Wikipedia:Village pump/Archive L

• Village pump
  • Policy
  • Technical
  • Proposals (persistent)
  • Idea lab
  • WMF
  • Miscellaneous

Village pump archive  

This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump. Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.

---

< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, AA, AB, AC, AD, AE, AF, AG, AH, AI, AJ, AK, AL, AM, AN, AO, AP, AQ, AR, AS, AT, AU

Cory's Shearwater link problem

delete - presumed caching issue - see also wikipedia:bug reports

Help! At Shearwater, I've put in a link to Cory's Shearwater, which is written. The link stays red, but clicking on it goes to the edit page of the new article, not the article itself or a blank page. I'm sure it's something to do with the apostrophes, but I can't sort it out. jimfbleak 06:38, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Works fine for me - blue link leading to Cory's Shearwater, no problem. Are you sure it's not just a caching persistence problem? —Paul A 07:38, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Jim retyped it, and it worked...miraculously. The 1st time I visted that time (after Jim finished Cory's Shearwater), the same thing happened to me: Edit page opened up. And I never visited Shearwater before. The apostrophes look identical to me. --Menchi 07:43, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I don't know if it's relevant, but Cory's Shearwater (Cory's_Shearwater) has a redirect page linking to it called Cory’s Shearwater ([[Cory%92s_Shearwater]]). The different between the straight apostrophe of the article itself and the slanted/curved (depending on font) apostrophe of the redirect page is quite distinct on my computer, though. —Paul A 07:56, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Several people attempted to fix that link (See its hist), but now when we access the old versions -- which didn't work before -- they all work now: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. If it didn't work before, and it works now -- it must be some time lapse or temporal anomaly due to the approach asteroid. Maybe tomorrow will be yesterday. --Menchi 08:02, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Caching problem. (Lest I bet that's what it is. Sure as today is Friday.) Refresh your browser and it will go away. Or just wait. I've met similar weirdness before, now and then. Tannin

Cory's Shearwater link problem

deleted - presumed caching issue - see also wikipedia:bug reports

Date conversion

bug - delete when fixed

It seems the automatic date conversion is not working anymore. The preference option has disappeared. What's going on? --Wik 06:25, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Should be enabled now. (Was it before?) --Brion 07:48, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

British Columbian

move to talk:list of Canadians

Hi there! I have problems about famous Canadians or notable British Columbians. Who counts as a Canadian? I have added Leslie Cheung in the list of Canadians, but I am not quite comfortable with it. Leslie Cheung had lived in BC for just three years and then returned to Hong Kong after getting a passport, and he is not a rare example. Did I do the right thing? Or should this kind of "non-Canadian" Canadian be removed from the lists? Wshun

One of the rights guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the right to leave Canada. No Canadian must maintain any ties with Canada (this is not true for landed immigrants) in order to maintain Canadian nationality. This is protected in sec. 6(1) entitled Mobility rights. There are many Canadians that live outside Canada; this does not (IMHO) make them less Canadian — perhaps other Canadians think otherwise. Many Canadians are forced to live in the US for financial reasons, jobs, or career opportunities. Even some Canadian corporations have many employees stationed in the United States; being in this situation does not make any Canadian less Canadian, they can always return to their mother country and take up residence there again; of course an immigrant who comes to Canada and becomes a Canadian citizen may also have other nationalities. Canada does recognize dual national status; one does not have to renounce their other citizenship(s) when taking the oath to the Queen of Canada like the United States requires of its immigrants. Alex756

Generally, anyone who considers themselves Canadian could be listed on such a list. Use your judgement. :) Martin 15:50, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

(Not) signing articles

I can not find the discussion about signing articles (this is almost wikipedia prehistory). Can somebody point it out to me? or was it discussed in the mailing list? thanks --AstroNomer 19:37, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Signing Articles...? Why would you like to sign an article. The history tells who added what. If you discuss something, you sign it. Is it that, what you mean? Fantasy 21:16, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

No, it's not what I meant. When wikipedia was young, there was every now and then somebody that wanted to put "author:Such and Such" at the end of the article itself. That was strongly discuraged, and signatures removed almost immediately, but I don't remember if there was and encyclica by pope Larry I, or a discussion in the list about that. If it is in wikipedia, must be buried in some long forgotten page. I was just hoping that somebody would remember.--AstroNomer 21:26, Sep 3, 2003 (UTC)

There can be 100 or 1000 Authors for one article, so I can't imagine that there was ever a realistic discussion about putting all Authors in an Article... (IMHO) :-) Fantasy 06:23, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Hmm. What about the concept of crediting sources. That is recommended, I believe? The 1911 Britannica is consistently credited, as are many other public domain sources. If someone releases a thesis say into the public domain with the proviso that the author must be credited, a wikipedian who is not the original author should probably credit the original author in the article itself. What should be done about a wikipedia contributor who insisted on requiring attribution within the article as a precondition to writing to the wikipedia, that is a conundrum right enough, especially if we want to be consistent about these matters... -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 15:14, Sep 4, 2003 (UTC)

First, I tried to find out, where to credit a source some time ago, but I got no answer. (Maybe now we find an answer ;-)

THE GNU Free Documentation License says "Secondarily, this License preserves for the author and publisher a way to get credit for their work, while not being considered responsible for modifications made by others."

Under "MODIFICATIONS" it says: "I. Preserve the section Entitled "History", Preserve its Title, and add to it an item stating at least the title, year, new authors, and publisher of the Modified Version as given on the Title Page. If there is no section Entitled "History" in the Document, create one stating the title, year, authors, and publisher of the Document as given on its Title Page, then add an item describing the Modified Version as stated in the previous sentence."

If I understand this right, the "History" is the place, where you find the author. I don't think, you can add conditions to your contributions to Wikipedia. You are credited in the History anyway and you have to agree to GFDL, so I guess no conditions are possible.

But surely, we could add at the end the name of the first/most important Author, even if that is sometimes quite hard to define exactly...?

I don't know if this was any help, but I look forward for more comments ;-) Fantasy 15:42, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

PS: Maybe Wikipedia:Cite your sources is of some help?

Sidebar for minor use of terms

moved to wikipedia talk:disambiguation

Creating disambiguation pages

Moved to Wikipedia talk:How to rename (move) a page

Partnership with Miwiki for yours Wikipedia logos

"Miwiki the ant" is an artwork of french workgroup to design a Wikipedia mascot and submit a logo with it (n°132).

m:International logos (126-150)

But, like Anthere (logo n°17) or Paullus (n°4), you can use Miwiki the ant mascot to make a variant of your logo.

m:International logos (1-25)

Just take picture on this pages :

m:Wikipedia mascot

m:User:Oliezekat/Miwiki logo 5

FrWikipedia:Utilisateur:Oliezekat/Miwiki (in french with several colors)

Or contact me to design myself special picture for your logo variant : Oliezekat

Why don't we have a Nazi swastika?

request added to Wikipedia:Requested pictures

Redirect problem

Is there a problem with the Redirect in the Systems of zoological classification article? When I use the 'Diff' function on the page history, its shows that a "redirect" was added to Scientific classification. Great. But it doesn't seem to be working. Each time I click on the article I see the previous version; the one without the redirect, showing the full text. What is going on? RK 22:25, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Works for me, so probably a cache issue. Try shift-reload. --Delirium 22:29, Aug 31, 2003 (UTC)

Spanish municipality naming format

Please weigh in with your opinions (City, Province vs. City) at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (city names)/Spain. - Montréalais 03:12, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

my past contributions

Hello, I have entered the original entry for ITOCHU but I forgot to login, would it be possible to change to original entry from '134.32.130.113' to 'jburati' so I can keep track of my contributions?

Jburati

Here you can see contributions by this IP Address:

http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=134.32.130.113

If you put this pages on your watchlist, you can always check if this pages are changed. Hope this helps ;-) Fantasy 08:34, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Please edit User talk:Tim Starling using that IP address or a similar one, without logging in, to confirm that you are actually the same person. Was the Julius Hoffman edit you as well? -- Tim Starling 07:55, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The Afonsos of Portugal

I'm redirecting the Alphonsos and Alfonsos to Afonso – the proper Portuguese spelling. Because: This Wikipedia is in English - Alfonso is Spanish and Alphonso old Spanish - Since neither is in English, the correct spelling is preferred because Portuguese is as good as language as Spanish - The Spanish kings are left as Alfonso - In this way, I think, everything is covered
Any objection, please mention it in my talk page. Cheers Muriel Gottrop 08:47, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Problem with a protected page

Can a sysop unprotect the page Wikipedia:Most wanted articles please. There is a formatting problem with it, which causes the html to show up, and I need to remove a page that I have started. Thanks. --Lypheklub 03:41, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

See wikipedia:protected page or Wikipedia talk:Most wanted articles for why this is protected. Lypheklub - you want Special:Wantedpages. Martin 08:48, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Help with Photoshop and PNGs

Moved to wikipedia:graphics tutorials

'Classroom-like' English literature question

Moved to Talk:Death of a Salesman.

For/against ordering

moved to wikipedia talk:establish context

Search Engine

deleted - answered at wikipedia:searching

Wikipedia's database schema

deleted - feature request - see wikipedia:bug reports

Can't find the article I wrote - and saved. HELP!

It's Rose O'Neal Greenhow. See Wikipedia:Searching

Flags and Coats of Arms

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Copyrights

Communication with developers

moved to wikipedia talk:bug reports

www.4reference.net

deleted - current status is at Wikipedia:Sites_that_use_Wikipedia_for_content

GFDL issues when moving between Wikipedias

moved to wikipedia talk:copyrights and repeated in part on the Simple Wikipedia

Tom Paine and Lewes

First time here so not sure how things work but I noticed a couple of things that might need attention. Paine started his career in Excise at Grantham, true, but he was promoted and went to Alford, Lincolnshire which I think came under the Horncastle office. He operated in the Alford Outride from the Windmill Hotel. It was from here that he was dismissed, not Grantham as stated. He was sacked in August 1765. On Radio4 bbc today there was a piece on the Headstrong Club which still meets at the Royal Oak, Lewes as in Paine's day. The piece on Lewes states the White Hart. I think you may be right and the BBC wrong, but i cannot verify it at the moment.

Stephen Kirby Louth Lincs bob.cat@context.go-plus.net

Be bold and change! :-) --Menchi 10:40, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Ditto, and next time you want to discuss or dispute the contents of a particular article, click on the "Discuss this page" link on the left. :-) —Frecklefoot 14:36, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Is it possible to post a very long http address?

The address <<http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/compass/ixbin/hixclient.exe?_IXDB_=compass&_IXFIRST_=1&_IXMAXHITS_=1&_IXSPFX_=graphical/full/&$+with+all_unique_id_index+is+$=ENC111861&submit-button=summary>>

when put into a link with the text "The British Museum's objects from the Temple of Artemis at Ephesos" yields:

The British Museum's objects from the Temple of Artemis at Ephesos

instead of the link. Is there a way around this apparent limitation on the length of an http address that can be included?

Goodness, what an ugly URL! :) The length isn't a problem at all (aside from a usability and aesthetic problem for the British Museum's visitors!), rather our parser doesn't seem to realize that the dollar sign is a valid character in a URL. (Neither did I; I had to look it up to be sure.) Until that's fixed, replace the $ with its numeric code: %24, it ought to work: The British Museum's objects from the Temple of Artemis at Ephesos --Brion 04:46, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks; added to Temple of Artemis.

When you move a discussion...

move to wikipedia talk:village pump

Can people please remember to update the list of moved discussions when they move a discussion off the page? It's hard work keeping the list up to date retrospectively. —Paul A 04:18, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I think it's a little nicer to have the moved notes inline, where the conversation used to be - easier to see where the discussion has gone. What do you think? Martin 09:32, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I partly agree but they can't stay there forever. Perhaps add a date when you remove something and then after a week remove the link as well? Angela 18:53, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Useless Redirects in Talk:

moved to wikipedia talk:redirect/delete

A little concern about editing

delete when read - further discussion to wikipedia talk:Replies to common objections

I just created an account and found myself able to edit pages. With this ability for new users, how do we know that the information after edition is correct? I have this concern that valuable information could be deleted or altered intentionally or accidentally. Does Wikipedia have some sort of check in place?

I think you can find the answer in Wikipedia:Replies to common objections - there are always others who will read the article later, and whenever a fact look dubious it will be researched. And we always have the editing history, so anything deleted or altered can still be traced back. andy 09:48, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

It sure does. We have a Supervising Editor who checks as many articles as possible, and adjusts them as appropriate. This editor's name is 65.148.122.196 (i.e., you). Also me. And every other Wikipedian. We all check each other's work as routine. Sometimes some horrible howlers slip through the net, but not often. Mostly, someone like you will spot the problem and either fix it (if you have the expertise) or at least bring it to the attention of someone who is a specialist in that field.

Welcome aboard, by the way. Stick around, it's a great place. Tannin

You don't even need a user account to edit articles. CGS 10:19, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC).

Difference between town and CDP

move to user talk:Rambot

Just recently someone created a new article about Farmington, Maine, and when I wondered why the county seat does not even have the automated entry yet I discovered there are in fact two, but both orphans. But what is the difference between Farmington (CDP), Maine and Farmington (town), Maine - I can see the numbers are different, but I don't know the meaning of CDP. And there are many more of the CDP/Town entries, which are not linked in the county articles. andy 09:32, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

As far as I understand, CDP means something like Census-Designated Place and is used only for counting people, not for administration. It probably includes the town proper plus some farms or settlements around. -- till we *) 11:50, Sep 3, 2003 (UTC)

Seems to be opposite, as the CDP has a smaller area and population then the town. But the actual question is: what to do with these entries? Merge them? Create redirects like Farmington, Maine (pointing to town, CDP, or both)? And how to find them all? Having red links in the counties and orphan articles is definitely not a good situation. andy 12:11, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

TV screenshots

move to Wikipedia talk:Image use policy/copyright

This is probably a stupid question, but does it violate copyright to upload images from television shows if I capture them? - Evil saltine 08:34, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Probably. Try our wikipedia:boilerplate request for permission. Martin 12:41, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I think TV newscasts are exempt from copyright. IANAL, but I seem to remember this a loophole in the copyright law. You can't plagerize them, but you may rebroadcast their content. You may want to research it further. —Frecklefoot 14:51, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Wouldn't a single screenshot qualify under fair use? --Dante Alighieri 01:37, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Hmmm... Wikipedia needs a lawyer. I found the thing about news (bottom of here), but that's not what i'm interested in. Evil saltine 05:10, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

This is a good site for fair use info Copyright and Fair Use, Stanford University Libraries. News images are generally exempt as being part of the historical record. Other images? Probably would be if you make sure to keep the attribution information (so that someone else can get permission later if it might not fall under fair use for a downstream licensee; not all subsequent uses under GFDL may qualify as fair use). I'd also put a caption on it somewhere directly accessible on the page (alt text maybe) i.e. "Broadcast image, Sept 4, 2003, CBS Television Network" and make sure that it is relevantly connected to the informational purpose of the article in which it appears. (putting a hidden note inside the article explaining why you think it is fair use is a good idea, i.e. <!-- this picture is relevant to this article because it shows how newscasting sets have evolved over the years --> ). BTW, IAAL, however, Wikipedia does not give legal advice (even to itself). Alex756 05:24, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Whatever you decide to do, describe what you did on the image description page. Martin 09:40, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Alexa

move to wikipedia talk:statistics

According to a recent Wikipedia:Announcement Wikipedia is as popular as Slashdot. I was quite surprised! Is it really true? Anyone know how Alexa measures popularity? I see they offer a toolbar to download... do they extrapolate data from toolbar downloaders? Are Wikipedians more likely to have a toolbar than other users? Alexa Website Pete 12:05, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Yes, everyone who have the Alexa toolbar installed effectively send the URL currently watched to the Alexa server, thus allowing them to monitor which sites are visited, and how often. How much valid these data are can of course be debated - those who worry about privacy will probably not install it for sure. But in the range of 1000th popular site I doubt that a few very active Wikipedians with toolbar can make that much change anymore, around the 100.000th it makes much more impact. andy 12:21, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Alexa installs by default, whether you want it or not, and without your permission, simply as part of a Windows install. Ad-Aware and other similar spyware protection programs disable it, however. Tannin 12:40, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the info guys. I wonder if the nature of Wikipedia, where each edit means two page views (or more if you preview!), has an inflationary effect on our figures. I am pretty sure if we got another slashdotting we would still have to batten down the hatches pretty hard because of weight of numbers. And Tannin, just to check.. did you mean Alexa is activiated with every installation of the Windows OS?? That's a lot of data! Pete 14:49, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Alexa does separate between page views (e.g. the numerous views in an edit process) and number of viewers (independent IP addresses) - and then adds both together in a magic formula to get the actual rank. But don't forget that a big percentage of viewers will not edit, but just view. andy 14:53, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Pete: this page (which I found more or less at random on Google) has quite a bit of detail. Someone should write this up for the 'pedia. I see (from another page) that here is a class action against Alexa pending. As spyware goes, there are worse ones. But just the same, I don't like people messing with my computer without my knowledge, and (I understand) neither does the law in most countries. I think Alexa is installed as part of Internet Explorer, rather than as part of Windows - not that that distinction makes much of a difference these days. Tannin

Re Pete, "nature of Wikipedia" - most users of Wikipedia never edit an article... Martin 19:22, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Wow I guess I had always just assumed that we were all writers and no writers... but Wikipedia:Statistics informs me that there are 40 page views per edit... This thread has certainly reduced my Doubting Thomas stance. Pete 23:28, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

It should also be noted that editing a page is a different thing from reading one. Thus it is fair to count it twice. --mav

New articles

Yay. 8 articles in the top 50 new articles created. =-) Really tired now though. :-( -- Alex.tan 13:03, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Lt Gen Bazilio Olara Okello

I recently saw a detailed article on Lt Gen Bazilio by a Col Joseph Ntare on your page, could you please kindly forward me this article.

James Tawny pill20001@yahoo.co.uk

Hello James. I assume you wrote the original article about the Lt.General (both you and the author have the same IP address). Your version of the article was removed from the encyclopedia because an editor decided that is wasn't written from a Neutral Point of View (a fundamental policy around here). Incidentally I tend to agree with her. The old version is still available from the archives (click here). You imply the article was written by Col Joseph Ntare and not yourself... if you don't have the copyright on the piece then it may have to be deleted from the archive too (I am not sure about this). See Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:NPOV to get the details of these sorts of policy issues. The current version of the article is at Lt Gen Bazilio Olara Okello. Pete 11:53, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Pete, I dont know the Lt General, the article was writien by my father using my computer, since it is of no use to you, I have checked your archives but could not find it.Could you please tell me what number it is under or could you simply forward it to me. I would also like to apologise on behalf of my Dad since the aarticle is of no use, accept my sincere apologise.

James Pill20001@yahoo.co.uk

Wikipedia really slow

When I began studying the Wikipedia almost a month ago, I noticed immediately that pages were usually slow to respond, and not infrequently failed to respond. Using the 'pedia has continued to be difficult:   I often give up. Creating and editing articles proved to be a challenge, too:   though I can - sort of - prepare materials outside the Wikipedia environment, there is usually considerable cross-work that can only be done within the database ... which again poses an access/usability problem.

Over the past month, conditions seem to be gradually deteriorating. Yesterday, the Wikipedia crashed and no editing could be done. There was a brief announcement, that a problem had occurred with an upgrade. However, the problem appears broader than that. There is, for example, the case of numerous dynamic pages that are now served from a cache:   formerly, they were valued tools, but now slow the encyclopedia excessively.

The issue is such that I have spent several lengthy sessions (slowly) searching for dicussions on Wikipedia that might shed some light on the matter, without success. Is there such a discussion, and/or might we have a detailed description of the status of the Wikipedia infrastructure, what the source(s) of difficulty are, and what is anticipated to be the situation/solution going forward? --Ted Clayton

I don't know what's causing it, but I agree it's a serious nuisanse. Perhaps Wikipedia needs beefed-up hardware, like aserver farm? If money is a problem, I'd be happy to see text ads on Wikipedia (like on Google) if that would help to provide the necessary resources. -- 217.155.199.100 21:02, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)

See Wikipedia:Donations. Angela 21:12, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)

I think Jimbo has just bought some new hardware. CGS 08:28, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC).

It comes and goes, but for the past week I've had to give up attempting to even log in. Slow is not the word. I get in so far and get a DNS error (essentially page could not be retreived before timing out). - Marshman

Yes, the situation is so bad it's surprising editing and other work continues at all:   I have actually checked Recent Changes just to see if other people are still able to do anything. How do the established Wikipedians get things done, manage the place? -- Ted Clayton 20:50, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)

High levels of patience. :) The other Wikipedias aren't so slow at the moment. Have a wander round those and see if you can add any interlanguage links. Angela 20:57, Sep 10, 2003 (UTC)

So, it's an acquired skill-set? I have noticed an increasing tolerance for punishment.  ;) Interlanguage - hmm. -- Ted Clayton 21:20, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I started a "project" on Wikibooks. When it gets impossible to edit here, I work on that one. It is usually very quiet over there, but lots of work to be done. - Marshman 00:40, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Alternative activities and projects are constructive - good suggestions!, but a direct request for a discussion of important technical matters remains unmet. Is it improper to raise - or respond to - the accessibility issues? Is the difficulty wrapped in a difficulty? -- Ted Clayton 04:16, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia really slow

move to wikipedia:lag

When I began studying the Wikipedia almost a month ago, I noticed immediately that pages were usually slow to respond, and not infrequently failed to respond. Using the 'pedia has continued to be difficult:   I often give up. Creating and editing articles proved to be a challenge, too:   though I can - sort of - prepare materials outside the Wikipedia environment, there is usually considerable cross-work that can only be done within the database ... which again poses an access/usability problem.

Over the past month, conditions seem to be gradually deteriorating. Yesterday, the Wikipedia crashed and no editing could be done. There was a brief announcement, that a problem had occurred with an upgrade. However, the problem appears broader than that. There is, for example, the case of numerous dynamic pages that are now served from a cache:   formerly, they were valued tools, but now slow the encyclopedia excessively.

The issue is such that I have spent several lengthy sessions (slowly) searching for dicussions on Wikipedia that might shed some light on the matter, without success. Is there such a discussion, and/or might we have a detailed description of the status of the Wikipedia infrastructure, what the source(s) of difficulty are, and what is anticipated to be the situation/solution going forward? --Ted Clayton

I don't know what's causing it, but I agree it's a serious nuisanse. Perhaps Wikipedia needs beefed-up hardware, like aserver farm? If money is a problem, I'd be happy to see text ads on Wikipedia (like on Google) if that would help to provide the necessary resources. -- 217.155.199.100 21:02, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)

See Wikipedia:Donations. Angela 21:12, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)

I think Jimbo has just bought some new hardware. CGS 08:28, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC).

It comes and goes, but for the past week I've had to give up attempting to even log in. Slow is not the word. I get in so far and get a DNS error (essentially page could not be retreived before timing out). - Marshman

Yes, the situation is so bad it's surprising editing and other work continues at all:   I have actually checked Recent Changes just to see if other people are still able to do anything. How do the established Wikipedians get things done, manage the place? -- Ted Clayton 20:50, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)

High levels of patience. :) The other Wikipedias aren't so slow at the moment. Have a wander round those and see if you can add any interlanguage links. Angela 20:57, Sep 10, 2003 (UTC)

So, it's an acquired skill-set? I have noticed an increasing tolerance for punishment.  ;) Interlanguage - hmm. -- Ted Clayton 21:20, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I started a "project" on Wikibooks. When it gets impossible to edit here, I work on that one. It is usually very quiet over there, but lots of work to be done. - Marshman 00:40, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Alternative activities and projects are constructive - good suggestions!, but a direct request for a discussion of important technical matters remains unmet. Is it improper to raise - or respond to - the accessibility issues? Is the difficulty wrapped in a difficulty? -- Ted Clayton 04:16, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

You can discuss technical issues at wikitech-l. There are also some pages on meta: m:Cache strategy, m:Main causes of lag, m:One-pass parser, etc. Martin 09:56, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The Village Pump introduces itself as the place to "...raise and try to answer Wikipedia-related questions and concerns regarding technical issues, policies, and operation in our community." (my emphasis) I have raised prominent and systemic technical issues that affect visitors, lay editors and advanced wikipedians alike. There are clear policy and operational considerations connected to these issues. All of these matters - the questions, the concerns, the policies, and the operations are all explicitly identified as the proper, and sole, purpose & content of the Village Pump.

The additional pages that you reference contain important information that helps me a lot. Searching had not uncovered these: thanks! There are links in those pages going to others, and others yet.. I'll explore, dig into the archives, sign up for WikiTech newsletters, and study.

The Village Pump is where these matters should be taken up, firstly. Specialize pages and mailing lists are vital, too, but the broad aspects of the Wikipedia accessibility issues belong in front of the general community of visitors, users, and editors. Perhaps the results of this discussion should be gathered into/under a page (with links to tech pages?) that remains readily & easily available, that rapidly brings newcomers and interested visitors up to speed or directs them as their interests lead.

Hmm .. I see this thread is now slated to be removed from the Village Pump to a place called Lag, wikipedia:lag. That takes it out of public view, before any actual discussion has even occurred. If the increasingly voluminous preliminaries to discussion need to be pared, let's do that and leave the thread here, with a link to Lag. -- Ted Clayton 15:02, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Ted -- stuff gets archived into FAQ pages sometimes -- Tarquin 17:01, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Thanks, Tarquin! I'll scan those. --Ted Clayton 21:05, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

• re: the results of this discussion should be gathered into/under a page: Good idea. Are you volunteering? Angela

I would be the chief suspect. ;) An actual discussion of the matters should be taking place (it hasn't, yet), in a readily accessible, familiar location, and an appropriate place for the link selected, so that it remains in evidence to all comers. But yes, I'll do the work.

A link to such a place would be retired/archived when the issues become history.

• re: slated to be removed: How else can you stop this page getting too big? Meta is probably a better place to discuss these issues as it affects all Wikipedias, not just en:. Angela

I am only now becoming familiar with the existence of Meta, after a month. Village Pump is the prominently advertised & self-identified location for public matters. This appears to me to be the forum attended by the affected audience.

I do see that this discussion about a possible discussion is getting long, and we need to keep Village Pump usable. But Lag is mostly the record of a problem from a year ago, and it's functionally invisible.

If we move this stuff somewhere, but keep a header, intro and link here, that would be fine: can that work? And make new entries as old ones get large and should be moved? I do in principle like the generality/internationality implied by Meta. Do you think a compendium page such as we mentioned above should be in Meta? -- Ted Clayton 16:55, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

A permanent link from here to the lag discussion (which I do think should be at Meta) would be useful as it is a recurring question. Thank you for taking on this task. Angela 19:29, Sep 11, 2003 (UTC)

My pleasure! Do I recall that you must perform the move, Angela? A link in the list beneath the Village Pump introductory paragraph?:

• Is Wikipedia Really Slow? -- Ted Clayton 21:05, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Random Pages

I used to use the Random Page button as a good way of finding an interesting article that I never knew about before. Recently I've been finding that about 50% of the time I get one of those pages about a tiny US town; you know the ones, all identically formatted and giving the same statistics. These pages should be on Wikipedia, but is there a way of getting them removed from the random page generator? Presumably there must be about 75,000 if them if I'm getting them this often. DJ Clayworth 15:26, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Only 30,000 IIRC. See User:Rambot for more info. I don't know if it's possible to remove them from the random page generator though. Angela 15:36, Sep 11, 2003 (UTC)

I don't think it would be too hard to have Random Page ignore articles for which Rambot is the last editor. Maybe a developer could look into that. -- Cyan 17:35, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I get that too, sometimes 10 or 12 in a row...why should they be on there, though? Does a village of 100 people need an article? Adam Bishop 15:39, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

No kidding. Find a few small towns, like ones with less than 1000 people, and put a Votes for Deletion notice. See what happens. I think that would create an interesting debate about the usefulness of those articles. That is the great thing about Wikipedia, that articles get created by real people when they want to create one. Having a robot make 30,000 articles about US towns is stupid. Look at La_Crosse, Florida, population 143. Useful information in that article: none. There are 62 households in that town!!! Jesus, if we want to take it another step, I could take my home town, Richmond, British Columbia pop. >150,000 and divide it into sub areas: Brighouse, Broadmoor, Steveston, East Richmond, West Richmond, Cambie, etc... Anyways, I always noticed how lots of US towns came up after pressing the random page button...I just never actually LOOKED closely at the articles themselves before. So many towns are "rinky-dink" and there is no useful information on the page (for example if you wanted to travel to that town). dave 15:56, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Well, they should be here alright ... this and other high-page-count data-sets that are available and easily installed in the Wikipedia. They may be yawners, but they belong. But they do detract from Random Page, which is otherwise a neat feature. Another issue with such pages is they can pose the appearance of gratuitously inflating the article count. At least recognize that Random Page is worthwhile (and popular), but needs help, and keep that need on the list going forward? -- Ted Clayton 16:09, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

"this and other high-page-count data-sets" belong here? I beg to differ and I think Wikipedia policy might as well. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not...one thing it is not is "Mere collections of public domain or other source material". IMHO, the articles of 30,000 US could be described as a mere collection of source material. The thing is, if we allow robots to add high-page-count data-sets such as this, where does it end? Should all towns in the world with population of over 1 be added to Wikipedia. I think http://www.wikiatlas.org would be better suited for this. dave 17:20, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Well, yes, the spec offers this sanction. But the leaders also post a prominent page full of public domain and other sources, and instruct us on how to go about converting them to Wikipedia content. It is obvious that we are encouraged - and are explicitely within our rights - to make use of public and open sources. -- Ted Clayton 17:59, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Two questions. First, is the information from these articles available on another site in the same form; if so then maybe Wiki shouldn't duplicate. Alternatively could these all be filed to a subproject? DJ Clayworth 16:25, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

see my reply to Ted above. dave

Wikipedia materials need not be original or unique; those are not requirements. Although we should try to write appealing pieces, try to make the place cool, this is a collection of information that already exists. Some articles are created fresh by editor/authors, but others contain information copied - legitimately - from many sources. It's ok that information gathered here is available elsewhere too. -- Ted Clayton 17:59, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I don't really think the random page feature should be tweaked, nor do I think it should remove US cities from it's possible list of choices. If it is called random it should stay random. If people don't like the disproportionate number of US town articles, then they should be removed. dave 17:20, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The auto-addition of the town articles was probably not a good idea, but now that they're there, it's an amusing game (to diehard Wikipedians anyway) to add more about these towns. Many of them are the birthplaces or residences of people with articles already, or the town has a historical significance. Also, some towns are more important than the population figures suggest; Prudhoe Bay, Alaska for instance. The only towns for which deletion might be justified are the ones with no provable significance, which means you have to research them anyway just to find that out. Stan 17:29, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I agree on some things. But I do not think it is necessary to prove that a town has no significance before you can delete it's article. dave 17:37, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Maybe later we can update our software so that users can set their own range of "Random" -wshun 17:38, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

We could make the "Skip Rambot-added articles" feature an option in Preferences. That would make everybody happy... (or do I speak to soon?) -- Cyan 17:43, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

In the case of some large, well-defined data sets, such as the Dictionary, separate wikis have been made, pulling that stuff out of the main wiki. Town information is part of GIS, Geographical Information Systems, the modern form of traditional cartography and mapping. Ultimately, such material would be a fabulous addition to the Wikipedia, and indeed would include street and house and fire hydrant information for Richmond, BC and Tuktoyuktuk, NWT (or is it Nunavut?). Such a development may well warrant a distinct wiki. -- Ted Clayton 17:55, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Robots and other forms of automated content addition raise many issues. They might make Wikipedia grow faster than the software and hardware can support. They might make it boring and dull. But this is the age of computers, and grappling with the issues the tools introduce, rather than just chucking the tool because there are issues, leaves us in a position to use powerful means to really move the project forward dramatically. In the big picture. -- Ted Clayton 18:10, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I agree. It would be nice if the Rambot had of added the demographics to all US towns which already had a Wikipedia article for it. However, to create 30,000 articles, some of them useless little towns (I don't think some of the residents would even mind that comment) was a bit much. It's just stupid to have article with a demographics section and no proper introduction or any other important information! It's like a stub. dave 18:21, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Yes, it's like a stub. But we don't delete stubs by policy, either. Another point is that adding all these entries gets them CORRECTLY entered into the database, spelled right, and gets some critical factual information into them that might otherwise never get added. Overall, I just don't get the mindset on here that's constantly going round wanting to delete good information from the system just because it's 'not interesting enough'. Wiki is not paper, and all that. Nothing is being pushed out. --Morven 22:25, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Good point, Dave: these impoverished entries are just like stubs. I see a lot of guide-pages on the stub issue, going 'round & 'round. We wanna do stubs, to frame things out, but they're disappointing when ya follow a link and it's nothing but a scrap. If we look at the existing town entries as a stub-issue, that puts it in a recognized work/problem/policy pile, eh? -- Ted Clayton 18:40, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Yes, thanks you've really helped me realize that this really is a stub issue and that's how it should be handled. Putting all of these on the stub alert page might bring attention to them there. Part of me feels that Rambot (aka Ram-man) is responsible, so Ram-man should make a robot to go and add his pages to the stub page. Or, that he should maintain a list of all town pages which are currently stubs. But who is motivated enough to change all these stubs into something less stubly? Not me. If the robot is smart enough (or dumb enough :-)) to create these pages in the first place, then it should be smart enough to delete them all, and then to append the demographic information at a later date for new city pages that get created. This is what I would do in my ideal world. dave 22:59, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Well, for what it is worth I just clicked Random Page 10 times in a row and got exactly one Rambot created page: Martin, Georgia, on the 8th click. Not worth much, but an observation. -- RTC 18:14, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

You were lucky. I could not get to number two before the Server refused to give up a page. It is bad enough that editing is becoming serriously problematic on Wikipedia, but would anyone use this as an information source if links regularly yield "page unavailable due to DNS error". Please fix - Marshman 18:53, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Please see & participate in, Wikipedia Really Slow, on this Village Pump page. -- Ted Clayton 19:15, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

We agree Random Page is nifty. But if there is a substantial load of 'boring' entries, those aren't what we're after. Ordinarily, a feeble entry for Queets WA USA isn't an issue, because you'll never kick it up (unless maybe you're planning to drive Highway 101 on the Olympic Peninsula. Or paddle the Northwest Passage, and pull into Tuktoyuktuk NWT CA. Usually, such seemingly boring places (and I have it from impeccable sources that both those no-count towns can deliver life-changing experiences ;) do not affect anyone's use or enjoyment of Wikipedia.

We already have efforts to install large numbers of people-names, and large numbers of dates back into history. Other large sets are coming, especially after the delivery platform gets beefed. These are additional examples of sets that Random Page will 'dredge up'. Yet they're valuable. It appears that what many of us really want in Random Page is an 'interest filter': it should return things that will interest ... me! Gimme a cookie to save my preferences! :) -- Ted Clayton 19:15, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

One more set of useless tests: on another 10 clicks of Random Page I got 2 town or city and 1 county entrys by Rambot (the County entry has a map ans some external links): Alta Vista, Kansas (1st click), Cuba (town), New York (4th click), Phillips County, Montana (7th click). I also hit a couple of single sentence stub entries on other subjects (neither of which had stub notices). -- RTC 21:00, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Humble, yes, useless, no. Homely tests resemble bot-stubs: they ain't flashy, but they're solid contributions anyway. Cyan made a practical suggestion; tweak Preferences to filter RamBot entries: this is easy, eh? Cyan, would it also be simple to set a Length value for Random Page? -- Ted Clayton 21:24, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps we should exclude links that are shown in purple (it's an option for showing stub articles) from the random queue. CGS 22:23, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC).

CGS, I have to respectfully disagree. One of Random Page's most useful aspects is that it allows an editor to fall fortuitously into a stub which might otherwise lie undisturbed for the next several Presidential administrations. If given the choice, I'd actually rather randomly jump _only_ to stubs: after all, randomly arriving at a decent article rarely gives pause, but randomly finding a stub one can fix is a pleasure. Just my two cents...Jwrosenzweig 22:38, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia really slow

to be moved to Meta

When I began studying the Wikipedia almost a month ago, I noticed immediately that pages were usually slow to respond, and not infrequently failed to respond. Using the 'pedia has continued to be difficult:   I often give up. Creating and editing articles proved to be a challenge, too:   though I can - sort of - prepare materials outside the Wikipedia environment, there is usually considerable cross-work that can only be done within the database ... which again poses an access/usability problem.

Over the past month, conditions seem to be gradually deteriorating. Yesterday, the Wikipedia crashed and no editing could be done. There was a brief announcement, that a problem had occurred with an upgrade. However, the problem appears broader than that. There is, for example, the case of numerous dynamic pages that are now served from a cache:   formerly, they were valued tools, but now slow the encyclopedia excessively.

The issue is such that I have spent several lengthy sessions (slowly) searching for dicussions on Wikipedia that might shed some light on the matter, without success. Is there such a discussion, and/or might we have a detailed description of the status of the Wikipedia infrastructure, what the source(s) of difficulty are, and what is anticipated to be the situation/solution going forward? --Ted Clayton

I don't know what's causing it, but I agree it's a serious nuisanse. Perhaps Wikipedia needs beefed-up hardware, like aserver farm? If money is a problem, I'd be happy to see text ads on Wikipedia (like on Google) if that would help to provide the necessary resources. -- 217.155.199.100 21:02, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)

See Wikipedia:Donations. Angela 21:12, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)

I think Jimbo has just bought some new hardware. CGS 08:28, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC).

It comes and goes, but for the past week I've had to give up attempting to even log in. Slow is not the word. I get in so far and get a DNS error (essentially page could not be retreived before timing out). - Marshman

Yes, the situation is so bad it's surprising editing and other work continues at all:   I have actually checked Recent Changes just to see if other people are still able to do anything. How do the established Wikipedians get things done, manage the place? -- Ted Clayton 20:50, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)

High levels of patience. :) The other Wikipedias aren't so slow at the moment. Have a wander round those and see if you can add any interlanguage links. Angela 20:57, Sep 10, 2003 (UTC)

So, it's an acquired skill-set? I have noticed an increasing tolerance for punishment.  ;) Interlanguage - hmm. -- Ted Clayton 21:20, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I started a "project" on Wikibooks. When it gets impossible to edit here, I work on that one. It is usually very quiet over there, but lots of work to be done. - Marshman 00:40, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Alternative activities and projects are constructive - good suggestions!, but a direct request for a discussion of important technical matters remains unmet. Is it improper to raise - or respond to - the accessibility issues? Is the difficulty wrapped in a difficulty? -- Ted Clayton 04:16, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

You can discuss technical issues at wikitech-l. There are also some pages on meta: m:Cache strategy, m:Main causes of lag, m:One-pass parser, etc. Martin 09:56, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The Village Pump introduces itself as the place to "...raise and try to answer Wikipedia-related questions and concerns regarding technical issues, policies, and operation in our community." (my emphasis) I have raised prominent and systemic technical issues that affect visitors, lay editors and advanced wikipedians alike. There are clear policy and operational considerations connected to these issues. All of these matters - the questions, the concerns, the policies, and the operations are all explicitly identified as the proper, and sole, purpose & content of the Village Pump.

The additional pages that you reference contain important information that helps me a lot. Searching had not uncovered these: thanks! There are links in those pages going to others, and others yet.. I'll explore, dig into the archives, sign up for WikiTech newsletters, and study.

The Village Pump is where these matters should be taken up, firstly. Specialize pages and mailing lists are vital, too, but the broad aspects of the Wikipedia accessibility issues belong in front of the general community of visitors, users, and editors. Perhaps the results of this discussion should be gathered into/under a page (with links to tech pages?) that remains readily & easily available, that rapidly brings newcomers and interested visitors up to speed or directs them as their interests lead.

Hmm .. I see this thread is now slated to be removed from the Village Pump to a place called Lag, wikipedia:lag. That takes it out of public view, before any actual discussion has even occurred. If the increasingly voluminous preliminaries to discussion need to be pared, let's do that and leave the thread here, with a link to Lag. -- Ted Clayton 15:02, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Ted -- stuff gets archived into FAQ pages sometimes -- Tarquin 17:01, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Thanks, Tarquin! I'll scan those. --Ted Clayton 21:05, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

• re: the results of this discussion should be gathered into/under a page: Good idea. Are you volunteering? Angela

I would be the chief suspect. ;) An actual discussion of the matters should be taking place (it hasn't, yet), in a readily accessible, familiar location, and an appropriate place for the link selected, so that it remains in evidence to all comers. But yes, I'll do the work.

A link to such a place would be retired/archived when the issues become history.

• re: slated to be removed: How else can you stop this page getting too big? Meta is probably a better place to discuss these issues as it affects all Wikipedias, not just en:. Angela

I am only now becoming familiar with the existence of Meta, after a month. Village Pump is the prominently advertised & self-identified location for public matters. This appears to me to be the forum attended by the affected audience.

I do see that this discussion about a possible discussion is getting long, and we need to keep Village Pump usable. But Lag is mostly the record of a problem from a year ago, and it's functionally invisible.

If we move this stuff somewhere, but keep a header, intro and link here, that would be fine: can that work? And make new entries as old ones get large and should be moved? I do in principle like the generality/internationality implied by Meta. Do you think a compendium page such as we mentioned above should be in Meta? -- Ted Clayton 16:55, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

A permanent link from here to the lag discussion (which I do think should be at Meta) would be useful as it is a recurring question. Thank you for taking on this task. Angela 19:29, Sep 11, 2003 (UTC)

My pleasure! Do I recall that you must perform the move, Angela? A link in the list beneath the Village Pump introductory paragraph?:

• Is Wikipedia Really Slow? -- Ted Clayton 21:05, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

It isn't possible to move a page from here to Meta in the proper way. You have to use the cut and paste method. There is already a m:Why wikipedia runs slow page over there with not much in it so far, so you may want to add this text to that page rather than create a new one. Angela 23:09, Sep 11, 2003 (UTC)

Google Ads

I'm wondering what people would think about adding Google Ads to Wikipedia. It would help support Wikipedia and I find them relatively unobtrusive and sometimes useful. An option could be included to turn them off or, even to have them off by default. I wonder how Wikipedia is currently funded. Is there a better place to post this? Ezra Wax

See m:Advertising on Wikipedia. Should be discussed at Talk:Advertising on Wikipedia. Angela

Jordan History and Geography Questions

Would like the reason and history of the numerous Rock Walls east of Azraq ?

Who was the Hiden in Wadi Hiden?

Requested by awheiden@aol.com

possible effect?

Is there any basis to support a theory that hormones in sperm may effect muscle tone in the female??

The place to ask questions that aren't related to the operation and nature of Wikipedia is at the Wikipedia:Reference desk. --Robert Merkel 13:29, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I agree the reference desk is a perfect place for this. If we didn't have the reference desk, then I guess the village pump would be the only place for it. dave 20:01, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I think we should rename the village pump. It's meant to be like the office water cooler, right? Don't people talk about TV soaps and stuff round the water cooler, not office work? I've never worked in an office, so I wouldn't know. CGS 15:23, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC).

...having said that, the pump is a verritable institution and should stay. CGS 15:27, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC).

No, people bitch about their colleagues around the water cooler. We've got Wikipedia:Problem users for that. Angela 16:48, Sep 12, 2003 (UTC)

Leave well enough alone IMO. Remember the fun we had when it was moved once before? Andrewa 16:55, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

These are things I've heard, not sure if they are true, and actually I'm really interested in knowing if these are myths or fact:

1. Testosterone, a hormone, plays a role in muscle growth
2. Men have significantly more testosterone than women do
3. Testosterone is produced in the testes, though I don't know if testosterone has anything to do with sperm, as you implied in your question.

Jordan History and Geography Questions

1). What is the reason and history of the numeros Rock Walls east of Azraq?

2). Who was the Hiden in Wadi Hiden?

requested by: awheiden@aol.com

Are you the same person who asked about testosterone? This is not the right place to ask this! You want Wikipedia:Reference desk. If you keep on doing this you risk people thinking you're a troll. CGS 22:09, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Case sensitivity

Is there a page where case sensitivity is being debated actively? It drives me nuts, in the age of Google, where nobody is accustomed to case sensitivity except for C programmers and Unix hackers, and I'd like to read any reasonable argument for retaining case sensitivity. tempshill

This is an encyclopædia. It has to use precise an accurate terminology. In many many cases using upper or lower case is crucial. proportional representation means either the electoral system called PR or a general system of election based on proportionality. Proportional Representation is the proper name of the electoral system and nothing else. government of France means the generic governance of France, Government of France means the formal constitutional system or the actual current government ruling in France. republic of Ireland means Ireland is a republic, Republic of Ireland is the formal name of the RofI, not merely a system of governance. king is different to King, kingdom means something different to Kingdom, president of the United States something different to President of the United States; Washington wasn't the first of the former, but was the first of the latter, ie, people called 'presidents' existed after independence, but they weren't head of state and never President of the United States. President of the United States means a specific, narrow and singular constitutional office. No encyclopædia would contemplate abandoning case sensitivity, as it denotes the difference between the specific and the general, the proper noun and the generic term. That is particularly the case in British English, Hiberno-English and other non-American forms, all of which pay far more heed to the use of capitalisation than seems fashionable in American English. And, as so often needs to be said, wiki is not an American encyclopædia, it is a world one. FearÉIREANN 20:06, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Some people disambiguate through case. I think this is a very bad idea. Red Dwarf and Red dwarf are were totally different articles until I made them into Red Dwarf (television) and Red dwarf star. Try explaining that to a newb. CGS 18:30, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC).

But it was OK as it was. You broke all the links when you made the new pages. They have been broken for over a month now - when are you going to get around to fixing them? (You should have changed the links first, that way nothing gets broken.) --Zundark 16:06, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I'd disagree that it was OK as it was -- disambiguating through case is horrid. By the links being broken, I assume you mean them ending up at a disambiguation page, because that's what going to Red Dwarf or Red dwarf seems to do right now ... --Morven 08:27, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Yes, the links used to go to the correct pages, but now they don't. And disambiguating through case worked well in this case - if someone wrote "Red Dwarf" or "red dwarf" and then put brackets around it, a link to the correct page was produced. If someone does that now they will get an incorrect link (and often will not notice that it's incorrect, because most people don't test every link they make). So, even if he had bothered to fix the links, what Cgs has done is not very sensible. The pages should be moved back. --Zundark 12:48, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

For instructions on submitting feature requests, see wikipedia:bug reports. Better yet, become a developer, and do it yourself :) Martin 18:57, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I submitted this as a bug and then saw that a duplicate of my bug had been answered by the developers: This is not a bug, it is a controversial design decision. So, my question is, where is this discussed? Thanks. tempshill

It's been discussed many times in many places over the last year or so. I can't find them at the moment, so here's a summary of some issues: m:case insensitivity. --Brion 02:37, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Move page request

Could a sysop move Web log to Weblog? See Talk:Web log for the discussion. --seav 11:04, Sep 6, 2003 (UTC)

Done. Stupidly I lost my head and lost the history of the talk page. I'll know better for next time. Pete 11:40, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The history isn't lost. It's still there. Should it be merged via the deletion/undeletion method? I would do it but I already messed up some of these recently so I'm avoiding them for now. Angela 18:14, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Cyan the expert page history merger has sorted this out.

WOG

Has anyone out there heard of the term "wog" deriving from a shortening of the phrase "Westernised Oriental Gentleman" I have read the entry in Wikipedia, but it doesn't mention the phrase above. can anyone help ?

                               Beverley.
                                      11/09/03

It is very much discouraged these days to use that expression in Britain, Beverley, and quite rightly too. It really belongs into a dictionary rather than an encyclopedia, and then only with the caveat slang and derogatory. According to most dictionaries it is derived from golliwog, a little ragdoll with a black face, which is now no longer depicted. Dieter Simon 23:06, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I think our article on wog is reasonable, and it does in fact mention it possibly being derived from "Westernised Oriental Gentleman". --Camembert

Yes, fair enough, by all means feature it, although I have now added a cautionary para to the article to the same effect as the above. I don't think it is quite fair to make out the Brits are still the dyed-in-the-wool colonialists they were once depicted as. Dieter Simon

Sorry about my misspelling your name :), Camembert.

No problem :) --Camembert

---

Is there any reason why redirects are generally put in capital letters? I mean, most redirects since I arrived here have been in the form "#REDIRECT foo" rather than "#redirect foo", and that being the prevailing way of doing things has led me to do it like that as well. But is there any practical reason for it, or was there ever? --Camembert

Orphan images

How can I find a list of images that have been uploaded to Wikipedia but not included in any articles? RickK 01:01, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Special:Unusedimages. --Menchi 01:09, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Book recommendations

There is a new school-wide program at the High School where I teach that allows me to assign outside reading to students. I am amassing a reading list of fiction and non-fiction books that relate to U.S. history. If you have any recommendations, if there are books you think *all* U.S. teens should read, please post them at my Reading List. Kingturtle 18:18, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

A conflict of interest?

I am putting the finshing touches on a site with links, photos, and reviews of Web Browsers for Windows. I am wanting to link the site from the main web browser article. Would this be a conflict of interest since I edit here? --hoshie 06:31, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

• If it's a page about web browsers as opposed to a site trying to sell them then it's probably ok. I don't think the issue is one of conflict of interest, but more on whether it passes the What Wikipedia is not test in regards to point 18: "Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising". Angela 07:08, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Angela, Thanks for your answer. The site will be about browsers. Nothing will be sold. --hoshie 07:33, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

• Move page request - deleted, done by Pete andCyan

Formatting Discipline "markers"

I have been trying out a form of formatting to make disciplinary markers stand out, expecially in text that covers more than one discipline. The problem is expecially notable in the natural sciences where an article may cover several disciplines, each with their own "take" on the subject. I have been doing editing in Botany on types of fruit, and almost every discussion has at least two (botanical and culinaty) points of view. I think this is great for learning, but it does require that I indicate where a definition or discussion is botanical and where it is culinary, since the two are frequently just plain at odds. I see similar "conflicts" throughout the natural sciences where there is always a "common" parlance and a scientific one. My suggestion can be seen on any of the Fruit pages where parts of the text are indicated as either BOTANY or CUISINE (for food or culinary information). This rendering is not obtrusive, and cautions the reader that more than one description may be present. Or the student of Botany (for example) can key in quickly on the botanical definition. Any comments (and I do not want to here how hard it is to format ~ it is not <tt> is in the Wikipedia style manual). - Marshman 00:45, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

A content categorisation system is about to be brought online (it's currently on the test server) which will achieve what you seem to be aiming for...

James F. 01:37, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I suggest headers Martin 22:33, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)~

Citing WP

I remember seeing a detailed page on how to cite WP. But all I find now is Wikipedia:Readers'_FAQ#How_do_I_cite_a_Wikipedia_article_in_a_paper?. (Somebody asked at Talk:Interjection) --Menchi 00:28, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Parser error

Hi, there seems to be a parsing error on Wikipedia:Sites that use Wikipedia for content

the ===='s are not being parsed as wiki code on the last heading. It's not rendering the wiki-code. Anyone have a work around for this? { MB | マイカル } 19:31, Sep 5, 2003 (UTC)

The problem is that the text inside the heading has an additional = - however it seems like exchanging the = with %3d as its URL encoded version doesn't help, then the URL does not work anymore. andy 19:37, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I tried &#61; instead of %3D and that seems to work. Least it works in my browser, it might not be a universal fix, I don't really know. --Camembert

How Do I Add An External Link With A Dollar Sign In It?

Hi Guys!

How do i add an external link with a dollar sign in it? Here's an example URL:

http://www.aish.com/spirituality/growth/Path_of_the_Soul_2__How_Much_Space_Do_You_Take$.asp

Thanx

Dave

You have to URL-encode the characters, i.e. exchange them with %hexcode - so your URL then is http://www.aish.com/spirituality/growth/Path_of_the_Soul_2__How_Much_Space_Do_You_Take%24.asp andy 15:23, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Latin American project

Hello. I am interrested in Latin America and want to create a new project for Latin America. There, I will put a list of articles to create, articles to expand, articles to translate (from Spanish, French mainly), a list of people who want to help, etc. What do you think about such a project? --Youssefsan 14:46, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I have just started Wikipedia:WikiProject Latin America countries. Any critc, idea, comment are welcome. -- Youssef 16:53, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Eurovision

I am thinking of creating a user guide to help people around the Eurovision articles I am doing/improving. It would help people undertsnd what each section was about, I would probably use Wikipedia:Eurovision Song Contest user guide for the page. Do others think this is a good Idea? - fonzy

Keep the title short and memorable: Wikipedia:Eurovision. Martin 19:22, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

No way. Eurovision has more meanings than just the song contest. They just having been put on wiki yet, as they are rather technical and obsure, but may end up on wiki at some stage. Putting the song contest at Eurovision simply because it is the most widely known term would be as wrong as putting putting 'president of the US' at 'president', because most people when they hear the word president think of the US president. FearÉIREANN 20:06, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Put links with explanation in Eurovision Song Contest (as far as they are not there yet) - Patrick 12:27, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

No, make a wikiproject: Wikipedia:WikiProject Eurovision. LDan 23:28, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Oh, I guess you already did.LDan 23:28, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

• Case sensitivity -> m:Case insensitivity

My Watch List?

'Discovered' Wikipedia about 3 weeks ago, registered, studied, wrote a few articles. Built up a Watch List, but after week-long work-absence, find that it is now empty. Am I doing something wrong? I'm successfully logged in... Thanks! Ted Clayton

Hi Ted, it seems you are not logged in. Your contributions to this page are showing up as two IP numbers in the 65.193 range. Check you have cookies enabled and try logging in again. Have a look at Wikipedia:How to log in for more instructions. Angela 15:18, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Jason

On a separate point in response to the exchange above, just who is this "Jason" guy?

I get this image of someone in a goalie mask gently tapping the computer with the obverse side of a lumberjacks axe.

Unless this "Jason" is just a convenient metaphor, why not take a bow?

-- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 07:19, Sep 10, 2003 (UTC)

I believe "Jason" is Jason Richey, a programmer for Bomis. See also User:Jasonr. Angela 19:23, Sep 10, 2003 (UTC)

it.wikipedia.com offline

http://it.wikipedia.com/ gives "The page you are looking for is currently unavailable." Where is the best place to report something like this? Thanks, Fantasy 14:19, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The server hosting all the *.wikipedia.com wikis is offline at the moment. :( It's being looked into, hopefully should be back up within a day. (Apparently it won't come up on a remote reboot, so Jason the tech guy has to go in to the colocation center and bang on it in person.) --Brion 16:45, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Broken page move: Codetalkers

User:David Martland has moved the codetalkers article to code talkers using copy-and-paste, leaving the edit history behind. What is the way to fix this? —Paul A 06:32, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The procedure is explained at Wikipedia:How to rename (move) a page#Fixing cut and paste moves but can only be done by admins, which is what I believe Hephaestos is doing right now. Angela 06:38, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Standards, dammit!

Hello, everyone. (Well, almost.) Ive made a little treatment of a pertinent issue to all Wikipedians everywhere (including the dead and not-yet-born) its at m:Academic standards kick. Please make any necessary corrections. -戴&#30505sv 04:19, Sep 7, 2003 (UTC)

List of people

There are many lists of people in Wikipedia, and many more are coming. Most are useful, but many are just "rubbish". Of course, whether a list is useful could never be really NPOV, but we should have better ways to avoid any potential conflict.

Is it possible for us to generate such lists automatically? If it is possible, then (1)all our current lists are more complete as they includes every people mentioned in Wikipedia and (2)Whether a list is useful or not is none of anyone's business, for it is generated on the fly.

--Wshun

Yes, it will be possible to generate these lists automatically with the soon to be activated category system.—Eloquence 01:31, Sep 7, 2003 (UTC)

HBO Boxing champions

I wanted to post a List of world champions who have boxed on HBO (HBO Boxing) but I dont know if such a list would constitute advertisement to that show. What do you think?

Antonio El Sexymeter Martin

Why not just put the list at HBO Boxing? I don't think it needs a separate article. The value of a "List of foos" article is that it pulls together many disparate elements when such a list has no appropriate home elsewhere. For example, Marketing contains both general information about marketing as well as an extensive list of marketing subtopics -- so there is no need for a List of marketing topics (in my opinion anyway). -- Cyan 06:20, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

On second thought, maybe not. There are more than 150 world champions who have fought at HBO!. -- Antonio Bestial One Martin

Penis and Vulva photos

It's strange that photos of Penis are allowed but photos of Vulva have been removed, though both originate from the same site (alt.sex FAQ, http://www.luckymojo.com/faqs/altsex/ ) -- 210.214.131.161 18:47, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The original photographs seem okay to me, but I am sure that some people are offended by one or the other (or both), depending on their sensibilities. The classic cop-out (or solution, depending again on your POV) is to include drawings rather than photographs. For some reason, it offends a lot fewer people. Daniel Quinlan 13:51, Sep 9, 2003 (EDT)

People could be offended by photos of penuses too, through...not that I would be (I wouldnt be offended by a photo of a vulva either, you know me!) but some puritans might be like a photo of the male private part is degrading to young girls or something...Antonio Sexually Graphic Martin

It is not a problem. Simply a link to the photos instead posting directly on the article should be a solution. But I suppose the real problem is copyright, isn't it? wshun 04:29, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I'm new here at Wikipedia, is this censorship, or is there a technical/copyright reason for this? Does Wikipedia practice censorship? Sure, random acts of Vugal Vandalism should be removed, but if an image, etc, has something to do with the article it's posted too, and there aren't legal questions, why censor it? I know I'm asking some heavy questions here, but can anyone point me to some Talk pages and articles about it? Thanks. --Flockmeal 02:59, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

New language

Can be created a new an.wikipedia.org (Aragonese)? This type of projects can make alive the endangered languages.

Wikipedia:Create a new language in Wikipedia details some of what must be done in order to create a new language Wikipedia. It would probably be a lot of work, so it'd be best if you can find other people that know the language also. Good luck! -- Wapcaplet 21:14, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Alternative to floated info blocks

Someone's been putting floated DIVs in some history articles with a list of key events. Having a clear list of key points is good -- but the HTML bloat in the source required to produce the float is not worth it in my opinion (see my recent mailing list post on the matter). I've tried an alternative at Taisho period. What do people think? "In Detail" is a really yucky heading, so if anyone can think of better ... please do! -- Tarquin 15:35, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

That someone is me. Despite what I have been saying, now I complately concur with you. What particularly I like is that if a list of key events sits in a section, it is easy to edit that second with a new Wikipedia editing feature. -- Taku 17:09, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Do you play Sheepshead?

If you know how to play sheepshead, and you have some spare time, please merge the content of the following pages into the main article and turn them all into redirects. (God knows *I* can't make heads or tails of it at this hour.)

1. Sheepshead/blind
2. Sheepshead/cheat-sheet
3. Sheepshead/Leasters
4. Sheepshead/long
5. Sheepshead/schmear
6. Sheepshead/schneider
7. Sheepshead/variations
8. Sheepshead/walk

Thanks, Cyan 05:17, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

What's happening with wikipedia.com?

Now, if you go to it.wikipedia.com thaere is another page called ClubHouse. Llull

http://tvclubhouse.bomis.com/ to be more specific. Angela

That server's been having problems lately; it looks like the virtual server configuration is now broken. :( I'll ask if we can just pull the remaining old-software wikipedias off there and onto the main Wikipedia server... --Brion 20:45, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)

While youre at it, you might see about qualifying for special relocation funds from Wikimedia to be closer to the server. -戴&#30505sv

Hey, give me enough money to buy food with, and I'll gladly live in a closet next to the server. Seriously. -- Jake 02:56, 2003 Sep 11 (UTC)

Sounds a great idea. Me too. Angela 03:07, Sep 11, 2003 (UTC)

I make funny joke. But its amazing how hard it seems to just get the server reset, innit? -戴&#30505sv

Any news about the old server? Andres 10:07, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The news is that it is bound for that big serverfarm in the sky. Requiescat In Pace. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 11:21, Sep 12, 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia really slow

Conversation getting too long. Summarised below and moved to m:Why Wikipedia runs slow. Please continue the discussion there. Angela

• Wikipedia is slow and things are deteriorating. Yesterday, the Wikipedia crashed and no editing could be done. There was a brief announcement, that a problem had occurred with an upgrade. However, the problem appears broader than that. There is, for example, the case of numerous dynamic pages that are now served from a cache: formerly, they were valued tools, but now slow the encyclopedia excessively. Ted Clayton
• Perhaps Wikipedia needs beefed-up hardware. I'd be happy to see text ads on Wikipedia. 217.155.199.100
• See Wikipedia:Donations. Angela
• I think Jimbo has just bought some new hardware. CGS
• Slow is not the word. I get in so far and get a DNS error. Marshman
• How do the established Wikipedians get things done, manage the place? Ted Clayton
• High levels of patience. Add interlanguage links to the less slow Wikipedias. Angela
• Go to Wikibooks. Marshman
• Is it improper to raise these issues? Ted Clayton
• See wikitech-l, m:Cache strategy, m:Main causes of lag, m:One-pass parser. Martin
• Isn't the village pump the place to discuss it? The results of this discussion should be gathered into/under a page. Ted Clayton
• Stuff from here gets archived into FAQ pages. Tarquin
• An actual discussion of the matters should be taking place. Ted Clayton
• It needs to be moved to keep this page getting too big. It should go to Meta. Angela.
• Do you think a compendium page should be in Meta? Ted Clayton
• A permanent link from here to the lag discussion would be useful as it is a recurring question. Angela
• Do I recall that you must perform the move, Angela? Ted Clayton
• It isn't possible to move a page from here to Meta in the proper way. You have to use the cut and paste method, which I have now done. Angela.

Further comments shoud be made at m:Why Wikipedia runs slow

Finding Articles with Apostrophes

This is probably an inane question, but I am afraid I have to ask it: How can you find an article with an apostrophe in its title? I have finished creating the article "Ramblers' Association", and unless people realise, and there are going to be some who don't realise, the title has an apostrophe, they aren't going to find it. "ramblers association" does not bring it up, neither does "ramblers" nor "rambler". The only time the apostrophed article comes up is if you type in the apo. Am I overlooking something? :) It is the correct title of the organisation. Can someone throw light on this? --Dieter Simon 18:22, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)

I think this is a good example of a page where redirects would be useful as the misuse of apostrophes is a common error so I added Ramblers Association and Rambler's Association. Angela 18:56, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)

Yes, I shall bear that in mind in future, thanks again. Why didn't I think of that? Dieter Simon 19:32, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)

Blanking User talk pages

What's the policy regarding individual users blanking their own pages? Are users allowed to arbitrarily blank their own talk pages at their own liking? --Jiang 17:33, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)

Sure, why not? It's rude to blank the page instead of replying to other people's questions, of course, but there's nothing wrong with a clean talk page that leaves finished conversations to the history archives. --Brion 17:42, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)

What I'm sure is a silly question involving redirects

I know that there is a page somewhere where all redirects are listed--its purpose, as I recall, is to have a way of preventing redirects from being orphaned once all links are re-aimed at the target site. I cannot find it or recall its name for the life of me, and I've just redirected Schoolteacher at Teacher. Jwrosenzweig 21:54, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Part two to my query is this--how can we make such a page easier to find? I've been around for a while, remember its existence, and still can't find it. How would a newcomer, aware of redirects from our FAQ, be made aware? Is there an easy central directory I know nothing about? Is the page's name easy to remember (I had assumed it was Wikipedia:List of redirects or some such thing)? Could we make some mention of the page I'm asking about on Wikipedia:Redirect or is there a good reason not to? Confused but still smiling, Jwrosenzweig

I'm not sure it matters if a Redirect is orphaned. It remains out there as a Redirect to...well to redirect in the case where its name is typed in as a "Go" or "Search" element. You can always find a "living" redirect by typing in its name and noting that below the title to where it took you is .. the Redirect! Click and you are now There to change it, or review what links still go there (new ones are always a possibility). Hope this answers your questions; I could be way off? - Marshman 22:24, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps you are correct...yet this list exists for a purpose, or at least someone felt it served one. Unless I'm hallucinating it, which I am beginning to fear I have. Apparently no one remembers this list? I must sit and think on it a little more...Jwrosenzweig 16:07, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)

Are you sure you're not thinking of the maintenance page's check for double redirects (redirects to redirects)? (It's currently disabled until someone rewrites these functions to not kill the database with slowness.) There was never a list of all redirects to my knowledge, and a list of "orphan" redirects doesn't really make sense; redirects catch hits both from within and from outside the wiki, and we can't really track the existence of external links. --Brion 16:21, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)

• sheepish grin* All right, I've figured out what I was mis-remembering. It's Wikipedia:Links to disambiguating pages. Not for redirects at all. The only question I still have is, why do we list disambig pages and not redirects, but perhaps that's too big a task to take on. If anyone can tell me the answer, I'd appreciate it, but it's not urgent, obviously. Please forgive my faulty memory, Jwrosenzweig 17:55, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)

No tracking of Redirects because there is no need to (see above). Ideally, all Redirects would be orphans. And you always find them (see above) when you need to with the "GO" button. Disambiguation pages are regular articles (INMO) that help the user sort out just what he was looking for wherever there is likely to be confusion. Ideally these may or may not be orphans (personally, I think they are very valuable part of Wikipedia that are generally misunderstood) - 24.94.82.245 19:01, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)

Lt Gen Bazilio Olara Okello

Moved to User_talk:217.35.96.217 and answered request by e-mail.

Templates? For instance, Cities.

I think it would be beneficial to have a standard template for creating pages about Cities and other things. Does this concept exist in wiki? I mean when I create a page rather than looking for a page about a city and copying it and then replacing the info with info about the new city, it would be nice if on creation I could say "use City template" and it would insert all the text with fill in the blank information.

This would also make the pages feel consistant.

Yes, the general concept is the "WikiProject". Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities isn't particularly good at the moment, but if there was a template that's where it would be. -- Tim Starling 05:30, Sep 12, 2003 (UTC)

Did somebody change...

the default amount displayed in watchlists down to 1 hour? I can see that this might have been done for performance reasons, but it's very irritating, especially as it doesn't remember what alternative I opt for. This should surely be a user preference? GRAHAMUK 02:08, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

No problem. Just add a link to http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Watchlist&days=1 or such. -- Taku 02:12, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

It changed a while ago, but only triggers when you have more than 250 items on your watchlist. Angela 02:19, Sep 12, 2003 (UTC)

Are trivia items of use?

As a general question, are trivia items of interest? As a specific question, while some would dislike it, is the trivia item in the history of edits for George W. Bush interesting, useful to this project and appropriate for this project? (partisans, kindly note that I voted neither for nor against the gentelman - I'm not qualified to vote in US elections - it was of interest to me solely as a piece of trivia which some may find of interest).

Could you give some examples of what exactly it is you want to add? Angela 02:30, Sep 12, 2003 (UTC)

For GWB I entered an initial entry "During one of the inaugural balls he raised the arms of one of his daughters who was wearing a sleeveless dress, inadvertently exposing her breasts. At least one network failed to notice and skip this and it was broadcast live." For GHWB, one would be "Found travel in the presidential limo boring, so he would play a game called 'lighting up' in which he caught the eye of people he was passing and watched their face light up". That one from the Bravo TV reruns of the TV series "West Wing", so it appears there is at least some interest in presidetial trivia. For any President, Secret Service names for them and family members, pet types and names. Assorted humanising factoids of various sorts about the person rather than the office. The initial one for GWB may not be appropriate and useful here, while the general trivia items may be. Hence the two part question.JamesDay 03:45, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I would say that things as trivial as that dont belong on the main article page. Besides you might try showing us a source for those rather far fetched anecdotes. You also might try putting some other work in and developing an identity here, that we may get to know your work and trust you in your claims. (We do get crackpots here.) --戴&#30505sv 04:08, Sep 12, 2003 (UTC) P.S -- was it Jenna?

I agree that the main page wasn't the best of locations. I don't recall the hair color of the daughter, so I can't say whether it was the daughter who happens to have the same name as an actress. For at least a short time, you'll find a little more information about me on my user page. Please feel free to post a message to the identities I've claimed if you doubt the accuracy of those claims. You're in the wrong country for West Wing trivial - it's a very widely watched US TV show in the US, which broke the record for most Emmy's won in a single season. In the rebroadcasts I'm watching it includes trivia about the Whitehouse during each episode, between the fiction and the ads, presented by well known people who worked there during the administration concerned. That's the source for the lighting up item.JamesDay 20:31, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Firstly, anything that goes on Wikipedia should be verifiable (see Wikipedia:verifiability) and encyclopedic. If a anecdote is verifiable, presented in the wider context of their life, and reveals something about the character or personality person concerned, or that's fair enough. On that basis, I would find it very difficult to see how an anecdote about the accidental exposure of a breast adds anything to the GWB article - it sounds like an embarrassing but trivial incident that could have happened to anyone, it's just that he had the misfortune to do so while there were cameras.

Some stuff that might be considered tacky gossip is sometimes relevant, particularly if it has been widely discussed. For instance, it's entirely relevant to the article on Rob Lowe to mention his videotaped escapades, George Michael's article to mention his arrest, or for the article on Britney Spears to discuss the focus on her virginity - or to take a non-celebrity example Alan Turing's sex life.--Robert Merkel 04:24, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

However, looking at those articles, Lowe's and Michael's articles should have more material on their professional careers - George Michael is one hell of a pop singer. --Robert Merkel 04:28, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Back to Presidential Trivia, I think trivia that can be verified is permissible in their article. I think many readers may find these anecdotes even more entertaining than the professional information.

Verification of the item about Bush and arm raising is somewhat difficult, since I observed it on a live TV broadcast I wasn't recording. The broadcaster will have a tape and others will have observed it but the only way to verify it is to present the item and solicit a request for other observers or evidence. It's inherently hard to substantiate personal observations, yet I'm reluctant to accept that a lack of very wide observation means things didn't happen. A note that the evidence is currently limited seems to be of value, though.JamesDay 20:31, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)

As for SS names for presidents and their family and pets, perhaps a seperate article should be considered if the list is long. The list could be referenced in the See also: section of the article. Just my $.02... —Frecklefoot 16:59, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Is there reasonable consensus that a presidential trivia page would be of interest and appropriate?JamesDay 20:31, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

• wog -> Wikipedia:Reference desk, wog

Random Pages

This was getting far too long for the village pump. A summary is included below. Please add further comments to User talk:Rambot/Random page. Angela 00:06, Sep 12, 2003 (UTC)

• Half the time I use the Random Page button I get a rambot entry. There must be about 75,000 of them. DJ Clayworth.
• Only 30,000 IIRC. See User:Rambot. Angela
• Maybe a developer could stop these appearing the random page feature. Cyan.
• Does a village of 100 people need an article? Adam Bishop
• Put it on VfD. It's stupid. dave
• They should be here but they pose the appearance of gratuitously inflating the article count. Ted Clayton
• They are an example of what What Wikipedia is not – "mere collections of public domain or other source material". http://www.wikiatlas.org would be better suited for this. dave
• But we are encouraged to make use of public and open sources. Ted Clayton
• Maybe Wiki shouldn't duplicate. Could they go to a subproject? DJ Clayworth
• Wikipedia materials need not be original or unique. Ted Clayton
• The random page feature shouldn't be tweaked; it should stay random. The articles, should be removed. dave
• The auto-addition of the town articles was probably not a good idea, but now that they're there… and some towns are more significant than they appear. Stan
• It is not necessary to prove that a town has no significance before you can delete. dave
• Maybe later we can update our software so that users can set their own range of "Random" -wshun
• We could make the "Skip Rambot-added articles" feature an option. Cyan.
• May warrant a distinct wiki. Ted Clayton
• Robots raise many issues; grow faster than the software and hardware can support. They might make it boring and dull. Ted Clayton
• Stupid to create 30000 of them with no introduction. They're stubs. dave
• We don't delete stubs by policy. All these entries ar correctly entered etc. They are good information. Wiki is not paper. Morven
• They are stubs so are a recognized work/problem/policy pile. Ted Clayton
• This really is a stub issue and that's how it should be handled. Ram-Man should make a robot to go and add his pages to the stub page. dave
• I got 1 of them in 10 random pages. RTC
• Wikipedia is slow. Marshman
• They do not affect anyone's use or enjoyment of Wikipedia. We need an 'interest filter': Ted Clayton
• I got 3 out of 10 and a couple of stubs. RTC
• They're not uselss. Would it also be simple to set a Length value for Random Page? Ted Clayton
• Perhaps we should exclude stubs from the random queue. CGS
• No, one of Random Page's most useful aspects is that you can find stubs. Jwrosenzweig

Further comments to User talk:Rambot/Random page please.

Good job Angela, this shortened version is great. I love the old comments like "Put it on VfD. It's stupid." and "Ram-Man should make a robot to go and add his pages to the stub page." They didn't seem as funny before when they were wordy. LOL. dave 02:47, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

It is, of course, only my interpretation of what people said which is why I've delinked the names. Feel free to change if I have misrepresented anyone. Angela 03:01, Sep 12, 2003 (UTC)

Esperanto Screenshot of Mozilla Available

In testing the latest lastest Mozilla builds, I made a screenshot of Mozilla with a Esperanto Language Pack Installed. I was thinking how neat how the Esperanto team could make use of the screenshot. I would upload it to the Esperanto Wiki myself, but my knowledge of the language is nil (I am interested in learning it, though). If anyone at the Esperanto Wiki wants to use the screenshot, it's here:

http://hoshie.port5.com/esperantomoz.png

It's at the size I took. I have not altered the size.

hoshie 06:19, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Thanks, Hoshie! Good idea. I made another screenshot all in esperanto and put it in the article about Mozilla in the esperanto wikipedia. ArnoLagrange 08:09, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I have left a note for them on their village pump. Angela 14:27, Sep 11, 2003 (UTC)

Hoshie, have you seen our brochure? Versions of this were passed out to folks at last year's Universala Kongreso and this year's Internacia Junulara Kongreso. Naturally, it includes a screenshot with Esperantized Mozilla. :) --Brion 23:26, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Does anyone know, has there been an effort/interest to do for Asian languages, Chinese et al, what Esperanto addresses for Indoeuropean? -- Ted Clayton 15:45, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

If you go searching for "asian conlang" you'll probably find some projects. Nothing beyond the personal project stage that I know of. --Brion 23:26, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Thanks! This is just the sort of lead I was hoping for. Yeah, I know that Esperanto is the only such idea wiggling, but the approaches to Asiatics sound intriguing. --Ted Clayton 03:27, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

What's up doc?

Check Byte. Open the page up in an edit window. The page displays two unmatched right square brackets right after the title, but if you punch the "Edit this page" thingummy, there just isn't any reason why those two brackets should appear. Is this a bug, am I seeing some sort of ghost characters... What's going down? -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 15:36, Sep 14, 2003 (UTC)

The end of *wikipedia.com

What about changing the text in the *wikipedia.com:

<<We're sorry, but the server on which this site once lived has failed. We are working on getting the machine back in place. Until then, please accept our heart-felt apologies for the inconvenience>>

for another that indicates the change (while is not possible to redirect). Now, I'm alone in the Catalan one :'( Llull 16:37, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I've asked Jason to set up an interim redirect; hopefully will be up soon. --Brion 17:42, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Public Domain Paintings

Is a pre-20th century painting in public domain?

I think it's in the public domain if the painter has been dead > 50 years. Date of the painting itself is irrelevant. IANAL. CGS 16:35, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC).

The paintings themselves may be considered to be in the public domain, but photos or illustrations of the paintings are copyrighted to whoever made them or possibly their heirs. CyberMaus 17:21, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Are you sure? I thought you can't copyright a digital representation of another image (in this case a painting) unless it is a derivitive somehow (although that could be something as simple as cropping). CGS 18:35, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC).

Yup. It doesn't matter what the digital image is a representation of. The digital image itself is copyright protected even though it's a scan of a photo of a photo of a picture. Keep in mind that the original photo is also copyrighted so that it's possible that the digital image itself may be in violation because permission was not obtained from the original image's owner. The Visual Resources Association Guidelines propose exceptions for educational institutions (I suppose it could be argued that wikipedia qualifies as an educational institution) in some circumstances, but these have no legal foundation. BTW IANAL :) CyberMaus 20:35, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Copyrights for previous discussions of this. Angela 20:44, Sep 14, 2003 (UTC)

personal references

Could someone inform a new user what is the rule about writers referring to themselves? In my piece on Dirk Hartog I said that I had seen Dirk Hartog's plate in the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam last year. This was instantly removed. Is this not a fact that may be of some interest to someone? Who makes these decisions? Dr Adam Carr

Articles should be written in the third person, so the use of "I" should be avoided at all costs. Usually in a case like this, other Wikipedians would leave advice or guidelines on your Talk page, but this cannot be done unless you login, but it appears with Dirk Hartog you weren't logged in at the time. Fuzheado 09:19, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The comment you added ("I have not been able to locate any biographical information on Hartog") would be better on the article's talk page, which is where I have now moved it to. It doesn't make a lot of sense in the article as no-one knows who the "I" refers to. The article has many authors. See Wikipedia:Most common Wikipedia faux pas for an explanation of this. Angela 09:24, Sep 14, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for those comments: if that's the policy I will adapt to it. But, Angela, after you removed "I have not been able to locate any biographical information on Hartog," I then wrote "there does not appear to be any biographical information on Hartog," which is not a first-person reference but a statement of fact (at least as far as I know). That was also deleted. Is there a rule against commenting about sources or lack thereof? AC

No, but some Wikipedians get a little over-zealous. ;) It's all a matter of presentation: if you wrote something like Despite the significance of Hartog to the history of Australian exploration, he has been largely ignored by historians, and biographical information is sparse it wouldn't attract a second glance. Personally, I prefer the plain-language version, but there you go. It's a strange place, the 'pedia. Tannin 09:49, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I didn't remove anything. I just copied your comment to the talk page. It had already been deleted by that time. Fuzheado removed the comment you mentioned above with the edit summary "Took out the speculation, since it's not really part of the facts". I can understand why as there isn't really evidence for this - just one anonymous IP claiming that he could not find something does not make it true or indeed worthy for inclusion in the article. The Wikipedia:Verifiability rule may be the one most relevant here. Hope that helps. Angela 09:53, Sep 14, 2003 (UTC)

Comments about the result of your search and speculation would usually be considered background info to be discussed in the Talk pages. Only if research results were "newsworthy" would it be appropriate. Think for a second about what you might see in World Book, Britannica or a history book. I hope you don't take this as a rejection of your contributions, but simply as re-filing them into the right places. With only wiki mechanisms to form the social basis of the online community, the editing and deletion of info might seem abrupt and rude to our face-to-face social sensibilities. So hopefully people hang around long enough to see that Wikipedians are, in general, pretty good natured, cooperative and kind. And your sense of what contributions are appropriate, useful and friendly will adapt. Fuzheado 10:04, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Consider wikipedia:make omissions explicit - just add (to be written - biographical information). Martin 15:51, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

But not necessarily on the article page - see Wikipedia talk:Make omissions explicit. Angela 16:40, Sep 14, 2003 (UTC)

Please revert this change

Please revert the change I made to Wikipedia:Copyright issues. It's not where I intended it to go and I find that my browser is unable to load enough of the page to put it there. Alternatively, if feeling generous, please move the bulk to the bottom of the page or other more suitable location.

Ohhh, you wanted it moved... Ok, done. Dysprosia 10:09, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the double assistance.JamesDay 10:29, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Incremental 'pedia updates?

Once the full Wikipedia is downloaded, can smaller periodic updates covering new stuff and changes be obtained and used to synch the local? --Ted Clayton 04:26, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)

No, you can't. I've been thinking the same thing myself. I think we need to:

• Allow incremental updates for all types of download
• Allow bulk image downloads
• Package a stripped-down version of the old table in with the cur dumps, where the revision history (users, times, comments etc.) is included, but the old text itself is not
• Develop a method of compressing the old table so that the similarity between adjacent revisions can be used to full advantage

-- Tim Starling 04:38, Sep 13, 2003 (UTC)

Would it be easier to have incremental updates on something like a subscription basis? The server packages dailies or weeklies and shoots them out to everyone on the list? During off hours, mass-mail fashion?

Can you suggest sources or search-terms for table manipulations treatments, as background for stripping and compressing? --Ted Clayton 03:14, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I'm going to continue this on wikitech-l, because it's very much on-topic there. See Wikipedia:Mailing lists for more information. -- Tim Starling 12:48, Sep 14, 2003 (UTC)

Wikitech-l thread on incremental backup

rename the pump

I think we should rename the village pump. It's meant to be like the office water cooler, right? Don't people talk about TV soaps and stuff round the water cooler, not office work? I've never worked in an office, so I wouldn't know. CGS 15:23, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC).

...having said that, the pump is a verritable institution and should stay. CGS 15:27, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC).

No, people bitch about their colleagues around the water cooler. We've got Wikipedia:Problem users for that. Angela 16:48, Sep 12, 2003 (UTC)

Leave well enough alone IMO. Remember the fun we had when it was moved once before? Andrewa 16:55, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Surely the point of the name of the olden "village pump" used to be that a bevy of old farm ladies stood around said pump and held forth about those unfortunate ones who in their opinion had offended against the public mores of the community. So what's wrong with the name of "Village pump? Dieter Simon 23:08, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

My wife has seen me reading the village pump and asked whether that means there is a village bicycle. -- Wapcaplet 17:41, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

• Jordan History and Geography -> wikipedia:reference desk

Trigger happy?

As a relatively new Wikipedian, I have a suggestion for the old hands... be a bit gentle! To see what I mean have a look at [1].

Now, I'll stick around after such rudeness, but many will not. Hmmm?

Here's a further suggestion... wait at least 60 minutes before reverting or deleting new work unless it's really bad. Look at this history or this one for what I mean. The article in question is still a stub, and will remain one until I do a little more research. But it's a useful one IMO and will grow into a good article in time.

I'm not going to attempt to put Felsen back into the list of people a third time. If the article belongs in Wikipedia, then the name belongs in the list IMO. But some people make a special effort to fix such things and I expect they will find it eventually.

Does the article belong? IMO more than eight million book sales, hundreds of magazine articles and a place in a University archive are a good claim. In fact I think Wikipedia might be the best place to store and find such information.

If not, I guess it will go onto requests for deletion, and I'll have learned something, and no complaints.

Interested (as always) in other opinions and particularly in ways I can and should change my methods of operation to avoid this sort of thing. I know it ain't a perfect world. But I think we can and need to do better than this if we're to encourage new contributors. Andrewa 07:57, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Andrewa, firstly welcome to Wikipedia. I've looked at the history and I have to say, I can't see what you're making a fuss about. An 'article' that contains only an external link isn't really an article at all. Far better to put a least a couple of lines of text. Since you did eventually do that, i would say write a two line stub first,offline. Then create the article. Theresa knott 08:46, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

G'day Theresa, and thanks for the feedback.

Do you really think the update described as rm unknown academic is justified? I'd hardly describe someone who sells 8 million books as unknown, nor someone whose highest teaching post was part-time lecturer as an academic. This update was pure malice IMO, a pointless reduction in Wikipedia content, and particularly strange as the perpetrator has since done some good work on the stub to which the link used to point!

And did you look at the actual content that was added to the article? I felt it was flippant, but worse it was both misleading and inaccurate. I agree that a link is not an article, and I'd never intended to leave it as that. The thing I wanted noted from the history is that the whole episode took less than 60 minutes from start to finish, even with the delays when I (foolishly) reverted what I still think was a pointless and misguided edit.

Of course it's a lot less work to find new articles and hinder those writing them than to search for the many sub-standard ones that have existed unchanged for months or in some cases years. Andrewa 16:44, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Andrewa. I got trounced within (what seemed like) minutes of my first efforts when I joined this motley crew a month+ ago (my stub had a whole sentence and was my start for a great article since abandoned; things change). I've come to realize that it is MORE the unexpected shock that someone was actually watching my work and reacting quickly and negatively, and LESS the brutality of it. After a while, you will relax, get used to others walking all over your prose, and get into the swing. Comments of any kind without a smile seem more hurtful than they really are. - Marshman 09:28, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I'm not smiling, but I think I'm more worried about the inefficiency than about the insult. It's annoying to have to rearrange my work habits to avoid interference that adds nothing to Wikipedia. I'm not objecting to the deleting of non-articles, and while the rudeness is of concern it wouldn't be an issue if the criticism were in any way justified. An hour doesn't seem a lot to ask to write a proper stub, but I was given less than 6 minutes. You don't think that there's some risk that other potential contributors have quietly disappeared because of this sort of thing?

I'm wondering whether there is some instruction I have missed or misinterpretted, but it's possible that there is a need for some sort of guideline for how long an article can stay in a partly-written state. Of course it should always be in a state that isn't embarrassing if someone looks the article up, which is why I once reverted the flippant comment that was added.

Perhaps that guideline is zero time. If so this should be clearly stated (and perhaps it is and I've missed it). Personally I doubt that's the best way to go, especially if we want to attract a range of contributors. I think a new article that is just a link or a definition or similar should be left for a while, and I've suggested 60 minutes. I certainly don't think that a new article should be renamed within that time, as happened on this occasion (although I agree with the rename}.

But nobody else seems to think that what I encountered was hasty or uncalled for. That's fair enough, I asked for feedback and I'm grateful for it. Andrewa 16:44, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I think there are practical issues in asking for a 60 minute wait. People find problem articles through recent changes, which shows just the last few minutes work. You can use the preview button to check your work, and only press save when it is ready to go live. This way, it wouldn't show up in recent changes and no-one would come to 'fix' it. Obviously the rules of not biting newbies and Wikiquette should still be adhered to though. :) -- Angela 17:04, Sep 12, 2003 (UTC)

Yes, that's what it's boiling down to, isn't it? I think I by and large agree with User:Andrewa. In particular, I think a message on the talk page is much more important than fast changes and revertions. --Ruhrjung 17:44, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

But in the case Andrewa is talking about (Henry Gregor Felsen), it wasn't revertions being made; it was content being added. Andrewa seems to have objected to that content when as far as I can tell, Hephaestos was simply trying to make the article into a stub rather than something which may otherwise have been deleted. And I don't see why Andrewa is complaining about rudeness when he is making edit summaries along the lines of "revert utter stupidity" on the article in question. Angela

I think Heph behaved more or less correctly given what he saw in front of him... listing a non-article on VfD then removing it from there when content was added. He shouldn't though have added his 'content'. It wasn't content but a facetious comment. Not the highest standards of Wikiquette to which we all aspire!

On the other hand, Andrew came running to Village Pump to complain rather than use the talk page to explain his strange editting style (writing an essentially blank page and then adding content later). There was no need for that. They'll both know better for next time. Let's move on! Pete 19:21, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Looking back on what I wrote with regard to the Henry Gregor Felsen article, I came across too rude, and for that I'm sorry, and would like to apologize.

I would appreciate it, however, if Andrewa would realize the situation I was looking at. We do not need "articles" which consist of nothing but a link to an external site. I and most others usually delete these on sight; in this sense I think I was unusually lenient in letting it stay. When I found hardly anything about this person on the web, I suspected I was dealing with another "famous celebrity" along the lines of Daniel C. Boyer. When the author apparently didn't even know how this person's name was spelled, I suspected this article might be someone's idea of a joke.

We get scores of outright garbage "articles" here every day, and most of them look just like this one did when it started out. I see now that this one is legitimate, however it would help things immensely to get an article at least up to stub level before hitting "post". - Hephaestos 19:30, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Deletion Requests

Newly requesting deletion of User:BuddhaInside and User talk:BuddhaInside. -BuddhaInside

Deletion Requests

Requesting deletion of my User:BuddhaInside and User talk:BuddhaInside subpages. -BuddhaInside

User is blocked

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Your user name or IP address has been blocked by Hephaestos. The reason given is this:
Michael

You may contact Hephaestos or one of the other administrators to discuss the block.

Return to Main Page.

What does this mean?

Now it won't post no matter how many times I try entering a change into the browser and hitting "Save Page", and I've lost a larger number of Jews that were added into that article, including Josh Server, David Frum, David Horowitz, Leo Ornstein and Robert Ornstein, Lev Davidovich Landau, Jakob Dylan, Evan & Jaron, Abraham Maslow and William Safire (I hope I remembered them all.) For the rest of the day, I'm going to be posting only from Internet Explorer. Wiwaxia 02:39, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Wiwaxia, it means that somebody thinks you are an alter ego of a known troublemaker, "Michael", who has been banned from the Wikipedia due to his repeated and severe misbehaviour, or that you are posting from the same IP address as him (this can happen if your ISP uses a proxy server). Please take it up with the people mentioned if you have been caught inappropriately by a ban. --Robert Merkel 02:47, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I've unblocked the IP in question. - Hephaestos 02:56, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)

neW u5Er

+H1$ W1KIP3DIA 1$ 4we$0ME. m4XiMUm R35pEct tO 3v3ry 0N3 1NVoLVeD. JasonIncarnate 15:18, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC).

The contributions you have made so far are very much appreciated, but this is the English Wikipedia, not the leet speak Wikipedia. You could tick off a lot of people writing like that, which is a shame as you seem to be a serious contributer. CGS 15:34, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC).

New User

This Wikipedia is awesome. Maximum respect to everyone involved. JasonIncarnate 15:18, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC) (translated from leet)

The contributions you have made so far are very much appreciated, but this is the English Wikipedia, not the leet speak Wikipedia. You could tick off a lot of people writing like that, which is a shame as you seem to be a serious contributer. CGS 15:34, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC).

Problem solved (at least on this page ;-)). Thanks for the kudos Jason - we try our best. Martin 15:51, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Richest Canadians

I hope I'm in the right place here but I wanted to inquire as to why exactly a page I created is marked for deletion. The page I am referring to is Richest Canadians

The reasons are given on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. User:Angela listed it because "Not encyclopedic as not up to date for long. Orphan unwikified article." User:RayKiddy agreed. If you want to contest their opinion on this article, you can do so at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion or at Talk:Richest Canadians. -- Tim Starling 02:00, Sep 16, 2003 (UTC)

"not up to date for long" isn't quite how I wanted to express it, but it's late and I can't think of the rule I was referring to. I've read somewhere that things are not supposed to be too rapidly changable if that makes sense. Angela 02:03, Sep 16, 2003 (UTC)

As I am new here I'm not entirely familiar with the rules. However, if the page must be deleted, I'll understand, but I don't really consider an annual event as 'rapid change'.

---

Some comments:

wait at least 60 minutes before reverting or deleting new work (Andrewa)

I think that's often good advice. If you revert a major change a couple of minutes after it's made, then consider if you're spending too much time reverting, and not enough time thinking. Also consider whether you might be hindering more than helping.

some people make a special effort to fix such things and I expect they will find it eventually. (Andrewa)

An excellent attitude to take: the long term view. Wikipedia is a work in progress, We don't need to have (indeed, couldn't have) every article perfect right now. Many Wikipedians could learn a lot from Andrewa's approach here.

Andrewa mentioned the many sub-standard [articles] that have existed unchanged for months or in some cases years ()

We certainly shouldn't lose sight of the old in the focus on recent changes. Techniques for finding old articles that need editing include Special:Randompage, Special:Ancientpages (actually ancient changes), Wikipedia:Shortpages, wikipedia:duplicate articles, wikipedia:pages needing attention, wikipedia:find or fix a stub, wikipedia:NPOV dispute, etc. Even plain old surfing will get you to articles that need work soon enough.

I'm more worried about the inefficiency (Andrewa)

Part of the answer is that if Haephaestos wants to spend his time inefficiently... well, it's his to waste - as long as it doesn't cause you to waste yours. A second part is that wiki-editing is really efficient in other ways, so a bit of wasted efficiency due to vandalism, or two folks at cross-purposes, isn't a major problem. The third part is that Haephaestos has read your feedback, and will no doubt act a little differently next time.

You don't think that there's some risk that other potential contributors have quietly disappeared because of this sort of thing? (Andrewa)

I think they probably have, which is why it's so important not to bite newcomers. Haephaestos is hardly the worst offender in this regard. Indeed, I was surprised by his initial approach on the Felsen page, as he's normally a model Wikipedian. Unfortunately, our copyeditors, like our authors, are generally human, so this kind of incident does crop up from time to time. :-( Martin 19:59, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I agree with all of that, and also with the comment from Angela that I led with my chin by calling the original edit "utter stupidity". I apologise to Wikipedia for that lapse, but I do point out in my defence that the "content" in question was both flippant and inaccurate, and IMO an embarrassment to Wikipedia. And, that it was entered not once but twice, and was not the only inaccuracy, and that none of these inaccuracies would have been posted with even rudimentary checking (I find the claim that a web search was made incredible, try it yourself). And that I didn't respond to any further provocation despite all this.

Nobody likes being treated like a troll (except perhaps a troll, hmmmm). The comment that Hephaestos "came across too rude" still worries me. Even a troll is not likely to respond well to agro. But IMO even the most elementary checking would have established my credibility. What are user pages for?

I've learned a few things. I will make sure in future that my stubs are good stubs right from the first save. Part of the reason for the problem is that I've been involved in two other serious Wikis, and my method of editing (first create, then fill) was normal on both of them. Evidently I'm unusual in this, as others have called this a strange method. I find renaming or deleting a page less than six minutes after it was created and while it obviously still needs work far stranger! This may be a problem for a few others from similar backgrounds. Food for thought?

I take the points about the need to delete many rubbish pages, and I had not realised it was this bad, that's another thing I have learned. I'm still not convinced the delay idea is a bad one, in fact I think it might be an even better one in view of this. Is there any way of doing searches for, say, pages created in the last two hours and then unchanged for an hour? It doesn't sound too hard, and might deprive some vandals of the fun of an instant reponse.

Finally, despite one comment above I'm glad I raised it in the Pump. Yes, let's move on, but let's learn from this too. My genuine thanks to all who have contributed, including Hephaestos. Andrewa 05:47, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)

• sperm -> moved to wikipedia:reference desk

Trigger happy?

move to Wikipedia talk:Please do not bite the newcomers

As a relatively new Wikipedian, I have a suggestion for the old hands... be a bit gentle! To see what I mean have a look at [2].

Now, I'll stick around after such rudeness, but many will not. Hmmm?

Here's a further suggestion... wait at least 60 minutes before reverting or deleting new work unless it's really bad. Look at this history or this one for what I mean. The article in question is still a stub, and will remain one until I do a little more research. But it's a useful one IMO and will grow into a good article in time.

I'm not going to attempt to put Felsen back into the list of people a third time. If the article belongs in Wikipedia, then the name belongs in the list IMO. But some people make a special effort to fix such things and I expect they will find it eventually.

Does the article belong? IMO more than eight million book sales, hundreds of magazine articles and a place in a University archive are a good claim. In fact I think Wikipedia might be the best place to store and find such information.

If not, I guess it will go onto requests for deletion, and I'll have learned something, and no complaints.

Interested (as always) in other opinions and particularly in ways I can and should change my methods of operation to avoid this sort of thing. I know it ain't a perfect world. But I think we can and need to do better than this if we're to encourage new contributors. Andrewa 07:57, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Andrewa, firstly welcome to Wikipedia. I've looked at the history and I have to say, I can't see what you're making a fuss about. An 'article' that contains only an external link isn't really an article at all. Far better to put a least a couple of lines of text. Since you did eventually do that, i would say write a two line stub first,offline. Then create the article. Theresa knott 08:46, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

G'day Theresa, and thanks for the feedback.

Do you really think the update described as rm unknown academic is justified? I'd hardly describe someone who sells 8 million books as unknown, nor someone whose highest teaching post was part-time lecturer as an academic. This update was pure malice IMO, a pointless reduction in Wikipedia content, and particularly strange as the perpetrator has since done some good work on the stub to which the link used to point!

And did you look at the actual content that was added to the article? I felt it was flippant, but worse it was both misleading and inaccurate. I agree that a link is not an article, and I'd never intended to leave it as that. The thing I wanted noted from the history is that the whole episode took less than 60 minutes from start to finish, even with the delays when I (foolishly) reverted what I still think was a pointless and misguided edit.

Of course it's a lot less work to find new articles and hinder those writing them than to search for the many sub-standard ones that have existed unchanged for months or in some cases years. Andrewa 16:44, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Andrewa. I got trounced within (what seemed like) minutes of my first efforts when I joined this motley crew a month+ ago (my stub had a whole sentence and was my start for a great article since abandoned; things change). I've come to realize that it is MORE the unexpected shock that someone was actually watching my work and reacting quickly and negatively, and LESS the brutality of it. After a while, you will relax, get used to others walking all over your prose, and get into the swing. Comments of any kind without a smile seem more hurtful than they really are. - Marshman 09:28, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I'm not smiling, but I think I'm more worried about the inefficiency than about the insult. It's annoying to have to rearrange my work habits to avoid interference that adds nothing to Wikipedia. I'm not objecting to the deleting of non-articles, and while the rudeness is of concern it wouldn't be an issue if the criticism were in any way justified. An hour doesn't seem a lot to ask to write a proper stub, but I was given less than 6 minutes. You don't think that there's some risk that other potential contributors have quietly disappeared because of this sort of thing?

I'm wondering whether there is some instruction I have missed or misinterpretted, but it's possible that there is a need for some sort of guideline for how long an article can stay in a partly-written state. Of course it should always be in a state that isn't embarrassing if someone looks the article up, which is why I once reverted the flippant comment that was added.

Perhaps that guideline is zero time. If so this should be clearly stated (and perhaps it is and I've missed it). Personally I doubt that's the best way to go, especially if we want to attract a range of contributors. I think a new article that is just a link or a definition or similar should be left for a while, and I've suggested 60 minutes. I certainly don't think that a new article should be renamed within that time, as happened on this occasion (although I agree with the rename}.

But nobody else seems to think that what I encountered was hasty or uncalled for. That's fair enough, I asked for feedback and I'm grateful for it. Andrewa 16:44, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I think there are practical issues in asking for a 60 minute wait. People find problem articles through recent changes, which shows just the last few minutes work. You can use the preview button to check your work, and only press save when it is ready to go live. This way, it wouldn't show up in recent changes and no-one would come to 'fix' it. Obviously the rules of not biting newbies and Wikiquette should still be adhered to though. :) -- Angela 17:04, Sep 12, 2003 (UTC)

Yes, that's what it's boiling down to, isn't it? I think I by and large agree with User:Andrewa. In particular, I think a message on the talk page is much more important than fast changes and revertions. --Ruhrjung 17:44, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

But in the case Andrewa is talking about (Henry Gregor Felsen), it wasn't revertions being made; it was content being added. Andrewa seems to have objected to that content when as far as I can tell, Hephaestos was simply trying to make the article into a stub rather than something which may otherwise have been deleted. And I don't see why Andrewa is complaining about rudeness when he is making edit summaries along the lines of "revert utter stupidity" on the article in question. Angela

I think Heph behaved more or less correctly given what he saw in front of him... listing a non-article on VfD then removing it from there when content was added. He shouldn't though have added his 'content'. It wasn't content but a facetious comment. Not the highest standards of Wikiquette to which we all aspire!

On the other hand, Andrew came running to Village Pump to complain rather than use the talk page to explain his strange editting style (writing an essentially blank page and then adding content later). There was no need for that. They'll both know better for next time. Let's move on! Pete 19:21, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Looking back on what I wrote with regard to the Henry Gregor Felsen article, I came across too rude, and for that I'm sorry, and would like to apologize.

I would appreciate it, however, if Andrewa would realize the situation I was looking at. We do not need "articles" which consist of nothing but a link to an external site. I and most others usually delete these on sight; in this sense I think I was unusually lenient in letting it stay. When I found hardly anything about this person on the web, I suspected I was dealing with another "famous celebrity" along the lines of Daniel C. Boyer. When the author apparently didn't even know how this person's name was spelled, I suspected this article might be someone's idea of a joke.

We get scores of outright garbage "articles" here every day, and most of them look just like this one did when it started out. I see now that this one is legitimate, however it would help things immensely to get an article at least up to stub level before hitting "post". - Hephaestos 19:30, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Marketocracy article

Marketocracy--this article looks like an ad to me.

telling-tales on vandals ?

Folks, what's our policy on "telling tales" (I can't think of a better term) on our misguided schoolkid vandals? Just as an example, I was looking at (porn-link) vandalism done my someone at IP [http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=205.174.111.220 205.174.111.220 ], which resolves to a Pennsylvanian school district, and already reverted by the dedicated User:Ahoerstemeier :). Do we have a policy of sending the net admin for such an address a (hopefully mild) nastygram, or do we just let it lie? If we do, can someone point me to the policy page, and if we don't - should we? (In the latter case, I'd gladly draft a gentle nastygram for communal approval).

Finlay McWalter 21:33, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I just ignore such things the first time or two in my own place, elsewhere, and advise other community managers to do the same. It's not worth the time. Just a distraction from building an encyclopedia until there is a pattern of abuse from a place. JamesDay 22:43, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

formeruser:Isis

Anyone know why Isis left exactly? For wikihistory.-戴&#30505sv 05:30, Sep 14, 2003 (UTC)

Did she leave because she doesn't agree with WP's legal future? From my understanding, she left because she thinks that Tarquin insulted her and her ability as a legal worker (re: copyright status of an uploaded image). Subsequently, she attempted to sue Wikipedia for this, but the matter was inconclusive. The attempts to resolve the incident was private, by a couple of representative Wikipedians. Consequently, there was no trial, but no public reconciliation either.

--Menchi 05:39, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

IIRC it started with this diff: [3]. Tarquin said "Isis' interpretation is mistaken. Photographs are covered by copyright". Isis saw this as a slanderous accusation that Tarquin knew more about law than she. She demanded that Tarquin retract it, and when he didn't, she stated her intention to sue. She was obviously in a litigious mood since her 6 month suspension for bad behaviour had just finished and she was allowed back in the courtroom again. Anyway, the discussion spread to about half a dozen different places: User talk:Tarquin, User talk:Isis, User talk:Jimbo Wales and wikien-l. Tarquin declared that he'd had enough and he was leaving Wikipedia, which prompted an immediate community response now in User talk:Tarquin/Archive 3. Isis left at about the same time, saying that she was going to file a lawsuit shortly thereafter. If the lawsuit ever materialised, I didn't hear anything about it. Tarquin came back after a short time. -- Tim Starling 06:14, Sep 14, 2003 (UTC)

I understood User:Eloquence mentionned once to me that Isis admin status was not volontarily removed. ?

Suing just because someone implied he knew law better than her ? My...

what do you mean 6 months suspension ? on wikipedia or in real life ? Anthère

As a lawyer in real life. --Menchi 06:33, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I'd better get my facts straight, hadn't I? I don't want to get sued as well. I seem to remember there being a suspension that ran out a couple of months before the event in question, but I can't find it at the moment. There was this one year suspension, this three year suspension, this reciprocal action, this one year suspension... Nope, can't find it. -- Tim Starling 07:01, Sep 14, 2003 (UTC)

Oh. Well...I read the archive at Tarquin. I remember part of the story for what I read on the ML. Then left for holidays, and never really understood what really happened in the end. I think that if a contributor was legally threatened by another contributor, that is something that should be mentionned in the history of Wikipedia. It certainly could happen again. But not if it pains Tarquin. I am glad he came back :-) Anthère

I was also interested in looking over this incident in Wikipedia's history. However, perhaps someone should look through these "deleted" materials before publishing them again publicly or summarizing them to make sure there is no defamation or personality/privacy rights violations. While any disciplinary decisions that are published are part of the public record commenting on them may require tack and deference to the unreolved nature of allegations (i.e. wait until any claims have been permanently extinguished before writing the history on them). Alex756 10:08, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Guys, if you think it's useful to document the whole sorry affair, then go ahead. As far as I am concerned, the matter is ancient history. -- Tarquin 10:15, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Ok, I guess I'll close the thread I started-- thanks Tarquin, and Alex, well be looking fo'wad t'yer brief on the matter ;). -戴&#30505sv 17:40, Sep 14, 2003 (UTC) ps.I wouldnt be too worried about defamation suit, just simply for archiving the legal argument --keeping any speculation about "reasons for leaving" separate.-SV

Redirect syntax

Move to Wikipedia talk:Redirect or remove

Is there any reason why redirects are generally put in capital letters? I mean, most redirects since I arrived here have been in the form "#REDIRECT foo" rather than "#redirect foo", and that being the prevailing way of doing things has led me to do it like that as well. But is there any practical reason for it, or was there ever? --Camembert

This is a remnant from the old UseMod software which Wikipedia initially used. In UseMod, redirects are case-sensitive and have to be in upper case letters. In the new MediaWiki-software, they are not case-sensitive.—Eloquence 04:35, Sep 13, 2003 (UTC)

rename the pump

delete

I think we should rename the village pump. It's meant to be like the office water cooler, right? Don't people talk about TV soaps and stuff round the water cooler, not office work? I've never worked in an office, so I wouldn't know. CGS 15:23, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC).

...having said that, the pump is a verritable institution and should stay. CGS 15:27, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC).

No, people bitch about their colleagues around the water cooler. We've got Wikipedia:Problem users for that. Angela 16:48, Sep 12, 2003 (UTC)

Leave well enough alone IMO. Remember the fun we had when it was moved once before? Andrewa 16:55, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Surely the point of the name of the olden "village pump" used to be that a bevy of old farm ladies stood around said pump and held forth about those unfortunate ones who in their opinion had offended against the public mores of the community. So what's wrong with the name of "Village pump? Dieter Simon 23:08, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

My wife has seen me reading the village pump and asked whether that means there is a village bicycle. -- Wapcaplet 17:41, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

• Jordan History and Geography -> wikipedia:reference desk

Souliere

I met a man the other day whose surname is Souliere, which suggests that perhaps an ancestor was a cobbler. "No", he said,"the word 'souliere' is not in the dictionary." - and he's right. So I went to google and entered "souliere" and came up with a genealogy site which led toQuebec.

Question:Is souliere a French-Canadian coinage, meaning cobbler? I bet that it is, but I couldn't find an appropriate dictionary.

ss: stonetps@AOL.com

Mozilla Firebird compatible with Wikipedia log-in?

Hi,

I normally like to use Mozilla Firebird, on my Microsoft Windows 98 operating system.

However, whenever I try to login to Wikipedia using Mozilla Firebird, I momentarily succeed and then have to re-login again. Essentially, I cannot conduct Wiki-business as an identified user.

So now I must use MS Explorer for the Wikipedia, even though I prefer Mozilla Firebird. Any solutions, ideas, suggestions?

Thanks, Guppy

Most likely you're blocking cookies from the site. It will report a successful login (your password matched) but with no way to track your login session, the next page you visit will lose the login. --Brion 22:49, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I can't speak for firebird, but mozilla browser works fine with wikipedia, and the two are (essentially) the same thing. Finlay McWalter 22:50, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I've used Firebird 0.6.1 on FreeBSD and Windows XP with no trouble. --Brion

Ditto. CGS 23:25, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC).

thanks Brion, Finlay, and CGS...*sheepish grin* i had turned on the cookies, but did not delete the list of previously-banned cookie sites on my browser. *scratches head and looks around* ...can we delete this exchange now? - Guppy

Oh no :) Your name must live forever in shame, and all those who commit the same crime in future shall be known as "guppies" :) -- Finlay McWalter 01:36, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Sure you can delete it. Keep your Village Pump Clean! But you might want to add a short FAQ entry on this. :) -- Tarquin 08:33, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

• Souliere --> Wikipedia:Reference desk

Deletion Requests

Angela has asked that personal subpage deletion requests be posted here instead of in Wikipedia:Personal subpages to be deleted:

• Requesting deletion of my User:BuddhaInside and User talk:BuddhaInside subpages. -BuddhaInside
  • The answer is no. I am fairly confident that, with regard to this account, the answer will always be no. Constantly asking and reverting is simple vandalism on your part. - Hephaestos 01:00, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Thank you for sharing your opinion. -BuddhaInside
      • I agree with Angela and Hephaestos, constantly blanking your User and User Talk pages is childish vandalism. Fellow Wikipedians should be able to contact you, and the easiest way for them to do this is through your talk page. If you don't want to have a talk page, don't use Wikipedia. -Flockmeal
        • A continuing edit war is going on at BuddaInside's Talk page. I request it be reverted and protected by an Admin. This is an ongoing vandalism issue and nothing more. -Flockmeal
          • Gee, that is exactly what I requested oh so long ago. Revert it back to the 22:12, 6 Sep 2003 version, protect it, and then we will both be happier. -BuddhaInside
• I continue to believe it is against the spirit of policys laid down at Wikipedia to keep people from communicating with you via your User Talk page. Your user talk page, which you continue to vandalize should be reverted to the most current revision(at the moment my first revision on 15 September) before your most recent blanking. It should then be protected. This will be my continuing belief, and I will continue to revert it until something like I describe above occurs. And that's all I'll say here. Admins, I'm sorry for continuing this edit war, but I feel strongly about this, please help. -Flockmeal
  • It's not a subpage. Go to VfD. Martin 08:39, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • Flock -- I understand you just got here. It might be a good idea to not "feel too strongly" about certain protocols and conventions. They arent so much a matter of strong feelings as they are of consensus. Consensus is made by emailing the mailing list at wikien-l ET Wikipedia DOT org or Wikipedia-L ET... for more general talk. This is, of course after you fully understand the existing policy, its caveats, and the importance of wikilove toward our fellow 'pedians. That said, you may be (according to reports) dealing with someone bordering on troll-like behaviour-- in which case it must be dealt with as a community problem. --戴&#30505sv 04:08, Sep 16, 2003 (UTC)
• If you want to talk about one of my edits, take it to the talk page for the edit in question. If you want to talk about * me *, don't expect me to participate. I'm not here to engage in discussion about myself. -BuddhaInside

New User

+H1$ W1KIP3DIA 1$ 4we$0ME. m4XiMUm R35pEct tO 3v3ry 0N3 1NVoLVeD. JasonIncarnate 15:18, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC).

Translation: This Wikipedia is awesome. Maximum respect to everyone involved. JasonIncarnate 15:18, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC) (translated from leet)

The contributions you have made so far are very much appreciated, but this is the English Wikipedia, not the leet speak Wikipedia. You could tick off a lot of people writing like that, which is a shame as you seem to be a serious contributer. CGS 15:34, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC).

Problem solved (at least on this page ;-)). Thanks for the kudos Jason - we try our best. Martin 15:51, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)

• Richest Canadians - moved to wikipedia:votes for deletion#September_16

Incremental 'pedia updates?

move to Wikipedia talk:Database download

Once the full Wikipedia is downloaded, can smaller periodic updates covering new stuff and changes be obtained and used to synch the local? --Ted Clayton 04:26, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)

No, you can't. I've been thinking the same thing myself. I think we need to:

• Allow incremental updates for all types of download
• Allow bulk image downloads
• Package a stripped-down version of the old table in with the cur dumps, where the revision history (users, times, comments etc.) is included, but the old text itself is not
• Develop a method of compressing the old table so that the similarity between adjacent revisions can be used to full advantage

-- Tim Starling 04:38, Sep 13, 2003 (UTC)

Would it be easier to have incremental updates on something like a subscription basis? The server packages dailies or weeklies and shoots them out to everyone on the list? During off hours, mass-mail fashion?

Can you suggest sources or search-terms for table manipulations treatments, as background for stripping and compressing? --Ted Clayton 03:14, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I'm going to continue this on wikitech-l, because it's very much on-topic there. See Wikipedia:Mailing lists for more information. -- Tim Starling 12:48, Sep 14, 2003 (UTC)

Wikitech-l thread on incremental backup

Public Domain Paintings

move to Wikipedia talk:Copyrights Is a pre-20th century painting in public domain?

I think it's in the public domain if the painter has been dead > 50 years. Date of the painting itself is irrelevant. IANAL. CGS 16:35, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC).

The paintings themselves may be considered to be in the public domain, but photos or illustrations of the paintings are copyrighted to whoever made them or possibly their heirs. CyberMaus 17:21, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Are you sure? I thought you can't copyright a digital representation of another image (in this case a painting) unless it is a derivitive somehow (although that could be something as simple as cropping). CGS 18:35, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC).

Yup. It doesn't matter what the digital image is a representation of. The digital image itself is copyright protected even though it's a scan of a photo of a photo of a picture. Keep in mind that the original photo is also copyrighted so that it's possible that the digital image itself may be in violation because permission was not obtained from the original image's owner. The Visual Resources Association Guidelines propose exceptions for educational institutions (I suppose it could be argued that wikipedia qualifies as an educational institution) in some circumstances, but these have no legal foundation. BTW IANAL :) CyberMaus 20:35, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Under U.S. law copyright does not subsist in purely mechanical reproductions of public domain works. See: Bridgeman Art Library Ltd. v. Corel Corporation, 36 F. Supp. 2d 191, US SDNY (1999) accurate photographs of public domain works is not original[4]. Alex756 04:36, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Copyrights for previous discussions of this. Angela 20:44, Sep 14, 2003 (UTC)

formeruser:Isis

delete

Anyone know why Isis left exactly? For wikihistory.-戴&#30505sv 05:30, Sep 14, 2003 (UTC)

Did she leave because she doesn't agree with WP's legal future? From my understanding, she left because she thinks that Tarquin insulted her and her ability as a legal worker (re: copyright status of an uploaded image). Subsequently, she attempted to sue Wikipedia for this, but the matter was inconclusive. The attempts to resolve the incident was private, by a couple of representative Wikipedians. Consequently, there was no trial, but no public reconciliation either.

--Menchi 05:39, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

IIRC it started with this diff: [5]. Tarquin said "Isis' interpretation is mistaken. Photographs are covered by copyright". Isis saw this as a slanderous accusation that Tarquin knew more about law than she. She demanded that Tarquin retract it, and when he didn't, she stated her intention to sue. She was obviously in a litigious mood since her 6 month suspension for bad behaviour had just finished and she was allowed back in the courtroom again. Anyway, the discussion spread to about half a dozen different places: User talk:Tarquin, User talk:Isis, User talk:Jimbo Wales and wikien-l. Tarquin declared that he'd had enough and he was leaving Wikipedia, which prompted an immediate community response now in User talk:Tarquin/Archive 3. Isis left at about the same time, saying that she was going to file a lawsuit shortly thereafter. If the lawsuit ever materialised, I didn't hear anything about it. Tarquin came back after a short time. -- Tim Starling 06:14, Sep 14, 2003 (UTC)

I understood User:Eloquence mentionned once to me that Isis admin status was not volontarily removed. ?

Suing just because someone implied he knew law better than her ? My...

what do you mean 6 months suspension ? on wikipedia or in real life ? Anthère

As a lawyer in real life. --Menchi 06:33, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I'd better get my facts straight, hadn't I? I don't want to get sued as well. I seem to remember there being a suspension that ran out a couple of months before the event in question, but I can't find it at the moment. There was this one year suspension, this three year suspension, this reciprocal action, this one year suspension... Nope, can't find it. -- Tim Starling 07:01, Sep 14, 2003 (UTC)

Oh. Well...I read the archive at Tarquin. I remember part of the story for what I read on the ML. Then left for holidays, and never really understood what really happened in the end. I think that if a contributor was legally threatened by another contributor, that is something that should be mentionned in the history of Wikipedia. It certainly could happen again. But not if it pains Tarquin. I am glad he came back :-) Anthère

I was also interested in looking over this incident in Wikipedia's history. However, perhaps someone should look through these "deleted" materials before publishing them again publicly or summarizing them to make sure there is no defamation or personality/privacy rights violations. While any disciplinary decisions that are published are part of the public record commenting on them may require tack and deference to the unreolved nature of allegations (i.e. wait until any claims have been permanently extinguished before writing the history on them). Alex756 10:08, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Guys, if you think it's useful to document the whole sorry affair, then go ahead. As far as I am concerned, the matter is ancient history. -- Tarquin 10:15, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Ok, I guess I'll close the thread I started-- thanks Tarquin, and Alex, well be looking fo'wad t'yer brief on the matter ;). -戴&#30505sv 17:40, Sep 14, 2003 (UTC) ps.I wouldnt be too worried about defamation suit, just simply for archiving the legal argument --keeping any speculation about "reasons for leaving" separate.-SV

---

• Incremental 'pedia updates? -> Wikipedia talk:Database download

personal references

move to Wikipedia talk:Make omissions explicit

Could someone inform a new user what is the rule about writers referring to themselves? In my piece on Dirk Hartog I said that I had seen Dirk Hartog's plate in the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam last year. This was instantly removed. Is this not a fact that may be of some interest to someone? Who makes these decisions? Dr Adam Carr

Articles should be written in the third person, so the use of "I" should be avoided at all costs. Usually in a case like this, other Wikipedians would leave advice or guidelines on your Talk page, but this cannot be done unless you login, but it appears with Dirk Hartog you weren't logged in at the time. Fuzheado 09:19, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The comment you added ("I have not been able to locate any biographical information on Hartog") would be better on the article's talk page, which is where I have now moved it to. It doesn't make a lot of sense in the article as no-one knows who the "I" refers to. The article has many authors. See Wikipedia:Most common Wikipedia faux pas for an explanation of this. Angela 09:24, Sep 14, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for those comments: if that's the policy I will adapt to it. But, Angela, after you removed "I have not been able to locate any biographical information on Hartog," I then wrote "there does not appear to be any biographical information on Hartog," which is not a first-person reference but a statement of fact (at least as far as I know). That was also deleted. Is there a rule against commenting about sources or lack thereof? AC

No, but some Wikipedians get a little over-zealous. ;) It's all a matter of presentation: if you wrote something like Despite the significance of Hartog to the history of Australian exploration, he has been largely ignored by historians, and biographical information is sparse it wouldn't attract a second glance. Personally, I prefer the plain-language version, but there you go. It's a strange place, the 'pedia. Tannin 09:49, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I didn't remove anything. I just copied your comment to the talk page. It had already been deleted by that time. Fuzheado removed the comment you mentioned above with the edit summary "Took out the speculation, since it's not really part of the facts". I can understand why as there isn't really evidence for this - just one anonymous IP claiming that he could not find something does not make it true or indeed worthy for inclusion in the article. The Wikipedia:Verifiability rule may be the one most relevant here. Hope that helps. Angela 09:53, Sep 14, 2003 (UTC)

Comments about the result of your search and speculation would usually be considered background info to be discussed in the Talk pages. Only if research results were "newsworthy" would it be appropriate. Think for a second about what you might see in World Book, Britannica or a history book. I hope you don't take this as a rejection of your contributions, but simply as re-filing them into the right places. With only wiki mechanisms to form the social basis of the online community, the editing and deletion of info might seem abrupt and rude to our face-to-face social sensibilities. So hopefully people hang around long enough to see that Wikipedians are, in general, pretty good natured, cooperative and kind. And your sense of what contributions are appropriate, useful and friendly will adapt. Fuzheado 10:04, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Consider wikipedia:make omissions explicit - just add (to be written - biographical information). Martin 15:51, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

But not necessarily on the article page - see Wikipedia talk:Make omissions explicit. Angela 16:40, Sep 14, 2003 (UTC)

---

• Incremental 'pedia updates? -> Wikipedia talk:Database download

• formeruser:Isis -> User talk:Isis

• personal references / first person -> Wikipedia talk:Make omissions explicit

afterlife?

Could someone please explain how the vast majority of souls can "only go to that reforming place" for a short while, while the reward of an afterlife with God is not guaranteed.

According to the Kabbalah, (not a universally-accepted work) G-d judges who has followed His commandments and who doesn't and to what extent. Those who do not "pass the test" go to a purifying place called Sheol lit. gloom (sometimes called Purgatory, sometimes called Hell) to "learn their lesson". There is , however, for the most part, no eternal damnation. The vast majority of souls can only go to that refoming place for a limited amount of time (less than one year).

The concept of "life after death" in the Jewish view is therefore fuzzy, but whatever its nature, is a reward from God, not a punishment, and is not guaranteed to everyone. Jews are encouraged to concentrate more on the life they live now than on a possible afterlife, and to ritually remember (yizkor) those loved ones who have died, as an important (and possibly the only) form of continuation for their lives.

Message block

I logged in to make some additions to the List of Jews today. I know I got on in my AOL browser instead of the "Internet Explorer" browser I usually use, but still . . . After I edited the page, I got this screen:

User is blocked From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Your user name or IP address has been blocked by Hephaestos. The reason given is this:
Michael

You may contact Hephaestos or one of the other administrators to discuss the block.

Return to Main Page.

What does this mean?

Now it won't post no matter how many times I try entering a change into the browser and hitting "Save Page", and I've lost a larger number of Jews that were added into that article, including Josh Server, David Frum, David Horowitz, Leo Ornstein and Robert Ornstein, Lev Davidovich Landau, Jakob Dylan, Evan & Jaron, Abraham Maslow and William Safire (I hope I remembered them all.) For the rest of the day, I'm going to be posting only from Internet Explorer. Wiwaxia 02:39, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Wiwaxia, it means that somebody thinks you are an alter ego of a known troublemaker, "Michael", who has been banned from the Wikipedia due to his repeated and severe misbehaviour, or that you are posting from the same IP address as him (this can happen if your ISP uses a proxy server). Please take it up with the people mentioned if you have been caught inappropriately by a ban. --Robert Merkel 02:47, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I've unblocked the IP in question. - Hephaestos 02:56, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Is the list of blocked IPs purged frequently? I thought Michael finnally buggered off ages ago. CGS 09:58, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC).

There is no automated purging of the list of blocked IPs. IPs (and usernames) remain blocked until someone manually unblocks them. Depending on the sysop in question, this might be after a few days, or a few months. Martin 10:51, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Well, the last Michaele linked in User:Michael is from September 4th. But seems like his last actions could be stopped so fast that most didn't notice his appearence - for me it also seems like it was ages till I last reverted Michaels nonsense. Let's hope he is really gone now. andy 10:56, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)

"There is no automated purging of the list of blocked IPs". There will be soon. I've just put my enhanced blocking code into the "stable" version of our software, so it's now ready to go live. It'll probably be up within a couple of days.

• IP blocks will expire after 24 hours
• Sysops will be able to block logged-in users
• Sysops cannot effectively block other sysops
• IP addresses used by blocked logged-in users will also be blocked. Such IP addresses will be hidden to protect privacy.

This has been previously discussed on wikitech-l and wikien-l. -- Tim Starling 14:39, Sep 15, 2003 (UTC)

Okay, recent events (aka User:This is Hephaestos, not Michael) prompted me to move my timetable forward a little bit. This feature is now operational. As you can see at Special:Ipblocklist, I've broken it in. -- Tim Starling 01:03, Sep 16, 2003 (UTC)

It didn't work very well. I managed to block the first username in the two minutes between when he logged out as that user and when he logged back in as the second username. I didn't realise I'd missed him until after he'd finished overall. He never actually saw a block message. -- Tim Starling 02:53, Sep 16, 2003 (UTC)

Hmmm, seems like it isn't working fully, as User:64.175.249.214 (Hephaestos) is still able to do his vandalizing well after your block. andy 18:54, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Are you sure? I only see 4 contributions from him. I've tested the feature on myself; it seems to work, as does the autoblock of banned users' IP addresses... Evercat 19:33, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Plus one moving of Hephaestos' talk page around 20:30 GMT+2 which I already moved back, and thus does not show in that list anymore. But, the block is dated 03:44, 16 Sep 2003, while his first contribution is from 17:44, 16 Sep 2003 well after the block. Or is there a timezone mismatch? andy 19:41, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Hmm, seems you're right, he just moved a page. Perhaps the fact that his username looks like an IP is the problem? Evercat 19:55, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The fact that it looked like an IP was a problem, hopefully I just fixed it. If it works, you should see an autoblocker entry pop up at Special:Ipblocklist -- something like:

• "Evercat blocked #140 (contribs) (unblock) (Autoblocked because you share an IP address with 64.175.249.214 (Hephaestos). Reason: Michael"

Hang on, I'll make sure it's working. -- Tim Starling 01:55, Sep 17, 2003 (UTC)

Never mind, we got the bastard. Look, I even guessed the right ID! -- Tim Starling 02:02, Sep 17, 2003 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is awesome - thanks - Why Wikipedia is so great - deleted

• Richest Canadians - moved to wikipedia:votes for deletion#September_16

Message block

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump/September 2003 archive 1

Personal Pronoun for Countries

What is Wikipedia style for personal pronouns used for countries? For instance on the French Fifth Republic page, the feminine pronouns are used (presumably because la France is feminine in French) but in United States, the neuter pronouns are used. I don't have a stylebook on me now, but I believe AP style says neuter. If we don't already have a style it seems that that's what it should be. Basil Fawlty 16:00, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Image Copyrights

Where can I find information about fair use for images on wikipedia ? Anthère

Info on images is here --Flockmeal 23:27, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Thanks Flockmeal. There is nothing on fair use though. I supposed I am good for heading to the ML... Sigh ! Anthère

There's some stuff on Wikipedia talk:Image use policy and a bit on the Copyrights page but the mailing lists seem to have the most discussion about this. Angela 23:42, Sep 14, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks Angela. I go and check.

See also Wikipedia talk:Image use policy/copyright and fair use. Martin

9/11

Whatever happened to the 9/11 wiki? I thought it had been set up and the tribute articles moved there, but then I found Lorraine G. Bay on the Ancient Pages list. Why are these articles still here? Tuf-Kat 21:02, Sep 14, 2003 (UTC)

I don't know why the article you mentioned is still here, but the 9/11 wiki is here. --Flockmeal 21:18, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

It's still here because you haven't moved it yet.... ;-) Martin 15:58, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Aah... (note: Mary Alice Wahlstrom too) Is there supposed to be a redirect to that other wiki, or is it improper to redirect to a different website? Tuf-Kat

Some we've deleted, some we've inter-wiki redirected, and some we've redirected to September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks/Casualties. Many people have conflicting opinions, but the person who does the work gets to make the decision. :) Martin 09:12, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Personally, when I've come against them looking at ancient pages I've just let them lie. But that isn't out of laziness, but because I've got a bit of trepidation about moving stuff accross wiki's. I know it says: "Be bold", but knowing what one is doing would be nice too. I presume just using the ordinary movepage command works? Like if I was moving the page Foobar to the Finnish wiki, i'd just title it fi:Foobar maybe? What is the equivalent of "fi:" for the 9/11-wiki, BTW? -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 04:23, Sep 20, 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure that you can move pages across wikis yet. I just tried it and got the error message "This action cannot be performed on this page". Do they have to be cut and paste moved? Angela 04:32, Sep 20, 2003 (UTC)

No, 'move page' does not work across wikis. Cut-n-paste may not be desirable as it doesn't carry edit history. An m:XML import/export function which will make this easier is in the works but not finished; if it's really really really imperative that some article be transferred bodily right now it can be done manually with some database munging. --Brion 05:18, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

• Deletion Request moved to wikipedia:problem users/BuddhaInside

The end of *wikipedia.com

delete when fixed

What about changing the text in the *wikipedia.com:

<<We're sorry, but the server on which this site once lived has failed. We are working on getting the machine back in place. Until then, please accept our heart-felt apologies for the inconvenience>>

for another that indicates the change (while is not possible to redirect). Now, I'm alone in the Catalan one :'( Llull 16:37, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I've asked Jason to set up an interim redirect; hopefully will be up soon. --Brion 17:42, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Public Domain Paintings

move to Wikipedia talk:image use policy/copyright Is a pre-20th century painting in public domain?

I think it's in the public domain if the painter has been dead > 50 years. Date of the painting itself is irrelevant. IANAL. CGS 16:35, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC).

The paintings themselves may be considered to be in the public domain, but photos or illustrations of the paintings are copyrighted to whoever made them or possibly their heirs. CyberMaus 17:21, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Are you sure? I thought you can't copyright a digital representation of another image (in this case a painting) unless it is a derivitive somehow (although that could be something as simple as cropping). CGS 18:35, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC).

Yup. It doesn't matter what the digital image is a representation of. The digital image itself is copyright protected even though it's a scan of a photo of a photo of a picture. Keep in mind that the original photo is also copyrighted so that it's possible that the digital image itself may be in violation because permission was not obtained from the original image's owner. The Visual Resources Association Guidelines propose exceptions for educational institutions (I suppose it could be argued that wikipedia qualifies as an educational institution) in some circumstances, but these have no legal foundation. BTW IANAL :) CyberMaus 20:35, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Under U.S. law copyright does not subsist in purely mechanical reproductions of public domain works. See: Bridgeman Art Library Ltd. v. Corel Corporation, 36 F. Supp. 2d 191, US SDNY (1999) accurate photographs of public domain works is not original[6]. Alex756 04:36, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Copyrights for previous discussions of this. Angela 20:44, Sep 14, 2003 (UTC)

Isn't copyright life+70 years now? [7] --Nelson 01:31, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

table of contents in printable version

do people think the table of contents [showhide] thing should be displayed when looking at a printable version of something?

On paper, it's pretty easy just to scan an article for the headings you want without needing a toc. Tristanb 10:01, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The TOC should definitely be included on paper. You could argue that on a web page it is easier to find something as you can use ctrl F to search for something, whereas on paper you actually need to read it, so the TOC is probably more important on paper. Angela 10:25, Sep 14, 2003 (UTC)

What?? "Should definitely" -- Meaning the TOC "Must Absolutely" be included on paper? I find Id prefer to see the TOC minimized on the screen, (option to show) rather than on paper. The ideal would be having an option to show/hide on both screen and print. -戴&#30505sv 03:45, Sep 16, 2003 (UTC)

A choice would be nice, but in the absence of choice, I'd say it should be included. I assume you want the option before you print it. I read your message first thing this morning and was wondering how you could have such an option on paper. :) --Angela 18:49, Sep 16, 2003 (UTC)

Louis XIV

Is it me or is the page for Louis XIV a bit... er... let's say sketchy and a bit shoddily written? Anybody feels like making up something better (maybe copying an Old Encyclopedia)? :-) David.Monniaux 23:03, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)

were it the only page in that case :-) soupir Anthère

See Wikipedia:Pages needing attention. Angela

telling-tales on vandals ?

move to wikipedia:dealing with vandalism

Folks, what's our policy on "telling tales" (I can't think of a better term) on our misguided schoolkid vandals? Just as an example, I was looking at (porn-link) vandalism done my someone at IP [http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=205.174.111.220 205.174.111.220 ], which resolves to a Pennsylvanian school district, and already reverted by the dedicated User:Ahoerstemeier :). Do we have a policy of sending the net admin for such an address a (hopefully mild) nastygram, or do we just let it lie? If we do, can someone point me to the policy page, and if we don't - should we? (In the latter case, I'd gladly draft a gentle nastygram for communal approval). Finlay McWalter 21:33, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I just ignore such things the first time or two in my own place, elsewhere, and advise other community managers to do the same. It's not worth the time. Just a distraction from building an encyclopedia until there is a pattern of abuse from a place. JamesDay 22:43, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

If you desire to notify an ISP that one of their users has breached the ISP's terms of service, then you are welcome to do so. wikipedia:dealing with vandalism neither encourages nor discourages such actions. Martin 22:44, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I doubt that it would be necessary in this case - after the user got his warning on the talk page and continued his vandalism I simple blocked his IP, so he could not do any more harm. Most vandals will not come back once they see that their graffiti get reverted or their IP being blocked, there are only very few who do it again and again - like our infamous User:Michael. For those the nastygram would be necessary. andy 08:15, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Deletions, where to build pages and evolution of conventions.

It has been to some extent, a practice of some builders of the Wikipedia that articles should appear magically, out of thin air, as works which are somewhat complete. See stubs for the comment that "A stub on Wikipedia is a very short article, generally of one paragraph or less. Most Wikipedians hate stubs, which is undeserved". This practice is harmful in part for the following reasons:

• It discourages keeping the history of the development of the page with the page. If you use twenty sources to produce a page but the whole page appears at once, how can anyone hope to trace your conversion of those sources from copyright violations to a non-infringing page? If you do it with the page, either the main page or the talk page, it is easy to see and or later find your work and that makes life much easier if something proves to require substantiating ten years from now. This is a legal risk. There will be accusations that content of the Wikipedia is not original. Eliminating that risk is far easier if the page creation history is kept with the page.
• The material in some cases can't go in the main article. In the case prompting this post it was a possible copyright violation if placed in the main article (intended for publication) but not in talk (working document, not intended for publication). It was necessary to document it as source material.
• It discourages people working together to create pages. Where can ten people go to create a page cooperatively? They can do it in user pages but doesn't doing it in sections of the talk page (or a notes page, which doesn't currently exist) where everyone working on the page can easily see what is happening and contribute to the works in progress of the others better than spreading it around lots of talk pages?
• For examples, see the pages and talk pages for OCILLA and DMCA to observe how several people have been cooperatively developign pages and keeping their working documents in places where others can readily find them. For legal discussions of the copyright issues, see User_talk:Alex756, User_talk:JamesDay.

Prompted by the delete mentioned in User_talk:JamesDay, which seems to have deleted something which was of use - though for reasons the people doing the deleting probably weren't aware of. Hence this post. Please consider changing a page to a valid stub or listing it for deletion if you don't trust that someone who says they have created a page for a purpose will complete the stated purpose and produce a viable page within seven days. Otherwise you're getting in the way of building articles, not helping by cleaning up permanently blank things.

I don't much like building in talk but it's the best cooperative building place short of the main article... unless someone has a better idea for a location than the user pages of multiple contributors, which will also keep the page evolution with the page which is being built? JamesDay 03:05, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

In case anyone's wondering, the page in question is Presidential trivia, and until I deleted it, it contained only "This is a stub. The activity is currently in talk." I moved the talk page to User:JamesDay/Presidential trivia. -- Tim Starling 03:19, Sep 17, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Tim. You handled the delete itself well... but I'm not sure that you knew that there were legal and cultural reasons for choosing to do it the way I did. Hence the discussion here to make others aware of them.JamesDay 03:56, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

FWIW, "This is a stub. The activity is currently in talk." is not what I at least would consider to be a stub at all. A stub actually contains some useful information, just not very much: "Joe Bob is a Frisian artist." or "Fizubia is an island nation in the Pacific ocean." are minimal stubs. Even if it's not much, please put something in the article -- and be bold in updating pages! --Brion 06:04, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

This is certainly my view also. Please put at least some minimal content in the subject page. Additionally, whilst I'm not familiar with the specific case here, in general I think it's OK to have articles take shape (provided they are left in some kind of semi-fit state) on the subject page itself, rather than building the page elsewhere and then dumping it as a completed work on the subject page. --Robert Merkel 06:48, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I support allowing people to create their stubs from scratch. I'd suggest a simple modificiation of deletion policy to add "don't delete pages (or list them on VfD) that are younger than an hour, except for vandalism". Martin 08:34, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

It wasn't younger than an hour, it was 8 hours old when I deleted it. It was created at 23:27, 15 Sept, and deleted at 07:43, 16 Sept. -- Tim Starling 08:45, Sep 17, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for info. So, in my proposed deletion policy modification, your deletion would be fine. But I have seen articles listed for deletion, or deleted, in less than an hour, and it's rarely had a positive outcome.

Btw, James, if you create an article in your user space, you can then move it to the article space, which will keep the page history, solving your copyright issue. Martin 08:57, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Thanks - can you point me to what I'm still missing: how to do it? For my case, I'd have done it that way, most likely, because there wasn't an attemt to work cooperatively on that article. Can that move the article and talk related to it, so that there's no record suggesting that the possible copyright infringemets were ever on a page intended for publication? If so, that's good for one person and leaves mainly the issues of cooperative work, convenience of places to work and scaling to multiple people ignorant of others working on the same thing questions.JamesDay 22:13, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Sure: wikipedia:move. Martin 23:02, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Thanks. Once this is over I'll build the specific example and move it to replace the deleted copy. Meanwhile I've voted the deleted page for deletion over at VfD to close that issue. On with the general point discussion...JamesDay 09:03, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

This is kind of a bunch of nonsense. There is a clear line between what is a stub, what is vandalism, etc. Clearly no stub should just contain a line that says this is a stub. It can have nothing in the body except langalinks for all I care. <rant> But to suggest--as Chadloder did on my talk, that seeding an article with a sentence or a paragraph is somehow a crime to be punished is a complete load of crap. The problem again is related to the m:academic standards kick -- a variant, actually -- the m:anal perfectionism trip, which is essentially a call for increased quality of articles from people who themselves cant write such articles. We do what we can-- a stub if its interesting can become an article quickly-- others will remain stubs for a hundred and twenty seven years, simply because noone has been interested enough to finish it. Remember children -- the problem with stubs isnt that they exist-- its that the gripey people who happen to look at them dont know what to add to them, or are too lazy to research it.戴&#30505sv 08:50, Sep 17, 2003 (UTC) </rant>

Troll. -- Tim Starling 09:09, Sep 17, 2003 (UTC)

I agree with Martin's proposed policy change. I started trying to do this a while ago. Only problem is that now I have over 100 bookmarks of articles I was going to come back to a few hours later and never did. Good policy nonetheless. Angela 16:45, Sep 17, 2003 (UTC)

No it isn't a good policy, for precisely that reason - most deleted pages are deleted shortly after their creation; it's impractical for me to have to bookmark it and come back to it later. Let me deal with it now, rather than wasting my time. For sincere attempts to do something useful, send the author a note explaining things, if you like. (some examples at User:Evercat/text) --Evercat 17:24, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

And also, I'll add that this new policy would probably mean that the time of maybe 5 or so people was wasted, since they're all going to check back in an hour, the first to do so will delete it, and the others will be irritated. This policy is ill-conceived and wrong. :-) Evercat 18:02, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Are Wikipedia:Blankpages and Wikipedia:Short articles broken? Don't they cover this area well already? I understand that the tools exist and some are more convenient, but aren't you elevating the convenience of one checking tool over the purpose of building something? The tools seem to exist to check periodically, so why the urgency with the deletions?JamesDay 22:13, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Please don't delete when you can make a useful stub instead. Be bold in updating pages does not mean "be bold in deleting pages"! :) --Brion 18:49, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I agree it's inpractical to keep sub-stub articles longer then now - once they slip out of Recent Changes or New Pages they will be lost, and then only found again by accident. How about a new candidate: Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America contains just Started in 1997 . . .. The comment given when starting the article was will begin later. Why not start an article when it has enough meat for at least a stub? andy 21:29, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I really don't see how deletion of the trivia non-article can possibly be controversial, and have re-deleted it. Was I wrong to do so? Evercat 00:47, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

No. You did right, and please keep on doing it. We depend on people like you to help keep this encyclopedia, if not on the rails, at least somewhere within sight of the track, Evercat. I agree entirely with your comments above. Tannin 01:51, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) Evercat 02:04, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Regarding forgetting to come back to articles: the way I found this 8 hour old article was by looking through Special:Newpages. 50 entries on Special:Newpages takes you back about 2-4 hours. I often look back over the last 200 or so new articles. Personally I find weeding is much more productive in that area -- there's still plenty of wikification, stub warnings, VFD listings, etc. to do, but you don't have to put up with the constant edit conflicts you get when you edit in the top ~30 entries of RC. -- Tim Starling 01:53, Sep 18, 2003 (UTC)

Hmm, that's a good point. I'd forgotten about that page. :-) Evercat 02:04, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Is it fair to write that the primary reason for wanting to delete in hours rather than weeks is the technical issue of how to find the pages if the creator doesn't have good intent? Any other reasons or is this just that technical one causing people to assume ill intent because of the overhead of waiting to find out if it was? Given the technical issues, I don't see a lot of point in one hour rather than ten minutes - one hour won't gain much for a deliberate work in progress.

Any comments on changing the delete guidance to include this as a possible course of action:

'If an article is short or empty, consider forming an opinion on whether the creator is intending to expand the work within a few days or a week. If yes, consider making the insufficient article a stub and possibly listing in VfD. If there is an explicit statement that the creator has deliberately created it as a work in progress, that strongly suggests interrupted or cooperative work, so good intent and a stub without VfD is preferred.'

What changes, if any, to Wikipedia:Blankpages and Wikipedia:Short articles would be needed to make this a non-issue and assume goodwill in all cases? JamesDay 09:03, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

• Marketocracy article --> VfD

Clear your cache

If you're forever telling people to clear their cache to see if problems they report actually exist, you can now tell them to Wikipedia:Clear your cache. CGS 22:31, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC).

Image disappeared?

Whatever happened to the image of Frederick Jackson Turner which I uploaded months ago? It's just not there, but the file still exists -- without an upload date though. I tried to upload the same (I think) picture again some minutes ago, but still no result. Who can help? --KF 22:13, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)

It's there for me. Sepia photo, right? Wikipedia:Clear your cache. CGS 22:20, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC).

Response time

Are others experiencing extremely long response time? I've been sitting on three other pages waiting for over 5 minutes for them to return to Recent Changes. I have also gotten "Page cannot be found" several times tonight. RickK 03:10, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The server's very busy but hanging in there. The web server is going to be upgraded soon, so hopefully that will help a bit. If you want to help: Wikipedia:Donations -- Tim Starling 03:26, Sep 16, 2003 (UTC)

This may be a stupid question but; when Google and sites like Onelook update themselves regarding to wikipedia content, does it have an significant effect on the server performance and response time? -- Skysmith 11:52, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Well-behaved, polite, gentle spiders like Google's don't seriously degrade performance, but we get our share of visits from jerks who hit every link on the site four at a time with no delay between hits. When these are found, they get banned. --Brion 05:16, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Message block

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump/September 2003 archive 1

• Wikipedia is awesome - thanks - Why Wikipedia is so great - deleted

• Richest Canadians - moved to wikipedia:votes for deletion#September_16

Copying content from E2

I have found some nodes on Everything2 that I'd like to (partially) copy to a WP article. Is this permissible by copyright? (I didn't write the E2 content.) What attribution would I need to use? --bdesham 02:12, Sep 15, 2003 (UTC)

I don't know, but there are a few notes on this at the Wikipedia:Guide for Everything2 noders. --Camembert

Short answer: no, you can't copy directly without permission from the original author. You can use the material on E2 as a reference to write a wikipedia article in your own words. --Robert Merkel 02:49, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)

E2 users own the content they have written and have given no blanket permission to redistribute it beyond the bounds of E2. If you'd like, contact the user who wrote them, or alternatively as Robert Merkel said, rewrite the facts in your own words. --Morven 03:56, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Effect of other sites' updates on Wikipedia performance

This may be a stupid question but; when Google and sites like Onelook update themselves regarding to wikipedia content, does it have an significant effect on the server performance and response time? -- Skysmith 11:52, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Spiders and bots policy

Relevance

I would like a second opinion on what counts as 'advertising.' I added external links in relevant places ('Babel', 'Tower of Babel', 'Languages' etc.) to my non-commercial website (towerofbabel.com) which is actually another multilingual project similar to Wikipedia named Babel (and if you are familiar with the myth of the tower of Babel you would understand its relevance, because the entire je nais se quoi is based on the paradigm of the myth.) I fail to see how these links would be construed as 'irrelevant' or as 'advertising.' I assume the person who deleted my external links didn't even bother to look at the site.

The link (http://www.towerofbabel.com/) is far too generic to be either relevant or useful; it's kind of like adding a link to the front page of an map site on every single country, city, or geographical article. If you could make the links specific to the topics where you place them, they'd be much more likely to remain. --Brion 05:46, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I want to delete articles

In the Catalan Wikipedia we have more than 60 wrong pages that we want to delete but nobody can do it. Where I have to request the permition? Llull 18:26, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)

As the Catalan Wikipedia is running on the old software, you need a password to delete articles. I think you would probably have to contact Jimbo ([8]) for this unless the developers are able to give it out. Angela 18:33, Sep 23, 2003 (UTC)

overly broad statements

In the page on "association", I see something about associations being some "nominate" contract in "the civil law system".

It's a bit misleading to talk of "THE" civil law system. There are dozens of civil law systems, and I suspect that their laws on corporations vary greatly.

I think one should be very prudent before stating general facts. If you are sure that what you say applies in a certain country, say it; but avoid drawing broad generalities.

It's especially easy to say untruths on questions of law if one bases oneself on reports in the press. Journalists are often thoroughly incompetent in the law of their own country, let's not even talk of the laws of other countries.

IP block malfunctioning

The IP block feature seems to be malfunctioning, I'v been trying to block an IP adress but it just says "No user of this name exists" whenever I try to submit it G-Man 20:59, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I just tried blocking myself and it worked. Who are you trying to block? Does it work for other IPs? Angela 21:04, Sep 19, 2003 (UTC)

Maybe you did enter an additional whitespace after the IP, and then the block does not accept it as an IP anymore and tries the user lookup. andy 21:24, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Yes you were right thanks, I've done it now G-Man 21:45, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

This is fixed in CVS now. -- Tim Starling 10:29, Sep 20, 2003 (UTC)

Plagiarism

I've just found the entire text of a small Wikipedia article I wrote replicated on another site http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Pali-Text-Society plagiarists. While I'm not concerned about my own copyright, I wonder what the attitude to this sort of blatant plagiarism is? I emailled them and told them they should at least acknowledge that they got the text from Wikipedia. Mahaabaala 10:07, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Site says "The Wikipedia article included on this page is licensed under the GFDL." Was that there when you looked? CGS 10:22, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC).

D'oh! I didn't scroll down far enough. Still it's an interesting question generally. Any comments? Mahaabaala 10:30, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

This is great! That's why Wikipedia is licensed under an open license. It's not plagerism, it's the whole point. CGS 10:39, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC).

I hope you didn't scare them into deleteing the page unnesessarily, Mahaabaala. CGS 12:19, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC).

nationmaster.com is already listed on Wikipedia:Sites that use Wikipedia for content. andy 12:24, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Page history disappeared (bug?)

When I looked into the "Newly created pages" a few minutes ago, I found this entry:

04:20, 24 Sep 2003 Perspective (12089 bytes) . . 142.177.92.68 (needs headings)

Looking into perspective, it indeed seems that the page history goes no further back than two edits, which seems plain impossible, given the rather developed state of the article, the number of links to it etc. Is this a known problem? Kosebamse 08:56, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Error while moving page

I was moving My Travel/Premiair to My Travel and got this error message:

A database query syntax error has occurred. The last attempted database query was: "UPDATE LOW_PRIORITY searchindex SET si_title='my travel' WHERE si_page=141876" from within function "SearchUpdate::doUpdate". MySQL returned error "1016: Can't open file: 'searchindex.MYI'. (errno: 145)".

It would appear that the pages move anyway when this occurs. I ran into the same thing.

-- Cyan 21:26, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Wondering how you like this format

I've decided to tackle a requested article: List of asteroids in our Solar System. Currently I've only put ten asteroids into the article, to see how it looks. As this is a massive article which will take much time over the next few months (it's a little tedious...can't say I'll be slaving at it hours at a time), I want to make sure people like what I've got up. If someone has a simple suggestion, I'm happy to take it. If you've got a complex suggestion....hey, I'd be happy if someone helped me with this. :) Anyway, look at the article if you have the chance, and please drop a note on its talk page or mine to tell me how it looks. I appreciate it! Jwrosenzweig 23:09, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I think it looks good. Consider adding the following minor statements: 1) that these are only the known asteroids; 2) Listed are X largest (change as your list expands); and 3) a statement about the range in sizes from largest to pretty darn small and maybe not observable? - Marshman 23:17, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)