Wikipedia talk:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Old discussions

Why is this page in Category:NPOV disputes? Filiocht 11:08, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

Someone referred to it in a reply: I've added a ":" -- ALoan (Talk) 11:26, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I really should have spotted that myself. Filiocht 11:39, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

style suggestions for VP and WP:HD

Do we have any distinct responder guidelines for the WP:VP and WP:HD pages? I'm thinking about things like:

1. Anyone responding should practice utmost WP:CIVILITY, being particularly mindful of WP:BITE
2. Anyone responding should avoid use of wikislang, wikiterms, and wikibreviations (e.g. those at Wikipedia:Edit summary legend), but instead actually type the entire normal English words. If you can't speak normal English anymore, take a wikibreak (I mean take some time off). I think responders should specifically avoid use of "newbie" for "new user" since it has a dismissive connotation. "anon" for "anonymous user" is more neutral, but I suspect close to nonsensical to a new user.
3. Anyone responding should minimize use of wikimarkup and, where it's necessary, use the simplest markup that will do the job (which is often perhaps not the most compact or "elegant").

Anyone have any more? And anyone know if such a list already exists anywhere? -- Rick Block (talk) 00:15, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

For all of our sakes, it should at least be okay on the talk pages, as long as what you're saying is readable! --Wack'd About Wiki 20:21, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Are personal rants acceptable here?

Regarding this edit.

Are personal rants, complaints with no relevance to Wikipedia, etc. acceptable material on this page? I know that comment wouldn't be acceptable in userspace, and I think that disparaging the people of Rock Springs is probably not something we wish to promote. --tjstrf 20:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your removal. That is not what the village pump is for. —Mets501 (talk) 20:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, good. I've been removing the occasional really weird/random junk we get here for a while, and was hoping I hadn't been guilty of accidental vandalism or anything. --tjstrf 20:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) I've seen some odd questions on village pump pages before, and from what I could tell, they are normally responded to with something approaching a "Huh? I think you're in the wrong place." and then left for the bot to archive in 7 days. I think this has something to do with the fact that Village pump is a place where new users who are clueless about what Wikipedia is and how it works wind up.

A lot of people have never heard of Wikipedia, or know nothing about it other than that "X's son uses it for homework and says it's a great place to find and share information." They come here with a question, comment, or complaint and wander around lost and eventually wind up at the Village pump. It's nice to let them know, just in case they ever come back, that Wikipedia is not whatever they think it is. Leaving odd comments for 7 days doesn't hurt much, and is a form of not biting the newcomers. At least, that's what I think and that's why I reverted your edit. I could be mistaken though. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 21:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

In this case it was harmful, as it was insulting Rock Springs. I believe we try to avoid insulting places just as much as we do people. --tjstrf 21:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs a forum board...IMHO.

How about phpBB. I'd prefer IPB or vBulletin based, but I figure since Wikipedia's free and open-source, the board should be too. --John R. Sellers 02:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Review is sort of like that, but it generally puts Wikipedia in a negative light. —Mets501 (talk) 02:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Users who are not familiar with that site should be aware that it is not actually "like that," but rather a forum that is designed to harbour banned editors, and engage in harassment against editors here. Its criticizms are regularly ignored, and using the forum with any regularity is considered a black mark by many editors here. If you wish to communicate in a forum-like atomosphere, use the Wikipedia:Mailing Lists. MOASPN 12:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that, at least if associated with the WMF, a forum would detract from the "purpose" of building an encyclopedia (in the eyes of some). However, it doesn't stop any member from setting up their own forum for Wikipedia discussion/socialising. Martinp23 01:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

There's also a forum for Wikipedia on Usenet. It's called alt.wikipedia but it doesn't receive a lot of posts. -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Goodbye ISBN

How is Wkipedia going to handle the ISBN10 -> ISBN13 issue? The change date for this gigantic debancle will be 1-1-2006, which is next week. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trilobitealive (talk • contribs) 00:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

There's been some discussion elsewhere. A bot was converting all ISBN-10s to ISBN-13s, which breaks links to various sources which haven't caught up yet. The reasonable opinion (which may or may not have gained consensus) seemed to me to be that Wikipedia should wait until pretty much everybody has books findable by ISBN-13 before making the switch mandatory. Argyriou (talk) 01:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

1-1-2006 is next week? OMFG I must be in a time warp Nil Einne 02:16, 1 January 2007 (NZDT UTC+13)

The actual inaugural date is, umm....now, I believe. Cryptonymius 07:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Ending disruption caused by rants about Chinese Wikipedia

I've just extended the block on User:SummerThunder to indefinite due to continued block evasion, which was done to rant about the Chinese Wikipedia, including disruptive cross-posting across the other pages. (Indefinite is not infinite, he will probably be unblocked if he promises to stop being disruptive, but that's not what I'm posting about, so moving on.)

As we have no jurisdiction over the Chinese Wikipedia, moderating such rants is a total waste of everyone's time - both ours and those ranting about it. I suggest we put a stop to it, now - archive the current discussions and revert any further postings relating to this matter and those participants. The participants can take their complaints about being banned and any other issues with zhWiki to the appropriate place. Thoughts? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I support this idea. As I said at User talk:Ran, "I don't really see why they're posting this here - this is the English Wikipedia and there's nothing we can do to help them on zh.wiki (except for the Chinese-speakers). If they have concerns they can go to meta or try the mailing list." We should probably archive the discussion about the Chinese Wikipedia, and move on. Khoikhoi 00:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I've been considering an AN/I report, but decided I was too embroiled in the situation and that I should step back aside from reverting any socks I saw. There are presently 8 or more topics whining about the zh.wiki right now, including the especially offensive "The chinese wikipedia problem - the Chinese communist spies" attack rant which was apparently reposted AGAIN. This is excessive, harmful, and needs to stop as soon as possible. --tjstrf talk 00:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts: WP:SOAP, WP:RBI. I hope Summer understands that he's being blocked because he is simply breaking the rules, and not because we are picking on him or trying to silence his opinions. –Gunslinger47 00:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Somehow, I doubt it. He seems to have thoughts along the same line as User:Cplot did/does: anyone who opposes me is obviously a sockpuppet or member of the conspiracy. Never hurts trying though. --tjstrf talk 00:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as archiving goes, I would suggest using the same format as closed discussions on deletion review - the discussion is left in its original place, hidden, but a click shows what's been posted. It looks less like censorship than the alternatives of deleting the text or moving it to an archive. I'll do it tomorrow (i.e. when the sun is up on 2007 where I am) if there are no serious objections by then. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Support the block. SummerThunder has continued the same behavior which got him blocked from zh and meta. He doesn't seem to get it. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this biting him in any way? --AAA! ^(AAAA) 04:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

No. He's hardly new in any sense, as he has had ample opportunity on 3 Wikis to reform. --tjstrf talk 04:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Why are the Village Pump pages semi-protected?

Anons often come to the Village Pump with legitimate questions and comments. They are part of the community too. I understand that there is a problem user who keeps inserting a diatribe about US Government agents controlling the 9/11 article; but is that really a reason to completely exclude anons from the community? To forbid us from asking questions or making comments or helping others? 70.231.126.33 03:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree, the village pump is absolutely the last place that should be semi-protected LukeSurl 10:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Chicago Fire

Today I Expanded the chicago fire article! I am doing a speech on it at school. NS Zakeruga

Have fun!--Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Slander? Sock puppetry accusation

Hi - I think what's going on here is simply outrageous. I was slandered as a sock puppet and my page defiled by some idiot. Now, is there a due process of any sort or someone with powers of devinity (why? who?) can just brand other users with slanderous titles and place sock puppet tags on their pages? I am using Roobit user name in English and Russian wikipedia and only English wikipedia has been affected. I am not a sock puppet of anyone, I never used proxy and I register and write from my own email address. What is taking place here is absolute disgrace. If someone dislikes your views, he can just brand you a sock puppet? Do you need a crowd of tame users who express identical opinions or have no opinions on their own? How has the power to slander other users in this manner and what is the remedy against it/him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roobit (talk • contribs) 06:34, January 3, 2007

• You might try convincing WP:RFCU to say that you and the alleged-puppeteer post from different IPs. Whether they agree is unclear. semper fictilis 04:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• The same thing has happened to me recently. I'd like to hear what happened to your case and if you have any advice, please let me know. Lojah 23:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Please help

I have no idea how to to file the right kind of request for comment or mediation or arbitration, or whatever. I have a determined troll following me around "proceduring" me to death. He has been following me around through a series of articles that I have been working on, constantly editing things while I am in the process of editing them too, demending changes, moving things around.

• Jewish reactions to intelligent design
• Jewish opposition to evolution
• Natan Slifkin

One of the big problems, frankly, is that the topics I am working on require some knowledge of Hebrew and a lot of knowledge of Jewish philosophy and theology. This editor, who knows nothing about these matters, is simply creating one stumbling block after another, always citing some wikipedia procedure. He appears to be going to my contributions file to see what I am working on, and then going there to mess something up.

I frankly don't want to know all the Wikipedia policies and procedures. I want to write. I've been doing so for about a year, and so far, I've been very happy with it. I've asked him to back away. I asked him to come back and edit the article later in the day, or in the evening. I've offered for both of us to leave and come back in a week, to allow some other writer a chance to work. Whereever it is I am working, he seems to want to be there.

Wikipedia needs contributors who are writers, who know a subject well, who do careful research work in the subject and write well balanced and thoroughly sourced articles. I am such a person. I don't claim authority in any field, like an advanced degree. (I do have a degree, I just don't claim that it matters here on Wikipedia.)

What I can do is easy to see from what I have done. I have started dozens of articles, and never had one deleted, working some of them through to completion. Many of them are on serious scholarly topics. I enjoy writing. I don't claim to "own" these articles. If I wanted that, I would write somewhere under my own name.

What happened to me over the last few days was an incident of procedural harassment. I have never experienced anything like it. User:ZayZayEM has been following me around through a group of articles that I have been working on, creating a long series of procedural problems. Each time, he cites some Wikipedia policy for why he is of course right.

I'm not interested in arguing about Wikipedia policy X or Y. I am interested in writing. I am not interested in going thourgh some kind of elaborate Wikipedia arbitration determination procedure, in which we somehow determine who was right.

It's very simple. There are 1,697,500 articles on Wikipedia that this person could be working on right now, and most of them do need work. User:ZayZayEM could be working on any one of them, but instead, he chooses to harass me.

Looking at his recent logs, his last RfC was a few days ago. I've never had one. I didn't even know what an RfC was until a few days ago. This user is simply looking for fights.

If I'm supposed to go to some kind of arbitration panel and write some kind of elaborate defense or request, I'm outta here. I'm not interested in spending time doing that. I've never bothered to figure out how to cite logs, and I don't want to. User:ZayZayEM has presented an endless series of procedural hurdles, and such a process would be more of the same, and a complete waste of time. I'm sure that once the process was finished, he would be back to more of the same.

He knows nothing about the topics that I am trying to write about. I would welcome a collaborator or two who does, but this fellow isn't that collaborator. He simply creates endless headaches. Each time, he cites the wikipedia policy under which he is of course "right," but if I then try the same thing back, or try to suggest something else, there is some other Wikipedia policy under which he is also right, or he switches to something else that he wants.

I've read that Wikipedia is interested in the product, not the process. Well this user is obsessed with the process, and presents endless hurdles to improving the product.

If your answer is that I'm supposed to file wiki-dot-colon-xxxcite-procedure and wait for a wiki-xxxxarb-med-committee to volunteer to handle the case, my answer is no. That's his game, not mine. I'm sure he is good at it too. --Metzenberg 05:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I recommend that you bring this concern up immediately at WP:AN/I. Wikistalking is defiantly harassment. Feel free to drop me a line on my talk page if you need help with that. --S.dedalus (talk) 03:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Edit to add. Wait, is this talk page active? That last was written in MARCH and no one answered? :-/ --S.dedalus (talk) 03:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Are personal rants acceptable here? (2)

Many people are not aware that a person need not be named for a libel to occur. Recently Feedbac10 posted an insulting and possibly libelous comment about a person he or she identified as "The NUT at" a certain store in Singapore. It was removed, but not quickly enough. No, personal rants are not acceptable if they involve defamatory remarks about living people. Sincerely GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

About Winter storm by season

I think it has to divined Winter storm of Northern Hemisphere(ex:winter storms of 2006-2007)and Winter storm of Southern Hemisphere(ex:winter storms of 2007).140.133.6.7 (talk) 02:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Archives of this page

When does this page (the project page, not the talk page) get archived, and who decides to do so? In looking at Wikipedia:Village_pump_archive, I cannot see a detectable pattern. Torktork (talk) 00:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The pumps are archived by MiszaBot II. Algebraist 01:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Unanimously opposed. Anomie⚔ 14:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC) Anomie⚔ 14:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) → Wikipedia:Village pump — I am not intending this as a merger, but more this page replacing the one replacing the other. The village pump is our central place of discussion, but you can't have discussion at the village pump. The current setup works great for our experienced editors, and probably works pretty well for most new editors, but this would reduce the margin for error greatly. The current setup is redundant, and this page could be made to also serve whatever function the current WP:VP is serving. In other words, it makes more sense to have a "generic" village pump located at WP:Village pump, and encourage people to use the specialized pages if they know which one to use. This will reduce the number of posts to the wrong forum, as well as posts to WT:Village pump, which are almost always misplaced. I'd be willing to bet that some editors end up not posting at all because they don't quite get protocol. It will increase posts to this forum, but that can be handled.▫ JohnnyMrNinja 01:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose No, this seems like a bad idea. The current set up works fine, if you go to Wikipedia:Village pump it directs you to the proper subpage. This is exactly how Wikipedia:Reference desk is set up. Its plainly self-explanatory, and if you make the entry page ALSO a discussion page it is actually more confusing, and not less, in my opinion. --Jayron32 05:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose; I'm afraid it would reduce the ability for editors to find the proper place for a topic. Too many people will just say "ah, screw it", and post to the main page. Powers ^T 16:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose It will probably be more confusing if this move is made. The header directs people where they need to go to seperate out the conversations. ~~ GB fan ~~ 12:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose This is a solution in search of a problem. The Village Pump pages work just fine as they are. Roger (talk) 19:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose, per Roger. – ukexpat (talk) 20:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose the current system, with Wikipedia:Village pump being a page directing to others and without specific content, is better. The proposed change, in the long run, would make this one to take priority over the "sub village pumps", and people would post everything in it, regardless of the nature, as it may get more views, and in the end it would be completely chaotic, as we would ruin the purpose why village pumps are divided in specific ones in the first place MBelgrano (talk) 01:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose back to this again?Thelmadatter (talk) 01:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. One landing page leading to subpages works just fine. Fences&Windows 21:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. While I can see the logic of JohnnyMrNinja's argument, I feel that the objections already raised are cogent, and the change proposed would be likely to lead to a less-optimal situation. While there are undoubtedly parts of the Wikipedia structure that are over-complex, I think that this particular arrangement encourages a more thought-out approach to postings - having to think about where you post something actually helps you decide exactly what it is you are trying to say. (I suspect that this particular structural layout may actually merit more usage within Wikipedia - this however is an issue I'd need to consider further though.) AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose per Jayron32. -- œ^™ 13:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Material removed

When people come along and promtly remove whole sections of valid and relevant material, it makes the whole wiki process rather pointless. This is perhaps one of the more destructive habits on wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabby (talk • contribs) 13:24, 29 December 2011‎

This is being dealt with at User talk:Tabby#Re:Wikipedia talk:Village pump (miscellaneous). -- John of Reading (talk) 17:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Removal of religious material

I have just removed a long religious tract from the village pump talk page (see this diff) but would be happier if a couple of editors had a look at my action and gave me their thoughts on whether it was the right thing to do. Britmax (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The removal was certainly the right thing to do.-gadfium 22:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Unequivocally so. MistyMorn (talk) 23:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd say it would be a case of vandalism, if the user keeps this up. ZZArch ^{talk to me} 02:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughts! Britmax (talk) 22:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Page move protected

Just to note that I've protected this page from moves, to align it with the other VP sub-pages. James F. (talk) 18:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Tagging editor resource as spam

No idea why Ohconfucius keeps removing Pigsonthewing's offer of assistance using his Wikimedia-sanctioned role as spam. [1] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:06, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Have you asked Ohconfucious? Blueboar (talk) 20:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikimedia maps

Do others find, as I do, that Wikimedia maps are of virtually no value whatsoever? They never display any surrounding cities or other features. Just as an example, I looked at the entry for Palitana, in Gujarat. Did it show where Palitana is in relation to e.g. Ahmedabad? Of course not! I find Wikipedia to be a very valuable resource, but Wikimedia maps?!?! What would it take to get them upgraded? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WickerManRalph (talk • contribs) 16:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Effort and money. We await your contributions. --Golbez (talk) 16:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

True, mostly we only show Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps/Conventions/Location maps. Those are simple outline maps, intended to locate a place (city, buiilding, whatever) within the boundaries of its country, state, province, or other defined area. Click on the blue coordinates, however, for a wide choice of maps. Perhaps this feature deserves more prominence or publicity. Jim.henderson (talk) 23:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

As a user, I find the spartan location maps very helpful. When I first get to an article on a city or town, I don't really care where the city or town is in relation to other cities... what I want to know is where (approximately) it is located within the boarders of the state/province. I could see including a second, more detailed map later in the article (or even more than one)... but for the info box at the top of the page, I prefer the basic outline. Blueboar (talk) 20:08, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

If the question is worth pursuing, we should discuss it in a more appropriate forum such as Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Report

I'd like to report a user for stupidy and insulting me. How do I report him or her? Please comment my name ([[User:Jonteemil]]) so I'll notice your reply :).Jonteemil (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Jonteemil, first, avoid calling them stupid. That also could be considered a personal attack. The last thing you want is to let them drag you down to their level. Staying calm and civil is the best way to ensure that 100% of the attention lands as hard as possible on them. The more polite you are, the worse they look.

• I have reverted the IP's edit.
• I have placed a warning on the IP's talk page.
• I have opened a section on the article's talk page where the two of you can discuss the issue, if there is anything to discuss.
• If they edit war the article without constructive discussion, or if they persist in abusive personal attacks then you can report the problem at Administrator's Noticeboard/Incidents (WP:ANI).

You can also use {{helpme}} on your talk page to attract an experience editor to answer general questions etc, or you can get general help at the TeaHouse. Alsee (talk) 00:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay! Thank you so much and sorry for my comment. It was written in the heat of the moment eventhou that's not much for an excuse.Jonteemil (talk) 07:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

WikiJournal of Science promotion

The WikiJournal of Science is a start-up academic journal which aims to provide a new mechanism for ensuring the accuracy of Wikipedia's scientific content. It is part of a WikiJournal User Group that includes the flagship WikiJournal of Medicine.. Like Wiki.J.Med, it intends to bridge the academia-Wikipedia gap by encouraging contributions by non-Wikipedians, and by putting content through peer review before integrating it into Wikipedia. Since it is just starting out, it is looking for contributors in two main areas: Editors See submissions through external academic peer review Format accepted articles Promote the journal Authors Original articles on topics that don't yet have a Wikipedia page, or only a stub/start Wikipedia articles that you are willing to see through external peer review (either solo or as in a group, process analagous to GA / FA review) Image articles, based around an important medical image or summary diagram If you're interested, please come and discuss the project on the journal's talk page, or the general discussion page for the WikiJournal User group.

T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 10:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

RfC on LGBT rights on Donald Trump

Please comment on the RfC on Donald Trump talk regarding opening a section for LGBT rights in the Domestic Policy section of the article. here. Thank you. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on RfC on Donald Trump regarding specific language in lede sentence

Please comment on this RfC which is asking for input on specific language to describe Donald Trump as the president. here. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion on random articles

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 61 § Suggestion on random articles

This talk page is only for discussion about the page "Village pump (miscellaneous)", so I'm moving this to the actual village pump page for misc discussion. --Pipetricker (talk) 13:32, 28 March 2019 (UTC)