous Sharpie details. DavidWBrooks 00:39, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think David's hit it on the head there. Someone likes a product, or - even - just has it on their desk, and they feel virtuous, conscientious including every detail from the labelling. I suppose it's interesting to consider how difficult it might be to find the ingredients of a soft drink that stopped being produced ten years earlier without such people ;o) --bodnotbod 16:49, May 10, 2004 (UTC)
If these were products discovered on a dig in of an 1872 heritage site in Virginia, we'd be glad to have this historical documentation; would we not be creating a cultural record of our modern society for future archeologists, sociologists, paleontologists, et al? It may be rather odd to create the historical documentation for those historians of the future, but they'll thank us for it. -- user:zanimum
That's [http://www.archive.org]'s mission, not Wikipedia's. Dpbsmith 17:16, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Horse breeds

Wikipedia:WikiProject Horse breeds is a new project that needs participants. Organizations that set the standards for horse breeds are needed for the table template. Bensaccount 02:24, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Safty Concern

Wow! I just read a short artical on the toxisity of Colchicine. My Doctor has just, prescribed an 0.6mg dose for an undiegnosed case of Gout, I have had for 8 weeks, now. I'm to take 1 tablet every 1 to 2 hrs., until I can no longer, tolerate the diarrhea or nausea. Is this common practice? Thanks! R.L. Sidowey PS Please forgive the fumbling, but I can't find a submition button.

Wikipedia does not give medical advice. If you are uncomfortable about the treatment your doctor has prescribed for you, arrange another consultation and/orseek a second medical opinion. --Robert Merkel 13:24, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Page moves logged?

Is there a log of which pages have been moved where, and who has moved them? -- ChrisO 10:21, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a log, but the most recent page move is saved in the article's history. For example, if you move [[page 1]] to [[page 2]], the history of [[page 1]] would say "moved to page 2" and the previous history would reside at [[page 2]]. However, if you then move [[page 2]] back to [[page 1]], there is no record that page 1 was ever moved. It will look like the page was originally at [[page 2]] and then moved to [[page 1]]. Angela. 23:56, May 11, 2004 (UTC)

Upcoming Slashdot invasion (probably)

Someone's posted an article to Slashdot on our various articles on Quantuum physics:

There is a massive update on Strings Theory in Wikipedia : AdS/CFT, Andrew Strominger, Cumrun Vafa, Ashoke Sen, Juan Maldacena, Mirror symmetry, String field theory, Holonomy, Heterotic string, Closed string, Open string, F-theory, Background independence, Higgs mechanism, Conifold, Tachyon condensation, Einsteinian manifold, Second superstring revolution. Now you can easyly tell Open string from Closed string at last."

It might get a little busy here, assuming that the article goes through...
James F. (talk) 11:18, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Slashdot is past its prime (see e.g. Alexa), and the slashdot effect is overstated, particularly by slashdot readers, who believe everything they read on slashdot. The 200,000 articles slashdotting barely registered more than a blip here. So don't panic :) Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 11:30, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
It made it on to the Science section of Slashdot, but I doubt it will be put on the main page of Slashdot. So it probably isn't going to attract as many visitors. -- Popsracer 12:38, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Saving

New pages not showing up in Google: Wikipedia:External search engines

Guidance?

I'm not clear on the custom for Wikipedians to give others critiques/guidance/corrections. User Olivier seems to be a valuable, prolific contributor generally, but seems to have moved the constellation content via cut and paste from Taurus to Taurus (constellation). Also, everything that pointed to just Taurus (including a msg) still points there (I've been working on updating the links this morning). Would it make sense for someone that can, rv taurus, del Taurus (constellation), then Move this page? Note, I have no problems with the end result, I just have concerns about how it was done. Niteowlneils 16:55, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

My approach starts the same as yours, I check the users contributions to see what they're like. So far, everyone has been a good solid contributor. So, what I've then done is to spell out my concerns about the change on their talk page and just say "I would approach it this way, I see you've done a,b & c. Can I ask why you've done that?" If I disagree with the reason I say, "hmmm... how can we resove this amicably?" So far it's worked well. And on one occasion, once it was explained to me, I could see they'd done the right thing. --bodnotbod 17:31, May 10, 2004 (UTC)
I deleted Taurus (constellation), which had 1 edit by Olivier. I then moved the Taurus page, including the talk page there. I replaced the new redirect from Taurus with the last disambiguity edit from Taurus (constellation), and then reverted the Taurus (constellation) to the last edit with the full text. I think the situation is fixed now, loosing only one edit when Taurus (constellation) was copied by Olivier, and another two edit histories of the disambig page are now under Taurus (constellation). I will drop Olivier a note soon. Happy editing -- Chris 73 | Talk 02:59, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Screen width

Looking at a specific astrology page issue regarding appearance at 800x600 (I usually run higher), I discovered that Wikipedia comes close enuf to fitting that it seems to be the target resolution, but in reality, is just enuf wider to be a pain. Anyone know if TPTB are aware of this? Niteowlneils 17:36, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what TPTB means... but anyway I have a 800x600 resolution (pity me) and I have the left hand menu turned on.... wikipedia renders perfectly for me without horizontal scrolling. Unless, that is, there is an element on a specific page which is wider than my screen. Perhaps the problem is with the astrology page you were on, do you remember which it was? fabiform | talk 18:49, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
It was probably Taurus (constellation) (or possibly Gemini or Taurus (I've spent most of the day cleaning up move from Taurus--see above))--all are fine if I'm not editting them. Niteowlneils 19:55, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
(the powers that be). It may depend on which skin Niteowlneils is using. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:58, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
...and which browser (css not being quite as portable as one might hope). Niteowlneils - if you can tell us the page, skin, and browser combination, it may be possible to submit a bugfix request to have the stylesheet tweaked. It tries very hard to work everywhere, but suc transit... -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:01, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Initial report. Skin/left nav=default. browser=IE 5.5 and Mozilla 1.4. OS=Win2k. Page=at a minimum, edit pages. Niteowlneils 19:08, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
So far seems to be limited to Edit pages. Also occurs with Netscape6/7 and Opera 7. Niteowlneils 19:12, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Also happens currently on VP and VfD, but I believe it is due to the Darwin image and a long URL, respectively, so I don't think those need to be "fixed". Niteowlneils 19:19, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Screenshot of problem (using IE5.5--the severity is pretty consistent between all browsers tested) at Image:IEHorScroll75percent.jpg. Niteowlneils 19:35, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW (not too surprisingly) the Wiktionary Edit page has the same hor. scroll issue. I'm going to assume that A) the problem is limited to the Edit pages, and B) the issue has been sufficiently documented, so I am going to bump my resolution back up, unless someone has a specific request. Niteowlneils 19:42, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to happen only when the "Edit box has full width" is not checked (which I think it isn't when you're not logged in). This makes the edit box a fixed width, and one that does appear to be just a bit big for 800x600 (probably depending on your default font settings). You could file a bug on this, suggesting the default be a wee bit smaller. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:10, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll go do that. Since I have changed few, if any, of my Prefs, and I see the problem logged in, I have to assume the fixed width box is the default. Nice diagnosis--I went back to 800x600, checked the box, went to an Edit page, and confirmed that there was no hor. scroll. Niteowlneils 20:26, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Done. #951517. Niteowlneils 21:08, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
In the monobook skin the edit area has a % width by default, the pref is only there to work around some bugs in the old skin/ in ancient browsers afaik. Could be dropped maybe, and shouldn't default to a fixed width in any case. Try http://test.wikipedia.org in doubt. -- Gabriel Wicke 22:51, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper story about Wikipedia: Thoughts welcome.

First things first: I learned of the village pump through Raul654. He said this would be a good place to find administrators and members who'd like to share details about the more interesting facets of Wikipedia. So here I am.

I write for The News Journal, a newspaper in Wilmington, Del. The story I'm writing is meant to inform readers about Wikipedia and how it works, but also to answer some of the questions they're most likely to have. What intrigues me about Wikipedia, beyond the vast collection of articles on obscure topics, is the culture that beats within the site. Here's where you come in.

Raul654 gave me a quick education on two of the more prolific Wiki-outlaws. That's what intrigues me most, and readers are likely to share that wonder. And through the sharing of such tales, readers will learn much about the evolution and self-policing of this unique site. (I'm loathe even to call it a mere "site.")

Please contact me at cyasiejko-at-delawareonline-dot-com. (Have I thwarted the spambots? I hope so.)

Take care, Christopher Yasiejko The News Journal

While of course I wouldn't dream of telling you what should intrigue you, I do think "wiki-outlaws" shouldn't. They are footnotes to parenthetical remarks, distractions from the purpose of Wikipedia, which is to build a useful and reliable reference work. On Wikipedia there is a "giant conspiracy attempting to have articles agree with reality". That some refuse to participate in this conspiracy is, in the end, irrelevant to its success, as it is irrelevant to the generally progressive nature of human knowledge. -- Nunh-huh 22:40, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
I agree entirely. A useful analogy (and a deeper one that might first appear) is to compare wikipedia with the wild west. It's easy to think there's a lot of lawlessness, gunfights, tough-but-kindhearted sheriffs, and bitter feuds in blanco canyon (as The Simpsons would have it "now with 50% more rootin-tootin"). It is like the wild west, but not like that - like the unreported wild west, the unreported wikipedia is mostly a bunch of farmers - each plowing their personal furrow on an unthinkably vast land. Many never see a stranger for weeks on end, many have no-one to turn to when their crops fail. Here and there there's an odd little clan, the faithful in neglected commune, a two-horse wikiproject, someone's grand scheme gone to seed. It's a little more populated each day, each day a new stranger in town. Most of your cattle go unrustled, most of your banks unrobbed, and one day the railroad may come this way. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:08, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you guys know (so you can be specific in your responses), the 2 users I told Chris about (he spent about an hour interviewing me) are Michael and Plautus Satire. →Raul654 05:07, May 12, 2004 (UTC)
Does having a newspaper article about them count as feeding the trolls?! Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 08:38, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
lol @ Pcb21 Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 19:24, 2004 May 13 (UTC) ;)

Shifting to a new house

Moved to Wikipedia:Reference desk#Shifting to a new house

Thanks Wikipedia

Thanks Wikipedia. This is a letter I wrote to Brittanica:

When your online encyclopedia became a pay service, I was very disappointed. The internet and information should be free to everyone. There is now a new free encyclopedia called wikipedia that will lead to your eventual demise. May I be the first to say goodbye to you and your misplaced values.

If you didn't do it, I would have been forced to. Thanks.

Thanks for your comments. Do we have a Wikipedia:Testimonials or something similar? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 07:58, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently so. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 08:25, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
While I think it's great that you have found Wikipedia and love it, just like everyone else here, I don't really look forward to the demise of Brittanica. I view Wikipedia just as another source of information. Not the one and only source. That said, Britannica may have to change their subscription model really soon, as Wikipedia just keeps growing and getting better, and more and more people are aware of how good it really is. --Vikingstad 11:53, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

Page move to new destination without deleting existing page at destination?

Is it possible to move a page to a new location, even if there exists already a page there without deleting the target page first? I am asking because there is a controversy about the location of Kosovo, a.k.a. Kosovo and Metohia. Majority vote on the talk page (10 to zero) was for the location Kosovo, and it has been moved there three times in the last two days. It was always moved back unilaterally by user: Nikola Smolenski, most recently today at 15:02. I think this would require the deletion of the Kosovo and Metohia page first to make the move. However, there is no deletion log entry, and Nikola is not an administrator, so he could not delete it in the first place. What is going on? -- Chris 73 | Talk 06:36, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I think I got it: the redirect page created at Kosovo and Metohia after the move to kosovo had only one history entry, so it can be overwritten by non-admins without deletion. So, after i moved the page to Kosovo again, i made a minor change on the Kosovo and Metohia redirect page, so now the page has a (tiny) history. Hope that stays there. -- Chris 73 | Talk 06:46, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit won't actually prevent a non-admin moving the page back. As long as the redirect is still to Kosovo, Kosovo could be moved back to Kosovo and Metohia. I suggest you request protection if it becomes a problem. Angela. 00:47, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

WikiProject : Gastropods

  • WikiProject Gastropods is up and running. This huge project is an offshoot from the WikiProject : Tree of Life. Contributions from new collaborators and enthusiasts are most welcome. There is a great need for pictures of mollusks, marine snails and land snails. This is the occasion to give your photos a second life on Wikipedia. JoJan 09:19, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Compliment Committee

We have a Welcoming Committee to greet new users, but once they get greeted, they're rarely subject to much positive at the hands of other users, and many of them are subjected to a slew of insults from trolls, vandals, etc. Perhaps we should have a parallel committee, modeled after the WC, to compliment users when we see good edits, substantial work on pages, etc. Something less than a barnstar, but still a nice thing to do for the users. I suspect that, after a lengthy edit, it would be more than a little welcome to see a post on your talk page to let you know you did a good job, and that this would foster Wikilove Snowspinner 20:50, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I think this could fit in well with the recent idea of Wikipedia:Great editing in progress; or, to be more accurate, I think some hybrid of the two ideas could be achieved that served this role well... IMSoP 21:45, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Hearing compliments from "Compliment Committee" is like you hearing "You look great!" from your grandma (as opposed to your girlfriend or partner). My point is that, the person who gets such a compliment won't feel particularly honoured, because those people saying so are comissioned ...to say such a "compliment"! Doesn't mean much. It sounds much better when coming from some random person. However, an Award Commission makes more sense. --Menchi 21:52, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]


I think that last sentence made more sense when attached to the thoughts in your head (unless it's just that the thoughts in my head are rather detached right now :-/). What do you envisage an "Award Commission" as being/doing? - IMSoP 22:37, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Just an organization that gives out Barnstar and Wikipedian of the Year Award and stuff like once a month. --Menchi 12:00, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the compliment commttee would be as problematic. It's not as though every comment will get complimented. At least as I'm picturing it, the CCwould not simply compliment everyone blindly. It would be a more or less completely informal list of people who are committed to recognizing good work when they see it. We already have plenty of people dedicated to recognizing bad work, but very few beyond featured articles for good. Snowspinner 16:20, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a good idea, and hearby appoint every single user to the Compliment Committee. Please remember to thank others when you see good things happening! Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 07:59, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
I'm new and I've already left a few comments on talk pages like "Great page - well done to all concerned." And when people have reverted vandalised pages that I'm particularly interested in I drop them a note to thank them - particularly when it's my User Page as was the case yesterday. Apparently I smell of cabbage. Some people who know me in real life might say that was NPOV. --bodnotbod 21:40, May 12, 2004 (UTC)
I also think it's a great idea, and would like to hereby second Pete's nominations of all users. Andrewa 07:03, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio clarification

When a site doesn't state copyright status explicitly, do we assume it's public domain, or do we assume it's copyrighted. Most of the articles created by this user [5] seem to be 90-100 percent copies from a couple web sites [www.healing-arts.org/tir/frank.htm][www.tir.org/metapsy/issues.htm] but neither seems to have any statement RE copyright status, so I don't know if they are a problem. (This posting is mostly for my education, and just happens to use these article I just found as examples.) Niteowlneils 21:57, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the author explicitly state otherwise, any work like that is copyrighted, and not eligiblge for inclusion "off the bat" - we'd have to speak to the webpage author. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 22:13, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Read what Pete says carefully: It's not a matter of our assuming it is under copyright. In the US, it is under copyright in the absence of a specific act making it PD. --Jerzy(t) 14:40, 2004 May 14 (UTC)
Just to amplify this--this is true not only for the U.S. but for all countries that have directly or indirectly acceded to the Berne Convention (which for all practical purposes is most countries of the world). In general, you should assume that a work is copyrighted unless it is from a public domain source (such as the U.S. federal government) or the author has expressly transferred copyright to the public domain (or made it available under GFDL). older≠wiser 15:06, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Link back to parent page

I think there should be a link back to the parent page, in every page; Of course, we can use the back button in our explorers. But, after editing a page and saving it, if we click 'back' it goes to the editing page again. So 'The parent article link' feature would make life a lot easier. I havent scanned the whole page to see if such a feature already exists. So, even if such a feature already exists, please make it more eye-catching. :SudhirP 05:01, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you have in mind as a "parent page". Everything links back to the Main Page. Most articles don't have a particularly obvious "parent." -- Jmabel 05:15, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jmabel, if you are suggesting what I think you mean. If by parent you mean the entry where you clicked on a link to get to the current page, there are a number of possible such entries in some cases. For example, Isaac Newton is be linked to from the articles on Analytic geometry, as well as the Bank of England article, aparently. There is a list of entries that link to any entry, you get them by clicking on the 'what links here' button on the list on the left. If this isn't what you mean, could you please explain further. Silverfish 14:09, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks! I did not simulate all the possibilities! I think that a series of 'back' clicks is the only solution. Thanks 4 the response.

Please send me E-Mail address of libiya IT companies

Family Feud

Hello, I been looking for family feud game and wonder if it's available in the market on disc to play it on PC or Play Station/? please let me know it is available and where can I find it.

thanx Riyadh

shawan_riyadh@yahoo.com

Amazon has it. or see here for more --bodnotbod 21:46, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

Offensive pictures

Offensive pictures, human genitalia, human humiliation, torture and co, are not treated along the same standards on Wikipedia; In particular, female genitalia are hidden, while male genitalia are visible or pictures of torture are visible as well, such as on Iraq prison abuse scandal. In short, double standards exist, that indicate Wikipedia is somehow censoring a simple clitoris, while showing erected penis or pictures that make many people just feel sick in disgust. I am troubled by this. I would like some opinions about this, and to know how people feel like about censorship (ie, removing images), hidding images behind links (eg, the clitoris) or just plain display potentially offending images (eg, torture). SweetLittleFluffyThing

Concur with Ant. Wikipedia shouldn't require parental guidance. Or should we really have to ask the developers for a "child lock" feature???? Even on the anatomy pages schematic drawings are of more use than outright nudity of either sex. JFW | T@lk 11:22, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
I have some ideas about a separate version of WP with particular consideration for kids that wouldn't impact on other's freedoms. Some scratchy thoughts at User:Pcb21/WP for kids. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 12:27, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problems with nudity of either sex whatsoever. I don't like toture pics, but then I don't like torture. I think I should be informed of such things and as the saying goes a picture is worth a thousand words.So my opinion is that they should stay in the articles. However if people want links like in the clit picture I'll not object, but we shouldn't censor. theresa knott 11:33, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Sex is one thing. Tortue is another -- to me, tortue photos just very shocking to look at. You're bound to get to sexual images sooner or later, but if you get used to seeing people bleeding or scarring dying painfully --you're desensitized, in a bad way. --Menchi 12:00, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Menchi do you think we should have the offending pictures in a seperate gallary or do you think they should be deleted all together?theresa knott 12:08, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
A disclaimer would do. So long as the disclaimer is not hidden so it doesn't...disclaim as it should. And if the person is morbid enough to check it out AFTER seeing the disclaimer. Well, they have only themselves to blame. :-) --Menchi 06:22, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
On sensitive issues we have several times in the past done whatever the wider mainstream media has done (Kobe Bryant's accuser etc). The torture article now has a link to the decapitation video, which is more than other news outlets are doing it appears. The idea of watching that personally grosses me out and it is the first time I have thought "Yes people should have the personal freedom to make their own choices, but that doesn't mean I need to provide the means for them to do so." Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 12:27, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
There was a whole, lengthy, discussion of this, right here, less than a month ago. Unfortunately, I haven't time to find where it all got archived (and can't remember if it was particularly conclusive, either) but it's out there somewhere... - IMSoP 13:16, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia_talk:Profanity contains (some of the) previous discussion, and the tentative policy is at Wikipedia:Profanity. Whatever the policy is, it looks like it is not consistently enforced given the difference between boys' bits and girls' bits articles that Anthere talks about above. When there are problems of consistency like that I guess it is hard to say "Ah, yes, we've done this discussion ten times before. Here is the policy and here is the talk that got us there. Now be quiet.". Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 13:43, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
First, let me preface this by saying that I was the one who re-added the pictures to penis. Stated simply, this is not the mormon wikipedia - it's not bowdlerized, and not censored. (This same issue has come up at, to mw knowledge, John F. Kennedy assassination, brain, penis, clitoris, etc etc)
We don't go out looking for potentially offensive pictures, but if one that is a useful addition to the article, being potentially offensive should not stop us from using it. If that means we need parental guidance, so be it. The kids can handle it - the pictures in question are (IMHO) relatively tame. You can look in almost any encyclopedia and see the same things - a picture of the brain, penis, clitoris, etc etc. →Raul654 13:52, May 12, 2004 (UTC)
I would prefer having links rather than embedded photos. I'm not morally offended, but rather I find photographs of male genitalia to be just plain unpleasant to view, for whatever irrational reasons. I would still like to be able to read the penis article. Of course, it could be said "well, that's just your problem", but I wouldn't be surprised if a large number of Wikipedia readers held the same viewpoint — in which case, I would argue that omitting the in-line photos would improve the article. — Matt 14:29, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Matt that graphic pictures generally shouldn't be inline, but should be optional viewing. I disagree with the statement that reference materials commonly have such pictures. They usually just have a diagram. I think the Iraq abuse photos are OK inline at present, as it is still breaking news, and news articles I've read indicate seeing them is necessary to understand how extreme the abuse is/was[6]. When the dust has settled, they should probably go optional as well. Niteowlneils 18:50, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm not in the mood for seeing a penis I don't type "penis" into the search bar. Same w torture or womens goodies or whatever. Does anyone seriously think a child who for whatever reason has a need for researching a penis shouldn't be allowed to see a nonsexual photo of one? Medical textbooks are allowed for kids, and I and my children have reviewed texts on anatomy w a minimum of thrills and chills. Cutting peoples heads off is far less disturbing than the graphic woodcuts and photos of torture equipment from the inquisition which I studied at length as a child. Encyclopedias and other reference texts are the last place that should be censoring. Check out the pic on this page *warning, shocking classical art* ----> Pan (mythology). I think some perspective is needed here. Sam Spade 15:01, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
I'm rarely in the mood for viewing penis photos; that's just my nature, and I don't think I'm unique. Despite this, I might want to read an article on the penis without viewing a photograph of one. I'm not advocating censorship — I don't want to stop other people, including children, from looking at photos, hence I'd favour indirection (i.e. a link to a photo). If a large number of other readers share my aesthetic reaction, then this would improve the article for many people. If most readers are OK with the photos, then keep them inline — it's a benefit to the article. — Matt 15:20, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that if your wanting to learn about the penis (or torture, or whatever) seeing a pic is an important part of that process, and should be an expected cost of researching the subject. That being said, I think having a clickable link for the squimish to avoid isn't censorous, and while I feel it unnecessary, it would seem acceptable in some cases. Sam Spade 16:38, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but aside from displaying or not displaying nude pictures, is that okay to you that pictures of male genitalia are displayed (hence, not enough offensive) while pictures of females genitalia are hidden (for being very offensive) ? Is there a pov there ? SweetLittleFluffyThing

Yes, that is a matter of taste, and/or POV. Many prefer the nude female form to the males, and the wiki is vaguely democratic. And so things happen this way. Consistancy would be nice in EVERY area of the wiki, but thus far, I have found it in none ;) What to do? Maybe some more democracy will help? And if the majority wants breast, but not penis? What then? lolol... Sam Spade 17:18, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as a younger Wikipedia user, I think there are many of us out here who feel the same way I do: optional viewing, please, via links. Anyone agree? Rissa of the saiya-jin 19:16, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
No, I disagree - first, it's a slippery slope as to what is 'objectionable' - someone was arguing earlier that the graphic pictures on human brain would be objectionable to vetrans. Second, putting it in link for essentially buries it, which is censorship in itself. Third, it takes away from the utility of the article. →Raul654 19:48, May 12, 2004 (UTC)
One: yes, there's a scale of "objectionableness", but it's not necessary to pander to every objection. We should, I believe, attempt to guage what might be unpleasant to large numbers of people, and act accordingly. The chief mechanism for this should be common sense. Two: Would you argue that a "Wikipedia contains spoilers" message is censorship? I do not believe that giving the reader a choice about whether to see a photograph is censorship. Three: Giving some readers a sense of distaste also takes away from the utility of the article. There's no loss of information for moving a picture to a link, just convenience. We should judge whether this loss of convenience is worth the aesthetic gain for a subset of readers. — Matt
Agree with Raul654, taking pictures about subject X out of any article deptives the article of something, also agree with Sam Spade that people who don't want to see a picture of a penis really shouldnt be looking for one in the search. I do not agree with the external linking of pictures, it takes something away from the rest of us because we can't print the article proprely without going through great trauble. Also an article is just more pretty with inline pictures than extenral, i think everyone agrees on this because we have inline pictures everywhere as opposed to external ones, it can be argued that it is nothing but a violation of NPOV ot be removing valid content from an article just because you are not comfortable with it. I have written down some thoughts on the issue at this page on meta and would appriciate some input. However until something like that proposed system is in place we should not gutting articles left and right at the loss of other readers just because we think it's a taboo subject, an encyclopedia should be timeless, not reflect the taboos of the time. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 21:11, 2004 May 12 (UTC)
People may want to read an article about a topic without seeing a picture of it. Other examples: menstruation, anal sex, Coprophagia... — Matt 09:15, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that putting some of the more offensive images (Goatse, pictures of dead bodies, etc) up violates NPOV. That is to say, since there is usually a substantial controversy over the appropriateness of showing these images, it is POV for us to show them. We should offer links on a factual ground, but in the case of really controversial and debatable images, to display them is to say that it's OK to display them. We should remain neutral - those who feel it's right to view these things should be able to. Those who feel it should be hidden should not have to. This is the best NPOV compromise available. Snowspinner 00:15, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I would draw a strong distinction between "shock" images of torture or execution, and clinical, non-shocking, non-sexual anatomical pictures. Absolutely, the article on "penis" should show a picture of a penis. Why shouldn't an eleven year old girl see a picture of a penis if she's curious about the human body? Are we really going to deny her access to that information because it offends some people's moral scruples?

The article on foot contains inline images. So does the one on Ear. There is no intellectually honest reason for excluding one from penis or clitoris, or the rest. Really, a penis or a clitoris is a lot like a foot or an ear, except that a lot more people are curious about the "sexual" organs because they don't happen to have them.

It's the job of an encyclopedia to "shine light into the darkness" on these issues and say, "look, there it is, a clitoris. Now what was the big deal?"

- Thparkth 20:07, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Do not forget to vote and give your opinion at Talk:Nick Berg, where on ongoing poll is going on, over the keep/remove/inlinelink severed head of Nick Berg. This is a poll to try to determine a new policy on the topic of potentially offending images. Thank you for all your comments :-) SweetLittleFluffyThing 05:33, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Subtle POV edits?

While Googling for "wikipedia and google", I came across a thread on the forum of an organisation called the "Stormfront White Nationalist Community" from the end of April, discussing Google and, tangentially, how to add (presumably) POV edits to Wikipedia: http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=129083. Happily, it seems they quickly encountered "censorship" and IP bans, but the following post was a little worrying:

I have done a little "creative editing" on Wikipedia too. It is a waste of time to try it on any of the major articles, because the censors will pounce on you immediately. However, sometimes you can slip in a few words in the less popular articles, and they will last for some time.

What are the current Wikipedia mechanisms for defending against subtle POV or vandalism, and what confidence do we have that they work? — Matt 13:25, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Our defense mechanism is lots of eyes, and our confidence varies by individuals. I, for example, fear that wikipedia won't scale to massive size for social reasons such as this - but then, I'm a grump. - DavidWBrooks 14:16, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
That is precisely why I am not an inclusionist. The 'wp is not paper' argument focuses on physical resources. I don't remember where I saw it, but the comment totally resonated with me; the gist was, 'the number of articles should be limited to keep the ratio between articles and editors at a managable level'. Niteowlneils 18:55, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
And not get to worked up over it. I find it difficult to relate to the outright childishness of a person that gets his jollies by adding some small POV to an obscure Wikipedia article that might actually stay posted for a week or two! Or the ultimate (how do they contain themselves) a whole month! - Marshman 17:12, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Press release: Wikipedia wins 8th Annual Webby Award for Best Community

I think we should have a press release to announce our Webby Award success. I've started one at Wikipedia:Press releases/May 2004. Please add to it. Other sites such as Google and the BBC have made press releases when they have won in the past, so I feel it's important we do too. We haven't had one for over three months, and the last one received little attention in the outside world. Perhaps this one will have more of an effect. Angela. 17:03, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copyright

Why is the English Wikipedia:Copyright locked? Please change the interwiki link to Swedish Wiki to "Wikipedia:Upphovsrätt". // Rogper 17:52, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine it's protected so that no one can change such important policies while we're not looking (just like our general disclaimer is protected). I've updated the interwiki link for you. :) fabiform | talk 18:17, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. :-) // Rogper 18:39, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Image for deletion

I have listed the image of the severed head of Nick Berg for deletion. Please vote at WP:IFD. Dori | Talk 21:00, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

Fundamental inequalities between races in Wikipedia treatment

What follows is a discussion that was erroneously started on the wrong page - the issue was first raised by User:66.185.84.80. Please note that the IP 66.185.84.80 is a shared Canadian IP that is being used here by the banned user User:Paul Vogel. <- BCorr

  • I am not Paul Vogel, I don't even know who he is. Before a week ago, I rarely ever visited Wikipedia beyond random reads on topics of interest during surfing. I think it shows bad judgement of you to ban me for unfounded suspicions of being another user, and right as I was in an debate too. I think you are trying to find an excuse to censor me. I demand an apology. - 66.185.84.80

66.185.84.80's issue: I wish to have this issue addressed by more people. For it is clear, when surfing the various race-related articles such as Jews, African-American, Blacks, Caucasian, Whites, and racism, that articles involving the issue of race does not at all give even approximately equal treatment to the various races and ethnicities. In fact, White people seem to consistantly get the deep end of this. Specifically, I bring up that,

  • a) Articles about the White race/people discusses the existance and validity of race in disparaging terms, while articles about non-White races does the exact opposite: they contain a lot of encouragement, affirmation, and information about history, accomplishments, and inequalities faced. I submit to you that had this been the other way around, then comparisons to Nazi-Germany and allegations of the grossest of racism would not have been far away.
  • b) All articles writing about racism utterly fail in also presenting racism against Whites as an phenomenon of significance, when many public figures and books make it clear that racism is a two-way thing, and that hatred against Whites is just as rampant, if not even more so, than hatred from Whites towards other races. Further, modern institutionalized racism against Whites is not discussed as racism like institutionalized racism against other races immediately is.

Thank you. Please reply with your opinion on this.

I am uncertain exactly what you're going for here. Whites does not appear to suggest that race does not exist, though it does bring up the opinion that some have that white is not a racial category. Caucasian race is a little more suggestive that race doesn't exist - I think that article is in need of a rewrite. That said, half of African-American is made up of criticism of that term, so I have trouble viewing this as systemic racial bias.
Furthermore, Affirmative action discusses many of the issues of racism against whites, as does Reverse discrimination.
I do not think that the problem you are describing exists. Snowspinner 22:21, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the term African-American is under criticism, but that is because the term itself is thought of to be invalid in that it does not account for White Africans, or Black non-Africans. The Black race is not, and should not, be said to not exist, or be spoken of in disparaging terms. Further, there are a variety of pages under the Black issue, dealing with civil-rights leaders, problems they have faced, et cetera. Another point you bring up are the specific pages of "Reverse Discrimination" (a false term, racism is racism regardless of race) and "Affirmative Action." Giving note that "some say this or that" in "Reverse Discrimination" while ignoring to give racism against Whites equal treatment in racism is not fair at all. Why can't we just treat everybody the same, and allow both PC and non-PC truths under the main articles of a discussion? Thanks for the feedback. - 66.185.84.80
The problem is that "racism", as a word, is generally used in one sense, and if Wikipedia were to use it in a different sense, Wikipedia would become unintelligible. We are bound to the meanings of words, and to generlaly accepted usages and concepts. Racism against whites isn't talked about very much, and few consider it to be racism as such. I'm not sure what white civil rights leaders you'd want represented. There aren't that many. As for Black, the section of that on race suggests the term to be as broad and problematic as Whites does the term "white". Again, I can't find any real instances of what you're talking about. Perhaps you'd like to be more specific. Snowspinner 22:35, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your statement about how we should avoid writing about a simple truth simply because current society generally suppresses its discussion. I am speaking of course about the fact that racism is racism, and that Whites are targeted just as much, if not even more, than other races when it comes to getting the shitty end of the stick because of their race (not to mention the "normal" racism like the common use of words such as "cracker," "whitebread" in negative applications). Also, racism have a definition, and it does not depend upon the race of the victim, so your assertion that racism should discuss only racism against non-Whites because that's how you think the word is understood at large, is problematic for me. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, I submit that we should write about all that falls under the term and its definition without trying to promote any political agendas by hiding the "bad truth" under a different, whitewashed name, in some rarely linked page. What is currently going on is gravely offensive to me as a White person, and I would understand how it felt for people of other races if the situation was reversed. I think that being racist against a group which does not have strong political pressure groups advocating their rights and wellbeing is just as bad as being racist to any other race. - 66.185.84.80
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and ought reflect things as they are. It is not a force for social reform. It should not uncover hidden and suppressed truths. Racism is not used in the context you're describing it as in any general usage. This may be offensive to you, but Wikipedia is not the place for that reform to begin. Enlighten the world as to white racism, then Wikipedia will change to reflect that. But do not try to enlighten the world as to an unrealized evil through Wikipedia. Snowspinner 22:56, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
I am not talking about dedicating an important page to some obscure issue noone cares about. I am talking about excerting some basic objectivity, and write of the truth as it is about a major issue, instead of looking to official western political dogma as the only truth that must be included in an encyclopedia entry for a term with a clear definition. But I am curious, are you wholeheartedly convinced that racism against Whites is not racism, while it is racism in situations where racial roles have been reversed? And do you think that if the government had an official and consistant policy of getting less-qualified Whites into positions of education and career ahead of non-Whites, that this should be part of racism? If so, why not for Whites as well? Why not excert equality and objectivity here? It's the same thing, and saying that racism isn't bad anymore when commited against Whites is utterly racist and meanspirited in itself. - 66.185.84.80
There are five paragraphs in Racism on reverse racism. I continue to be unsure what you're asking for that isn't already in Wikipedia. Snowspinner 23:15, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hyacinth/Full disclosure. First let me note that, 66.185.84.80, you almost seem to be advancing an anti-affirmative action agenda. At the very least, it seems that you disagree with affirmative action as it now stands (which is fine). It seems that, 66.185.84.80 and Snowspinner, you are both talking about different things. Snowspinner, Wikipedia should indeed reflect reality, which includes not only terms and their usage, but the reality/irreality described and not described by those terms. I do agree with you that racism is usually understood to mean racism against non-white peoples in America. Wikipedia, like many things, has a strong pervasive American bias, and this seems to be one incidence of that. I, at the moment, do not agree with 66.185.84.80 that racism is mostly against white peoples. The burden of proof is on you here, and if you have sources which argue this please cite your sources. Also, feel free to add a paragraph to reverse discrimination regarding objections to the term itself. This too would be greatly improved by citing sources, and I imagine that someone has been critical of the term itself. More importantly, I hope someone has directed you to Wikipedia's policy on neutrality: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Hyacinth 02:03, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, I do think that cases like Zimbabwe should be added to the racism article. Preferably by someone with more than a passing familiarity with the situation. However, I'm unconvinced that Wikipedia should try to take on the rather awesome task of uncovering the reality hidden by the limitations of language. Not that this isn't a concern of mine. I do critical theory. Just that I don't think Wikipedia is the place to launch those concerns - at least not on a level beyond acknowledging the degree to which they're already being discussed. I remind all involved of the policy against original research. Snowspinner 04:15, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Hyacinth, you say that I "almost seem" to be "advancing an anti-affirmative action agenda" when the truth of racism in "Affirmative Action" is merely another point to my above complaint. Per the mainstream definition of racism (different treatment based on race), "Affirmative Action" definitely is racism (and that's a hard fact, not bias), institutionalized at that, so I am of course against it. But, I am not trying to advance any agenda except that of taking a second look at pages that are purposely leaving out facts just because politically correct "thought-nazis" wouldn't be comfortable unless only what they are activists for is known. Some basic objectivity is all I ask for. I don't think you need to have a mind that can't rationalize itself for or against something in order to value and practice objectivity and justice in a cooperative work on what essentially is meant to be a book of fact.
Without accusing you of inserting your views on things that are meant to be neutral, may I remind you (since you reminded me) that you, according to your own writing on the "Full Disclosure" page, are highly biased? For example, you dispense with the scientifically correct term "homosexual" (this describes the phenomenon of being attracted to one's own gender in pure NPOV) in favor of the contemporary fad term "gay" (happy), and you also let it be known that you are an activist for a number of causes, including "Affirmative Action" (pro). I hope you see my point instead of taking it as an insult. I am trying to illustrate that all people have biases one way or the other, otherwise they wouldn't have a sane brain. And at the same time, we can all work together to maintain neutrality and non-spin in a factbook.
As for the levels or racism one way or the other, we can't possibly measure it, because you and Snowspinner have rather special definitions of racism that means that it is only racism when done against non-Whites. When done against Whites, you don't think of it as racism anymore, not unless it is *very* explicit like the ethnic-economical cleansing in Zimbabwe.
- 66.185.84.80
You misunderstand my point. I don't claim that anti-White sentiment isn't racism. I claim that it isn't existant. Snowspinner 06:19, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed you do, because of your definition. That's exactly my point. You claim anti-White sentiment isn't existant even when Mugabe is on a mission to clean his land of White devils, the US government makes schools and places of work give you less points if you are White, and crime stats shows that White people are highly victimized in hate-crimes as well. And the best part is, you bravely admit to it. - 66.185.84.80
I have already indicated support for including Zimbabwe. I cannot help but notice that Affirmative Action has not spelled the end of whites getting better paying jobs, better standards of living, better education, and fewer arrests than other races, making me wonder how meaningful getting "fewer points" if you're white is. That said, articles on Affirmative Action are more than amply balanced to account for the opposing POV, so I'm not sure what your issue is. As for crime statistics, I'm going to go ahead and question that without some further evidence. Note that none of this has to do with a definition of racism, and all of it has to do with actually looking at the alleged instances of anti-White sentiment you're citing. Snowspinner 06:39, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you will "question" the existence of anti-White hate crime. You are completely shut off to the idea that non-Whites are racists too, perhaps because you are one(?). To put it in your own words, "I don't claim that anti-White sentiment isn't racism. I claim that it isn't existant". You aren't particularly open-minded if that is the style you are going for.
But let's prove it for you then. Here is the second result on Google for the term "hate crime statistics": http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hatecm.htm
Well, the statement crime stats shows that White people are highly victimized in hate-crimes as well has been proven already, but I'd like to note that this is a 1995 edition, while some of the ones I have seen earlier from more recent years showed that Whites were in fact the #1 hate-crime victim. And I'm not even going to dwell into how many cases might be reported as standard crimes because of people with the same mindset as you, who refuse to file hate-crimes against Whites as anything other than a normal non-racially motivated crime.
Additionally, you defend yourself by saying that you don't see how "Affirmative Action" can be that bad for Whites. According to fact (and even the majority in society), it is still racism (mainstream definition="different treatment based on race"). Now, whether you see that racism as good, bad, progressive, cool, or evil, is a completely other thing. - 66.185.84.80

The mainstream definition of racism, going from dictionary.com, which can usually be trusted in its lousiness to totally fail to reflect any subtlties in the usage of the word, is discrimination based on race - not merely different treatment. As for your FBI numbers, come on - look at them. Think about the numbers per capita. Consider the number of whites there are to commit hate crimes against, compared to the number of blacks, and then tell me with a straight face that those numbers point to any sort of institutionalized or substantive anti-white trend in America. Look at the arrest rates, and compare them to regular arrest rates by race. Put the numbers in some context, and they immediately show a trivial amount of anti-white crime per capita. About .00067% of whites were victims of a hate crime, compared to .011% of blacks. In other words, blacks are six times more likely to be victims of hate crimes. Nationally, whites make up 37.3% of incarcerations, compared to 60.1% for blacks. In terms of hate crimes, whites make up 53.2% of those arrested, whereas blacks only make up 26.7%. So, no, the statistics don't give you any real support for a claim of institutionalized or substantive anti-white racism in the United States when you actually look at the numbers. As for Affirmative Action, I point out again that criticisms of Affirmative Action exist in the relevent articles. What are you really looking for here? Snowspinner 07:26, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Now you are straying way of course because you lost the argument, and you are displaying typical trolling behaviours. You claimed that there exists no anti-White sentiment whatsoever. I claimed that Whites are in fact also a targetted group in hate crime statistics. I proved my claim right and your claim wrong off-hand, and it took me two seconds. You saying that Whites being more populous than other races is the reason - a surplus of "targets" that is - doesn't change a thing about that. You don't even consider that a surplus of "targets" also is a surplus of "offenders," what a scientific method you use! ;) - 66.185.84.80
No, what I demonstrated is that, compared to their share of the population, anti-White hate crimes are completely negligible, and cannot be taken to be evidence of any sort of existing sentiment in the population at large. It's hardly a controversial scientific method to note that, when dealing with uneven populations (such as racial ones) raw numbers don't give you nearly as much data or information as rates and percentages do. As for the targets/offenders split, look again. When I move to talking about offenders, I switch to percentage makeup of prison populations. In other words, whites make up a disproportionately large number of perpetrators of hate crimes compared to the general criminal population.
But, however entertaining I find undermining bad use of statistics, you've yet to answer my main question, asked in most of my comments. Many of the articles in question already contain mentions of exactly what you want. Affirmative action and reverse discrimination are discussed in racism as well as in Affirmative action. Articles on blacks call into question the definition of that racial group just as much as Whites does. Hate crime doesn't mention race one way or another, except to list it as a category of hate crime. You have yet to offer any specific examples of the deficiencies you claim exist in Wikipedia. And, honestly, the more I look at articles, the more I think your view has already gotten itself more representation on Wikipedia than it does in most sources.
Please - what concrete things are you looking for here? Snowspinner 14:18, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

reclaiming anonymous edits

somewhere once on a wikipedia FAQ i saw instructions for reassigning an anonymous edit you have made to your account. now i cannot find this FAQ. can someone give me instructions?Lethe

found it Wikipedia:Changing attribution for an edit

Murray Haszard

I wrote this article (Murray Haszard) a few hours ago, and when I saved it, it took several minutes for Wikipedia to respond. I then saw in Recent Changes that two New copies had been saved.

I just check "What links here" and nothing does, yet there are references to this article from Ghost, B32 Business Basic and Binary Research. These links work. Why doesn't "What links here" work? --Gadfium 08:28, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]


I had a similar problem with Battle of Mukden, with some but not all pages showing up in the "what links here". Two hours later it was fine. Right now on my computer, Murray Haszard & "what links here" gives me only the village pump, even though the other pages you mentioned also contain the link. Strange -- Chris 73 | Talk 14:09, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. I got the same result. I just went into the Ghost, B32 Business Basic articles, did a couple of minor copy edits, and saved the articles. Immediately they showed up in What Links Here for Murray Haszard. I don't know what the deal is. Elf | Talk 16:23, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Histoy deletion.

Is it possible to delete the whole history of one page forever? How?

Not without a developer editing the database manually, which is seldom done for technical/licensing reasons, probably. When a page is deleted, the history and page becomes inaccessible and viewable only to administrators, but not obliterated. Dysprosia 13:31, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
The ver.1.3 of Mediawiki comes with XML import feature. The feature is available only to sysops (i.e. admins), but with that, one can delete a past version of an article. I have just experimented with it on Test wiki, where the ver.1.3 is currently tested, and took some notes on some details here. I am not sure when the ver.1.3 will be implemented, if the feature is turned on (to allow admins to really use it). Tomos 01:52, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to section

The Five Boroughs contains less information than City of New York#The Five Boroughs. Most of the info currently has to be maintained in both places. IMO, The Five Boroughs also tears the subject out of the valuable context of the City of New York article. But (as i learned by experimenting), overwriting The Five Boroughs with

#REDIRECT City of New York#The Five Boroughs

has the same effect as

#REDIRECT City of New York

Sounds like a useful SMOP to me, to have the Wiki engine use the section info instead of ignoring it. Has there ever been discussion of doing so? --Jerzy(t) 18:12, 2004 May 13 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:How to edit a page, "Note that redirects to sections do not work yet. #REDIRECT [[United States#History]] will redirect to the United States page, but not to any particular section on it. It is possible this feature will be implemented in future, so such redirects could be used now for future compatibility." So, I guess it has been discussed, but not yet done. --Stormie 00:43, May 14, 2004 (UTC)
Out of interest, the reason this isn't as simple as it might seem is that currently, a redirect essentially replaces the content of a page, whereas the information telling the browser to focus on a particular header (the "#anchor" notation) is stored in the address. So, if you go to, say, New York City, the page's address is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City (as you'd expect) - but the content is the same as that of City of New York (the target of the redirect) with an additional "redirected from" note. In order to redirect to a section, the browser would have to be told somehow to add "#section_name" to its own address - possible, but not trivial. With the current system, the browser is completely unaware that a redirect has been used, as it is all processed by the server.
Additionally, it could be argued that being taken to a the middle of a page when you thought you were going to view a whole article could be a bit confusing, although this is true to a certain amount with normal links to a section. - IMSoP 13:51, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Can I use these pics on WP?

This is the copyright notice for a site I want to use as a picture source, [7]:
"All the pictures on this site were taken by Jo Mitchell (unless otherwise stated) and may be used for legitimate and legal purposes provided credit is given. It would be appreciated if you email Jo to request permission for use of images. Most images are available as high-resolution scans (up to 4000dpi) for use in print and screen media - please do not hesitate to ask for further details. Copyright is retained at all times by Jo Mitchell. Thanks"
Can I use these pics (if I check with Jo Mitchell first) and what would be the copyright notice I should use on the Image Description Page? Thanks for any help,
Adrian Pingstone 18:51, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness whether "legitimate and legal purposes" is, formally speaking, a restriction incompatible with the GFDL, but it does sounds like Jo would respond favourably if you explicitly asked for a GFDL licence (for the low-res versions) via email. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 19:17, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Toki Pona link in Town article

There a link to Toki Pona language version of the town article but for some reason it does not display together with other languages but at the end of the article. The same seems to be the case on the Toki Pona language page itself. Why? Brona 20:48, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a limitation in the software, list it on meta:MediaWiki feature request and bug report discussion --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 23:13, 2004 May 13 (UTC)
This is fairly easy to fix, I'll do it now. -- Tim Starling 00:54, May 14, 2004 (UTC)

I want to purchase the Xmen animation series

Since reading the Xmen storylines her on Wikipedia, I would like to purchase the Xmen anmiation series that aired on the Foxnetwork from 1992 to 1998. I would like all the five seasons, every episode please. Who do I call?

Michael Frye 1414 Wilcox Ave Portsmouth, Va 23704 1-757-391-0207


GHOSTBUSTERS!
Seriously, at least some appear to be available on DVD from Amazon. --Robert Merkel 03:34, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

On a completely unrelated note - I just found out that John Malkovich is playing Lord Voldemort in the next Harry Potter movie. Now, I've asked 5 people who they would prefer to play Lord Voldemort, and every single person said the same thing - Christopher Walken! Why, oh why, couldn't they get Walken to take the role? →Raul654 03:36, May 14, 2004 (UTC)

Not Malkovich. I read that the other day, then read a denial (can't remember where, now.) But Rowling has insisted all along that only British actors be cast. RickK 03:41, 14 May 2004 (UTC) [reply]

One more thing - is Warner Brothers the official owner of Daniel Radcliffe's soul yet, or are they just waiting for the paperwork to go through? →Raul654 03:51, May 14, 2004 (UTC)


Offices Held by politicians

Do any guidelines exist for the content of tables showing the offices held by politicians? (See the bottom of the Tony Blair entry for an example.) It appears that periods spent as members of bodies such as Parliament aren't included, but I think it would be a good idea to do so. Betelgeuse 15:33, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

My first instinct was to agree with you, but after thinking about it, at least in the US, congressional districts change often enough that it's difficult to ascribe a real continuity to all of them. Similarly, Senate seats are arranged as junior and senior, but which seat is which will change periodically. So at least in US politics, I'm not sure how the linear nature of these boxes would work. I don't know, in Britain, how variable districts and their representation are, so I don't know if this problem exports to other countries. Snowspinner 16:29, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
It'd be awkward to include such tables on all politicians, even without reapportionment or redistricting - very few politicians stay in the same office for very long, and including a table for each office held would make their articles bulky. - jredmond 16:44, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Tricky. UK parliamentary boundaries are reviewed about every 10 years, and if the changes are too drastic a sitting MP may jump ship and look for a more winnable seat elsewhere (I'm reminded of one Conservative MP who looked for a better seat in 1997 and failed to win it, while what was left of his original seat remained Conservative...). Also MPs may lose their seat at one election, and be elected somewhere totally different at a later election (see Gwyneth Dunwoody or Tony Benn for example). -- Arwel 16:45, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Sir George Young is an example of an MP who moved constituencies because of boundary adjustments. For his entry I would add 'MP for Ealing Acton 1974 - 1997' and 'MP for North West Hampshire 1997 - present'. I don't think the two extra rows would add to much bulk to the article (most politicians entries are little more than stubs anyway), and I think it's the type of information a reference work like wikipedia should include. Betelgeuse 16:56, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about UK politicians, but it would be a huge mess trying to figure it out for U.S. representatives except for perhaps the last few decades. For early politicians, documentation is not always readily available about which district a representative was from (and even if available, may be misleading because the district boundaries change frequently). So even if we could figure it out, I'm not sure it would be that helpful since the actual districts change dramatically over time. For example, when Michigan first became a state, the entire state was one congressional district. Now the state is divided into 16 districts. I believe it had more districts in the past. Further, there are MANY U.S. politicians who have held multiple offices: representative, senator, governor, Presidential cabinet (sometimes different positions in the cabinet). In short, it *might* be feasible to do this for U.S. Senate seats, but I don't see any point to attempting it for House seats. older≠wiser 17:47, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia rules for External links?

Greetings.

After doing somewhat heavy contributing to the Wikipedia for some time now, I've started wondering if there are any generally agreed rules for what kinds of external links should be placed in articles. I notice what I consider to be junk links here and there, but although this is often a result of my personal opinion, I sometimes feel more objective in my complaint.

Besides having an obvious rule of relevance to the article, I would like to submit that there should be other ways to evaluate sites that are linked to.

On my web sites, I have what I call a "visitor-friendliness" policy (for lack of a better term). I don't link to sites that exhibit the following aspects:

  • Displaying popup, pop-under, float-over, interstitial (intermediate page before continuing to requested link), content-obscuring or overly distracting advertisements; these kinds of ads are intrusive and take control away from the visitor.
  • Requiring registration before being able to view content in its entirety.
  • Using ActiveX controls, which are insecure, proprietary and effectively only work on Internet Explorer browsers.
  • Using Java applets, which usually exhibit poor performance.
  • Hosting by GeoCities or similar services that force in advertisements that effectively cheapen the site.
  • Under construction.
  • Frequently unavailable.
  • Containing text that is difficult to read (e.g., fonts too small).
  • Containing only a farm of links.
  • Using background music or heavy graphics.
  • Showing Flash or other video (with the exception of animated .gif's) on the main front page; showing it on an introductory page is OK if it's possible to bypass it and bookmark a main front page without video.

Now, I admit that my list may be overly restrictive for Wikipedia's purposes, but I offer the list as a starting point for discussion.

Any thoughts?

Stevietheman 18:24, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 99%. I try to follow the same rules (I don't actively check for ActiveX, but since I mostly use Mozilla, I probably wouldn't link to such a site). I would only make an exception when such a site is the only relevant one available. Most, if not all, the external links I have added are either: the official site for the company/person, a government site, or a leading news media site (unfortunately, some news sites (EG cnn.com) occasionally include Flash ads). Niteowlneils 19:05, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly enough, this came up on Talk:Current events a while back, with respect to linking news articles that required registration to view. Some people really couldn't see what the fuss was about, but it was generally considered best to link to equivalents without such drawbacks where possible, but not to exclude links simply because they needed (free) registration, and not to go out of one's way to hunt down alternatives.
I think the same can apply to most of your other criteria: where there is an unnecessary but irritating "feature" of the target site, and an alternative is available, we should prefer the alternative. Where a piece of flash, Java, or even ActiveX content [does anyone actually use ActiveX? I've never spotted anything broken because of not having it...] is interesting in its own right, a note/warning next to the link might be helpful. But in general, we shouldn't go too far in ostracising sites just because their revenue model or design philosophy is different to ours.
One point where I'd disagree with you in your list of negative aspects, by the way, is "Containing only a farm of links". I think such pages serve a very valuable purpose in collecting together information (page locations) that you'd otherwise have to do yourself from scratch - indeed, since Wikipedia is not a link repository, these are actually sometimes the best sites to link to, since they can provide far more depth of information than one "dead-end" link. Broadly speaking, I think I agree with your points, though. - IMSoP 19:24, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

If indeed there is something notably "unusual" about a linked site, then notice should be given in text accompanying the link (examples: "requires Java", "100MB PDF file", "requires registration"). - Bevo 19:38, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I skimmed a couple of the CE talk archives, and didn't find the discussion, but from IMSoP's summary, and the conversation here, I decided there was enuf consensus to address the issue briefly at Wikipedia:External Links (most of the articles it links to seem to just be "how to"s, with out much policy guidance). If I've been too bold, someone can delete it. If someone thinks of better wording, feel free--I'm feeling a bit rushed as I have to catch a plane in a few hours and still have things to do before I go (and yet, here I am on WP :) ). Niteowlneils 21:49, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect warriors

From time to time here comes a guy and starts "fixing rediects". A recent example is massive change of Trans-Siberian railroad into Transsiberian railway.

It is one thing to fix redirects from, e.g., common misspellings. It is totally meaningless IMO thing to replace a perfectly valid and almost as common name, like in the example above. In some particular case I fixed some time ago, the article author intentionally used an archaic term, only to be "fixed" by some overzealous wikipeditor.

Guys, please be reasonable. Think about other useful things you can do, like Wikipedia:New pages patrol. Mikkalai 18:25, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Title casing

A user e-mailed me this afternoon, asking if I could correct the article IMac to the proper spelling iMac. Both spellings bring me to the same article as it is (and not even as a redirect), so I was wondering if someone could clarify for me how Wikipedia handles casing in titles -- am I correct in assuming that the Wiki software doesn't actually distinguish between IMac and iMac? Bearcat 18:25, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

yep - see :Wikipedia:List of pages whose correct title is not allowed by MediaWiki -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:30, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics of US towns

I note that in the demographics of us towns like Hialeah, Florida, all ethnic groups except white are wikified. Does this strike folks as odd? What should this one link to? Thanks, Mark Richards 21:28, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_archive_2004-09-26&oldid=3581952"