Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Goosebumps

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Collecting them in a list of small articles is an option. Circeus 16:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with MarkS and Mgm. I think a few hundred stubs (which is what giving each of these books an article would create) would be fairly worthless, as they would be messy, confusing, and difficult to maintain. It's a much more elegant solution to create one or more lists of books like the lists we have for television episodes (see List of House episodes). A notable exception for television episodes are the individual articles we have for Simpsons episodes. However, there are so many fans of the Simpsons that each article is long enough not to be a stub and also be of good quality. This doesn't seem to be the case with Goosebumps, as many of the books do not even have articles at all.

JianLi 23:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Biological distribution maps

Not that I claim to be knowledgable in the field of biology, but out of curiosity, how exactly are biological distribution maps like the one to the right created for Wikipedia without infringing upon copyright?

I once created one for the Oceanic whitetip shark. Copyright only applies to data which has involved some kind of creativity during its creation. Publically available lists, for example, are uncopyrightable. Since distribution maps are the expression of publically available lists in a different medium, I would say they are generally uncopyrightable. You'd have to ask a lawyer though. --Oldak Quill 20:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

In the US, and much of the world (developed especially), copyright belongs to the creator of the image, words, sound, .... Any use of the material (with some exceptions that can generate more than a little controversy, Fair Use (in the US), Fair Dealing (in the Commonwealth) etc) requires a license from the copyright holder. That creator may have been working for an employer, and part of the contract for employment is that copyright in works created for it belong to the employer. This is true for most movie cartoon characters, for instance. However, a copyright holder may retain copyright, but license its use under particular terms. such as the Gnu Free Documentation License or any of several other similar licenses (see copyleft, Creative Commons, BSD license, GPL, etc). Mostly, they attempt to prevent commercial use while providing access by others, such as WP. Or 'to the public domain' meaning that anyone can use the material without asking, it having been licensed 'to the public' as it were.

So, it is not 'publically available' which is the test of use on WP, but rather the intent of the copyright holder. This is not always easy to determine, as they are sometimes hard to find. A problem which movies, for instance, face daily; use of most music requires a separate license for each use. There are people associated with each movie production whose daily job is to chase this stuff down. ww 22:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

This is misleading in several respects. A work granted to the public domain (where this is legally possible) is not "licensed" at all, but actually has no copyright owner. The GFDL does not prevent commercial reuse, and in fact we do not permit the use of noncommercial licenses for uploaded media. You mentioned the GPL and BSD licenses, which are software licenses and not particularly suitable for media. Rest looks okay. Deco 15:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Accidentally found a sockpuppet of a blocked user

I need assistance with a tricky matter: I stumbled across what I think is a sockpuppet: someone committed user page vandalism (placing an image of a masturbating man on the page) on the page of a user I had communicated with. I removed the vandalism and placed a warning on the talk page of the user who had committed it User:Sirrom nodnarb yerffej). I noticed that this user had only been active for a few weeks, but had a pretty elaborate user page and had awarded himself a barnstar for his 50th page creation. I became suspicious and checked out the history of a page he had contributed to. The history had another user who had a similar name (reverse letters of the middle name, User:Brando03), so I went to this user and found that he/she had been blocked just before the other user had started being active. So I went to this other users history before the page was blanked and, sure enough, it was an earlier version of the new user's page. I don't feel confident enough to place a tag on that user's page, since I am pretty new to this. But since the vandalism was very aggressive (the subject line read something like "If you fuck with me, I will blow you away"), I feel this user should be stopped. Thank you for your help. --Jottce 05:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The user name is the reverse of Jeffery Bernard Morris - is there are an account in that name? Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 15:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no reverse to the whole user name, Jeffrey Brandon Morris, just the middle, Brandon, as Brando03. It is the same user, if you check the history of the user page. I saw you placed a welcome message on the talk page of the user. I am learning. Was my "blatant vandal" warning too harsh? Even though the action was extremely aggressive? --Jottce 18:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Image vandalism is not typical of corrigible newbies. I think blatant vandal is the appropriate warning here. Deco 03:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Deco and Brookie for your responses. However, I am still not sure what to do about the issue of the sock puppet. Whose attention should I draw to it? Does it deserve attention? Thanks for your help. --Jottce 10:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Mark Fairfax-Harwood

Can somebody help me by sorting out my page a bit I don't know what to do and its just collecting flags. I am a sound engineer an no author. If a kind Wikipedian code writer could sort it out a bit I would be so chuffed. Thanks. Mark Fairfax-Harwood — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bassmec (talk • contribs) .

Mark, My sense is that you meant your article, Mark Fairfax-Harwood, to be your user page. If that's so, you can move what you've written (to a userpage) and it will no longer be flagged for deletion. J. Van Meter 11:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

How many articles from non-English wiki have equivalents on English wiki?

Do we have a tool that could check how many articles on a given Wiki (for example, Polish wiki) have interlinks to a specific (English) Wiki? PS. I know that User:YurikBot works with interwikilinks, but I couldn't find anything on his page about statistics. PS2. I checked Wikipedia:Interwikimedia link, Wikipedia:Interlanguage links, Wikipedia:Interwikimedia link (shouldn't those two be merged?) and Wikipedia:Multilingual coordination, but they don't seem to have the ansewer (or I can't find it :>). I will crosspost notices about this question at their talk pages to draw more attention.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I estimate 2 million don't: see my test at User:Piotrus/Wikipedia interwiki and specialized knowledge test.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk}  18:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone else blanked article I created. Should I revert?

I joined Wikipedia on 11 February 2006.

I joined to contribute information to articles on websites and Singapore TV shows/movies, to make Wikifriends with common interests, and to improve my writing skills.

However, by June, I realized that I was failing as a Wikipedian. The occasional reverting of anon vandalism was draining me from contributing information, and I was stressed by various issues and conflicts, most notably caused by blocks to User:202.156.6.54.

I am considering leaving Wikipedia. On 5 July 2006, I posted an announcement and my reasons on my talk page. I was also contemplating whether to blank the three articles I created, as they have been mostly untouched by other editors. I will announce my decision whether to leave or not by 25 July 2006, as much depends on whether I can make significant contributions and resolve my conflicts.

One of the articles I wrote was recently blanked by someone else (not by an anon). Since I was considering blanking the article anyway, and I'm considering leaving as well, should I revert the blanking? Or should I wait until 25 July 2006, when I've decided whether to leave or not, to decide whether to revert the blanking?

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Relax. Have fun. Don't take things so seriously. If you can't do any of these while doing work on WP, then you probably should leave. I get the idea that you're hoping that a significant number of people are going to beg you to stay. I'm typically not inclined to do that -- I'd rather give a compliment to someone who doesn't fish for it, and I'm unfamiliar with your work. I did read your talk page, and none of these issues sound even moderately unresolvable with a little attitude shift (I do agree that I wish anon edits were not allowed, but is this worth leaving for? Besides, I don't think this is your issue).

As for whether to blank the page -- why would you? Page-blanking is vandalism. I looked at the Google Groups article, for example, and there are many, many edits that you didn't do. Just because you worked on and/or started an article, it isn't yours to "own" -- you signed all rights away when you hit 'submit'. So whether or not to blank is kinda moot -- chances are someone's going to bring it back anyway.

Good luck, I hope you stay and be productive. --Rehcsif 15:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't need people to beg me to stay - I'm just stressed and frustrated. I will stay of my own accord, if the reasons for my leaving are dealt with. That means I can continue to contribute information to articles on websites and Singapore TV shows/movies, and settle the issues that are causing me stress (e.g. the blocks to 202.156.6.54). To do so, I may need a little help from more experienced editors, though I understand an attitude change might be in order. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 02:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand the terms of the GFDL, and while others have edited the Google Groups article, most of their changes are cosmetic, while the bulk of the information is still contributed by me. Look at the diff between the last version by me and the current version: [1]. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 02:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, whether or not you leave Wikipedia, you cannot withdraw the rights to your work (and we'd be in trouble if every contributor had that option). We do value your contributions and if you leave, we're sorry things didn't work out. I know the politics and bureaucracy can sometimes be frustrating. Deco 15:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I have not confirmed my departure yet. I think Wikipedia's a great place, and I'm trying to resolve my issues before confirming my departure. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 02:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

But others may not blank your pages. And yes if they do so you are entitled to revert. Blanking -- keeping the page, but deleting all or almost of the content -- is never supposed to be done anyways, except in cases where the text is copyrighted. Instead, when appropriate, the entire page gets deleted. Only admins can do that, and there is a process for doing it (for articles, it's WP:AFD, or WP:PROD, or speedy deletion per WP:CSD). If you wrote an article that you, or someone else, feels does not meet encyclopedic standards, well, many of us have done that, especially when new, but it should go through process and not be just blanked. Herostratus 00:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've reverted the blanking. I may list the articles I wrote on AFD. Is reverting one's own edit OK? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 02:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The real thing you need to ask yourself is 'why'. Maybe I'm assuming bad faith, but it sounds like you want to "just take your ball and go home". If you feel there are factual, quality, etc. issues with your edits, you can remove them. But others may decide to put them back. They are not really 'your' edits anymore-- they belong to wikipedia. As far as going through AFD, again, why? Do you feel the articles are non-notable and should be in WP? If it's just a quality issue, then a 'cleanup' or similar tag would do the trick. Again, it sounds like you just want to leave and take your work with you, but that's not the way it works. I've got a better idea -- why not stay and continue to contribute? --Rehcsif 03:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I do want to stay and contribute. It's just difficult to, as the occasional reverting of anon vandalism, and the stressful issues/conflicts, and WP:V/WP:NOR are draining me of my stamina to contribute. That's where I'd like to seek help in. Perhaps an appropriate WikiProject would help. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 03:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Only you can decide if the related stress, etc. is worth it for you. Issues, vandalism, etc. are never going to go completely away. Things may improve, maybe even backslide, but there will always be vandalism and issues that you don't agree with. Should you still stay and contribute? Only you can answer that. If it isn't fun, then why would you? If you can make it fun, then you should stay. You never did address my question about why you're considering blanking, deleting, or otherwise removing your contributions. I'm having a hard time 'reading' you -- on the one hand it sounds like you genuinely want to contribute. On the other, it sounds like you want to prove a point by leaving and taking your contribs with you (which is, 'unfortunately', not possible). --Rehcsif 03:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right that I felt like taking my contributions with me. Of course, I'd rather stay. Reverting vandalism isn't causing me stress. It's just making it difficult for me to focus on contributing information. I think joining an appropriate WikiProject would help there. Based on my contributions, what WikiProjects do you think would suit me? The issues that are causing me stress include some conflicts, particularly blocks to my shared IP, User:202.156.6.54. I was also hoping that by contributing information to articles on my interests, I could make Wikifriends with common interests, though this has failed to materialise. Perhaps a WikiProject could help there as well? If this is settled, over time, I'll learn the ropes of Wikipedia. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the shared IP, I've notified Tim Starling (who maintains the trusted XFF list). If your ISP is providing the necessary headers, you may not have to worry about unintended blocks much longer. — Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Someone told me that WP:BPP has recently been implemented. Is this true? If so, a great source of stress has been relieved, and if I can find a way to make steady contributions, and Wikifriends, I'll definitely stay. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you add Category:Wikipedians in Singapore and Category:Wikipedians interested in TV to your userpage, and check out other who have added the same categories. Getting to know others who are interested in similar areas is a good way to make friends on Wikipedia.-gadfium 06:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion! Before deciding to leave, I was previously working on my userpage, with projected completion in August. The userpage would contain lots of userboxes for my interests, and if I look for people with similar userboxes, I will probably spot many potential Wikifriends.

In addition, I have also asked User:SuggestBot to recommend me some articles to work on. Fortunately, I have already spotted some tasks for myself. For example: adding Secunia information to articles on web browsers; making Netscape a Good Article after the merger I propose was recently completed; and contributing screenshots and information to the AdventureQuest article. With a torn left leg ligament, I'll probably have time to stay at home working on these articles, although the pain may reduce the quality of my edits.

However, I still consider WikiProjects the best option, because I can make steady contributions to articles of interest, and I will meet Wikifriends who share my interests, so we can collaborate on articles of interest and make them Good Articles. For example, if the SGpedians' Notice Board was turned into WikiProject Singapore, I'd probably find many Wikifriends my age to collaborate on articles of interest. Could you recommend any good WikiProjects, since I work on articles about websites and Singapore TV shows/movies?

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Unicodifying

Someone recently made changes to an article I watch with the explanation "BOT - Unicodifying". What is this? The change was from HTML codification (per www.w3.org) for symbols in logic to symbols that appear to be on a special keyboard. If not everyone can use the symbols, how can they be "Unicode". Amerindianarts 16:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

What page was this? 68.39.174.238 17:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Conversion.--Amerindianarts 17:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia provides direct support for Unicode characters, please see Help:Special characters. You should at least be able to yank and put the characters in your browser. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Need some other eyes on this/Possible libel?

Checking out the talk page of the {{hoax}}-tagged Joseph Katz makes it sound like this is another Siegenthaleriade: accusations of Soviet collaboration, implications in assasinations, etc. A cursory Googling seems to turn up WpA and its mirrors, and (I'm not trying to PA someone) it was created by an editor banned for personal attacks and disruption. I'd let someone AfD this normally, but it looks too similar to the other Soviet spy for me to feel safe doing so. 68.39.174.238 17:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I've confirmed a (strongly suspected) spy by that name existed, but can't pick up the other details to check them, not without the sources handy. Shimgray | talk | 13:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I was able to quickly call up the article cited at the bottom and the information checks out. Now obviously there are likely multiple people names Joseph Katz (Google Phonebook lists at least 34 living in the state of New York at the moment) so I can see why someone might have gotten suspicious, but it does seem that there was a KGB spymaster named Joseph Katz working in the 1930s and 1940s. I can send a copy of the article to anybody who wants it, just send me an e-mail or leave me a message. The original editor was indeed banned for personal attacks, and I think he indulged in original reseach a little too often (if not outright POV-pushing), but he never outright fabricated things. --Fastfission 14:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

OK. I wasn't sure, but if two other people can find legit sources to back it up then it sounds legit. 68.39.174.238 03:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there a template for explaining lack of notability?

It would be useful to have a template for saying, nicely, "Your article about a non notable band/company/group/game mod/fictional character/parking lot was deleted from Wikipedia. To understand Wikipedia's rules for notability, please read WP:VAIN...". The idea is to have something to put on a new user's talk page so they don't feel so bad when their first article is quickly deleted. Sometimes I get plaintive messages on my talk page, asking "What did I do wrong"? Do we have something for this? --John Nagle 04:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The appropriate templates can be found at Template:TestTemplates, second section, second row. Cheers!--Kchase T 06:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

What needs references and what doesn't?

Another editor recently added the {{citation needed}} tag to the parts of the Charles Durning article regarding his WWII service. I provided several references that convinced this editor that it was the truth. He also added the {{citation needed}} to the portion of the article about his 1990 Tony Award. I provided that also, but feel that it isn't needed since Tony Awards, like Oscars and Emmys, are quite well known and could be verified quite easily. Does every recipient of a Tony Award need to have a reference verifying that it is really true? I mean where does it end? For instance, if someone put this tag on the Otis R. Bowen article where it says he was formerly Governor of Indiana, or a Medical Doctor, would we need to show references for that? --rogerd 05:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You must already be aware of the policy of WP:V. Some things that may seem obvious to you, may not be so obvious to other users. Its generally best to provide good solid references especially to those sections that may be disputed -- Lost 12:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

yes, that is exactly my point. Who can dispute that Durning won the Tony award? --rogerd 13:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be vastly differing opinions on this subject. Some feel everything must be cited, preferably with footnotes. See my laments above regarding the Shockwave article. The fact that Shockwave was a rollercoaster at Six Flags Great America in Gurnee, IL is equally verifyable as your Tony awards, but people said I was in the wrong for contesting the proliferation of fact tags, even though they were done in bad faith as witnessed by the anonymous editor's submit comments... --Rehcsif 17:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

It just makes for a much better article if it's sourced he won the tony award. I don't know anything about Charles Durning, and I know very little about the Tony Awards. If it's so obvious, then wouldn't it be very easy to source it? The reader of an article shouldn't have to verify something (even if it's obvious) the article self should provide a source. Garion96 (talk) 17:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Requests for citation where someone reasonably doubts a bit of information are appropriate. But quite frequently, a request for citation is a passive-aggressive editing technique used in an attempt to exclude information that someone realizes is true but has a personal agenda against including. Clearly not all requests for citations are the same. I, for one, think it's a little silly to provide a citation for each Tony Award winner in their article when the Tony Award article has a link to their (presumably authoritative) database. - Nunh-huh 19:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The {{fact}} template can definitely be used too aggressively. But in this case I still think a citation wouldn't be a bad thing. I think an article should not be dependent on another article concerning sources. If, for some reason, I would doubt the accuracy of Charles Durning winning a tony award, I wouldn't want to go to the Tony Awards article to see if it really is true. If the article on tony awards has a source, simply use the same source on the Charles Durning one. Garion96 (talk) 20:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with that at all. An excessive number of notes is not good. Wikipedians should show restraint in adding and requesting cititations, just as the editors of professional publications do. Athenaeum 23:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I have two introductions on an article an one really needs deleting can someone help me?

I am only new to wiki and this is my first crack at an article (brockenhurst college), i tried replacing the first introduction a did but it went wrong two introductions merged and now i can not find the edit link to fix this problem. it is the very first introduction that needs deleting so later can be added sections that are more specific about Brockenhurst College.

Hi, its quite easy to edit it. Just click on the edit this page tab at the top and remove whatever you want to. I could it for you but I am not sure what needs to be removed. If you can just tell me the first and the last few words, I will delete that para -- Lost 11:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thats ok thanks, i just wasn't looking in the correct place (JLM 19:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC))

password won't reset

I am user Desertsky85450 but I have lost my password, and the 'email new password' button on the login page is not sending me a new one. Could some one please get it to send me a new password, or my old one? 216.161.151.90 15:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that the answer to your request is "No". I think you need to create a new username if you can neither remember your password nor receive the e-mailed new one.

--Richard 04:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Check out [[2]]. The hardest part is probably convincing someone that it's really your account. --Rehcsif 05:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there a guide on the actual process of writing templates?

See subject. I spent about 20 minutes puttering around help to no avail, and a similar amount of time looking at the actual code of existing templates. I could probably figure it out based on a comparison of existing templates and their effects, but what I really need is a simple how-to guide on making the things.

Additionally, if anyone's interested, what I'm attempting to construct is a template (name undecided) which will inform users that:

1. an article is part of a broader category or class of articles, and should be kept consistant with other articles within the category.
2. that issues which would apply to the article set as a whole should be brought up on the main page of the category.

I believe this would be useful in a variety of applications (e.g. articles on characters in a series) where discussion will often take place on one of the individual pages that should have occurred on the main page. Ideally, it would utilize field input, but that will not be necessary for the "beta" version.

Many thanks to anyone who can assist me. --tjstrf 04:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

If you've already perused Help:Template and that was no help, then try contacting one of our experts at Category:User template coder. I would offer help myself, but I failed Templates 101. Good luck.--Kchase T 05:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You can also request templates at Wikipedia:Requested templates -- Lost 14:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Takako Nishizaki

Takako Nishizaki appears to be a notable classical violinist, but the (recently-created) article is a copy of her bio at the Naxos website. There's no copyright notice on that page - so is this a copyright violation?

I've come across a few cases similar to this one and would appreciate advice. What is the copyright status of an artist's promotional material, in general? Many artists and their labels would probably be happy for the material to be distributed in this way, since it promotes the artist. However, the writing often has the usual POV problems. Supposing the subject is notable and it's not a copyright violation, should I remove the material (often gutting the article and leaving it as a stub) or just add the appropriate cleanup tags? --Grace 07:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Everything is automatically copyrighted unless the originator states otherwise - so yes, it's a copyvio. I've deleted it. Artists and their agents may be happy to see their promotional material redistributed, but they would probably not be happy to see it edited mercilessly and re-redistributed without their approval- so anything posted to Wikipedia needs to be released under the GFDL, which can't be done as long as it's copyrighted. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! --Grace 10:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Template including both upper infobox and footer navigation bar

Is it possible to have one template incorporate both an infobox (top-right) and a navigation bar (footer)?

I'd think you'd be able to do it with CSS on the infobar, but I'm not entirely sure how. Has anyone done it before?

The template I'm working on is Template:Continuum mechanics.

Thanks,

--cfp 12:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Although it would be technically possible to use CSS positioning attributes to create a footer from the same template that displays an infobox, I highly recommend you not do this. Please eschew obfuscation. Note that the current version of your template, although it is vertically arranged in the position one might normally find an infobox is functionally a navigation bar (as opposed to a "true" infobox which contains summary facts about the topic). I'd just make it a navigation bar (footer) and call it good. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I know my infobox isn't really an infobox... There are quite a few examples of infoboxes being used in this way so I don't think it's entirely crazy. The reason I don't want it as a footer is that all pages containing that infobox should also have the physics-footer navibox at the bottom. My attempts at CSS having failed (and it seeming like a bad idea, as you said, anyway), I've just been adding two templates to each page, which is marginally annoying but hardly the end of the world. (^_^)

BTW: I asked the same question on IRC and they suggested I posted a bug report (feature request) about my proposed way of implementing this (with two new tags "header" and "footer" defining text that should be placed at the top/bottom respectively). If you're interested the bug report is at: http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6729 --cfp 00:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Cross-Entropy Method

There's an article about the "Cross-Entropy Method" at User:Cross-Entropy Method (as a user page). I'm a bit confused as to what to do.

Tinus 14:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

This article clearly belongs in mainspace and should be moved to Cross-Entropy Method. I'm assuming that it was created in user space by accident. If so, then it's a pretty non-controversial move that either you or I could make. The only confounding thing is that, because it's in user space, we should ask the user in question if it's OK to do so. I have left a message to that effect on the user's talk page. Unless there is an objection expressed in the next day or two, one of us should make the move.

--Richard 18:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. It could be the user is perfecting the article in user space before moving it to article space. I've done that sort of thing before... --Rehcsif 18:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

However, it's weird that the person doing this created a user account with the same name as the article and the creation and editing of the article is the only thing this user has done. It smells fishy to me but I can't figure out what the motivation for doing this is so I canonly assume good faith.

--Richard 18:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia a suitable medium for this project?

I have some plans for trying to initiate a collaborative translation project, and I wonder whether Wikipedia is a suitable medium to provide the technical and internet framework for this project.

The project involves translation from Thai into English of certain books by the Thai Buddhist monk Buddhadasa Bhikkhu. Buddhadasa Bhikkhu was a very famous monk who had exceptionally deep insight into the meaning of the Buddhist texts in the Theravada Buddhist Canon, and how we can apply them to our everyday lives to overcome suffering. He made his own tranlations from Pali into Thai of the original teachings of the Buddha, and there is a collection of books which he wrote about various subjects, explaining the teachings of the Buddha in the Buddha's own words by quoting from relevant discourses which he has translated into Thai.

One might well say: "Why translate into English a translation from Pali into Thai - it is better to translate directly from Pali into English" - but that would miss the point. Buddhadasa Bhikkhu's translations are very exceptional because of the deep insight he has into the deeper meaning of the text, which is not clear from a mere linguistic analysis of the text. Modern translations from Pali into English of many of the texts already exist, but they lack the deep insight of Buddhadasa Bhikkhu and sometimes completely misconstrue the true meaning.

There are around 60 volumes or so of these books (averaging about 500 pages each), so this is not a small project! However even if we can translate just one volume that would be a tremendously valuable contribution because so far none of them have been translated into English. I intend to start with one specific volume - on Paticca Samuppada (dependent origination), which is probably one of the most important books in the series.

I have in mind several stages for the process:

a) Scanning the pages.

b) Converting the scanned pages into digital text in Thai characters (very valuable in its own right!).

c) Proof-reading and correcting the digitised Thai text, with peer evaluation.

d) Compiling databases of OCR workers, which keep track of the accuracy and reliability of each contributor and their peer ratings.

e) Translating digitised texts from Thai into English, section by section.

f) Correlating digitised Thai texts with the English translations, together with the digitised Pali originals (which are already available), using professional translation management software such as Trados or equivalents (offline), with dictionaries.

g) Proof-reading and correcting the Thai-English translations, with peer evaluation.

h) Compiling databases of translations and translators, which keep track of the accuracy and reliability of each contributor and their peer ratings (together with (d).

i) Publication (in the public domain) of the finalised translations.

j) Further revisions of the translations as necessary.

I wonder to what extent the mechanisms and systems of Wikipedia could be harnessed to support the collaboration and communication side of this project? Would it be feasible to manage the project as a Wikipedia colaboration project? Most of the core OCR and translation workers would probably come from outside Wikipedia (mostly from existing organisations of followers of Buddhadasa Bhikkhu from around the world), but Wikipedia could also be a medium through which other contributors could learn about the project and add their contributions.

A few extra comments are in order:

1) The project would have to be run with a high degree of autonomy.

2) Editing access would have to be limited. Allowing any Tom, Dick or Harry to have hands-on editing access would be a complete no-go.

3) I could make available webspace for hosting the project, but do not have the technical or systems know-how for setting up the project.

Constructive comments would be welcome on either the suitability of Wikipedia as a foundation for this project, or on technical aspects of how to use Wikipedia technology to facilitate the sharing of contributions from many people around the world and the systems of peer evaluation.

With metta Bhante Medhayo

In a word, "NO". As source material, it's not appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. However, Wikisource or WikiBooks might be possible repositories for the final product.

As for the translation project itself, there are a number of possible ways to organize a collaborative effort such as this. I'm not sure if there's a version of WikiMedia software that allows restricting access. One possible mechanism for organizing the collaborative effort would be one or more Yahoo groups. Perhaps other people can suggest better mechanisms.

Good luck.

--Richard 21:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The MediaWiki software that drives this site might be useful; it can be restricted so only people you choose can edit. A project that does similar things to what you are doing though is the Project Gutenberg Distributed Proofreading project at http://pgdp.net/ . Their site does not state if their software is available for reuse, but you could always ask them of course.

Tinus 12:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Transwiki help

Hi, I've been thinking I would like to be able to do this for a while now. I was wondering, how do I upload a wikipedia image to Wikimedia Commons? Thanks in advance - Jack (talk) 20:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.5

Wikipedia 0.5 is accepting nominations. See WP:V0.5N. Please nominate any important and well written articles you find; you can also review the nominations by signing up here.Eyu100 00:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Looking for an article that vanished

I wrote an article States List Puzzle back in 2004. I just noticed that it's vanished. It's a red link and there's no record of any history to the article which I obviously know existed for some time. I assume if was deleted but I'd like to know why. How did this article disappear and how can I track down why somebody de-created it if its history was also de-created. MK2 05:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Kungfuadam deleted it on May 24. You can ask why on their talk page. --π! 07:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Click the link "deletion log" at States List Puzzle to see why it was deleted. The cryptic answer is "closing prod 24 May 2006" which means that your article was submitted for deletion according to the Wikipedia:Proposed deletion process and after several days with no contesting, was deleted. Deco 23:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Help with a page move

Hi I am new to wikipedia and I just created an the article Luc Richard Mbah a Moute. However, I created it without the correct capitalization (every first letter except 'a' should be capitalized), and my user account is too new to move the page to the one with the correct spelling. Could some kind wikipedian do me a favor and move it to reflect the accurate capitalization? Thanks. Decafpenguin 09:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Umm, it looks OK to me. Can you type the name as a link in the form you think it should appear? -- Rick Block (talk) 15:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Request for archiving

In an edit summary several days ago I asked someone to archive Talk:List of groups referred to as cults, but no one did.

Page length is approaching 200 Kb. It is lengthy to load the page over dialup. Trying to preview and save before one's comment becomes obsolete is difficult. A mysterious 3-edit summary lag didn't help good faith any. There are ongoing active discussions among contentious and loquatious editors as well as highly opinionated readers, so the archiving should be (inconveniently?) done during the hours of lowest talk activity. The page has been archived previously, so following the previous archive pattern should help with method choice.

I just don't have the computing power and bandwidth to tackle this job. Can someone with more local resources do this archiving while following the guidelines at WP:ARCHIVE? Milo 19:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Done, everything near enough a week old has been archived. Steve block Talk 20:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

wow, thanks, that was amazingly fast. Speaking of (fan) cults, from my distant perspective you seem like a Spock/Data brainiac sitting at a Star Trek class computing console. <hehe> Milo 20:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

goverment involvement in business

how are goverments involved in business

That question will have different specific answers depending on what specific government(s) you're asking about, but in general, regulation and taxation are probably the largest areas of involvement. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 20:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Proxying Wikipedia or mirror through URL-rewriting proxy server

I'm a university library sys admin. We started providing access to Wikipedia through a URL-rewriting proxy server, EZproxy (I can explain if you really want to know why we did this). I now realise that when our users edit articles, any URLs in the article from domains that we proxy will be rewritten. Among the options I'm considering (stop proxying; continue proxying but ask users not to edit via the proxy) is proxying a read-only mirror instead. I'm not aware there is an official read-only version (is there?). Are there good quality (license-compliant; kept up to date; etc) mirrors that might be suitable? I have seen the lists at Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks but don't have time to work through them. Alternatively, any other suggestions for getting around this problem? Is there some other Wikipedia facility that might help? Thanks. UAucklandLibr 01:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You might want to post this to the wikitech-l mailing list or Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). I'm not sure if any of the developers frequent this page. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, Answers.com is usually the most professional and up-to-date mirror. — Catherine\^talk 19:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Template Query

I was thinking of going straight to Templates for Deletion for this but I thought I'd come here first for some ideas from people.... Currently there are a number of flag templates for the British Isles/United Kingdom, namely United Kingdom United Kingdom Great Britain Template:GBR3 and Template:GBR4. In order this the templates are UK, GBR, GBR2, GBR3 and GBR4.

I cannot understand the need for the {{UK}} template if {{GBR}} comes up with the same flag and same country name. Could I put {{UK}} under the deletion process or would this cause so much merry Hell that it is best to leave things as be?

Further, there is no need as far as I can see for the GBR2 template as the flag is outdated by literaly hundreds of years. GBR4 is perfectly accurate. Again, would this cause too much hassle were it put through the deletion process?

Cheers doktorb _words^deeds 13:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

First, use the template talk pages to discuss the issue with those created and use the templates -- there might be reasons you're not seeing. (You might need to use the template history to find and contact the creators and invite them to the discussion.) If that doesn't work, I'd bring them all to TfD at once and ask which ones should be merged/deleted. — Catherine\^talk 19:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Stormtrooper effect

An anonymous user insists on reverting a very questionable "equation" section which makes no sense at all. His excuse for restoring it is that most of the article is speculation anyway--which to some extent is true, but this section is a lot worse than the rest. What can I do about this aside from constantly reverting the section? Ken Arromdee 15:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Get a consensus against him, and insist on citations. If he can't get them, it stays out, if he can, well, it's not speculation any more is it? --tjstrf 16:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Question about Interlanguage Links

I only just added an Interlanguage Link in “Chinese style name” but the two paragraphs in it, “Zi” and “Hao” , have separate articles in Chinese Wikipedia so I added two Interlanguage Links to Chinese in it and that looks so strange.

Sadly, I found I can’t add any display names in Interlanguage Links to tell everybody the differences in this two links.

Excuse me, how can I do for this case advisably? Thanks.

P.S. I'm sorry for that I speak poor English so maybe I had some abusage above.--風痕影 03:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

There is some (inconclusive) discussion of this at Wikipedia talk:Interlanguage links. Although it is not mentioned there, it strikes me that a very appropriate solution would be to have the interlanguage link lead to a disambiguation page (and if one does not exist, then create one). By the way, your English is MUCH better than my Chinese. Please do not be concerned about "abusage". -- Rick Block (talk) 04:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks you very much. Because “Zi” and “Hao” are not ambiguities in Chinese, I had not created a disambiguation page in Chinese Wikipedia. I chose another way: added an Interlanguage Link to “zh:Zi” page on “Chinese style name”. Additionally, there is no link to “zh:Hao” on “zh:Zi” page so I added a “See Also” link on “zh:Zi”.--風痕影 10:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Help with changes

Hi

I seemed to have committed an error when I published my fathers page. I did not put a capital letter on his last name at the header of the wiki, I cant seem to find a way to edit this part.

I also want to upload images to the main page but I can only get a link to it. How do i put the picture on the main page. If you check out the page for Ignacio Villarreal you can see what I am talking about.

Thanls

Jose

See WP:Move to rename/move the page to the correct name. For uploading and linking pictures, see Wikipedia:Images -- Lost 18:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

2 image use questions

Hello, I wasn't sure if this was the right place to ask this, but...

1. When submitting an image containing people to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons (something that's hard to avoid when taking pictures in popular tourism areas), is it necessary to obtain a model release from the people in the photo?

2. Is there some sort of policy or guideline regarding how many images can or should be used within an article?

I don't plan on submitting anything soon, but it's good to know the pertinent rules beforehand.

Thanks. --Tachikoma 19:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Well, I don't know for sure, but in general, I think that in public places, where an image is of a place or thing, and people happen to be around, then no, model releases aren't important. Its one of those things you accept when you are in a public location. Think about images that appear on the news. Also, even images of individuals don't need model releases if the article is about that person (and is factual, hence, not constituting libel). What would our biographies have if famous people had to approve every image posted?

2. There isn't a particular 'rule', but there are guidelines. Here is the general concept I use: A point to every image. Just think to yourself, "Does this image specifically relate to an important part of this article?" If no, then don't add it. If yes, then ask, "Is there another image that also relates to this important part of the article?" If so, then only keep the best of the two images. I tend to lean in the 'more images is good' direction, but I temper that by requiring that every image relate very specifically to a part of the article. "General" images, like you'd see in a gallery, aren't appropriate.

The type of article is also important. An article like pigment needs lots of images, because we are discussing color, and the history of the use of color. Images are natural. A science article may only have one or two photos, but maybe several diagrams. And an article on literature may not need a single article. A picture of the hometown of an author wouldn't help with article comprehension, so no need to add it. Just use your best judgement. (famous last words). Phidauex 07:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Request assistance with Physics page

Hi there - I have been an editor for a year, and now have a pretty decent level of competence on most of the areas of WP, but this one may require a few more experienced editors to help out. Frankly the page is decreasing in quality over time - it gets hit by a lot of very high edit sessions (the record currently stands at 87 in 6 hours by 1 user on the 30th of June). Some editors are editing in good faith, some may not be - it is difficult to tell, but whatever happens the wiki process has broken down and is not working out here, as the page has no focus and editors are simply trying to write the article they want rather than the article that consensus reaches. As the last 500 edits show the article is attracting a lot of back and forth, what I would term "sandpit" editing (i.e. folks just editing in a nav bar because they think it would be better without putting it to talk or even coming up with a mock for others to comment on). The problem of a very large number of socks also exists, certainly Srleffler identified a chain of them at the end of june - and it appears that another new one has started editing again tonight. There are some legitimate editors working on the article as well, but basically the page is a mess, and a culture of "editing the article to read what I want" exists rather than "editing the article to reach consensus". I haven't edited in any new content personally, only tried to keep the article inside some sort of lines of standard. Trying to direct folks to talk seems to have little impact - the sole aim is just to have the article reading as they wish - for example, User:Phusis, who reged today, made a whole host of edits to the article - which I reverted and directed him/her to talk about the issues) then he/she just blanked reverted back with absolutely no discussion. It is a poor show - and it is unfortunately down to a lack of understanding amongst some of these editors about the process of reaching consensus (and it appears that understanding is not forthcoming either). Other experienced editors comments are welcomed, because here we have an article on one of the fundamental sciences and it is on its way to becoming a train wreck. SFC9394 20:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I sympathise, and wish wiser heads would advise on what to do with those editors who try to get their way by stubborn persistance rather than reasoned discourse. Obviously, a reasoned discussion takes much longer than repeated reverting to whatever a person likes, and a few such people can easily drive better but busier editors to give up on an article. Rick Norwood 22:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I can certainly sympathize with this problem. Entropy is an on-going issue at Wikipedia, and I hate it when I come back to a decently-edited page only to find it has been turned into fertilizer. That's one reason why I enjoy working on obscure, non-controversial topics: there tends to be less of that sort of B.S., if only because changes are less frequent and can be addressed easily :-) The only thing I've found that seems to help reduce the entropy is the use of in-line citations based on solid, reputable sources. (E.g. the {{cite journal}} and {{cite news}} templates.) When key facts are well-presented and anchored with citations, I think there is less motivation to tamper with the text. — RJH (talk) 18:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies - it seems it is a problem without any real solutions - perhaps a move to a 1.0 "live / frozen" system (if it ever happens) would go someway to solving these issues, otherwise there isn't much any single editor can do to stop this quality decrease. SFC9394 10:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

about the promophoto template

hi, someone removed Image:Tb-ab.jpg from Thora Birch because it was supposed to be fair use only if used on the movie's article, however, I mentioned Kevin Spacey has an image from a screenshot of a movie but that image is still there. Then I re-uploaded the image as Image:Thorabirch.jpg to change the rationale and licence (I know it would be probably better to use the older page but it already had a discussion about its licence) to promophoto. I based it on Image:Menasuvari.jpg for Mena Suvari. However, that image was again removed and just asked that person why Mena Suvari and Kevin Spacey still have images based on the rationale of those two removals.

Please let me know what it's going on with this because I don't know what I do wrong. Also, if someone can upload the photo for that article with a proper rationale please do. I'm tired of this :/ --fs 02:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Signature Problems

Due to my inability to Fix my signature, I must ask help from you. Please! I buggered it up beyond recogniton!

• I want it to be this:

[User:Dfrg.msc|User:Dfrg.msc] [Image:DFRG. MSC.jpg|45px] (Exept with double ]['s) and a date and time.

• What it is:

[[ User:Dfrg.msc | User:Dfrg.msc [[ Image:DFRG. MSC.jpg | 45px ]]]] 07:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I enter it into the My preferences box and save it. When I type my signature (~~ ~~) it just adds all the dashes ect.

Please help.

My signature is broken so follow the link. User talk:Dfrg.msc

Well for a start images in sigs are frowned upon not allowed, see WP:SIG. Viridae^Talk 13:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism Warning

I am so confused. I just got the following notice on my user talk page: "This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --User:Railer 893 15:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)" Railer 893 doesn't have a user page, so I can't respond. What does this mean? The only thing I've done is fix some typos on today's featured article (which had about eight typos, by the way). Is that considered vandalism? Someone please advise what I should do. Thanks for your help. Nathan Beach 15:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I will check his contribs and find out could have been a mistake. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 15:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Railer 893 is a vandal Nathan don't worry what you did was perfect and what the Wikineeds Check your talk page I left a little something there to make your day better. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 16:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, Aeon. I wonder how he/she picked me out. Have a good Monday. Nathan Beach 16:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like he's still at it -- he just wrote on my user talk page and his User:Railer 893 now has some copied text that makes him look like a vandalisma patroller. What a time waster. --Nathan Beach 17:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The GNAA AfD counter may provide a clue to his motives here, unless he simply copy-pasted that as well. --tjstrf 17:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I left a message for User:Naconkantari (the user and talk pages he copied). Nationalparks 17:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Now Railer is indefinitely banned. Nationalparks 17:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Operating System Advocacy - Inappropriate picture?

Operating system advocacy contains what I (and at least one other editor) consider to be a gratuitous inappropriate image of a woman being body-painted. The same image is appropriate on the Body painting page. I am sensitive to, as well as strongly opposed to sexual harassment so I have a hard time being objective here. I understand that Wikipedia is not censored and I've also read the referenced Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive and Wikipedia:Profanity, and I don't think any of them apply. This is an article about computer operating systems, and I don't think the image is necessary, encyclopedic, or relevant. I also believe that if anything it represents "Advertising" not "Advocacy", and based on the picture I have some question as to whether it's consensual (the model is not posing, but rather shown "candid" while still being painted; the image was taken from some foreign-language Wiki.) Unfortunately other editors on the page think the image is "rather charming" and illustrates a Linux user advocating. Since the talk page hasn't resolved anything and instead just makes me madder, I'm looking for some outside opinions. Thanks for assistance.--Justfred 18:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The image does represent advocacy, since the article is about promotion which is not conducted by the company itself but rather fans of the company, and the fact that someone would have themselves painted into a mascot is a clear example of advocacy. Whether it is the best image one could use is another question entirely. I also don't understand what sexual harassment has to do with this, unless they forced her to get painted up like that. --tjstrf 19:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I still don't think the person is an actual user - and there's no way of knowing. I don't think body painting is a common, or even uncommon, method of promoting an operating system - I think they found one example that was probably from a trade show; I don't think there are a lot of other images of people with OS logos painted on themselves for fun because it simply isn't done - that's not how OS advocacy works. I think that showing images like this is, with no context, is objectification, constitutes sexual harassment of Wiki users, and is wrong. If anyone can find or show other images that don't involve nudity, that would be fine (but as I said unlikely because this isn't really OS advocacy), but the nudity in this context is not necessary to the content of the article.--Justfred 20:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

not sure if anyone suggested that, but when channels and magazines want to show something but they think it's offensive, they sometimes hide the offensive parts and still show it. --fs 22:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

That would be an even more direct breach of the no censorship principle. --tjstrf 22:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no problems with that picture. The girl was obviously not coerced into the body painting and wether she is an actual user is beside the point. Wikipedia is not censored and there are much more obvious nude pictures in other articles. Viridae^Talk 22:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thing is, I just don't understand why it's necessary. The picture does not shock or disgust me; I just don't see what it adds to the article and I don't understand why it's defended so strongly. And no one has convinced me that people really advocate for Linux by body painting - what they've reminded me is how many computer advocates have a different sense of what is and is not appropriate - often to the detriment of their cause. Wikipedia is not a boys' club, with pictures of naked chicks on the walls. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia - a reference work. Implying that people advocate for Linux with body painting is a lie - and the fact that the proponents of this picture haven't been able to produce a suitable non-nude alternative illustrates that. I would be far more apt to believe that people get OS tattoos than that they body paint; I know I've seen these at least. I don't know why this bothers me so much, but it does.--Justfred 23:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

And no one has convinced me that people really advocate for Linux by body painting I don't know whats more convincing than a photo of it happening... Viridae^Talk 23:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, where is the _advocacy_ ?? The subject of the article? There's a body with SUSE logos. How is this advocacy, and not advertising - SUSE is a commercial product. A tattoo - that very well might be advocacy.--Justfred 23:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

"Implying that people advocate for Linux with body painting is a lie" Really? I thought photographic proof was considered sufficient evidence for most people... or do you intend to claim it's a photoshop job? Also, he submitted this for mediation, here. --tjstrf 23:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It looks like the article's talk page has resolved the issue, judging from the clear majority in favor of keeping it. And regarding your statement that the image implicates a lie, I'm rather confused. Do you believe that the image was staged? On the article's talk page, you yourself referred to the image subject as a "trade show ‘booth babe,’" which suggests that you yourself recognize the degree to which sexy women are used as promotional gimmicks in this context so much so that you have a slang term for it. And that is the only issue here— whether painted nude women have been used promotionally, as the image depicts, which is a fact-specific issue for the article's contributors to work out, not one we should be discussing here in the abstract. You've muddied the waters by raising "objectification," which goes to value judgments as to whether painted nude women should be used promotionally. Postdlf 23:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Precisely. His objections are not relevant to wikipedia, but rather to western culture. The idea that we should deny the existance of something because it doesn't fit with our views of how reality should be IS censorship, the same way pulling To Kill a Mockingbird from the school curriculum because you want to deny the existance of the word "nigger" is. --tjstrf 23:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Help with categorizing...

Could someone categorize an article for me? The article url below should be in Electronic Musicians category (under M ofcourse). Is there a way to make it like other musician wikis? I would like to adjust this article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercurius_FM

Cheers.

Done. For future reference, to add an article to a category, type the following at the bottom of the article:

[[Category:Category name goes here]] --tjstrf 19:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

And, to alpahabetize something by last name in a category, do this:

[[Category:Category name|Last name, first name]] — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit summaries

I've been both contributing and following the help pages inasmuch as I have time to do so. I've obviously missed something important, and so far haven't seen it in the help files. Real simple, can I change the edit summaries and related information on a page I've created or updated after the fact? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RadioKAOS (talk • contribs) .

I don't know of any way to change an edit summary after it's been "Saved", but that's not a comprehensive answer because there's a rather large number of things that I don't know :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 04:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The best, and only, way I've found to make a correction if you screw up your edit summary is to make a null edit, and finish what you were saying that way. The only situation in which I can think of this happening is when I accidently tagged something as minor that wasn't. --tjstrf 05:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

What is a "Null edit?" I was under the impression that if you didn't change anything in the article, the edit would not be saved. That's at least what happened when I tried it in the sandbox. --TeaDrinker 06:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I suppose to answer the question at hand, generally don't worry about it. I don't think it is possible, except by admin action (and I don't know they do anything more than delete the edit). Most of the time, the edit summary is a guide, but no one really expects them to be perfect (I can't count the number of times I have spelled edit "eidt" in a summary). I'm not sure what the "related information" refers to... --TeaDrinker 06:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I've seen pages where an edit supposedly took place but I can determine no difference between the two versions. With no red characters showing up and a side by side comparison showing no difference.--Crossmr 06:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Null editing is easily accomplished by simply adding an extra line at the end of the article. It won't show up, and has no impact on the article appearance. --tjstrf 06:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see... Should have thought of that myself. Thanks. --TeaDrinker 06:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that was wrong. I meant to say line, not space. Sorry. --tjstrf 07:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Creating A New Article

How do you create a new article?

Please leave 1 on my talk page, thanks.

Thanks

100110100 08:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Headed over to talk...--Kchase T 08:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

factually incorrect information

Some articles disagree on a certain fact. I dont know which is right and can not determine right away for sure.

[3] states "In February 1999, Najaf's most senior cleric, Muħammad Sādiq as-Sadr, was murdered along with his two sons in Baghdad - the third killing of Shiite clerics in less than a year."

[4] states "Muhammad Sādiq as-Sadr (Arabic محمّد صادق الصدر ) is the father of Grand Ayatollah Muhammad Muhammad Sadiq as-Sadr (1943-1999) and grandfather of Muqtada as-Sadr (b.1973). Sometimes the son is called by his Father's name."

There is no birth nor death date, nor any details of his death.

[5] states "Mohammad Mohammad Sadeq al-Sadr (Arabic محمد محمّد صادق الصدر; Muhammad Muhammad Sādiq as-Sadr) (March 23, 1943 - February 19, 1999), often referred to as Muhammad Sadiq as-Sadr which was his father's name, was a prominent, moderate Iraqi Shiite cleric of the rank Grand Ayatollah". The article lists his death date as Febuary of 1999. This article goes on to say "He was killed under mysterious circumstances in the Iraqi city of al-Najaf at the age of fifty five along with two of his sons as they drove through the town."

Either both father and son Mohammad Sadeq al_Sadr were killed in Febuary, 1999 under mysterious circumstances with two of their sons losing 6 family members in one month, or the Najaf article mistakenly refers to the father rather than the son and gets the city wrong (Baghdad vs Najaf) as to where the killing happened.

I have not been able to confirm the facts, but believe that something is wrong here somewhere. When i am not sure of my facts i do no editing. Does wikipedia have a fact checker?

This is my first post here and may not be referencing the links properly so bear with me.

sam2049

Hi, Verifiability is one of the core policies of Wikipedia. Unless information can be verified, it does not deserve to be on Wikipedia. There are various templates that ou could put on the statements that you think may need to be verified. They may be found here -- Lost 15:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Reference trouble

I want to add a reference. There are two book editors, one author of the chapter I'm using, and the author cites the original source of the fact. Do I use the original source? If not, how do I cite this reference? It is called "The World's Writing Systems," and it was published by Oxford University Press in 1996 in New York. I've cited a few things, but this one stumps me. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 15:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You should cite the more reliable of the two sources, I think. The link covers quite in detail, what a reliable source is -- Lost 16:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, thank you Lost......I was trying to find a page like this (angrily mumbles at self)...... The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 17:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

But wait.....it still doesn't say in any of this stuff if I should cite the book's editor or the chapter's author. Which one? Or is there a way to cite both? The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 17:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Template talk:cite book discusses the standard citation template and available parameters. Dragons flight 17:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Wyandotte cave, Wyandotte Caves, and Wyandotte Caves/Temp

Whilst doing other things I noticed the article Wyandotte Caves on the copywrite violations list. In accordance with the copywrite violations message, I began to write an article to go in that space. After putting two days and more effort into Wyandotte Caves/Temp than I have put into any other Wikipedia article to date, I discovered Wyandotte cave. Now I don't know what to do. I would appreciate it if someone could look at my article and at Wyandotte cave and give me a bit of advice. Some points to consider:

• There are 2 seperate caves that make up Wyandotte caves. Wyandotte cave is one of those 2 caves.
• The article at Wyandotte cave is mostly lifted from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica.
• The article at Wyandotte caves is longer, more detailed and (imho) better written (but then, I'm biased).
• I immediately stopped all work on Wyandotte caves when I discovered Wyandotte cave, so it's far from "done" (not that any Wikipedia article is ever done).

ONUnicorn 16:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Why dont you merge the info in both the articles and let one redirect towards the other? -- Lost 16:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

That was my thought, but which location should the final merged article wind up at? Wyandotte Cave or Wyandotte Caves? I really don't think there's enough material or noteworthieness to have 3 articles (one on each of the two caves and one on the two caves together). Right now I'm leaning towards Wyandotte Caves, but I wanted to see what other people thought first. ONUnicorn 18:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Because Wyandotte Caves appears to be a proper noun, as opposed to just a description of some caves, then the proper final article title should be Wyandotte Caves. I would merge everything into that one article. Feel free to be bold here, no need to be 'fair' persay per se (which seems to be misused here since "per se" is Latin and means "through itself (by its own nature)" --Richard 17:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC))". Just make sure that the final version includes all the information from the others, even if it doesn't include the exact text or images. Then, on the other two articles, after merging, replace their text with #REDIRECT [[Wyandotte Caves]]. Make sure you leave descriptive edit summaries so people can figure out what you did, and why, later on. The only wrinkle to this is if we determine "Wyandotte Caves" not to be a full proper noun, in which case the proper final article title would be "Wyandotte caves". I'll leave that to you, since you know more about them. Phidauex 17:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC) P.S. Thanks for lookin' out for me, Richard. I'm not much of a grammaticitician.

Thanks for the advice. Now an additional question, how long does the temp article stay on the temp page before the copyvio is sorted out and the article can be moved to the main namespace? And shouldn't I wait to redirect the existing article until the finished article is in the main namespace instead of a temporary location? ONUnicorn 18:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the copyvio can be sorted out as soon as you have a suitable replacement article. Once you've got something vaguely presentable in the /Temp page, let the user who created the copyvio notice know (in this case, User:W.marsh), so it can be moved into place. When that is done, then change the other two articles to redirects. Phidauex 18:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

City Sewage on Heath Lane?

We are wondering when is Heath Lane going to get City Sewage? We are incorporated into the city with city electric and water, but when will we get the hookup to city sewage? Thank You! Beverly and Raymond —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.186.1.14 (talk • contribs) .

I'm not quite sure I understand what you are asking. Nationalparks 16:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Have you tried Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in knowledge questions, and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that's what this Help Desk is for). For your convenience, here's the link: Reference Desk (when you get there, just select the relevant section, and ask away). I hope this helps. -- Lost 16:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Well first, I suspect the asker needs to specify some minor things, like maybe WHERE THEY ARE LOCATED?? I bet there's a bazillion "Heath Lanes" in the world. I also doubt that anyone in Wikiland knows the answer to this. The city itself may not even know for sure. Annexing services usually involves lots of meetings, planning, etc... --Rehcsif 20:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Should this article be merged?

Or maybe deleted? Expanded? Hotelling Effect or Hotelling's law? (I'm talking about the effect, but I just found the law; are they the same?) Given the Hotelling's law article, I think I'm leaning towards deleting the Hotelling Effect. Xaxafrad 04:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I would say merge Hotelling Effect into Hotelling's law (if that is the correct name - make sure) then make one a redirect to the other. Viridae^Talk 05:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

WikiFriends

I seriously need help. I've tried everything, even randomly giving away barnstars but I can't make any WikiFriends. Can some good editor please help me, cheers —Minun ^Spiderman 18:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I really didn't think Wikipedia was about making friends. Wikipedia is more about providing information, ensuring its accuracy, etc. If making friends happens as an extension of that, then yippee, but if the reason you are here is to make friends then you've come to the wrong place. I think most Wikipedia editors more or less ignore eachother unless there's a problem with an article. Frankly, I think that's a good thing. You seem to be doing a lot of good work on articles, and I hope you enjoy that and stay. For times when that isn't enough and you want friends, however, there are lots of other websites out there that are about making friends and connections; but the best thing I can think of or reccomend for making friends is to get off the dang computer and get out in the real world where people go to socialize. ONUnicorn 19:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't agree with the above comment more. If you meet people online while persuing your interests -- great. If your sole purpose is to make friends, then step back from the computer (after switching it off) and actually step --outside-- and talk to someone! There's a lot of fun people out there in the Real World! --Rehcsif 19:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Recsif and OnUnicorn have a point. Æon ^{Insane Ward} 20:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies, what I meant most was like getting users who ask me for help, like i've so with other users, and useers who trust you. Morelike users who would support you in requests, anyway, cheers —Minun ^Spiderman 11:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a social networking site, but is still a great way of making friends. When editing articles on one's interests, one is likely to meet other Wikipedians with similar interests, usually on the talk pages or edit histories of such articles, and these are potential Wikifriends. Wikifriends can collaborate on articles of interest, and help each other when the going gets tough or stressful. Hope my insight helps. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Picture in Bulbasaur article

In today's featured article about the Pokemon character Bulbasaur, some clown put two large penis pictures in there. Please delete these pics - it was real embarassing to come across this as I sat at my desk at work. My name is Gail Anderson, and if you need to contact me, my e-mail is: removed e-mail address

I really don't think you want to broadcast your e-mail address to everyone. It looks to me like the offensive images have already been removed. Vandalism like that is an unfortunate downside to what Wikipedia strives to be. You always have to take the bad with the good. It's unfortunate that you viewed the page before someone came along and fixed it. ONUnicorn 20:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Map in Swiss town infobox

I tried to add a map to the article Höfen, Thun inside the Swiss town infobox. But it did not display. I looked at the discussion at Template talk:Infobox Swiss town and it said (1) that the Map field had been “commented out”, but also (2) that With class="hiddenStructure", it's now easy to add optional fields. Thus I included some of the fields available in other languages and already added to the articles, but not displayed due to the fact the fields weren't always available. -- User:Docu How can I get the map to display properly in the Swiss town infobox? Bejnar 23:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I added it back (conditionally). You might want to update the appearance a bit. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Meets Wiki:Music ?

Dunno my back from my front when it comes to Wiki:Music, but I've a suspicion that the subject of the article They Shoot Horses, Don't They? (Band) does not meet the criteria. Anyone who knows Wiki:Music better should perhaps take a look. (Only one album, not charted, no major tour as far as I can tell etc...) Is it OK or a candidate for deletion? Needless to say most of the google hits seem to refer to the film, book or song of that name rather than the band. Marcus22 14:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Bit iffy. List it for deletion and see what happens. Viridae^Talk 14:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Should Homerun redirect? If so, to which article?

Several months ago, I wrote an article on Homerun, a 2003 Singaporean film. Previously, the article had redirected to Home run, as in baseball. Around a month after the article was created, another user added a disambugation link to the article.

In early July, I was considering leaving Wikipedia, and was wondering whether I should blank several articles I wrote, including Homerun and Google Groups.

Several days after my announcement, User:Themindset moved Homerun to Homerun (film), and Homerun was reverted to a redirect to Home run. I misinterpreted this as a blanking, and after advice from some Wikipedians, reverted the alleged blanking of Homerun. My revert was subsequently reverted. User:Richardshusr explained to me what happened on my talk page, and told me that I could discuss with other editors if I was not happy with this arrangement.

Well, I'm not happy with this arrangement. It relegates the article I wrote to the background. Bear in mind that Homerun helped Singapore win its first Golden Horse Award, and User:Richardshusr told me that with a little work, I could improve the article I wrote to a good article. Homerun (film) has a single disambugation link, directly to Home run. However, Home run does not have a direct disambugation link to Homerun (film). Instead it has a link to a disambugation page which includes a link to Homerun (film) in the list.

Under the current situation, a reader going to the Homerun article, will, after the redirect, require 2 extra clicks to get to the Homerun (film) article. Under the previous arrangement, a reader going to the Homerun article looking for the baseball concept will require a single extra click to get to the Home run article.

A reader looking for the movie will be more likely to search for Homerun without the space, rather than with, and a reader searching for the baseball concept will be more likely to search for Home run with the space. In addition, it is noteworthy that the Multiply article is about the social networking site, rather than redirecting to the Multiplication article (which does not include a disambugation link to Multiply), when one searching for Multiply will be more likely to be looking for the mathematical concept.

Therefore, I wish to know other Wikipedians' opinions on the matter to determine consensus on whether the Homerun article should be about the film, or whether it should redirect to Homerun (film) or Home run.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Two-way (1/0)

Three-way (1/0/0)

Homerun article about film

1. Support as writer of article, and for reasons given above. This means more exposure for the article I wrote and will help it become a good article. If consensus is against this, I will support making Homerun redirect to Homerun (film), as this will not affect the exposure of the article. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Homerun redirect to [[Homerun (film)

• I don't know if the pump is the best place to sort this out, but if it is then I would go for this option, with a dab at the top of the article to say "for the baseball home run, see Home Run". The problem comes down the fact that the film is called homerun, without any spaces. I don't know if it extremely common practice for the phrase "home run" to be written without any spaces, but unless it is then the all one word shouldn’t get preference when there is something that actually does use that spelling. As an aside, you said "In early July, I was considering leaving Wikipedia, and was wondering whether I should blank several articles I wrote" - that would not really have been worth your while, not least because they could immediately be reverted again, and the fact that once you have typed or uploaded something to here under the GDFL you don't have the right take it away (thus, in theory, the quality of this encyclo can only get better, but if folks were leaving and taking their words with them then the site could very easily get worse very quickly) SFC9394 15:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Redirects to Arimaa Wikibooks

The material in Arimaa tactics and Arimaa strategy has been absorbed into and surpassed by the | Arimaa Wikibook. However, I don't want to delete the Wikipedia pages entirely, because I know of several exteral links to them. Is it in accordance with Wikipedia policy to leave Arimaa tactics and Arimaa strategy as redirects pointing to the Wikibook? I would of course like to leave the main Arimaa article intact in any case. Thanks in advance. --Fritzlein 18:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

You could do a Soft Redirect —Minun ^Spiderman 18:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikification of magic squares

At magic square, several squares are depicted by bitmap images. IMO, there are several problems with using a bitmap for a table of numbers:

• It does not scale with the browser font size.
• It is often displayed in a different font from anything else in the article.
• Editing, if necessary, becomes a hassle.
• A screen reader (or any other text-based browser) cannot process it.
• It's inefficient in terms of bandwidth and disk space — Wikipedia's two scarcest commodities.

Thus, I've started replacing them (except photos/scans of primary documents) with tables. Unfortunately, I need another pair of hands. (Once all the bitmap squares have been replaced, I can go back to the prior revision and tag them all for deletion.) NeonMerlin 05:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)