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 Infrogmation (talk | contribs) at 22:54, 6 May 2003. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

File:Village pump.JPG

Related pages: Mailing lists - IRC - IM a Wikipedian - Wikipedia:Talk page

Welcome, newcomers and baffled oldtimers! If you have a question about Wikipedia and how it works, please place it at the bottom of the list, and someone will attempt to answer it for you. (If you have a question about life, the universe and everything, go to the reference desk instead.)

Before asking a question, check if it's answered by the Wikipedia:FAQ or other pages linked from Wikipedia:Help.

NOTE - questions and answers will not remain on this page indefinitely (otherwise it would very soon become too long to be editable). After a period of time with no further activity, information will be moved to other relevant sections of the wikipedia (such as the FAQ pages) or placed in the Wikipedia:Village pump archive if it is of general interest, or deleted. Please consider dating and titling your discussions so as to facilitate this.

Moved discussion

See the archive for older moved discussion links.

Has someone changed the page layout. I am now getting the underlines in the left hand menu going right accross the screen, and am unable to access the top fields. I think this was working yesterday. (using Mozilla 1.4a) -- Chris Q 07:02 May 1, 2003 (UTC)

I get that often when the server is really suffering, and I'm guessing the CSS doesn't get properly transferred, so those go clear across like you see. (I'm using Galeon-1.2.10/Mozilla-1.3.) Usually, once the server's recovered a bit, a shift-reload will clear it up. At the moment, they're working fine for me, but the server seemed pretty bogged down a few minutes ago. -- John Owens 07:09 May 1, 2003 (UTC)
Yes, that's exactly the problem. --Brion 15:16 May 1, 2003 (UTC)

OK, this may seem kinda strange, but since I go to the school, I figure I have a right to talk about it. :) And since I have no idea how to go about fixing this, I've decided to bring it up here.

Anyway, on the Minnesota page, the "College of Saint Benedict" and "Saint John's University" are listed as two separate institutions, and link to two separate Wikipedia articles (both empty), when actually they are a joint academic institution (see http://www.csbsju.edu ) ... also, on the List of colleges and universities starting with S page, the institution is erroneously referred to as "St. John's University, College of Saint Benedict" when in actuality they are always listed in alphabetical order and spelled out in full.

HOWEVER (and here's the kicker), I'm not sure what the proper naming for the correct entry should be. The institution is normally referred to as College of Saint Benedict | Saint John's University in "official" terms (ie, the full names with a pipe character as separation), or as CSB/SJU in shorthand (ie, the abbreviations with a slash as separation). Should there be new #redirects for CSB and SJU (listed in full) that redirect to a joint page? What would the naming for the joint page be? Should the institution still be listed separately (ie, CSB on "C" and SJU on "S") with both links being the same, or should it be listed just once as a doubly-named institution (the latter of which is slightly more correct)? As you can see, I'm really confused by this ....

If someone can help me out in this, I'll be glad to start filling out the entry for this school! Thanks a bunch! -- TimmyD 07:52 May 1, 2003 (UTC)~

Many good questions on the organization (yep, the 'pedia is all about org), here's what I think:
  1. Yes, it'd be useful to have redirect pages for both colleges that go to a joint page.
  2. The joint page's title should be the full, official name: if College of Saint Benedict | Saint John's University is what it is. (How rare that the punctuation mark of a pipe is used in the official name!)
  3. The institution is better listed as College of Saint Benedict | Saint John's University on the C page and as Saint John's University (College of Saint Benedict | Saint John's University) on the S page, for the ease of browsing
These aren't the "official" answers, however. I'm just speaking from my understanding and experience as a Wikipedian. If for some reason, those pages or their titles should be changed, they can be, with ease. The 'pedia is flexible and changeable. It isn't like an academic paper that once you submitted it, you can't change it anymore. --Menchi 09:30 May 1, 2003 (UTC)
Using a pipe in an article title might confuse the software a touch - using a slash might be safer... Martin 10:15 May 1, 2003 (UTC)
Pipe doesn't work in titles, obviously. Use the slash. --Brion 15:16 May 1, 2003 (UTC)
OK, so College of Saint Benedict / Saint John's University has been created, I double-check to make sure nothing was still left linking to St._John's_University,_College_of_St._Benedict (the old link from the S page), and this page should be the only one that does. With regards to redirects, however, should there be three or what? CSB/SJU, College of Saint Benedict, and Saint John's University (Minnesota) -- note that there is also a Saint John's University in New York, hence the parentheses -- perhaps the other SJU link on the S page should reflect Saint John's University (New York)? This seems really over my head for only my fourth day or so here, but it's great to learn and go through this stuff! Thanks for the help so far! -- TimmyD 05:30 May 2, 2003 (UTC)
You've gone a great job on the CSB/SJU page. Very informative. Now, onto your Qs:
  1. Yes, having the three redirects (CSB/SJU, College of Saint Benedict, and Saint John's University (Minnesota)) is a good idea. You can even make redirects CSB and CSB if you find it helpful, but that's not necessary.
  2. You're correct that SJU New York's link should be Saint John's University (New York), since not one SJU is particularly more famous than the other. (Well, at least not up here in Canada....)
I've given you a little feedback on the CSB/SJU Talk page. --Menchi 08:12 May 2, 2003 (UTC)
I've decided to let St. John's University still refer to the one in New York, since as far as I can tell, the offical name is not spelled out like the college I'm at (ie, Saint vs St.) thus there shouldn't be confusion between the two? Perhaps instead I'll go through and just add "(New York)" to the four articles that mention St. John's University so as to help distinguish, or is it enough of a similarity that there should be St. John's University (New York)? --TimmyD 06:06 May 3, 2003 (UTC)
Page Title of St. John's University New York
You made a good point. Since there is difference in the official spelling, it is redundant to title St. John's University (New York), since there is only one institution truely and properly called "St. John's University". However, in a non-official ad, it refers to itself as "St. John's University NY". [1] So, I think we can have St. John's University (New York) as a redirect page and St. John's University as the main page. --Menchi 07:03 May 3, 2003 (UTC)
Mentionings of SJU NY
Maybe instead of adding "(New York)" to the four pages that mentions SJU NY, it can be written like "St. John's University in New York" or "St. John's University, New York", so that it's more grammatical. --Menchi 07:03 May 3, 2003 (UTC)
Disambiguation
Since the difference between SJU NY and your SJU would confuse most people (including me, had I not have this discussion), it'd help to include a disambiguation block on top of each of the SJU pages. For examples, see Asia and China.
An equal disambiguation page is impossible in this case, since not one or the other SJU can be the title of the disambiguation page. --Menchi 07:09 May 3, 2003 (UTC)

Not sure where this ought to go, but I often think when carrying on a discussion through User_talk: pages, it would be rather nice if the ~~~ sig went to the User_talk: page instead of the User: page. An even better solution might be a different combination, either more tildes, or three or four of some other character (@@@? %%%?), which would give a link to your talk page instead. Feasable? I would think so. Worthwhile? You decide, I don't do PHP. -- John Owens 07:10 May 2, 2003 (UTC) | John Owens 07:09 May 2, 2003 (UTC)

That sounds like an interesting idea, but is there really that much effort saved versus clicking on your username and then clicking the "Talk" link on the bottom? To me, at least, it seems to be perfectly fine with the setup as it is currently.
Perhaps, instead of having it be two different commands, just add the User_talk: page as a part of the ~~~~ signature, like it is listed on the Recent Changes page? So like TimmyD (Talk), as I feel that would be a better representation of what it's actually attempting to convey.
--TimmyD 06:06 May 3, 2003 (UTC)
Perhaps we should consider why we need seperate user and user talk pages? Martin

I recently ran across the Timeline of U.S. economic indicators and noticed it needs a lot of work. I've listed it on Wikipedia:Pages needing attention, but it seems to have been ignored. I'm hesitant to list it on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion because this page could have some useful information, but it would require a lot of time and research. If it seems no one is willing to bring it up to date (it hasn't been touched in seven months) it seems that it should just be deleted. Any thoughts? -- Minesweeper 09:45 May 2, 2003 (UTC)

Knowing nothing about PHP and little about Wiki, I would like to hear from one of your online experts whether it might be possible to embed a Smalltalk VM, select and run (doIT) a method (script) from within the Wiki. -- Jus

Well, I don't know much about Smalltalk, but I can tell you that the current version of Wikipedia software doesn't allow anything vaguely resembling scripting. It basically has an "allowed tags" list, and an "allowed attributes" list. Both lists are pretty short. You can try to convince everyone to change the software, but note that previous suggestions to allow client-side scripting have met with an icy reception. -- Tim Starling 05:51 May 3, 2003 (UTC)
On that note, I'd like to see the tag added to the list of allowed tags. -- John Owens 21:26 May 4, 2003 (UTC)

Re: "Client-side scripting" Tim Starling above; Somehow I don't feel phased with what you said, reminded by "if it aint broke don't fix it". I'm conditioned by Prolog with its 2 instructions, Cut and Fail, and where the System-Typing is implicit in the predicate DB design. I'm trying to figure out just what (technical within Wikipedia) resources are available for building some sort of Propadeutic such as in Britannica where the Atoms of knowledge are in the Micropaedia and the Articles are topicalised in the Macropaedia. Am I right in thinking that the "icy reception" is simply the prefernce to err on the side of caution? Is it going too far to suggest that Wikipedia is merely a good Data Capture device? By the way is this the place to talk about such things? user:Jus

Wikipedia makes decision by consensus-finding, which makes seems to make it conservative. If you're just making suggestions and not offering to write code, you have to get one of the developers on your side, or your suggestion will just be ignored and forgotten about. As for choice of forum, here is fine for short disscussions (i.e. not much longer than this is now) and newbie stuff. Then there's the mailing list wikipedia-l for policy discussion (which this is), wikitech-l for technical implentation (which this probably won't become but it's there just in case) and meta for longer proposals and essays. -- Tim Starling 03:34 May 5, 2003 (UTC)

Vkem has been creating strange articles, see Aimo Cajander, Lauri Ingman, Väinö Tanner and Haltiatunturi. These seem to be machine-translations of some sort. For example, I compared Aimo Cajander and this Finnish website [2] (the fourth page that came up when searching on google for "Aimo Cajander"). The article looks like a word for word translation of this website. Are these copyright infringements? In any case the articles have to be rewritten to be human-understadable. -- Jniemenmaa 13:18 May 3, 2003 (UTC)

I just got a reply from Vkem on my talk page "Aimo Kajander is translated with Syntax 8.0 translator." -- Jniemenmaa 08:54 May 4, 2003 (UTC)
Not having any experience of this Wikipedia project, I think I at least can contribute with a fresh opinion not tainted by Wikipedia culture. :->> I question the value of bad translations (which this is an example of) much more than the value of relatively mediocre English by writers of other mother tongues, as myself. (Not to mention the copyright problem.)
This issue is probably related to the in-extenso quotes from Encyclopedia Britannica in the edition of year 1911. In both cases it's duplication of information which already is available for any user of Wikipedia. In my eyes it might devaluate the value of Wikipedia. Careful consideration is called for.
When a writer needs support against his unsecure and un-idiomatic handling of English printed works in English are better than www-available, as they don't invite to paste-and-quote. :) -- Ruhrjung 11:39 May 4, 2003 (UTC)
We do indeed recommend against machine translation, for just this reason. Martin

I'm attempting to format "years in sport". If anyone wants to look at 2003 in sports to see what I have done and suggest changes and improvements, please do. I'll wait a few days until there is an acceptable Template, then I'll start copying the format and setting up each of the past 100 years or so. Jacques Delson

Perhaps Wikify the sport names? --Menchi 03:22 May 4, 2003 (UTC)
I'd say leaving out the sports names that have no events under them. My reasoning is this: There are dozens and dozens of different sports. So they should only be in the article if they are pertinent. Otherwise, you need to add Road cycling, Gymnastics, Weightlifting, Tennis, Figure skating, Alpine skiing, Cricket, Diving, etc. etc. There are just too many to list. So, consider only listing the ones that have an event to list. Kingturtle 03:51 May 4, 2003 (UTC)

Can't believe I forgot tennis! Will add it, but the smaller sports like weightlifing etc can be in the General category. I'll set up a sample on the 2003 in sports page. Jacques Delson

Can anyone help me with a redirect problem? I'm trying to create a page for the Turk, a 19th century chess playing machine (which was actually a fraud).

Anyway, as you can see from the link above, it redirects you to info on Turkey. It would be nice to have the choice to go to either info on the turk chess playing machine or Turkey when clicking on a "Turk" link. Is this possible in a redirect?

Or does anyone think that the "Turk" page should be info only on the chess machine?

Tommertron May 4, 2003.

What is possible here is Wikipedia:disambiguation. There are two options in this case:
  1. Equal disambiguation: Convert the Turk page to something like Jupiter. With two wikilinks, one called Turk (machine) and another Turk (nationality). You can think up a more descriptive modifier within the parenthesis.
  2. Primary topic disambiguation: On the Turk page, write about the machine, but on top of the page, place an ambiguation block in italics, noticing the reader of the use of "Turk" as a nationality. For examples, see Asia and China.
To me, both options have their merits. Turk the machine isn't what people usually think of upon reading the word (favour option #1). On the other hand, Turk the nationality is probably not going to get a page of its own with words on it anytime soon, if ever (favour option #2). I say this because it's the way it is with all major and minor nationality words. The exception is Chinese. What's your opinion?
It seems clear to me that primary topic disambiguation is a bad choice here. In my opinion, primary topic disambiguation is only a good idea if almost all links to the page are about that topic. Here, Turk the (fake) chess machine has fewer links (if any?) than Turk the nationality. That there is no own page for Turk the nationality does not seem like an objection to me - just have Turk be an equal disambiguation page with (as I now see it) the following disambiguations: Turk (machine), Turkey and Turkic people. I don't see why the fact that those last too are not of the form [[Turk (blabla)]] would be a reason to choose primary subject disambiguation. Andre Engels 15:59 May 5, 2003 (UTC)
By the way, you can sign your name by typing ~~~, and sign your name and date and time by typing ~~~~. If you have any further doubts or questions, ask away. --Menchi 05:32 May 4, 2003 (UTC)

RE: September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack....shouldn't the article title be "September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks"? The attacks may have been orchestrated and planned together, but there were distinctively separate attacks made. Kingturtle 01:36 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)

Apparently so! Googling reveals that 20,000 "September 11 Attack" pages and 200,000 "September 11 Attacks" pages. 14,000 "9 11 Attack" and 60,000 "9 11 Attacks." Time to move page? --Menchi 06:46 May 4, 2003 (UTC)
I'd suggest being conservative here - there are quite a few pages, and they're linked from all over the place, so a change of name will actually entail a fair bit of work. But if you do move, consider whether "terrorist" and "attack" need capitals... Martin

Ammunition and some linked pages contain mostly (if not entirely) info from Encyclopedia Britannica from 1911, and most is hopelessly outdated. It is very well written, though, and would possibly be better placed on a history page. I don't feel too comfortable just replacing hundreds of lines of text with what would be a stub in comparison... Comments? europrobe 10:15 May 4, 2003 (UTC)

Weigh it up: what's best for the reader who comes looking for information - a few paras of up-to-date or lots of old? I'd say the first. You can leave the EB text below your stub, or move it to talk pending a rewrite to place it in historical context. good luck! and be bold! -- Tarquin 10:24 May 4, 2003 (UTC)

I suggest create a wiki tag for translation without the need of create a new article in the destination language. For example, if I am in new-article and see no translation to my natural language, I could use this translation tag (i.e. [[t:languageaISObbreviation:translationA]]<nowiki>) to indicate that there is no correspondant article in the another language, but the translation of the article to the another langue is ''translationA''.

Function Request: "Move Page" in Nostalgia

Could we have the "Move this page" option available in Nostalgia skin? Maybe somewhere on the lower bar, among "Discuss this page", "Watch this page", etc. --Menchi 12:32 May 4, 2003 (UTC)

KanjiReference ok?

Is this appropriate encylopedia content: KanjiReference:Index? If so, can someone explain why to easy my confusion? Is wikipedia also a foreign language textbook? -- mib 23:53 May 4, 2003 (UTC)

It seems something more suitable for Wiktionary. --Menchi 00:28 May 5, 2003 (UTC)

But so are alphabets, greek letters and so on. Anyway, There were some debates in the past. Please use Wikipedia:WikiProject Chinese characters. Thanks -- Taku 01:27 May 5, 2003 (UTC)

I spent several hours uploading and inserting photographs into many, many, many articles on Saturday evening and virtually every one of them got modified. I would appreciate some explanation as to why they were modified, instead of just being slapped across the face with the back of the hand. Why should I bother trying to contribute? I'm starting to feel that this is personal. -- Zoe

Hmm, I only noticed the pictures being compressed (the few that I looked at). Are these the changes you're referring to? -- Notheruser 01:52 May 5, 2003 (UTC)
No, I have no problem with your compressing them. It's Egil and his ilk running around behind me and modifying almost everything I did without an explanation. -- Zoe
I've done some editing on the U.S. presidential election images (e.g. U.S. presidential election, 1800) to right align rather than center them. I certainly didn't mean offense; it was intended as explained on Talk:U.S. presidential election. Incidently, your uploads inspired me to go find the source, which I did, and now there's instructions on Talk:U.S. presidential election for how to get the latest digital versions from nationalatlas.gov (I did U.S. presidential election, 1988 - U.S. presidential election, 2000, and I'm taking a break, hoping someone beats me to the rest of the job) ;-) -- RobLa 03:17 May 5, 2003 (UTC)
Zoe, are you really DW? Has someone altered your precious prose? ;) Seriously, what is the problem here? Is there anything in particular that you object to? All I've seen doing spotchecks over your recent contributions is recompression and formatting tweaks, and there's nothing objectionable in that. Hell, I'm worried when people don't follow up on the articles that I've been working on. --Brion 03:39 May 5, 2003 (UTC)
As I said, I have no problem with the actions that Notheruser made, and I don't have any problems with RobLa's actions. It's mainly Egil, who felt it necessary to change almost every single caption and picture position that I made last night. It has nothing to do with "deathless prose", I have no problem when people change things for reasonable reasons. But when every one of my contributions is modified for what looks like just the sake of modification, then I start to object. -- Zoe
Just to clarify, I didn't actually compress any of the pictures. I was trying to ascertain the changes referenced. -- Notheruser 03:58 May 5, 2003 (UTC)
So in other words, Zoe, you are not complaining about any particular actions that were done, just the fact that someone made formatting changes to a bunch of pages shortly after you edited them? Why is there something wrong with this? This is a wiki for goodness' sake! We're supposed to clean up after one another. Pages don't suddenly become off-limits after you've touched them, and if you leave a large, very visible swath of work across Special:Recentchanges you should not be surprised if people look at those pages and make their own edits to a lot of them. (Particularly mass edits where you make a similar change to dozens of articles; if someone else finds the need to make additional tweaks on top of one or two of them, the same will likely be needed for the rest.) And yes, that includes formatting and wikification. It's all part of the process. That's how wiki works. --Brion 06:57 May 5, 2003 (UTC)
I compressed a bunch of those images because many of the USDA images were 100-200K when they only really needed to be 25-50K. Living on dialup makes me particularly sensitive to image size. I tried not to alter the appearance of the images in any way; I just used Photoshop to compress the images down. I've started compressing other unnecessarily images down as well. I hope no personal offense was taken. -- Minesweeper 04:04 May 5, 2003 (UTC)

Sometimes I make some edits and everyone reverts them or changes them again right away. But this is OK: I know it's only because you all hate me and are out to get me. Other times, I make some edits and no-one touches them or even reads them for months. But this is OK too, it just means that everyone is ignoring me because I am an incredibly boring and worthless person and you all hate me. And sometimes I make a bunch of edits and a few of them get changed and a few of them don't, and some people even post notes to say what nice edits they were. But this is OK, because I know that it is all just a plot by my enemies to confuse me with insincere fake praise because you all hate me. tAnNIn

(OK, now that I've had my fun, I'll make a serious comment: we all feel like that sometimes. It's part of the deal, you have to take the rough with the smooth. Just the same, I always think it is discourteous to sit on someone's hammer and follow their edits around. (Unless they are out-and-out vandals, of course.) Usually, if I find myself editing the same person's work for the third time in a row, I try to find something else to work on for a while so as not to be rude. As for yesterday's edits, I saw Zoe's name on all those uploads and edits and didn't look at them, because I figured that, whatever it was that she was doing, it would be good, positive work and I could leave those pages in her capable hands. (That's a compliment, Zoe.) Tannin 07:39 May 5, 2003 (UTC))

Thanks, Tannin. -- Zoe

List of artists posted today by User:141.219.44.74 makes no sense.MammaBear

It's being discussed on Votes for Deletion. -- Infrogmation 22:54 May 6, 2003 (UTC)

Is there no end to the ability of I Explorer to screw up images on wiki? Because it found the images on the pages too big (which other browsers didn't), I cropped a series of images on Dublin. In safari, the new page with the cropped image shows up. Ditto with Netscape. Ditto with opera. And with camino. But as usual IE does things differently and still shows the upcropped images extra large on the page. Why isn't IE 5.2 for a Mac able to instantly update the page like everyone else? Is it just images or does it not update text too? Will it eventually update? Why the hell does anyone else that damned browser? I gave up in frustration months ago but thought it necessary to check the page using it just to make sure it was not screwing it up. And surprise, surprise, it was and is still doing it.

JT, I find that I have problems with modifying images in IE. I have to do a Refresh, and then the latest version of the image usually (but not always) shows up okay. Sometimes an F4 works. -- Zoe
Thanks, Zoe. I really am amazed how both Netscape and IE seem to have so many bugs! Normally as the two most used browsers I would have expected them to be the best, but of all the browsers I have used since August when I came on line with a new computer they are by far the worst, with safari the best, which is why I generally use it. ÉÍREman
Yup. 'Refresh' did it. How utterly bizarre IE is!!!!! Thanks, Zoe!

BTW - Netscape doesn't recognise the <small></small> command, which means captions written in small lettering and laid out as such goes haywire in netscape because it treats all lettering as the same size. Is there anyway to counteract this? ÉÍREman 21:56 May 5, 2003 (UTC)

2. An alternative code is <font size=-1></font> .
In Netscape 4.79, it works though. Which version are you using? --Menchi 23:14 May 5, 2003 (UTC)
Thanks Menchi. I have just checked and apparently it is 7.02 on an eMac. As I mentioned to Zoe above, I am amazed to find of the 6 browsers I have used since I got the new eMac, IE and Netscape are by far the worst, safari easily the best. But aware of Netscape and IE's tendency to muck up wiki images, I occasionally go on to check how a page I laid out looks. (And invariably groan at what one or other has done to the page!) ÉÍREman 00:45 May 6, 2003 (UTC)
Netsape 6.x was based on an alpha version of Mozilla, so yes it was very buggy. Netscape 7 was based I think on Mozilla 1.0. I'm using Mozilla 1.2.1 now and the <small> tag displays fine. I'm not sure how Netscape 7 is so bad as I've not used it, but it is a rebranded rehash of Mozilla, and Mozilla works just fine apart from having a very computer-programmerish gui.
Netscape 6.1 (not that I ever use it!) also doesn't do <small>, either. -- Arwel 01:06 May 6, 2003 (UTC)
How odd that a browser would reduce its capacity in its new versions. Or is it a operating system thing? I use Windows 98. --Menchi 01:14 May 6, 2003 (UTC)

How come my hearts and diamonds on Most wanted Iraqi playing cards are green instead of red? Kingturtle 22:39 May 5, 2003 (UTC)

You used funny quotes. In HTML tags, just use " or '. --Eloquence 22:47 May 5, 2003 (UTC)
Ah. See, what happened was, I copied the article into Microsoft Word, did a "Replace All" and then copied back to wikipedia. In the process, those little quotation marks got funny. Kingturtle 22:48 May 5, 2003 (UTC)

In a well-meaning attempt to improve things, I've done something terrible to the title of the Tomaz Pisanski article. Help!! -- Paul A 05:32 May 6, 2003 (UTC)

Wow, cool. Reading it makes me feel like I am in a surreal dyslexia. Kingturtle 05:37 May 6, 2003 (UTC)

I moved it back to Tomaz Pisanski. Further discussion on Talk:Tomaz Pisanski -- Tim Starling 06:04 May 6, 2003 (UTC)

Hi

I'm trying to reduce the size of an uploaded image, anyone got experience of that. I tied to crop it in Graphic Converter offline, then up load it , but the new upload was bigger, although still a croped version of the old... help! TonyClarke 11:40 May 6, 2003 (UTC)

Do you mean Image:Hobies.jpg and Image:Trimhobies.jpg? Because the trimmed image is definitely smaller than the original image. Egil uploaded a scaled version of Image:Hobies.jpg which was much smaller (pixel-wise and byte-wise) than the original. How about I rescale the trimmed one for you? -- Tim Starling 12:13 May 6, 2003 (UTC)
Okay, that's done now. I adjusted the levels a bit too. Just revert it if you don't like it.
Image compression is a bit of a dark art. If you're recompressing a jpg image, there will be far more loss of quality than it is worth.
I wonder if that brief loss of service was our new server coming on line. That would be nice. -- Tim Starling 12:47 May 6, 2003 (UTC)
Nope, just the old one breaking again. :D The new server is physically in place and running; Lee has been setting up software, and sometime Real Soon Now we should have it running the web front end and leaving our old server to do just the database. --Brion
When will the clock run on time? :-)
When Benito Mussolini takes charge of Wikipedia? ;-) -- John Owens
Grrr... :) I've set the clock again, and am trying to set up NTP right now. --Brion 18:52 May 6, 2003 (UTC)
Brion, you know you're our local hero. our efforts are appreciated. :) -- April
Wikipedia:How to keep image file sizes as small as possible might help. --Menchi 15:20 May 6, 2003 (UTC)

The below note was left on User Talk:Infrogmation:

I have also been blocked, apparently because I'm on the same IP address as "Michael/Weezer." He probably used AOL, as I am right now, so blocking his IP might block a lot of other people as well. RL Barrett 22:38 May 6, 2003 (UTC)

Are we having a problem with blocking vandals on AOL without blocking other users? What is the proper procedure here? -- Infrogmation 22:54 May 6, 2003 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_archive_2004-09-26&oldid=896568"